Okay, wait . . . new chapter in the epic saga of the idiot who would be queen.
The Impossible Green Dream of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
"Let’s get real: The United States is not going to achieve net-zero greenhouse-gas emissions in 10 years, the key goal of the Green New Deal resolution that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) unveiled Thursday."
Oh, really? Y'think?
"More real talk: America won’t get 100 percent of its power from zero-emissions sources within a decade, either, another audacious Green New Deal goal."
So glad you came along to clear that up for us, Sparky, 'cause I don't think anyone else realized that yet.
"And we’re not going to upgrade the energy efficiency of every single building in the country, as the resolution proposes. If we were getting all our energy from zero-emissions sources, it wouldn’t even make sense to try."
Now that you mention it, I hadn't even considered that particular absurdity in the vast, laugh-inducing mass of them.
"But here’s one more reality check: None of that really matters."
. . . Aaaand the moment of lucidity is over.
"The official rollout of the Green New Deal on Thursday was met with a barrage of skepticism from well-intentioned fact-checkers, badly intentioned climate trolls, and desperate-to-look-savvy pundits, allfocusing on the logistical and political impossibilities of transforming the economy as rapidly as the Green New Deal envisions. "
Plus every sane person with the ability to think rationally. Don't forget them.
"And they’re right: Its goals really do seem impossible to achieve.
But they’re all missing the point. If anything, they’re helping the Green New Deal’s backers to make their point, which is that climate change is an unprecedented emergency that requires unprecedented action, so America needs to try to do seemingly impossible things."
First, they don't "seem" impossible. They ARE impossible. You just admitted it yourself, so back-pedaling now by shoehorning in "seem" every other sentence isn't going to change things.
Second, we're not buying this "heads I win, tails you lose" scenario where no matter what we do or say, it just proves the left correct. "Climate change" is NOT an "emergency", unprecedented or otherwise, and it does NOT require America to rush around like demented Chicken Littles trying to stop the sky from falling. And mocking the current leader of the Chicken Little Brigade for how nuts she sounds does NOT prove anything except that we know crazy when we look into its big, googly eyes.
"Ocasio-Cortez likes to call it the modern moon mission—and in a radio interview, she compared it to another effective feat of political imagination, the wall that Donald Trump has used to focus public attention on immigration: “Here's this hugely impossible thing that seems ridiculous, but I'm going to seriously push for it.”"
Yeah, a border wall is not impossible, let alone hugely impossible, in any way except Democrat twats like her refuse to cooperate. It's CERTAINLY not comparable to tearing down the United States to the bedrock and rebuilding it (No, I'm not exaggerating. Refer to the section on refitting every building in America with unspecified green energy technology).
"It actually will be impossible to enact a Green New Deal while Trump is in the White House, "
Oh, right, THAT'S the only stumbling block.
"but the resolution still has two useful purposes. It’s primarily a political manifesto, a messaging device designed to commit the Democratic Party to treating the climate crisis like a real crisis, pressuring its presidential candidates to support radical transformation of the fossil-fueled economy."
I certainly hope it does. However, I don't know how effective it will be when it's so batshit insane that Democrats can feel completely comfortable laughing at it. (See Nancy Pelosi.)
"At the same time, the Green New Deal is a policy proposal—or at least a sketch of one, a way to launch a substantive debate over how Democrats will attack the crisis if they do regain the White House."
Again, you don't "launch a substantive debate" by making yourself so nuts that people feel perfectly justified in dismissing and ignoring you like the homeless bum on the street corner shouting that "The end is nigh!"
"And while it calls for a government-led mass mobilization reminiscent of America’s industrial buildup for World War II, it is not prescriptive about the details. "
That's because even science fiction writers wouldn't be able to invent details about something this farfetched.
"It lays out bold goals but is quite vague about how to achieve them, other than investment of public dollars."
And why you say that like it's a GOOD thing is a mystery.
"For example, it doesn’t specify whether it would promote more zero-emissions power like wind and solar through expanded tax credits, direct subsidies, regulatory mandates, regulatory crackdowns on dirtier power, or some combination."
Pretty sure it's more glaring that it doesn't provide details about HOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE ZERO-EMISSIONS CAPABLE OF DOING THE JOB.
See, Occasional Cortex isn't the only leftist who wants to rush right past "It doesn't exist" to "once:
it does exist, how do we make people comply?" If wind and solar and what-the-fuck-ever was actually able to take the place of "dirtier" power, you wouldn't NEED to "promote" it, which is just another way of saying, "Using the government to force it on people".
"In some ways, the Green New Deal blueprint seems much less radical than it is being described. "
What ways would those be? If you stand on your head and squint really hard after downing a fifth of Jack Daniels?
"Some environmentalists wanted a goal of 100 percent “renewable” electricity, but the resolution suggested that “zero-emissions” power, which could include nuclear plants and potentially even fossil-fuel plants that capture their carbon, would be acceptable."
Well, THAT'S a baldfaced lie. From the FAQ section of the Green New Deal proposal:
Is nuclear a part of this?
A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and
would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to
decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of
nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.
"Some green groups had also called for the Green New Deal to set a deadline for phasing out fossil fuels and rule out “market-based solutions” like cap-and-trade, but the authors did not do those things. They also sidestepped the question of how to pay for it all; Ocasio-Cortez has suggested a 70 percent tax rate for the super-rich, and other lefties have suggested simply not paying for it, but the resolution leaves that fight for later."
That's not being less radical. That's being a slimy little weasel trying to leave yourself an out.
"Still, the whole idea of de-carbonizing the economy is radical. After all, global warming is a radical problem; as the resolution notes, a mere 2 degrees Celsius of warming could double the scope of U.S. wildfires, wipe out 99 percent of the earth’s coral reefs, and trigger mass migrations from low-lying and drought-stricken countries. The good news is that change is already happening, as the U.S. has made unexpected progress over the past decade toward reducing the carbon emissions that heat the planet. More than half the nation’s coal-fired power plants
have been retired. U.S. wind capacity has more than quadrupled, while solar capacity has expanded nearly 30-fold. There were virtually no electric vehicles on America’s roads in 2009; now there are more than a million, and the top five months for sales were the
last five months of 2018. Yes, it’s unrealistic to expect zero emissions in just one more decade, but every one of those changes would have been considered unrealistic a decade ago."
I don't even know where to start: with the "Panic! The world is ending tomorrow!" or with the "capitalism is already working to solve problems, so we must hurry and abandon it!" or "I didn't think of it, so that means no one did, even though they obviously did"?
"The underlying philosophy of the Green New Deal is that only the power of government can create the revolutionary change that’s needed, just as the green investments in President Barack Obama’s
2009 stimulus bill helped jump-start the revolution."
Pretty sure that's an integral part of the derision, although only the tip of the iceberg.
I can't even. It goes on for ages more to try to convince us that it's not utterly laughable to codify a leftist "Dear Santa" letter into an actual bill proposal.
