by Michael Bastach
Democratic presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke’s $5 trillion climate change plan has not enthused far-left environmentalists, who say it doesn’t go as far as the Green New Deal.
“Beto claims to support the Green New Deal, but his plan is out of line with [the] timeline it lays out and the scale of action that scientists say is necessary here in the United States to give our generation a livable future,” Sunrise Movement executive director Varshini Prakash said in a statement.
Sunrise Movement Statement in Response to @BetoORourke's Climate Plan:
Thread: pic.twitter.com/VzN9Uz6pz5
— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) April 29, 2019
The Green New Deal, introduced by Democratic New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in February, calls for a World War II-style takeover of the U.S. economy to replace fossil fuels with renewables and vastly expand the welfare state, all of which is estimated to cost up to $93 trillion over a decade.
O’Rourke, on the other hand, aims to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, getting halfway there by 2030. The plan also calls for a slew of new regulations and re-entering the Paris climate accord. O’Rourke unveiled his $5 trillion climate change agenda Monday at Yosemite National Park.
O’Rourke framed his plan as “in line” with the goals of the Green New Deal, but activists said the former Texas congressman’s plan didn’t go as far as Ocasio-Cortez’s signature bill.
Net-zero emissions by 2050 in the U.S. is about 20 years too late.
To stay below 1.5 degrees C we need net-zero GLOBAL emissions by 2050 at the VERY LATEST.
Beto's climate plan isn't consistent with climate science. https://t.co/NQpclrOlF8
— Eric Holthaus (@EricHolthaus) April 29, 2019
The Sunrise Movement has been the driving activist force behind the Green New Deal, storming the Capitol Hill offices of prominent Democrats, including House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Activists from that group also went viral on social media for a somewhat heated exchange with Democratic California Sen. Dianne Feinstein.
The group said “tens of millions could die” if the U.S. economy isn’t moved to net-zero greenhouse gas emissions in 10 years. That’s based on the false activist talking point there’s only 12 years left to cut emissions enough to avoid catastrophic global warming.
Transforming our economy over a decade won't be easy, but if we fall short of these goals, the consequences will be unimaginable: by 2050 there could be 100 million climate refugees, all the world's coral reefs could be gone, and tens of millions could die.
— Sunrise Movement 🌅 (@sunrisemvmt) April 29, 2019
Even mainstream environmentalists gave O’Rourke’s climate plan a lukewarm reception. Greenpeace called it “an important contribution” to the climate debate, but stopped short of endorsing it.
In a statement, Greenpeace said “this is just the start.” Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said he was “glad” O’Rourke put out a plan to tackle global warming, but said he looked forward to other candidates doing the same.
The League of Conservation Voters, a major financial contributor to Democratic candidates, commended O’Rourke’s plan. The group said the “2020 election offers our last, best chance” to address global warming.
– – –
Michael Bastach is a reporter at Daily Caller News Foundation. Follow Michael on Twitter.
Photo “Yosemite” by Diliff CC3.0
Since when are Greenpeace and the Sierra Club “mainstream”? They are both extreme left-wing organizations that have no regard at all for laws or other people”s rights. They are so far out on the left wing that they can’t even see the mainstream, much less be part of it.
Somebody please pass the koolaid.
i HAVE THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT i HAVE ALWAYS HAD ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, WHAT DOES RAISING THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THESE PEOPLE WANT, HAVE TO DO WITH CLIMATE CHANGE? I DO NOT WANT A PIE IN THE SKY ANSWER, I WANT TO KNOW WHAT WOULD BE DONE WITH THE MONEY TO STOP THE PLANET FROM CLIMATE CHANGE. THE BEST I CAN TELL THE EARTH’S CLIMATE HAS AND ALWAYS HAVE CLIMATE CHANGE.