The Green New Deal is not radical, but reactionary to an endangered world
Newly elected congressional representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a Bronx native who has spent most of her adulthood championing local social and economic issues, has proposed a green energy plan that some have criticized as “radical” and “expensive.” Ocasio-Cortez has been the face of this Green New Deal, which aims to be a new way to decarbonize the national economy.
The rookie congresswoman has marketed herself as a progressive Democrat yearning to reverse the effects of climate change and abolish ICE as well as private prisons. The victory of such a young and innovative woman being elected to Congress, a woman who has wasted no time in demanding social change and proposing such a bold and forward-thinking bill, has made people nervous. She has received an immense amount of criticism from conservative journalists, as well as from other members of Congress.
What we should be focusing on is not the theatrics of politics, but the contents of this deal and its reputable supporters. In addition to the support of Sen. Ed Markey, an experienced progressive Democrat who stands for similar social issues as Ocasio-Cortez, the bill also has the support of the Sunrise Movement, the United Nations, Rep. Pramila Jayapal, Rep. Joe Kennedy and 28 other representatives aside from those in the Green New Deal committee.
The Green New Deal is not only an environmental bill but an economic plan as well. Not only are renewable resources more substantial and lasting, but investing in wind, solar, water and geothermal energy has the potential to create 20 million jobs, according to the plan’s website. These jobs would be safe and would provide a living wage and lasting employment.
The implementation of this plan would aid our economy indefinitely and has the potential to reverse some of the effects of climate change and heal our planet going forward.
The bill boldly states its intentions are to solve the climate problem as well as create a viable economy. Building a new type of economy off of sustainable and clean energy would leave a lasting and positive effect on generations to come. The Green New Deal would not cost millions more. Rather, it would redirect current investments in unclean energy to clean resources, public transportation, restoration of ecosystems and infrastructure and the funding of research for green energy.
One common argument against the Green New Deal is “well, what about those employed in fossil fuels? What will happen to them if they lose their jobs?” This bill actually provides a safety net for those currently working with fossil fuels by providing them with a full income and benefits until alternative work is found.
Decreasing our dependency on oil and coal may also mean the end of wars waged over those resources as they decrease in quantity and increase in cost — in terms of both price and lives lost. This has the potential to mend global relations and redirect funds from war to climate change, social issues and the national economy.
Believe it or not, some critics of the Green New Deal actually think it’s an overreaction and our climate is not in dire need of this kind of “radical” change. One substantial reason those in Congress may not like the idea of abandoning fracking, mining, coal, oil, and other unclean energy resources is the idea of redirecting funds from lobbyists who represent the interests of those industries.
The Green New Deal has the potential to expose government officials who are in bed with corporate entities as well as force those corrupt individuals to stop receiving campaign funds from Big Oil and instead represent their constituents honestly.
Government entities and scientific organizations confirm that climate change is causing rising sea levels, warming of oceans, melting of Arctic ice and an increase in the number of extreme natural disasters. The result of this rapid and drastic climate change is the suffering and endangerment of various species, humans included.
You can help implement the Green New Deal by calling your representative in Congress directly or petitioning for congressional support. Isn’t it our responsibility as humans inhabiting this once green and thriving earth to try to control the damage of industrialization and create a better future?
Featured Illustration: Austin Banzon
Rose, how do you realistically propose funding this? Current tax revenues will not come close.