Support for the Green New Deal, a plan to eliminate US greenhouse gas emissions and create millions of jobs, is growing, in part thanks to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a young, progressive Congresswoman just voted into office.
The goals of the Green New Deal are wide-ranging. They include moving the US to 100 per cent clean and renewable electricity by 2035 and zero net emissions by 2050, while creating 10 million jobs to build out energy infrastructure.
Tying climate change solutions to jobs is a clever plan. It could follow the path to success demonstrated by the Affordable Care Act (ACA), an Obama-era law that increased access to healthcare.
Advertisement
While many people initially railed against the potential cost of the ACA, the benefits were widely enjoyed and the backlash was swift when the US Congress later attempted to reverse the law. The same could happen if climate change policy provides people with secure, well-paid jobs.
It might seem infeasible to tackle such a large-scale transformation in just 17 years, but that’s because we are used to economic growth being inextricably linked to fossil-fuel consumption. In the early parts of this decade there were some signs of this link being broken, but the latest emissions figures – a rise of 3 per cent this year – suggest we aren’t there yet.
Breaking the link
Fully decoupling economic growth from fossil fuels will require a massive expansion of renewable energy sources. Thankfully, these are getting cheaper each year. A 2017 by the International Renewable Energy Agency says that by 2020, renewable power will on average be cheaper than fossil fuels. In some cases, solar and wind will provide the lowest-cost electricity from any source.
With this in mind, economist Robert Pollin from the University of Massachusetts Amherst that at the high-end, the Green New Deal would require a budget of about $600 million per year.
That would fund retraining and paying workers, pensions for those in energy industries that must shut down, and equipment to help fossil-fuel dependent communities transition. The US government would need to incentivise clean energy with tax breaks, as well as institute vehicle emissions standards and potentially apply a carbon tax.
A similar idea is being floated across the pond. This week, a group led by French economist Thomas Piketty called for a new European body to fund research and technology development, and aim to make agriculture and industry greener.
They propose an €800 billion a year budget paid for by a 15 per cent levy on corporate profits, tax increases on individuals earning more than €100,000, a wealth tax on personal fortunes above €1m, and a tax on carbon emissions.
Economically, these ideas could work. Politically, it’s a harder sell. Proponents argue that the past few years have seen halting progress on climate change, so now is the time to stop taking the problem step by step and launch a climate change moonshot to transform entire economies.
The trouble is, according to an the clean electricity goal in the Green New Deal would only get the US halfway to limiting warming to 1.5°C by 2100. Achieving this goal could reduce devastating impacts on ecosystems and human health, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
So it’s not the whole answer, but it is at least the start of political leaders taking climate change seriously as an existential threat. Coupled with lowered consumption and changes in land use, the Green New Deal and similar plans could be the way we achieve a climate our grandchildren’s grandchildren can live with.
