Resolved: The Green New Deal is neither green, nor new, nor a deal

I.a The Green New Deal, officially, is a resolution introduced in Congress as H.Res 109 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on 02/07/2019,[1] and unofficially as a white paper presented under the banner of the Green Party US.[2] The aim of the Green New Deal [hereafter, GND] has the overarching goal to “[transition] our country to 100% clean energy by 2030. Clean energy does not include natural gas, biomass, nuclear power or the oxymoron ‘clean coal.’”[3]  Oxymoron, is it? Let's just recall that, currently, coal is the energy product use of greatest percentage in the world. That may be oxymoronic to some, but for many, it is their sole source of energy, because no one, not even greenies, want windmills in their backyards. [4] Also note that the above quote does not include other fossil fuel, into which coal is sometimes absorbed, but is definitively petroleum products. For that, one must read on… “The implementation of the [GND] will revive the economy, turn the tide on climate change, and make wars for oil obsolete. This latter result, in turn, enables a 50% cut in the military budget, since maintaining bases all over the world to safeguard fossil fuel supplies and routes of transportation could o longer be justified.”[5]

I.a.1 The last quote in I.a will be noted for its lack of sourcing for any of the claims made in the quote relative to the benefits of the GND, and we’ll address that fly in another round. For now, the benefits listed are unfounded bloviating, and remain such until cited. I will not bother to do so for the Green Party; let it speak for itself.

I.a.2 However, in the meantime, let’s identify another fly in the soup: The “clean energy” sources of the GND, and its respective current contribution of total energy worldwide consists of wind [5%], solar [2%], hydro [16%], and geothermal [1%], or a current grand total of clean contributed energy of 24% [whereas, coal is 38%, oil is 3%, natural gas is 23%, nuclear is 10%, and biomass is 3%, for a grand total of 77% -- I note a mismatch in total numbers since 24 + 77 is 101%, so the data is off by one, but it is what the source says].

I.a.2.A Therefore, less than one quarter of the world’s current energy production is “clean energy,” which is supposed to increase to 100% within ten years. It is, frankly, an aggressive goal considering the speed at which “clean energy,” or “renewable energy,” as it is also known, has grown to date. According to a history track of renewable energy, waterwheels were developed 200 B.C.E. Windmills, 1590. Solar energy, 1860. Windmills, 2nd edition, 1887. Commercial wind turbines, 1927. Hoover Dam [hydro], 1935.[7] A trend is evident. We’ve been developing renewable energy sources for the past 2,000 years, and we have achieved 24% of our energy production in this group of renewable sources, and it is seriously proposed that we will conclude the remaining 76% within ten years? Pardon my skepticism.

I.b Another fly in the soup: All those clean energy turbines of wind, hydro, geothermal around the world, spinning their little heads into oblivion, and all the solar panel arrays, depend on… what, to lubricate those moving parts, and all those plastic fabricated parts?  Count all those turbines and panels [not to mention electric cars, while we’re at it]. Go ahead. Count them. I know you won’t. They all are fabricated and lubricated using… AlGoreGooeyJuice? Nope. He’s not invented that stuff, yet, and likely will not by 2030. So, what is used? Petroleum, my dear readers. Black crude. Black gold. By whatever moniker you want to call it, no clean energy turbine will spin, no solar panel will collect, and no electric car will leave the driveway without good, old crude as one of the ingredients of your renewable energy, or by whatever moniker you want to hang on that. And, guess what? Petroleum has two other essential properties: it is organic, and it is, therefore, renewable for as long as organic material continues to be produced and reproduced on the planet.

I.c With all the foregoing, can the GND really be called “Green?” I submit that it cannot be so called. Call it something else if it all uses black crude to generate watt number one. Without it, all that energy comes, literally, to a grinding halt. And there, so do I for round 1.

• No carbon dioxide emissions
  
• They're cheaper
  
• They're sustainable
  
• They're far more environmentally friendly that fossil fuels.
  

.a My opponent began by defining these three terms, which I did not think required defining, as all three are simple words. More to the point, the three words are really a single concept, not three separate words. The Green New Deal [hereafter GND] is not a construct of “tending to preserve environmental quality as being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting”[from Con round 1 “Definitions”], but rather: “will convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. It seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.”[1]   I will trust the authors of the GND far more than my opponent, who chose his definition of the single words; specifically, “green” as definition 8c of Merriam-Webster.  Unfortunately, the authors of the GND consider “green” as inseparable from a “sustainable economy that is environmentally sound [as Con alleges], but also is “economically viable and socially responsible.”[2]

 

I.b I reject Con’s truncated definition and insist upon the authors of the GND to bear the burden, and Con’s BoP, of their full definition. 

 

I.c Further, the resolution, H-Res 109, states as much.

II.a Con declared, “The Burden of Proof is on my opponent. He must prove that the Green New Deal is neither green, nor new, nor a deal. If he fails to prove, or I disprove one of these statements, he fails to fulfill his side of the BoP. For example, if I successfully prove that the GND is green, then I win. It does not matter if my opponent proves the two other contentions, I still win.”

 

 To wit,that he is not responsible for BoP of the authors’ secondary and tertiary words, “new,” and “deal,” since these added words are to be considered in light of “green” as a cohesive, multiple-word idea, and because I made them the root of the debate proposal. I bear the responsibility of BoP to demonstrate the whole string, “Green New Deal” as being “neither Green, nor New, nor a Deal.” As it is the proposal in full, it is not to Con’s discretion to ignore two-thirds of the proposal as if it was not there. By all means, he may do so, but I suggest it is at the peril of losing the debate. 

III.a Con's declaration that the recent Green Party US publication[3] does not relate to H-Res 109[4] is in total denial of both documents. I quote from the Green Party publication: “It  [GND] seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.”[5]  Quote from H-Res 109: “Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States—(1) by impacting the economic, environmental, and social stability of countries and communities around the world;”  

III.b Another fly my opponent rejects is that my argument that 77% of the world's energy is by sources that are not “green,” and asks, “How does that matter in the context of the debate?” It matters because a non-binding resolution [H-Res 109] is not going to motivate energy producers to eliminate that 77% of production to align with a group of energy sources that have required 2,000 of “progress” to achieve 24% of the world’s energy production and augment it by anther three-quarters in ten years.

III.b.1 What will that cost? The answer depends on to whom one listens, because [I conclude] no one knows for sure. A Republican think tank estimated $93 trillion. [7] That is probably excessive. However, the President of the American Action Forum [AAF] estimates $50 to $90 trillion.[8] Bernie Sanders, a former presidential candidate [twice] and supporter of the GND, estimated $16 trillion,[9] with a significant change that is slightly more reasonable in scope: to eliminate fossils fuels by 2050, and by “reaching 100 percent renewable energy for electricity and transportation by no later than 2030.”[10]   So, how much energy is consumed for those two purposes? The answer, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, is 65.3%. That’s an improvement on the demand of the GND, itself, which would require augmenting current “clean energy” production by another 77% in ten years. But, Sanders is in the ballpark at 65% in the same ten years. That’s not a great condition on which to sway the opinion from “The Green New Deal is neither green, nor new, nor a deal.” Relative to deals, the Progressives of the Democrat Party would be hard pressed to call a Republican proposal to, for example, do nothing on current healthcare, in the face of Democrat proposals to realize Medicare for all, which would cost an estimated $53 trillion over ten years,[11] the near low-ball of AAF’s $50 trillion for GND. So, where’s the “Deal” of a proposal that is, on average, more than twice the current national debt that has taken 185 years [1835 – the last time the U.S. public debt was zero][12] to spend?

 

” It matters because a non-binding resolution [H-Res 109] is not going to motivate energy producers to eliminate that 77% of production to align with a group of energy sources that have required 2,000 of “progress” to achieve 24% of the world’s energy production and augment it by anther three-quarters in ten years.

IV.a With three rounds yet to go [although this is my second round], my opponent declares I have “failed to fulfill [my]side of the BoP.”  Well, thank you very much for forfeiting my side of the debate; I guess I’m done. May I suggest Con forfeit the rest of his rounds; he appears to be done, as well. O, that victory was so easily won. Sorry, the exo-reality is what is done. As my cherished band of the 60s never said, I do not “fire all of [my] guns at once and explode into space.” I don’t know why I must keep repeating this refrain to my opponents. One round does not a debate make unless I make it so when I initiate. I never have. Voters will judge on all four rounds, thank you. My BoP is allowed to extend that far, thank you. Let’s not be about premature efactulation.

IV.b As to wind turbines, my opponent declares they have “no carbon dioxide emissions.” Wrong. Even lubricating oils emit CO2[13]. However, since at least 1991, oil re-refining has been a reality.[14] Even so, as this is recycled lubricating oil, it still emits CO2. These are not sealed systems. As a result, wind turbines are not wholly green energy sources, and will continue to lack that full moniker as long as no one invents AlGoreGooeyJuice.

 

IV.b.1 Con declares windmills are cheaper. Cheaper than current options. If that were truly so, and considering the GND deal of achieving “net-zero emissions” by the eradication of fossil fuel use by 2030, what are we waiting for? The fact is, fabricating, and operating a wind turbine farm is cheaper than an equivalent fossil fuel central power facility.[16] And yet, for a technology we’ve embraced since 1860 [my round 1, I.a.2.A], it represents only 5% of our total worldwide energy production.[17] More production capacity would surely be cheaper still, so, what is the occasionally Democrat-controlled Congress waiting for to initiate their GND? They last had an opportunity while the GND had been proposed[18] in the U.S. in 2010 to 2012. What is it we are not being told? What other costs, or other hidden agendas are there that prevent a wholesale conversion to this available, but somehow avoided energy resource?

 

IV.b.2 Con declares wind turbines are sustainable. Yes, they are, all the way to the point, in now less than nine years [to 2030] when fossil fuels are shut-off and, lacking AlGoreGooeyJuice, they all come grinding to a halt. Literally. That is, unless the Deal of the GND is violated by extension. Isn’t violating a deal a big deal? I assert by the obvious resistance to really sustain clean energy solutions by a concerted effort to replace petroleum-sourced lubricants and cheap fabricated parts currently based on petroleum with some legitimate AlGoreGooeyJuice that such technology is just not available at any cost, let alone a cheaper cost than petroleum product. These clean energy sources, sought for the last 2,000 years, do not appear to be on the horizon of ten years out to satisfy 100% of the world's energy demand. They are sustained only by the use of petroleum. That is not green, it certainly is not new [2,000 years?], and it apparently is not any deal anyone is making technically feasible.

 

IV.b.3 Con declares clean energy sources “are more environmentally friendly than fossil fuels.” Then my consistent argument stands: what are we waiting for to move the needle from a 24% use of these friendlier sources? If the science is “in,” if the cost investment would yield a respectable return, if the technology is really ready with full replacement of fossil material use as fuel, lubricant, and fabrication of component parts, what is the combination of factors preventing our conversion to this green new deal of clean energy? The will to do it? I honestly do not know the answer. All I know is that after 2,000 years of development, we are providing just 24% of the world’s energy needs by this green new deal. Even if only one of the factors is responsible for the delay, for which Con is desirous of limiting the debate, then let him demonstrate what these limiting factors are. That would be Burden of Proof met. Unfortunately, he is bound by the parameters, all three of them, as defined in this debate.

 

IV.b.4 In the meantime, I declare that the GND, by obvious lack of use at less than one quarter of the demand, worldwide, is not green, is not new, and is not a deal that anyone can demonstrate as effectively meeting 100% of our energy demand, thus realizing the goal of net zero. The proof Con must demonstrate is that in ten years, this paradigm will shift, as promised.

 

I Rebuttal: Small victories

 

I.a Con agued in round 2, “I will not ignore 2/3 of the resolution…” Yet, in round 1, Con said, “…if I successfully prove that the GND is green, then I win.”  I interpret this to mean he can ignore the other 2/3 of the debate proposal by proving only that the GND is green, whereas, the proposal is clearly a statement of the necessity of Con demonstrating [by BoP] that the GND is green, is new, and is a deal; meaning that the GND is environmentally aligned, the GND is a new concept, and that it is a deal being monetarily beneficial to all. The GND proposal of H-Res 109 stipulates the “deal” as economic benefit along with being environmentally sound, and a new concept of saving the planet: “(§1)(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;”[1]

 

I.b Con argued in his first round 2 objection that “I did not define all three words as a pack.”No, he did not. He defined each word separately, and then picked “green” as his only BoP. Unfortunately, as I argued in round 2,“the GND is not a construct of ‘tending to preserve environmental quality as being recyclable, biodegradable, or nonpolluting’ [from Con round 1 “Definitions”], but rather, it ‘will convert the old, gray economy into a new, sustainable economy that is environmentally sound, economically viable and socially responsible. It seeks to solve the climate crisis by combining quick action to get to net- zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy by 2030 along with an “Economic Bill of Rights” – the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing and free college education.’”[2] Thus is revealed why Con must also address the “new” and the “deal” of the GND, not just “green.”

• The listed options in the GND are all green
  
• The GND itself is new
  
• And that just because the GND is a bad deal, does not mean that it isn't a deal.