Assessing the Green New Deal
The Green New Deal is a piece of potential legislation that calls for an extreme change in American Life. The GND primarily proposes the idea that the United States will be greenhouse gas neutral and on 100% renewable energy by 2030, however, this comes at an extremely high cost. Similar to FDR’s New Deal, the GND excludes a plethora of socialist reform ideas, classified as an “Economic Bill of Rights” which includes: the right to single-payer healthcare, a guaranteed job at a living wage, affordable housing, and free college education. These legislative reforms go beyond environmental protection and act as an economic stimulus. The GND premiered through the Green Party in 2015 and was featured in Jill Stein’s presidential platform. In light of recent global climate studies, the GND has since found itself implemented into mainstream democratic platforms, with all 7 of the remaining democratic nominees for 2020 supporting or cosponsoring the legislation.
From an economic standpoint, It is estimated that a GND transition would cost anywhere from 8.3-12.3 trillion dollars, or the equivalent of $52,000 to $72,000 per household, this obviously isn’t feasible in the form of taxation, even over a 10 year period. This level of government subsidisation hasn’t occurred proportionally on a scale of this magnitude since World War II. World War II effectively pulled the United States out of the Great Depression. The problem here is that the Government Debt would have to increase by several trillion dollars to finance this bill, and with that, we risk hyperinflation and crashing the stock market. Of course, economically speaking, a viable alternative to the Green New Deal would be a massive Carbon Tax on companies, make the tax high enough and companies will find a more environmentally friendly way to function. Implementing a carbon tax appears more feasible in today’s gridlocked legislator.
Environmentally speaking, 100% renewable energy by 2030 is an appealing idea at its core, but definitely far off. In 2017 only 11% of our energy was renewable and 9% was nuclear. The GND holds seven environmental objectives:
- Shift 100% of national power generation to renewable sources.
- Construct a national energy-efficient “smart” grid.
- Upgrade all buildings to become energy efficient.
- Decarbonize the manufacturing and agricultural industries.
- Decarbonize, repair, and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure, especially transportation.
- This would call for a vast redesign and upgrade of our public transportation systems, which is the most expensive objective of the GND, costing billions in urbanised areas.
- Fund mass investment in the drawdown and capture of greenhouse gases.
- This calls for the installation of government incentives to encourage corporations to either invest in carbon offsets or directly decarbonise themselves.
- Adopting these goals would make “green” technology, industry, expertise, products, and services a major U.S. export. As a result, America could become an international leader in helping other countries transition to completely carbon-neutral economies.
In addition to its large price tag, a criticism of the GND is that it suffers from a collective action problem. The reforms and pro-environment economic movement of the GND would only take place domestically. The United States accounts for 15% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Assuming the United States went Net-0, a 15% carbon dioxide reduction would not be sufficient to stop the snowballing degradation of our climate.
The GND is a solid example of the first round of legislation aimed at saving the environment. There is no easy answer to this, AOC said it best by saying, “ “So people are like: ‘Oh, it’s unrealistic. Oh, it’s vague. Oh, it doesn’t address this little minute thing.’ And I am like, ‘You try! You do it!’”
Work Cited:
Amadeo, Kimberly. “Why the Green New Deal Is Happening Now.” The Balance, The Balance, 30 Apr. 2019, www.thebalance.com/green-new-deal-4582071.
BANERJEE, ONIL, et al. “AN ECONOMY-WIDE ANALYSIS OF CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACTS ON AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SECURITY IN BANGLADESH.” Climate Change Economics, vol. 6, no. 1, 2015, pp. 1–17. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/climchanecon.6.1.03.
Mitchel, Bobby. “What Is a Green New Deal?” Sierra Club, 27 Nov. 2018, www.sierraclub.org/trade/what-green-new-deal.
Paul, Mark. “The Economic Case For The Green New Deal.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 21 Feb. 2019, www.forbes.com/sites/washingtonbytes/2019/02/20/the-economic-case-for-the-green-new-deal/#2025c7894c84.
I appreciate this discussion of the GND because I believe that it is important that we, as a nation, shift to be more environmentally conscious. But, as you mentioned, only a small portion use renewable energy and there would need to be incentives, like the tax that you discussed, to try to steer people away from carbon-source energy. I also liked how you acknowledged the fact that the debt that we have acquired as a country is somewhat impeding the process of making the US a “green” country. The issue of balancing our debt while also maintaining the stock market is very tedious, and one of the main reasons I think that people in high places are somewhat hesitant to start a push towards solutions like the GND. Great job with this issue.
I think the concept of the GND has merit, but I can understand the general public’s concerns with its implementation. I do believe that we as a nation have to take collective steps to combat the urgent effects of climate. I really believe in the merit of moving the general population away from carbon-sourced energy. I also appreciated how you discussed the possible ramifications of the GND, because I think it is very important to attempt to understand why people have hesitations about this monumental plan. This sense of understanding is essential in order to modify the plan in an attempt to fine bi-partisan compromise; because right now, it is most important that we start to make some immediate steps towards combating climate change.
Like the others have said, the concept of the GND sounds quite good on paper. However, putting the legislation into practice is very ambitious. The slew of problems that come alongside the GND are too grand to ignore, especially with the large price tag and difficult requirements. That being said, it is a good first step to finding the right solutions to help fight climate change. A collaborative effort among different nations with everyone adhering to various standards and practices would be very beneficial at this point in time. However, convincing and enforcing these countries to do so can/has been proven to be very difficult. With the worsening conditions of our planet, perhaps we’ll be able to come together and make helpful change occur.
I really like how you chose to talk about a topic that is a very relevant issue in our society. I can see how the money aspect surrounding the Green New Deal would make some people hesitant in implementing it, but I think that in the end it is all worth it. We need to take a chance and start changing the world around us, which involves some serious thought about how to ACTUALLY to this.
This was a really interesting read! I consider myself to be pretty involved politically, but surprisingly (and embarrassingly) I didn’t know what the tenants of the Green New Deal were. While I agree with them wholeheartedly, I recognize that their implementation would prove to be extremely costly and difficult. Still, I wonder what the point of having low-debt is if our world doesn’t exist!