Ooh, the socialism boogieman is here. Scary!

This essay, hosted by a libertarian economic think-tank, would have you believe that the 1950s US - when the maximum tax rate was 80-90% - was socialism incarnate.

"Those changes [for 100% renewable energy] are going to come with real costs."

No shit, Sherlock. Now, how much will the costs be if we don't switch to 100% renewable energy? How much will it cost to protect US cities against rising sea water? How much will it cost to shift agriculture around? Etc.

"about $5.2 trillion over 20 years.”

1) Editorial for Investor’s Business Daily? Pick your cherries just the way you like them. 2) So, the cost of 5 Iraq wars. Or about 25% more expensive than WWII. Amazing what you can do if you have high taxes on the richest people.

Oh, and quoting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/100%25_renewable_energy : "It is estimated that the world will spend an extra $8 trillion over the next 25 years to prolong the use of non-renewable resources."

"newfound energy renaissance"

Referencing "The Heritage Foundation", a conservative think tank? Share that yummy cherry pie in an echo chamber!

It quotes the reference Republican document as saying:

"Scientists doubt it would be achievable by 2050, let alone 2029, the deadline Democrats would set."

The linked-to paper says a "rapid, reliable, and low-cost transition to entire energy systems that relies almost exclusively on wind, solar, and hydroelectric power" is not likely.

Note that it does not say that an expensive transition is not possible. I haven't been able to figure out what "low-cost" is supposed to mean.

"While progressives have long been focused on green extremist policies"

Malarky. There's a long way before the progressive policies deserve the label "extremist".

Does the US have a carbon tax, like most large and industrialized nations? No. Is the price of gas $8+/gallon like much of Europe? No. As a reminder, Denmark is already aiming for 100% renewable power and heat by 2035, and 100% renewable energy in all sectors by 2050.

Minor point: the plan isn't to be done by "2029" but "10 years from the start of execution of the Plan", with the draft legislation ready by 2020, meaning by 2030.

Continuing: "In fact, the plan outright dismisses attempts to “incentivize the private sector” toward greener policies as “simply inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas-neutral economy as quickly as needed.”"

Umm, that's because those attempts have proven to be simply inadequate.

The private sector was also inadequate about dealing with the Great Depression. Which is kinda the point about equating the Green New Deal with FDR's policies.

"Among the liberal wish list items included, the Green New Deal contains a proposal for universal health care"

Yay!

"Of course, this will all come with an immense cost."

You mean the one where the US government funding of health care already exceeds that of just about every other health care system, for mediocre public health? It's almost as if switching to single payer would save us money.

"The Green New Deal would require the US to massively expand this already-bloated budget that is burying us in debt."

That argument can be used to object to any US spending. Yet the same organization does not use it to object to US military spending, saying only that "war and overall defense spending have not driven US federal deficits since 9/11. They have contributed, just as a thousand other policies have." https://fee.org/articles/guns-or-butter-it-s-time-to-be-hone...

Note the mention of $7.9 trillion in "war-related spending ... over the next several decades". That's significantly more than the $5.2 trillion price tag rejected above.

It's as if they only pull out that argument for things they don't like. And if we have 100% renewable energy, we don't have to be bosom buddies with the Saudis and their wars, because we won't depend on their oil. Savings!

"an American version of a Soviet-style five-year plan focused on command-and-control economic solutions that have proven to fail the world over"

That's just boring name calling. They even quoted the Green New Deal proponents as saying "the same ways that we paid for the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs, the same ways we paid for World War II and many other wars" -- by the logic given, US funding of WWII was a failed project!

"for implementing far-left socialism"

... No. That's middle-of-the-road social democracy.

"who can deceive a generation"

As a reminder, US politicians and the moneyed class have deceived three generations of Americans about what "socialism" really means. This is part of the same deception.

"revive ideas that should have been left in the ash heap of history"

Again, most of these proposals are mainstream ideas in other countries. They are not in the ash heap of history.