Gillibrand: I Told Coal Miner Green New Deal ‘Just Bipartisan Ideas’

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

Senator Kristen Gillibrand(Delusional-NY)is a Damned liar the green new deal is not a bipartisan idea as no DemocRat voted for it will every Republican voted no.

‘People in Ohio don’t know who I am’


Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.) said Thursday that she explained to a Pennsylvania coal miner the Green New Deal was “just bipartisan ideas” to help the economy and his state grow.

Gillibrand is on a bus tour of the Rust Belt over what she calls President Donald Trump’s broken promises to the voters who put him in the White House. NBC News reporter Shaquille Brewster noted the 2020 hopeful spoke to a longtime Democratic coal miner who voted for Trump in 2016 and had concerns about the Green New Deal.

“Well, I explained to him that the Green New Deal is just some bipartisan ideas that will actually help the economy and his state grow,” Gillibrand said. “It’s involved with infrastructure, more mass transit, more high-speed rail, more rural broadband, more efficient electric grid, all things that will help Pennsylvania. It’s about green jobs.”

The plan calls for the U.S. to reach net-zero carbon emissions in the next 10 years, a shift to 100 percent renewable energy sources, retrofitting buildings across the country, and overhauling the U.S. transportation system, to an estimated price tag of $94 trillion.

Gillibrand called it “bipartisan,” but Senate Democrats voted either “nay” or “present” when it was up for a procedural vote in March, while all 53 Republicans voted it down.

The Green New Deal resolution was rolled out this year by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.) and Sen. Ed Markey (D., Mass.), and Ocasio-Cortez’s own chief of staff Saikat Chakrabarti called it a way to change the entire economy rather than specifically curb climate change.

Rep. Max Rose (D., N.Y.) called it a “massive socialist economic policy platform.” A report from the American Enterprise Institute found the Green New Deal would have “no effect” on climate due to the U.S. contributing a fraction of the globe’s greenhouse gas emissions.

Gillibrand said the bus tour was about more than getting attention and boosting her low poll numbers, which are typically between 0.5 and 1 percent. She acknowledged the voters of states like Ohio “don’t know who I am.”

“At the end of the day this is the beginning of a campaign,” she said. “We’ve only had one debate out of 10 so far, so it’s just the beginning. People in Ohio don’t know who I am. They don’t know why I’m running for president, what my background is, what I’ve accomplished in the last decade of public service. They don’t know that I come from a district a lot like their state, a 2-to-1 Republican district that has manufacturing and agriculture.”



Beto O’Rourke Unveils $5 Trillion Climate Change Plan

H/T The Washington Free Beacon.

A five trillion dollar plan to fight something that does not exist.

I have a question for Robert Francis O’Rourke “Where is this money going to come from?”

Beto O’Rourke, the former congressman and failed Senate candidate jockeying for position in the crowded “straight white male” lane of the Democratic presidential primary, has finally unveiled a policy proposal. The candidate published on his campaign website Monday an ambitious plan to combat climate change—”the greatest threat we face”—to the tune of $5 trillion over the next decade.

“We have one last chance to unleash the ingenuity and political will of hundreds of millions of Americans to meet this moment before it’s too late,” O’Rourke said in a statement accompanying the plan’s release, echoing remarks he has made on the campaign trail comparing climate change to the threat the United States and the world faced from Nazi Germany and Japan during World War II.

The plan aims to achieve net-zero carbon emission in the United States by the year 2050, which O’Rourke’s campaign claims is “in line” with the ambitious goals laid out in the Green New Dealauthored by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D., N.Y.). That is not entirely accurate. One of the first steps would involve introducing legislation in the first 100 days of O’Rourke’s administration that would establish a “legally enforceable standard” to ensure the United States gets halfway to net-zero emissions by 2030. However, a Green New Deal fact sheet published by Ocasio-Cortez’s office argued that the United States “must” fully achieve net-zero emissions by 2030 to ward off global catastrophe.

The plan would be financed via a “fully paid-for $1.5 trillion investment” generated by “structural changes to the tax code that ensure corporations and the wealthiest among us pay their fair share.” There is no explicit mention of a carbon tax, although the plan itself isn’t very explicit about anything. Nuclear energy, for example, is never mentioned. The plan simply proposes to “accelerate the scale up of nascent technologies enabling reductions in greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors, through efficiency and alternatives.”

What about the remaining $3.5 trillion? That’s not entirely clear. The additional funds would be “mobilized” and “directly leveraged” by the new tax revenue, and funneled through “proven existing financial institutions” such as the Rural Utility Service, as well as “a new dedicated finance authority, which will have on its board not only the brightest minds in finance but also members of the unions that would help build this infrastructure.”

The plan’s lack of specifics with respect to its true cost is politically expedient, given that most Americans are unwilling to spend even $10 per month to combat climate change, according to a recent poll.

Through a combination of executive action and legislation, O’Rourke pledges to achieve his ambitious goal by “unlocking technological breakthroughs,” “supporting regional hubs of expertise,” “catalyzing partnerships with private and philanthropic capital,” “[boosting] the diversity of the leaders whose businesses form the supply chain for climate change solutions.”

Indeed, the text of O’Rourke’s plan is littered with the vague, snazzy jargon typically found in neoliberal think tank proposals, “woke” corporate press releases, and Silicon Valley mission statements.  This paragraph, for example:

Innovation that will lead to pioneering solutions in energy, water, agriculture, industry, and mobility and to scientific discovery that makes us more safe and secure. $250 billion in direct resources that will catalyze follow-on private investment, creation of new businesses, and discovery of new science.

Apart from a bullet point pledging to “Re-enter the Paris Agreement and lead the negotiations for an even more ambitious global plan for 2030 and beyond,” there is little explanation of how the plan would address the far more significant challenge of limiting carbon emissions outside the United States, which only accounts for about 15 percent of global emission (and falling). ​