Rationalizing a Green New Deal
RATIONALIZING A GREEN NEW DEAL
The original Green New Deal (GND) reads like a Mission Statement, and as such it eloquently and admirably lays out lofty goals and ideals. However, by diluting the medication to include social engineering (a “shotgun” approach) it demonstrates what is commonly referred to as “scope creep” in community planning.
To effectuate real progress in the express goal of Greening America (and by extension planet Earth), the resolution broadens its inevitable socio-economic impact. Institute for Energy Research (IER) Distinguished Senior Fellow Dan Kish said on Oct. 27 that “there is no way to live without petroleum in today’s everyday life. The cost of doing it may not even be quantifiable.”*
Per Kish and others, simply taking the first steps of ending oil and natgas on federal lands and offshore leases, would result in:
- Loss of up to 7.5 million U.S. jobs in 2022.
- Cumulative decrease by 2030 of $7.1 trillion in gross domestic product (GDP).
- Household income drop of $5,400 annually.
- Household energy costs spiraling up by more than $600 per year.
(Tapscott, 2020)
So any endeavor along the lines of the GND, would require compliance with the most basic tenets of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and spinoff guidelines of the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). That is, Environmental Impact Statements on the legislation are mandated, including study of Socio-Economic impacts, particularly on the American industries most affected, along with rational study of viable Alternatives.
*BEA.gov, 9/2020, showing 1998 output of 73B, and 2019 output of 375B, with lowpoint of 230B during the Great Recession