Hypocrite Democrat Senators Refuse to Back AOC's Green New Deal

-edited

Democrat senators were put to the test today. All but four flunked.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell put AOC's Green New Deal to a vote today. It went down in flames 57-0.

Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Manchin (W.Va.), and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), along with Independent senator Angus King (Maine), who caucuses with the Democrats voted against the deal.

The rest, all hypocrites, failed to vote.

Senate Democrats Refuse to Vote for the Green New Deal

The National Review reports Senate Democrats Refuse to Vote for the Green New Deal.

After weeks of praising the Green New Deal for its supposedly ambitious, forward-thinking proposals for tackling climate change, Democratic senators refused to vote on the measure when Republican leadership brought it to the floor this afternoon.

At a press conference for the Green New Deal today, the Senate bill’s primary sponsor Ed Markey (D., Mass.), claimed he stood behind the proposal. “It is the national-security, economic, health-care, and moral issue of our time,” he said. But Markey, along with 52 of his fellow Democrats, still refused to vote in favor of the legislation.

Hiding in the Closet

How the heck do you stand behind a deal by hiding in the closet?

Meanwhile, every Democratic senator running for president has publicly stated his or her support for the Green New Deal, and, in fact, all of them have even signed on to Markey’s legislation as a cosponsor. Yet not one of them voted in favor of the measure this afternoon.

Cosponsor Hypocrites

The Senate Takes the AOC Test

The Wall Street Journal reports the Senate Takes the AOC Test

Voters who accept the premises of Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’s climate zealotry can also reasonably ask how much Senators who voted “present” want to save our planet. The answer is that despite their rhetoric about existential threats to the planet most of them probably understand that by driving net U.S. carbon emissions to zero the Green New Deal would pose a more immediate existential threat to our way of life.

Peter Huber of the Manhattan Institute has been trying for decades to explain to people why even the most efficient collectors of solar and wind energy will never be able to harvest all that much fuel. He reminds that the sun doesn’t cook us and gusts of wind typically don’t send us hurtling down the street. Compare that with the highly concentrated form of energy in a barrel of oil and one understands why the renewables will always struggle to compete.

Both articles are good.

The Wall Street Journal did a better job from an economic standpoint.

Alexandra DeSanctis at the National Review better exposed the hypocrisy of the vote.

The sponsor and 12 cosponsors did not vote for the bill.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (70)
No. 1-18
Greggg
Greggg

2banana
2banana

Even left wing voters don't want to freeze and be hungry in the dark...

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

No one will remember this come 2020. The vote merely allows candidates to disassociate themselves from AOC and the left wing. This is a good thing. Each party tries to make the other look bad but actually helps it.

bradw2k
bradw2k

Boy they really showed the other party that they won't be forced into voting for ... things they support.

FloydVanPeter
FloydVanPeter

Green New Deal sounds like oxymoron (or should I say An O.C.moron).

And, there are plenty of reasons to suspect the global-warming alarmist of pushing their own agenda.

All that said, sadly, one cannot wish away the receding glaciers and arctic ice sheets.

Realist
Realist

Climate Change and the frog in the boiling pot.

Most people know the lesson of the frog in the pot of boiling water. If you start the pot at a reasonable temperature and increase it slowly, the frog won’t notice the subtle changes. Eventually the pot boils and the frog dies.

That’s what many people’s reaction is to climate change warnings. Every year as the earth continues to warm, the changes are slow, and to many people, not easy to notice. When extreme weather events happen, people say that ”we have had them before; its just the weather”. Yet every year you see more and more ”1 in a 100”, and ”1 in a 1000” year events. After a while people become immune to record heat, record cold, record rainfall, record drought, record flooding, record damage. Ho hum.

People living near water have seen water flowing on the streets in front of their houses before. It used to happen once every few years, then once or twice a year. Now it’s once or twice a month in many places. At what point will they realize that something has changed? Or do they continue to hope that next year it will get better. After all, the skeptical say climate goes in cycles and they are hoping for the next cycle to kick in and save them.

The problem with climate change is that it is like a huge ship speeding through the water. You can’t turn it around quickly. Emissions today will effect the planet for the next few decades. Even if we magically stopped all emissions today, we would still have two or three decades of effects still to come.

And of course, we can’t and won’t stop emissions. So climate change is baked in for many decades to come.

At some point, the economic and human costs of climate change will become too great to accept. And once that point is reached, and reality sets in, mankind will have to try some type of geo-engineering ideas to try to remove some of the greenhouse gasses in an attempt to reverse what we have already done to the planet. Whether those attempts will be successful; no one knows yet. And whether we will start them before it is too late; no one knows that either.

One thing is for sure. Mish has been expecting a big economic recession for some time now because of the Fed, Government overspending, and high debt levels. I propose that we are in for slowing growth over the next decade followed by a multi-decade economic contraction, which will result largely from the effects of climate change.

I take no pleasure in predicting this. This is not a political statement. Climate change does not care if you are Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, or Communist. It doesn’t care what your faith is or the colour of your skin.

The Green New Deal wouldn’t have helped to prevent climate change. It’s merely political posturing to try to win votes. One country cannot make a difference by itself.

And I’m not saying that I have a solution. I do not. I’m am merely explaining the reality of the situation. I do believe that eventually, over 99% of humanity will understand the facts (there’s always a few who won’t). They will look for someone to blame. (we are all to blame; all 7+ billion of us) Then they will look for someone to save them. (those damn scientists who have been warning them about this since the 1950s).

What I do know is that climate change is a global problem and it will require a global solution. All countries will have to work together to solve it. Given the state of relations between countries today, I am not very hopeful about that in the near future. Climate change is ”baked in” for quite some time to come.

In the meantime, enjoy the warm water in that pot.

AWC
AWC

The Bogeyman is coming. He's out there lurking in the shadows, but only a few gifted and anointed folks can see him. But, rest assured, those superior beings will not let us forget that they have our best interest at heart.

To be saved, all we need do is send them tithes, and never question them,,,, always obey them, and we too can be beamed up in a blaze of glory!

Handover your individual sovereignty, and join in the chant, or you are doomed to an eternity frozen into the ninth circle, or roasting down in the kitchen. Or, hell, I dunno, maybe be forced to move to Chicago?

Aside from that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

stillCJ
stillCJ

Editor

Forcing a vote on the Green New Mess was a brilliant political move by Mitch McConnell. BTW, National Review does not seem to know how many democrats there are in the senate. Hint: it's not 53.

Mish
Mish

Editor

StillCJ

"Forcing a vote on the Green New Mess was a brilliant political move by Mitch McConnell. BTW, National Review does not seem to know how many democrats there are in the senate. Hint: it's not 53."

53 Republicans + 4 Democrats - but yes they made an error.

Mish
Mish

Editor

Spotlight on a comment by MorrisWR:

"I am a scientist in the medical field (Molecular Biology but was a head of research in Toxicology). Run the data from Vostok or other ice core dara and anyone who knows basic scientific correlations will see this climate change is a crock. We live in a world of gullible idiots who cannot look at data themselves. They blather on about “science” when they have never done any research or understand science actually means testing and data. Hint: look at the last 1 million years of ice core numbers and tou will see the cyclic pattern. Then run the correlation of CO2 changes vs temperwture change. CO2 does NOT drive the temps. Increasing temp releases bound CO2. However, people continue to spew crap without any knowledge."

Blurtman
Blurtman

Time for a retraction? US Trade Deficit Shrinks By Most in 10 Years As China Gap Tumbles

RonJ
RonJ

Kristen Gillibrand: "There's nothing left to debate. Climate change is an immediate and catastrophic threat to our future."

No it isn't. Gillibrand i'm sure, has done ZERO to cut her personal carbon footprint. AOC rides with gasoline powered UBER drivers. They don't believe a word they are saying.

SMF
SMF

Get a telescope or a solar filter, look at the sun, notice the lack of sunspots, and ask yourself the same question scientists have been asking for quite a while?

Or simply check out the current solar weather.

Why is the sun so quiet?

Since the sun powers the solar system, anything that the sun does should concern us. But how many times have any of you heard recently about the quiet sun?

truthseeker
truthseeker

Ok we all know the story of Noah’s ark when the flood wiped out everyone except for Noah and his family because of man’s decadent behavior or human sin. Now we have the same kind of overwhelming sin in the world so that this time the scriptures are very clear that the world’s environment is beginning to reflect divine anger one can read about in Luke 21:8-11 or Luke 21:25,26 just to start with

Sechel
Sechel

This is silly politics. Republicans weren't going to pass it. Just a show. Most democrats think its too ambitious as well.