Democratic presidential candidate Jay Inslee has unveiled a proposal to spend $9 trillion reducing carbon dioxide emissions to address climate change. Divided among America’s 120 million households, that’s sending a bill for nearly $100,000 to each U.S. household. Determined to one-up Inslee on Inslee’s
signature issue, candidate Kirsten Gillibrand this past week proposed a $10 trillion climate change plan. The Democratic candidates appear to be taking marching orders from socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who recently said any “effective” climate plan would have to spend at least $10 trillion.
Yes, that’s $100,000 per household. Payment due by 2030. If you don’t pay, the federal government will send a bill to your children and grandchildren.
That’s on top of all the government taxes and fees you already pay. And that’s on top of the trillions of dollars we have already spent attempting to address climate change.
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, the federal government handed over between $6 billion and $16 billion in source-specific direct subsidies to the renewable energy industry each and every year between 2010 and 2016. The total for that short period alone was nearly $100 billion. That is more than all conventional energy sources combined. And that is merely “source-specific” subsidies. That means renewable energy received additional subsidies that apply to all energy sources.
And that is just federal subsidies. State and local subsidies add more to the cost. So, too, do renewable power mandates in 29 states that require people to purchase a certain amount of renewable power – at higher prices than conventional power – as part of their electricity mix.
So add up all those existing subsidies and forced spending and Ocasio-Cortez/Inslee/Gillibrand say that is not enough. Tack on another $10 trillion – nearly $100,000 per U.S. household – on top of all that spending.
And, of course, additional spending and additional programs are sure to follow.
Venezuela, here we come.