In case you had any doubt.

Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

“Yeah,” said Ricketts. Then he said: “No.” Then he said: “I think it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s dual. It is both rising to the challenge that is existential around climate and it is building an economy that contains more prosperity. More sustainability in that prosperity — and more broadly shared prosperity, equitability and justice throughout.”

Chakrabarti liked the answer. “The thing I think you guys are doing that’s so incredible is … you guys are actually figuring out how to do it and make it work, the comprehensive plan where it all fits together,” he said. “I’d love to get into a situation where everyone’s trying to just outdo each other.” But Chakrabarti couldn’t help adding: “I’ll be honest, my view is I still think you guys aren’t going big enough.”

Ricketts seemed unfazed by the critique. “Well, you know, we’re not done. When it comes to a nationwide economic mobilization, there’s more to come on this front, for one. And other key components we’re going to be rolling forward speak to some of the key justice elements of this … ensuring every community’s got a part of this.”

Of course, the same could be said of much of the environmentalism movement. It has been co-opted by Marxists looking to use the environment as a cudgel to advance their ideology. It’s a shame that they squeeze out so many people who actually care about the environment and want us to use it in a responsible manner without abandoning our advanced civilization.

Also note the arrogance, and impracticality, of socialists. They actually think that a group of wonks sitting in a room designing an economy can produce better results than the cumulative effect of a trillion individual decisions. History disproves that arrogant notion.

Speaking of the cost of socialism…

The “Medicare for All” plan pushed by Sen. Bernie Sanders and endorsed by a host of Democratic congressional and presidential hopefuls would increase government health care spending by $32.6 trillion over 10 years, according to a new study.

The Vermont senator has avoided conducting his own cost analysis, and those supporting the plan have at times struggled to explain how they could pay for it.

The study, released Monday by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, showed the plan would require historic tax increases.

The hikes would allow the government to replace what employers and consumers currently pay for health care — delivering significant savings on administration and drug costs, but increased demand for care that would drive up spending, according to the report.

The numbers make sense. The total U.S. GDP is just shy of $20 trillion per year and healthcare is about 18% of that. If the taxpayers are going to shoulder the entire cost for healthcare, it would run at least $3.5 trillion per year in today’s dollars. Run the number out 10 years with inflation and increased demand and there you have it…