X

Sign Up To Our Free Newsletter

Join Now

Thanks for subscribing to our free newsletter!

ERROR

CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 74-89% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.

  • 3 minutes Texas forced to have rolling brown outs. Not from downed power line , but because the wind energy turbines are frozen.
  • 7 minutes Scientists Warn That Filling The Sahara With Solar Panels Is A Bad Idea
  • 11 minutes United States LNG Exports Reach Third Place
  • 15 minutes Joe Biden's Presidency
  • 3 hours IS SAUDI ARABIA SENDING A MESSAGE TO BIDEN
  • 1 day America Makes Plans to Produce Needed Rare Earth Minerals Domestically
  • 8 hours Texas forced to have rolling black outs, primarily because of large declines in output from fossil fuel power plants
  • 1 day U.S. Presidential Elections Status - Electoral Votes
  • 3 days Former BP Exec "Biden not in war against oil" . . Really ?
  • 3 days Here we go - again: plug-in hybrids cost motorists more than what they were told
  • 3 days Texas Supply Chain Massacre
  • 1 day Top Conservative Lawyer Says Trump Can Stand Trial
  • 1 day “Cushing Oil Inventories Are Soaring Again” By Tsvetana Paraskova
  • 3 days An exciting development in EV Aviation: Volocopter
Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham

Nick Cunningham is an independent journalist, covering oil and gas, energy and environmental policy, and international politics. He is based in Portland, Oregon. 

More Info

Premium Content

The ‘Shocking Details’ Of The Green New Deal

The long-awaited Green New Deal was unveiled in Washington on Thursday, laying down a marker for 2020 and beyond.

If you haven’t heard of the Green New Deal, you probably live under a rock. The highly-anticipated policy proposal, spearheaded by freshman Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14) and Senator Ed Markey (MA), calls for a World War II-style or Apollo program (pick your historical analogy) mobilization to transition the U.S. economy off of fossil fuels.

The Green New Deal has floated around in the past, particularly during the financial crisis over a decade ago, but was really revived as a major concept by environmental groups and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez in recent months. While any legislation cannot pass the current Congress, given Republican control over the Senate and Donald Trump in the White House, it is now very much a litmus test for aspiring Democratic candidates for president in the 2020 election.

As such, its contents are important, given that one of these candidates could occupy the White House in two years.

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey finally unveiled a resolution on February 7, sketching out the framework of future legislation. The bill was necessarily done in broad strokes for several reasons. The Democrats have to wait until 2021 at the earliest before trying to pass something. Keeping everyone on board, at this stage, requires some finessing, leaving some difficult decisions for later. And, of course, detailing the nitty gritty of a complete transformation of America’s energy system will take time.

So, what’s in it? The Green New Deal legislation lays out several key principles, calling for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions, the creation of millions of jobs through public investment, an overhaul of U.S. infrastructure, clean air and water, and justice for frontline communities during this transition. Related: China Faces An Uphill Battle For Energy Independence

More specifically, it calls for a 10-year program of “national mobilization,” which will achieve 100 percent of U.S. power demand from clean, renewable and zero-emissions energy sources. It calls for building energy efficient, distributed, and “smart” power grids. Existing buildings will see an overhaul while new buildings are intended to achieve “maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability,” and the like. The GND also calls for “massive growth in clean manufacturing.”

“Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem that climate change presents to us, our country, our world,” Ocasio-Cortez said on NPR’s Morning Edition.

For now, the GND did not specifically call for a carbon tax, and perhaps more notably, it avoided explicitly calling for the end of fossil fuel development. Still, the goal is to dramatically slash, if not end, the consumption of oil, gas and coal for U.S. energy use.

So far, the concept is popular. A December poll asked people if they supported a proposal to generate 100 percent of U.S. electricity from clean sources within ten years. About 92 percent of Democrats supported the idea, but surprisingly, a very large 64 percent of Republicans also supported it.

Of course, it’s easy to support a vague aspiration and the devil will be in the details. The legislation will surely lose support, particularly from Republicans, when push comes to shove in the months and years ahead. Related: Oil And Gas In Spotlight At State Of The Union

But for now, all of the major Democratic candidates for President have endorsed the concept. The point of laying out the framework right now in a congressional resolution, even if it goes nowhere, is to put some more meat on the bones and, crucially, to put the Democratic candidates on record.

It’s easy for the candidates to nod their heads in agreement to an abstract Green New Deal, but with strong ideas now down on paper, they have to decide whether or not to maintain their support with a clearer vision. As the candidates try to distinguish themselves in the Democratic primary, the pressure will be on them to continue to endorse the GND.

So, what does all of that mean? The upshot is that with President Trump’s poll numbers in negative territory, whichever candidate emerges from the Democratic primary will have a decent shot at winning the presidency. If that occurs, they will be on record having supported the GND, and will most likely push for some version of it in 2021.

That means that oil and gas companies, having enjoyed a deregulatory bonanza under Trump, could see rougher waters ahead. But with the climate debate getting momentum, that pressure is not going away, no matter what happens with the Green New Deal.

By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

More Top Reads from Oilprice.com:


Download The Free Oilprice App Today

Back to homepage





Leave a comment
  • Louis Spring on February 07 2019 said:
    Talk about not thinking something through. Say goodbye to plastics, fertilizer and air travel for starters. Say goodbye moving heavy loads by rail or truck. No, when sober minds actually start to think about this they will understand the United States economy would implode due to a lack of energy, a lack of food and millions upon millions unemployed. Those who don’t understand that oil and natural gas are not replaceable in so many products are dangerous making decisions they know nothing about.
  • JD Alexander on February 08 2019 said:
    Even Pelosi who’s wacko is starting to separate from AOC. AOC was elected due to identity politics. Not on actual political ideology and I’m fairly certain she’s controlled opposition to draw attention away from an increasingly steady push to mass migration.
  • Lee James on February 09 2019 said:
    Green New Deal is where partisan interests turn to command and control by government. Some of the goals are good, but it grows government.

    An alternative is to look to our marketplace to do the work -- but consumers need to see the full cost of burning fossil fuel. Include the cost of pollution in the cost of fuel, where the fuel first enters our economy. A revenue-neutral price on carbon , for example, would provide an up-front price signal to consumers, but without a long term tax burden since revenue is returned to households wither as a tax swap or a so-called dividend check.

    We need to find bipartisan or non-partisan ways of getting stuff done in D.C.
  • abinico warez on February 09 2019 said:
    I hope they don't consider nuclear as clean energy - considering deadly wastes have to be baby sat for 250,000 years makes nuclear the filthiest choice.
  • Bill Simpson on February 10 2019 said:
    Never pass a Senate owned by oil and gas billionaires, and a few hundred other billionaires, who control who gets elected in enough states to run the government like they want.
    Since the 'Citizens United' Supreme Court decision, big money will control D.C. for decades to come, unless we have another Great Depression. Then all bets are off and anything can happen, including a dictatorship of the left, right, or even a civil war.
    Oh, I forgot to mention that the US Senate is full of millionaires who will protect the status quo. They don't want to change ANYTHING, since they are doing just fine, thank you very much.
  • A Boyles on October 20 2019 said:
    While moving toward a less intensive carbon future is a noble goal, it will take many decades to implement a well designed and documented plan to transition to newer methods of producing and harnessing energy. What drives me crazy is the reactionary, left wing environmental extremeists who demand instant solutions to issues that have been developing since the industrial revolution. This is not sane, not rational. The transitional approach has to minimize the negative impacts to the oil and gas industry and give them a chance to implement solutions that are much less carbon intensive. This is abaolutely poasible. But it will take 50 to 100 years, not weeks.

Leave a comment




Oilprice - The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News