Accused of ‘making false promises,’ Ocasio-Cortez removes Green New Deal summary from website

February 8, 2019

Alongside Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey (D), democratic socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) released on Thursday the details of her radical “Green New Deal,” a non-binding congressional resolution that calls for the United States to “achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.”

But Ocasio-Cortez was forced to take an allegedly misleading summary document detailing her half-baked proposal offline after facing heavy backlash from experts, including one who accused her of “making false promises.”

Socialist pipe dream

The Democratic Green New Deal has been highly-anticipated, and even months before the resolution’s publication, progressive pundits devoted countless column inches to debating its efficacy. Insisting that the world is on the brink of a climate change cataclysm, no fewer than nine Senate co-sponsors and 60 House Democrats have endorsed Ocasio-Cortez’s environmental reform, including 5 Democrats who plan to run in the 2020 election.

As extremist as mainstream Democratic Party discourse has become in recent years, the resolution’s liberal co-sponsors probably weren’t willing to sign on to some of the radical proposals detailed in the Green New Deal’s now-deleted summary and FAQ. The legislative language of this 14-page document departed significantly from the actual resolution and touched on nuclear power, welfare programs, and “farting cows.”

“Frankly, it does a disservice to the debate,” said Jeremy Harrell, a policy director with the conservative environmentalist organization ClearPath.

Nuclear stand-off

Ocasio-Cortez’s staff furnished NPR with an advance copy of the summary, providing readers with an inside look at the document the congresswoman is now trying to hide. One of its most alarming segments explains how Democrats plan to completely “decommission every nuclear power plant within 10 years.”

“A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants,” the summary explains. “It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible.”

Destroying America’s nuclear energy capability isn’t just a brash and imprudent proposal, however — it’s also impossible to accomplish in the time frame that Ocasio-Cortez suggests. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission currently allows up to 60 years to fully decommission a plant, and a Reuters investigation concluded that the process can easily exceed $1 billion per facility and take decades to complete.

Harrell agrees with this assessment. “Realistically, you can’t decommission a nuclear plant in ten years,” he said. “She’s making false promises that aren’t even in the realm of the doable. She’s using this to push a liberal agenda.”

Moreover, according to the U.S. Energy Department’s Office of Nuclear Energy, “nuclear energy generates roughly 20 percent of America’s electricity while emitting zero greenhouse gases, making it by far the largest source of clean energy in the country.” As such, any demand for “net-zero” carbon emissions would be impossible without embracing this innovative energy sector.

“If they are not wanting newer technologies, and wanting only wind, solar and hydro, as the FAQs represent, that would be more problematic,” said energy expert Christopher Clack, the co-author of a comprehensive study on the feasibility of a 100 percent renewable grid. “However, that is not how the bill is written,” he noted; the plan that over 60 House Democrats and 5 presidential candidates have endorsed doesn’t include any proposals for eradicating America’s nuclear capabilities.

Party of science

Eventually, Ocasio-Cortez’s staff made changes to the FAQ to take out its anti-nuclear language. But as it became increasingly clear that the document suffered from additional false or misleading statements, the office decided to just scrap the summary altogether.

Fortunately, the internet is forever, and the New York socialist’s mistake-ridden version of the Green New Deal is still widely available for analysis. Examining the FAQ, NPR reported that the “ultimate goal is to stop using fossil fuels entirely…as well as to transition away from nuclear energy.”

To explain why the Green New Deal’s goal was for America to produce “net-zero emissions, rather than zero emissions,” the summary explained that “we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast” — but that won’t stop the radical socialist from trying. The Green New Deal FAQ proposed constructing “highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary” and completely phasing out the internal combustion engine.

And if Ocasio-Cortez’s personal insights into the Green New Deal aren’t frightening enough, she also summarized the proposal’s social and economic platform, which included the promise of “[e]conomic security to all who are unable or unwilling to work,” a pledge that was noticeably absent from the actual legislation. Ocasio-Cortez’s crack staff of environmentalists and socialist reformers also offered an ingenious method for saving the planet: her new deal summary twice proposed planting trees as a way to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

“We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective,” the FAQ explained, referring to carbon capture technology.

For his part, Harrell dismissed this elementary proposal. “Planting trees is not going to eliminate or reduce emissions from a variety of point sources. In the end, you need carbon capture and nuclear to meet emissions goals,” the energy expert surmised.

Democrats claim to enjoy a monopoly on the truth when it comes to climate change. The self-described party of science, led by a gaffe-prone socialist elite, plana to save the world by “plant[ing] a lot of trees.” That is, if all of those “farting cows” aren’t around to stop them.


Add your best email address below to start receiving news alerts.

Privacy Policy

Benjamin Baird

Benjamin Baird is a senior staff writer for the Conservative Institute. He is a veteran infantryman of Iraq and Afghanistan with over 1000 days in combat and holds a degree in Middle Eastern studies from the American Military University. Ben is Writing Fellow at the Middle East Forum and has written for dozens of conservative publications, including The Daily Caller, American Spectator, American Thinker, New English Review and Jewish News Syndicate.