Sign In or Create an Account.

By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy

Politics

Trump Is Onto Something About the Green New Deal

It’s the law in everything but name.

Biden pointing at the Earth.
Illustration by Simon Abranowicz

“They’ve spent trillions of dollars on things having to do with the Green New Scam. It’s a scam,” said Donald Trump in his recent convention speech. His running mate J.D. Vance echoed the sentiment, saying in his speech that the country needs “a leader who rejects Joe Biden and Kamala Harris’s Green New Scam.”

To get the reference, you would have had to understand that they were talking about the Green New Deal — which most Americans probably recall dimly, if at all — and have some sense of both what was in it and why you shouldn’t like it. Neither Trump nor Vance explained or elaborated; it was one of many attacks at the Republican convention that brought cheers from the delegates but were likely all but incomprehensible to voters who aren’t deeply versed in conservative memes and boogeymen.

But here’s the irony. The Green New Deal never made the transition from a general statement of goals to a concrete and comprehensive policy plan. It wasn’t enacted through Congress. And today, most Democrats, even those who supported it in the past, seldom mention it by name. Yet without too many people noticing, the Green New Deal has been enormously successful.

From the beginning, it was envisioned as both a set of policy objectives and a public relations campaign, starting with the name. By invoking Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal, its advocates intended to communicate three essential messages. First, climate change is an urgent crisis on the scale of the Great Depression, one that demands a government response without delay. Second, the plan itself is hugely ambitious, seeking to marshal vast resources across multiple federal agencies to confront the problem. And third, the programs it envisions would be as transformative and lasting in their effects as those of the New Deal, putting millions to work, creating economic security, and providing direct benefits to Americans’ lives.

But the plan itself was not really a plan at all. The legislation filed in 2019 by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey is a mere 14 pages long. It articulates five goals:

1. Achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions
2. Creating millions of high-wage jobs
3. Investing in sustainable infrastructure
4. Securing clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment
5. Promoting environmental justice

The rest of the document name-checks a variety of areas where future programs will be targeted (manufacturing, housing, transportation, agriculture, etc.) and principles those programs should embody (support for unions, community involvement, opposition to corporate monopolies). In the years since, Ocasio-Cortez and Markey, along with other advocates, have attached the Green New Deal name to other, more detailed proposals (e.g. the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act).

So not only does the Green New Deal remain somewhat abstract and hypothetical, most Democrats don’t even bring it up anymore. Which is why it sounds so absurd when Republicans attack it as though it were an enacted law; every time the crumbling Texas energy grid fails, foes of the clean energy transition rush to Fox News to say the Green New Deal is the culprit.

If you wanted to be generous, you could say the Republican critics are not lying, just using the phrase “Green New Deal” — or in Trump and Vance’s formulation, “Green New Scam” — as a shorthand to refer to any and all efforts to address climate change. In that sense, they might actually be on to something.

To understand why, we should go back to the Green New Deal’s high point as a topic of political debate: the 2020 Democratic presidential primary campaign. Most of the two dozen Democrats running for the nomination supported it, and many — including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Kamala Harris — were cosponsors of the legislation. When Joe Biden released his first campaign climate plan in 2019, it read, “Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face.” A year later he put out an updated plan that backed away from the Green New Deal moniker but won praise from climate advocates for its ambition, including pledges to spend $2 trillion and reduce carbon emissions from power plants to zero by 2035.

That change foreshadowed where most elected officials in the Democratic Party would move: Most of them wound up setting aside the Green New Deal name, but they adopted its policy goals. What was originally thought by many to be a pie-in-the-sky idea advanced by those on the left edge of the party became something almost any Democrat with serious ambitions has to be on board with, however they might describe it. Democratic senators and governors may not all agree on every particular, but they have come around to the Green New Deal’s fundamental approach: aggressive, ambitious government action on climate, with the emphasis on carrots rather than sticks to produce tangible benefits the public will support.

And just as Green New Deal advocates hoped, Democrats have not allowed Republicans to sucker them into endless arguments about cost. When Republicans make preposterous claims (for instance, that it will cost $100 trillion to implement all the plan’s profligate schemes), Democrats tend to dismiss it and move on, accepting that climate action entails investing money up front, and that it’s worth it.

As for Biden, as he heads toward the end of his presidency he’s gotten lots of deserved praise for his commitment and achievements in addressing climate. While this might not be the way he would describe it, there’s no question that between the Inflation Reduction Act, the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, and the efforts of agencies including the EPA and Department of Energy, he has made progress on all five of the Green New Deal’s goals.

Net-zero emission targets? Check. Focus on well-paid green jobs? Check. Sustainable infrastructure? Check. Clean air and water? Check. Environmental justice? Check. One might question whether the steps his administration has taken in these areas have been effective or sufficient, but no one can say Biden hasn’t pursued the Green New Deal’s objectives.

The Green New Deal may not have been signed into law in its pure form, but it did what its advocates hoped: It captured the conversation around climate and was adopted to a great extent by an entire political party. And much of what it sought has found its way into law and policy. So while Trump may call it a scam, it looks a lot like a triumph.

Blue

You’re out of free articles.

Subscribe today to experience Heatmap’s expert analysis 
of climate change, clean energy, and sustainability.
To continue reading
Create a free account or sign in to unlock more free articles.
or
Please enter an email address
By continuing, you agree to the Terms of Service and acknowledge our Privacy Policy
AM Briefing

Exxon Taps Out

On gas turbine backorders, Europe’s not-so-green deal, and Iranian cloud seeding

Exxon Mobil Slashes Low-Carbon Investments By a Third
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: Up to 10 inches of rain in the Cascades threatens mudslides, particularly in areas where wildfires denuded the landscape of the trees whose roots once held soil in place • South Africa has issued extreme fire warnings for Northern Cape, Western Cape, and Eastern Cape • Still roiling from last week’s failed attempt at a military coup, Benin’s capital of Cotonou is in the midst of a streak of days with temperatures over 90 degrees Fahrenheit and no end in sight.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Exxon Mobil will cut its clean energy investments by a third

Exxon Mobil remains the country's top oil producer. Brandon Bell/Getty Images

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Politics

California’s Latest Climate Gambit: Turn Air Conditioners Into Heat Pumps

Cities across the state are adopting building codes that heavily incentivize homeowners to make the switch.

An air conditioner and a heat pump.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

A quiet revolution in California’s building codes could turn many of the state’s summer-only air conditioners into all-season heat pumps.

Over the past few months, 12 California cities have adopted rules that strongly incentivize homeowners who are installing central air conditioning or replacing broken AC systems to get energy-efficient heat pumps that provide both heating and cooling. Households with separate natural gas or propane furnaces will be allowed to retain and use them, but the rules require that the heat pump becomes the primary heating system, with the furnace providing backup heat only on especially cold days, reducing fossil fuel use.

Keep reading...Show less
Green
AM Briefing

Blue Wall

On supersonic gas, space solar, and Japanese fusion

Sheldon Whitehouse.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Current conditions: The Pacific Northwest’s second atmospheric river in a row is set to pour up to 8 inches of rain on Washington and Oregon • A snow storm is dumping up to 6 inches of snow from North Dakota to northern New York • Warm air is blowing northeastward into Central Asia, raising temperatures to nearly 80 degrees Fahrenheit at elevations nearly 2,000 feet above sea level.

THE TOP FIVE

1. Key Senate Democrats oppose the permitting reform bill

Heatmap’s Jael Holzman had a big scoop last night: The three leading Senate Democrats on energy and permitting reform issues are a nay on passing the SPEED Act. In a joint statement shared exclusively with Jael, Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Martin Heinrich, Environment and Public Works ranking member Sheldon Whitehouse, and Hawaii senator Brian Schatz pledged to vote against the bill to overhaul the National Environmental Policy Act unless the legislation is updated to include measures to boost renewable energy and transmission development. “We are committed to streamlining the permitting process — but only if it ensures we can build out transmission and cheap, clean energy. While the SPEED Act does not meet that standard, we will continue working to pass comprehensive permitting reform that takes real steps to bring down electricity costs,” the statement read. To get up to speed on the legislation, read this breakdown from Heatmap’s Emily Pontecorvo.

Keep reading...Show less
Blue