OPINION:
The Green New Dealers are not playing with a full deck. Just take a look at the official House of Representatives resolution introduced two weeks ago to the first session of the 116th Congress. The sponsors of the resolution were Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, New York Democrat, and Sen. Ed Markey, Massacusetts Democrat. Since the Green New Deal resolution’s release, numerous other Democrats have signed onto the deal, including presidential hopefuls.
The introduction to the resolution starts by “[r]ecognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” That’s quite a duty that many are probably still trying to recognize in the U.S. Constitution. Perhaps that’s the ace-up-the-sleeve of the House dealer.
The background for the deal quickly moves to referencing the debatable assertions of the latest, November 2018, U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change special report on global warming. The IPCC suit of disasters rehashes the usual hype especially related to unknowable climate conditions in the distant future. And unless the deck is quite possibly stacked, the costly, supposedly effective solutions are chancy, like betting the house on drawing a straight flush.
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 (jet planes, yachts, limos, gated mansions with armed guards, exotic vacations, ad nauseam).
Of course the climate is changing. So, what else is new? The primary concern should be whether it is changing for the better or worse in the immediate future. The secondary concern should be whether human activity has a long-term, substantial net negative impact on the change. And, if human activity definitely has such an impact, a tertiary concern should be whether human activity can be efficiently and compassionately mitigated or eliminated from the climate equation.
Stubborn realities aside, are the New Dealers bluffing?
Probably not.
Although the details are somewhat shuffled, the brief 14-page document gives the sense that the kind of programs of aggressive redistribution of wealth and transfer of power to government agents that were attempted by the previous administration are re-dealt with ominous familiarity.
Specifically targeted in the resolution are “frontline and vulnerable communities,” catalogued groups of people who have historically been dealt a bad hand by socialist dealers whose self-serving promises manage to maintain them in disadvantaged positions.
Nationalism and socialism are espoused throughout the Green New Deal. That approach has been tried and failed in the worst way. Everyone, except a privileged few, end up losing big-time. As observed in the past, those who fail to learn history are doomed to repeat it.
The particulars of the deal reveal that, undeterred by the billions lost on the bullet train in California, the dealers again go all in on high speed trains. Let’s see if the whole nation can win this time, or lose 50 times more. No one can say the dealers aren’t optimists.
And how will our country, full of independent thinkers and savers, be lured into this high-stakes game? Not to worry, instead of using the slow, cumbersome constitutional method of proposing a law, debating it and bringing it to a vote, the Green New Dealers will employ various collaborative processes, where persons affected, like farmers, manufacturers or anyone emitting carbon dioxide, will be consulted and invited to partner. And, as partners, their chips will be played for them.
Nowhere in this risky game is anyone allowed to sit out, or take his/her chips and go home. These green goals will not be achieved through bills introduced in Congress, where a hair-brained idea can be voted down (like a bad hand would be discarded). No, unelected bureaucrats will place our bets for us.
The process is described as “democratic and participatory” and to be led by the underprivileged in the “frontline and vulnerable communities.” The word “democratic” is obviously window dressing as the leadership has already been selected.
So, in reality, are the vast majority of Americans — regardless of color, social class, gender, heritage, age — being played?
Thankfully, for those facing the dealers who think they’re holding the winning hand — including an ace-up-the-sleeve — the current administration still holds the highest Trump card.
• Anthony J. Sadar is a certified consulting meteorologist and author of “In Global Warming We Trust: Too Big to Fail” (Stairway Press, 2016). Susan T. Cammarata is an environmental and family lawyer practicing in Pittsburgh, Pa.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.