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:
Just like President Kennedy’s moonshot, we should rise to the challenge of tackling climate change by setting ambitious goals. This is the greatest threat to humanity we’ve ever faced, but we can’t react with fear—we must be brave. https://t.co/2IhVfe5gZZ pic.twitter.com/2kArfPsg3O
— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) July 26, 2019
Someone else beat her to this analogy by several days. Pure coincidence, I’m sure:
President Kennedy knew that we didn’t have the technology to achieve this goal at first—and his commitment spurred a decade of scientific and technological mobilization leading up to the moon landing. To tackle climate change today, we need to make another bold commitment.
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) July 20, 2019
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.
This content was originally published here.