Author:Orient, Jane M.

"... How will our actual medical care and health--as opposed to our health insurance card--be affected?"

THE TRUTH was acknowledged by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's former chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti: the Green New Deal is not primarily about greening the planet or controlling the climate; it is about socialism, as the people from whom Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D.-N.Y.) plagiarized it have said all along. It is a fundamental transformation of our way of life.

Since everything you do leaves a "carbon footprint," GND encompasses literally everything--especially your medical care.

The first question is whether you should be alive at all. In his sensationalized 1968 book, The Population Bomb, biologist Paul Ehrlich predicted that hundreds of millions of people would starve to death in the 1970s. That bomb fizzled, but he still believes that civilization is doomed within decades, as humanity places inexorable burdens on our planet's life support systems. The optimum population of the planet is less than 2,000,000,000, he thinks, or 5,600,000,000 fewer than we have now.

Once you are here, Ehrlich and his acolytes apparently would tolerate your presence, although the decline in U.S. life expectancy for the third consecutive year likely would be good news. Having children, though, is another matter. The demographic legacy of one person, calculated over the average time for that person's lineage to die out, is about six person-lifetimes in the U.S., with eventual emission of 9,441 tons of carbon dioxide. So, "reproductive health" ideally means no reproduction for most people, and many millennials (and celebrities) seem to embrace that idea. Predictably, unrestricted or even free abortion is an article of faith among the Democrats' presidential candidates--and, of course, the LGBTQ agenda, also favored by all, tends to contribute to the goal of population reduction.

Ironically, politicians still talk about "our children and our grandchildren," though they may work to assure that many of us do not have any.

The U.S. health-care sector is said to account for around 10% of the [CO.sub.2] generated in the U.S. and thus "could be implicated" in 10% of the nearly 200,000 premature deaths attributable to air pollution annually. (There are about 3,000,000 annual deaths in the U.S., and it is impossible to identify even one as being premature because of air pollution; the argument is purely statistical.) Thus, hospitals supposedly are killing people, albeit indirectly, by using carbon-based energy for heating, air conditioning, elevators, lighting, ventilators, etc.

Surgery is a special problem, beyond the use of electricity, because anesthetic gases that might have a greenhouse effect are vented to the atmosphere. So, are anesthesiologists to worry about a hypothetical tiny effect on the climate 50 years from now instead of the best treatment for today's patient?

"Social determinants of health" are the...

To continue reading