Lina Salgado Green New Deal

Lina Salgado

Policy Evaluation: Green New Deal

Is it truly as radical as the media paints it out to be?

In recent years, there has been much talk about switching up America for the better. And within that conversation has risen a debate. There has been several radical parties claiming they have the solution. While all have a chance to be heard, the green party may have just come up with something truly worth listening to. Whether or not people may view this resolution as radical doesn’t take away from the fact that it deals with some grand issues in America. For instance, the Green New Deal aspires to address the grave threat posed by climate change, and aims to transition our country to 100% clean energy by 2030. Despite the opposition’s claims, the Green New Deal is certainly achievable as it will aid in restoring the economy, make an impact on climate change and make wars for oil nonexistent.

The Green New Deal proposes ideas which economically benefit the United States. Ultimately this deal proposes a solution which may eventually yield to a 50% cut in the military budget. This is due to the fact that maintaining bases all over the world put in place to safeguard fossil fuel supplies and routes of transportation would no longer be necessary with 100% clean energy powering the United States. That military savings of several hundred billion dollars per year would go a very long way towards helping create green jobs at home. With all 50 states on board, converting to clean energy would provide 3.9 million 40-year construction jobs and 2 million 40-year operation jobs for the energy facilities alone, the sum of which would outweigh the 3.9 million jobs displaced in the conventional energy area. Not to mention, these job estimates are only for electric power production alone. (GND 1) They don’t include jobs from the two most prominent job creators in the process of an energy transition; being mass transit/freight rail and reconstructing buildings for insulation and efficiency. It is estimated that every dollar spent on investments in renewable energy creates 3 times as many jobs as investments in nuclear power or fossil fuels. Additionally, The Center for American Progress estimates that $100 billion in green economic investment will render into two million new jobs in two years, creating a huge increase in the economy. Furthermore, the Green New Deal mainly pays for itself in healthcare savings due to the prevention of fossil fuel-related diseases, such as asthma, heart attacks, strokes and even cancer. The Green New Deal aims to redirect all the research money currently being done on fossil fuels and other dead-end industries toward research in wind, solar, geothermal, wave and tidal energy. (GND 1) The goal is to invest in research that is sustainable, includes nontoxic materials, and has closed-loop cycles that eliminate waste and pollution. Clearly, despite false claims, this grand proposal is more than merely economically possible, it’s in fact, greatly economically beneficial to our nation.

Those who argue that this bill is economically impossible are being blinded by ignorance. It is often very hard and uncomfortable for one to adjust to new circumstances, leading one to by instinct avoid them. However, in certain situations, such as this one, where grave stakes are at hand, like the safety and well-being of our planet and home, I believe it to be crucial to take immediate action towards counteracting these affects. Moving to 100% clean energy means many more jobs on the market, a much healthier environment and much lower electric costs compared to the sustained dependence on fossil fuels. In fact, studies have demonstrated that the technology needed to achieve 100% clean energy by the year 2030 already exists. To clarify, this clean energy doesn’t include natural gas, biomass, nuclear power or the oxymoron “clean coal.” Instead clean energy is often referring to those which energy sources come from the water, wind, or sun. (Wallace 1) All of which we already currently have in our modern day society. And we can even help speed up the transition to clean energy by making polluters pay for the damage they’ve done, enabling them to do it less and less, by starting with a robust carbon fee program. The claims that it is unjust or inhumane to tax and/or charge someone for something of that nature doesn’t stand true when dealing with such a grave matter that impacts the entire world. If making people pay, and be in a way “punished” for their actions is the only way they’ll put an end to their harmful ways then so be it. Polluters are simply thinking short term, as to where will I be in 10 years, while the Green New Deal is thinking long term, as in will my great grandchildren have breathable oxygen.

This proposal highly emphasizes the immediate actions needed taken to help save our planet from this horrible climate crisis. Many other countries around the world have already declared a state of climate crisis and taken specific precautions to help ensure the crisis doesn’t worsen, however, the United States has failed to do so as well. This proposal could be the start of a new beginning, possibly a new hope for the United States. In recent years, and presidencies, there has been little to no support in converting to clean energy, despite the exposure to all the technology needed and the dire situation the climate has found itself in. So why would the United States still depend on fossil fuel?

The reason the media doesn’t want common people to support the Green New Deal is because the media is supported by big corporations. The Green New Deal is not only a major step towards ending unemployment in America, but also a great aid in fighting the corporate takeover of our democracy and the never-ending exploitation of the poor and people of color. The transition to 100% clean energy will be solely based on community, worker and public ownership and democratic control of our energy system, rather than the maximization of profits for energy corporations, banks and large hedge funds. This is truly a proposal for the people, by the people.

Cite this page