SIERRA-AP_19038644996138-WB
Bill Clark/AP photo

On Feb. 7 a group of Democrats in Congress unveiled a resolution calling for a “Green New Deal,” a massive, 10-year mobilization by the federal government to head off the worst-case scenario of global climate change. The outline for future legislation seeks to meet “100 percent of the power demand in the United States” through renewable sources. Other goals include eliminating greenhouse gas emissions “as much as technologically feasible” and to “achieve maximal energy efficiency” in every building in the United States. It also foresees a radical transformation of the U.S. economy to create millions of new jobs, improve health care and housing, and repair the “historical oppression” of “vulnerable communities,” including low-income workers and migrants.

The resolution, introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, quickly attracted the support of more than 80 members of Congress, as well as several Democrats running for president in 2020. But Republicans have mocked the proposal, with Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming calling it a “socialist manifesto.” The Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, called it a plan “to end air travel and cow farts,” and Republicans seem ready to tie Democratic candidates to each and every provision of the proposal.

While it is clear that not everything in the Green New Deal is realistically achievable, what is less realistic still is to dismiss it out of hand in order to continue the pretense that climate change can be ignored.  

However indistinct its path to actualization may seem now, the resolution should be welcomed as an important first step toward more detailed legislation.

The Green New Deal is in many ways consistent with the message of Pope Francis’ 2015 encyclical “Laudato Si’,” which calls on Catholics to favor “forms of industrial production with maximum energy efficiency” (No. 180). The resolution’s call for the protection of “frontline and vulnerable communities” echoes the encyclical’s warning that the costs of climate change fall most heavily on the poor. In addition, the creation of jobs is consistent with the church’s recognition of the necessity and dignity of labor. While there is much work to be done to identify policies that are economically, technologically and politically feasible, ridiculing the idea that climate change demands significant and expeditious political and economic adaptations is incompatible with the spirit of “Laudato Si’.”

Yet proponents of the Green New Deal should also take the challenge of climate change seriously enough to avoid turning this resolution into a wish list for every item on their agenda, especially those that are red flags for political conservatives. Whatever one thinks of the advisability of a federal employment guarantee, that question need not have been linked to reforms focusing on clean energy. A focus on job creation through infrastructure investments and the development of green technologies—which is also in the resolution—would demonstrate a desire to attract and maintain political support for a challenging agenda.

The difficulty of responding to the complex problems of climate change is reminiscent of the many attempts to improve health care in the United States. Since World War II, Congress has repeatedly thrown out worthwhile proposals for being too ambitious or displeasing too many constituencies and has even tried to roll back incremental progress toward a health care system on a par with other industrialized nations. The health of our planet is at least as important, but this time we do not have the luxury of spending more than seven decades searching for a solution that pleases everyone.

However indistinct its path to actualization may seem now, the resolution should be welcomed as an important first step toward more detailed legislation.

This article appears in March 4 2019.