Try 3 months for $3

U.S. Rep. Mark Pocan, D-Black Earth, who co-signed the Green New Deal legislation, speaks March 15 to students at a rally in support of the proposal in Madison.

The NCAA basketball tournament has featured close games, upsets and blowouts. No tourney game featured a score of 57-0.

Those numbers were reserved for a Senate procedural vote on the “Green New Deal” resolution introduced Feb. 7 by Sen. Edward Markey, D-Mass., and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. Three Democrats voted against the measure, while 43 senators, including Wisconsin’s Tammy Baldwin, voted “present,” essentially meaning they didn’t want to go on record supporting the untenable plan. When an opportunity arose to move it forward, they ran for cover.

The Green New Deal is a socialist fantasy on steroids. Governmental control run amok. It invents ways to spend money that don’t exist.

Critics are challenged to know where to begin to analyze the monstrous proposal because of its unrealistic ideas. Attempts to put a price tag on the proposal baffle most, because no one can count that high, and calculators run out of zeros. It has been lampooned in a tremendous amount of prime-time coverage.

As has been widely reported, some features of the proposal include all electric power to be generated from clean, renewable sources while eliminating nuclear power and primarily relying on wind and solar power in 10 years. Can anyone calculate how many wind turbines would be needed? Solar panels? How much land?

As for solar panels, an Ars Technica story in February 2018 cited a United States National Renewable Energy Laboratory study that calculated the aggregate roof area on the nation’s buildings suitable for solar panels at about 8 billion square meters, or 90 billion square feet. They estimated such coverage would produce about 40 percent of the nation’s electricity needs. How much glass — made from sand, lime and soda — would we need for 90 billion square feet of glass for solar panels?

Economist Milton Friedman once quipped, “Put the government in charge of the Sahara Desert and in five years you’d have a shortage of sand.” Perhaps Friedman knew about the Green New Deal.

Even the renewable power industry doesn’t think it can happen. A March 21 Reuters story stated “representatives of America’s clean energy companies are withholding their support for the climate-fighting plan, calling it unrealistic and too politically divisive for an industry keen to grow in both red and blue states.”

Imagine the number of birds fried or blinded by solar panels or getting skewered by wind turbines. If every possible roof was covered in solar panels, it would mess up airplanes as well, but air travel won’t be needed with the Green New Deal. The buffoonery of having that statement on the frequently asked questions regarding the proposal was quickly taken down but doesn’t change the fact the statement made it through the edit review process. Perhaps no one read the proposal.

A group called American Action Forum released an attempt at a price tag Feb. 25, stating the housing goal of the proposal would be “providing all Americans ‘affordable, safe, and adequate housing,’” and an “overarching goal to build or retrofit housing to maximize energy efficiency.”

This essentially means every home and building in America would need to meet strict energy efficiency standards, so we would need to retrofit millions of buildings, and rebuild millions more. There are about 150 million residential homes in America, and millions more commercial buildings. The AAF study is woefully short in its estimate of retrofitting or rebuilding every home in America.

Spending $50,000 to retrofit 75 million homes, and an average of $200,000 to rebuild 75 million more is almost $20 trillion. Add in commercial buildings and that figure more than doubles.

Who’s going to do the work? With free college for every American, who’s going to choose the skilled trades? How much wood, steel, gypsum, glass and other materials would be needed to rebuild every building in America? How do we dispose of all the junk homes, and the 300 million gas-powered cars made obsolete?

From the AAF study, the Green New Deal also “guarantees union jobs with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security to all people of the United States.”

This presumes everyone will be happy with their allotted share. The entirety of human history begs to differ. Socialism doesn’t work because greed doesn’t magically disappear.

Climate change alarmists talk about rising sea levels, looking at major ice sheets in Greenland shrinking as a cause, but a March 25 New York Post story states the Jacobshavn Ice Sheet in Greenland has grown the past two years.

The Green New Deal is perhaps one of those lofty ideas bantered about in a faculty lounge, without any actual reality considered. The Green New Deal is so ludicrous, it’s a proposal not ready for prime time.

Scott Frostman lives in Baraboo and has roots throughout Wisconsin. He believes anyone can make a difference and can be reached at

(0) comments

Welcome to the discussion.

We welcome reader interaction. What are your questions about this article? Do you have an idea to share? Please stick to the topic and maintain a respectful attitude toward other participants. (You can help: Use the 'Report' link to let us know of off-topic or offensive posts.)