Green New Deal

History

• 2009
|

American Clean Energy and Securities Act

In 2009, the House passed an ambitious Obama-backed bill to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but the bill ultimately failed to gain traction in the Senate.

Introduction

Origins of the Phrase

Current Affairs Magazine

According to most accounts, Thomas Friedman, a Pulitzer-Prize winner and New York Times columnist, was the first to use the phrase “Green New Deal” in a 2007 opinion piece calling for the United States to enact sweeping climate legislation. He argued that there were no easy fixes to climate change, and the government needed to take an aggressive approach to solve the climate crisis. His phrasing in this article, and the modern name of the bill, deliberately reference President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, intended to help lift the United States out of the Great Depression. The New Deal represented a massive expansion of the federal government’s involvement in domestic affairs and reformed many aspects of American economic and social life.

Introduced

The Epoch Times

The Green New Deal (GND) was a 2019 legislative climate proposal spearheaded by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Edward Markey (D-MA). They introduced the bill to advocate for American action against climate change, particularly mitigating America’s greenhouse gas emissions. The GND quickly became a flashpoint in Washington, especially amid the 2020 presidential primaries. While Republicans slammed the bill as expensive and an aggressive overreach by the federal government, it also divided the Democratic candidates for president and opened fissures along the progressive/centrist divide in the Democratic Party. However, despite its prevalence in the news, both sides’ opinions about the GND are often laced with inaccuracies. Before the American people and Washington can decide whether it is a sound policy, we must understand the facts.

Policies

The climate-focused policies of the GND specifically aimed to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050. It encouraged divesting from fossil fuels and reinvesting in energy alternatives. The bill also included other unrelated policies that faced strong Republican – and even some Democratic – opposition. Notably, the resolution is non-binding, meaning that even if it passes, the bill itself will not create any new programs or implement new policies. Instead, it operates as a framework or recognition of what its sponsors feel Congress must do to respond to climate change.

Radio Open Source

Republicans commonly argued that the GND would cost many blue-collar workers their jobs and allow substantial federal influence in state and local affairs. Additionally, many legislators did not support how the bill’s sponsors linked climate change to other debates such as healthcare and housing. Democrats generally supported the GND’s intent but opposed specific provisions. For example, Representative Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) supported the overarching goal of the GND but disagreed with the section suggesting the alternative of nuclear power.

Democratic lawmakers introduced a revised Green New Deal in 2021, arguing against Republican claims that the bill requires choosing between the environment and the American economy. Leading GND legislators believe the bill will create millions of jobs in its mission to create environmentally-sustainable infrastructure. Additionally, rather than revising the provisions within the GND, the 2021 announcement assured the creation of a GND over the next decade, a strategy similar to President Franklin Roosevelt in the early 20th century.

1. Why do you think the GND has divided Democrats?
2. Should the GND include issues like healthcare and college tuition? Why or why not?
3. How would a bill similar to the GND but more partisan help address climate change fast?