The eco-focused website Grist was thrilled that socialist candidate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez beat out a 10-term Democratic congressman in New York. Because of climate change.
Her extreme environmental goals made meteorologist and climate alarmist Eric Holthaus positively twitterpaited.
“The shocking result virtually assures that the U.S. Congress will welcome its youngest female member ever next year,” he wrote. He added that the 28-year-old socialist, who won a Democratic primary in New York’s 14th congressional district has “already been referred to as the future of the Democratic party.”
Holthaus’s main reason for celebrating Ocasio-Cortez’ victory were her views on the danger of climate change and “ambitious” desire to see a carbon-free or better U.S. by 2035. He wrote that she’ll bring to Congress the “boldest climate platform of any representative in history.”
“Among her many progressive bona fides [which CNN reported include the ‘abolition of ICE,’ universal health care and a ‘federal jobs guarantee’], it’s really her plan for tackling climate change that deserves the most attention,” he proclaimed.
So what is that “plan” exactly?
Her campaign website stated that she “supports transitioning the United States to a carbon-free, 100% renewable energy system and fully modernized electrical grid by 2035.”
To get there she wants renewable fuels, electric vehicles, “sustainable home heating,” rooftop solar and the “conversion of the power grid to zero-emissions technology.”
That’s not a plan, those are ideals and goals — ones, Holthaus and other climate alarmists love to talk about attaining, but with little to no explanation of how on earth renewables can be ramped up to completely replace coal, oil and natural gas.
Ocasio-Cortez’ only indication of how it should be accomplished was in her call for a “Green New Deal” which she defined as “a transformation that implements structural changes to our political and financial systems in order to alter the trajectory of environment.” She then railed against the “big corporations” that control the economy.
Socialism has led to misery and poverty around the world, not industrial or human progress. Yet Grist promoted Ocasio-Cortez’ socialist vision to solve climate change. He credits her with being “one of the first American politicians” with a plan to “keep global warming below 1.5 degrees Celsius.”
Holthaus reported estimates that a 1.5 degree limit can only be attained by reducing emissions “75 to 125 percent or more — actually drawing carbon dioxide out of the air.” He also cited her remark to Huffington Post that it would require “the complete mobilization of the American workforce to combat climate change.”
What would that look like? With unemployment below 4 percent, there isn’t a ton of leeway in the current labor market.
Even if technology rapidly advances, it seems delusional to think that total carbon reduction could happen in less than 20 years. In 2017, renewables made up just 11 percent of the energy mix of the United States, according to the Energy Information Administration.
Of course, there was also no concern or mention of what it would cost (or who would pay), what unintended consequences could result or whether such a goal is necessary in the first place.