The Green New Deal (GND) has garnered a great deal of attention in politics, and seems to be exclusively positive or negative depending on the source covering it. Here, we provide an overview of what the GND is and what it means for the United States and the future of the globe.
What is it?
Most simply put, the GND is a document that establishes a framework that will guide future legislation to address the climate crisis and the steps needed to take in order to avoid major social, economic, and human losses. In fact, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D, NY-14), the main advocate and sponsor of this proposition, has explained that the intentions of this bill were to start a conversation about how we will approach climate change and to set broad goals that will guide Congress and the American people in the coming decades.
The fossil fuel industry is well established and employs millions of workers in the United States (1). However, the fossil fuel industry is one of the biggest contributors to the increasing severity of the environmental crisis. In order to combat climate change, alterations to the way the American people acquire and use energy are necessary. But, that will require a great deal of time and planning in order to take steps away from the established fossil fuel industry that millions of Americans rely on. This is why one of the focuses of the GND is to take the necessary steps to make these changes while ensuring that the mobilization of this resolution creates high quality jobs and strengthens labor rights and safety measures.
The resolution begins by explaining the problem and offering broad solutions. The bill recognizes that human activity is a major contributor towards the climate crisis. Specifically, the impact that the US has had on climate change is disproportionate compared to population size. Furthermore, because the United States is a major economic and social superpower, we must lead the world in mitigation efforts through strong national legislation.
What are the long-term implications?
The GND aims to combat environmental disaster as well as the socioeconomic inequalities that are exacerbated by climate change. Here are some of the goals outlined in the bill*:
Upgrading infrastructure to be more sustainable and equal by reducing green-house gas emissions, granting universal access to clean water, and addressing climate change in all infrastructure bills
Slowly replacing fossil fuels with clean, zero-emission energy sources by upgrading current renewable power sources and building energy efficient power grids, providing affordable access to electricity for all
Implementing universal health care to deal with the negative health and economic repercussions of climate change and pollution
Implementing projects to protect and restore endangered ecosystems, enhance biodiversity, and promote climate resiliency
Creating more government jobs through the expansion of clean energy sectors, and guaranteeing a family-sustaining wage for all people
* language taken explicitly from the GND
What are the criticisms?
The main legitimate critique of the GND is the estimated cost of the goals that were outlined. While there is no way to give an accurate projection of the total cost of such a significant economic transformation, various sources have all estimated that pursuing the GND will cost trillions of dollars (2). However, proponents argue that this bill will pay for itself over time, saving consumers from the costs associated with fossil fuel based energy (3). That being said, even though the GND brings great value to our society and economy, it is still important to assess all costs associated with achieving sustainability goals that tackle climate change but do not harm the American people. The inclusion of the federal jobs guarantee, universal health care, and a living wage mean that average workers will not be forgotten in this massive societal and economic overhaul.
Another area of debate surrounds the current state of usable renewable energy. Many renewable energy sources are intermittent, meaning that they are not available at all times. Critics claim that it is difficult to expect that sources such as wind or solar will be able to supply all energy needs in the given timeline projected by the GND. While the proposal does not make specific claims regarding funding for renewable energy, it does call for the upgrade of the current renewable systems. It is a valid concern to assume that the state of sustainable sources will reach heights that will allow us to surpass the goals outlined in the deal in the allotted time. 2020 Democratic candidate for President Andrew Yang proposed that using nuclear energy safely could help decrease the use of fossil fuels while we continue to improve upon renewable sources.
A common misconception of the GND is that it eliminates or slashes funding towards carbon-emitting industries. However, the language in the proposal is vague and sets only broad goals for achieving energy independence using renewable sources, ending wage stagnation, and more. There is no specific indication that any prominent industry will be impacted by the proposal, and there would be no change in our economy unless followed up with more specific legislation. Additionally, some people worry that it would eliminate jobs from those who are employed by these industries, but it is important to consider the new job opportunities the resolution hopes to provide as they lead us in the transition to a new energy system and new economy.
That being said, it is important to be able to distinguish between valid critiques and outlandish conspiracy theories regarding the GND. We urge all readers to review the proposal itself, as the original language will shed light on what the GND set out to do: to start a conversation about climate change on a federal level.
Why do we need this?
Our planet is currently at a point where we only have a decade to prevent irreversible damage to the environment (4). Carbon emissions have continued to rise over the past four years and will not decrease until stricter policies are implemented in our energy production and use (4). If climate change continues to progress at its current pace, we will soon experience severe socio economic instability, increasingly prevalent natural disasters, rising sea levels, destruction of public infrastructure and private property, decreases in national economic output, and more.
Although the timeline seems long and expensive, it is currently the best option to address climate change, which cannot be solved without time and money. While the GND isn’t perfect, it opens up a conversation about taking active steps towards net-zero emissions. In doing so, we work towards a healthier planet for us all. We encourage everyone to call their representatives and show their support for climate legislation, or help educate others about the GND.
Don’t just take it from us either, read the 14 page proposal yourself here!
References:
1. “2017 U.S. Energy and Employment Report.” Energy.gov, www.energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energy-and-employment-report.
2. Galvin, Ray, and Noel Healy. “The Green New Deal in the United States: What It Is and How to Pay for It.” Energy Research & Social Science, Elsevier, 8 Apr. 2020, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214629620301067/.
3. Friedman, Lisa. “What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 21 Feb. 2019, www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html.
4. “Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting | Meetings Coverage and Press Releases.” United Nations, United Nations, www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm.