It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


The Green New Deal: Economics and Policy Analytics

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 11:37 AM
According to a study by the American Enterprise Institute, AOC's Green New Deal is...well, have a look.

The Green New Deal (GND) is a set of policy proposals, some more concrete than others, with the central advertised goal of ameliorating a purported climate crisis by implementing policies that would reduce US greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to zero, or to “net zero,” by 2050 in some formulations. In addition, GND incorporates other important social-policy goals as a means of forging a majority political coalition in support.

The GND’s central premise is that such policies — either despite or by reducing sharply the economic value of some substantial part of the US resource base and the energy- producing and energy-consuming capital stock— would increase the size of the economy in real terms, increase employment, improve environmental quality, and improve distributional equity. That is a “broken windows” argument: The destruction of resources increases aggregate wealth. It is not to be taken seriously.

Guess somebody should tell the 100+ Dem lawmakers who co-sponsored this lunacy...and the assorted 2020 Presidential hopefuls who are endorsing it.

Moreover, notwithstanding the assertions from GND proponents that it is an essential policy to confront purportedly adverse climate phenomena, the future temperature impacts of the zero-emissions objective would be barely distinguishable from zero: 0.173°C by 2100, under the maximum Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change parameter (equilibrium climate sensitivity) about the effects of reduced GHG emissions. Under an assumption consistent with the findings reported in the recent peer-reviewed literature, the effect would be 0.083°C by 2100, a policy impact not measurable against normal variation in temperatures.

So, not only would the GND completely dismantle (ie. destroy) the underpinnings of the U.S. would have virtually no measurable effect on the Climate. Brilliant.

This conclusion is not controversial and suggests strongly that the GND’s real goal is wealth redistribution to favored political interests under the GND social-policy agenda and a dramatic increase in government control of resource allocation more generally.

In other words, the Green New Farce is a thinly veiled stab at establishing a totalitarian form of Socialism/Communism under the guise of "saving the planet".

AOC says that the world will end within 12 years if you don't knuckle under to her vision. Not true...but freedom as you know it surely would, if the American public were ever pursuaded to enact it.

GND Debunked

(post by projectvxn removed for political trolling and baiting)

posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 11:47 AM
a reply to: mobiusmale

AOC's handlers and ghostwriters seem to have a very basic strategy which is based on playground tactics.

Step 1.) Introduce impractical legislature that is idealistic and provocative.

Step 2.) After it's naturally dismissed as nonsense, turn around and claim it's opponents obsolete, fossil fuel guzzling, capitalist scum monsters.

Step 3.) Be hailed as a visionary and revolutionary by impressionable, brainwashed millennials whose priorities are the color and font of a document rather than the text printed on it.

Rinse and repeat.

posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 11:50 AM

The American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, known simply as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), is a Washington, D.C.-based conservative think tank that researches government, politics, economics, and social welfare.


A conservative think tank not supporting the green new deal?

No way man...

This is my shocked face.

posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 11:53 AM
a reply to: underwerks

It's nonsensical.
The tenets of this bill would render us all destitute.
edit on 28 4 19 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 11:53 AM
A reply to Underwerks:

So you need a liberal rag to tell you what to think?

Ok, here you go:

The Trouble With the ‘Green New Deal’

edit on 28-4-2019 by AgarthaSeed because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 12:44 PM
a reply to: AgarthaSeed

If our Politicians on both sides were serious about reducing greenhouse emissions we would be pouring tons of money into Nuclear Fusion.

Anyone seeing that?

The GND proponents have shown no real grasp of how to pay for the cost of the GND plus all the non global warming stuff they have lumped into it.

Till they can show a way to pay for it and how to not destroy and dismantle the economy while doing it, it's a unicorn riding a leprechaun on a rainbow to candyland.

posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 12:46 PM
At least communists admitted they wanted to control every aspect of life based on their stupid governance ideals...

These idiots couch the same autocratic intentions but de behind environmentalism...
It would be funny if not so dangerous..


posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 02:58 PM
a reply to: underwerks

Thanks for your lame point. So it can't be factually true because it came from a conservative think tank? The liberals have no conflict of interest or ultierior motive when it comes to ignoring the economic impossibility of the GND?

I'm apparently not gullible enough to be a Democrat.

posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 03:17 PM
Who came up with that name: 'Green New Deal'? it sounds funny, it's like some kind of strange demented english lingology.

posted on Apr, 28 2019 @ 07:10 PM

originally posted by: Artemis12
Who came up with that name: 'Green New Deal'? it sounds funny, it's like some kind of strange demented english lingology.

An early use of the phrase "Green New Deal" was by journalist Thomas Friedman. He argued in favor of the idea in two pieces that appeared in The New York Times and The New York Times Magazine. In January 2007, Friedman wrote:

If you have put a windmill in your yard or some solar panels on your roof, bless your heart. But we will only green the world when we change the very nature of the electricity grid – moving it away from dirty coal or oil to clean coal and renewables. And that is a huge industrial project – much bigger than anyone has told you. Finally, like the New Deal, if we undertake the green version, it has the potential to create a whole new clean power industry to spur our economy into the 21st century.

This approach was subsequently taken up in England by the Green New Deal Group, which published its eponymous report on July 21, 2008. The concept was further popularized and put on a wider footing when the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) began to promote it.

On October 22, 2008, UNEP's Executive Director Achim Steiner unveiled the Global Green New Deal initiative that aims to create jobs in "green" industries, thus boosting the world economy and curbing climate change at the same time.

The Green Party of the United States and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein proposed a "Green New Deal" beginning in 2012. The Green New Deal remains officially part of the platform of the Green Party of the United States.

So basically Progressive globalists.

posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 02:30 AM
a reply to: Lumenari

ah thanks, I thought maybe AOC came up with that, but now I see Originality isn't her forte'.

posted on Apr, 29 2019 @ 06:03 AM
Of more interest, and more enlightening perhaps, what is your learned opinion of the practicality and the expected efficacy of the Green New Deal?

Are you of the opinion that if its provisions were made the law of the land, that it would solve the global Climate Change problem (assuming it exists of course), and that its economic and social engineering measures would result in a healthy economy, and greater equality and freedom?

Do tell...

new topics

top topics


log in