Erik McGregor/Pacific Press/LightRocket via Getty Images (Brooklyn); Jonathan Ernst/Reuters (coal miners)

Article Options

Presentation View
Teaching Resources

Lexile® measure

Is a Green New Deal a Good Idea?

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt took office in 1933, the U.S. was in the depths of the Great Depression. A quarter of Americans were unemployed, there were long lines of hungry people at soup kitchens, and people were desperate. Roosevelt immediately began enacting a series of government programs designed to help Americans and get the economy moving again. The programs were collectively known as the New Deal.

Now, some lawmakers are saying that the threat of climate change demands a similar scope of intervention and investment. They’re calling their initiative a Green New Deal. But not everyone thinks this is the right thing to do. Two senators debate whether the nation should adopt a Green New Deal.

A bold plan to transform our global energy system away from fossil fuels is not only a moral imperative for a livable planet, it’s an opportunity to build a more just and equitable world. 

This is the thinking behind the Green New Deal, an approach to tackling climate change that invests in working people and uproots historical injustices. This vision draws on the spirit of President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s successful program to end the Great Depression, curb income inequality, and create a more humane society with a strong middle class.

A Green New Deal would make massive public investments in our infrastructure: energy-efficient buildings, a modern energy grid, a green transportation system, and the rapid deployment of wind, solar, and other renewable energy technologies across the country, all manufactured right here in the United States.

A Green New Deal is a moral imperative—and an opportunity to build a more just world.

A Green New Deal would create millions of family-sustaining, unionized jobs with benefits. It would also protect communities vulnerable to climate change and provide the working people in the fossil fuel industry with training and guaranteed employment opportunities in the green economy.

Many low-income Americans and people of color live in communities that have unsafe drinking water and dangerously polluted air. A Green New Deal would prioritize infrastructure repairs to fix this. It’s not a radical idea to suggest that clean drinking water and clean air should be the right of all Americans regardless of their income or the color of their skin.

Alex Wong/Getty Images

 

Senator Sanders is running as a Democratic candidate for president in 2020.

According to scientists, we have a little more than a decade to make these major changes to avoid irreversible climate destruction. We can’t afford not to pursue a Green New Deal. The good news is that there are no technological obstacles to achieving this—only political ones.

Young people are demanding that their elected officials act urgently to tackle climate change, as the overwhelming scientific evidence tells us we must. Let’s bring people together. Let’s transform our economy. Let’s save the planet.


—SENATOR BERNIE SANDERS

Independent of Vermont

Earth’s climate is changing, and the global community has a responsibility to address it. But there are three basic reasons why the proposed Green New Deal isn’t the way to do it: The plan is unrealistic, it will cost too much for average Americans, and it won’t achieve its goal.

At the heart of the plan is a mandate to switch to 100 percent renewable fuels within a decade. We should continue to increase our use of renewables, but essentially outlawing fossil fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas isn’t just a mistake, it’s impossible. Three out of five U.S. homes depend on these fossil fuels for their power. In 2017, wind and solar power generated just under 8 percent of America’s electricity. There’s no way we can go from 8 percent to 100 percent in 10 years.

The Green New Deal is unrealistic and will cost too much for average Americans.

Because the fossil fuels most Americans now depend on are abundant in the U.S., they’re relatively cheap. By requiring us to abandon these inexpensive fuel sources, the Green New Deal would make household energy bills jump by as much as $3,800 a year—a spike working families can’t afford. The plan would also require the national construction of a massive new infrastructure to support the shift to all renewable energy. Taxpayers would end up footing the bill for this.

Even if Americans were willing to pay, the deal wouldn’t achieve their climate change goals. In 2017, America generated 13 percent of global carbon emissions. China and India produced 33 percent. Until these nations make changes, global emissions will climb regardless of what the United States does.

Zach Gibson/Getty Images

Senator Barrasso is chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee.

We should focus on what is working: innovation. American scientists are making significant progress on two new clean-energy developments. The first is advanced nuclear power generation, and the second is capturing carbon emissions and finding new uses for them. We must continue to support these technologies and deploy them around the world.

The Green New Deal isn’t the answer. Let’s instead make America’s energy as clean as possible today, while investing in promising innovations for tomorrow.


—SENATOR JOHN BARRASSO

Republican of Wyoming

What does your class think?
Question Goes Here
Please enter a valid number of votes for one class to proceed.
Question Goes Here
Please select an answer to vote.
Question Goes Here
0%
0votes
{{result.answer}}
Total Votes: 0
Thank you for voting!
Sorry, an error occurred and your vote could not be processed. Please try again later.
Life and Culture
Debate
abundant

<p>adj.—plentiful</p>

imperative

<p>noun—something that is necessary</p>

deployment

<p>noun—the act of bringing something into use in an effective way</p>

Skills Sheets (1)
Lesson Plan (1)
Text-to-Speech