As Politico reports, Republicans claim to be looking forward to debating the so-called “Green New Deal” in Congress. They want this, they say, because it would hurt Democrats’ chances in future elections.

What Republicans Are Saying

“It’s crazy. It’s loony”, said Mike Simpson, a GOP representative from Idaho. He said he wants to see Democrats “push it as far as they can”. South Carolina senator Lindsey Graham tweeted his encouragement, saying “Americans deserve to see what kind of solutions far-left Democrats are offering...” GOP strategist Ron Bonjean explained, “I think this will be a piñata that Republicans will continue to hit and use to their advantage in the 2020 elections. It’s a policy piñata.”

“Republicans quickly bashed the concept as technologically impossible, unimaginably costly and a ‘socialist fever dream’ that they said would ultimately cost Democrats moderate seats across the country.”

Politico, 2019.02.09

In other words, to hear them tell it, this policy proposal is so over-the-line, so absurd, so “socialist”, that just talking about it more will cause Democrats to fail in 2020. How bad is it, really?

What The ‘Green New Deal’ Really Is

I think it’s significant that many news stories quote what people think about it, but almost none actually say what it is. And all the stories imply it’s just one thing, which isn’t true.

First, there have been many policy proposals going under the name Green New Deal, with the phrase being used as early as 2007. Journalist Thomas Friedman argued in favor of a massive “green” policy in a long think-piece in The New York Times. A year later, an organization called Green New Deal Group published a report calling for specific policy proposals. The United Nations Environment Programme called for something similar in 2008, aimed at the global economy. The U.S.’s Green Party came up with its own version. Wikipedia lists many people supporting the general idea of a Green New Deal (the name is a reference to Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s), but again goes out of its way to obscure the fact that there are multiple proposals afoot. The only thing they truly have in common is the idea that it will require a massive investment by nation-level governments to fight climate change.

Though it frequently isn’t clear, what most of the recent stories are referring to is a specific document unveiled by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a freshman member of Congress. Note: that Atlantic article does link to the actual text of the document. It took me some time to find the actual text, which is here. It’s a 14-page non-binding resolution, which I will hereby quickly summarize.

It starts by referring to last year’s Fourth National Climate Assessment, which conluded that (and I’m paraphrasing here) climate change is happening, and it’s bad. There’s a long list of facts about climate change. There is nothing new until the end of page four, where the proposal says we have a “historical opportunity” to create millions of jobs and counter “systemic injustices”. The specific resolutions follow, beginning on page five... But no. Page five simply lists the general ideas that the America people ought to have “clean air and water”, a sustainable environment, etc. On page six, we see the goal of a “10-year national mobilization” to accomplish building “resiliency against climate change-related disasters”, “repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States”, and so on. By page seven, we get to proposals that start raising eyebrows: “meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources”, “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States... to maximize energy efficiency” (Here [.pdf, 55kb] is another source for the document.)

So, to be clear, this is not a law being discussed; it’s a resolution that doesn’t cost anything and doesn’t obligate the U.S. to do anything. Secondly, its premises are based on the U.S.’s own report of the dangers of climate change. Thirdly, almost all the proposals are common sense solutions to environmental disasters, well known long before now as the best path forward. (When I was a child in the early 1980s, I read pamphlets about why we needed to reduce our dependance on fossil fuels and how pollution negatively affects our health and well-being.)

So What Is All The Fuss About?

The big stink raised by the aforementioned Republicans (and others that I failed to mention) isn’t about the actual proposals in the non-binding resolution. Because if it was, they would be tweeting out links to the specific text of the resolution, or at least screenshots of which parts they find “crazy [and] loony”. But they’re not, so they must be attacking something else, right? Several used the word ‘socialism” when denouncing the Green New Deal, which is interesting because nothing in the 14-page resolution said anything about workers obtaining ownership of the means of production. This makes it clear that the GOP isn’t serious about debating the merits of the resolution itself, but is instead interested in solidifying their base — people who already shrivel in fear at the very words socialism or regulation.

It’s also interesting that stories on this in conservative media led with photos of Ocasio-Cortez (young woman of color), but not photos of co-sponsor Ed Markey (old white man). Again, this looks like a clear appeal to their hard-core base, who actively fear women in power, particularly young women of color.

Where are the lies? The biggest lie is that Republicans are eager to debate the merits of this resolution. They are not. They are well aware that the tide is turning, that most Americans now accept the reality of climate change. They are further aware of the existential danger posed by it, and so they know that any solutions will be fundamentally transformational. If the resolution ever does come up for a debate, we will hear the GOP elected goons telling more lies, exaggerating, and — most of all — ignoring the big requests of the Green New Deal.

The second lie is that it’s “technologically impossible”. We actually do — today — have most (if not all) of the technology needed to transform our nation into a globally helpful one (as opposed to the globally harmful one that it is now). The third is that it is “unimaginably costly”. People who understand math (or who own calculators) can actually imagine the cost of the policies needed. We know they're incredibly great costs. But we have also determined that the much greater cost is in doing nothing — in pretending climate change is just going to go away. We’re going to spend that money on something; we might as well spend it on something good. The fourth lie is that the plan is in any way “socialist”. But the GOP has been working on this lie most of my lifetime; I was told as a youngster that government “handouts” to poor people was “socialism”, only one step removed from the gulags of the Soviet Union.

One thing that I wish wasn’t a lie is the charge that Democrats might lose moderate voters across the country due to this talk. It shouldn’t, because wanting to combat climate change should be a moderate, bi-partisan position. Unfortunately, environmental protection turns out to be a “radical leftist” viewpoint in our country. It’s highly possible that moderate and/or independent voters across the country will be swayed by the GOP’s intentional lies.

Conclusion

I did read through the entire 14-page resolution, and I encourage you to do the same. It’s not complex. (Also, a “page” in Congressional documents is only a few sentences.) Not everything in the document is entirely reasonable in my opinion. Most of it is filler, designed to pad the thing and/or tug at heartstrings. So don’t get the idea that I’m treating it uncritically.

But most of what it says is true, and almost all of the policy proposals are necessary. We ARE going to do these things someday, but it might be far too late.