The Green New Deal: A Viable Option?
The first presidential debate held on September 29, 2020, was a spectacle of an event that left watchers in awe. This was in part due to the unprecedented number of interruptions, a striking moment of Biden calling Trump a “clown” on live television, and Trump’s infamous response of “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by” when asked to denounce white supremacy. It certainly wasn’t as flamboyant as the antics, but in both the presidential and VP debates, one topic received more screen time and ire than expected: the Green New Deal (GND).
During the debates, it seemed as though both candidates were eager to condemn the resolution. Trump said the GND would cost 100 trillion dollars, a value he claimed was “more money than our country could make in 100 years.” He proceeded to call it a radical, dumb, and ridiculous plan. Biden also made a statement that he supports his own climate plan and not the GND, despite his Vice President Kamala Harris’ role as an original co-sponsor of the resolution.
By the end of Trump and Biden’s exchange, it was obvious that the debate had left more questions than answers on the climate plan. Was it really the economic suicide that Trump claimed it to be? Would it actually be able to reverse the current US trend for greenhouse gas emissions? And most importantly, was it really a more viable option than either candidate was willing to accept?
The GND was originally introduced by Congress Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY) and Senator Edward J. Markey (MA) in February 2019. The resolution calls for a 10-year national mobilization plan with the goal of reducing the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to net-zero and of ensuring that 100% of the country’s energy supply comes from renewable sources by 2030. The plan emphasizes infrastructure renewal, weather-proofing, investing in green technology, and transitioning to energy-efficient transportation and smart grids. Specifically, this would include projects like upgrading the country’s roads, bridges, and energy grid to be more efficient, switching to low energy public transit, weatherizing and reconstructing buildings, and requiring the government to adopt more eco-friendly practices. Along with a plan to address climate change, the GND also addresses social inequality, something that is undeniably linked to the effects of the climate crisis. The resolution prioritizes BIPoC and working-class communities, both of whom are hit hardest by climate change, through funding and investing in projects that would benefit them the most.
While Trump and many Republicans claim the deal would kill jobs and prevalent industries, the GND is actually expected to create millions of federally guaranteed jobs, which also means projects would require minimum wages of fifteen dollars. The transformation would go beyond just repairing infrastructure, and instead create a system that is more resilient, eco-friendly, and durable than before; it would be able to support itself and frontier communities for generations. Supporters say the plan will also lower costs for the working class, especially regarding energy bills, more affordable public transportation, and universal health care.
Although there has not been a calculated cost for the project, Trump may be inaccurate with his figure of $100 trillion, a number that was originally cited by one right-wing think tank which made an estimate between $51 and $91 trillion. Instead, a more realistic estimate for the GND is closer to $10 trillion. Regardless of what Trump inaccurately said about the GND costing over 10 years of American revenue, it seems the benefits of the GND would outweigh the costs, including the economic ones. For example, according to a report by the Government Accountability Office in 2017, during the past decade, American taxpayers have already paid over $350 million for climate change in the form of disaster assistance. At the same time, the federal government paid over $450 billion in total for natural disasters. A 2019 study by the National Bureau of Economic Research also indicates that by 2100 there will be a global GDP per capita decrease of 7.2% and a decrease of over 10.5% in America’s total GDP. It is hard to imagine how the US would measure the price of lives, especially from pollution, lack of freshwater, and the expected increase in heat and disaster-related deaths.
Given that other climate plans currently exist, like calls for carbon taxes or Biden’s cheaper $2 trillion plan, which focuses more solely on technology and infrastructure, some may wonder what makes the GND the best choice. To find the answer to this question, I turned to the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led organization fighting for political action on climate change, which played a key role in the creation of the GND. Lexington has its own hub that has been responsible for numerous local fundraisers, climate strikes, campaigning events. Recently, it even contributed to the passing of a Climate Emergency Declaration in a Lexington town meeting. Robin Pan, a junior from the Lexington hub of Sunrise, expressed that “the Green New Deal is the only plan that is ambitious enough to solve the climate crisis. It goes beyond setting emission goals and tackles nearly every aspect of the climate crisis such as job benefits, healthcare, and protecting marginalized communities.”
The answer to the question, as it turns out, is actually quite simple: the GND is unique because it actually proposes rapid intensive action. With the timeframe for possible reversal of the climate crisis shrinking, and given the U.S.'s history of being complacent towards it, this so-called “radical” plan may not be simply a choice, but the only logical option.
by NAVYA SAMMETA