The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released a report that predicts an increase in forest fires, food shortages and the destruction of coral reefs by 2040—21 years, a small span of time. However, if the human population acts swiftly and precisely, we may be able to improve the health of our planet. One example of such necessary action is the Green New Deal.
On Feb. 7, NY Representative, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, addressed her version of the Green New Deal in the House of Representatives. This nonbinding resolution is aimed towards addressing climate change in the United States during the next decade, while simultaneously boosting the economy.
The economic aspect of the Green New Deal is inspired by former President Theodore Roosevelt’s New Deal. The hope is to create more jobs by transitioning to sustainable forms of infrastructure and industry. As a result of these new jobs, communities struggling financially will improve.
By forming sustainable infrastructure and industry, this assists in another vital component of the Green New Deal, which is making the United States carbon neutral. Currently, there are various forms of the Green New Deal, which results in an unclear definition of carbon neutrality. One possibility is the “complete divorcing of fossil fuels,” said Faculty Coordinator of the Sustainability Program and Professor of Performance and Communication Arts, Jessica Prody. But, the more realistic form of carbon neutrality is to “decrease our reliance on fossil fuels and offset the remaining with monetary investment.”
Despite the necessity of the Green New Deal, political support from Republicans is lacking. President Trump claimed in a tweet that the Green New Deal is going to eliminate “planes, cars, cows, oil, gas and the military.”
This is not the case. When looking at Cortez’s version of the Green New Deal “there is a sense of weening off cars, increasing the use of highspeed rail, and decreasing flying,” said Professor Prody. However, “Trump picks up on those small elements and forming, what we call in rhetoric, a strawman fallacy.”
It is also important to emphasize that rather than the elimination of “plane, cars, cows, oil, gas and the military,” the Green New Deal promotes the idea of “running them on a different form of energy. It’s replacing the energy source that they’re run on,” said Visiting and Assistant Professor, Katherine Cleary.
In order to combat such rhetoric, the benefits of the Green New Deal for both the Republicans and Democrats must be evident. “Conversations that show pieces of the bill are in line with a multitude of political perspectives,” said Professor Prody.
Without a willingness to work together, the fate of the Green New Deal is uncertain. It is a disservice to allow political discourse to determine the fate of our country and environment.
In order to prevent the projected fate of 2040, as a country, we must acknowledge the fast approaching destruction of our environment and act accordingly.