The WSJ and the GND

The editors of the Wall Street Journal call for a rollcall floor vote on the proposed “Green New Deal” legislation forthwith:

President Obama’s Clean Power Plan looks modest by comparison. The 10-year Green New Deal calls for generating 100% of power from renewables and removing greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and transportation—to the extent these goals are “technologically feasible.” Hint: They’re not.

The plan also calls for “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort and durability, including through electrification.” That’s all existing buildings, comrade.

Millions of jobs would have to be destroyed en route to this brave new green world, but not to worry. The resolution says the government would also guarantee “a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.” Good that they’re starting small.

Sorry to mention unhappy reality, but renewable sources currently make up only 17% of U.S. electric-power generation despite enormous federal and state subsidies. Wind and solar energy have become more competitive over the last decade as costs have plunged. But without subsidies, solar costs remain about 20% higher than natural gas while offshore wind is two-thirds more expensive. The bigger problem is solar and wind don’t provide reliable power, so backup plants that burn fossil fuels are required to run on stand-by.

I presume that the editors are counting on the GND being legislation to argue about rather than to pass. Don’t propose anything like that unless you already know the outcome.

My advice: be careful what you wish for. What will the dog do with the car if he catches it?

This is another case in which I think that mandatory performance metrics are of tremendous importance. If the program doesn’t result in a net decrease in carbon emissions, it’s a zero. Fun fact: after transportation and power generation the third largest source of carbon emissions in the U. S. is the production of cement. There are on the order of 150 million buildings in the United States. rehabbing and retrofitting all of them will end up producing a lot of greenhouse gases. If you accept the assumptions of the GND, unless we reduce net emissions there is no long term so arguing that the massive building project will ultimately result in decreases is moot. If you reject the assumptions of the GND, there is no need for a crash program.

Here’s another issue. We don’t have enough power engineers to replace the present power grid completely and it takes time to train new ones. You can’t just retrain computer designers or programmers to do the job. Power engineering is a specialty of its own. Over time they could be trained but, again, if the assumptions of the GND are correct there isn’t enough time.