Green “Real” Deal?

Green “Real” Deal?

You’ve heard of the Green New
Deal. Clear Energy Alliance produced a six part series
on AOC’s ignorant and destructive ideas about energy. But have
you heard about the Green “Real” Deal? Since this plan was put
out by a Republican Congressman, you’d think it would be a lot
different than the magical non-thinking of Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez. But, GND and GRD look a lot more like siblings
than rivals. For starters, both GND and GRD begin with
the same goal—to lessen the threat of climate change by
lowering greenhouse gases. We at CEA aren’t all that concerned
about CO2 emissions, so neither plan to spend trillions of your
dollars makes any sense to us. Nonetheless, let’s just concentrate
on what the Green “Real” Deal claims it wants to do. Just like the
Green New Deal, the Green Real Deal imagines that the biggest
part of the solution to climate change is a lot more wind
turbines and solar panels. But, if GRD’s author, Matt Gaetz
of Florida, had checked the data on this he would
have discovered something pretty important. Adding 3, 4, 5, even
10 times the amount of electricity we get from wind and solar
would have no measurable impact on global temperatures. Like AOC,
Gatez ignores the fact that the vast majority of future emissions
will be coming from China, India, and the rest of the developing
world. You could completely eliminate all emissions from
the US and the impact would be negligible. The Green Real Deal
does say we need more nuclear power, which is different than GND. Nuclear
provides reliable electricity 24/7 so it’s a lot better than wind
and solar that actually produce electricity only about 25 to 30%
of the time. But, nuclear is substantially more expensive than
natural gas and coal. GRD wants to utilize carbon capture storage.
If you care about reducing global carbon dioxide emissions, this is
another one of those all cost and virtually no benefit ideas. Just
like GND, GRD wants to subsidize the upgrading of homes and
businesses to be more energy efficient. Where’s all this money
going to come from to pay for these upgrades? It won’t be free.
All of us will ultimately be paying more in taxes. A lot more.
Here’s one sentence in the Green Real Deal that we find
particularly offensive. “To reduce and modernize regulations
to speed deployment of clean energy technologies nationwide and
worldwide, and to affirm that government should not pick
winners and losers. What?! That’s a complete contradiction.
Government is going to favor the deployment of energy technologies
it determines are “clean” but it should not pick winners
and losers? Come on. One of biggest issues we have
with the so-called Green Real Deal is there isn’t much that’s
actually real. It’s a lot of fluff and puff. The resolution
includes vapid words such as “empower,” and it misuses other
words like “investment” and “opportunity” when it should be
using the words “spending” and “sacrifice.” In the end, we
find that it doesn’t matter if it’s GND or GRD. Both
resolutions are based on a faulty premise. Each will do
absolutely nothing to solve a supposed emergency created by
people who want a slice of the trillions of dollars
that it will take to make it go away. For the Clear Energy Alliance,
I’m Mark Mathis. Power On.

7 thoughts on “Green “Real” Deal?

  1. Politicians should welcome anyone adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere because it is nontoxic, invisible, odorless, and powers all plant and animal life on Earth. Adding more CO2 has no impact on climate; it only makes our crops and trees grow faster and more resistant to drought. The world is already greener than it was 30 years ago because we have added CO2 to our atmosphere. All that carbon in fossil fuels came out of our atmosphere, and as Earth is getting very old we need to put some back to improve plant productivity. By long term historic standards, current atmospheric CO2 levels are very low, just .04%, which means it is a trace gas. See Greening of the Earth and its drivers at
    Also see New Climate Discovery at
    As far as a "climate emergency" goes, see ACUUWeather's tearing apart the television media's constant propaganda trying to portray ordinary summer heat waves as the end of the world.
    It's not the end of the world, only the end of media honesty and sanity.

  2. I'm so glad you address this, when I saw Matt Gaetz speak about this stupid thing I was horrified that such an intelligent man, at least I always thought he was, would be trotting out this malarkey. People need to be standing up and saying this is garbage, not making these conciliatory "Oh we should think about this, and we should maybe do that just in case we might be wrong," ideas. NO! It's a false premise! Just say so!

  3. Actually the Emissions of the US have a big Impact. Even the small Germany by herself makes about 0,5°C difference globally.

  4. Just because a Republican thought of it (more like he stole the idea) doesn't mean it'll work! The Green Real Deal is just as stupid as the Green New Deal…

    How pathetic….

  5. There was this guy, a Democrat I think, who had a much better and much cheaper idea. Plant a bunch of new trees to absorb the CO2. The trees would not only absorb the CO2 as they grew, but it would beautify many places, by adding greenery, and increase the value of communities….

Leave a Reply

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