 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. In turn, these groups could see better representation in future climate solutions. If representatives of regions in the United States with low support for climate action demonstrated more engagement in developing effective climate policy, then the needs and wishes of their constituents would be better reflected in proposed legislation, ultimately making for a more democratic system.
Ultimately, the Green New Deal is not a bad plan in and of itself. Its goals are ambitious but rooted in science and economics. It succeeds in energizing people around climate activism. It contains measures that account for people likely to experience the impacts of climate change disproportionately from the rest of the population. However, by including many of these social policy provisions, the Green New Deal subsequently allows for the demonization of climate action by right-wing groups, which deepens the partisan divide seen in climate politics today. The worsened polarization in turn further impedes future climate action, preventing effective policy and prolonging the state of inaction. While ensuring that equity is not forgotten in climate policy is essential, large programs like the one set forth in the Green New Deal are unlikely to garner enough bipartisan support for implementation. As such, a more ideologically neutral policy like increased funding for basic research regarding clean technology is a more feasible first step in the fight against climate change. While it certainly will not be enough, incremental action is preferable to inaction when tackling one of the most staggering challenges of our time.