The Green New Deal, a splashy new resolution proposed by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, delineates a general, non-binding path forward to address climate change. The Resolution sets forth broad goals to guide future climate policy and legislation, in a plan referred to as a “10 year national mobilization.” With ambitious objectives such as reducing emissions by 40-60% below 2010 levels by 2030 and attaining net-zero emissions status by 2050, the resolution quickly made waves in the political arena. Sub-components of these objectives include retrofitting existing buildings to be maximally efficient, stringent standards for new construction, and overhauling the current public transportation infrastructure to be less emissions-intensive. The Green New Deal is unique in that it seeks not only to address the environmental and economic impacts of climate change, but to also offset the social harms that climate change could cause as vulnerable populations grapple with a changing environment. By integrating universal health care, a federal job guarantee, and a living wage into broader climate goals, the resolution shows support for groups such as low-income families, minorities, and the elderly, many of whom have been historically ignored in proposed climate legislation. While the goals of the Green New Deal lay out a path to sustainability grounded in accurate science and economics, the resolution lacks political solvency and ultimately deepens partisan fissures that impede modern day climate action. By incorporating extensive social policy into its proposals, the Green New Deal gives right-wing and right-centrist groups a way to further regard climate action as a trojan horse for progressivism.
Proponents of the Green New Deal raise valid points regarding its strengths. For one, by proposing a resolution that so explicitly addresses climate change and all of its impacts, the authors of the Green New Deal are illustrating that climate change is no longer just a scientific question but a tangible threat to future political and economic stability. Furthermore, it is the first proposed policy that addresses not only the causes of climate change (i.e. emissions) but also the potential negative externalities of inaction which threaten to impact those the least equipped to deal with it. Groups historically left out of politics––especially low-income families, minority communities, the elderly, and disabled people––are being accounted for in this resolution—demonstrating an interpretation of sustainability that demands equal prioritization of the economy, the environment, and ethical treatment of people disproportionately affected. The novel combination of environmental, economic, and social policy has united and energized Democrats around addressing climate change while also demonstrating the ambitious goals needed to tackle what is arguably the biggest challenge of our time. Over the past several weeks, concerned citizens have been staging sit-ins in senators’ and congresspeople’s offices in an attempt to pressure them to vote for the resolution. While this does not guarantee that the resolution will pass, it imparts a symbolic value to the resolution. Non-binding as it is, the Green New Deal represents a congressional commitment to addressing climate change. Even if it fails to pass in the Senate, each individual vote speaks to the priorities of the given representative and holds significance to his/her constituents. As such, even if the Green New Deal fails to pass (which it likely will), there is still merit in it having been introduced.
That being said, the proposal is problematic in two key capacities: political solvency and its impact on polarization of climate politics. Regarding the latter, if the resolution fails to pass, it threatens to deepen partisan fissures that already prevent effective climate action. While the unique combination of stringent social, economic, and environmental policies appeals to left-wing politics, it is unlikely to appeal to right-centrists and very unlikely to appeal to right-wing polit