Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) unveiled her long-awaited Green New Deal environmental proposal and some of the details left people scratching their heads.
Ocasio-Cortez prepared the resolution as a series of goals for the U.S. Congress to strive for in order to combat climate change, however, the program goes far beyond the confines of climate issues.
The freshman congresswoman penned the resolution as an ode to former President Franklin Rosevelt’s New Deal and hopes that the resolution will completely mobilize the American economy to fight climate change as FDR did to fight in WWII.
While the goal may be to fight climate change, the promises in the resolution are far fetched.
The resolution vows that, in the next ten years, Congress will:
- “Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression.”
- Require that the U.S. be powered by 100 percent “clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”
- Guarantee jobs to all Americans that have “family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement.”
- “Stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas.”
- Obtain the “free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples” prior to implementing any of these changes.
These are a few of the items included in the text of the resolution that will be brought before Congress. The goals, while admirable, are completely far fetched, but they don’t hold a candle to the more-detailed “fact sheet” released by Ocasio-Cortez’s team and published by NPR.
The fact sheet outlines the goals of the Green New Deal, and some of the lines from the document are laughable.
“Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot. When JFK said we’d go to the by the end of the decade, people said impossible.”
- “We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero.”
“Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work.”
“[T]he question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity?”
Because the fact sheet spent so much time on cow farts and so little time on how it would be paid for, many took to Twitter to mock the proposal.
So @AOC's Green New Deal is no big deal. It will just eliminate from the U.S.
Houses as we know them
Trucks & boats (with combustible engines)
And every brain cell of any idiot stupid enough to support it.
— Liz Wheeler (@Liz_Wheeler) February 7, 2019
Well that’s obviously going to “pay for itself” 🙄
My 4 year old could put together more viable plan than this. https://t.co/fHUXHyKrpB
— Donald Trump Jr. (@DonaldJTrumpJr) February 7, 2019
In the #GreenNewDeal, Democrats would provide a job for everyone in America, but they would also give money to those “unwilling to work.” Why take the job when staying home pays the bills?
— Rep. John Rutherford (@RepRutherfordFL) February 7, 2019
Question for #NewGreenDeal : How do you make cows *not* fart?
(taken from their FAQ) pic.twitter.com/TL2q9zrjdK
— Dana Loesch (@DLoesch) February 7, 2019
While the resolution seems laughable on many fronts, several prominent Democrats have signed on as sponsors, including 2020 candidates Senators Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, and Kirsten Gillibrand.
Ocasio-Cortez may have support in the Senate, but even Pelosi has dismissed parts of the Green New Deal, saying that she likes the “enthusiasm” of the resolution, but then mocked it as a “dream.”
“It will be one of several or maybe many suggestions that we receive. The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?” Pelosi told reporters.
Please note: This is a commentary piece. The views and opinions expressed within it are those of the author only and do not necessarily reflect the editorial opinion of IJR.