1

I am trying to look up the cost and benefits to implement the green new deal and I can not find any such cost benefit analysis.

I understand that the benefits may be a bit intangible so I guess I am just going to ask for the cost.

  • 1
    Is it defined precisely enough that meaningful costs and benefits are even possible to calculate? – user4012 Jan 30 at 16:12
  • 2
    It's probably hard to get an even remotely accurate figure. One of the areas of the deal would be energy efficiency research; if that pans out, the financial return could be incalculable due to a massive shift in manufacturing and oil/coal dependency reduction forever going into the future. Or it could completely fail to reveal new technologies and the cost is completely lost. At a minimum, it would cost money and reduce pollution. At maximum, new energy technologies could be discovered and revolutionize power, a net gain of new jobs, reduce pollution, and help turn back climate change. – UnhandledExcepSean Jan 30 at 16:14
  • 4
  • A more interesting question might be the cost of doing it vs the costs of not doing it. – Icarian Jan 30 at 23:22
  • 1
    Feasibility is not the same coming out ahead in a cost benifit analysis. Is the question, “is the green new deal a net cost or benifit”, or “is the green new deal, as proposed, a realistic piece of legislation that could be signed into law and implemented as written” – spmoose Jan 31 at 2:06
5

As the people stated in the comments the plan itself is pretty vague. So in the absence of those details we must refer to similar proposals from the past.

Here is a well written summary. It references a left wing think tank that estimates the cost (the summary of your question) at around 200 billion per year. His estimate was to get to 40% renewable energy in 20 years. The new proposed green new deal aims to get to 100% in ten years. Let’s assume the study is right (bad assumption) and that this is a linear function (it isn’t) for ballpark's sake. If it takes 200 billion to get to 40% renewable in 20 years, it would be a trillion a year to get to 100% in 10 years.

Two things to note.

  1. When talking about climate Change you don’t need to get to zero co2 emissions, you need to get to carbon neutral emissions. The environment can take in some amount each year. This may be included with more details in the plan.
  2. Like I said this won’t be a linear function. In fact, the first 40% reduction will be cheaper because it will be the lowest hanging fruit. Referenced in this article a quick calculation by a physicist puts the generation cost alone at 2 trillion.

These numbers again, are anything but rock solid but I hope it gives you some framing.

Your Answer

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.