Cortez wants US to be emissions free in 10 years
Fox & Trends with Carley Shimkus.
A year ago, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez worked as a bartender in Queens. Now the 29-year old is the youngest woman ever elected to Congress, the Democrats’ biggest rising star since Barack Obama. She has pushed a decade-old idea called the Green New Deal to the political fore, which has major implications for the food system. What is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's Green New Deal? The Green New Deal is a 14-page resolution that is aimed at tackling climate change and inequality all at once. It entails a 10-year “economic. Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “Green New Deal” is more about drastically overhauling the American economy than it is about combatting climate change, her top aide admitted.
The nonbinding Green New Deal resolution proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., is being sold by its supporters as a necessary part of environmentalists’ plan to save animals and humans from the long-term effects of catastrophic climate change.
But if the proposal were to become law, it would result in untold millions of birds being slaughtered by Democrats’ supposedly “environmentally friendly” green energy sources, including wind farms and solar energy facilities.
The Green New Deal aims to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by eliminating nearly all fossil fuel use in the United States, including all electricity generation from coal, natural gas and oil. It would also impose “upgrades” to every home and business building in the country, require the eventual elimination of gasoline-powered cars and airplanes, and create a number of costly welfare programs, including a federal jobs guarantee and single-payer health care.
Among the major Democratic Party presidential candidates who have endorsed the Green New Deal are Senators Cory Booker, D-N.J., Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., Kamala Harris, D-Calif., Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass.
Ocasio-Cortez and other congressional Green New Deal supporters say they would replace existing conventional energy sources powered by fossil fuels primarily with wind and solar power. This would be tremendously harmful to the environment, especially animals.
Wind turbines kill hundreds of thousands of birds every year. One study published in the academic journal Biological Conservation estimates as many as 328,000 birds are killed annually from collisions with wind turbines, even though wind turbines accounted for only 6.6 percent of U.S. energy generation in 2018.
Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal resolution would require most energy generation to come from wind and solar power. Powering half the United States using wind power would necessitate about 234,000 additional wind turbines, resulting in the death of as many as 1.5 million more birds every year from wind-turbine collisions. If the entire country were to be powered by wind turbines, as many as 3 million birds would die from wind-turbine collisions annually, or about 30 million per decade.
As stunning as these figures are, they represent just one relatively small part of the Green New Deal’s bird-pocalypse. Currently, 8 million to 57 million birds die each year from colliding with power lines. This figure would likely increase substantially if the Green New Deal were to become law.
Renewable energy sources like wind and solar require much more land and facilities to generate power than many forms of existing electricity generation, such as nuclear and natural gas power. That means more transmission lines would be needed if existing energy facilities were replaced.
As Forbes writer Michael Shellenberger noted in a 2018 article about renewable energy transmission lines, “It would take 18 of California’s Ivanpah solar farms to produce the same amount of electricity that comes from our Diablo Canyon nuclear plant. And where just one set of transmission lines are required to bring power from Diablo Canyon, 18 separate transmission lines would be required to bring power from solar farms like Ivanpha.”
Some environmentalists have argued that the death of hundreds of millions of birds is justifiable, because global warming is going to cause harm to birds too. Even if the premise of that argument is accepted, the truth is the Green New Deal would do nothing to avert global warming.
Not only would the Green New Deal require more energy facilities, but those facilities would also likely end up being located farther away from population centers than current power plants, requiring even more transmission lines.
One reason this is probable is that many Americans, even those who support renewable energy, don’t want giant wind turbines and solar panels in their backyards. A second reason is that many parts of the United States are not conducive to wind and solar, because they don’t receive enough wind or sunshine.
Transmitting power from the windy Great Plains states and America’s sunny deserts means more transmission lines, killing millions of additional birds. If transmission lines were to increase by just 25 percent, it would mean 2 million to 14.25 million additional birds would be killed annually.
Together, these figures indicate over a few decades it’s possible a half-billion birds would die as a result of the Green New Deal’s mandates – and the number could be even worse, depending on how much of the country’s future electricity generation comes from wind turbines.
The huge number of deaths that would likely result from the Green New Deal creates a moral dilemma for environmentalists, and it could pose significant legal challenges, too. The Green New Deal’s hundreds of thousands of new wind turbines, solar facilities and transmission lines wouldn’t just kill birds with large populations, they would also kill many endangered birds and other animals protected by federal law, including the golden eagle.
Some environmentalists have argued that the death of hundreds of millions of birds is justifiable, because global warming is going to cause harm to birds, too. Even if the premise of that argument is accepted, the truth is the Green New Deal would do nothing to avert global warming.
The world, especially nations like China and India, are increasing their carbon dioxide emissions at such a rapid pace that any cuts we make over the next decade in the United States – including a total elimination of all CO2 emissions – would be more than offset by the rest of the world’s increases.
If humans’ CO2 emissions are causing global warming, the Green New Deal won’t stop it. So, why should we sacrifice hundreds of millions of birds, tear up tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of acres of land, and decimate the U.S. economy in the process of rolling out this disastrous legislation?
Members of the environmental left know about these problems (and many more, too) but they are more concerned about advancing socialism than actually protecting the environment.
By Alex Titus —
Democratic socialist and progressive firebrand Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recently released a long-awaited blueprint for her Green New Deal.
Nearly all energy experts predicted the proposal would be looney and incoherent, but Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and her allies seem to have outdone themselves.
The plan calls from everything ridiculous from ending air travel entirely (sorry Hawaii) to replacing or rebuilding every single building in the U.S.
Still, many in the mainstream media have treated it like a serious proposal.
So, let’s take a moment to break down how we got here and some of the silly measures within the deal.
As the 2020 presidential Democratic primary ramps up, progressives are flexing their muscles by pushing declared and potential candidates further to the left on a number of issues.
Considering all of the special interest money flowing into the debate, it’s unsurprising that climate change has become a key focus.
To be clear, these aren’t grassroots proposals.
They’re funded by dark money political groups in Washington, DC, which are bankrolled by billionaires like Michael Bloomberg and Tom Steyer.
Appeasing wealthy donors seems to be more important than pushing policies that help working and middle-class families.
We’re seeing it right here in Oregon with the current debate state-level cap and trade proposals.
By the way, none of this is to say that conservatives don’t care about the environment.
Preserving forests, improving air quality, and maintaining beautiful lakes and rivers is the very basis of being a conservative.
And I’m proud to live in a country that is setting an example for the rest of the world.
In fact, the U.S output of carbon actually dropped in 2017 by .5 percentwhile European carbon increased by 1.5 percent.
Furthermore, “the U.S. emitted 15.6 metric tons of CO2 per person in 1950,” accordingto Mike Bastach at the Daily Caller. “After rising for decades, it’s declined in recent years to 15.8 metric tons per person in 2017, the lowest measured levels in 67 years.”
Still, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and others think that these impressive results don’t go far enough.
As such, she’s released her disastrous New Green Deal.
To start, the deal calls to eliminate air travel and replace it with high-speed trains.
Seeing the catastrophe that has been California’s public rails system, we’d be more than justified in being skeptical of the government pulling off anything on this scale.
And how are the folks in Hawaii supposed to travel around? I guess they’re still working that part out.
Funny enough, the Green New Deal would also be harmful to the environment in one key one.
Specifically, it calls for the elimination of nuclear power entirely.
Nuclear power is one of the cheapest and most efficient ways to produce clean energy.
News Now Ocasio Cortez
Results from countries that have tried to nix nuclear power in favor of other renewables are concerning.
Germany, a country that has rid most of its nuclear power plants, has spent $580 billion on renewables and its emission levels continue to remain flat.
Not to mention that the price of energy in the country has skyrocketed.
We will never be carbon neutral without nuclear energy. Which is one of the reasons many left-wing environmental groups support it.
Among other things, this shows how unserious Rep. Ocasio-Cortez proposal in terms of battling climate change.
Apparently, converting to a completely green economy also includes a wish list of other progressive items like free housing and government-run healthcare.
Better yet, if you’re too lazy to work but still want a cushy lifestyle, no problem.
Economic security for those “unwilling” to work is also included in the proposal.
Yes, you read that right.
Free university and trade school tuition is also on the menu.
It is unexplained in the proposal exactly how providing for those unwilling to work and a bunch of other freebies advances any sort of green agenda.
In this sense, the Green Deal is the ultimate gift package to the radical left. Every entitlement (some I’d never even thought of like ‘green technology’ in all households) is on the wish list.
Ocasio Cortez's Green New Dealnew Deal
Fortunately for America, the Green New Deal is dead on arrival even in Nancy Pelosi’s Congress.
Unfortunately for Oregonians, Democrats in Salem may just be unveiling their own Green New Deal soon.Surely, you can expect it to be just as foolish.
Alex Titus is a Public Interest Fellow and conservative political activist based out of Washington, DC, and Portland. You can follow him on Twitter @atitus7.
