Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey are garnering support for their proposed  “Green New Deal.” Ocasio-Cortez told NPR Thursday, “[I]n 10 years, we’re trying to go carbon-neutral.”

Markey soon followed up in a press conference Thursday where he criticized President Trump for leaving climate change out of Tuesday’s State Of The Union address calling him, “the greatest climate denier.”



The Research Behind the Deal

The research behind the deal is tenuous at best, said Sara A. Carter, a Fox News contributor and national security correspondent. She noted that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment Report has serious problems.  Carter referred  to a report written by Nicolas Loris, with the Heritage Foundation, a conservative Think Tank based in Washington D.C.

Four Main Problems with the report

First, the 2018 Fourth National Climate assessment report “wildly exaggerates” economic costs, far beyond the United Nation’s  temperature projection, said Loris, an economist who focuses on energy, environmental, and regulatory issues as the Herbert and Joyce Morgan fellow.

It “is even higher than the worst-case scenario predicted by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change,” according to Loris.

In Loris’ review of the government report he says the “statistic that media outlets have seized upon is that the worst climate scenario could cost the U.S. 10 percent of its gross domestic product by 2100.” Roughly, the 10 percent loss projection “is more than twice the percentage that was lost during the Great Recession,” he notes.



Secondly, it assumes the most extreme climate scenario, says Loris. He points out that the  doomsday projections in the National Climate Assessment “rely on a theoretical climate trajectory that is known as Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5.” Basically it assumes the worst case scenarios that are not expected to occur.

Third, the study “cherry-picks science on extreme weather and misrepresents timelines and causality,” Loris states.

Loris refers to Professor Roger Pielke Jr. with the University of Colorado Boulder who “pointed out in a Twitter thread in August 2017, there were no increases in drought, no increases in frequency or magnitude of floods, no trends in frequency or intensity of hurricanes, and “low confidence for a detectable human climate change contribution in the Western United States based on existing studies.”

Lastly, “energy taxes are a costly non-solution,” he says. Those energy taxes do more damage than good. Loris has a point, says Carter. He notes that “policies endorsed to combat climate change would carry significant costs and would do nothing to mitigate warming, even if there were a looming catastrophe like the National Climate Association says.”

Obama Regulations


Just look at what happened under regulations imposed by the Obama Administration under the Environmental Protection Agency. Those regulations impacted small business owners, farmers and the U.S. economy, stated Carter.

Instead of using scare tactics and falling back on doomsday predictions, scientists and lawmakers need to stick with actual facts, said Carter.

“Of course it is necessary to do our best to protect and make our planet,” she added. “But we need to be reasonable and access the real reasons behind those imposing unrealistic regulations.”

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment Report

The deal is based on a 2018 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment Report. According to these reports, human activity is to blame for rising sea levels and extreme weather events. The reports also present shocking predictions for a warming climate. The economic impacts are costly. According to the reports, the US is expected to lose $500 billion by the year 2100. The environment’s future is also grim with a loss of the world’s forests and coral reefs.



According to the reports, the American people’s wallets are deteriorating with the environment. It says the U.S. greenhouse gas output is causing a stagnation in hourly wages, income inequality, and racial/gender pay gaps. The deal specifically points out that the ‘systemic injustices’ caused by climate change are targeting ‘frontline and vulnerable communities.’

The Socialist Vision

The goal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to zero by the year 2050. Government subsidies and regulation would enforce a total industrial overhaul. The deal offers a socialist vision of the US economy. Specifically laying out a plan to subsidize US industry, prevent competition, and provide health care and sustainable wages. Ocasio-Cortez told NPR that the bill requires massive government intervention.

“Government is not just for cleaning up other people’s mess, but it’s also for building solutions in the places where the private sector would not,” said Ocasio-Cortez.

No Pay, No Play

The proposed deal will put Ocasio-Cortez’s freshman status to the test. Republicans are less than keen on the deal’s socialist vision.

There is also some pushback from Democratic leadership. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-CA, criticized the deal telling Politico Thursday, “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi said. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?” There is also currently no clear plan to pay for the deal.