People have heard a lot about Democratic Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal, from its elimination of carbon emissions to its universal healthcare implementation, to its push to eliminate fossil fuel usage. What they have not yet heard, is just how much the proposal would cost them.
The climate-supporting measure seeks to eliminate fossil fuel usage by providing Americans with just-as-effective alternatives and would be paying a steep cost to do so.
The American Action Forum, a conservative think tank, said the new deal is costly, very costly…up to $93 trillion over the next decade.
That is no typo. As the Washington Examiner reports, the think tank said the Green New Deal’s elimination of carbon emissions alone would cost between $8.3 trillion and $12.3 trillion.
As the Washington Examiner reports, the think tank’s analysis “estimates a federal job guarantee proposed in the resolution would cost $6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion. Universal healthcare, another component of the Green New Deal resolution, would cost $36 trillion over 10 years, the report found.”
“The Green New Deal is clearly very expensive,” the American Action Forum concluded in the report, the Hill reports. “It’s further expansion of the federal government’s role in some of the most basic decisions of daily life, however, would likely have a more lasting and damaging impact than its enormous price tag.”
And, from the Washington Examiner:
Barrasso said government policy to combat climate change should emphasize promoting innovation through investments in new technologies like advanced nuclear power and carbon capture on fossil fuels plants.
But supporters of the Green New Deal say those targeted investments are insufficient. Sponsors of the resolution also said the American Action Forum report is intentionally misleading. That’s because sponsors intended the Green New Deal to be a broad vision to combat climate change, with details to be filled in later through various pieces of legislation after debate through relevant congressional committees.
Democrat Senator Ed Markey, who is leading the Green New Deal push in the Senate, tweeted that the analysis was “lazy” and included “artificially inflated numbers.”
“Another example, the $5.4 trillion it estimates to transition our electric grid comes seemingly from thin air, as NO SOURCES are documented for their generation cost assumptions,” Markey said in another tweet.
Should the $93 trillion figure be right, or close to it, Fox News reports that is approximately $600,000 per household in America.
The jobs guarantee element of the Green New Deal alone would “likely run somewhere between $6.8 trillion to $44.6 trillion, or approximately $49,000 to $322,000 per household.”
According to Fox News, Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris went a step further and—rather than dispute the enormous figure—said the high cost should not be a frightening factor. She said, “it’s not about a cost” but the return on investment.
Note: The author of this article has included commentary that expresses an opinion and analysis of the facts.
In her remarks Sunday, Harris suggested that the return on investment from the Green New Deal would make the project worthwhile, despite a high initial cost.
“One of the things that I admire and respect is, the measurement that is captured in three letters: ROI,” Harris told CNN’s John King. “What’s the return on investment? People in the private sector understand this really well. It’s not about a cost. It’s about an investment. And then the question should be, is it worth the cost in terms of the investment potential? Are we going to get back more than we put in?”
But, the study found that total savings would pale in comparison to the prohibitive price tag of the sweeping proposal.