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
Spotlight

The Data Center Transmission Brawls Are Just Getting Started

What happens when one of energy’s oldest bottlenecks meets its newest demand driver?

Power line construction.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

Often the biggest impediment to building renewable energy projects or data center infrastructure isn’t getting government approvals, it’s overcoming local opposition. When it comes to the transmission that connects energy to the grid, however, companies and politicians of all stripes are used to being most concerned about those at the top – the politicians and regulators at every level who can’t seem to get their acts together.

What will happen when the fiery fights on each end of the wire meet the broken, unplanned spaghetti monster of grid development our country struggles with today? Nothing great.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Hotspots

Will Maine Veto the First State-Wide Data Center Ban?

Plus more of the week’s biggest development fights.

The United States.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

1. Franklin County, Maine – The fate of the first statewide data center ban hinges on whether a governor running for a Democratic Senate nomination is willing to veto over a single town’s project.

  • On Wednesday, the Maine legislature passed a total ban on new data center projects through the end of 2027, making it the first legislative body to send such a bill to a governor’s desk. Governor Janet Mills, who is running for Democrats’ nomination to the Senate, opposed the bill prior to the vote on the grounds that it would halt a single data center project in a small town. Between $10 million and $12 million has already been sunk into renovating the site of a former paper mill in Jay, population 4,600, into a future data center. Mills implored lawmakers to put an exemption into the bill for that site specifically, stating it would otherwise cost too many jobs.
  • It’s unclear whether Mills will sign or veto the bill. Her office has not said whether she would sign the bill without the Jay exemption and did not reply to a request for comment. Neither did the campaign for Graham Platner, an Iraq War veteran and political novice running competitively against Mills for the Senate nomination. Platner has said little about data centers so far on the campaign trail.
  • It’s safe to say that the course of Democratic policy may shift if Mills – seen as the more moderate candidate of the two running for this nomination – signs the first state-wide data center ban. Should she do so and embrace that tack, it will send a signal to other Democratic politicians and likely accelerate a further shift into supporting wide-scale moratoria.

2. Jerome County, Idaho – The county home to the now-defunct Lava Ridge wind farm just restricted solar energy, too.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow
Q&A

Why Data Centers Need Battery Storage

A chat with Scott Blalock of Australian energy company Wärtsilä.

Scott Blalock.
Heatmap Illustration/Getty Images

This week’s conversation is with Scott Blalock of Australian energy company Wärtsilä. I spoke with Blalock this week amidst my reporting on transmission after getting an email asking whether I understood that data centers don’t really know how much battery storage they need. Upon hearing this, I realized I didn’t even really understand how data centers – still a novel phenomenon to me – were incorporating large-scale battery storage at all. How does that work when AI power demand can be so dynamic?

Blalock helped me realize that in some ways, it’s more of the same, and in others, it’s a whole new ballgame.

Keep reading...Show less
Yellow