# How much would a green new deal actually cost? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 8, 2019, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204 "2019-02-08T23:46:12Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 4:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/41 "2019-02-11T16:32:10Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > But a resolution is exactly that, a statement of resolve, and critics who are asking for a full policy apparatus are misunderstanding what this part of the process is intended to do, namely state the list of goals as we work on the arduous process of fleshing out workable solutions. If the goal is impossible, there are no workable solutions. > [@](#): > > I don’t think anyone should be particularly interested in hearing criticisms of the Green New Deal proposal unless they are constructive criticisms. OK, here are some constructive criticisms. [ul][li]Solar and wind cannot possibly be scaled up in ten years to meet 100% of our energy needs.[/ul][/li][ul][li]No plan that excludes nuclear energy can possibly succeed.[/ul]So, just adjust the plan to replace all references to “alternative energy” with “nuclear energy”. [/li] Oh, and by the way, any arguments based on how much nuclear energy will cost, or how difficult it will be to implement - we don’t need to deal with those. Just make the resolution, and we will worry about the details later. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/42 "2019-02-11T16:58:36Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Too late to stop global warming anyway. So let’s just keep burning coal; pass around another case of champagne, please. Say, would you ask the captain to steer closer to that iceberg? I wanna take a photo of it. > > Got it. > > The antipathy against AOC is truly disheartening. We know some of you are right-wingers. Can you at least pretend to be good-spirited right-wingers who care about the future? Is there only one brand of Kool-Aid for sale where you hang out? > > George Orwell never studied poli sci, nor did he run for Parliament. Yet his writings inspired millions. Harry Truman was not an intellectual heavyweight; the details of the Marshall Plan were worked out by wise men. > > And if American progressives pursue a green agenda they will rely on scientists for their science; the engineering and economic details will be scrutinized by the best engineering experts and economists in the land. Yet AOC’s detractors pretend not to understand even this much. “That dumb 28-year old bartender forgot to dot an I again. Here’s a T she didn’t cross! That means we have to give up on fighting global warming. AOC! AOC! Single-payer health care is dead now because AOC mispunctuated a sentence!” > > What do those on the right think? That when Trump is overthrown the first order of business will be to write a personal check to AOC for 27 trillion dollars — “Spend it as you choose”? I hope not, but it’s easy to get that impression from the cavilling. Naw, you don’t got it. As usual. Your metric butt load of straw doesn’t get my post in the least. Which seems to be par for the course with you, especially lately. You bring so much straw and horseshit into this post it’s hard to know where to start. Let’s start at the top. I never said it’s too late to stop global warming, nor that we should just keep burning coal or drink Champaign, which I find vile. Those are all out of your own ass or the fantasy conversation in your head. Since you seem to have trouble understanding, I’ll spell out my own thoughts on this. You can’t have a green energy plan that is realistic without nuclear. If you are going to try and say we can do it all with wind and solar, well, you are wrong. At least on any sort of realistic timescale that would make a real impact on global climate change. It’s disappointing that so many of you seem to be in the unicorn wishes and dragon dreams category on this stuff. And it’s mainly due to you and your side (fantasizing that it’s engineers and scientists on your side) that is kicking the can further down the road by making this all about wind and solar, instead of a more realistic and real world assessment of what we COULD actually do to lower CO2 (and other GhG) emissions. Personally, I think we could do a lot…unlike your strawman…if we could only get the green idiots on your side to consider nuclear, and get the coal idiots on the other side to give that shit up. We COULD replace a large number of coal plants in the US…hell, most if not all…with either cleaner burning natural gas as an interim step or with nuclear, or a combination of those with wind and solar doing what it does best, acting as a niche energy source. Maybe in 10 or 20 years there will be breakthroughs in battery technology, allowing us to install large metropolis scale batteries on a smart grid where we COULD scale that up to use solar and wind to become more than just niche sources…but that isn’t happening today, nor is it a given that it will. It MIGHT. In the mean time, we have a green energy solution that WILL scale up…especially if we are talking about spending trillions anyway. Nuclear will do the job. But your side (the progressive types who come up with these loopy plans) won’t and don’t even consider it. Or did I miss where they are going to propose building, say, 200 new model nuclear power plants in the US to augment and normalize the energy usage an load as part of the green new deal? No? Feel free to cite it. Finally, just on a personal note…why the fuck do you think and keep posting that I’m a Trump fan, or even aligned with that idiot at all? This is like the 3rd post you’ve made alluding to this and seriously…WTF? I’m sure you think I’m some sort of ‘right winger’ (which is hilarious in itself), since, again, you keep bringing that up and you base that on your completely inability to actually know what my point is in any of this (and a political position so skewed that you’d even see me as a right winger), but please stop with the MAGA and Trump horseshit in reference to me. If you want to still believe in your fantasies about this, I ask you keep them to yourself and safely locked away inside. Please. ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/43 "2019-02-11T16:58:57Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If the goal is impossible, there are no workable solutions. If this goal actually _is_ impossible, then we will need to break ourselves upon it trying, because _we have no choice_. This needs to be solved, and failing to do so will cost us far, far more than any of the proposals in the green new deal. [quote] OK, here are some constructive criticisms. [ul][li]Solar and wind cannot possibly be scaled up in ten years to meet 100% of our energy needs.[/ul][/li][/quote] Well, it’s a good thing “renewable” means more than just that, and it’s also good news that we’re [already at a point where it’s feasible](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307?via%3Dihub). Seriously, this stuff isn’t pie-in-the-sky material - it’s probably going to be hard, but it’s absolutely necessary and we _can_, in fact, do it. [QUOTE] [ul][li]No plan that excludes nuclear energy can possibly succeed.[/ul]So, just adjust the plan to replace all references to “alternative energy” with “nuclear energy”.[/li][/QUOTE] Have you ever mentioned nuclear energy on this forum when it wasn’t in the context of slagging off renewables? In discussions of climate change you’re this huge evangelist for nuclear power (whenever it’s convenient to slag off renewables), but I rarely see you advocating for it elsewhere. Like, for example, I guess you missed [this thread](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=870389) - seems like it might be right up your alley. 🙂 FWIW, the GND doesn’t actually mention nuclear at all, so it’s hardly excluded as a possibility, and I imagine it will be part of how we move away from fossil fuels. But it is a bit odd that you always bring it up whenever the subject comes up, but not particularly often in other cases. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/44 "2019-02-11T17:00:49Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > If the goal is impossible, there are no workable solutions. Yes. > [@](#): > > [ul][li]Solar and wind cannot possibly be scaled up in ten years to meet 100% of our energy needs.[/ul][/li] Yes. It is plausible to very significantly increase the percentage of elecriticty generation to perhaps equal and replacing essentially the coal. But in ten years, 100 percent is not realistic, even as the stretch goal. b > [@](#): > > [ul][li]No plan that excludes nuclear energy can possibly succeed.[/ul]So, just adjust the plan to replace all references to “alternative energy” with “nuclear energy”. [/li] You mean from the carbon emissions objective so excluding natural gas? If yes, it is agreed. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/45 "2019-02-11T17:10:03Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Well okay, that’s great. Where’s your serious proposal that actually addresses the scope of the problem in any meaningful way? Remember, the cost of unmitigated global warming is calculated in the [trillions of dollars per year](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-06827-x), and any solution involves at the very least writing off [$20 Trillion in oil and gas values](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/global-warmings-terrifying-new-math-188550/), as well as drasticly reshaping nearly every element of how we live our lives. So okay - what’s our “realistic” solution? What’s our “serious” proposal to deal with this catastrophic issue facing us? And why haven’t we shown up with one until now? > > Say what you will about the Green New Deal, it is the first proposal to actually look at the scope of the problem and propose a solution which even comes close. Nobody else has even scratched the surface. Everyone else seems to be working with their blinders on. Even democrats! Once again the Green New Deal is not a plan or a solution. It’s a silly wishlist which has no relationship with reality. It lacks pretty much every element of a plan: a realistic timeline, plausible mechanisms to achieve the goals, cost estimates etc. And it wouldn’t even achieve the goal of significantly reducing climate change. The US produces 15% of carbon emissions and the GND doesn’t say much about major sources of emissions like agriculture and manufacturing let alone how to reduce emissions in the developing world. As for real solutions, a carbon tax, much more R&D funding for new emissions-reducing technologies particularly in agriculture and manufacturing, and more nuclear energy are probably going to be key. ---
**Author:** ![Ramira](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ramira/32/344_2.png) [@Ramira](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ramira)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/46 "2019-02-11T17:10:10Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > If this goal actually _is_ impossible, then we will need to break ourselves upon it trying, because \*we have no choice there is a choice. the choice is the change adaptation. While it is a painful one it could be less painful than an economy ruining 'break ourselves" which is not a rational objective but any way as the French case has seen, is one that will never win the real pubic support. > [@](#): > > Well, it’s a good thing “renewable” means more than just that, and it’s also good news that we’re [already at a point where it’s feasible](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307?via%3Dihub). Seriously, this stuff isn’t pie-in-the-sky material That is **for the electric power generation** and not total energy, a very different topic. Merely making the declarations of necessity is not making a plan economically feasible. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/47 "2019-02-11T17:33:58Z")
Is anyone here old enough to remember when the American Medical Association fought a bitter war against Medicare, warning that adopting it would destroy the medical system? Or when people said that putting a man on the moon was utterly impossible? It was, until we made the political decision to throw money at it. Or, closer to this discussion, the [Progressive Party Platform of 1912](http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/progressive-platform-of-1912/)? Read that page closely. In 1912, it was a pie-in-the-sky, utopian set of dream policies. Most were anathema to certain classes, especially the powerful and wealthy. Not all of them were achieved, or could realistically be, but for the most part the clauses read like a list of trite, old-fashioned platitudes too obvious to be controversial. Transformation policies work only when there is a political will. The Progressives lost the election, even with Theodore Roosevelt as a candidate, but but Wilson saw that the public was ready to accept a few of the planks. Many more came to being under Franklin Roosevelt. Today social Security is untouchable; child labor unthinkable; women’s suffrage a basic right. Concentrating on the vague utopian dreams of the Green New Deal is a losing proposition. That will just allow the more practical and achievable goals to slip in as moderate solutions. If the political will is there - and I think it is - the conversation will shift from “these are impossible” to “which of these can we enact first?” As a connoisseur of irony, I offer these glowing lines as proof that Americans, especially younger ones, will go for the Green New Deal in a huge way. > [@](#): > > Look at the opportunities before us! Our most thrilling achievements are still ahead. Our most exciting journeys still await. Our biggest victories are still to come. We have not yet begun to dream. > > We must choose whether we are defined by our differences – or whether we dare to transcend them. > > We must choose whether we will squander our inheritance – or whether we will proudly declare that we are Americans. We do the incredible. We defy the impossible. We conquer the unknown. > > This is the time to re-ignite the American imagination. This is the time to search for the tallest summit, and set our sights on the brightest star. This is the time to rekindle the bonds of love and loyalty and memory that link us together as citizens, as neighbors, as patriots. > > This is our future – our fate – and our choice to make. I am asking you to choose greatness. They’re the closing lines of Trump’s 2019 SOTA. He hasn’t offered a single dream. But those who have can quote these forever. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/48 "2019-02-11T17:40:37Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Is anyone here old enough to remember when the American Medical Association fought a bitter war against Medicare, warning that adopting it would destroy the medical system? Or when people said that putting a man on the moon was utterly impossible? It was, until we made the political decision to throw money at it. > > Or, closer to this discussion, the [Progressive Party Platform of 1912](http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/progressive-platform-of-1912/)? > > Read that page closely. In 1912, it was a pie-in-the-sky, utopian set of dream policies. Most were anathema to certain classes, especially the powerful and wealthy. Not all of them were achieved, or could realistically be, but for the most part the clauses read like a list of trite, old-fashioned platitudes too obvious to be controversial. > > Transformation policies work only when there is a political will. The Progressives lost the election, even with Theodore Roosevelt as a candidate, but but Wilson saw that the public was ready to accept a few of the planks. Many more came to being under Franklin Roosevelt. Today social Security is untouchable; child labor unthinkable; women’s suffrage a basic right. > > Concentrating on the vague utopian dreams of the Green New Deal is a losing proposition. That will just allow the more practical and achievable goals to slip in as moderate solutions. If the political will is there - and I think it is - the conversation will shift from “these are impossible” to “which of these can we enact first?” > > As a connoisseur of irony, I offer these glowing lines as proof that Americans, especially younger ones, will go for the Green New Deal in a huge way. > > They’re the closing lines of Trump’s 2019 SOTA. He hasn’t offered a single dream. But those who have can quote these forever. So…we should see this green new deal as something to spark imagination and get folks thinking, not as anything realistic in an of itself? I’m fine with that…I do think there is a place for dreaming big and proposing big, impossible things to see what that sparks wrt what folks come up with. And what is ‘impossible’ today could be very possible (albeit in different ways than originally envisioned) 50 or 100 years down the pike. But if that’s the case, then the answer to the OP should follow along those lines…there aren’t realistic numbers because it’s not a realistic or even possible plan, and it’s not meant to be one. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/49 "2019-02-11T17:59:21Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > If this goal actually _is_ impossible, then we will need to break ourselves upon it trying, because _we have no choice_. No, that’s silly. If the goal is impossible, then we need not waste our time - we should pursue mitigation strategies, or something that is less but has a reasonable chance of success. > [@](#): > > This needs to be solved, and failing to do so will cost us far, far more than any of the proposals in the green new deal. We haven’t gotten far enough to say how much the GND will cost, so we can’t compare the cost to the cost of doing nothing, or pursuing mitigation. > [@](#): > > Well, it’s a good thing “renewable” means more than just that, and it’s also good news that we’re [already at a point where it’s feasible](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307?via%3Dihub). Seriously, this stuff isn’t pie-in-the-sky material - it’s probably going to be hard, but it’s absolutely necessary and we _can_, in fact, do it. AFAICT you are making the same mistake as the authors of your cite complain about - confusing feasible with possible. I could only read the abstract - if you could cut and paste the parts where they show that we could replace everything with solar panels, that would help the discussion. > [@](#): > > Have you ever mentioned nuclear energy on this forum when it wasn’t in the context of slagging off renewables? In discussions of climate change you’re this huge evangelist for nuclear power (whenever it’s convenient to slag off renewables), but I rarely see you advocating for it elsewhere. Quit trying to change the subject. If nuclear power is relevant to the discussion of climate change, and it is, and if it has some chance of working better than alternatives, and it does, then address it. “How come you don’t bring it up when it isn’t relevant” is not a counter-argument. > [@](#): > > FWIW, the GND doesn’t actually mention nuclear at all, so it’s hardly excluded as a possibility, and I imagine it will be part of how we move away from fossil fuels. Your imagination isn’t relevant. Ms. AOC is on record that she wants the US to eliminate nuclear energy, and this GND is mostly her idea. Now, maybe this is another thing AOC is lying about, or intending to mislead about, or she doesn’t know what her bill is supposed to do, but that hardly matters. If the GND doesn’t explicitly say that nuclear power should be our main focus, and that alternative energy is the way to go, then the GND is not worthwhile even as a statement of principle. Maybe AOC thinks we can run the world economy on moonbeams and pixie dust, but we can’t. But “the world is coming to an end in twelve years unless we do something, and never mind if it will work or not” is not how to approach a serious problem. YMMV, but unless you drive an electric car or don’t mind walking to work in the dark while the Chinese make things worse anyway, it shouldn’t. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 6:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/50 "2019-02-11T18:18:34Z")
The GND fails even as a utopian wishlist because it doesn’t meaningfully solve the problem of climate change. It is deeply confused about what climate change is and how it will be solved. Ramez Naam had a nice series of [tweets](https://twitter.com/ramez/status/1094132705988534272)about this ---
**Author:** ![puddleglum](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puddleglum/32/137_2.png) [@puddleglum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puddleglum)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/51 "2019-02-11T18:23:27Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > 6.6 trillion is what medicare for all, universal basic income & a green new deal would cost combined. > > Also that 3.2 trillion for medicare for all is highly misleading. The US already spends something like 2.2 trillion on tax revenue to fund health care. That money would just be rolled into a M4A program. The remaining funds would be diverted from private funds into public funds. I have no problem in paying more in taxes if it means less private spending. > > That article is very misleading because it makes M4A sound like 3.2 in new spending on top of existing spending, which was the goal (to mislead people). That makes me question the entire article. > > But back to alternative energy. > > Where did they get 100k per home? Residential solar is down to $3 per installed watt, and the average home only needs about ~8 kilowatts of solar to be energy independent. Thats $24,000, not $100,000. And that is for residential solar which is much more expensive than larger scale solar projects which are closer to $1/watt. Also as was mentioned, with economies of scale that size, prices will go down. > > If you assume you need 8kwh on average per home, and there are 126 million residential homes, and it is industrial scale solar at $1/watt, that works out to $8000 per home and about $1 trillion total, not $1.4 trillion per year for a decade. Of course, who knows if its remotely realistic to install that much solar. > > Is there some other aspect of being net zero I’m not seeing? Replacing all the internal combustion cars with electric cars needs to be done too. The estimates I have seen is that the US federal government spends 1.2 trillion and states spend about 500 billion on healthcare per year. So total new spending would be 1.5 to 1.7 trillion per year. Since the question was the total cost and not the new spending cost I think the total cost of 3.2-3.5 trillion per year is the relevant number. The [numbers](https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-solar-on-an-average-us-house/)I have seen for residential solar per watt is $5-%6 per installed watt. There are places that have it for cheaper but that includes government subsidies to get it down to $3-4 per watt. At current prices the price for just residential building is 5-6 trillion dollars. I assume that economies of scale could bring panel costs down significantly but the opposite is likely true for installation. Something like 2% of homes currently have solar and in order to get the other 98% done in 10 years the number of electricians will have to skyrocket. Since it takes time to train electricians, for the first few years, their wages will likely skyrocket, increasing the total cost. The number of cars in the US is 276 million and the cost before subsidies of the Nissan Leaf is $30,000. To replace all of the cars with the base Nissan Leaf would cost 8.2 trillion dollars. Once again it would be cheaper to manufacture them once the factories scaled up but it would be hugely expensive to change all the existing car factories to electric car factories. Another aspect would be replacing airline travel with high speed rail. The high speed rail in California has tripled in estimated cost and is likely to cost at least 100 billion dollars. Given that California has around 10% of the US population it would seem reasonable that the cost for the entire country to switch would be at least 1 trillion dollars. To do it in ten years would mean that the laws for construction permitting and environmental impact statements would have to be massively changed. To get rid of all 94 million cows in the US at the going rate of $3,000 per cow would cost 282 billion dollars. ---
**Author:** ![Omar\_Little](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/omar_little/32/269_2.png) [@Omar\_Little](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omar_Little)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 6:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/52 "2019-02-11T18:39:52Z")
> [@Dale\_Sams](#): > > How about building giant CO2 scrubbers? Or paint everything white so it reflects the sun? Giant umbrellas? Paint the moon black? > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > It’s good to see that you’re here for a serious conversation. Dale Sams suggestions are about as serious as doing away with air travel. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/53 "2019-02-11T19:03:24Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > The estimates I have seen is that the US federal government spends 1.2 trillion and states spend about 500 billion on healthcare per year. So total new spending would be 1.5 to 1.7 trillion per year. Since the question was the total cost and not the new spending cost I think the total cost of 3.2-3.5 trillion per year is the relevant number. > > The [numbers](https://www.solarpowerauthority.com/how-much-does-it-cost-to-install-solar-on-an-average-us-house/)I have seen for residential solar per watt is $5-%6 per installed watt. There are places that have it for cheaper but that includes government subsidies to get it down to $3-4 per watt. At current prices the price for just residential building is 5-6 trillion dollars. I assume that economies of scale could bring panel costs down significantly but the opposite is likely true for installation. Something like 2% of homes currently have solar and in order to get the other 98% done in 10 years the number of electricians will have to skyrocket. Since it takes time to train electricians, for the first few years, their wages will likely skyrocket, increasing the total cost. > > The number of cars in the US is 276 million and the cost before subsidies of the Nissan Leaf is $30,000. To replace all of the cars with the base Nissan Leaf would cost 8.2 trillion dollars. Once again it would be cheaper to manufacture them once the factories scaled up but it would be hugely expensive to change all the existing car factories to electric car factories. > > Another aspect would be replacing airline travel with high speed rail. The high speed rail in California has tripled in estimated cost and is likely to cost at least 100 billion dollars. Given that California has around 10% of the US population it would seem reasonable that the cost for the entire country to switch would be at least 1 trillion dollars. To do it in ten years would mean that the laws for construction permitting and environmental impact statements would have to be massively changed. > > To get rid of all 94 million cows in the US at the going rate of $3,000 per cow would cost 282 billion dollars. Hello people of 1912. Did the naysayers sound like this to you? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/54 "2019-02-11T19:07:43Z")
The naysayers in 1912 were the ones saying the Titanic could never sink. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/55 "2019-02-11T19:12:04Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Hello people of 1912. Did the naysayers sound like this to you? I know right! “Titanic isnt unsinkable! Pittdown Man is a hoax!” Losers. Edit: Damn you Shodan. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/56 "2019-02-11T19:13:56Z")
> [@XT](#): > > Naw, you don’t got it. As usual. Your metric butt load of straw doesn’t get my post in the least. Which seems to be par for the course with you, especially lately. You bring so much straw and horseshit into this post it’s hard to know where to start > > Since you seem to have trouble understanding, … green idiots on your side > > Finally, just on a personal note…why the fuck do you think and keep posting that I’m a Trump fan, or even aligned with that idiot at all? … Wow. First off, far from attacking you personally, I carefully excised your name from the Quote box. I attack ideas, not Posters. Consider it a compliment that I chose to pivot off your comment, rather than that of a less coherent right-winger. The question I posed — and I’m at a loss to imagine why this wasn’t clear — is whether we, as a nation, should move to mitigate global warming or not. The details of AOC’s proposal are almost irrelevant: look at posts by **Exapno Mapcase** to understand why. She’s pulling her weight if she gets young people enthused about working for a better country, a better world, and a better future. So — and I hope you can answer this question without just insulting me again — should we applaud Miss Ocasio-Cortez and hope to move forward, probably with better ideas than hers, perhaps pushing for nuclear solutions to complement her plans? Or should we focus on denigrating the young Congresswoman and her progressive ideals, and thereby implicitly serve the vested interests pushing for coal and other dirty energy sources? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/57 "2019-02-11T20:06:20Z")
> [@Omar\_Little](#): > > Dale Sams suggestions are about as serious as doing away with air travel. Something which isn’t actually in the proposal. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/58 "2019-02-11T20:33:10Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The naysayers in 1912 were the ones saying the Titanic could never sink. As in the other thread, I reject your bad analogies. Whether any particular technology can work is of a wholly different order than whether political goals are feasible if the political will exists. “Our goal is to ensure the right of everyone to cross the Atlantic on a regular basis” is not the same as “every single attempt to cross the Atlantic will always be successful.” Naysayers fail because they look through the wrong end of the telescope. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/59 "2019-02-11T20:56:26Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > As in the other thread, I reject your bad analogies. 1912 wasn’t my analogy. > [@](#): > > Whether any particular technology can work is of a wholly different order than whether political goals are feasible if the political will exists. > > “Our goal is to ensure the right of everyone to cross the Atlantic on a regular basis” is not the same as “every single attempt to cross the Atlantic will always be successful.” Well, that’s certainly correct. The GND seems to want to ensure that everyone can cross the Atlantic on a regular basis, and thinks this can be done by issuing everyone a rowboat. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Dale\_Sams](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/779978/32.png) [@Dale\_Sams](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dale_Sams)\ **Post date:** [February 11, 2019, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/60 "2019-02-11T20:57:43Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 1912 wasn’t my analogy. > Well, that’s certainly correct. > > The GND seems to want to ensure that everyone can cross the Atlantic on a regular basis, and thinks this can be done by issuing everyone a rowboat. > > Regards, > Shodan Ion powered solar rowboats. And speaking of naysayers…where’s my jet backpack, flying car and fusion power? On the flip side, Ironically (is it?) didn’t Cecil say cloning would never happen? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204.md?page=4)