When Obama, several weeks before the ’08 election, spoke of ‘fundamentally transforming’ the U.S., could any of us have possibly imagined that his real goal would be to lower the U.S. standard of living to that of…Mexico?

Via WSJ:

California Gov. Jerry Brown has a vision: When it comes to greenhouse-gas emissions, he wants his fellow Californians to emulate North Koreans. Meanwhile, many of Mr. Brown’s fellow Democrats—including President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders—will settle for putting Americans on a par with residents of Mexico.

That’s the essence of the climate-change agenda of America’s most prominent Democrats. They have pledged to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050, (aka 80 by 50). Their plan will take those emissions to levels that are common today in countries far poorer than the U.S.

Earlier this month, by a margin of two votes, the California Assembly rejected SB 32, a bill that would have required the state to achieve 80 by 50. Pushing this bill was the state’s Democratic leadership, including Gov. Brown, Senate President Kevin de León, and the state’s U.S. senators, Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein. President Obama has repeatedly endorsed 80 by 50. In early 2009, he said he was setting “a goal for our nation that we will reduce our carbon pollution by more than 80 percent by 2050.”

With the exception of Virginia’s former Sen. Jim Webb, all of the candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president have called for 80 by 50. Mrs. Clinton endorsed 80 by 50 during her first run for the White House. In 2013, Mr. Sanders joined Ms. Boxer to introduce an 80-by-50 bill. In 2014, Martin O’Malley issued an executive order while governor of Maryland endorsing 80 by 50.

All of this overlooks an essential question: What would 80 by 50 mean for individuals?

…those future Californians will be asked to emit less carbon dioxide than do current residents of North Korea. In 2012, according to the IEA, the average North Korean was responsible for 1.83 tons of carbon dioxide. Per capita GDP in North Korea: $1,800 a year.

Achieving 80 by 50 on a national basis will be similarly painful….

In short, America’s highest-profile Democrats, including the leading contenders for the White House, have endorsed a climate agenda that will cost far more than ObamaCare. Yet not one of them or their green allies have provided a credible plan—meaning one that doesn’t include lots of nuclear energy—for achieving such draconian reductions without wrecking the economy. These Democrats can’t provide a scenario for achieving 80 by 50—a plan that is affordable and technically viable—for a simple reason: Such a scenario doesn’t exist.

This section is for comments from tammybruce.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
7 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. MACVEL says:

    Do environmentalists hate people? That would explain a great many things.

  2. Piquerish says:

    Of course it will lower our standard of living, hopefully — for our lib betters — by quite a bit. That would force more people to seek government assistance. That would lead sooner or later to dependence. You see, government dependence means government control. Government Control is the Second Pillar of the Religion of Liberalism. Liberalism is a religion. Its liturgy is Perversion. Its commandment is Control. Its sacrament is Abortion. Its hell is Bureaucracy.

  3. strider says:

    Do they curl up in the fetal position and rock back and forth while “planning?”

  4. Cathode Rays says:

    How come every-time a politician has a vision, it turns into a nightmare for us?

    Liberals HATE energy. Abundant cheap energy, along with inventions to use it, make people independent and prosperous. Gosh, the people become surly, not wanting liberal politicians to tell them what to do, except a few mal-contents with hallucinations. What to do?

    Lost on history, it was abundant cheap energy and the inventions to use it that made slavery uneconomical. Persons or organizations normally get credit for banning slavery sooner, but it was discoveries and inventions that *eventually* made it uneconomical.

    So liberals want to bring back the conditions of slavery.

  5. ancientwrrior says:

    This Utopian idea might work if the peeps emitting all that horrid emissions, were culled by 80%. Their elite peers DO NOT COUNT. The social upper crust always maintains their higher standards. After all, wasn’t it stated that all animals were equal? But some are more equal than others. This has always been the case throughout world history, the fiefdoms of the Kingly elite with their serfs to serve them.

  6. Maynard says:

    First of all, I would love to have a 100% renewable zero-carbon economy. It would be a good thing, and we’ve got to get there sooner or later, since non-renewables run down. But the devil is in the details. As a practical matter, these fools merely end up depleting the public treasury and filling the pockets of political cronies at Solyndra, Range Fuels, A123 Battery, Tesla, Archer Daniels Midland (corn for ethanol!), whatever. The politicians take photos of themselves at groundbreakings, and we pour our money down unproductive rat holes.

    In reducing carbon emissions, these advocates should, if they were honest, go after consumption. Under the plans we hear, we’re credited with saving CO2 if we shut down a local steel mill and instead import steel from China. But all we’re doing is shifting emissions, and also shifting money and jobs. Could it be that those bastards actually want us to go broke, or maybe even get nuked by Iran, because that’s the only way to shut us down? Sad to say, I think that’s the case.

You must be logged in to post a comment.