The New Republic asked the stupidest question of the month, so far.
— The New Republic (@newrepublic) July 7, 2018
Why are they asking this?
In a political environment where even her fellow Democrats often stay vague on climate change, Ocasio-Cortez has been specific and blunt in talking about the global warming crisis. She also has a plan to fight that crisis—one to transition the United States to a 100-percent renewable energy system by 2035.
To achieve this ambitious goal, she has proposed implementing what she calls a “Green New Deal,” a Franklin Delano Roosevelt–like plan to spur “the investment of trillions of dollars and the creation of millions of high-wage jobs,” according to her official website. “The Green New Deal we are proposing will be similar in scale to the mobilization efforts seen in World War II or the Marshall Plan,” she told HuffPost last week. “We must again invest in the development, manufacturing, deployment, and distribution of energy, but this time green energy.”
“Green energy” is the most expensive kind of energy there is.
Of course there are cheaper alternatives to fossil fuels, like hydroelectric dams or nuclear reactors, but those never get classified as green.
No, she wants wind and solar, which is incredibly inefficient.
She wants to spend a trillion dollars to create a power grid that won’t meet demands and will cost people 10 times as much or more per kilowatt hour.
The one thing socialists are good is is destroying the economy.
Venezuela went from the richest country in South America to destitution because it has so socialized its oil industry it can’t make a profit on oil at competitive prices.
In America, with the total amount of food that we produce and export, destroying our energy market will result in a famine of global consequence.
So perhaps The New Republic is right that Ocasio-Cortez may save the world, if you consider it from the radical environmentalist perspective that the world is over populated by a billion or so people.