According to a recent report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the human race has just 12 years to curb carbon emissions before climate change becomes an irreversible, catastrophic event.

The Republican Party usually denies the existence of climate problems. But their rivals in the Democratic Party claim to understand it. However, they have done very little when it comes to offering a solution. The last time Democrats did anything substantial was in 2o09 when they pushed a bill – the American Clean Energy and Security Act – through the House but let it lapse before it reached the Senate. Since then, nothing substantial happened on the environmental front – not unless a 29-year old democratic socialist showed up with a plan.

The Green New Deal

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY 14th District), known by her initials AOC, proposed the Green New Deal (GND), an economic stimulus program with three core agendas: decarbonization, jobs, and justice. In its loosest descriptions, the program refers to massive investments in green projects and infrastructure to transform not just the green industry but the entire economy.

AOC has set up a 10-year plan for the elimination of all fossil fuels, nuclear energy and anything that imbalances the U.S.-only ecosystem. In the said timeframe, the politician-cum-activist wants to upgrade “every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency.” She also wants to repair and improve transportations such as airplanes and cars, fund massive investment in the reduction and capture of greenhouse gases. In the end, AOC wants to make the U.Ss a utopian carbon-neutral economy.

A noble plan, indeed. But that doesn’t make it practical, at least according to Patrick Moore. The co-founder and former member of Greenpeace recently went into a spat with AOC on various aspects of the Green New Deal. And from the look of it, it didn’t end well for the democratic socialist.

AOC! You Pompous Little Twit

Moore started by criticizing AOC for claiming that GND’s enforcement could “remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere.”

“Technically, this would mean removing all H 2 O vapor and all CO 2 which would mean the eradication of all life on Earth,” Moore stated.

'@AOC 's Green New Deal calls for:

"(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere."https://t.co/t9HuWwC1rI

Technically (scientifically) this would mean removing all H2O vapour and all CO2 which would mean the eradication of all life on Earth.

Brilliant. 🙄🙄 pic.twitter.com/i91rvW0HXI — Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) February 19, 2019

Moore didn’t just stop at one tweet. He also responded to AOC’s February 22 statement in which she told her critics to come up with a better proposal than GND rather than “shouting from the cheap seats.” Moore shouted from an upscaled one, it seemed. He said:

“Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death.”

Pompous little twit. You don’t have a plan to grow food for 8 billion people without fossil fuels, or get the food into the cities. Horses? If fossil fuels were banned every tree in the world would be cut down for fuel for cooking and heating. You would bring about mass death. — Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) February 23, 2019

Moore went on by calling AOC a delusional person who falsely believed that “fossil fuels will end any time soon.”

“AOC’s attitude is unjustifiably condescending. She is a neophyte pretending to be wise. Her kind brings ruination if allowed to be “in charge.” (from the cheap seats),” he tweeted.

On New York Post Story

On March 2, the New York Post published an article about AOC using fossil fuel-enabled vehicles, eventually spending $29,365.70 on her car-based commutes “even though a subway station was just 138 feet from her Elmhurst campaign office.” Meanwhile, AOC and her staff spent $25,174.54 on a total of 66 airline travels during campaign season. At the same time, they traveled via Amtrak, a U.S. rail service, on only 18 occasions. Amtrak could have been far eco-friendlier than commuting via airplane.

AOC on March 3 responded to the New York Post, stating that “living the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future.”

I also fly ✈️ & use A/C Living in the world as it is isn’t an argument against working towards a better future. The Green New Deal is about putting a LOT of people to work in developing new technologies, building new infrastructure, and getting us to 100% renewable energy. https://t.co/DZGE1WwLbn — Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (@AOC) March 3, 2019

Moore didn’t spare AOC on her rebuttal as well. The environmentalist accused her of hypocrisy, adding she had zero knowledge about the things she pretends to know.

The "world as it is" has the option of taking the subway rather than a taxi. option of Amtrak rather than plane, option of opening windows rather than A/C. You're just a garden-variety hypocrite like the others. And you have ZERO expertise at any of the things you pretend to know — Patrick Moore (@EcoSenseNow) March 3, 2019

Green New Deal a Socialist Gravy

Again, the Green New Deal is not only a climate-related policy. It is a complete overhaul of an economy that promotes large scale public spendings for the upliftment of the poor.

In section 6(B) of the GND proposal, it is written that the potential legislation seeks to “virtually eliminate poverty in the United States.” The plan lists six important missions, each signifying a perfect world for the Americans in which they all have jobs, universal healthcare programs, fixed incomes, and free education.

Nevertheless, the cracks in the GND proposal starts appearing if one looks closely at its feasibility. For instance, how in the world AOC plans to create all these jobs? How does one ensure that the position fits the skill-based criteria of an individual who does it? Would these jobs genuinely be of any use or not? Would it mean that the government would increase taxes on people with ‘real jobs’? If yes, would it create real opportunities for lower income groups? The questions are too many to count.

Then, in section 6(C), the GND proposes that the federal government should finance everything from job creation to investing in green projects. The draft mentions a new Federal Bank system, which will be a combination of regional banks, public venture funds, and similar vehicles. It will ensure that returns generated from public investments are returned to the treasury.

GND would not only allow the government to spend money, but it would also ensure that a majority of it remains government-owned. That sounds like a recipe of socialism – more likely, a socialist gravy whose ingredients are too diluted to notice.

Meanwhile, in Moore-land.