What is the Green New Deal?
Caitlin Ziolkowski
It is no question that climate change is the largest threat to our civilization with long lasting impacts that will soon turn irreversible. Despite being a self-proclaimed world leader, the United States is one of the only industrialized countries to have withdrawn from the Paris Climate Agreement- an international group of 195 countries promising to decrease greenhouse gas emissions. The United States accounts for 4% of the global population, however, responsible for ⅓ of the CO2 currently in the atmosphere. In fact, the US subsidizes fossil fuel industries with $20 billion each year, despite many negative externalities such as climate change or a decrease in quality of public health. In addition to the problematic nature of the United States’ impact on the environment, the US is currently experiencing many economic issues with significant class divide. 400 people in the United States own half of the nation’s wealth, hourly wages have stagnated since the 70s (with an increase in worker productivity), and significant racial/gender wealth gaps reinforces that economic divide. Poor environmental status disproportionally affects black, immigrant, native, disabled, low-income, and rural communities. The Green New Deal is a radical attempt to limit pollution the US is responsible for, while simultaneously stimulating the economy, making it a beneficial investment for current and future generations. But what does the Green New Deal entail?
Inspired by Franklin D Roosevelt's New Deal to restore the US economy after The Great Depression, the Green New Deal offers Americans meaningful job opportunities in order to pull the economy away from damaging fuel sources. Introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Edward Markey of Massachusetts, the Green New Deal would reduce the United States’ dependence on fossil fuels. The GND envisions a 10 year transition period in which the US would ultimately source 100% of its energy from renewable and zero-emissions power through significant changes to agriculture, infrastructure, and transportation. In terms of transportation, the US would transition to electric vehicles and high speed railways that offer millions of jobs to middle class families and affordable access to all. The Green New Deal would specifically tackle poverty and inequality issues through a federal jobs guaranteed program that implements strong racial, gender, age, and geographical awareness to reduce current income inequalities. The Green New Deal focuses on offering better education, transportation, wages, and health/living standards to those specific communities as well. After all, a successful economy is the result of a good middle class. The Green New Deal incorporates average Americans to tackle a problem as abstract as climate change. It is quite empowering to the American worker to know that they play a part in fixing the global climate crisis.
With its many strengths, the Green New Deal comes with weaknesses as well. The Green New Deal’s response to such dire change is drastic and it inevitably comes with a large price tag. In past interviews AOC priced the deal at about $10 trillion, while Donald Trump claimed it would cost $100 trillion. These estimations are unfathomably large and understandably negate overall support. In the graph by Data For Progress, you can see that many younger generations have a higher overall support for the Green New Deal than others. It is likely that the younger generations will see the devastating damage of climate change and feel more compelled to find long-term solutions. Ultimately, there is no cheap way to create meaningful environmental changes within society.
Based off of a special report on global warming of 1.5 ºC” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, they found that not dealing with environmental issues is costly as well: “climate change will result in more than $500,000,000,000 lost in possible economic output of the US by 2100, increasing regions of the US burned by wildfires annually, more than 350,000,000 people exposed to deadly heat stress by 2050, and damage to $1,000,000,000,000 worth of US infrastructure.” (AOC) In any case, climate change has already cost US taxpayers over $350 billion with disaster assistance and relief. With scientists claiming that “We are the last generation that can prevent irreparable damage to our planet” (Espinosa-Garcés) we must act fast and we must act now. Without any action, the negative effects of climate change on the environment, economy and collective well-being will certainly be a larger price to pay than the Green New Deal.
Works Cited
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.
Ocasio-Cortez, Alexandria. “Text - H.Res.109 - 116th Congress (2019-2020): Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal.” Congress.gov, 12 Feb. 2019, www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text.
Soren, Kayla, et al. “The Green New Deal: A Strategy for a More Equal United States.” Inequality.org, inequality.org/research/the-green-new-deal-a-strategy-for-a-more-equal-united-states/.
Winter, Ethan. “Six Graphs Show The Green New Deal Is A Winner.” Data For Progress, Data For Progress, 7 Mar. 2019, www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal.
Link form:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
https://www.dataforprogress.org/blog/2019/3/6/six-graphs-green-new-deal
https://inequality.org/research/the-green-new-deal-a-strategy-for-a-more-equal-united-states/
This was such an interesting read. It was really interesting to see the generation divide in support. I think that may have been a part of the continued industrial mindset that many people adopted after both the Great Depression and post WWII. The baby boomer generation is very hard working and are used to heavy industrialization, which is something they probably would like to see continue as they associate that industrialization with the economic success the US saw post war. I agree wholeheartedly that the US and world is headed down a long and difficult path; money doesn't matter when we are all dead.
ReplyDeleteYou made a lot of good points about the Green New Deal and the economy, and I agree with what you said about being apart of this agreement would benefit the US in many different ways as it would increase the quality of life dramatically. I think that while it is important that we act now, many Americans are stuck on the price and their reliance on fossil fuels. This then poses the question of how could rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement impact the US economy. I also agree that while the cost increase could negatively impact the US economy, the outside benefits (i.e. quality of life, and future use of renewable energy sources) will outweigh the cost in the long run. However, I think a lot of people are stuck on what it would cost them now rather than trying to visualize the benefits in the future. If climate change continues to happen at the rate that it is, it won't matter whether or not our economy is good because there will be no resources to continue to make product. Thus, I agree with your statement that if we don't act now the negative effects of climate change will be greater than the price of the Green New Deal.
ReplyDeleteThis article is super helpful. I haven't really been clear on what the Green New Deal is, so I appreciate you putting it into such an easy to digest format. Though it does raise the question of how long it will take to implement these reforms and if we even have enough time to do so. Even with these questions, something is better than nothing. It's a radical plan, but climate change is a very pressing issue, so it might be just the radical plan we need.
ReplyDeleteThis article is super helpful. I haven't really been clear on what the Green New Deal is, so I appreciate you putting it into such an easy to digest format. Though it does raise the question of how long it will take to implement these reforms and if we even have enough time to do so. Even with these questions, something is better than nothing. It's a radical plan, but climate change is a very pressing issue, so it might be just the radical plan we need.
ReplyDeleteDonald Trump says that the act will cost about $100 trillion dollars, but if we don't go through with this plan then we already pay a few trillion dollars plus the lives of American. Human lives are priceless and should be put at a very high priority. Although I love electric cars such as Tesla's I don't believe other people would want to switch over to a new type of car like that. Electric cars are nice but they are super hard to customize mostly because they are just powered by batteries, because of this most people that are into cars tend to stay away from the electric ones. It is time to limit the amount of pollution and fix the mistakes of the past generations.
ReplyDelete- Sindey Fohr
The Green New Deal and climate change have been very hot topics of discussion in the past years. Climate change is certainly real, but I don't think the Green New Deal is the answer to the problem. As you said, the Deal aims to eliminate fossil fuels from the U.S. economy in ten years time. This would cause irreparable damage to the U.S. economy. Most of our infrastructure is dependent of fossil fuels, from our power generation to our cars (even electric cars, which depend on the power grid). Eliminating every fossil fuel power plant and internal combustion engine within ten years would rip a hole so massive in the economy that it would take decades to rebound. If we eliminate fossil fuels, there will also be extra strain on the power grid from the additional electric commodities, such as an increase in electric cars. The technology for an all-renewable country the size of the U.S. simply has not been invented yet. We have solar panels, wind turbines, and hydroelectric power, but these cannot come close to the power generation we need if we are to dispose of fossil fuels. To add to this, the U.S. is already over $26,000,000,000,000 ($26 trillion) in debt. We cannot afford the new deal. If we assume a real cost between Trump's and AOC's claims of about $50 trillion, the U.S. would have to take every dollar it makes for the next 2-3 years and put it toward the Deal. That is an unfathomably large amount of money. I agree that action needs to be taken against climate change, but the effects of eliminating fossil fuels in ten years would prove much more disastrous than global warming. It was interesting to see the other viewpoint, however. The chart you included was helpful to understanding support for the Deal, and how the younger generation is more supportive of it.
ReplyDeleteI think the GND needs to be taken with the lense of modern monetary policy, as we seem to be able to support steeper and steeper economic deficits with little to no damage (besides interest rates) to our economy. While i'm not sure I agree with AOC's justification, it would be interesting to see how it works with our economy.
ReplyDelete