# 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:** 5
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2019, 9:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/81 "2019-02-12T09:02:26Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Again, you seem more interesting in pointing fingers and blaming Republicans than say, getting something done to help curb global warming. Now that is really a silly statement that ignores more than a decade of the sorry history of Republican efforts to not do a thing and now to reverse progress. That is really a beam in the Republican eye compared to the more like a mote in Demotratic one. > **[Opinion | Climate Denial Was the Crucible for Trumpism (Published 2018)](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/03/opinion/climate-denial-trump-gop.html)** > > It’s where the conspiracy theorizing and menacing of critics began. > [@](#): > > What kind of party would show such support for a leader who is not only evidently corrupt and seemingly in the pocket of foreign dictators, but also routinely denies facts and tries to criminalize anyone who points them out? > > The answer is, the kind of the party that, long before Trump came on the scene, committed itself to denying the facts on climate change and criminalizing the scientists reporting those facts. > > The G.O.P. wasn’t always an anti-environment, anti-science party. George H.W. Bush introduced the cap-and-trade program that largely controlled the problem of acid rain. As late as 2008, John McCain called for a similar program to limit emissions of the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. > > But McCain’s party was already well along in the process of becoming what it is today — a party that is not only completely dominated by climate deniers, but is hostile to science in general, that demonizes and tries to destroy scientists who challenge its dogma. > > Trump fits right in with this mind-set. In fact, when you review the history of Republican climate denial, it looks a lot like Trumpism. Climate denial, you might say, was the crucible in which the essential elements of Trumpism were formed. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > But to the extent that the left is mostly responsible for the anti-nuclear attitudes in the country and the costly regulations and lawsuits attacking the nuclear industry, and given that they are doing it in ignorance, I’d say that one wrong belief may just doom any kind of effective approach to global warming. Because nuclear is critically important, and the left in Europe, Canada and elsewhere are actively working to not just stop new nuclear construction, but to de-commission existing nuclear plants. That will be disastrous for Co2 emissions. > > As someone who is listened to by other people on the left, the most effective thing you could do to help curb global warming would be to insist and argue to your own side that nuclear be a major part of the solution, and that unrelated left-wing dream ticket items like UBI and open borders be strictly isolated from climate policy. In fact, if you want to actually gain support rather than score internet points against your enemies, you’ll work to make sure that carbon taxes are truly revenue neutral, and that you keep social justice completely out of the climate debate. And more ignorance about my position. I’m on the record of supporting nuclear power as a part of the solution, but with the knowledge that the solution does involve going over the NIMBY toes of many that in the end will oppose nuclear deployments when they will notice that the solution will involve the many times demonized government. I can also notice that you completely missed that recent resolutions to support new nuclear developments passed recently with democratic support too. > [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Unless I missed it, there was nothing in that article about tying abortion policy to 2nd amendment policy. Which makes it a complete irrelevancy. Like if the majority of white evangelicals are not in favor of both anti-abortion and firme the NRA and like if they did not help elect the ignorant in chief. ---
**Author:** ![Ale](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f19dbf/32.png) [@Ale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ale)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2019, 9:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/82 "2019-02-12T09:03:59Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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. > 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 The analogy I like to use regarding climate change and nuclear power is a sinking ship. There’s a hole in the hull, the waves are already lapping the decks and everyone is running around like headless chicken trying to device a way to save themselves _other_ than the bleeping life boats, because reasons. Worse than that, the lunatics are chopping up the lifeboats as fast as they possibly can. Of all the stupid things humanity has done through history, this tops the list. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2019, 9:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/83 "2019-02-12T09:13:48Z")
> [@Ale](#): > > The analogy I like to use regarding climate change and nuclear power is a sinking ship. > There’s a hole in the hull, the waves are already lapping the decks and everyone is running around like headless chicken trying to device a way to save themselves _other_ than the bleeping life boats, because reasons. > Worse than that, the lunatics are chopping up the lifeboats as fast as they possibly can. > > Of all the stupid things humanity has done through history, this tops the list. Of course, as I noted many times before, the solution will have to involve a lot of education and government based deployment of next generation nuclear power, like when it was done in France with then new nuclear plants. Unfortunately, funding and making those things a reality is seen as socialism by many of those lunatics. ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2019, 11:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/84 "2019-02-12T11:28:00Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Oh, please. You realize we only have that many cows because the government subsidised the everliving crap put of corn? There’s a reason why America has an obisety problem, and it’s the corn industry. Between high fructose corn syrup and corn fed beef, it’s no wonder Americans are so fat. > > We give big agriculture [billions of dollars a year](https://www.agweb.com/mobile/article/us-farmers-to-get-billions-in-aid-by-september-perdue-says/) so that they can fatten up our children. Enough is enough, we could pay for half of these programs by stopping these massive subsidies to an industry that’s already one of the largest in the nation and doesn’t need government support. We can keep subsidizing small business farms, but currently most of the money goes to the agriculture giants. > > Without artificially cheap corn (what happened to the free market?) You’d find a lot less cows in America pretty dang quick. Which is why the green new deal is not going after agricultural subsidies? No they have attached things that have nothing to do with global warming to the proposal. They can’t help themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Urbanredneck](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ea5d25/32.png) [@Urbanredneck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Urbanredneck)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2019, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/85 "2019-02-12T12:07:25Z")
One thing I’ve noticed about all these green power source ideas is they look at production, not usage. For example here in Kansas City they have this “Power and Light” district. We have this huge indoor stadium. All require MASSIVE amounts of energy for lights and air conditioning. For green energy plans those buildings and projects would have to be shut down during times when solar power is low (like at night). People would have to be required to turn off their HDTV’s because they use so much power. Major factories would have to shut down. Amusement parks would have to shut down. Actually they did some of these back in WW2. Now our power company has tossed around the idea of charging more for electricity during peak times or charging more for “energy hogs” but nothing much has come of it. So my point is, it would take a major change in our usage of power for these plans to work. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2019, 1:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/86 "2019-02-12T13:35:37Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Of course, as I noted many times before, the solution will have to involve a lot of education and government based deployment of next generation nuclear power, like when it was done in France with then new nuclear plants. Unfortunately, funding and making those things a reality is seen as socialism by many of those lunatics. Unfortunately, these statements are largely incorrect. It is true that anti-nukes need to be better educated on the science, but it is not the case that the left will support nuclear power if the government takes it over, nor is it true that the right is the main source of opposition to nuclear power. Unless you would like to produce a cite of the left in support of nuclear power providing it is socialized. Since we are discussing the GND, mention where the distinction is made, or where AOC has come out in support of next-generation nuclear energy, or something like that. Regards, 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 12, 2019, 1:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/87 "2019-02-12T13:53:49Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > … For green energy plans those buildings and projects would have to be shut down during times when solar power is low (like at night). People would have to be required to turn off their HDTV’s because they use so much power… If power is more costly at some times than at other times, isn’t it good to charge more when it’s costly? And does “electricity would be priced higher at night” translate into “people would be required to turn off their HDTV’s”? Did I miss the news? Is that what the new greenies are proposing? _Requiring_ that appliances be turned off? Built into the cost of cigarettes today is a reserve for future lung-disease lawsuits against the cigarette manufacturer. That’s what a carbon tax is for — to have the price of carbon fuels reflect their true costs. Germany has high taxes on power to incentivize efficiency and carbon avoidance. Is this why their electricity is expensive? If so, that high price is a feature, not a bug! Speaking of carbon tax, what do we mean by “revenue neutral carbon tax”? Does that mean that the revenue cannot be used to reduce the deficit, or to repair infrastructure, but must be used on further tax cuts for the wealthy? In my proposal, revenue from the carbon tax would accrue to the SocSec Trust Fund and there would be corresponding reductions in payroll taxes. Does my proposal qualify as a “revenue neutral carbon tax”? ---
**Author:** ![WillFarnaby](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/willfarnaby/32/514_2.png) [@WillFarnaby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WillFarnaby)\ **Post date:** [February 12, 2019, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/88 "2019-02-12T15:26:37Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > If power is more costly at some times than at other times, isn’t it good to charge more when it’s costly? And does “electricity would be priced higher at night” translate into “people would be required to turn off their HDTV’s”? Did I miss the news? Is that what the new greenies are proposing? _Requiring_ that appliances be turned off? > > Built into the cost of cigarettes today is a reserve for future lung-disease lawsuits against the cigarette manufacturer. That’s what a carbon tax is for — to have the price of carbon fuels reflect their true costs. Germany has high taxes on power to incentivize efficiency and carbon avoidance. Is this why their electricity is expensive? If so, that high price is a feature, not a bug! > > Speaking of carbon tax, what do we mean by “revenue neutral carbon tax”? Does that mean that the revenue cannot be used to reduce the deficit, or to repair infrastructure, but must be used on further tax cuts for the wealthy? In my proposal, revenue from the carbon tax would accrue to the SocSec Trust Fund and there would be corresponding reductions in payroll taxes. Does my proposal qualify as a “revenue neutral carbon tax”? Cigarettes cost more because of lung damage. Money will flow to those damaged. Makes sense. Carbon costs more because of climate damage. Money will flow to…social security. Doesn’t make sense. Carbon tax is just another taxation scheme to benefit the politically connected. ---
**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 12, 2019, 4:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/89 "2019-02-12T16:36:29Z")
> [@Urbanredneck](#): > > For example here in Kansas City they have this “Power and Light” district. We have this huge indoor stadium. All require MASSIVE amounts of energy for lights and air conditioning. **For green energy plans those buildings and projects would have to be shut down during times when solar power is low** (like at night). Eh what? No - not at all this is a weird distortion (even of the not very clear or very thought through GND proposal). The imagined resolution on the part of the 100 percent renewable is not such things have to shut in nighttime for the sake of God, it’s that the storage technologies and other sources non intermittant will bridge over production falls. The idea that such would should be shut in these ideas is simply complete nonsense > [@](#): > > Now our power company has tossed around the idea of charging more for electricity during peak times or charging more for “energy hogs” but nothing much has come of it. What kind of backwards ignorant power company does not charge for peak usage times in this modern age???!!! This is simply the rational demand based economic pricing… > [@](#): > > So my point is, it would take a major change in our usage of power for these plans to work. It is more the point that it seems more likely you have not a very good understanding of the power pricing economics and policy even as it is now applied. > [@WillFarnaby](#): > > Cigarettes cost more because of lung damage. Money will flow to those damaged. > > Makes sense. > > Carbon costs more because of climate damage. Money will flow to…social security. > > Doesn’t make sense. Carbon tax is just another taxation scheme to benefit the politically connected. Although it is quite useles to correct this, for the factual record, the carbon tax concept is in fact a concept developed first by market economists for achieving a pricing in of the costs of the carbon emissions that are not captured by direct pricing - the well studied Externalities issue. It was not, for the factual clarification, an idea of the greeny Left, who in fact have distrusted the market mechanism. What direction or substitution of the revenues it might generate is a separate question from its structure. ---
**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 12, 2019, 5:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/90 "2019-02-12T17:16:13Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Hello people of 1912. Did the naysayers sound like this to you? If the naysayers of 1912 had been listened to when they told people that government trying to remake societies and economies through central planning would end in disaster, tens of millions of deaths could have been prevented and the lives of billions of people would have been better. ---
**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 12, 2019, 5:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/91 "2019-02-12T17:53:21Z")
> [@puddleglum](#): > > If the naysayers of 1912 had been listened to when they told people that government trying to remake societies and economies through central planning would end in disaster, tens of millions of deaths could have been prevented and the lives of billions of people would have been better. :dubious: Rather, I think if someone had clued in the Czar that perhaps trying to keep the boot on the neck of the people and maintain complete authoritarian control would result in him and his entire house being shot in a dank basement, THAT might have saved 10’s of millions of lives. WWI though still would have happened, and it wasn’t become of the various socialist movements in Europe that it did (assuming that’s what you were referring too). ---
**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 12, 2019, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/92 "2019-02-12T18:02:46Z")
I’ve been thinking about this green new deal a bit and I think something my wife said last night has struck a cord. Basically, we were talking about it and I was saying how unrealistic it is, and her paraphrased response was ‘I don’t really care…it’s blowing up the Republicans and exploding their heads left and right. It’s worth it for that alone!’. And from that perspective, I think this is the equivalent of a Trumpian move by the left/progressives. It doesn’t matter that it’s unrealistic or even stupid. It’s making the base all fired up and, even better, it’s blowing up the other side. Plus, maybe like with Star Trek, it will actually get some folks to think…well, how COULD you do that? Maybe we could try this…or that…or something else…? In that perspective, I say…well done! And the bonus is, always, it’s blowing up a lot of my conservative family and friends and making their heads explode too. 😛 ---
**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 12, 2019, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/93 "2019-02-12T18:08:32Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I’ve been thinking about this green new deal a bit and I think something my wife said last night has struck a cord. Basically, we were talking about it and I was saying how unrealistic it is, and her paraphrased response was ‘I don’t really care…it’s blowing up the Republicans and exploding their heads left and right. It’s worth it for that alone!’. And from that perspective, I think this is the equivalent of a Trumpian move by the left/progressives. It doesn’t matter that it’s unrealistic or even stupid. It’s making the base all fired up and, even better, it’s blowing up the other side. Plus, maybe like with Star Trek, it will actually get some folks to think…well, how COULD you do that? Maybe we could try this…or that…or something else…? > > In that perspective, I say…well done! And the bonus is, always, it’s blowing up a lot of my conservative family and friends and making their heads explode too. 😛 And now we _are_ in agreement. 🙂 ---
**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 12, 2019, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/94 "2019-02-12T21:50:15Z")
> [@XT](#): > > I’ve been thinking about this green new deal a bit and I think something my wife said last night has struck a cord. Basically, we were talking about it and I was saying how unrealistic it is, and her paraphrased response was ‘I don’t really care…it’s blowing up the Republicans and exploding their heads left and right. It’s worth it for that alone!’. And from that perspective, I think this is the equivalent of a Trumpian move by the left/progressives. It doesn’t matter that it’s unrealistic or even stupid. It’s making the base all fired up and, even better, it’s blowing up the other side. Plus, maybe like with Star Trek, it will actually get some folks to think…well, how COULD you do that? Maybe we could try this…or that…or something else…? > > In that perspective, I say…well done! And the bonus is, always, it’s blowing up a lot of my conservative family and friends and making their heads explode too. 😛 By George, I think he’s got it. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 4:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/95 "2019-02-13T04:37:50Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Unfortunately, these statements are largely incorrect. It is true that anti-nukes need to be better educated on the science, but it is not the case that the left will support nuclear power if the government takes it over, nor is it true that the right is the main source of opposition to nuclear power. Ok then that leads to the realization that when one sees 65% or so of the population opposed to a new nuclear plant or nuclear dump that all those people are all liberals? Nope, a good chunk of that are conservatives. The point was that since the left’s numbers are usually around 30%, we have a lot of moderates and conservatives that would had made a difference many times in the recent past. But that is not what I saw. Mostly lukewarm support. > [@Shodan](#): > > Unless you would like to produce a cite of the left in support of nuclear power providing it is socialized. Since we are discussing the GND, mention where the distinction is made, or where AOC has come out in support of next-generation nuclear energy, or something like that. I’m on the record in favor of nuclear energy, it is easy to just jump to the early fact sheets or releases that were dismissed, but the more recent versions of the GND do not dismiss nuclear power. > **[Why the Green New Deal may include nuclear power](https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/why-the-green-new-deal-may-include-nuclear-power/)** > > Editor’s note: This story was originally published by Grist. It appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The Green New Deal has been > [@](#): > > This antinuclear stance might have been toned down to help get people who support nuclear into the coalition. Booker and Warren, for instance, have voted to fund research on advanced nuclear power. > [@](#): > > Conservatives have long feared that climate action was just a Trojan Horse for a bigger government with more social-welfare programs. **Now, after voting for years to kill market-based climate policies** , they’re getting a taste of just what they had feared. That bold by me part is a bit that should never be forgotten, we arrived to the need of plans like the GND because of the idiocy and nonsense of the recent and current Republican “leadership”. ---
**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 13, 2019, 8:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/96 "2019-02-13T08:17:24Z")
There are recently developed nuclear reactor designs that are more efficient than, and safer than, earlier reactors. Do they also help address the problems of nuclear waste? Perhaps delaying investment in reactors until these new designs were available will appear, in hindsight, to be smart. We have separate “candidates’ lanes” for gays, Hispanics, blacks, ultra-liberals, etc. I hope some D candidate stands up and jumps into the empty-looking “rational thinkers’ lane”, starting with a positive outlook on nuclear power. We don’t let anti-vaxxers dominate public policy of vaccines; why let fringey fools veto nuclear power? (And, since the GOP’s entire platform is to appeal to stupidity, it would be amusing to watch them pivot to anti-nuke as soon as the D’s go pro-nuke.) On the problem of nuclear waste, aren’t countries like France and Finland in the business of disposing of waste for money? Why isn’t the U.S. using their services? Perhaps if the money involved were big enough, Nevada would want to underbid them. ---
**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 13, 2019, 12:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/97 "2019-02-13T12:41:18Z")
I see on the news that McConnell wants the Senate to vote on “Green New Deal”: > [@www.npr.org](#): > > _ **McConnell’s goal is not to help the bill pass.** _ Putting it to a vote will force Democrats in the Senate to take a stand on the controversial framework. > > [Bill-sponsoring Senator] Markey’s office responded with a statement chastising McConnell for threatening to call a vote on the resolution _ **“without committee hearings, expert testimony, or a true national debate.”** _ > > _ **“They have offered no plan to address this economic and national security threat and want to sabotage any effort that makes Big Oil and corporate polluters pay,”** _ Markey said. [my emphasis] Will the D’s be able to insist on hearings, amendments, or otherwise filibuster? I find this sort of behavior by McConnell reprehensible. How do those on the “other side of the aisle” feel about it? “As clever as clever can be”? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/98 "2019-02-13T13:45:34Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > I’m on the record in favor of nuclear energy, it is easy to just jump to the early fact sheets or releases that were dismissed, but the more recent versions of the GND do not dismiss nuclear power. > > [Why the Green New Deal may include nuclear power - Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists](https://thebulletin.org/2019/02/why-the-green-new-deal-may-include-nuclear-power/) Sorry, not good enough. AOC and Bernie Sanders were explicit that they wanted to end nuclear power. This stuff about “maybe they don’t mean it” is BS. If they were lying then, I don’t believe them now. If they weren’t lying then, their GND is worthless and counter-productive. Any plan that does not _ **explicitly** _ endorse nuclear power as a, or the, major source of energy is a non-starter. Solar and wind and geothermal will not scale up to meet the energy needs of the world in the 21st century. Anyone who says or implies they will has no more relevance to the discussion than a AGW denialist. > [@septimus](#): > > I find this sort of behavior by McConnell reprehensible. How do those on the “other side of the aisle” feel about it? The Democrats submit a bill they can’t defend, containing a bunch of stuff that is embarrassingly stupid, and wants everyone to support it. McConnell calls their bluff to see who is going to be dumb enough to support it. Boo hoo. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![postpic200](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/54ee81/32.png) [@postpic200](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/postpic200)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 2:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/99 "2019-02-13T14:40:35Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I can’t get a straight answer online. Either there are no figures or the figures are all over the place. While we don’t have a solid proposes for most of what is in the GND we do know they want high speed rail so say 82 million a mile. New York to LA 3593 miles so 3,593 means a cost of about 294,626,000,000 for ONE rail line, now add in a few going north south, and maybe two more going east west, plus feeder lines, so how many miles of high speed rails can we afford. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [February 13, 2019, 3:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204/100 "2019-02-13T15:23:16Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Sorry, not good enough. AOC and Bernie Sanders were explicit that they wanted to end nuclear power. This stuff about “maybe they don’t mean it” is BS. If they were lying then, I don’t believe them now. If they weren’t lying then, their GND is worthless and counter-productive. > > Any plan that does not _ **explicitly** _ endorse nuclear power as a, or the, major source of energy is a non-starter. While I agree that nukes need to be a large part of the solution, it is better to actually work with and get some compromise, than to point to a representative as taking the lead of the party. If they were persuaded to change their position, then that is a good thing. The stance that you are taking punishes anyone for ever changing their mind on things. The idea that any changes in stance must be lies is one of the reasons why people get dug in on positions. Your rhetoric on this is the opposite of helpful. > [@](#): > > Solar and wind and geothermal will not scale up to meet the energy needs of the world in the 21st century. Anyone who says or implies they will has no more relevance to the discussion than a AGW denialist. > > The Democrats submit a bill they can’t defend, containing a bunch of stuff that is embarrassingly stupid, and wants everyone to support it. McConnell calls their bluff to see who is going to be dumb enough to support it. People submit bills all the time that still need to go through committees, testimony, and debate before they are taken to the floor. Very few bills are unchanged from the time they are proposed to the time they are voted on. Would you say that the vast majority of bills that are changed between proposal and voting are things that the party that proposed it cannot defend, is embarrassingly stupid, but demands everyone’s support? Your post indicates that you either don’t know anything about how a bill normally goes about becoming a bill, or that you do, but have singled this one out to be treated differently. > [@](#): > > Boo hoo. I’m sorry that it has upset you that much that you are crying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/how-much-would-a-green-new-deal-actually-cost/829204.md?page=6)