More Green New Deal Ideas Suitable for the Ash Can

-edited

After a brief respite from green new deal nuttiness, ideas are cropping up again, this time from the UK.

Global Leader

The US is the global leader in Green New Deal nuttiness both on the number of advocates and the cost of the proposals.

We have AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Al Gore a a field of Democrat candidates all of whom have their eyes on your pocketbook with schemes to save the world.

For example, please consider AOC's Green New Deal Pricetag of $51 to $93 Trillion vs. Cost of Doing Nothing.

UK Attempt to Catch Up

In the UK, the Labour Party, proposes being completely carbon free by 2030, in little more than 10 years.

Jeremy Warner rips the idea in Labour's Green New Deal? No, Just Puerile, Delusional Nonsense Dressed Up as Industrial Strategy.

Warner asks "Have these people ever been to that great, centrally directed communist utopia China, now adding to the world’s carbon footprint at a rate unprecedented in the history of humanity?"

Labour also wants to spend £250bn on loft insulation, double glazing and renewable, low-carbon technologies in all the UK’s 27 million homes at an average cost of £9,300 per house.

After blasting the absurd nature of those ideas, Warner then offers his own set of nonsensical ideas.

Decarbonization Perfectly Feasible

"Decarbonisation of the UK economy is perfectly feasible, but it has to be done in a market driven way by removing hidden hydrocarbon subsidies and the imposition of revenue neutral carbon taxes, backed by carbon tariffs to prevent rival economies undercutting UK producers," said Warner.

Got that?

Carbon tariffs on China and carbon taxes on those who utilize carbon will allegedly make decarbonization "perfectly feasible".

In a way, Warner's idea is far worse. This is why:

Whereas few would be stupid enough to actually try to decarbonize by 2030 or spend $51 to $93 trillion to save the world from sure destruction in 10 years, many people would be stupid enough to try Warner's non-market-driven, nonsensical proposal.

Delusional nonsense dressed up indeed.

Mike "Mish" Shedlock

Comments (40)
No. 1-19
Onni4me
Onni4me

"Labour also wants to spend £250bn on loft insulation, double glazing and renewable, low-carbon technologies in all the UK’s 27 million homes at an average cost of £9,300 per house." Remembering how I was freezing in some house visits while in UK, I see this as a very sensible idea. Most old UK houses have single glazing and are leaking from every corner. Fireplaces are not the type that store energy and only 5% efficiency (Heat storing ovens can be as high as 70-90% efficient depending the moisture% of burning wood). 9300 pounds per house could be probably the best investment in the long term. If the energy used for heating could be cut in half the yearly saving could be around 1000-2500 pounds a year (average 120m2 house with electric heating uses around 23000 kWh/year). Not all ideas are to be doomed. I suppose best approach is to demand upgrading when the properties are renovated. Not at one go.

Onni4me
Onni4me

Seems the text seems OK when writing and when pressing the 'submit' button it becomes one big mess...

Gulliverfoyle
Gulliverfoyle

the greens rejection of nuclear power shows their real agenda

world communism

Six000mileyear
Six000mileyear

I remember bumper stickers more than 40 years ago that read, "Split wood, not atoms." Now those very people don't even want us to split wood. Talk about moving the goal posts

Casual_Observer
Casual_Observer

There isn't enough money in the world for these nutty ideas. AOC and others live in an alternate universe where the world ends in 2030.

FromBrussels
FromBrussels

off topic....but it s about the UK anyway.....Happy faces this morning on CNBC as the BOE might cut rates because of 'uncertainty'....1% something is of course way too high an interest rate in this insane economic environment ...

Carl_R
Carl_R

If you want to reduce carbon emissions, there is only one rational way. Government can never do anything but fester fraud by trying to fund green options. The only rational thing is to tax carbon emissions, and let the free market sort do what it does best, sort out the things that will actually work to reduce carbon emissions. What should government do with the tax receipts? Flow them back into the economy, of course, by reducing other taxes. I would suggest a uniform tax credit, say a $2000 per person credit, with a carbon emission tax that would average the same.

Obviously the tax would appear as a price increase in all products, but ones that use the most carbon would be harder hit than others. Using an overly simple example, with one product, and one tax, let's say that the average person uses 1,000 gallons of gasoline a year, and the tax goes up by $2/gallon, but the person gets a $2000 check. Is he worse off? No. Will he just keep buying 1,000 gallons of gas? He could. Or, perhaps he will make some changes, say, driving less, or getting a more efficient car. In that case, he'll be better off.

In the end, government doesn't spend anything, and yet the carbon emissions go down. You don't have to blow up the budget to accomplish what you want.

thimk
thimk

does the 'new green deal" allocate money for animal methane capture devices ? AKA fartbacks. a few bucks in this direction can provide the planet with an unlimited source of renewable energy. But be careful, it is only a matter of time until the ultra left will require one strapped to your heiny.

awc13
awc13

Miami is suppose to be gone in 2 years according to AOC but i don't see a mass migration happening.

Just wait until they figure out that humans emit CO2 when they exhale. they will really go after population control at that point

Blurtman
Blurtman

Market heading up. Yield curve no longer inverted. Grumpy, old kibitzers speechless.

SMF
SMF

I knew this green stuff was political crap once I read how biomass energy is basically burning trees. But according to Paris Accord, burning trees is 'carbon neutral'.

abend237-04
abend237-04

Meanwhile, back at reality, U.S. CO2 emissions have dropped to 1992 levels due to fracking freeing up enough natural gas to make it possible to switch from coal. This all thanks to technology, enabled by capitalism.

Nonetheless, nuclear, the only viable path forward out of fossil fuels, continues to be hysterically resisted by the new AGW Earth-worship cult and the largest utility in California resorts to rolling blackouts for a decade due to $2.2 Billion annually having been diverted from line maintenance to rent-seeker maintenance and tree hugger growth.

RonJ
RonJ

"We have AOC, Elizabeth Warren, Al Gore a a field of Democrat candidates all of whom have their eyes on your pocketbook with schemes to save the world."

Nothing to do with saving the world. Totalitarianism is about power over others.

bradw2k
bradw2k

Alex Epstein just debated Robert F Kennedy Jr about fossil fuels. Alex starts at 27 minutes. https://youtu.be/IyDpf_GpEW0?t=1656

Webej
Webej

Actually, a revenue neutral carbon dividend (complemented by import tariffs on embedded carbon, which would persuade the exporter to collect a price for it before export) is what experts have been advancing for 4 decades as the best way to unleash market forces and tilt the playing field in favor of encouraging alternative energy. Not doing so treats eventual costs as an externality which we are pushing onto our progeny, without amortization, possibly treating them to sudden ecological bankruptcy greater than all the money in the world.

Of course this crowd is going to crow that the chances of said bankruptcy to occur is less than the chance of your house catching fire outside of California, for which eventuality you purchase fire insurance. And ignoring the fact that one day our progeny may have to substitute all exhausted natural resources (including fossil fuels) in the solid religious conviction that the market is Providence.

Pater_Tenebrarum
Pater_Tenebrarum

Climate "scientists" and their Malthusian death cult fellow travelers have been SURE the world will end in ten years time since the late 18th century. Here are examples. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1dNYtcdX3Io

Advancingtime
Advancingtime

While there are many new and exciting ways to recycle and cut energy waste it seems public officials are almost afraid to talk about conservation. It is as if they will offend someone or that big business and their lobbyist have made this subject taboo.

The fact is a lot could be done at little cost. While it could be argued that cutting back on waste would lower the GDP it would have many positive benefits such as improving our standing in the world community. The article below delves deeper into the dreaded "C" word, conserve.

BamPow
BamPow

All naysayers bleet loudly here in fear of change, but not a single one of those has a single idea, not a single solution to offer. If you don't want your DNA to survive though the next few decades do nothing, but at least get out of the way of those actually doing something. I worship mother Earth because I can prove she exists, and gives all of us life. If only the rest would care about her all of our lives would be better. Whale oil merchants ballyhooed like y'all when change came too.

sguykayak
sguykayak

Love Mish's analytical approach to Labour's ideas - scientific and economic terms like nuttiness, delusional, stupid, & nonsensical are so useful when trying to dissect an already misrepresented branch of climatology as well as explain the benefits of ALL countries contributions to a solution (and, of course, the UK's zero power to significantly alter carbon emissions in China).