This month the Green New Deal was introduced in the U.S. Congress with much fanfare, and its opponents quickly mobilized.
Fine. We can forget the simplistic labels. But what we can’t forget is that the GND will cost north of $90 trillion which would bankrupt the global economy and send the world into mass starvation and death. That doesn’t sound like a solution to me.
The fossil fuel ad agency is telling us, with no actual numbers or logic behind the statement, that protecting the world is going to cost “us” $90 trillion dollars.
I’m an inventor. I tell you that reforming our transit system is probably going to save maybe 80% of the average driver’s annual expenses, because you’re not paying those $1 billion per mile of urban freeway bills, your vehicle insurance plummeted, your ride is less expensive to make and you’re using 90% less (renewable) electricity.
I tell you that the base cost of your renewable electric bill is going to go through the floor. It remains to pass those savings on to the consumers as opposed to the oligopolists.
I tell you that the cost of storing solar heat in winter for nighttime heating needs is going to leave natural gas in the ground.
Think about what can be invented. Where is the medium-hanging fruit?
In reality, humans are supported not by economies, but by ecosystems, just like other creatures.
Economy is an invention of custom and symbol used to track who gets included in and excluded from services and resources.
Even at that, what’s the basis of “90 trillion”? Where is the less money-expensive means to do the work that needs doing?
A “green New Deal” might be a good or bad thing, but that will surely depend on what is meant and whether what is done is ecologically sound.
Those still appear to be open questions.
Where did you get the idea that the GND will cost trillions? It’s not a loaded question: I want to know.
It’s all over the Internet. It’s even written in the “Criticism” section of Wikipedia.