Back to Fort Fairfield Journal      WFFJ-TV      Contact Us



Cong. Democrats Introduce “Green New Deal” to Abolish All Fossil Fuels in Ten Years


They also plan to set up everyone with a government job and

guarantee a living for those who are unwilling to work


Former Obama Energy Secretary says the plan is “impractical”


By:  David Deschesne

Fort Fairfield Journal, February 27, 2019


   A radical new plan to eliminate all greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. in just ten years was recently released by two extreme left wing congressional delegates.

   The “Green New Deal” is a fourteen page document authored by self-described Democrat/Socialist, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.).  The plan calls for the complete elimination of all fossil fuels in the U.S. by 2029, which would include the banning of all gasoline and diesel engines in automobiles, trucks, tractors, generators and pumps - to be replaced entirely by electric motors; the elimination of fuel oil and gas-burning furnaces, boilers and wood-burning stoves for home and industrial heating - again to be replaced by electrical devices; the elimination of coal-burning electrical generation plants and the elimination of all domestic air travel - to be replaced by electrically-run high speed rail in order to achieve a “net-zero” greenhouse gas emission status for the U.S.  The document, originally released with many errors and typos, states their plan is to “Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high-speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle.”  The two Democrats also seek to retrofit or rebuild every building in the U.S. to be more “environmentally friendly.”

   The document also outlines numerous other goals that sound more like the Communist ideologies of the former Soviet Union.  For example, the authors envision providing every person in the United States with a federal job that includes paid vacation and retirement benefits, “adequate housing,” “healthy food,” and “access to nature.” The plan would also aim to achieve “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.”

   Additionally, the two propose economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work. Ocasio-Cortez told NPR she had “no problem” saying that such an overhaul would require “massive government intervention.”

      But, not all Democrats are keen on the radical ideas being proposed.  During an interview on NPR, Ernest Moniz, former energy secretary for Barrack Hussein-Obama, called the plan “impractical.”

   Moniz said a version of the Green New Deal, one that pursues “very low carbon and social equity,” is “exactly what we have to do,” but he said the plan introduced by Democrats is “just impractical.”

   “Now, when we come to the Green New Deal, I'm afraid I just cannot see how we could possibly go to zero carbon in the 10-year time frame. It's just impractical,” he said.

   Moniz worries an impractical timeframe will drive people away from supporting green policies in general.  “And if we start putting out impractical targets, we may lose a lot of key constituencies who we need to bring along to have a real low-carbon solution on the most rapid timeframe that we can achieve,” Moniz added.

   NPR has estimated the project would cost trillions of dollars to achieve its goals within ten years' time.  But the two Democrats suggest in a FAQ document that it can be paid for simply by taking on trillions of dollars in new debt.  The FAQ document states, “The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit.”  However, the two Democrats do not elaborate on how those trillions of dollars in new debt would actually be paid back since credit is not free money.

   “Ed Markey is a demagogue and Alexandria Occasio-Cortez is literally an empty-headed twit,” said Jim Willis, from Marcellus Drilling News. “There’s nothing upstairs in the brain department. Just listen to her talk for yourself! This Green New Deal nonsense is political pabulum and nothing more. It’s going nowhere. That charlatans like Markey and Occasio-Cortez can even get elected is a sad commentary on our country.”

   The Green New Deal, which is just a pie in the sky proposal at this point, and nowhere near entering into legislation, is also being shunned by West Virginia Democrat Senator, Joe Manchin.  Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is even giving it the cold shoulder.

   Climate change hysteria, as promulgated mostly by the radical left, is based on quasi-science, bordering on propaganda and quackery.  This is the same group that warned of “global cooling” and a “new ice age” in the 1970's due to carbon dioxide emissions.  They then changed their tune to “global warming” in the early 2000's when the cooling trend didn't occur as they predicted.  Thermal test sites were deliberately set up in known hot spots, such as large expanses of asphalt and areas of low greenery in order to provide artificially skewed global temperature readings to support their “greenhouse gas” global warming theory.  When global warming ultimately was shown to be non-existent, they changed their mantra for a third time to the more nebulous “Climate Change.”

   “Climate Change” was more difficult to argue against because the climate does change in the Northern and Southern hemispheres at least four times a year (winter, spring, summer, fall) and wind, rainfall, temperature and barometric readings vary from day to day and sometimes hour to hour - as it has for millions upon millions of years without man's intervention.  The climate change pseudo-scientists suggest it's carbon dioxide emissions from man-made industries and sources that adversely affect the environment—a reduction of which would somehow stop the climate from changing.   Now, around ten years into the Climate Change sales push, the gurus have found the need to change their mantra yet again; this time, to “Climate Extremes.”  The general consensus on the climate change community is they have no idea what they're talking about and have to resort to catchy marketing slogans and sound bites to sell their faulty and erroneous ideas about how the climate works, and man's effects on it, hoping an uneducated and unsophisticated public will simply believe them without doing any research on their own.

   Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is the primary culprit in this saga of propaganda.  CO2 is a colorless, nearly odorless gas.  It comprises a paltry 0.03% of the earth's atmosphere, which also contains the colorless, odorless gasses of nitrogen, oxygen and traces of argon.  Contrary to the claims of greenhouse gas advocates, carbon dioxide does not create a layer in the upper atmosphere that traps in heat. Since it has a carbon atom attached to two oxygen atoms, CO2 is 1.53 times heavier than air (Encyl. Brit. 1958 ed, Vol 4. p. 838) so it tends to stay closer to the earth.  And that's a good thing, because all green plants, shrubs and trees use carbon dioxide as a food source which they convert back into oxygen after removing the carbon. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, 1958 ed, “carbon is the essential element in all organic matter, both plant and animal.  Moreover, by the oxidation of carbon and its compounds most of the energy of our bodies is supplied, as well as that to carry on the work of the world.” (op. cit. Vol. 4, p. 836)

   Green grass, plants and trees are in reality, fully functional carbon dioxide filters and tend to grow faster and consume more carbon dioxide as those levels increase in the atmosphere, thus keeping the CO2 levels in check.

   While it is admitted that pollutants such as smog and dirty smoke near industrial centers can be problematic for the environment in a local, geographic area, carbon dioxide emissions alone cannot and do not impact the weather as the politically-motivated scientists have incessantly claimed.  There are also other theories on Climate Change that some may find more esoteric, such as the negative effects of humanity’s collective mind wreaking havoc on the Earth’s environment around them.  If that’s the case, no amount of carbon reduction will fix it—only a reduction in negative mind energy will.

   In his 1997 book, The Conscious Universe, Dean Radin, Ph. D. elaborates on laboratory experiments which intriguingly show how a person can use their mind to affect the world, and even simple machinery, around them.  He expands his thesis on how consciousness appears to be intermeshed with the entire universe, and causes ebbs and flows in ways we don’t fully understand, in his 2006 book, Entangled Minds.  This isn’t New Age psychobabble, it’s serious scientific research backed up by duplicable experiments.

   So, we have physical pollutants in the form of industrial emissions or metaphysical pollutants in the form of negative mind/consciousness emissions to choose from.  At either rate, since carbon dioxide is truly not affecting the environment, or weather, in the way most pseudo-scientists suggest - and many already secretly admit - some people have asked why is there such an aggressive push to regulate and eliminate it from the food chain of all green plants and trees.  The answer comes down to what all politically motivated agendas revolve around - money.

   Outside of a for-profit carbon credit trading scheme, as envisioned by former Democrat Vice President, Al Gore, the real goal of climate change activists is to create a global climate tax, instituted at the level of the United Nations, in order to tax all first-world industrial countries based upon their industrial output.  That tax, after the UN keeps its “administrative fees,” will then be redistributed to the poorer, non-producing countries as essentially welfare payments to those governments.  It is these wealth redistribution payments, and a desire to cull world population and “rewild” the planet, that is motivating all of the impetus towards climate change activism at the highest echelons; CO2 emissions are merely the focal point these activists are using to redirect the attention of the general public away from their true goals.  Rep.  Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey are either willing accomplices in this malevolent charade, or, like most politicians, unwitting dupes.