re 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 political 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