Image 01 Image 03

Kirsten Gillibrand Proposes $10 Trillion Dollar Climate Change Plan

Kirsten Gillibrand Proposes $10 Trillion Dollar Climate Change Plan

“relies on on several policy levers: government procurement, stronger regulations, pollution fees and research and development spending”

Kirsten Gillibrand launched her bid for president in January of 2019. Since then, she has not been able to break one percent in the Real Clear Politics average of polls. What’s a candidate to do in order to remain relevant? Offer massive, expensive proposals, apparently.

Gillibrand is now proposing a fix for climate change, and it’ll cost a mere $10 trillion dollars.

Zack Colman writes at Politico:

Gillibrand calls for $10T to combat climate change

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) outlined what her administration would do to fight climate change. Her proposal measures up with many 2020 rivals, though she differs in some key areas on how to address rising emissions.

What would the plan do?

Gillibrand, like many other candidates, wants to neutralize nationwide carbon emissions by 2050. She also set a nearer target to achieve net-zero electricity emissions within a decade. Her plan would tax and phase out fossil fuels while tightening regulations. Many of those efforts — like closing the so-called “Halliburton loophole,” which exempts fracking operations from drinking water standards — would require help from Congress. Gillibrand also wants to boost the green jobs sector with prevailing wages, union protection and training to transition fossil fuel-dependent workers into emerging clean technology fields.

How much would it cost?

$10 trillion in public and private financing over a decade. At least $3 trillion of that sum would come from the federal government, raised through new taxes.

How would it work?

The plan relies on on several policy levers: government procurement, stronger regulations, pollution fees and research and development spending.

Gillibrand wants to impose a $52 per metric ton carbon tax, spending the $200 billion of annual revenues on renewable energy, and a separate fossil fuel “excise tax” to generate $100 billion per year for projects to adapt to climate change. Like other candidates, she’d also end tax incentives for fossil fuel companies.

Gillibrand is comparing her bold new plan to JFK’s goal of landing on the moon:

Someone else beat her to this analogy by several days. Pure coincidence, I’m sure:

Do you ever wonder why Gillibrand is even still in the race? I do. In fact, it’s the topic of my latest column at Townhall:

Why Is Kirsten Gillibrand Still Running for President?

In 2016, there were four candidates vying for the Democratic nomination. In 2019, there are well over twenty people competing for the same prize. Most of them have zero chance of grabbing that brass ring, let alone beating Trump in the general election in 2020.

Some of them aren’t really running for president. They’re running for a chance at being picked for vice president, a cabinet position, or some other lucrative government post if the party’s nominee somehow manages to defeat Trump.

One candidate with no possibility of achieving any of those goals is Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior United States senator of the state of New York.

Gillibrand announced her 2020 run for president in January of 2019. Seven months later in July, she has yet to crack one percent in the Real Clear Politics average of polls.

Andrew Yang, who is considered a fringe candidate by many, has reached two percent.

Marianne Williamson, a New Age quasi-guru candidate no one had even heard of two months ago, is polling nearly equal with Gillibrand, and has received more press attention.

Read the whole thing.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


She is a complete and utter moron. And she has no principles whatsoever. She’d cut off her mother’s head to get elected, if she hasn’t done so already.

The Friendly Grizzly | July 27, 2019 at 12:12 pm

The whole party has gone crackers. I was born in Truman’s day. I recall JFK, Hubert Humphrey (supported 2A), the Patrician snob Adlai Stevenson, Estes Kefauver. Scoop Jackson.

Lots of wrong-headed ideas, and plenty of trash like LBJ, but, at bottom, most were patriotic.

What we have now I would never have imagined.

Correction: Kirsten Gillibrand proposes 10 trillion dollar tax increase to start with, more to come, which she promises to spend on real problems and not just pass to her donors really, honest.

“$10 trillion”

A mere bagatelle,

So this is who Springsteen was singing about.

“Barroom eyes shine vacancy, to see her you gotta look hard.”

This woman is frighteningly unprincipled. If she were so blazingly ineffective she would be dangerous. If she were not from a State where anyone blue will do, she would not be in office.

2smartforlibs | July 27, 2019 at 1:19 pm

I thought the left was all about science. Yet she is clueless about the Milankovitch cycle and how no amount of liberal greed or hubris will change the only settled science on the matter.

    artichoke in reply to 2smartforlibs. | July 29, 2019 at 1:35 pm

    No no, they’re about “the science”. “The science” isn’t like that boring old science you learned in school with all that hard math and stuff.

    “The science” is done by polling, and you get to select your sample that you poll, and throw out results (after looking at them) that are obviously bogus because they’re not the votes you wanted.

    That’s how the 97% number was arrived at. I heard it, believe it or not, on NPR radio. So the full truth may be even worse.

sure…while we fight over scraps of cloth for clothing and eat soy-based gruel you and your cronies live lavishly behind the walls you oppose

She runs on an imaginary problem, but wishes us to expend $10T to perpetuate the make believe. That is one hell of a platform to run on.

A quadrillion here and quadrillion there… pretty soon you’re talking about real (monopoly) money. For Progs… childhood never ends.

We should send the most important Democrats on a trip to the sun to see for themselves what really drives the solar system. No worries, we will tell them that they will be going at night.

    guyjones in reply to alaskabob. | July 28, 2019 at 8:47 am

    Sorry; that was an intended “up” vote that was cast as a “down.” Wish they’d modify the system, here, to allow for corrections.

So . . . what is the actual goal? What metric drives this whole thing? How will we know when this huge program succeeds?

Hahahaha. There is no metric. This is a permanent program. The $10T is just the start, with no way to turn it off.

At least with the moon program, it was obvious when it succeeded. When some guy’s footprints finally appeared on the moon, it was “Mission Accomplished”. This, however, isn’t like slogging to the moon, but more like taking over from Sisyphus and rolling his huge rock to the top of the mountain, again and again, forever.

Dejectedhead | July 27, 2019 at 1:51 pm

Sounds like her plan is…trying Obama’s plan again.

Ten trillion? Since we are going to start printing ten trillion dollar bills (aka “Bernies”), that’s only one Bernie. Bernie himself wants four Bernies to pay for his universal healthcare program so just print one more. It’s only paper, not like it’s real money. Costs only pennies to print.

She looks like she should be on some program “The housewives of Emerald City”.

Close The Fed | July 27, 2019 at 3:05 pm

If I had gone to sleep in 1982 and just woken up, I would be stunned by the fantasy land politicians live in now.

Back then, if she submitted this as a term paper, the prof would’ve give her a D instead of an F, just so she could pass.

    LOL …. you’d be looking for a giant sleeping pill to put yourself back to sleep …. and you’d be praying that when you’ll awaken, things will be normal again. Unfortunately, it’s a lot more than a bad dream.

At least Kirsten has discovered her true calling via the Democratic primaries: being a barmaid in a gay tavern in Des Moines.

Assuming there are 320 million in the US, that breaks down to $31,250 for every man, woman and child.

    JOHN B in reply to bw222. | July 27, 2019 at 5:13 pm

    Mathematics is not allowed. It is a banned subject in the types of universities who like politicos like Gillebrand.

Which would do what Kirsten? She can no way explain “climate change” or what $ would do for it.
While China and India spew their “carbon”, what would the taxpayers’ $ in the US do to stop that?

“The greatest threat to humanity we’ve ever faced.”

Interesting how German national socialism, Soviet communism and Islamic totalitarianism don’t count as grave threats, in Gillibrand’s book.

Our design margin is so great that Gillibrand recognizes that the Progressive game plan would take thirty years or more to reduce the USA to status of Venezuela.

By throwing the entire US budget into the trash for 2 1/2 years, she can erase our design margin within a decade. She’s probably correct.

Earth has survived 4 1/2 billion years without our help, but it’s going to wither and die if we don’t vote for her in 2020?
Please bring back the insane asylums.

So, 10 trillion for AGC.
10-30 trillion for government ‘health care’
90 trillion for the industrial nationalization act (NGD)
“free” college?

pretty soon we’re talking real money. It’ll be 70 tax on everyone.

    artichoke in reply to venril. | July 29, 2019 at 1:45 pm

    That’s what she wants, otherwise we would have (in Bill Clinton’s words) “too much freedom”.