A recent report on what Ben Shapiro called “one of the stupidest documents ever written” reveals Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal would have virtually no effect on planetary climate change (here).

This is surely no surprise, as the plan was — in part — offered by a twenty-something who believes all things can be free to all people without those people also paying for those things to then be free.

Not the most likely source for scientific supremacy.

And then there was this response to her critics:

One segment at a time, the American Enterprise Institute’s study assessed the cost as well as the impact of the GND, which claims the goal of “net zero” American carbon emission by 2050.

I should point out that America comprises a small part of the planet, leaving almost 7.5 billion other people in the world.

I should also point out that that fact alone makes a great deal of even the basic concept of an American Earth-saving change a fair bit idiotic.

But let’s pretend — indulging in this narcissist, social-media era — that we’re all that matters…

The conclusion of the study was simple:

“It is not to be taken seriously.”

Sounds about right.

What should be taken seriously, however, is the initiative’s apparent aim to take industry back to a time before planes (here). Nevertheless, of course, Alexandria still flies (here), even if her ideas don’t.

From the report:

[N]otwithstanding 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. 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.

Brass tacks:

A GND policy would yield no benefits in its central energy, environment, and climate context, but it would impose very large economic costs.

Well there ya go.

So maybe it fails on the science front. But, as noted by CNN, the GND has another purpose:

The resolution says that the deal will “promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression” to a dozen communities, including indigenous peoples, migrant communities and low-income workers.

So at least there’s that.

-Alex

Relevant RedState links in this article: here, here, and here.

See 3 more pieces from me:

Black Panther Star Shares Christian Testimony In Acceptance Speech: God Made You, & You’re Important

NUT: Left-Winger Fights Brexit By Stripping Naked On Live TV & Challenging Politician To Nude Debate

President Trump Addresses Cuomo In Person Over His Embrace Of Abortion Up ’Til Birth

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below. For iPhone instructions, see the bottom of this page.

﻿

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”