The Unfortunate Reality of the Dreamy Green New Deal

Climate ChangeGregory Wrightstone
Geologist and author of
“Inconvenient Facts”



Utopian statists and dreamy true believers have latched onto the ludicrous notion of green new deal without a moment’s thought to the costs and implications.

My wife and I are proud of our daughter, who is a full-time stay-at-home mom taking care of our nearly two-year-old granddaughter.  She is able to devote herself 100% to the little darling because her husband Todd has a high-paying job as lead engineer on a crew working in the oil fields of West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio.  It is hard work, with him away from the family for extended periods, but it has allowed them to focus on their daughter and purchase a home.

Todd will be losing his job in the not too distant future if the proposed Green New Deal (GND) is enacted into law.  This proposal has been embraced as a serious alternative to the energy status quo by many left-leaning Democrats on Capitol Hill.  It requires a transition away from non-renewable energy sources (no nuclear) to technologies such as wind turbines, solar cells, tidal power, and geothermal energy.  This transition is mandated to occur by 2030.

Green New Deal

Full enactment of this policy will destroy most of the fossil fuel industry and eliminate my son-in-law’s job along with the jobs of at least 4 million other people directly or indirectly employed in the business of providing coal, oil, and natural gas to America.  In fact, the text of the GND states that there will be 3.9 million jobs displaced in the conventional energy sector by this bill.

Not to worry: According to the proposal, 3.9 million new jobs will be created in a booming business of renewable energy construction while converting the nation to “clean” power sources.  And that is only from employment in electric generation sector.

According to the proposal, going 100% to “clean” energy will require “replacing non-essential means of transportation” with modern mass transit.  The GND anticipates that a transition to a “comprehensive national mass transit program” will mean many new jobs available in that sector.  With a commercial driving license already in hand, a new job as a bus driver would be a logical choice for Todd.

Complicating employment opportunities for the newly unemployed energy workers like Todd will be an influx of ex-military personnel looking for work, owing to the mandated 50% reduction in military spending and closure of most bases around the world.  With no need to fight wars for oil, the thinking goes, there is no need for robust military forces, so a goodly percentage of the current 1.3 million active-duty military and many more in support roles will be beating the pavement, looking for a job.

If the anticipated increase in employment in the new clean energy economy doesn’t pan out, Todd can be comforted by knowing he will not be jobless for long, because the Green New Deal will “end unemployment in America once and for all by guaranteeing a job at a living wage for every American willing and able to work.”

Plus, if he wants to go back to college to study sustainable development, economic justice, or one of the other majors that are likely to be in demand, the plan will provide that to him through “a tuition-free, quality, federally funded” college education.  On top of that, he would get the benefit of having the remainder of his current college loans forgiven.

Any of the new job possibilities makes it likely that Todd would see a significant decrease in income and require our daughter to return to work if the two want to keep their home.  Fortunately for them, the proposal includes a ban on all home foreclosures and enables a restructuring of their home loan that would be financed by a new federal bank.  If they do have to sell their home to make ends meet, they can rely on Green New Deal guarantees of affordable housing at a cost of no more than 25% of their income.

Of course, the proposed new carbon taxes and increase in energy costs due to reliance on more expensive “clean” energy will make nearly all goods costlier and add to their new financial burdens.  Some relief would come to them, because their newly reduced income would not be subject to a new higher tax rate of 70% that Todd would have paid if he still had his old job.

Life will surely be more difficult for Todd and our daughter with approval of the Green New Deal, but, after all, one needs to make sacrifices in order to make no difference whatsoever in the climate.

Note: Gregory Wrightstone is a geologist who has been investigating the Earth’s processes for more than 35 years. He is author of “Inconvenient Facts: The science that Al Gore doesn’t want you to know,” sits on the Advisory Board of the Heartland Institute and is a Contributing Writer for the Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation.

Editor’s Note: Greg’s piece illustrates the elitism of the Green New Deal and similar schemes that would enrich corporatist investors in uneconomical renewables, empower wannabe autocrats and destroy the middle class. The Green New Deal is a recipe for a Yellow Jacket uprising here at home.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

8 thoughts on “The Unfortunate Reality of the Dreamy Green New Deal

  1. It is highly improbable that the “Green New Deal” can come anywhere near accomplishing its goal by 2030 and if it did, there would be an economic disaster, making the US the weakest developed nation on earth at a great disadvantage compared to China and Russia. Is this really what the “Greens” want?

    • It is most definitely what the puppet masters lurking in the background are striving to achieve.

      The sooner a wide swath of the American public recognizes the end results sought by the Useful and Useless Idiots promoting this crap, the sooner a more prosperous country may be had for the betterment of all.

      Great piece by Mr. Wrightstone.

      He was the individual who originally shone the light on the Upper Devonian potential a few years back.

  2. This article is as useless as the dribble written about the so-called “Deep Green Revolution” that was supposed to end civilization as we know it. The Green Party that is responsible for this is a sliver of splinter group party. Just because a few newly elected Representatives come spouting word and number salad with no specifics at all, doesn’t mean anything will happen. Just because Wrightstone wants to create a straw man argument and a sob story doesn’t mean we have to take him seriously either.

    Wrightstone is also a writer for the religious Cornwall Alliance, which in its “An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming” cites “Intelligent Design” as a reason for Climate Change denial.

    The recently disgraced former EPA director, Scott Pruitt, was also a member of this group and used the Alliance’s rationale to deregulate coal.

    The Jacobson Plan that is the basis for all of these other plans, like McKibben,, etc., was supposed to be done by 2050. It was criticized from the beginning as being too optimistic and based on faulty assumptions, like Howarth’s absurd estimates of methane leakage. Do you think that a similar plan with a snappy name, dubious funding and more impossible deadlines will pan out just because someone earnestly wishes it would?

    The real problem is that those Representatives making all that fuss in the House, were elected. If you can’t win elections, you don’t get to suggest, let alone, make policy. It is time to make natural gas a stand alone economic and environmental issue based on what it can do for where its natural customers are, in cities and suburbs.

    • Mark,

      I don’t think you’re being fair to Greg. Your comment that “Just because a few newly elected Representatives come spouting word and number salad with no specifics at all, doesn’t mean anything will happen,” is contradicted by the fact Cuomo has immediately jumped on the demagoguery, attempted to outdo it and implement it as state policy. It’s happening as we write and while we have made the arguments you suggest ad infinitum, city voters elected AOC, didn’t they? I’m for doing what you suggest but I also recognize you can’t beat or convince the other side with but facts or logic, either. Their outrageous tactics and lies must be confronted and reality has to be explained. I think Greg did that very nicely by making it personal.

      • Of course I disagree with you that I was too hard of Mr. Wrightstone and about Cuomo. As you said “Cuomo …attempted to implement it as state policy”, but other than blocking gas development two elections ago, he has precious little to show for all his policy and plans. Remember it was Ms. Nixon challenging him in the primaries, as Zephyr Teachout did previously, for not producing enough environmental change that prompted his new plans. He is a craven politician to be sure, but natural gas supporters seem incapable of putting any political pressure on him. You haven’t been able to sell natural gas as an energy solution to people that use it in their homes.

        And what have been the results of eight years of his grand plans: Solar produces 1.4% and wind adds about another 4%. Closing the Indian Point nuclear plant will eliminate 10% of the state total electric production and his solution is to buy power from Quebec; yet another triumph for domestic renewables. Plans are useless if they can’t deliver.

        We’ve wasted three election cycles in NY and there is Wrightstone wasting time about what might be maybe if the looniest plan yet ever worked. Why not some more real facts about how their plans, all of them, have failed to deliver and the dangers of inducing an energy crisis by restricting gas?

        • This is the last sentence of paragraph one in Mark Dye’s diatribe: ” You haven’t been able to sell natural gas as an energy solution to people that use it in their homes.” This makes no sense whatsoever. Thus, one can conclude that also pertains to the rest of his ramblings.

          • Many people use natural gas, LPG, propane, etc. because it is supplied by their municipality or landlord. The Park Foundation in Ithaca uses piped in gas in their headquarters in Ithaca. Mr. Shepstone has used pictures in past articles to document this. Yet when it comes to using natural gas to solve the problem of increased power usage, decommissioned nuclear plants and virtually non-existent renewables, we haven’t convinced them that gas pipelines and CHP gas turbines are clean and efficient solutions.

            Now wander down to my third paragraph and then to today’s post about the impending crisis in NY and New England. We have to convince people that gas is in their self-interest on terms that relate directly to them. Shepstone’s article is infinitely more useful Wrightstone’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *