Democrats' Green New Deal is compared to Mao's Great Leap Forward

The United States Congress will soon debate a non-binding resolution introduced by fundamentalist Democrats Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey to adopt their so-called Green New Deal. "More like the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we going to pay for it? And, like, this is the war -- this is our World War II,” is how Rep. Ocasio-Cortez framed the urgency for the U.S. to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas by 2030. Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell announced he is bringing the resolution to a vote.

The Plan outlines the transition of the U.S. economy to become greenhouse gas emissions neutral and to significantly draw down greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and oceans. The Plan states it will be “executed in no longer than 10 years from the start of execution of such Plan; (d) provide opportunities for high income work, entrepreneurship and cooperative and public ownership; and (e) additionally, be responsive to, and in accordance with, the goals and guidelines relating to social, economic, racial, regional and gender-based justice and equality.”

Like the Green New Deal, the Great Leap Forward would “guarantee economic security... Like the Green New Deal, the Great Leap Forward would answer the question of “what will we do with our new shared prosperity.” Government would collect and distribute wheat, rice, and industrial products across the country, taking care that everyone’s needs were met, discouraging overconsumption and hoarding. Wealth inequality would fall. China would not be “a system that allows billionaires to exist” side-by-side with rural poverty.

Unfortunately — but predictably — the Great Leap Forward failed. Steel production did increase. But China’s factories focused on government-imposed production quotas: they delivered quantity instead of quality. Chinese steel was too brittle for industrial purposes. Much went unused. China’s farms were collectivized. But with farm labor being diverted to factories and private trade being banned, land went fallow. Yields dropped. Bureaucrats collected the harvest, but failed to move it where it was needed. Grain rotted in silos while several Holocausts worth of people starved to death.

China suffered until the government reversed itself.
— Lew Olowski, who likened the Plan to Mao Zedong's Great Leap Forward in poor, agrarian China through government mandate to create an industrialized country.

Fossil fuels currently account for 80 percent of American energy consumption. The Green New Deal would entail a profound and rapid “decarbonization” of the energy economy to alternative fuels, which would require a complete transformation of the country over to a centrally planned government, well beyond the scope of what was done in the Communist China or the Soviet Union. The proposal aims to transform the U.S. economy to combat climate change and promises a job to “all people of the United States”, including money to those “unwilling to work”. The plan calls for phasing out air travel within a decade to be replaced by a network of high-speed rails. Cows, as the released document acknowledges, have flatulence, so they must be totally eliminated from the earth and meat from the U.S. diet.

Not all Democrats support the Plan, drafted upon a profound ignorance of basic economic concepts. Senator Joe Manchin said, “The Green New Deal is a dream, it’s not a deal. It’s a dream. And that’s fine. People should have dreams in the perfect world what they’d like to see. I’ve got to work in realities and I’ve got to work in the practical, what I have in front of me.” In his interview with news anchor Chris Cuomo, he continued, “And you have to understand also that climate -- we talk about global climate, it’s the globe. It’s not North American climate, it’s not the United States’ climate. It’s the globe. How do we bring on China and India and everybody else who are great users of carbon right now and polluters of carbon to be carbon-free also?” Earlier this month, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was dismissive about the Green New Deal. “It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive,” Pelosi said in an interview with Politico, “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it right?

Decarbonization would mean reversing the historical transition from less dense to more dense energy sources and has already been demonstrated unrealistic contrasted with renewable energy. Rapid decarbonization assumes all economic sectors and services can be electrified and that electricity can be delivered by intermittent renewable energy sources. These technologies, especially affordable grid-scale electricity storage, do not exist, particularly when it comes to transportation, where the high energy density of oil products makes them the ideal source of motive power. In Germany, the costs of transition from coal and nuclear energy to wind and solar plants has already exceeded USD $1 trillion, with only modest reductions in greenhouse gas emissions.

If the environmental fundamentalists were genuinely concerned with doomsday projections regarding the climate, they should look to China, which is the world’s biggest physical polluter, creating more than twice the amount of carbon into the atmosphere than the U.S., and dumps almost as much non-degradable plastic into the oceans as the rest of the world’s combined.

Despite history in the twentieth century offers countless examples of the failure of government economic regulation, industrial planning, and central planning of the economy, an August Gallup poll revealed that 57 percent of Democrats said they held a positive view of socialism, compared with just 47 percent who support capitalism. A new Fox News poll that gauged support for capitalism versus socialism revealed that capitalism was preferred among all those polled, however, more Democrats (43 percent) had a favorable view of socialism than an unfavorable view (39 percent). According to the poll, 50 percent of self-identified liberals, 43 percent of Clinton voters, and 36 percent of people under the age of 30 had a favorable view of socialism.

Larry Kudlow, Director of the U.S. National Economic Council, pointed out on ‘America’s Newsroom’, “You’ve got all these...people talking about socialism all of a sudden. I think that right now your poll is showing that working folks want to embrace capitalism not some state-run, state-controlled socialism that will set our economy back a hundred years or more.” He continued, "This crazy [New Green Deal] plan is going to cost a fortune. You’re going to roll back one of the most important things that has contributed to this recovery and that is President Trump ended the war on business and he ended the war on success.’” President Trump is expected to warn of “the dangers of socialism” in a speech he plans to deliver this week in support of Venezuelan opposition leader and interim President Juan Guaido.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said she has no qualms about acknowledging the New Green Deal will mean unprecedented governmental intrusion into the private sector. “As you know, congresswoman, one reason that people are politically conservative are skeptical of efforts to combat climate change is that it sounds to them like it requires massive government intervention, which they just don’t like,” NPR’s Steve Inskeep asked her in an interview, “Are you prepared to put on that table that, ‘Yes actually they’re right, what this requires is massive government intervention’?

Rep. Ocasio-Cortez quickly replied, “It does, it does, yeah, I have no problem saying that. Why? Because we have tried their approach for 40 years. For 40 years we have tried to let the private sector take care of this. They said, ‘We got this, we can do this, the forces of the market are going to force us to innovate.’ Except for the fact that there’s a little thing in economics called externalities. And what that means is that a corporation can dump pollution in the river and they don’t have to pay, but taxpayers have to pay.

The Plan naively assumes that all that needs to be done is for government to “finance” these projects through huge increases in taxes, borrowing, and printing money, and that such infusions of money will enable the government to “pay” for all of these new projects. Rep. Ocasio-Cortez said, “Yeah, I think the first move we need to do is kind of break the mistaken idea that taxes pay for 100 percent of government expenditure. It’s just not how government expenditure works. We can recoup costs, but oftentimes you look at, for example, the GOP tax cut which I think was an irresponsible use of government expenditure, but government projects are often financed by a combination of taxes, deficit spending and other kinds of investments, you know, bonds and so on.