This is a Commentary on the "Green New Deal" posted on 2-20-19.  This will be best understood if you print out the "Green New Deal" and read the two side by side. 
"the actual text of The Green New Deal as proposed to Congress in H.Res. 109 on 7 Feb. 2019.  I copied it off the House web site this morning, so it's pretty fresh.  Even so it sort of reeks.  It closely approximates the Green New Deal as proposed in 2016 by the Green Party, only this is translated into legislative language, or as much as such a thing can be.  Please read it!

Just because I want to, the following comments are referenced to the text of the H.Res.  so you know exactly what I'm pointing out to you.  I agree this is a refutation of most of the document, but I do it because ... someone needs to!  For your amusement if nothing else.

1.  In the synopsis statement the H.Res. proclaims a governmental duty to create The Green New Deal.  Really?  A DUTY?  On whose planet?

2.  The H.Res. references "... the October 2018 report entitled "Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC" by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report ..." which are United Nations publications.  So, now US policy is to be based on UN reports that are dubious at best?   Really?

Understand the structure of a legislative resolution.  First there are a series of "Whereas" statements that are proffered as facts, followed by the "Resolved" statements which are the actual legislative proposals of the resolution.   If a resolution is approved it would serve as the basis for one or more legislative bills, which would then proceed in normal order through committees and eventually, if voted out, to the floor of the chamber for debate, markups, amendments and eventually to a vote.   So, this H.Res. is the opening gambit to a very long game of high-stakes legislative poker.   OBTW - there's a Senate resolution already registered.  The text of that resolution is identical to the one attached.

Now, let's get into the meat of the thing.

The first "Whereas" statement, has 4 major points - none of which are substantiated by facts or actual scientific proofs.  It's a hodgepodge of predictive statements posed as known facts, but almost all are the same old and tired scare tactics the "greenies" always have ponied up, and always will.   Note the references to two dates - 2030 and 2050.   Those are very important years!

The second "Whereas" statement presents as fact things that are not and cannot be known.  It also ignores a known fact - the US is the only major industrial nation to have met the emissions reductions goals of the Paris Climate Accord.  We'd met our assigned goals before the accord was even finalized.  Meanwhile, the two biggest known global polluters - China and India - don't have any goals assigned to them at all under the accord.   This "Whereas" is about as big an insult as insults can get.  It insults us all.

The third "Whereas" has 3 major points.  It's another hodgepodge, but in one respect it stands out for missing a great truth.  Most of the problems it cites are directly related to progressive political policies enacted since LBJ's time in office.  Then there's the truth that the inability or unwillingness of our government to confront decades of illegal immigration has been a great contributor to many negative aspects of our economy over that span of time.

The fourth "Whereas" reads just like what it is - a communist screed meant to point out the evil effects of capitalism.    It's meant to indicate how the greed of the capitalist "haves" has affected all the various communities of the "have nots."

The fifth "Whereas" dwells on climate change as a threat to national security.   It's a very "Obamaesque" statement.  It calls to mind when Obama addressed the graduating class at the US Coast Guard Academy and told them they would all be front-line warriors in the battle against global climate change.   It always amuses me when people whose main interest is the destruction of our nation pose as concerned about our national security.

The sixth "Whereas" contains an historical untruth.  Neither the policies of the New Deal nor mobilizations for WWII created the huge increase in America's middle class that was observed between 1947 and 1960.  That increase was fueled almost entirely by another government program - the original GI Bill.   The GI Bill facilitated two phenomenon needed to expand the middle class:  it greatly increased individual home ownership and college enrollment.  The original GI Bill was one of the few completely successful examples of federal paternalism.  Its effects were to reshape our nation and its culture.

The seventh "Whereas" is where you first read the goal statements of The Green New Deal as:  (1) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;  (2) to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and (3) to counteract systemic injustices.  Note the active verbs in those three statements:  create, provide, and counteract.   Think about them.  If those active verbs were:  promote, facilitate, and eliminate this might have me as more of a fan.  But, in the first two statements it appears the government is to be the primary agent for change, not the private sector.  And that third statement isn't really talking about injustices.  It's talking about progressive notions of fairness.  In today's progressive English the words "justice" and "fairness" are used interchangeably, even though the two philosophic concepts are very much different.

Next, we're off into the resolution language.  I just can't go on at this point.  The rest of the text just drives me a bit over the edge.   If you've ever studied Agenda 21 you will understand what you read in The Green New Deal.  It has pie-in-the-sky goals that sound good to tree-huggers, but aren't practical in any real sense.  They're utopian goals dreamed up by enviro-zealots who have adopted Mother Earth as their deity.  When subjected to a simple critical thinking exercise much of it tends to fall apart.   Just as an example, there is a goal to have only electrical power in the future.  Science informs us that if the US could maximize green technology to its limits we could provide between 25% and 35% of all the energy needs of our nation.  What happens to the rest?   What do we do about that?  Today that 65% to 75% would naturally be made up by our current energy production, but the green future will have us shut all that down.  Recent data indicates services to buildings in our nation consume just under 40% of the total energy used each year.  That alone should inform us that maximizing renewable energy sources to the limit can't possibly aid in accomplishing any of the other goals stated in The Green New Deal.  Or, maybe it does.   Let's see!

Let's assume that it's now 2030 and we've achieved that threshold 25% of need production level.  That year government policy dictates that we will only be allowed to use renewable energy sources and electric power.  How could we do that?  Maybe the first way is to legislate all building heat in the country come from some sort of passive system.  That eliminates virtually all of that demand from the just less than 40%.  Now, if we further legislate that all building cooling must also be provided by some nearly 100% passive source, then we've eliminated yet another few percentages.  We still wouldn't get to the 25% bogey we're looking for, but we're moving in the right direction.  We could legislate that every single outdoor light must have its own independent renewable power source, such as a solar panel.   That would help a lot, wouldn't it?  Then, how hard would it be to limit the total amperage allowed for each house in America, regardless of size.   If we restricted all houses to a maximum of 50 amps of service regardless of size, wouldn't that help?  Of course it would! Then, we could refine that by only allowing one refrigerator of 12 cubic feet in size, one microwave oven, one general purpose cooking device (a combination tea pot, coffee pot, crock pot, and all-around, do-all electric pot), one 10-gallon hot water heater, and a complete ban on personal freezers, hair dryers, electric razors, TVs and stereo systems, portable heaters and AC units, and electric-powered tools.  All that would help, too, wouldn't it?  Yes, by golly, it would!   Do you see where this leads?  We're steadily chipping away at the difference between 25% and 40% and making progress, but there's still that 60+% left that's now used to power all our commercial undertakings.   Logic indicates if we are going to struggle mightily just to get building operational needs to that 25% number there's just nothing left to provide energy for commerce.   I guess we're supposed to do without, aren't we?   So, exactly where ARE all those millions of new jobs?   Seems to me we'll have millions of new unemployed instead.  Or do I just misunderstand this whole thing?   You tell me.

Know where all this goes.  This is nothing short of eco-terrorism.  It's using environmental fascism as a method of forcing people into lifestyles that facilitate the rise of a new world paradigm.   The new world of our future will be a grey-colored existence.  There will be no room for the frivolous.  Frivolous things waste energy.  We must accept drab as our new normal.   We must think, do and say whatever furthers the interests of Mother Earth to the exclusion of all else.   We will be lucky as we go forward because much of all we will need to change has been well thought out.  All that's left is our acceptance.  Once we accept all things will be easier.  Our lives will be easier because we will be freed from the worries that accompany our lives today.  We won't have to worry about having a decent place to live, because that will be guaranteed.  We won't have to worry about having a good-paying job, because jobs will be guaranteed to all who are willing to work and all will be equally good-paying.   We won't have to worry about transportation costs, because in our future all transportation will be provided to us for free.   We won't have to worry about good food because tomorrow's society will eliminate all food production that's not certified as both essential and nutritious.  We won't have to carry cell phones around with us because every single residence, business, office, and public place will have communications interfaces to accommodate all allowable communication needs.   We won't need to fret over entertainment.  There won't be any cable or satellite TV in our homes, nor radios, stereos, or any other form of personal entertainment.   All such media will be provided to all via a common, centrally controlled system with visual and audio interfaces located practically everywhere.  It will all be free, too!

Yes, my friends and fellow patriots, this Green New Deal is quite a door-opener.  It's the first glimpse many of you have had into our future.  It's the first sign many of you have seen of how that future will be shaped and what its priorities will be.  Not that there's anything new in the Green New Deal.  No, there's nothing actually new in any of it.  Everything that's there has been part of such proposals for decades.   But, nothing like it has ever been proposed in Congress.

Make sure everyone you know and care about has their own copy of H.Res. 109 and reads it.  Make sure they understand the implications for our future if this isn't kicked to the curb.  If we are to live as free people, with the ability to make simple life decisions free of governmental dictates, we have to be certain to put a stake in the hearts of the vampires who are trying to push this on us.   This IS Agenda 21.   This IS Agenda 2030.  This IS science fiction evolving into science fact in front of us.  Jules Verne would understand.  Aldous Huxley and Ray Bradbury would, too.  Any number of Hollywood directors and script writers who have worked on the many great, predictive dystopian films would understand.  What none of them would understand is how, with all the many decades of warnings those people have provided to us, could we possibly be so stupid that we'd allow all their warnings and predictions to be in vain.  None of them would understand why we couldn't see things that were clear to them as far back as 100 years ago.  Yes, my friends, we'll have to answer up to that.

In Liberty,
Steve