Why is the Green New Deal So Controversial?
For those who don’t have any idea what the Green New Deal is, it is a United States House of Representatives put forward by Democrats and led primarily by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The bill itself is not long at all; it is 14 pages with heavy indentations. My initial reaction to the size was “I can totally read 14 pages” so if you feel the same way and want to check it out, you can download the full proposal here: The Green New Deal. I’m going to be diving into:
What the Green New Deal is
What the arguments for this proposal are
What the arguments against this proposal are
My thoughts on the proposal
What is the Green New Deal?
By the name, it sounds like the Green New Deal is a purely environmental proposal, but it actually is not. The Green New Deal is a proposal that places the environment at the forefront of the conversation, but it encompasses many other pieces intended to address several problems that Americans have with our systems. The name is based on the New Deal from the Great Depression which I briefly discuss in my article The Economic Impact of COVID-19. In brief, The New Deal was a variety of programs, projects, and resolutions with the goal of stimulating the economy from the Great Depression. As a result, the United States experienced the greatest middle class we had ever seen. The reason this is named after that is because it is also a proposal to address a variety of issues in the same fashion, but adding “green” because environmental sustainability is at the forefront of the bill. The first part of this proposal identifies key problems starting with the climate crisis.
Problems identified to address
Human activity is the leading cause for climate cause causing sea levels to rise
Global climate increases of 2 degrees Celsius will result in catastrophic natural disasters, hurt the economy, and force migration
Life expectancy is declining while basic needs are becoming more difficult to obtain for many Americans
Wage stagnation since the 1970’s and a disappearing middle class
Experiencing the greatest income inequality since the 1920s
Pollution and environmental destruction has negatively impacted those in marginalized communities most
Climate change is a direct threat to national security by hurting coastal regions and multiplying threats
The full proposal is essentially a list of goals that our government would agree upon. The proposal does not recognize specific projects, or outlined game plans for attempting all of the goals, but it does have some specific possibilities for each larger goal. The purpose of this bill is to be vague and allow for a government consensus on what we want our goals to be as a country. The actual projects and details will be introduced in following proposals after this is agreed upon. I have reorganized the information to make it clearer to view and make sense of. This is a replication of the full bill in way I believe clearly displays the contents, but again, you may also review the Green New Deal yourself here.
Initial General Goals of the Green New Deal
Achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers in ten years
100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and by deploying new capacity
Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification
Removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation
Restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency
Cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites
Identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them
Create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States
Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization
Directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries
Ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition
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
Strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment
Strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors
Anacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States
Ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies
Invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century
By eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible, guaranteeing universal access to clean water, reducing the risks posed by climate impacts, ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change
Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘‘smart’’ power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity
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, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry
Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible; such as high-speed rail, zero-emission vehicle infrastructure, clean affordable accessible public transit systems
Making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries
Secure clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and sustainable environment for all people of the United States of America
Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible
Supporting family farming, investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food
Ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused
Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (“frontline and vulnerable communities”)
Mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies
Providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization
Ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through existing laws, new policies and programs, and ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected
Ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level
Again, this is a general outline and is reorganized to make it visually easier to read. I placed many of the points mentioned in the article and placed them under five general themes which were also stated in the proposal.
What are the arguments for this?
The argument for this resolution is essentially explained in the proposal itself. It plans on solving all of the problems it identifies by achieving the goals that are laid out within it and I have provided above. As displayed in The Hill’s article, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez reads the proposal aloud to speak for itself and then ends it with the following statement.
“I want every person in this body [the House of Representatives] and across the country to ask themselves why this is so controversial. Why is healthcare for every American so controversial? Why is protecting our planet for the next generation so controversial? Why is dignified labor and protections at work so controversial? Why is taking on the fossil fuel industry so controversial? Because for years we have prioritized the pursuit of profit at any and all human and environmental cost. And I humbly ask my colleagues and my country to question our priorities for once.” - Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
In support of the Green New Deal, the article “THE GREEN NEW DEAL: TWO TAKES” asks Joseph Kane, senior research associate with the Brookings Institution. He prefaces all of his statements with “The Green New Deal still has many unknowns,…” which is true it does. He continues to add that the bill is only a vision and exact policies o programs would still need to be defined. His concern is on the need to view things holistically. If we create a massive transition of economic focus to accommodate zero emissions, we need to consider the job transitions and ensure Americans of all skill levels have opportunities.
Similarly, Economist Mariana Mazzucato explains in the article “The economic argument behind the Green New Deal” how rethinking industrial policy could be key to tackling climate change. According to encyclopedia.com: Industrial policy refers to organized government involvement in guiding the economy by encouraging investment in targeted industries. Mazzucato explains how poor industrial policy is very focused on only growing one part of the United States economy and not providing a system to ensure growth throughout. Whereas a successful industrial policy will create a systematic way to transform an economy. Therefore arguing that a holistic view that covers various topics and how they’re interconnected would be effective and is currently necessary.
What are the arguments against this?
First, before I continue with the arguments against, I want to point out the easiest argument which would be that one does not believe climate change exists or that the climate crisis is real. Thus, a large portion of this plan isn’t necessary and doesn’t need to be so urgent or timely. Climate change is very real and many scientists across the globe have worked for years to not only prevent and protect against it, but to help prove its existence with data. If you are looking for more information, you can visit the NASA Global Climate Change website. I will also be touching on this more in my thoughts on the Green New Deal.
There are a few other concerns that are brought up in reference to the Green New Deal. First, by referencing “THE GREEN NEW DEAL: TWO TAKES” one of the main arguments against the Green New Deal is that it is too broad. If it’s goal is to get to zero-emissions in the United States, that should be the focus of the bill and not add social justice stances as well. Bob Inglis is one of the main individuals who is arguing that the proposal is too broad. He references the push for universal healthcare during the the Clinton administration and how it alone consumed all of the houses time and that is only part of the Green New Deal.
“It’s sort of like trying to have open heart surgery at the same time that you’re having a knee replacement.” - Bob Inglis
Another argument against the Green New Deal presented in the Politico article “The Trouble With the ‘Green New Deal’” is that it will have a similar impact as the $90 billion allocation toward sustainability in the Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Concerns of a considerable amount of money for potentially little impact toward moving to cleaner systems combined with a concern that it would be too government heavy have led most of the discussions from the Republican party. Although the proposal itself does not cover any specific budgets, it will definitely be an expensive list of projects and programs.
*In that same article, it references that some Republicans were deeming the $90 billion inclusion a “porkulus” boondoggle. I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, but I thought it was hilarious and wanted to share.
One argument made by Nicolas Loris in the article “It’s Not Just About Cost. The Green New Deal Is Bad Environmental Policy, Too” is that the Green New Deal does not address many major issues associated with green technology. It’s actually a great read and I’d recommend checking it out. I do notice a lot of the concerns raised are specific possible practices in transitioning the economy and they’re all very valid. Unfortunately, I wouldn’t consider the article a strong argument against the Green New Deal, but a collection of valid points to take into consideration when something like the Green New Deal is passed and programs are being decided. The article also references failed policy systems like in China and Venezuela, but doesn’t highlight some successful policy like in Germany. It also doesn’t provide links to sources for the failed policy in China and Venezuela. Below you can find an article on China and Germany, so you can read about them yourself.
Environmental challenges in China: determinants of success and failure
How Germany Became Europe’s Green Leader: A Look at Four Decades of Sustainable Policymaking
Here’s what I think about it.
I’m loosely for the Green New Deal or something similar. I think that many people in this country have been hurt by our current systems and the Green New Deal is tackling a major problem - the Climate Crisis - while recognizing that everything is interconnected. We can leverage one change for a bigger change centered around a primary goal. Have you ever made one decision and it suddenly opened up a lot of other possibilities?
For example, I wanted to build this site and blog to practice digital marketing, but as a result I saw opportunities to learn more digital design, improve my writing skills, and see many other new opportunities because I have done all of that. I also have realized that all of this has taken away some things from me like my time to practice guitar. It’s the same concept, but country-wide as I see it. The Green New Deal does tackle the climate crisis, but as a result it will leverage that change to change other things that all improve each other. Then, because it will negatively impact some areas of the economy, those will need to be addressed to. The major difference is that the Green New Deal is planning for all those things, so we can all experience positive results from the resolution in the end.
I do have concerns that it would be expensive and that many consequences will result from such an aggressive movement. Ultimately, that’s the cost of progress. There’s a lot of value in green infrastructure in the end because it helps prevent the impact of climate change and also requires less input. Many infrastructure requirements will be needed like how large urban areas will be powered, but again that’s more decision making for a program or project after agreeing to these goals. The concerns can all be addressed in specific policy, but I would agree with all of the goals outlined in the Green New Deal because it would aim to better the middle class. The timeline may be aggressive at 2030, but I believe 2040 is entirely feasible.
That’s my take with some supporting information, but I’d love to hear more regarding this topic. If you have economic thoughts, if you have technological insight, or if you have more examples. The more information that different people can share the better we can all make decisions. Therefore, if you agree, disagree, or want to add more do so in the comments below.
Thank you for reading this article and being a part of the Casual Toast community! As always, please share any thoughts you have from this article, share this with friends to get more viewpoints, and follow me on social media to be updated when I upload new articles.
