ECONOMIST: Green New Deal’s Elimination of Fossil Fuels is ‘Delusion’

‘They shouldn’t underestimate the resistance they are going to face as energy prices rise year after year…’

Top Environmentalist Groups Aren’t Backing Ocasio-Cortez’s ‘Green New Deal’

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez/IMAGE: screenshot via Twitter

(Michael Barnes, Liberty Headlines) Scientists and economists are among those calling out socialist Democrat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s New Green Deal for being totally unrealistic and economically illiterate.

Canadian economist Robert Lyman is one of them.

In a newly released paper published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation, Lyman takes on one of the Green New Deal’s chief climate change goals — the elimination of all fossil fuels in next 10 years.

Common sense points to the ridiculous nature of the proposal, but in rigorous fashion Lyman lays out the economic and technological constraints on delivering “decarbonization,” or a serious reduction in the global reliance on carbon-based fossil fuels.

The most obvious real-world concern, he says, is that something has to replace fossil fuels as a leading source of global energy.

On that, Ocasio-Cortez and others — whether they are climate change alarmists and political opportunists — are silent. Or, perhaps genuinely ignorant.

While renewable energy like solar and wind power is often touted as a necessary replacement, it’s simply not going to do the job, Lyman says. At least, not anytime soon with available technology.

“To show that rapid decarbonisation is possible, you have to show that the technologies work at scale, that they are reliable and affordable and don’t damage the environment, and that they can be deployed on the timescales envisaged. Advocates of renewables simply don’t even try to do this,” he said.

Lyman also points out in his paper, titled “Transition To Reality: The Prospects For Rapid Global Decarbonization,” that past energy transitions have occurred over long periods of time.

Much longer than any period proposed by politicians or media alarmists clamoring for widespread and immediate renewable energy use.

It’s not only unrealistic, says Lyman, but attempting to do so would cause energy prices to skyrocket and could easily lead to civil unrest.

“They might be able to move things along slightly faster by rigging markets in favor of their favored technologies, but they shouldn’t underestimate the resistance they are going to face as energy prices rise year after year,” he said.

“The gilets jaunes are a clear warning,” Lyman added, referring to the yellow vest protestors and months’ long violent riots across France.

The gilet jaunes movement erupted last fall when French President Emmanuel Macron instituted a vast energy tax to meet the country’s carbon emissions commitment under the Paris Climate Accord. The result was a massive spike in fossil fuel prices.

That led to high heating and transportation costs for the poor and elderly, lost jobs and an economic downturn.

Eventually, more than 8,000 police were deployed throughout the capital city of Paris to battle enraged yellow vest blue-collar workers.

The paper states that “anyone can dream about what the future may hold,” but getting there requires a “return to energy policies grounded in reality.”

“None of the steps in the innovation pathway — research, discovery, testing, demonstration, initial market development or widespread commercialization — operates according to a fixed or predictable schedule. Governments that seek to impose their policy preferences on the outcomes will face perhaps insurmountable obstacles,” Lyman concluded.