Green “Real” Deal?

Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz introduced his Green Real Deal, a supposed “conservative” version of the Green New Deal. But when you look at the plans side by side, they look a lot more like siblings than rivals. In the end, GND and GRD would both do absolutely nothing to solve the “climate emergency” created by people who want power and a slice of the trillions of dollars that it will cost to make it all go away.

Read Transcript

You’ve heard of the Green New Deal. Clear Energy Alliance has 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 produces electricity only about 25 to 30 percent 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 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.

Subscribe to Our Channel

Get notified when we release a new video by subscribing to our YouTube Channel.