Swing-state households would lose at least $70G within first year of Green New Deal, study finds

All the democrat presidential candidates seem to be getting on board with the green new deal and when you add that to their support for free healthcare for illegals it almost looks like they are purposely setting out to destroy the American economy.

"Radically transforming energy consumption under the "Green New Deal" (GND) would cost the average household at least $70,000 in the first year of its rollout, and a cool quarter-million dollars total after five years, a new study concluded.

The study, released jointly by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Power the Future on Tuesday, looked at a wide swath of data to estimate how transforming the energy sector -- which includes de-carbonizing transportation and retrofitting U.S. commercial and residential buildings -- would affect the average household in five representative states.

Within the first year of implementing the program, the average household in each of the given states (Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania) would incur at least $70,000 in expenses -- followed by roughly $45,000 in annual expenses for each of the following 2-5 years and over $37,000 after that time frame."

"Like other studies of the Green New Deal, CEI's cautioned that its findings likely underestimated the program's actual costs."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/green-new-deal-swing-state-households-would-lose-70g-first-year.amp

 

Maybe Pelosi will call $70k "crumbs"

 

LOL! If you want to scare people at least use somewhat realistic numbers. For 70 grand, one can get a EV, plus the solar panels to power it ONCE, not every year.

You can lie about the green new dealers predicting end of the world in 12 years (which they didn't) or lie about the potential costs. Lies are still lies and will come back to bite you.

 

It's not about what consumers are forced to buy it's about what the policies of the green new deal will do to household income.

 

Clickbait OP!

That load of bovine excrement is typical FAUXNOISE fearmongering drivel that appeals to their gullible viewers.

 

So it's this study's claim (and yours) that the average household would pay $70,000 - despite the fact that the average household income is $59,000 - and you didn't think this might be a questionable study?

Really?

 

I am going to get the liberal response in first.
1. Orange man bad!
2. Trump Putin Russia Collusion!
3. Trump Racist!

 

You left out OAC triggers Righties like no one else.

 

$70K?

It sounds like it would work as intended ... a giant redistribution of wealth.

But I’m not sure how that combats global warming.

 

This a fake news Fox report

 

AOC (Bernie) will just print more money and redistribute wealth. Everyone's median income will increase to whatever. Yea!

 

Of course it is.

It is Fake News (just like Comedy Sites, like Breitbart, Etc.) Clickbait.

^Which comprises over 90% of the RW "content" at PF.

Anyway, as to the OP Topic:

Any Swing State Voter who seriously wants Trump gone, won't even care about the Dem's position on the GND.

^Sorry to break that to Faux News.

 

Which shows it's a completely unrealistic plan doesn't it. The money for it isn't even there.

 

You forgot fake news.

 

Fake News!

 

This fake news too? Have any alternative cist estimates to submit?

• The proposed expansion of renewables to provide 100% of the nation’s power needs would, according to respected physicist Christopher Clark, cost about $2.0 trillion or approximately $200 billion a year for ten years.
• The Deal’s desire to build a “smart power grid” for the entire country, would, according to the Electric Power Institute, cost some $400 billion or $40 billion a year for ten years.
• According to several sources, AOC’s aspiration to “draw down greenhouse gases” would cost upwards of $11 trillion or about $110 billion a year for ten years.
• The Deal’s goal to upgrade every home and industrial building in the country to state-of-the-art safety and energy efficiency would run some $2.5 trillion over ten years or about $250 billion a year. This figure may well understate. Consider that there are 136 million dwellings in the United States. An upgrade of each would conservatively cost $10,000 a unit on average or near $1.4 trillion, and this does not even include the industrial and commercial structures. Nor does it include upkeep.
• The Green New Deal also aspires to provide jobs guarantees at a “living wage.” A government assessment of a similar proposal by Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ) puts the cost of such a program at $543 billion in its first year. Though the costs thereafter would fall, the cumulative expense over ten years would come to some $2.5 trillion.
• The goal of developing a universal, single payer health-care system would, according to an MIT-Amherst study of a similar plan put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), come to about $1.4 trillion a year.

"That is a hefty price tag, considerably more than the estimated $700 billion a year that would emerge from AOC’s proposal to raise the maximum tax rate to 70%. To her credit, she has admitted as much, indicating that her “plan” would also require more debt and “printing money” as well."
https://www.forbes.com/sites/milton...new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/#50694e6f3dec

 

The OP is nonsense

As shown above, the numbers don't add up.

 

The numbers add up to more than the average family income which shows how unrealistic the plan is and I notice you couldn't find alternative numbers. Lowest estimates I can find are around 50k per household.

 

If people were capable of making such responsible choices, and had the means, that's exactly what everyone would do.

I am a rational individual, and also have the means, and as such have made the monumental investment to move towards having a positive environmental impact based with my existence.

20% of US fossil fuel consumption is in putting food on the table. To eliminate that would require a substantial amount of environmental clean up, millions of individuals choosing agriculture as a profession, and more specifically them being afforded much more valuable real estate in urban centers.

For home efficiency, I bought a fixer upper very representative of the average US housing stock 4 years ago. On energy efficiency alone, such as insulation, mechanical upgrades, new windows and the like, I've spent over $40,000.

 

The fake news rebuttal is wrong because the numbers are wrong.

 

Well to be fair if you had your nose up someones ass for that long you would have trouble with numbers too.

 

Even questioning it is racist

 

Oh, that's not only racist but bigoted. It's also not very PC.

 

It's clear BS. 70,000 per household would be $8.5 trillion, more than a third of US annual GDP. Clearly, this is not possible. So, more conservative propaganda to scare people and imply renewable energy is bad.

 

Good for you. We'd all be better off if people would actually spend money to improve their lives and reduce energy consumption instead of mindless consumption on stuff they don't need.