ical actors, making the resolution politically infeasible. While this on its own is not detrimental (what’s another failed piece of climate legislation?), by incorporating popular liberal social policies such as universal healthcare and a federal job guarantee, Ocasio-Cortez has given right-wing politicians the chance to view climate action as a disguise for progressive politics—a belief which they can in turn impress upon the public. This conviction further alienates key political actors from effectively participating in climate policy and in some cases, even acknowledging climate change is happening in the first place. In doing so, the Green New Deal contributes to the continued politicization of climate change and environmental welfare, harming the solvency of future proposals related to climate action by worsening the severity of gridlock in climate politics. Regardless of the differences between political actors, effective climate policy simply will not happen without support from both ends of the political spectrum, and the cost of inaction in this scenario is too steep to justify an uncompromising approach.
The more complicated question arises from how to precipitate a compromise from such fiercely oppositional groups. To do so, it is necessary to reframe the issue of climate change. The reality is that climate change hurts everyone— from oil giants to students to small farmers. It creates risk for businesses, fosters global instability, and threatens the United States’ status as a world superpower. In the Worldwide Threat Assessment of 2018, the US Intelligence Community pointed to climate change as a major future source of global instability and political upheaval. Reframing climate change as a threat to national security and the United States’ position at the forefront of technological innovation would be a more effective strategy in garnering support for climate action, especially considering that national security is of high priority in right-wing politics. Look to the space race as an example: within ten years of Russia having sent the first human into space, the United States landed an astronaut on the moon. This was not a product of good fortune––it was the result of viewing foreign technological advancement as a threat to U.S. national security and taking aggressive policy measures to encourage domestic innovation. This same initiative should apply to climate change. As foreign powers make huge strides in renewable technologies, the U.S. straggles behind. China far outperforms the U.S. in terms of spending on clean energy research and is expected to be a leader in the transition to a vastly different energy economy in the decades to come. For the United States to ignore the mounting issue of climate change would be to deny itself the opportunity to excel in an unfamiliar, innovative geopolitical arena. This disadvantage in turn would make the United States vulnerable as it lags behind in innovation and struggles to cope with the higher incidence of disease, weakening infrastructure, and economic volatility associated with inaction in the face of climate change. Politically reframing climate action as an effective method of addressing national security threats could better engage the concerns of right-wing and centrist groups historically invested in maintaining national power and security in times of global instability.
While this reframing may incite action from those with political power, it may still fail to reach many working class Americans who will be hit hardest by the costs of both climate change and climate action. However, the people most likely to change their minds are people within their own in-groups. Research has shown that people are more likely to support policy proposed by their own party, and devalue policy proposed by the opposite party. Essentially, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is never going to convince a coal mining town in West Virginia that climate action is needed. As such, stronger bipartisan support for climate action could incite more support from working class conservatives.