10
Hofer
McKenzie Hofer
Dr. Coulter-Harris
ENG 1110-019
3 May 2020
The Green New Deal
In China, people are dying from poor air quality. Factories are polluting skies that were once star-filled. Communities all over the world are suffering from horrible droughts. Wildfires, hurricanes, and other severe weather is devastating cities. People are losing their livelihoods because the earth is changing under the weight of the masses of greenhouse gasses that are being emitted into the earth’s atmosphere.
Environmental activists have been protesting for years in efforts to reverse the effects of an industrial revolution and years of burning fuel. Very few politicians have taken a stand and time is running out. Natural disaster after natural disaster has occurred, glaciers are melting causing sea levels to rise, and little is being done to stop the situation from getting worse. Action is needed. The Green New Deal is one of the few responses to this problem. Responding to climate change is crucial, but the plan must be successful, lest the United States start over from square one with even more debt.
What the Deal Stands For
Global warming is becoming one of the most important issues in the world today. There are many activist and movements who advocate for clean energy and these groups are now pushing the federal government to take action. The Green New Deal puts responsibility on the federal government to transition the United States to use environmentally friendly power sources. This would include reducing the amount of fossil fuels and greenhouse gas emissions that result in global warming. In addition to improving the environment, this plan seeks to offer well-paying jobs to workers in new clean energy industries. This plan is considered nonbinding, which means that no part of it would become law and would be considered an action plan for Congress. Additionally, there have been other versions of the Green New Deal. Other political parties and activists have created propositions for the United States to move towards using clean energy (Friedman, “What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained.”). Although there are no new regulations that would be implemented immediately with the plan, passing it would hold the federal government responsible for change. To some, the New Green Deal could be the next great movement in American history.
The movement for clean energy along with economic growth is not only seen in the Green New Deal. Initiative 1631 has been introduced in Washington state with the same goals. It is considered an “ambitious attempt” to overcome climate change while also providing economic security. This initiative is addressing the issue of climate change as a very real, suppressing issue. It suggests that taxing CO2 emissions will help raise money for expensive projects. This initiative is supported by citizens of Washington state. In the northern regions of Washington, community members such as Rosalinda Guillen have been experiencing the climate change throughout their lives. She notes that the area is more prone to fires which means that people with health conditions are forced to stay inside to avoid the poor air quality and crops are being destroyed. Even a retired refinery worker believes that it is time for change in the state of Washington. He states: “this policy is about old people planting shade trees for their grandkids.” (Abramsky, “A Green New Deal in the Evergreen State.”) The initiative certainly takes into consideration those of future generations. However, creating more jobs for the American people and transitioning the country toward clean energy are time consuming and expensive tasks and may require more funds than Initiative 1631 can practically obtain.
A Dire Need
The reality of global warming has made many Americans realize that it’s not about “if” change is needed but it’s a matter of “when” it will happen. The clock is ticking. Action is needed. Congress needs to find a solution for the issues that are facing the United States. The past two years have hosted the hottest weather as well as the most destruction from severe weather. In fact, it has cost the economy as well as top taxpayers billions of dollars. Citizens must rebuild their homes after hurricanes and wildfires which are caused by the unnatural heat influx. However, change is not coming quickly. Andrew Wheeler, who is in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency, is a coal lobbyist. A coal lobbyist in a position meant to protect the environment is simply counterproductive, making change in Washington difficult. Senator Schatz of Hawaii sites that his state is on its way to using 100% clean energy. This has resulted in a large increase in the use of renewable energy sources that have produced lower electricity rates and created jobs as well (Markey 22-26, “The Pros of The Proposed: Should Congress Pass a Resolution Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal?”). The benefits from change are deeply contrasted by the consequences of inaction. In October of 2018 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a warning that cautioned the world that it is close to doing irreversible damage because of global warming (Guin, “The Green New Deal.”). The shift in Hawaii was made because of the great cost of importing energy sources such as coal and oil. The majority of the United States does not have to face that issue but faces the outcome of severe weather destroying their economy.
Change can take a long time, especially in the United States government. Climate change is unforgiving and slow government action won’t make it happen at a slower rate. Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, says that “Climate change is an urgent crisis an existential threat.” It has been apparent for years that climate change is occurring in that humans are the cons of it. Since the Industrial Revolution global temperatures have risen by 1.8°F. Another half degree warmer, and the world would see horrible repercussions of climate change. The world’s coral reefs will die and entire islands will disappear. However, climate change is not very high on the priority list for politicians. During this past election, when Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were running for president, neither of them has much to say about the issue of climate change. Senator Whitehouse of Rhode Island says this about the issue: “When Democratic leaders see climate as a number seven issue, it stays a number seven issue (Worland, “How the Green New Deal is Forcing Politicians to Finally Address Climate Change”).” The problem is that climate change and its effects are not a big concern for politicians who have the ability to approve legislation that will improve the environment. Whether change comes from the Green New Deal or through other legislation, it needs to happen soon.
The Financial Burden
Determining the likelihood of the New Green Deal being passed is tricky considering the unknown costs associated with it. The plan does not provide a budget or estimations of how much this project will cost. A study done by the Electric Power Research Institute suggests that making the shift to clean energy would cost up to $476 billion upfront, but in return would make $2 trillion in benefits. U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez recognizes that the price of this project will be high but asserts that the Green New Deal will pay for itself eventually (Friedman 24- 29). Giving estimates for how much the clean energy transitions would cost businesses and homeowners would reveal if this plan will be possible. Until a budget is included the Green New Deal is just a promise from the government to lead us toward of the goal of utilizing clean energy without promising action steps.
Solar panels and windmills are known to be large investments that eventually pay themselves off. Should a government choose to invest resources such as these there would be an enormous upfront cost? Converting the United States to clean energy would be expensive but would eventually pay itself off. Some say that it would cost trillions of dollars, which is probably true. However, the nation would likely experience trillions of dollars in climate damages as well. A civil and environmental engineering professor at Stanford university says that the conversion would “require a $7.8 trillion investment. He also states that this would eventually avoid around $3.1 trillion a year in climate damages. Since renewable energy is cheaper, he believes it would save consumers $1.3 trillion a year. Switching to clean energy would certainly take out many jobs in the energy field. Around 2.2 million fossil fuel jobs would no longer be needed, but clean energy would easily fill the gap with the 5.2 million new jobs that it would create (Dickinson, “The New Green Deal Is Cheap, Actually.”). The transition to clean energy has financial benefits and barriers. Transitioning the United States to 100% renewable energy would be beneficial but seems somewhat impossible.
A Whole New World
Although exact expenses for America’s transition to using power from renewable resources is unknown, it will be costly. However, it is important to understand what could happen if no action is taken. Transitioning the nation to clean power will certainly be costly. The New York Times pegged Bernie Sander’s climate proposal at costing $16 trillion. Another politician, Andrew Yang, had a plan that was said to cost almost $5 trillion. Although this plan will definitely be costly, one must consider the outcome if no action is taken. If the earth continues to increase in average temperature as it is currently doing there will be more than just economic crisis. The world will face the repercussions through premature deaths from extreme weather, habitat loss, mass extinctions, and refugee crises. Nevertheless, economists who have studied the issue of climate change typically agree that climate change will eventually have a devastating impact on the economy (Holland, “Think the Green New Deal Is Pricey?”). As Sean McElwee of Data for Progress has said, “Every week it seems like the risks of climate change become more real, and the amount of devastation it is going to wreak upon humanity becomes larger, and that means we have to do bigger things (Kurtzleben, “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline.”).” It is apparent that the price American taxpayers will pay is high. Paying the price now may save future generations from suffering the overwhelming debt that is being accrued as global warming ruins the earth.
In order to preserve the earth, change is necessary. It is unlikely that advocates of the Green New Deal fully comprehend how massive the change they ask for will be. Although the Green New Deal states that the changes it calls for will happen by the year 2030, which seems like a relatively short amount of time, the proposal is not just a quick fix. Most aspects of American society would have to be rebuilt. Life would not be the same. All people would be driving electric cars. Public transportation would likely become more prevalent as more people would depend upon it. Lastly, the plan calls for high-speed rails to be used in place of air travel. Agriculture would look different as well. Livestock is responsible for 14.5% of total global greenhouse gas emissions, so Americans could see a change in diet as well. Because of the all-encompassing nature of the plan, one of the biggest changes in American life would be a guarantee of a job with paid vacations and retirement security to all American citizens (Wolf, “Here’s What the Green New Deal Actually Says.”). Society could not be the same after such dramatic changes are made. Many sacrifices would be made and it is difficult to see how the guarantee of job security would be able to be accomplished during a time of such tremendous change.
A Change for Americans
Many people believe that the sole purpose of the Green New Deal is to transition the United States from using energy with high carbon dioxide emissions to using clean energy in a way that is economically sustainable. However, this is simply not the case. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey have said that it is the federal government’s job to have a Green New Deal for the purpose of eliminating greenhouse gas emissions completely with a “fair and just transition for all communities and workers.” Through the Green New Deal, politicians hope to transition the United States to using only clean power within 10 years. The plan also proposes that it should produce “millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States.” Additionally, the plan is purposed for creating a healthy environment with clean air and water. However, the plan goes beyond improving the environment and creating sustainable jobs for the economy. This resolution also exists for the promotion of “justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth.” In order for any aspect of the Green New Deal to be effective, implementation legislation is necessary (“The Green New Deal: Climate Change and Economic Equality.”). Although the values reflected in this proposition are good and just, the plan itself is teetering between environmental awareness and social justice. In order for a clear, effective plan to be put in place, it must be cohesive and focused. The green new deal seems to lack those two characteristics.
Many politicians are concerned for the impact this would have on the American taxpayers. They are also wary of the plan because it does not include a budget. By the year 2030, The Green New Deal is supposed to “transform every sector of our economy and society.” This is not an understatement, since the plan would cause all drivers in the US to purchase an electric vehicle. The alternative would be for them to use public transportation. All homeowners would also take a hard-hit since the cost of electricity would be much more expensive at first. An estimate claims that there would be a $3800 increase in energy bills on average per household for the year. The plan also outlined that every building would need to be updated in order to meet the goal of utilizing 100% renewable energy. This would be very difficult for private businesses and especially family owned businesses or those with small budgets. Taxes for all Americans would have to go up astronomically in order to fund this plan. Rejecting this plan does not mean that people do not value the environment and see the impact global warming is having on the earth. It simply means that some Americans do not believe that completely changing American society, which has been growing and developing over hundreds of years, in a matter of 10 years is a good idea or even possible (Barrasso, “And Cons Green New Deal: Should Congress Pass a Resolution Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal?”). Climate change is a serious and real threat to society. Many, with good reason, do not think that the Green New Deal is the right solution to this issue.
Outlook
The Green New Deal addresses some areas of necessary change but needs to dictate a clearer plan of action. Reform will come when we decide what steps to take, how they will be financially possible, and when the specific actions of change will be accomplished. Focusing on the goal improving the environment will be imperative and other notions, however good they are, must be pushed to the side. If these changes occur, further, irreversible damage to the earth would be avoided. If these changes do not occur, humanity could see a wave of natural disasters, drought, and catastrophic conditions as no other generation has seen before.
Works Cited
Abramsky, Sasha. “A Green New Deal in the Evergreen State.” Nation, vol. 307, no. 4, Aug.
2018, pp. 20-23. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ship&db=a9h&AN=130806632&site=ehost-live.
Barrasso, Honorable John. “And Cons Green New Deal: Should Congress Pass a Resolution
Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal?”
Congressional Digest vol. 98, no. 4, Apr. 2019, pp. 15-27. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=13549123
1&site=ehost-live.
Dickinson, Tim. “The New Green Deal Is Cheap, Actually.” Rolling Stone, no. 1338, Apr. 2020,
p. 74. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=14244523
3& site=ehost-live.
Guin, Subir. “The Green New Deal.” Peace Magazine, vol. 36, no. 1, Jan. 2020, pp. 28-29.
EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=14092355
7&site=ehost-live.
Holland, Joshua. “Think the Green New Deal Is Pricey?” Nation, vol. 309, no. 7, Sept. 2019, pp.
4-8. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=138582037&site=ehost-live
Friedman, Lisa. “What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained.” The New York
Times, The New York Times, 21 Feb. 2019,
www.nytimes.com/2019/02/21/climate/green-new-deal-questions-answers.html.
Kurtzleben, Danielle. “Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Releases Green New Deal Outline.” NPR, NPR, 7 Feb. 2019, www.npr.org/2019/02/07/691997301/rep-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-releases-green-new-deal-outline.
Markey, Honorable Edward. “The Pros of The Proposed: Should Congress Pass a Resolution
Recognizing the Duty of the Federal Government to Create a Green New Deal?”
Congressional Digest, vol. 98, no. 4, Apr. 2019, pp. 14-26. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=135491230&site=ehost-live.
“The Green New Deal: Climate Change and Economic Equality.” Congressional Digest, vol. 98, no. 4, Apr. 2019, p. 2/ EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=135491223& site=ehost-live.
Wolf, Zachary B. “Here’s What the Green New Deal Actually Says.” CNN, Cable News
Network, 2 Mar. 2020, www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/green-new-deal-proposal-
breakdown/index.html.
Worland, Justin. “How the Green New Deal is Forcing Politicians to Finally Address Climate
Change.” Time.Com, Mar. 2019, p. N.PAG. EBSCOhost,
search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=shib&db=a9h&AN=13547075
5&site=ehost-live.
The post 10 Hofer McKenzie Hofer Dr. Coulter-Harris ENG 1110-019 3 May 2020 The appeared first on PapersSpot.