STUDY: Green New Deal Would Cost Swing-State Households Around $75,000 In First Year

There is one climate change data point that only goes up, never goes down — that’s the amount of money politicians want to extort from taxpayers to “fix it.”

Download the FREE TrendingPolitics App so you never miss a Trump story

A new study reveals that the socialist Green New Deal would impose around $75,000 in average annual costs for households in key battleground states.

The report, released by the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and Power the Future on Wednesday,found that within the first year of implementation, the GND would cost households an average of between $74,287 and $76,683 in 10 states — Colorado ($74,287), Florida ($76,109), Iowa ($76,683), Michigan ($74,470), New Hampshire ($74,723), New Mexico ($74,432), North Carolina ($74,609), Ohio ($75,807), Pennsylvania ($75,307), and Wisconsin ($75,252).

Fox News reports:

"*" indicates required fields

Would you rather........*
This poll subscribes you to our premium network of content. Unsubscribe at any time.
This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

The report also identifies collective costs per state based on all of those factors, omitting electricity production.

In total, these states would face $2.7 trillion in aggregate costs to households. Households just in the key battleground state of Florida would face $700 billion in collective costs to fulfill the GND’s goal of transitioning towards electric vehicles, retrofit residential buildings, and complying with changes to shipping and logistics. Released on Wednesday, the study found that households in other major states — like Ohio, Michigan, and Pennsylvania — would incur roughly $200-$400 billion in initial costs.

Because the GND is so sweeping in its goals, it was difficult for CEI to fully account for the true costs of implementation. And it’s unclear how Democratic spending would help mitigate the costs incurred by households.

As the study’s authors point out, their numbers provide just a basis for the actual cost of the energy-related provisions. 

For example, their calculations exclude costs for air cargo, as well as for retrofitting commercial and industrial buildings. 

“Taken together, the estimated costs for retrofitting current residential, commercial, and industrial buildings is astronomical,” wrote authors Daniel Turner and Kent Lassman.

“The Green New Deal would effectively destroy America’s energy industry, and with it, our entire economy,” added Turner, the executive director of Power the Future, which partnered with CEI on the project.

“Right now, our booming national economy and record low unemployment rate is driven by abundant, domestic, reliable, and inexpensive energy produced by millions of men and women across the country,” he said. “Any policy that proposes to reverse this success is a threat to jobs, to rural communities, to national security, and to the very prosperity that Americans are experiencing.”

The American Action Forum also recently completed a study on the Green New Deal and found that the program could cost as much as $94 trillion. 

By including those provisions, AAF’s calculations estimated that the average cost per household would be $600,000.

Last April, the U.S. Senate voted 0-57 to reject the Green New Deal, meaning not a single senator voted “yes” on it.

Zero senators voted “yea,” with 57 voting “nay” and 43 Democrats voting “present.”

Four Democrats —  Sens. Doug Jones of Alabama, Joe Manchin of West Virginia, Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, and Angus King, I-Maine — joined all 53 Republicans in voting against the socialist measure.

***Brand New Melania Trump Coin – YOURS FREE***

The Green New Deal has also been heavily criticized for how much it will cost taxpayers.

One study found that the price tag for the socialist measure would be around $7 trillion. A second found that it actually cost nearly $50 trillion, and a third found it cost around $93 trillion over the next decade.

Notice: This article may contain commentary that reflects the author's opinion.