The Green New Deal: Same old socialist scam in sparkling packaging

Much fanfare has heralded the Green New Deal that was introduced recently to the first session of the 116th Congress.  The sponsors of the deal were Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).  In the three weeks since its initiation, numerous other Democrats have eagerly signed on to the deal, including presidential hopefuls.

The introduction to the congressional resolution begins by "[r]ecognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal."  That duty likely has many trying to recognize it in the Constitution.

The background for the deal references the debatable assertions of the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on global warming.  The IPCC report foresees much of the usual climate calamity related to unknowable atmospheric conditions in the distant future.

After all, climate outlooks are hypothetical claims that need to be verified.  The outlooks are not fact.  And, so far, the outlooks are not playing out with the past 20 years of measured global temperatures.

Regardless, climate change happens.  What else is new?  The main concern should be whether it is changing for the better or worse in the immediate future.  The next concern should be whether human activity has a long-term, substantial net negative impact on climate change.  If human activity definitely has a big, lasting, negative impact, a final concern should be whether human activity can be efficiently and compassionately mitigated or eliminated from the climate equation.

Human activity alterations to the environment have in fact been shown to produce climate change.  For instance, on the small scale, there is the "urban heat island" effect.  Has this climate change effect produced better or worse conditions overall for humans?  New York City, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and a myriad of other U.S. and international cities have changed climate on this micro scale.  Has this been for the better or worse for humanity?  Arguably, the net impact has been beneficial.

The brief 14-page New Deal document exaggerates a problem that may not exist and provides solutions that likely will not work.  The deal commands the kind of programs of aggressive redistribution of wealth and transfer of power to government employees that were attempted by the previous administration to save the planet.

Goals and their statist socialist pursuit are designed to evoke extreme action that is more political than practical.  For instance, one required goal is attaining "net-zero global [greenhouse gas] emissions by 2050."  This would not be possible even if the whole world were enslaved in socialism.  After all, the elite socialist ruling class would always have their perks — private jets, yachts, limos, energy-intensive entourages, gated mansions, exotic vacation spots, ad nauseam.

Specifically targeted in the resolution are "frontline and vulnerable communities," catalogued groups of people who have historically been dealt a bad deal by socialist dealers, whose self-serving promises manage to maintain them in disadvantaged positions.  How is it that certain politicians force so many unique individuals into nice, neat categories?  Is it easier to divide and conquer that way?  Or, are the politicians simply and arrogantly judging people by the color of their skin, their sex, their socio-economic status, their age, their whatever categorical difference?  What place does stereotyping have in saving the planet?  

So, regardless of color, social class, sex, heritage, age, which are all rather superficial, the vast majority of Americans are simply being used to promote a socialist agenda that never seems to provide the promised utopia.

The Green New Deal, with its we-care-about-the-nation and familiar socialist goals, will turn out to be the same old deal that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and author of In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail (Stairway Press, 2016).

Much fanfare has heralded the Green New Deal that was introduced recently to the first session of the 116th Congress.  The sponsors of the deal were Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.).  In the three weeks since its initiation, numerous other Democrats have eagerly signed on to the deal, including presidential hopefuls.

The introduction to the congressional resolution begins by "[r]ecognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal."  That duty likely has many trying to recognize it in the Constitution.

The background for the deal references the debatable assertions of the latest U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on global warming.  The IPCC report foresees much of the usual climate calamity related to unknowable atmospheric conditions in the distant future.

After all, climate outlooks are hypothetical claims that need to be verified.  The outlooks are not fact.  And, so far, the outlooks are not playing out with the past 20 years of measured global temperatures.

Regardless, climate change happens.  What else is new?  The main concern should be whether it is changing for the better or worse in the immediate future.  The next concern should be whether human activity has a long-term, substantial net negative impact on climate change.  If human activity definitely has a big, lasting, negative impact, a final concern should be whether human activity can be efficiently and compassionately mitigated or eliminated from the climate equation.

Human activity alterations to the environment have in fact been shown to produce climate change.  For instance, on the small scale, there is the "urban heat island" effect.  Has this climate change effect produced better or worse conditions overall for humans?  New York City, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and a myriad of other U.S. and international cities have changed climate on this micro scale.  Has this been for the better or worse for humanity?  Arguably, the net impact has been beneficial.

The brief 14-page New Deal document exaggerates a problem that may not exist and provides solutions that likely will not work.  The deal commands the kind of programs of aggressive redistribution of wealth and transfer of power to government employees that were attempted by the previous administration to save the planet.

Goals and their statist socialist pursuit are designed to evoke extreme action that is more political than practical.  For instance, one required goal is attaining "net-zero global [greenhouse gas] emissions by 2050."  This would not be possible even if the whole world were enslaved in socialism.  After all, the elite socialist ruling class would always have their perks — private jets, yachts, limos, energy-intensive entourages, gated mansions, exotic vacation spots, ad nauseam.

Specifically targeted in the resolution are "frontline and vulnerable communities," catalogued groups of people who have historically been dealt a bad deal by socialist dealers, whose self-serving promises manage to maintain them in disadvantaged positions.  How is it that certain politicians force so many unique individuals into nice, neat categories?  Is it easier to divide and conquer that way?  Or, are the politicians simply and arrogantly judging people by the color of their skin, their sex, their socio-economic status, their age, their whatever categorical difference?  What place does stereotyping have in saving the planet?  

So, regardless of color, social class, sex, heritage, age, which are all rather superficial, the vast majority of Americans are simply being used to promote a socialist agenda that never seems to provide the promised utopia.

The Green New Deal, with its we-care-about-the-nation and familiar socialist goals, will turn out to be the same old deal that benefits the few at the expense of the many.

Anthony J. Sadar is a Certified Consulting Meteorologist and author of In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail (Stairway Press, 2016).