The Green New Deal, explained


Every few years, they gather to tell us what’s
happening to our warming planet. In 2018, they had some news. “It’s very clear that half a degree matters.” This is a chart of how much the global temperature
has gone up since we discovered fossil fuels. For a long time, scientists said that we should
try to stay under this line: 1.5 degrees celsius. But that really, we’d be okay if
we ended up below this line: 2 degrees. Now they were saying, that wasn’t quite right. That we’re not safe in this zone. And that hitting this line will mean a spike
in mass migration, wildfires, deadly heat stress – and it’s going to cost us. “Trillions of dollars, millions of lives. Irreversible, forever. Changes that cannot
be undone in centuries.” That’s what happens if we get warming to
stop here. And right now, we’re on track to go way past
that. “If action is not taken, it will take the
planet into an unprecedented climate future, if we compare it to what has happened during all of human evolutionary history.” We don’t have a plan for this. So a group of American activists started
to make one. They recruited a Congresswoman and a senator
to turn it into a Congressional resolution. It’s the first step of a plan that has mostly
yet to be written. It’s called the Green New Deal. And inside, there’s something we might not
want to hear. This is the Green New Deal resolution. It’s only 14 pages. And to understand what’s in it, it’s important
to understand what’s not. “It is not a bill. It’s not legislation. It’s not a policy proposal. It’s not anything that you could pass and make law.” This is my colleague David Roberts. Dave’s written a lot about the Green New Deal. And he says the 14-page resolution is just
a first step. “The idea was, what’s our shared understanding
of the problem, and what’s necessary to solve it?” The Green New Deal contains basically two
big ideas. The first is this question of what we need
to do to solve the impending climate crisis. The Green New Deal says what climate scientists say: We need to completely stop burning fossil fuels — “as much as technologically feasible.” “So that means things like rethinking vehicles, energy efficiency standards for buildings, changing the ways we make steel and concrete.” That’s Rhiana Gunn-Wright. She’s part of the think tank that came up
with the Green New Deal. “Policy director at New Consensus.” Rhiana writes policy. And she likes to rattle off the things that moving
away from fossil fuels will entail. “Moving to electric vehicles. Make that home energy efficient. The food that you buy will be grown locally.” The Green New Deal requires building a lot of new things, the things to power the world, without
fossil fuels. And that’ll create new jobs, new industries,
an entire new economy. But Rhiana also emphasizes that this is going
to inflict a cost. “It’s going to be a massive undertaking, because
we’re asking how do we rethink the ways we use energy in our society.” A key principle of the Green New Deal is that
it’s too late to incrementally move away from fossil fuels. It has to happen quickly, and dramatically. Or as Dave puts it:
“People don’t seem to get, zero emissions means zero oil business, zero natural gas
business. No coal business, no internal combustion
engine auto business. The number “zero” means it all has to go.”” Here’s what decarbonizing will do. When we rip out fossil fuels from the economy,
people are going to lose their jobs. And that means they’ll lose their health
care and maybe their homes. But the Green New Deal also has a second part. And this part acknowledges that transitioning
Americans away from fossil fuels is a huge and difficult ask — especially at a time when so many live in
economic uncertainty. “How can we go to the American people and
say ‘I sure hope you aren’t one of the people who loses a job, because then you might
die, sick on the street. Good luck. Now will you sign my bill?'” This is the contradiction that the Green New
Deal describes. It’s the part we may not want to hear: That we need to take action, and also that
taking action will cause pain. Imagine you’re a coal worker. If the US decarbonizes, you are going to suffer. So this second part is a set of promises,
for how Americans will be protected during the transition away from fossil fuels. “Jobs guarantee, public employment, universal
healthcare, education and training.” “The basic elements of economic freedom
that ought to be promised and due to every citizen of the richest country in the world.” And these promises aren’t just for protecting
coal workers. They’re meant to keep all inequality from
getting even worse during the transition. Because think about what direction wealth,
and power, usually flow in — when new things get built. It’s the communities with the most political
clout who decide where things can and can’t be built. Wealthy corporations jump in to build those
projects. And the good jobs go to people who can afford
to get trained for them. “The folks who have the fewest barriers will
be the ones who benefit the most, and you’re just going to see a replication of the issues
that we have now.” In other words, anyone who’s historically
missed out on those benefits — especially the poor, and people of color — could end
up even worse off. So the Green New Deal says, we should rebuild
the American economy — in a way that allows opportunity to flow more fairly. “The Green New Deal is about: While
we have this chance, why don’t we think about that proactively to change it in the ways that
people have been calling for it to be changed for generations at this point.” So the first part of the Green New Deal is
a set of goals to avoid a global disaster. The second part says we should do it in a
way that helps ordinary Americans come out better on the other side. And that’s it. That’s all that’s in these 14 pages. It’s just a first step. And now, Rhiana’s job is to figure out how
to go from this 14-page resolution to an actual Green New Deal – a road map for what government
needs to do next. And their goal is that, if Democrats win power
in 2020, there’s a plan ready to execute. For now, though, the Green New Deal is just
asking our leaders to acknowledge the scale of the problems we face. “This disastrous plan …” “… would be a massive government takeover…” “… it would stifle innovation…” “… wasteful and reckless spending…” “… rather than setting realistic goals…
” “… we would go from about 94 million cows
to zero cows…” “… that resolution will not pass the Senate. Because there’s no way to pay for it…” “Desctructive, socialist, daydream.” The Green New Deal is a longshot. But right now it’s also the only plan that
acknowledges what we know is coming. “What is the world that we want? What is the country that we want? And how do we get there? And how do we get there in a way that is just, and how do we get there in a way that stabilizes the climate and heals our planet? Because if we don’t do that, then there will be
no paradigm because there will be nothing to fight for.”

, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Post navigation

100 thoughts on “The Green New Deal, explained

  1. If you want to read about the Green New Deal in the lens of the 2020 election, I recommend this piece explaining Washington Gov. Jay Inslee’s proposal: https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/5/4/18527458/climate-change-jay-inslee-for-president-2020

    Inslee has the most ambitious climate proposals; it is, as Vox's David Roberts writes, the Green New Deal translated into policy.

    For more from the rest of the 2020 democratic field, check out the Vox policy guide: https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/23/18304657/vox-guide-2020-democratic-policy-primary#Climate%20change

    – Alvin

  2. Everyone is aware that you can't run a farm without tractors, right? How are farmers supposed to grow crops and harvest them if they don't have diesel for their tractors? Electric tractors is not a viable option either. Are they supposed to go 3 rows and go back to the house to charge up? Has anyone actually read the green bill. They have not actually suggested any. solutions for going green. They just make claims for what it is going to change. There aren't any "this is how we substitute the problems" that this "not a bill" solution that they want so badly. I do not see any solutions for how we will build up our power grid to accommodate the mass influx into electric everything. Also, I cannot believe what people say about global warming. There was a study done by Yale I believe that disproves that the oceans are warming theory. They go into say that there has been too many inaccurate reading done by different countries to have any hard evidence. And not to long ago there was a group of people that demanded the immediate shut down of nuclear power plants. Theses same people demand that we go full electric. If theses people can't make the right decision then. How can we trust them now. I will vote for this "not a bill" when I am presented with feasible ways to switch over, backed by long term evidence and research. Not flowers crying about their feelings.

  3. The ending was a little overly endorsing of Democrats, which I wish you guys could have avoided, but other than that, really good video!

  4. Saving the PLANET is wayyy out of our budget…sorry kid, we won't be alive when this happens, but we are still making your future decisions 😂

  5. This is agenda 21 in disguise. Wake up and smell the roses y'all! Because it wont be too long from now when our property rights are taken from us to where we can't go in the wilderness to smell them.

    I'd love to have future like this.. but unfortunately it's a facade that is too good to be true.

  6. From Washington Post (you do trust the Post, don't you)–story entitled "AOC's Chief of Change" dated July 10th this year:
    "Chakrabarti had an unexpected disclosure. “The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

  7. You use freight liners to gather the ice caps etc.. then you give that ice/ water to poor countries.
    Then you target drought areas, forests, and you build them up by adding trees n the like.
    These are just a few(free but I want a job) ideas that would drastically change this climate change.

  8. But manufacturers will take advantage of it. They will build cheaper and cheaper quality products so people have to repair them more often and buy more of their parts. Will they build $1/4m wind turbines like 🇺🇸 government build for California in 1950s which will last 50+ years?

  9. For your information folks, this is not the green new deal in those 14 pages. read it folks…vox go back and read it and summarize accurately and truthfully……………..

  10. What about the vastly larger spike in greenhouse gas emissions from the construction for all new infrastructure. For instance, electric car battery production? And what about the existing combustion engine vehicles? Maintain the existing 10%, or a mere 15% ethanol fuel, the remainder being petroleum, or have that market share shift away from petroleum predominance, all with existing infrastructure. This "Green'" presentation ignores specifics of any substitution /transition program, and it's complete neglect of the accelerated battery production carbon spike can make one wonder if they are intentionally trying to jolt Siberia's methane.

  11. (E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water effi- ciency, safety, affordability, comfort, and dura- bility, including through electrification; Sounds like Marxism Leninism

  12. I am as far right you can imagine however I do believe in climate change but the second part is wrong and is completely useless maybe if you get rid of he second part of universal healthcare and socialist ideas then maybe it’ll pass and trump is an amazing president

  13. The only ones that have a huge population that don't believe in climate change is the USA the most ignorant and self focused sociaty in the world

  14. Half the comments “we payed for war why not this”. Simple answer, war doesn’t need to tear down the economy and the biggest industries in the world and build it back up from nothing while also handicapping yourself by not using traditional energy sources.

  15. This "Second Part" for me doesn't lift my worries for the Green New Deal, for it only makes me more worried. Something we've always avoided made so feasible in this one "Deal" complete and udder government control over our entire economic system. How do so many people ignore the most important part of the deal? I don't know

    -Do we think the government will just hand the power back to the people after all of this??? No, they wont. In fact we might not ever get our America back.

    -Is getting rid of cows truly necessary??? No, its not. What we don't see is that, this "Deal" just wants its greasy hands all over every part of the economy. (Some parts of this deal seem completely absurd! Their excuse for everything? Climate Change. Yes, I know your response… its a viable excuse. Whats not a viable excuse is the stench of socialism ALL over this document.

    -I again mention that what they are trying to do in this "second part" could be irreversible. Imagine playing Jenga with a house (A very risky thing, I might say) this deal plans this pull the foundation from right beneath the house. One rule of Jenga I know is to not try taking the three blocks from the bottom. What happens??? Complete and utter collapse. Unlike regular Jenga, Jenga with a house cant just have its foundation slipped back in. It will call for a need of complete destruction of all the house that we all live in. So their plan is to just create another house with an even the rubble of the house beneath it. Not a very "stable" plan is it. This house represents the economy of America which will completely and utterly crumble. Something that can NEVER be undone.

    NO Amount of money can fix this destruction of our economy. (Sad but true)

    -My final problem is this. If this is the "First Step", do we have the Second & Third ready to go??? This plan bestows all of our trust and power given to the government (Which would be a massive mistake on our part) and hope they know what comes next.

    I feel that if there is something that needs to be done… It must be done in a less extreme fashion that all people of this America and the World could agree on. Read the entire plan yourself (EVERY DETAIL) and get all your worries and questions answered.

    -A Random Guy hoping for something better.

  16. The world is so much ahead in so many ways, America…. time to see further than economic growth… and accepting the fact that nothing is for free and sacrifices have to be made… especially when something is so urgent.

  17. The green new deal won't "save the world". All our ships, semi trucks and trains run on fossil fuels. Factories in China that build all our stuff are powered mostly by fossil fuels. The only way to get rid of them is to find something better, my opinion that's nuclear. The climate activists claim to be on the side of science but then they don't want to use science to solve the problem. As for electric vehicles they are already gaining popularity. It's not long before they become better options then combustion powered cars and people will start buying them. Government can help but they won't even be able to make a dent, they just want to steal from you and put more regulations on your life.

  18. so destroy industry and then support the people that loose their jobs with tax dollars that you primarily get from the people in that industry. Yep, sounds legit

  19. I currently live in California, being from the east coast I am all about public transportation mostly train commuting. Last week California had a "clean air day" encouraging people to take any mode of transportation other than their personal vehicle. Take the train, bus, or ride a bike which most of those methods were free on that specific day…well needless to say no one changed their ways….I feel this is just another problem that people would rather throw money at than actually change their lifestyle…

  20. If world would not do anything, nature will. And when nature revives itself, it doesn't see how developed or developing a country is.

  21. Weird no one mentions population reduction as a long term goal to end most of our ills. The jungle is beyond our control! A big volcano could end the need for any deal because mass famine world wide is just as possible folks!

  22. You know when you're booking a holiday, flight or concert ticket and that countdown ticker pops up telling you to hurry up before its lost? That's called a 'sales tactic' to give you a sense of urgency and convince you to part with your money now.

    I'll let you put the dots together.

  23. The Green New Deal is big on promises for utopia that will never be achieved because it completely ignores human nature.

  24. Please give credit where credit is due. The Green New Deal was the centerpiece of Green Party nominee Jill Stein's 2012 presidential platform. I voted for her in the safe non-swing state of Louisiana that year because I thought it was a wonderful idea that the Democrats may wanna take up (the same way they took for Social Security which was lifted from Socialist Party candidate Norman Thomas' presidential campaigns from 1928 and 1932).

  25. Talk about ethnocentrism… Yep. If the U.S. stops burning fossil fuels, the world is saved… except for the rain forests which still continue to be decimated and the other 7 billion people in the world using fossil fuels. Would be better to start terra-forming Mars. Consider this… We are the virus of the Earth and this is how the Earth will get rid of us – by running a high fever.

  26. Saying global warming is a myth, not normal.
    Thinking solar power wind power can replace coal and oil, not normal.
    Guys it's called nuclear. The only thing that can save us.

  27. All these politicians can point fingers and name-call… but the real point is that something needs to be done NOW. Something huge.

  28. It's like y'all can't even acknowledge that the only way is socialism, there's no how do we pay for it, it should be let's redistribute wealth while also dismantling these industries and many others

  29. "the only plan that acknowledges what we know is coming" These snowflakes really think they can control the weather through political correctness and social justice. It's another ruse to steal your stuff and give it away. They hate democracy, they hate freedom, they hate capitalism. don't be fooled.

  30. People are complaining that we should switch regardless of price. No, we shouldnt switch cause even with the new power source there is no one to power the nation like fossil fuel did. Sure the sun is unlimited and the wind is too but it wont work cause the country would go bankrupt and collapse. When the country collapses then there is no earth day, there no agencies to try to fix these issues. Exxon has a better plan than this and that's to capture CO2 emission and break it down inside the plant. The world runs on fossil fuel cause it is the most efficient fuel. The US alone uses too much power to use solar and wind and it would take years to switch, there is no possible way to flip to the economic safety they want without causing more issues. This green deal is a flop cause it is unrealistic. Most energy in electric cars is made by fossil fuel and you need more energy than what fossil fuel puts out.

  31. Climate change is reversible with technological advancements.
    Not by killing capitalism like occasio Cortez is doing.
    Also production of lithium ion battery for cars isn't very efficient.
    It also isn't practical.

    Hydrogen fuel and natural gas is the future.

  32. I agree that we need to stop climate change, don’t get me wrong I love my planet, the green new deal is just dems making a big deal out of nothing, blowing it way out of proportion

  33. Hey everyone don’t trust the green new deal it’s socialism it doesn’t work the government just wants you money it’s a ploy to take total control

  34. the 2020 election isn't about the economy, or even trump. it's about the survival of humanity. yes, trump is a threat too our survival whether you like it or not

  35. "The interesting thing about the Green New Deal is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all,”

    “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti then asked. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

    -Saikat Charbarti, Chief of Staff, Congresswoman Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez

  36. Also Vox here's a tip: when you're trying to establish credibility for a perspective/opinion piece, MAYBE not use your own staff as interview subjects. Try and find scientists and lawyers and other experts, not the guy next to you in the cubicle.

    And interview THE OTHER SIDE. AOC wants rent control yet the GND demands all buildings meet new green standards, which could cost landlords millions in renovation.

    So they'll spend millions to meet AOCs standards but also not be allowed to recuperate those expenses.

    Good luck with that.

  37. No problem with all these changes so long as it is optional. Those that buy this story can elect to stop using fossil fuels or fly in planes and stop eating meat. The rest of the population cannot be compelled to conform. All good.

  38. Hello Im from eastern europe, We had  socialism for 40 years. Learn from our mistake dont repeat them. It will be disaster for America if you go with the green new deal.

  39. Give it 5 more years and them old geezers' head will be impaled on poles along with oil burning tanks and our defeated attempt to make this a better place. Money is winning, and we are coming to an almost certain doom. What are we to do? Start our own change with our own source of energy and reduce carbon emission? I don't know and it scares me.

  40. The climate problem is probably the best irl example of a perfect prisoner's dilemma problem, with three possible scenarios:

    First scenario: unanimous support and cooperation of the world's largest energy consumers, that means US, Russia and China will need to agree on a plan, simultaneously reducing their carbon emission. For that plan to work, all parties have to cooperate, and suffer a lot in the process.
    Yet the whole plan will collapse if anyone decides that "hey, while it's costing others greatly to transform their economies, why don't we double down on fossil fuels?", whoever does that will become the single biggest winner of the next century, everyone else loses. This is the second scenario. The final scenario is everyone being as selfish as possible hoping they'll be the biggest winner and everyone loses in the end, "loses", in this case, means the destruction of the human civilisation.

    Last point to make this spicy: for Russia, global warming and rising sea level are almost all-benefits, and they'll be the least affected by the global humanitarian disaster, both China and the US know that.
    Now, guess which of those scenarios will be the most likely one…?

  41. Zero emissions means zero a/c homes, zero emissions means zero auto emissions (zero fossil fuel cars), zero emissions means zero fossil fuel electricity, can we reach zero fossil fuel electricity? i do not think so, can we reach no a/c homes? not currently, can we reach zero fossil fuel cars? yes, i do believe we are reaching close, however the alternative also produces emissions…

  42. I mean our country does have 22 trillion dollars in debt. If our economy collapses we’ll see a catastrophic depression for many generations to come. I agree people need to be protected and it is such a tricky situation. there will only be more and more people.. and more technology to take jobs. but this is an issue that needs to be solved.

  43. How to convince the most economically liberal country in the world to take action against climate change? By telling them that if they do that they must build an entire welfare system, that's how!
    Seriously, the fact that action requires economic change does not relate to inequality.

  44. We need the green new deal California keeps having heat fires. Don’t think oh that’s just California trust me global warming will get the rest of America eventually.

  45. I say we convert to nuclear power? We've done it before we can do it again! It's efficent and clean, and there are various nuclear elements that are way better than just urainium which is very bad if you ask me

  46. Would it be good to stop climate change, yes. But this Green New Deal is not the right way to do it at all. This and other future legislation will never be passed if this is the framework for new proposals.

  47. You can't legislate this. Try, plunge our society back into the 19th century, go ahead. You call yourselves progressives, but what you stand for is the destruction of society.

    Seek the truth in all things, only then can we begin to solve the world's problems.

  48. At last it came to politics ,shame on you . It's not about just a country ,it's about the whole world .if this is a major issue then you should discuss with the 'whole world leaders' then try to fix it together . And it also seem so bad when these problems are brought up only when there is an election .
    Cheap trick for the election

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *