An in-depth guide to Ocasio-Cortez’s Green New Deal
By: ZMKF and Emily Zhao
First of all, the Green New Deal is not legislation. It is a “resolution” — the definition of which betrays its lack of actual influence: “a formal expression of opinion or intention agreed on by a legislative body, committee, or other formal meeting, typically after taking a vote.” A formal expression of opinion, that is currently all the Green New Deal is. Which also means that those who are against it are essentially afraid of the strength that it doesn’t have yet. But there are optimistic thinkers who predict that if we follow this formal expression of opinion through, we could end up with very real progress.
The profile “Green New Deal Action” by Countable writes, “The Green New Deal recognizes that our current carbon-based economy is a key driver of Climate Change, and that if we are going to address Climate Change with the urgency it requires, we must also transform our economy to increase opportunity across our society.” The Green New Deal, they say, is a viable first step, and the only option at present.
The Green New Deal is the subject of much controversy — there are concerns about how vague the text itself is, and whether the “community-defined projects and strategies” are even practical. Let’s unpack the Deal together, and discuss what the projects and strategies are actually going to be.
To start, the document lists various claims of how climate change will impact the economy and people’s quality of life.
(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause — (A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change; (B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100; wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019; (D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth; (E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and (F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States;
It sounds rather gruesome, but these statistics are all well-supported by relevant and recent scientific studies. Economists agree that climate change will be costly not only for the federal government but for a large swath of homeowners, real-estate agents, insurance companies, and businesses.
What does “net-zero global emissions” mean?
(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require —
(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and
(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;
Net-zero simply means “no change in emissions.” Technically, it does not mean that we can not produce excess, unnatural carbon, ever, but if we do produce excess, unnatural carbon, we’re supposed to take it back out of the atmosphere again — and taking large amounts of carbon out of the atmosphere at a time is possible. The process is called sequestration, and it usually involves depositing the collected gas in a reservoir that can hold and transform it. Trees naturally sequester carbon. More high-tech than trees, a power plant in Illinois uses a type of carbon sequestration called bioenergy carbon capture and storage (BECCS) to turn the gas into liquid fuel. There are three subtypes that capture the carbon at different stages — oxy-combustion, pre-combustion, and post-combustion. The plant in Illinois traps its ethanol as sandstone underneath the Illinois corn belt.
There are two options for us, and there’s no telling which is going to tax our resources more — we either need to cut cold turkey on producing carbon immediately or invent innovative, affordable methods for deconstructing and putting it back in the ground. The Green New Deal doesn’t pick a method for us, it leaves the decision up to the communities and leaders of industry.
What is a Just Transition?
That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that —
(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal —
(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;
A just transition means that when we phase out of coal and oil, as well as other industries that rely on carbon power, there will be retraining for the employees of the retired industries so that no one gets left behind. The Climate Justice Alliance describes it as “a vision-led, unifying and place-based set of principles, processes, and practices that build economic and political power to shift from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy.” The Green New Deal aims to give people the new skills and education they need to survive in a completely different environment.
Retraining seems like a magical solution to a simple problem, but avid retraining advocates don’t always listen to what the people want. In 2018, the Atlantic found that “retraining is a classic chicken-or-egg dilemma…Workers who have been laid off through corporate downsizing or because their jobs were shipped to a foreign country don’t want to dedicate the time and effort needed to go through retraining without the pledge of a sure-fire job.” Workers for the carbon-producing industries are even more sensitive to the idea of moving away from familiarity — if you rely on a particular way of business your whole life, uncertainty can make you disregard progress.
What the Green New Deal is suggesting is that we find a way to create new industries and say goodbye to the carbon-based industries without hurting the blue-collar workers’ productivity or quality of life. This would require no resistance to retraining, which is unlikely, and adaptive businesses that put the people first, which is even more unlikely. Before we make any changes, we need people to become comfortable with working for clean energy producers, and start the retraining before they move over to the new opportunity.
Why does the Green New Deal not give examples of “community-defined projects and strategies?”
(2)(A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;
Subparagraphs A through E of paragraph 1 in the Green New Deal are meant to express the goals and projects to be engaged in within the next 10 years, the 10 years of proposed action named the “Green New Deal Mobilization.” Subparagraph A is the first mention in the text of community-defined projects and strategies. The Deal does not elaborate on any plans for such projects — which is why some find the vagueness troubling. If there is not a clear plan to reference, there is nothing we can hold AOC, Ed Markey, and the cosponsors of the resolution to. But worry is pointless — we can use the vagueness.
The Green New Deal is letting us citizens of the United States form our own path. Currently, there is nothing stopping us from leading the creation of mini-GNDs that do get specific, community by community, city by city, state by state. It is strongly arguable that this is the writers’ and sponsors’ original intent in leaving it open.
How can the government support the farming industry which is partially struggling due to climate change?
(2)(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including — by supporting family farming; by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;
According to the United States Department of Agriculture, in 2016, agriculture and forestry accounted for 9.4 percent of the U.S. greenhouse gas emissions. While this percentage has most likely remained around the same over the past two years, farmers are now finding new ways to invest in eco-friendly practices, like solar farms and non-toxic fertilizers.
More “sustainable farming and land use practices” includes avoiding deforestation to create more agricultural space but rather using space already cleared more efficiently. In order to create more efficient land practices, farmers will have to evaluate their processes in order to determine exactly how water, land, and natural resource usage could be curtailed. The government’s job, in this case, would be to provide subsidies for environmentally-conscious farmers and to invest in sustainable farming technology.
How can transportation systems and infrastructure be improved?
(2)(H) overhauling transportation systems in 16 the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in — zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and high-speed rail;
Compared to European and Asian metropolitan areas, the United States’ public transportation infrastructure is severely lacking. The Green New Deal hopes to not only revitalize the system but also to reform its energy sources from natural gas and oil to electric. Already, cities across the nation are planning measures to shift bus fleets from fossil fuel burning to clean energy powered. While high-speed rail is less likely due to the size and structure of America, Japanese bullet train technology along with Tesla’s new Boring tunnel provides hope that, eventually, trains might return to the American landscape.
What do indigenous people have to do with climate change?
(4)(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;
The United States government has systematically oppressed indigenous groups to the point where they are cornered into tiny native reserves in remote regions. A major factor of indigenous philosophy and principles involves a deeper connection with the land, and with wildfires, floods, and droughts plaguing the country, their fundamental way of living is threatened. In the Navajo Nation, residents suffer from severe drought during the summer when livestock deaths skyrocket and water supplies shrivel up.
This subparagraph harkens back to 2016 where the indigenous people of the Standing Rock Reservation protested the construction of the Dakota Access Pipeline which could have contaminated one of their water sources, Lake Oahe. Inciting major protests along the planned route and in D.C., the indigenous people claimed the pipeline would destroy their water supply and ancient burial grounds. By this resolution, their opinions would be taken into greater consideration when developing energy or energy transport projects.
