The Sift Here’s what we’re Sifting today

Green New Deal fails in Senate

by Harvest Prude
Posted 3/27/19, 11:40 am

WASHINGTON—Not a single U.S. senator voted for the Green New Deal on Tuesday evening, and most Democrats voted “present” in protest of the procedural vote on the sweeping climate change resolution. Democrats introduced the measure last month to address climate change by moving America to 100 percent “clean, renewable, and zero-emission” energy sources. The deal proposes upgrading or replacing every building in the United States and creating a high-speed rail system to eliminate air travel. Though the resolution does not include cost specifics, one analysis by the American Action Forum estimated implementation would cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over 10 years.

Republicans quickly slammed the resolution as unrealistic. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said he held Tuesday’s procedural vote to give senators the chance to stake a position on what he called the “far left wish list that many of our Democratic colleagues have rushed to embrace.” The final vote was 57-0. Most Democrats called it a “sham” vote meant to avoid debate on the resolution. Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.), and Angus King (I-Maine) voted with Republicans against the deal.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., a co-sponsor of the resolution in the House, criticized McConnell for holding the vote and tweeted that she “encouraged [Democrats] to vote present. ... McConnell tried to rush the #GreenNewDeal straight to the floor without a hearing.”

Read more from The Sift Sign up for The Sift email
Harvest Prude

Harvest is a reporter for WORLD based in Washington, D.C.

Read more from this writer


You must be a WORLD Member and logged in to the website to comment.
  • OldMike
    Posted: Wed, 03/27/2019 01:14 pm

    Funny and sad at the same time. The Dems won’t repudiate this fantasy, but they won’t put their names on it either. 

    While climate change may or may not be man-made, and may or may not be as serious as they claim, totally destroying our economy and infra-structure is not the way to fight the alleged warming. 

    My position is, if some areas become less habitable, less suited for agriculture, or covered by rising seas, simultaneously other areas will become more habitable and more suited for growing food crops.  And what will humans do?  Adapt, change, move.  

    There is ample evidence the Sahara once was verdant and much wetter than now, same with some currently arid parts of the Southwest US.  There’s also ample evidence that a huge chunk of the Northern Hemisphere was once covered with a humongous ice sheet.  And as climate changed, humans moved.  A big deal?  Maybe, but not cause for panic.  

    None of these changes are going to happen overnight.  Except if there’s another Krakatoa or Yucatán meteor.  And there’s not much sense in panicking over those possibilities either.  


    Posted: Wed, 03/27/2019 08:34 pm

    We are doing our part to be good stewards of God's resources. We will let God take care of the rest.

  • Allen Johnson
    Posted: Wed, 03/27/2019 10:02 pm

    Old Mike, I think I've seen on some of your comments that support strong, uncompromising U.S. border security. So how does this square with predictions (and some current observations) that climate change will increasingly cause massive human migrations.  Presumably you are pro-life, so you won't advocate that these people starve.
    Your prescription to "adapt, change, move" does not work so easily for people locked into an increasingly inhospitable climate-chaotic living space.

  •  Xion's picture
    Posted: Wed, 03/27/2019 01:21 pm

    A fact that few people are talking about is the most obvious one.  Implementing the Green New Deal would have no meaningful impact on global temperatures.  What it would do is eliminate the United States as a global powerhouse and turn back the clock on a century of progress.  Anti-progress is the new progressivism.

  • MTJanet
    Posted: Wed, 03/27/2019 02:29 pm

    It is so hard to believe that anyone takes AOC seriously.  That little girl from NY knows absolutely nothing or less about economics.  Why isn't someone in the democratic party taking leadership on climate change and figuring out what would make sense to do if it indeed poses a legitimate risk?  All they are accomplishing is getting people like me with little interest in the subject to ignore it even more, possibly to everyone's detriment.  

  • JerryM
    Posted: Wed, 03/27/2019 05:32 pm

    As a product of Boston University her thoughts and actions also say a lot about our higher education system.

    Posted: Wed, 03/27/2019 08:31 pm

    Interesting that Alexandria is now telling other Dems how to vote.


  • OldMike
    Posted: Wed, 03/27/2019 09:10 pm

    The Dems don't want to firmly put down AOC (and Tlaid, Omar, and others) because AOC has quite a few followers, and the Party does not want to alienate them.  Problem is, those followers are as ignorant as AOC.  They seem to think, all you have to do is demand something loud enough and it will happen.

    When more sensible heads say, "Green New Deal will cost far more than we can afford and wreck our economy,"  what the libs hear us say is, "We could do this but we just don't want to." 

    Does this go back to the way these people were parented?

  • OldMike
    Posted: Wed, 03/27/2019 10:43 pm

    Allen Johnson, you are correct that I advocate strong US borders.  But I don't object to immigration--as I've said many times--I object to uncontrolled immigration by people who we don't even know are coming in.  I've also said we need immigration reform with more people being allowed in legally. 

    As for massive migrations, one would presume the neighbors closest to those being forced to move would be the nations to take in migrants.  But how many nations are expected to simply lose their land to rising seas? I've heard much of Bangladesh will be below sea level, but I think most nations will have plenty of space for their coastal residents to move inland.  Yet, I know some nations will line their armies up at their borders to turn refugees back, and people will die.  Some of that, the US has the power to alleviate, and some, we will not.

    But one further point:  I really doubt a lot of this will take place before The Lord returns and puts an end to our petty human squabbles.  As I understand it, there is very little unfulfilled prophecy left before He comes back.  If I hear tomorrow morning an earthquake has destroyed the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, I'll know it's very close.

  • Allen Johnson
    Posted: Thu, 03/28/2019 03:36 pm

    Mike, are you saying we do not need to be responsible for the plight of the planet and justice for people, because God is going to bail us out, whisk the Christians off to heaven, and hell for Earth?
    Question: As Christians, what is a higher call, to our nation's security and ease, or to help alleviate suffering in the world? 
    You mention Bangladesh. Are you aware that India has a wall along the Bangladesh border to keep refugees out? 
    Question: Where do farmers in impoverished, highly-populated countries such as sub-Sahara desert go when the land is inhospitable?
    Question: Putting aside racism and worry about terrorism for the moment, would the reason the U.S. does not take in more immigrants be worry of a lower overall level of prosperity for the rest of us? Christian response to the desperate?

  • Cyborg3's picture
    Posted: Sun, 03/31/2019 02:20 am

    Allen, you assume “climate change” is a serious issue. The CO2 continues to increase yet the temperature is not significantly rising! This tells us that the CO2 is NOT the critical driving factor!

  • OldMike
    Posted: Thu, 03/28/2019 10:42 pm

    Mr. Johnson, if I believed the imminent return of Christ absolved me of my responsibility to do anything to help solve problems, I would quit giving to charitable causes, quit volunteering in a homeless ministry, maybe quit giving to my church.

    Hey, I could quit mowing my lawn!  I could tell my wife there’s no point in doing all those home repairs that were procrastinated the years I worked 60+ hours a week!  

    And here’s a point:  while we may have some obligation to help alleviate some of the problems of the world, I think we also owe something to those right here around us in the USA. My wife certainly feels a large portion of my energy and skills should be devoted to some of the things I’ve told her for years I would do when I have time. And my neighbors certainly feel I should devote some of my energy and time to preventing a run-down overgrown eyesore next door to their nice property. 

    Expanding on that:  I think it is appropriate that a major share of our time/resources/energy be used for the benefit of those closest to us.  How would Americans feel if the government just quit repairing roads, maintaining  water processing facilities, and providing police forces, because the resources are instead being sent to impoverished folks halfway around the world. I believe there would be a revolt, and rightly so.  So yes, we can send help abroad, but not to the neglect of those right here  

    So I hope you are not suggesting that we Americans somehow are obligated to be the sole “saviors” of desperate people everywhere.  Do you believe people in need must expect everything from the US, and nothing from those close to them? Let’s take Bangladesh, as an example. Let us assume  rising sea levels are going to inundate 100% of Bangladeshi land in 1 year. India has a wall and army, and intends to keep desperate Bangladeshis out. Does every other nation around Bangladesh have a wall?  Will there not be other directions to flee?

    But let’s go further with this scenario: let us assume every nation bordering Bangladesh closes their borders tight.  With Bangladeshis considering how long they can tread water, of course in this eventuality we should be committing every resource possible to mass evacuation and resettlement, and hopefully the rest of the world would join in.  But I doubt you actually believe it is our obligation to jump in and try to solve the rest of the world’s problems before allowing others to use some of their resources.

    Now let’s look at your sub-Saharan farmers who no longer can grow food (this is all very hypothetical—we really don’t know how much temperatures are rising, or where and to what extent there will be negative effects.). But to continue:  Mr. Johnson, do you grow the majority of your own food?  I don’t.  No one I know does. We buy our food from specialists who grow lots of food for lots of people. Believing those farmers in Africa will die if their climate prevents them from farming is an extremely limited viewpoint.    Most people in the world now buy the majority of their food rather than growing it themselves.  If there’s a desperate need where farmers can no longer farm, wouldn’t it be a good idea to take the opportunity to help move those people into a more modern and efficient economy?  And of course, I would expect the world to be a part of doing this, not solely the USA.  

    Mr.Johnson, perhaps you work for a company that makes and markets clothing, or tools, or auto parts. Perhaps rather than telling Christians they aren’t quite Christian enough for not providing charity, you could start the process in your company of building manufacturing facilities in sub-Saharan Africa where those ex-subsistence farmers can earn a living. 

    So by now everybody is tired of reading this, so I’m done. And my phone is nearly dead. Have a nice day.