Kaylin Brooks
Is
the Green New Deal Realistic?
Early
this year the country heard the interesting, but familiar sounding words: The
Green New Deal. This is a proposed “legislation” that was introduced by Representative
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward J. Markey of
Massachusetts in February of 2019. Its goal is aimed at fighting climate change
and inequality. Ultimately, the goal is to reduce the amount of fossil fuels
the United States uses and to reduce the carbon we emit into the atmosphere.
The other huge goal is to essentially to generate high paying jobs, to help fix
social problems, and to fight inequality.
However,
an important factor that must be noted is that this is not a specific bill or a
policy proposal, this is more of a resolution. The Green New Deal would lead
the country down a road that would greatly combat climate change on a level
that would change society. It’s overall a very monstrous plan.
This
deal is inspired by Franklin D. Roosevelt’s iconic New Deal from his presidency
(Friedman). Likewise, it is based on reshaping the country in many steps and through
many projects. It would be a “series of public-works programs and financial
reforms” (Friedman). Also, the reason behind the big push for this deal is
based off the findings from the “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC” by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. It states that climate change is
greatly caused by human activity and a warming of 2 degrees Celsius will lead
to “mass migration,” “wildfires,” major declines of coral reefs, and monumental
economic catastrophes (H. RES. 109).
Some
of the specific issues that the Green New Deal’s “10-year
mobilization” plan is trying to tackle getting the whole world to “net-zero
emissions by 2050 — meaning as much carbon would have to be absorbed as
released into the atmosphere — and the United States must take a ‘leading role’
in achieving that” (Friedman). Other tasks include creating jobs and demanding
the government to uphold clean water and air for all citizens. Specific
criteria from the resolution states that this deal is set in place “to create
millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security
for all people of the United States,” “invest in the infrastructure and
industry…sustainably,” and “promote justice and equity” (H. RES. 109).
To some this proposed
idea is on the right path to helping fight the climate crisis and to others the
Green New Deal is outrageous, unnecessary, and unrealistic. This issue has
started high controversy and debate. Many democrats like Ocasio-Cortez seem to
support this resolution, while conservatives like President Trump believe this
plan is ridiculous and he even stated the deal will “take away airplane rights”
(Friedman). Many opposers believe this is socialist scheme trying to ban
livestock and have total government control (Friedman).
Our country nowadays is
highly polarized. We know this from discussions in classrooms, to witnessing it
in our own communities, and watching it on daily news channels. The chapter, The Historical Development of Congress in the
book “The United States Congress” by Adler, Jenkins, and Shipan discusses
polarization and ideologies in congress. They show the reader graphs that
congress is highly polarized with most members being highly liberal or highly
conservative (Adler et. al 62). This idea of polarization ties greatly to how
this deal will be handled. With so much diversity it seems almost impossible
that a deal like this would ever be passed in congress.
Another big issue is that
this Green New Deal will cost a lot of money. Conservatives like Trump seem to
think that this will cost a hundred trillion dollars, while Ocasio-Cortez seems
to think in a way it might pay for itself (Friedman). Either way, there are vastly
different ideologies at play, so coming to an agreement on the Green New Deal seems
extremely farfetched.
However,
a graph from Gallup from the article called “Most Americans Support
Reducing Fossil Fuel Use” by Justin McCarthy shows that many Americans support
reducing the amount fossil fuel use.
This doesn’t necessarily mean that these people in
favor of lowering fossil fuel use support the Green New Deal. However, if they
do support this idea it seems important that members of congress would
represent their constituents fairly.
However,
in another reading, from the article “Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion
among Political Elites” by David Brookman and Christopher Skovron the idea of
misrepresentation is highlighted. The main idea is that political elites can
systematically misrepresent constituents. As the Green New Deal is continued to
be talked about, it’s important to question if our legislators are considering
what their constituents think and are not just assuming what they want. For
many people, the climate crisis is no laughing matter and how their legislator
represents them is very important.
Overall,
time will tell how the Green New Deal will be handled in Congress. As of right
now, it seems our polarized and sometimes misrepresented country may get in the
way of any change or compromise. Questions like is this feasible, is this
necessary, and is this the direction our country wants to head in are only a
few that will help lead those discussions.
Sources:
Broockman, David E., and Christopher
Skovron. “Bias in Perceptions of Public Opinion among
Political
Elites.” American Political Science Review, vol. 112, no. 3, 2018,
pp. 542–563., doi:10.1017/S0003055418000011.
Adler, E. Scott, et
al. The United States Congress. W.W. Norton & Company, 2019.
Very well written post! The Green New Deal has been a very highly debated and controversial issue this year. I am from a small, rural town with lots of cattle and diesel operated machines. As mentioned, people that live in these types of areas are more than likely not in support of this policy. The fact that Ocasio-Cortez herself has criticized cattle ranchers and accused them of being contributors to the global warming problem has not helped win over any votes from these areas either. I do think that it is a good idea for the US and world to reduce our output of bad gases into the environment. We should take care of our world, but as mentioned, I do not think that this legislation will be what solves the problem based on how controversial it is.
ReplyDeleteI think that the Green New Deal is an extremist idea that will never get passed, but they need to start somewhere. If they are able to compromise on half of what they are trying to accomplish, then I would consider it a victory because we're still moving in the right direction. Both Democrats and Republicans will feel like they have won some sort of the battle.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteGreat piece! What I have found interesting about the Green New Deal is that it has two very separate parts; one about the environment and one about equality. Although the relate in the sense that cleaning up the environment would result in more jobs being created, it seems like it would be quite difficult to achieve both goals. As I do not know many details about the Deal, it would be interesting to see what the plans are for how they are going to go about completely eradicating emission, and also how much it would cost exactly? Since there tends to be a misrepresentation of the wishes of constituents, I wonder what the real gap is when it comes to the support or opposition of the Green New Deal.