Just as medieval alchemists believed they could convert base metals into gold, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., believes she can save the planet by radically altering our lifestyle. Science proved alchemy a hoax then; science is proving Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal (GND) to be a hoax today.
In answer to the GND’s goal of “100% of national power demand through renewable sources,” 626 environmental groups sent a letter to Congress indicating their support.
A Scientific American blog observed that “With so many voices in the GND debate, one that is conspicuously silent is the voice of the scientific community.”
There’s a good reason for that: The Green New Deal and science have almost nothing in common. Here are a few examples.
The GND calls for 100% reliance on renewable energy sources such as wind and solar within 12 years.
According to the scientific community, the problem with relying on renewable energy is its unreliability. The sun doesn’t always shine; the wind doesn’t always blow. Therefore, renewable sources require a means to store energy during off-production periods. That means batteries.
Physicist Mark P. Mills, a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a faculty fellow at Northwestern University’s McCormick School of Engineering and Applied Science observed that the total annual production of Tesla, the world’s largest manufacturer of batteries, could store a mere three minutes of the country’s energy needs.
“Thus, in order to fabricate a quantity of batteries to store two days’ worth of U.S. electricity demand would require 1,000 years of Gigafactory production,” Mills said.
In comparison, power companies typically store several months’ worth of energy in the form of oil or natural gas at any given time.
The GND proposes to replace all internal combustion engine-powered automobiles with electric. Proponents of electric vehicles say they’re cleaner for the environment by not using fossil fuels such as gasoline or diesel, which leave a carbon footprint.
However, they ignore that the source of energy used to charge the vehicles depends entirely upon the local electric utility. If it’s a coal-fired plant, the electric vehicle becomes a coal-fired vehicle.
Even the environmental group Greenpeace observed that the mere manufacture of a modern electric vehicle has environmental consequences.
“An electric-powered Tesla Model S, at about 2240 kilograms of steel, plastics, metals and rubber, produces the CO2 equivalent of about 60,000 kilometers of driving a conventional vehicle – three to four years of typical driving and fossil fuel burning – before it is purchased,” its report said.
In addition, like renewable energy plants, electric vehicles rely on batteries, which the Swedish Energy Agency described as “eco-villains” due to their emission of tons of carbon dioxide during their manufacture.
Finally, scientific studies by Arthur D. Little (ADL) and the Norwegian University of Science and Technology concluded that electric vehicles are environmentally more toxic to both manufacture and operate than conventional gasoline-powered vehicles.
The GND calls for replacing nuclear plants with renewable sources, according to a statement from Ocasio-Cortez that says, "the plan is to transition off of nuclear."
Nuclear is more reliable and less expensive than wind and solar, and most of all it’s clean. For that last reason the U.K.’s Union of Concerned Scientists published a report asking that nuclear plants remain open — in order to combat climate change.
Nuclear got a bad rap after incidents at Russia’s Chernobyl, Japans Fukushima and, to a lesser extent, Three-Mile Island in the United States.
Such fears are misplaced, according to James Meigs, former Popular Mechanics editor, who observed that, “More people have died falling off roofs installing solar panels than in the entire history of nuclear power in the U.S.”
Energy Efficient Buildings
The GND proposes to replace or retrofit every building in the United States within 12 years to make them more energy efficient.
Apart from the prohibitive cost of replacing or retrofitting every structure, it’s also not very effective at reducing carbon emissions, according to a recent Australian National University study, led by ANU economics professor David Stern.
“This implies that policies to encourage cost-reducing energy efficiency innovation are not likely to significantly reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions,” the study said.
Despite the GND’s lack of a scientific basis, Ocasio-Cortez is still peddling the nonsense with a video description of a new future. No doubt because of its lack of a scientific basis, she doesn’t follow her own hype, as popular conservative commentator Alice Beth Stuckey observed.
"This is from the girl who admittedly uses Uber instead of public transportation, air travel instead of buses & plastic bags instead of reusable ones," she tweeted. "Either she doesn’t care about the people she says will die in 12 years, or it isn’t true."
According to science, it’s all poppycock.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He’s also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports - Click Here.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.