Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

April 16, 2021 - Epoch Times

13:05

Is Biden’s Infrastructure Plan Actually AOC’s Green New Deal? | Larry Elder

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I got a question.
	Just how much does the next mass spending on the part of the Biden administration have to do with infrastructure?
	One of the most colorful examples that the president used yesterday, he asked if people remembered a bridge going down, but only 5% of the spending in this package goes towards roads and bridges.
	And I'm curious why that number is so low and something that is being sold as an infrastructure package.
	Only 5% to roads and bridges?
	We're actually selling it as a once in a century or once in a generation investment in partly our infrastructure, but partly industries of the future, American workers and the workforce.
	And there are areas like broadband, which maybe is not a physical bridge, but one third of the country doesn't have access to broadband.
	So that impacts workers, workers who have been working from home, kids who are trying to learn I mean, Representative James Clyburn is admitting very little of this has anything to do with infrastructure.
	I can see, sir, keeping it focused on infrastructure, even in the broad sense you do about the Internet.
	I get that.
	But when I hear about spending better than $400 billion to care for the elderly and the disabled, however meritorious that might be, also looking at the tuition-free community college, also looking down the road at universal pre-K, what the heck does this have to do with any of that?
	It has to do with educating our children.
	It has to do with taking care of the elderly.
	I don't understand.
	We aren't Eskimos.
	We aren't going to be carrying our elderly people out.
	Is that infrastructure?
	That's what I'm saying.
	And does it blur the line so that you're losing support you might otherwise get if you kept it just focused on that?
	It says the American jobs plan.
	The American jobs plan.
	This is all about jobs.
	It's not just about building buildings.
	How do we know this isn't about infrastructure and this is about changing America along the lines of what the left wing wants America to become?
	We know this because AOC has dissed the Biden plan as too modest.
	She says we could go much bigger.
	If we're looking at ideals and what we think is the actual investment that can create tens of millions of good union jobs in this country that can shore up our healthcare, our infrastructure, our housing, and doing it in a way that draws down our carbon emissions to help us get in line with IPCC standards, we're talking about realistically $10 trillion over 10 years.
	And I know that may be an eye-popping figure for some people.
	We need to understand that we are in a devastating economic moment.
	Millions of people in the United States are unemployed.
	We have a truly crippled healthcare system and a planetary crisis on our hands and we're the wealthiest nation in the history of the world.
	We can do 10 trillion.
	No, this is about transforming America into the clean energy future that the left so fervently wants.
	Cost benefit analysis, how much it costs poor people and increased power costs.
	And doing it in a way that draws down our carbon emissions to help us get in line with IPCC standards.
	Climate change alarmist critic Mark Morano has a new book about the Green New Deal.
	And of course, it's all about control.
	The Green New Deal actually predates AOC, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, by several decades.
	The first mentions of the Green New Deal, when I go into the origins, was about mid-2000s, about 2005, 2007.
	Many different authors claim credit.
	New York Times columnist Michael Schellenberger, environmentalist, who's now apologized for the climate scare, says he was one of the original architects.
	But I think the ultimate origin There's two origins of the real Green New Deal, which is the 1960s progressive movement, which seized upon overpopulation as their ticket to achieve the left's vision of centrally planned collectivism in America.
	And that's where, if you go back, every solution to overpopulation, global cooling, all the previous environmental scares all sound like the Green New Deal.
	And of course, More recently, the 1992 UN Earth Summit, the Rio Earth Summit, had what was called sustainable development passed.
	And of course, this treaty was ratified by the United States Senate during Bill Clinton's first year in office.
	It was signed by a Republican president, the Rio Earth Treaty.
	And that is what essentially laid the groundwork for that.
	And the Green New Deal basically is a domestic copy of the UN's Agenda 21 and now Agenda 2030.
	Again, this is the real agenda.
	Well, this is the idea that the United Nations came up with and the progressive left, that the earth can't be left with capitalism.
	Essentially, that capitalism and climate and environment are incompatible.
	Therefore, you need A host of centrally planned bureaucrats empowered, not just in environmental and climate decisions, but in every aspect of your life, to the size of your home, to what appliances you use, to what cars you drive.
	And I go through the book, there's talk about abolishing private car ownership and obviously the internal combustion engine, having a roving fleet of electric cars, in the words of one Democrat presidential candidate.
	And it affects what you eat.
	Agriculture, not eating meat.
	They're pushing now these vegetable burger, oil processed burgers.
	They're pushing insect eating.
	It affects how you travel.
	We're now being told under a climate emergency you can't travel unless it's morally justifiable.
	It's going to affect your thermostat, economics, socialization.
	I mean, so every aspect of your life is going to be managed in order to benefit planet Earth.
	And that's the simplest I think the broadest, as well, definition of sustainable Agenda 21, Agenda 2030, the UN's agenda.
	And that's basically what the Green New Deal, that's why people, many people were shocked.
	What does the Green New Deal have to be?
	Do with whether you want to, if you don't have to work, if you don't want to, why is farting cows in here?
	Why do they want to tear down buildings and build green ones?
	It was all because this is not a, in the architect, the words of the architects, the Green New Deal, it's not about the climate or energy.
	This is a change the whole economy thing.
	And it's also a change...
	All the human lives, because that's what the UN even says.
	We need a complete, a radical, centralized transformation of every aspect of our lives.
	These are the words of the former UN climate chief.
	So the Green New Deal is just the latest in a long line going back to the mid-1960s when it comes to climate and the environment.
	You know, the great economist Thomas Sowell says whenever government comes up with some bold new scheme to transform America, ask yourself three things.
	Number one, how much is it going to cost?
	Number two, who's going to pay?
	Number three, will the damn idea work?
	Let's focus on number one.
	What does your study say it would cost people, the families out there in America, if we were to implement the Green New Deal as best as you could estimate?
	Well, thanks for having me on, Dana, and it would cost them more than they can afford.
	We looked at the pricing of things like getting rid of fossil fuels by 2030.
	When you talk about things in the Green New Deal, like eliminating airplanes, eliminating the combustion engine, what does that mean for your average American family, for your average household?
	And we determined that it is $70,000 in the first year and almost $60,000 in perpetuity.
	Life itself becomes very expensive under a Green New Deal.
	Okay, Morano's conservative.
	What about Patrick Moore, the former president of Greenpeace Canada?
	Here's what he thinks about AOC's goal to transform the world.
	She's talking about climate change, of course, and saying that we have to eliminate fossil fuels, all fossil fuels, coal, oil, and natural gas, In 10 years, this would be basically a suicide pact.
	Over 80% of the US and the world's energy comes from fossil fuels and the only reason for banning them is the so-called climate apocalypse or climate catastrophe.
	I see AOC recruiting young teachers and whole classes of young children Against the apocalypse, they're saying.
	They're telling these children that there's going to be an apocalypse in 10 years if they don't save the climate.
	I think this is child abuse myself.
	The whole climate change movement has now reverted to using kids as a front for not only climate change and ending the use of fossil fuels, but the whole ball of wax about socialism.
	I think that's really what they're trying to sell.
	I mean, even hyper-lefty Michael Moore does a documentary called The Planet of the Humans, where he says the only real benefit of this push for green energy is to enrich people like Al Gore.
	Richard York of the University of Oregon published a study in the journal Nature, in which he posed the question, do non-fossil energy sources actually replace fossil fuels?
	Well, we implicitly assume often the substitute pushes out the thing you want to substitute for.
	What you find is nations that add non-fossil energy sources do not seem to see a particular suppression of fossil fuels.
	That's pretty mind-blowing.
	We've got billions of dollars being spent and green energy is not even replacing fossil fuels?
	They don't even know that that's a question.
	Ozzie Zenner said it was an illusion that renewables were replacing coal or any fossil fuel.
	Environmental groups continued telling a different story.
	We've already seen more than 25% of the U.S. coal fleet has already either retired or is on a schedule to retire.
	Coal plants were closing, but Ozzie explained that well-meaning people were being misled.
	MB Energy is now going to go ahead and shut down the plant and go with renewable, one of the largest solar plants, and that's going to happen right behind me.
	Since you can't replace a coal plant with solar, they're actually replacing the coal plant with two natural gas plants.
	And natural gas is a fossil fuel.
	Al Gore and David Blood partnered to form a company called Blood& Gore.
	No, scratch that.
	Generation Investment Management.
	And within this fund, Blood& Gore designated a special investment category targeting $650 million of biomass and biofuels.
	Funny thing was, they partnered before Al Gore's film came out.
	Was that movie just about climate change?
	Or something else?
	On one side, we have gold bars.
	Mmm, mmm, mmm.
	Don't they look good?
	I'd just like to have some of those gold bars.
	On the other side of the scales, the entire planet.
	If we do the right thing, then we're going to create a lot of wealth.
	And when it came time for Al Gore to choose between the entire planet and getting him some of them gold bars, what choice did he make?
	Here is Al Gore earning his keep by pretending to care about the rainforest while lobbying Congress on behalf of the sugarcane ethanol industry.
	Any comment on the Brazilian effort here with the issue of The possibility of expanding into that Amazon River Basin with further deforestation to produce more ethanol out of sugarcane is a worry.
	And apparently you're not as concerned about that.
	No, I am.
	I simply forgot.
	Bottom line, the Biden plan has very little to do with infrastructure and everything to do with the Green New Deal.
	And by the way, why should the federal government pay for roads and bridges In a state.
	Isn't that the state's function?
	Isn't that what we call federalism?
	Maybe that's for another video.
	I'm Larry Elder, and we've got a country to save.
	I will see you next time.
	And don't forget, we have been demonetized by YouTube, which means we must be doing something right.
	To get me on demand and unedited, just go to LarryTube.com.
	That's LarryTube.com because we've got a country to save.

▲