The Green New Deal: The Solution The United States Needs

Climate change and its potency have been on the rise in recent decades. Many different plans have been proposed to help manage and further prevent this truth. The most recent one being cited as the Green New Deal. Simply stated, the Green New Deal is “a congressional resolution that lays out a grand plan for tackling climate change” (Friedman, par. 2) and was presented by New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and United States Senator Edward Markey. The Green New Deal is a controversial plan about whether it is the solution the United States should follow through with and enforce to do its part to nationally decrease carbon emissions. Carbon emissions refer to carbon dioxide that is released into the atmosphere, primarily by the burning of fossil fuels, raising the atmospheric temperature to dangerous levels. The Green New Deal would involve the fossil fuel companies, natural gas companies, other non renewable energy industries, renewable energy industries, and every person in the United States. With this intention of a nationwide overhaul of energy sources, there are several differing views on the Green New Deal. Some believe that this new congressional proposition is the perfect solution to the impending climate crisis. However, others argue that the Green New Deal does not provide any attainable solutions and will only hurt the nation. Yet another opinion is the Green New Deal is a good aspiration, but there are better answers to reducing carbon emissions in the United States. The possible outcomes of the new Green New Deal proposal are the central ideas being debated by numerous individuals and parties. OR The viewpoints being debated by all the stakeholders are all based around the possibilities or limits the Green New Deal would establish. 

Jeffery Sachs in his article, “Green New Deal is Feasible and Affordable”, addresses the recent controversial topic of the Green New Deal and argues that this resolution is not an outrageous idea and, most definitely, is within reach. Sachs works at the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University as a professor and director. In “Green New Deal is Feasible and Affordable”, he declares that the Green New Deal and all of its components are accomplishable, and others that have opposing thoughts will soon see the truth when the deal goes into effect. Sachs believes that the Green New Deal will become legislation despite all its criticism. He furthers his viewpoints, explaining the main principles of the Green New Deal: healthcare reform, higher education reform, and sustainable energy. He states, “What is absolutely clear is that the Green New Deal is affordable. The claims about the unaffordability of these goals are pure hype. The detailed plans that will emerge in the coming months will expose the bluster” (Sachs, par. 10). Sachs explains that decarbonizing the nation has already started, and all that needs to happen is to speed up the process. Developing electric car technology faster and moving electricity to be powered by renewable sources are some examples he gives. Sachs then claims, “The costs of renewable energy are plummeting, making decarbonization eminently feasible”. Next Sachs, proclaims that health care costs will greatly decrease with the decrease in the use of fossil fuels in the United States, and he argues that college expenses will soon follow that decreasing trend. Sachs ends with, “They [the Green New Deal components] will deliver great savings in the case of health care, environmental benefits in the case of decarbonization, and renewed social mobility in the case of debt-free higher education”. 

According to Jonah Goldberg, author of the “Green New Deal Fails to Offer Any Solutions”, the Green New Deal is just an endeavor that does not have a significant role in the United States’ fight to decrease carbon emissions, and the deal is being blown out of proportion. John Goldberg is an author for the Los Angeles Times, who writes weekly articles covering politics and culture, and he was previously a senior editor at the National Review. In addition to being an author, Goldberg is also a political analyst. He asserts in his article that the Green New Deal will not change anything if it is passed, because it is merely a resolution instead of actual legislation. He references other political leaders to support his argument. For example, Goldberg states, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi isn't taking it too seriously. She didn't put Ms. Ocasio-Cortez on the new Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, and when asked about the resolution, she was dismissive” (Goldberg, par. 2). This omission of one of the Green New Deal’s founders from the related Climate Crisis committee further reinforces Goldberg’s position. Subsequently, he believes one goal of the Green New Deal, specifically the goal to achieve net-zero carbon emissions by 2030, is unrealistic and cannot ever be totally accomplished. Goldberg also cites other recent government actions, such as the Clean Water Act, describing its creation as an attempt to eliminate pollution in waterways. He says, “Ironically, the only entities that can pollute with impunity are government agencies such as the EPA, which did precisely that in Colorado in 2015”. It is then argued that the government policies that are put in place do not help the environment. They just limit companies and industries, and those companies and industries are already acting to do their part to help the environment on their own. Goldberg concludes with the notion that industries and companies have considerably contributed to the elimination of carbon emissions and do not need further oversight from the government, like the Green New Deal. 

In the article, “The Green New Deal Isn’t Realistic, But We Can Still Save The Environment”, the author, Drew Johnson, argues that the Green New Deal will destroy the United States economy with how much additional money it will cost to break away from fossil fuels, and its other non-climate related reforms. Drew Johnson is the founder of the Beacon Center of Tennessee, a political commentator, and a past think tank executive. Johnson asserts that abiding by the Green New Deal “could cost American consumers a staggering $4. 7 trillion over the next two decades”. He continues on by citing a study by Wood Mackenzie, stating that their findings prove that the Green New Deal would require a complete redesign and overhaul of the United States energy sector. This supports his point that the Green New Deal is not the direction the United States should go to decrease its global mark on emissions. Johnson then provides his own theory on how to decrease carbon emissions. He explains that the recent developments in natural gas extraction have made this a better solution, because natural gas will not cost any more money, power plants are choosing to convert to natural gas on their own, and in addition to renewable energy sources making up “18 percent of America's electricity production this year” (Johnson, par. 14), natural gas use will help reduce carbon emission. Johnson concludes with, “An all-renewable future simply isn't realistic in our lifetimes. A lower-emissions future is — thanks largely to natural gas”. 

Each of these viewpoints do sometimes interact with each other. Sachs maintains the opinion that the Green New Deal solves many of America’s problems and accomplishes this with limited costs to the country. On the other hand, Goldberg asserts that the Green New Deal is unachievable and should not even be considered seriously. Then there are people like Johnson who deem the Green New Deal a good but impossible feat and point to other resources, like natural gas, that should be used as a stepping stone to decreasing carbon emissions. Goldberh and Johnson both believe that the Green New Deal is not the best solution for the United States, while Sachs hold the opposite, saying that the Green New Deal is the right move for the nation. 

The Green New Deal has been a hot topic since its proposal by New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Edward Markey. Some people think that it is the salvation the United States needs to do its part for a sustainable future, however others hold the opposite view of that. Even with their different viewpoints, all of the stakeholders are trying to answer the same question though, is the Green New Deal the solution the United States needs to eliminate carbon emissions.