Rough Look at Overall Costs of the Green New Deal

Since Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey introduced their resolution for a Green New Deal, a number of people and institutions have tried to put a price tag on it.

The prices they come up with seem to reflect their political orientation more than an objective evaluation of the costs, with conservatives who would naturally oppose the Green New Deal saying it would cost a lot, while progressive Democrats who favor some or all of the elements of a Green New Deal insisting it would not cost very much at all. Before we provide our own estimates, here are some of the costs put forward by others.

Let’s start at the high end. Mises Wire, named in honor of the Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises, says it would cost $93 trillion[1]—and they say that their estimate is conservative. The estimate relies on other work done by the American Action Forum (whose founder actually estimates a range from $52 trillion to $93 trillion[2]) and does not analyze the whole of the Green New Deal in great detail—from the article accompanying the estimate it would seem they threw up their hands in despair after arriving at such a high figure. They do note that some elements of the Green New Deal are redundant—for example, if the energy grid is powered by 100% renewable sources, why does the Green New Deal call for improving the energy efficiency of every building in America? That’s potentially helpful criticism. But in other places, they estimate a range of costs for elements of the Green New Deal and present the highest end of the range for each.

Defenders of the Green New Deal have been much fuzzier about costs, with Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez merely remarking that it would probably cost at least $10 trillion[3], with other vague estimates from various sources at ‘around $2 trillion.’

Somewhere in between lies the real number—or numbers, as many elements must be estimated within a range.

The GDP for the United States in 2018 was $20.89 trillion[1]. Federal government revenue in 2018 was $3.3 trillion, while Federal spending was $4.2 trillion[2]. The deficit was $1.1 trillion. The interest on the national debt in fiscal year 2018 was $523 billion[3]. The 2018 cost of the Trump tax cut (in terms of adding to the budget deficit) was $174 billion[4].

The costs and investment required to implement the Green New Deal can (and will) seem eye-wateringly high. But in fact the number of zeros in these calculations are similar to other figures we accept without hesitation. Without taking a position on military spending, I do note that we don’t really discuss whether it is too much or too little these days—I haven’t seen many people questioning whether or not we need to spend $617 billion a year on it, including for 800 military bases in 70 countries that by themselves cost $200 billion a year.[5]

The point of course is not to single out military spending—it is to place the financial requirements of the Green New Deal into context. It will be expensive—but it will also be in the same ballpark as interest on the national debt, the cost of the Trump tax cut, US spending on military bases outside the country, etc.

the (rough) annual cost estimates of implementing the Green New Deal to range from $2.65 trillion to $5.88 trillion. Almost all of the variance is due to the differences in estimates for healthcare. Adding a public option to existing ACA (Obamacare) provisions is estimated to save $12 billion a year. Instituting a nationalized healthcare system (Medicare for All) would cost the government about $3.2 trillion a year (although some estimates say that it would save citizens $3.4 trillion annually, and that government could recoup its expenditures through higher taxes).

For the high estimate of $5.88 trillion annually, 77% ($4.51 trillion) come from the top three line items—Medicare for All, a federal jobs guarantee and provision of a Universal Basic Income for those earning less than $61,000 a year.

For the low estimate of $2.65 trillion annually, 62% ($1.66 trillion) comes from the top three line items—the jobs guarantee, the Universal Basic Income and infrastructure upgrades.

Recall that the GDP for the United States in 2018 was $20.89 trillion[1]. Federal government revenue in 2018 was $3.3 trillion, while Federal spending was $4.2 trillion[2]. The deficit was $1.1 trillion. The interest on the national debt in fiscal year 2018 was $523 billion[3].

Adding the high estimate for the Green New Deal to 2018 Federal spending would amount to $10 trillion, or about 48% of 2018 GDP. The low estimate for the GND would bring Federal spending to $6.85 trillion, or 33% of 2018 GDP.

Alert readers will have already spotted the inter-related aspects of some of the line items, many of which could reduce the costs of the GND substantially. For example, converting to renewable energy will provide a lot of jobs, many paying over $61,000 annually, which could lower the need for a federal jobs guarantee (if workers were trained to do the jobs) and the number of people qualifying for a Universal Basic Income grant. Similar effects would result from upgrading the nation’s infrastructure.

However, the cost of the Green New Deal is obviously high. Below we will discuss mechanisms for funding that might make the cost more palatable to those who laud some or all of the aims of the GND but do not want European levels of taxation here. (Spoiler alert—the two main mechanisms will be a carbon tax and a sovereign wealth fund kickstarted by increased oil royalties and taxes on companies replacing workers with automation.)

I will discuss each of these elements in further detail below. But knowing there is general public interest in the financial considerations of the Green New Deal, here it is in fine, all-American bullet point brevity:

  • Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.
  • At various times in our country’s history we have instituted and maintained job programs, most famously during the Great Depression in the 1930s. Not everyone wants to work, so perhaps phrasing the initiative as guaranteeing job availability might be more felicitous. This concept has been much discussed and several estimates have been made by, among others, The Brookings Institution and the Center For American Progress. Assumptions and estimates differ, but the costs appear to approach $543 billion per year[1] 
  • The kind of work that could be done by participants includes teachers and teaching assistants, personal care providers, construction and maintenance workers, security and police forces, and office support and the program would provide nearly 10 million people with full-time work (Ibid).
  • The programs assume medical care would be provided through Medicare For All and that Social Security would be strengthened to help retirement, as will increased unionization’s ability to secure retirement benefits.

Providing all people of the United States with –

  • High-quality health care
  • Introducing a public option structured around Obamacare (ACA) would save the federal government $12 billion a year[2].
  • Costs for Medicare For All are variously estimated at between $2.7 and $3.2 trillion a year depending on assumptions.
  • Under some of the same assumptions, the U.S. would spend less money on healthcare, perhaps $2 trillion less than we currently spend on healthcare—but those savings would not accrue to the government, except indirectly through income taxes.
  • Higher taxes to cover the costs are widely expected, but are not an explicit part of most Medicare For All plans.
  • Affordable, safe, and adequate housing
  • There are a reported 193,000 unsheltered homeless in the United States[3]. Giving them a rent-free apartment at the median rent ($1,405 per month[4]) would cost $3.25 billion a year.
  • There are an additional 360,000 people who experience sporadic homelessness in a given year. For an additional $6.07 billion, or $9.3 billion a year, we can house the rest of the homeless, as has been done successfully in places as diverse as Iceland and Utah.
  • Economic security
  • 50% of American households earn less than $61,000 a year[5]. That would be roughly 64 million households[6].
  • Providing each of these lower-earning households with $1,000 a month as a Universal Basic Income would cost $768 billion annually.
  • Access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature
    • Clean water
  • 63 million Americans were exposed to potentially unsafe water over the past decade[7].
  • According to the American Water Works Association[8], an estimated $1 trillion is necessary to maintain and expand service to meet demands over the next 25 years, or $40 billion a year.
    • Clean Air
  • More than 141 million Americans live in areas with unhealthy air pollution levels between 2015 and 2017[9]
  • The FY2019 budget for the EPA’s Clean Air Act is $85 billion, a decrease of $30.8 billion from the prior year[10].
  • Many of the possible remediation measures touch on other elements of the Green New Deal—take-up of electric vehicles, closure of coal-powered generating plants, etc. Much of the EPA’s focus has been on large polluters[11].
  • Doubling its budget from 2018 levels to $230 billion a year would give it the resources needed to work with small scale polluters.
    • Healthy and affordable food
  • 23.5 million Americans do not have a supermarket within a mile of their homes[12]. There are 418 counties where all residents live more than 10 miles from a supermarket (Ibid).
  • The initial costs of opening a small grocery store are estimated at roughly $500,000, including initial inventory[13].
  • The U.S. Postal Service could open not-for-profit grocery stores in the 418 counties currently lacking one for $209 million.
  • If that doesn’t adequately serve the needs of inner city residents, that number would have to rise.  The average grocery store grosses $14 million per year, but it is probable that these stores would make much less revenue due to geographic constraints, perhaps half.
  • Assuming the stores would run at a loss of 20% of sales, the cost per year would be $1.4 million per store, or $585 million per year.
    • Access to nature
  • The National Park Service launched its Urban Agenda in 2015, with two-year pilot projects in 10 cities across the country.
  • More than one-third of the parks they maintain are in metro areas. They are engaged in 1,500 urban park recovery projects.
  • The current administration has proposed funding the National Park Service at $2.7 billion in 2019.
  • The National Park Service says it has an $11.6 billion backlog of deferred maintenance.
  • Solution: Provide a one-shot funding allocation to cover the deferred maintenance. Secure federal funding for urban park reclamation, restoration and security for least-served urban areas at $5 billion a year.
  •  Average annual spend would be $6 billion a year.
  • Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States
  • Because of demographics, college enrollment has declined for six straight years[14].
  • It is expected to decline a further 15% between 2026 and 2030. So no new campuses will be required if we decide to throw open the doors to the 30% of high school graduates who do not enroll in college and the 16% of high school students who do not graduate[15].
  • The average cost of a year’s tuition and fees at a community college is $3,347[16].
  • There are 8.5 million high school graduates who do not go on to college and 1.2 million high school dropouts.
  • Subsidizing them to attend community college would cost the taxpayer $32.5 billion annually, assuming all of those offered the chance were to accept.
  • Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources
  • The United States currently consumes about 100 ‘quads’ of energy a year. (A quad is one quadrillion British Thermal Units, or BTU. A BTU is roughly equivalent to the energy to heat a pint of water from 39 to 40 degrees Fahrenheit.)
  • Of those 100 quads, currently 8.65 are provided by renewable energy sources and a further 8.5 by nuclear energy[17]. Astoundingly, amazingly, if renewable sources continue to grow at the rate they have maintained since 2010, it will actually almost happen[18][19][20][21].
  • We currently subsidize non-fossil fueled power at about $18.57 billion per year, including solar, wind, biofuels, hydroelectric and nuclear power[22].
  • If we continue at that level, and if take-up continues at current rates, it will almost happen. The sources footnoted here show solar contributing 20 quads, wind 30 quads, and the EIA estimates that nuclear power will provide 7 quads  (Ibid), and the U.S. Department of Energy has targeted 15 quads to come from hydroelectric power[23], with much of the remaining to come from ethanol and other biofuels.
  • However, other parts of the Green New Deal will almost certainly require more from renewable energy, such as charging electric vehicles and powering high speed trains. We will deal with them below, but note here that it will require additional subsidies of $340 billion annually for a total of $3.4 trillion.
  • In addition, as the percentage of electricity provided by wind and solar grows, we will have to choose between retaining some natural gas power plants or battery storage to deal with regional intermittency of renewable supply. The natural gas option will be cheaper, but will continue some level of greenhouse emissions.
  • Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible
  • In 2017, the American Society of Civil Engineers published a report identifying a gap of $3.4 trillion in needed repairs to American infrastructure[24].
  • That would call for $340 billion a year over the course of a decade.
  • Eliminating pollution and greenhouse gases as much as technologically feasible is entirely separate. There are four main types of air pollution sources: mobile, stationary (such as power plants, refineries and industry), area (agricultural areas and cities) and natural (dust, wildfires, volcanoes).
  • I deal with mobile sources, which account for roughly a quarter of conventional pollution, below and will not attempt to deal with natural sources.
  • If and when renewable sources of energy emerge at scale and at a competitive cost, market forces would tend to supplant coal and natural gas power plants and perhaps refineries as well (although air transportation will probably keep some refineries in business).
  • Industry is responsible for 52% of pollution[25].
  • The global market for air pollution control systems is growing briskly[26], but the North American market is characterized as consisting of ‘replacement’ rather than new pollution controls. Legislation can require further action at little or no cost, although tax allowances are often used to make such changes more palatable.
  • Since 1970 the U.S. has spent an average of $1.38 billion on air pollution control systems[27]. That might be improved upon. Perhaps tripling the annual expenditure to $5 billion would get the job done in ten years, or $50 billion in total.
  • The entire cost would then be $3.45 trillion, or $345 billion a year.
  • Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity
  • The Electrical Power Resource Institute estimates that a fully functional smart grid would cost between $338 and $476 billion, or between $39 and $48 billion a year for 10 years[28].
  • Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification
  • Homeowners already spend a lot of their own money on home repairs and improvements, a surprisingly high amount—over $1.2 trillion annually, according to a report by the Joint Center of Housing Studies of Harvard University[29].
  • Despite that, roughly two million homes meet the definition of inadequate as applied by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development[30]. This is a very low percentage of the 120 million housing units in the U.S. and, if true, would require only a modest expenditure to remediate.
  • However, the HUD definition is pretty basic, focusing primarily on having running water, a roof that doesn’t leak and adequate electrical wiring and functional heating. More work would need to be done to get to the standard asked for in the Green New Deal.
  • Many of these homes are Public Housing Authority owned and there is a backlog of $20 to $30 billion in deferred maintenance[31]. Our uneducated assumption is that working through this backlog would address a large part of the issue, at an annual cost of $2-$3 billion per year, but it is probable that expectations and expenditures would rise as the most urgent problems are successfully addressed.
  • Office buildings, schools, churches, stores and manufacturing plants also have a long way to go to get to the Green New Deal standard. However, all of them have incentive to become more efficient and legislative requirements should put most, if not all of the burden on the owners, or parishioners in the case of churches.
  • The average age of school buildings in the U.S. is 46 years, and the average time since a major renovation for school buildings is 12 years[32]. 75% are rated as in ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ condition, with 20% rated ‘fair’ and 3% ‘poor.’ With 84,000 public schools in the U.S. that indicates that 2,520 are poor, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (Ibid). They further estimate that it would cost an average of $4.5 million per school to bring ‘poor’ schools to ‘good’ condition, or a total of $11.4 billion, or an additional $1.14 billion a year. Bringing the ‘fair’ schools up to ‘good’ condition might conceivably (no estimates being found) be half as much per school, say $2.25 million per school, or $37.8 billion, $3.8 billion annually for a decade.
  • Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail
  • Transportation in America is responsible for roughly 25% of air pollution[33] and 29% of our emissions of greenhouse gases[34].
  • Converting America’s fleet of 281 million vehicles[35] to electrically powered would solve this problem.
  • 123 million (44%) of those vehicles are passenger cars. If 100% of the 16 million cars we expect to be sold next year are electric (let’s say Nissan Leaf), that will cost $368 billion at the car dealer.
  • With the average age of cars being 8 years we can assume that most of the fleet of American passenger vehicles could be turned over and cleaned up by 2030 at an overall cost of $3.3 trillion. But the cost to the taxpayer would be whatever subsidy is required to persuade (compel?) us to make the switch.
  • We pay the sticker price out of our own pocket now and that won’t change. The current federal subsidy is $7,500.
  • We’re assuming the passenger fleet is 144 million cars, SUVs and pick-ups. $7,500 x 144 million comes to $1.08 trillion over the next decade–call it a bit more than $100 billion a year.
  • Converting vans, trucks and buses would be considerably more expensive, although we were unable to find an estimate. However, the city of Minneapolis did publish an estimate of converting its entire fleet to electric vehicles, including pickup trucks, garbage trucks, etc[36].
  • The average cost per vehicle was $99,390, primarily because of the very high cost of converting heavy duty vehicles, such as construction and garbage vehicles.
  • In a bit of a leap, or an exercise in back-of-the-envelope thinking, if we assume that the commercial fleet of the U.S. resembles that of the city of Minneapolis, converting the 158 million non-passenger vehicles to electricity would cost $15.7 trillion, or $157 billion a year for 10 years.
  • We don’t propose this figure as a serious estimate, hoping merely that it has the right number of zeros.
  • As a significant part of this fleet is publicly owned, the entire cost of conversion of those vehicles would be born by the taxpayer.
  • It is logical to assume that the private trucking fleet would require significant subsidies as well as legislative requirements to bring about this change.
  •  For this imaginative exercise we will put the entire burden on government funding. The costs, however, would also include the conversion of public transportation.
  • Charging stations costs vary widely, from between $435 and $977 for home installations to considerably more for public stations. The Center For American Progress estimated costs at $2.5 billion to accommodate 14 million electric vehicles. As the Green New Deal calls for conversion of 300 million passenger and commercial vehicles, a ballpark estimate of $50 billion in total, or $5 billion a year, seems reasonable.
  • China’s high speed rail system covers 18,000 miles of track and handled 3.1 billion passenger trips last year. Something to shoot for.
  • They pay between $17 million and $21 million per kilometer to build their network out, about 10% less than Europeans do.
  • So if we built an equivalent network in the U.S., ballpark construction costs would be about $450 billion, or $45 billion a year.
  • Regarding the proposed upgrade of public transportation, it is unclear what exactly is being proposed. Furthermore, many metropolitan areas and exurban regions have been upgrading their systems.
  • Clearly there is much left to do. The U.S. Department of Transportation’s FY2020 budget request is for $84 billion, including $10 billion in co-funding for $25 billion in infrastructure projects under the Build America Bureau[37].
  • (The Department (D.O.T.) requested $8 billion more than for 2019.) Some of those projects are for upgrading public transit.
  • In addition, the D.O.T. funded $1 billion for airport upgrades, and highlighted the 2018 grants of $1.02 billion for specific public transit improvements (Ibid).
  • However, medium term demographic changes, technology such as ride sharing, autonomous vehicles, passenger drones and the use of artificial intelligence for route planning make it difficult to forecast public transit needs through 2050.
  • I will therefore call for accelerated co-funding of public transit upgrades from $1 billion to $5 billion a year, or $50 billion in total.
  • Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible
  • I have written above about committing more resources to clean power generation and removal of air pollutants.
  • Americans currently spend a bit more than $1 billion a year on SuperFund clean-up[38] and soil remediation on over 1,300 sites.
  • Formerly funded by taxes on polluting industries, the cost is now born by taxpayers.
  • Those taxes on industry should be reinstated and increased, to incentivize industry to reduce pollution.
  • American industry is also getting cleaner, although some of that is less virtue (regulations and increased productivity) than exporting our polluting activities. Whatever the cause, pollution has decreased by over two-thirds since 1990[39].
  • It is a bit difficult to imagine policy initiatives that would improve on that record, hence it seems wise to maintain current commitment of resources to insure we don’t take our foot off the gas just as the finish line comes into view.

Before we turn to detailed examination of each element of the Green New Deal, we want to explicitly acknowledge the fuzzy state of the figures we have set down here. As proponents of the Green New Deal have said, the GND is a goal, not a detailed policy plan. A lot of work on their end is needed to make it possible to generate better numbers—and better numbers are needed.

So why do this at all? Well, in part to show that the GND is possible and in part to show that it would be expensive. It’s clear that it won’t be as cheap as its most enthusiastic advocates say, and it is equally clear that it won’t be as expensive as its most ardent detractors claim.

Perhaps most importantly, the GND contains many line items that have been recognized as pressing public policy issues by both Republicans and Democrats for years and addressing them one at a time would take the rest of the century, involving debilitating and drawn-out debates about priorities and path dependencies. Helping the poor, the homeless, the uninsured should not wait for a piecemeal solution. Dealing with pollution and our CO2 emissions should have started long ago and we certainly should not wait longer. By putting a price in pencil on the entire package, we hope to stimulate discussion, much-needed corrections and eventually concrete actions to bring the Green New Deal into existence.


[1] The Fiscal Times, December 6, 2018, How Much Would A Federal Jobs Guarantee Cost? https://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2018/12/06/How-Much-Would-Federal-Jobs-Guarantee-Cost

[2] Urban Institute, June 2019, A Targeted Affordability Improvement Proposal, https://www.benefitspro.com/2019/06/20/how-much-would-a-public-option-cost/?slreturn=20190705204330

[3] The DataFace, January 2018, Estimating The Number Of Homeless In America, http://thedataface.com/2018/01/public-health/american-homelessness

[4] CBS News, July 6, 2018, U.S. Housing Rents Hit Record-High Average Of $1,405 A Month, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/u-s-urban-rents-hit-all-time-high-at-average-1405-report/

[5] DQYDJ, United States Household Income Brackets And Percentiles In 2018, https://dqydj.com/united-states-household-income-brackets-percentiles/

[6] Statista, (U.S. Census Bureau), Number Of U.S. Households From 1960 To 2018, https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households-in-the-us/

[7] USA Today, August 14, 2017, 63 Million Americans Exposed To Unsafe Water, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2017/08/14/63-million-americans-exposed-unsafe-drinking-water/564278001/

[8] American Society Of Civil Engineers, Infrastructure Report Card, https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/cat-item/drinking_water/

[9] Time, April 24, 2019, More Than 141 Million Americans Are Breathing Unhealthy Air As Pollution Worsens, https://time.com/5577203/state-of-the-air-pollution-report-2019/

[10] Environmental Protection Agency, FY2019 EPA Budget In Brief, https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-02/documents/fy-2019-epa-bib.pdf

[11] USLegal.com, Clean Air Act, https://environmentallaw.uslegal.com/federal-laws/clean-air-act/

[12] The Food Trust, The Grocery Gap, http://thefoodtrust.org/uploads/media_items/grocerygap.original.pdf

[13] TRUiC, How To Start A Grocery Store, https://howtostartanllc.com/business-ideas/grocery-store

[14] Inside Higher Ed, December 20, 2017, Enrollment Slide Continues At Slower Rate, https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2017/12/20/national-enrollments-decline-sixth-straight-year-slower-rate

[15] Bureau of Labor Statistics, May 22, 2017, 69.7% Of 2016 High School Graduates Enrolled In College In October 2016, https://www.bls.gov/opub/ted/2017/69-point-7-percent-of-2016-high-school-graduates-enrolled-in-college-in-october-2016.htm

[16]AffordableColleges.com, 50 Most Affordable Community Colleges, https://www.affordablecolleges.com/rankings/community-colleges/

[17] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy Outlook 2019, Table: Energy Consumption By Sector And Source, https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/data/browser/#/?id=2-AEO2019&cases=ref2019&sourcekey=0

[18] Solar Energy Industries Association, Solar Industry Research Data, https://www.seia.org/solar-industry-research-data

[19] American Wind Energy Association, Wind Energy In The United States, https://www.awea.org/wind-101/basics-of-wind-energy/wind-facts-at-a-glance

[20] Solar Magazine, June 17, 2019, Scientists Envision 20-Fold Increase In Solar PV By 2030, https://solarmagazine.com/scientists-envision-20-fold-increase-solar-pv-power-by-2030/

[21] Worldwatch Institute, 30% Wind Power Feasible, New U.S. Study Finds, http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6362

[22] U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration, Direct Federal Interventions And Subsidies In Energy, Fiscal Year 2016, https://www.eia.gov/analysis/requests/subsidy/

[23] Fair Observer, May 26, 2015, The Future Of Hydropower, https://www.fairobserver.com/more/environment/the-future-of-hydropower-00594/

[24] American Society of Civil Engineers, 2017, Failure To Act Report, https://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/the-impact/failure-to-act-report/

[25] National Resources Defense Council, June 20, 2011, The ‘Toxic 20:’ States With The Highest Levels Of Toxic Air Pollution From Power Plants, https://www.nrdc.org/experts/pete-altman/20-toxicos-estados-mayores-niveles-contaminacion-aire-proveniente-centrales

[26] Cision PR Newswire, Nov. 20, 2018, Global Industrial Air Pollution Control Equipment Market Report 2018: Market Share and Competitive Analysis, Forecasts and Trends, Drivers and Restraints & Market Overview, https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/global-industrial-air-pollution-control-equipment-market-report-2018-market-share-and-competitive-analysis–forecasts-and-trends-drivers-and-restraints–market-overview-300753688.html

[27] Columbia University Earth Institute, State Of The Planet, October 23, 2017, The Human And Financial Cost Of Pollution, https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2017/10/23/the-human-and-financial-cost-of-pollution/

[28] Green Tech Media, April 8, 2011, Smart Grid Price Tag: $476 billion. Benefits: $2 trillion, https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/smart-grid-price-tag-476-billion-benefits-2-trillion#gs.ul1q7g

[29] Reuters, April 18, 2019, Growth In U.S. Home Remodeling Spending To Fall Below Historic Average By 2020: Study, https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-housing-remodeling/growth-in-u-s-home-remodeling-spending-to-fall-below-historic-average-by-2020-study-idUSKCN1RU1N5

[30] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Housing Adequacy And Quality As Measured By The AHS, https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/programs-surveys/ahs/publications/HousingAdequacy.pdf

[31] Enhanced Online News, Public And Affordable Housing Research Corporation, New Research Highlights Unintended Consequences Of Cuts In Capital Funding To Public Housing Authorities, https://www.econsultsolutions.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/20120627_PAHRC_EON_PressRelease.pdf

[32] Education Week, November 28, 2017, Data: U.S. School Buildings: Age, Condition And Spending, https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/data-us-school-buildings-age-condition-and.html

[33] Union of Concerned Scientists, Vehicles, Air Pollution And Human Health, https://www.ucsusa.org/clean-vehicles/vehicles-air-pollution-and-human-health

[34] US Environmental Protection Agency, Sources Of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources-greenhouse-gas-emissions

[35] Hedges and Company, U.S. Vehicle Registration Statistics, https://hedgescompany.com/automotive-market-research-statistics/auto-mailing-lists-and-marketing/

[36] City of Minneapolis Fleet Services Division, October 2017, City of Minneapolis Electric Vehicle Study, https://lims.minneapolismn.gov/Download/RCA/2361/10_Municipal%20Fleet%20Electric%20Vehicle%20Study.pdf

[37] U.S. Department of Transportation, 2020 Budget Highlights, https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/docs/mission/budget/333126/budgethighlightsfinal040519.pdf

[38] News 21, August 14, 2017, Taxpayers Pay Billions For Industrial Contamination Cleanup, https://troubledwater.news21.com/taxpayers-pay-billions-for-industrial-contamination-cleanup/

[39] Microeconomic Insights, December 20, 2018, Why Is Pollution From U.S. Manufacturing Declining? https://microeconomicinsights.org/why-is-pollution-from-u-s-manufacturing-declining/



[1] US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Annual 2018 Initial Estimate, https://www.bea.gov/news/2019/initial-gross-domestic-product-4th-quarter-and-annual-2018

[2] Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2019, U.S. Tax Revenues Fall, Deficit Widens In Wake Of New Tax Law, https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tax-revenue-declined-0-4-in-2018-11550084426

[3] Department of U.S. Treasury, Treasury Direct, Interest Expense On The Debt Outstanding, https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm



[1] US Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Gross Domestic Product, Fourth Quarter and Annual 2018 Initial Estimate, https://www.bea.gov/news/2019/initial-gross-domestic-product-4th-quarter-and-annual-2018

[2] Wall Street Journal, February 13, 2019, U.S. Tax Revenues Fall, Deficit Widens In Wake Of New Tax Law, https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-tax-revenue-declined-0-4-in-2018-11550084426

[3] Department of U.S. Treasury, Treasury Direct, Interest Expense On The Debt Outstanding, https://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/ir/ir_expense.htm

[4] Politico, Politico Analysis: At $2.3 trillion cost, Trump Tax Cuts Leave Big Gap, https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/28/tax-cuts-trump-gop-analysis-430781

[5] Politico Magazine, July/August 2015, Where In The World Is The U.S. Military? https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/06/us-military-bases-around-the-world-119321



[1] Mises Institute, Study Estimates The Green New Deal To Cost $93 Trillion—And That’s A Conservative Estimate, https://mises.org/wire/study-estimates-green-new-deal-cost-93-trillion-%E2%80%94-thats-conservative-estimate

[2] The Aspen Institute, How Much Will The Green New Deal Cost? https://www.aspeninstitute.org/blog-posts/how-much-will-the-green-new-deal-cost/

[3] Business Insider, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Says Her Green New Deal Climate Plan Would Cost At Least $10 Trillion, https://www.businessinsider.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-says-green-new-deal-cost-10-trillion-2019-6

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s