DETAILS
Should the federal government implement the Green New Deal?

Earth Day was first celebrated on April 22, 1970. Today, many activists are still fighting to increase public awareness of environmental issues, especially around the perceived dangers of fossil fuels and their contribution to global warming. In recent months, Congress has considered a proposal known as the Green New Deal, an echo of FDR’s New Deal that was implemented to combat the Great Depression. The Green New Deal is an attempt to end the use of fossil fuels in the U.S. in order to curb greenhouse gas emissions. It also calls for more jobs in the “clean energy” sector and for the federal government to ensure that clean air, clean water, and healthy food are provided to all citizens.

Supporters of the Green New Deal argue that the impacts of greenhouse gases on the environment are nearing catastrophic levels. Just as FDR mobilized the power and resources of the federal government to carry out the New Deal to fight the Great Depression, proponents of the Green New Deal believe that the same needs to be done again to fight global warming. They also argue that the federal government is responsible for providing all U.S. residents with access to clean air, water, and healthy food.

Those who oppose the Green New Deal are generally skeptical of the damage that climate change is causing on the environment. They also argue that the federal government should not have the large amount of power that implementing the Green New Deal would require. Opponents claim the Green New Deal would require too many new taxes to pay for it, and they question whether access to clean water and healthy food are rights. They believe that the market and smaller, state efforts would be more effective at reducing greenhouse gases than a large federal program.

What do you think? Should the federal government implement the Green New Deal?

Current Standings:
Yes: 54%
No: 46%
  • Madison from Georgia

    I voted yes because it well help clean up the environment.

    0
  • Jerry from California

    The Green New Deal is not a perfect solution to climate issues, but it is still the best possible solution. According to NASA, 700,000 tons of air pollutants are released in the United States every day and greenhouse gas emissions have risen by 90% since 1970. Furthermore, because the temperature of the earth has risen about 1.62 degrees Fahrenheit since the late 1800s and this frightening trend is estimated at 95% to be the fault of human activity on our Earth, the solution for this issue needs to be extreme. The main argument against the Green New Deal is that he deal is too expensive and too extreme. However, Dave Levitan of The New Republic refutes the idea that this solution is too expensive when he argues that the next best plan is to stand pat which will inevitably result in further damage to the Earth as well as the wealth of our planet. Levitan reasons that many Republicans actually overestimate the real cost of the Green New Deal at 93 trillion, which the author does admit is more then the planet’s gross domestic product. However, Levitan points out that to get all the way up to this number of 93 trillion, an unnecessary amount of money for “universal health care” and job guarantees were added into the estimate to inflate the numbers to make the deal look less appealing. While the solution will cost a lot of money, it will be considerably lower than 93 trillion. Additionally, if the climate issues from greenhouse gas emissions and other sources of air pollution are not addressed, they will add to about 520$ billion dollars every year by 2090. This reveals the need for an extreme change and solution to help not just curb, but stop climate change in order to prevent planet threatening effects as well as a major economic loss adding up year after year the solution is not addressed. Essentially, although the Green New Deal will cost a lot of money, the aggressive solution to prevent climate change and pollution is the best way to save the thing most important to us, our planet.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal is not a perfect solution to climate issues, but it is still the best possible solution. According to NASA, 700,000 tons of air po…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kiana from California

    Being the newest generation now eligible to vote in the upcoming elections of 2020 it is very important that not only my generation, but future ones as well, strive towards bettering the planet and economy as quickly as possible so more problems do not arise. Therefore, I believe the Green New Deal should be implemented in order to create a sustainable economy that will reverse the effects of climate change and other harmful effects damaging our planet. Not only that, but passing the Green New Deal will allow many job opportunities in the field of sustainable and economically friendly technology as well. Overall it will be extremely beneficial to our government, citizens, and most importantly the planet and should certainly be passed.

    [read less]

    Being the newest generation now eligible to vote in the upcoming elections of 2020 it is very important that not only my generation, but future ones a…

    [read more]
    0
  • Regina from California

    I believe that the federal government should implement the Green New Deal not only to lessen the dangers of fossil fuels, but to address the issue of economic inequality. It is important that we all consider the Green New Deal because it is our job to protect the earth by addressing and educating others about the issue of climate change. Global climate change has had very visible effects on human life around the world. In fact, the rapidly melting ice, rising sea levels, and intense heat waves will have even more drastic effects on future generations. By implementing the Green New Deal, we are making an attempt to ensure better lives to everyone in the U.S. by providing clear air, clear water, and healthy food. Cutting climate pollution would also create more jobs, raise wages, and build climate resilience. In addition, the Green New Deal would create opportunities for people currently living in poverty and further lessen the gap between the rich and poor in America. This deal will surely require an increased power of the government and increase taxes, but it is very necessary to take steps in favor of protecting human life and the lives of coming generations. Many people are opposed to implementing the Green New Deal because of the fear of the federal government taking on too much power. However, it is the government’s responsibility to ensure that U.S. citizens are granted life and security and I believe the Green New Deal is a very appropriate solution to this ongoing worldwide issue.

    [read less]

    I believe that the federal government should implement the Green New Deal not only to lessen the dangers of fossil fuels, but to address the issue of …

    [read more]
    0
  • Nicole from California

    Yes, I believe that the federal government should implement the green new deal. Global warming and climate change are serious issues our environment faces with today. It is the responsibility of our government to protect our unalienable rights. In order to do so, the federal government needs to take action in our environment in order to help repair the damage that has already been done. Not only is it beneficial for the environment, but it also beneficial for our economy. Implementing this new deal means that it would create more job opportunities and raise wages. Overall, the green new deal should be implement because it would provide clean air, reduce fossil fuels, and supply more jobs

    [read less]

    Yes, I believe that the federal government should implement the green new deal. Global warming and climate change are serious issues our environment f…

    [read more]
    0
  • Morgan from Virginia

    The Green New Deal is a plan to save the environment through the reduction of fossil fuel use, as well as allowing there to be many more job opportunities and a cleaner environment overall. With that being said, yes, I do believe the federal government should implement the Green New Deal. The Green New Deal is supposed to be just like FDR’s New Deal, except the fact that the main goal of the Green New Deal is to save the environment. FDR’s New Deal was very successful in providing jobs to those in need of one as well as saving the economy. With the implementation of the Green New Deal, many job opportunities would become available in the “clean energy” sector. The federal government has the job of providing a safe, clean, and healthy environment for all citizens. One argument as to why the Green New Deal should not be implemented is because taxes would skyrocket and be way too high for everyone. There’s an old saying, “you can’t have your cake and eat it too,” which fits perfectly with this. If we want to save the environment, we have to pay more. That’s just how it works. Also, the Green New Deal would benefit us for a long period of time. Overall, the Green New Deal would benefit many citizens with jobs as well as with a safer place to live.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal is a plan to save the environment through the reduction of fossil fuel use, as well as allowing there to be many more job opportuni…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joseph from Virginia

    The reason I say yes is because of the overall torment we are inflicting on the environment. From forests being torn down in a couple week, to the saturation of plastics and other pollutants in the world’s oceans. That’s not even mentioning the high CO2 in the atmosphere, which is so bad that no matter how many trees we plant we can’t stop that record high in our lifetime. To add to that is the amount of species we’ve lost to a rise in temperature, not to mention the rise of tropical storms that inflict damage no amount of money can fix. The countries that have the highest pollution levels are India, China, and many middle eastern countries. This is most likely the reason because these countries are densely populated, many resources, and probably to keep their people happy they only let a few things “slide”. Those reasons are just a guess to why they have such a high pollution level. While these countries have many problems many countries can’t say their so “clean” except Finland, Iceland,Sweden, Denmark, and France. These are the few countries that can claim the cleanest countries.

    [read less]

    The reason I say yes is because of the overall torment we are inflicting on the environment. From forests being torn down in a couple week, to the sat…

    [read more]
    0
  • Delbar from California

    The green new deal needs to be implemented as soon as possible. We as humans have left the earth in such a catastrophic state, the green new deal would just be the beginning. However, we need this step to begin real change that needs to happen quickly. Climate change is happening and global warming is a real and prevalent issue. We are using up our nonrenewable sources, with no clear path for the future. When it comes to climate change it can be a hard subject because even the more renewable side, like solar and wind power, use fossil fuels in production and manufacturing. However, this initial price we have to pay will eventually pay off in the future. I think a lot of people fail to realize that climate change induces more climate change, creating a never ending hazardous cycle. When the earth warms, ice melts which releases the toxic chemicals and fossil fuels that have been trapped in the ice into the atmosphere. This increase in things like carbon dioxide lead to more global warming. This positive feedback loop is one of the main reasons the green new deal is so important.

    [read less]

    The green new deal needs to be implemented as soon as possible. We as humans have left the earth in such a catastrophic state, the green new deal woul…

    [read more]
    0
  • Diamond from Maryland

    The Green New Deal would not only tackles the problem of climate change, but tackles the problem of inequality. It would cut climate pollution while creating sustaining jobs, raising wages, expanding access to clean air and water, and building climate resilience.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal would not only tackles the problem of climate change, but tackles the problem of inequality. It would cut climate pollution while c…

    [read more]
    0
  • Megan from Kentucky

    Yes, because it could save the economy more. Global warming, and major climate change is a thing. I think that this could not only save the climate but also save money. It can also give people jobs who don’t have one. Make the gap of poor and rich bigger.

    [read less]

    Yes, because it could save the economy more. Global warming, and major climate change is a thing. I think that this could not only save the climate bu…

    [read more]
    0
  • Logan from Kentucky

    I think that they should implement the new Green Deal, but I do not think it will matter if only one country in the world does it. It will no matter if we do it but not everyone else. We also might lose a lot of money but the idea behind it is in the right place. We need to put the Earth first above money. Money will always be there and will always control people as a whole but people also forget how we all live on Earth and it’s dying.

    [read less]

    I think that they should implement the new Green Deal, but I do not think it will matter if only one country in the world does it. It will no matter i…

    [read more]
    0
  • Zoe from Kentucky

    The government should implement the Green New Deal because it ultimately would benefit our country for years to come. Some opponents of the Green New Deal say that the government is overstepping their boundaries, but they are not. Our government has the responsibility to protect it’s people’s right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, but how can it if there isn’t any earth left for future generations to live on. The state of our environment is a threat to national security and the Green New Deal would help repair the damage done and keep our country safe. Some opponents of the Green New Deal believe that it would create more problems than solutions; however, this is not necessarily the case. Pursuing clean sources of energy would create jobs, not take them away, and would provide a clean place for all citizens.

    [read less]

    The government should implement the Green New Deal because it ultimately would benefit our country for years to come. Some opponents of the Green New…

    [read more]
    0
  • Elijah from Kentucky

    I think the Green New Deal should be implemented because we need to minimize the effects greenhouse gases have on the environment. It also gives job opportunities to some people who are unemployed. I think that it is the government’s duty to ensure that everyone has clean air, clean water, and healthy food. All three of these things are our basic needs. While I understand the large amount of power that the government would have and the increased taxes that come with this deal, I think it is for our own good. We must do something about the poor condition our environment is in before it is too late.

    [read less]

    I think the Green New Deal should be implemented because we need to minimize the effects greenhouse gases have on the environment. It also gives job o…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jonathan from Kentucky

    I believe that the Green New Deal should be implemented. I believe this because firstly, the environment is changing. Especially around the things such as the fossil fuels. If the Green New Deal is implemented, then this would stop the production of all of the fossil fuels in certain areas which would help with the air pollution, and would get people who are in need of a job to find one. Some of the greenhouse gases are causing catastrophic damage to the environment and everyone is seeing this, yet no one is doing anything to really prevent it. This is why I believe that the Green New Deal should be implemented, because we want to protect the earth.

    [read less]

    I believe that the Green New Deal should be implemented. I believe this because firstly, the environment is changing. Especially around the things suc…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sydney from Kentucky

    The Green New Deal should be implemented because it is our way we can save and protect our earth which is where we live, honestly, so we should be more expected to want to take care of the earth in any way we can. We all know that climate change is a problem that should be addressed and with it affecting the world now and in the future than change should be done in order to stop that from happening. Even the water tests come back as hardly useable or even just terrible. The way the earth is now, could be dramatically different in the future so if we don’t fix it who’s to say that we would even have an inhabitable earth at all. The more awareness we have for the deal, the ore work that can be done by people all around the world. People could put more thought into wanting to find ways to fix the earth and put their effort into actually implementing those ideas so that they can actually make a difference. This could also help create new jobs for people who currently have no source of income.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal should be implemented because it is our way we can save and protect our earth which is where we live, honestly, so we should be mor…

    [read more]
    0
  • hannah from Kentucky

    Yes I think the federal government should implement the green new deal because as part of our leaders in the US they should make an effort to keeping our enviorment clean and good for all human beings living in it. that also goes for the plants and animals living in it as well. throughout the last century our world has proven to be changing very rapidly and if we do not take action soon, meaning do something about the toxins being let out into our atmosphere and other ways of hurting our planet, then bad things will begin to happen and there will come a time where our government will regret not implementing the green new deal.

    [read less]

    Yes I think the federal government should implement the green new deal because as part of our leaders in the US they should make an effort to keeping …

    [read more]
    0
  • Ysabel from Kentucky

    I believe that the federal government should implement the Green New Deal because it’s important to do anything that’s within reach to aid the place we live in, Earth. If implementing the Green New Deal signifies an improvement in the environment such as clean water, air, and healthy food then it is evident that this is a formula for a more fruitful life full of color.

    [read less]

    I believe that the federal government should implement the Green New Deal because it’s important to do anything that’s within reach to aid the place w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Carter from California

    I believe the Green New Deal should be implemented by the Federal Government. Although many disagree, especially those who find themselves in the fossil duels business, i believe the Green New Deal is the best option for the entire nation as a whole. Looking upon our current economy, the gap between the rich and the poor is huge, there are not as many government funded jobs as there should be, and the amount of people who are skilled but work less is insane By going into the Green New Deal, not only can our nation began to stop and attempt to revere the terrible affects that climate change is having on our environment, but we can also provide hundreds of bran new jobs for hundreds of people without them. not only will this help stabilise the economy, but it was also provide a new outlet for the fossil fuel businesses to spend their money researching better and more efficient ways to use energy in this new green category that they didn’t even indulge in before. When looking at the earth, and climate change, pollution, green house gasses, and a massive depletion of our natural non reusable resources is already upon us. The weather is becoming dramatic, and we are facing disaster. The only way to effectively stop this, is through the green new deal. Efficient, environmentally friendly energy can be used and sustained through sources such as solar, wind, and even geothermal energy. Through the Green New Deal, people who have jobs in the fossil fuels business will be provided with a new outlet to spend their time and money, and people who are currently jobless and living in poverty can have numerous new options of work to help lessen the gap between the rich and the poor. The Green New Deal is the move for the Federal Government.

    [read less]

    I believe the Green New Deal should be implemented by the Federal Government. Although many disagree, especially those who find themselves in the foss…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nipun from North Carolina

    I believe that the Federal Government should implement the Green New Deal. For this argument, recognize 3 contentions. The first is climate change. The second entails the sovereignty of the US. The third is terrorism. First, go to climate change.

    Contention 1: Climate Change
    Realize that climate change is one of the biggest problems surrounding our Earth in the status quo. Not only does it threaten livestock, crops, and humans, but the solution for this has been ignored by political leaders who choose to dismiss it. The force of Climate Change and its effects are hitting the globe hard right now, and it is proving these romantic critics as dogmatic in their provincial ideology. According to USA Today, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are at the highest they have ever been at in the status quo, and we are doing absolutely nothing to stop it. Indeed, according to ABC News, burning fossil fuels shoots carbon dioxide into the Earth’s atmosphere. What effects does this have? Well, take it from NASA, which says that increased leves of the deadly gas increases Earth’s termperature, which can cause the deaths and destruction of living things and the atmosphere they live in. Climate change is a big problem, and seeing that the burning of non-renewable energy sources is a big reason why it is there, shows that we must switch to renewable energy sources, which is the Green New Deal.

    Contention 2: The US’ Sovereignty
    Sovereignty is defined as the control a country has over itself, and at the present moment, sovereignty has never been lower for lots of countries, and the US is risking falling into that line. Why is this? Well, most of it is the oil industry. According to Forbes, Saudi Arabia has the control of most of the global oil industry, and with this gives it extreme power that can manipulate the economies of hundreds of countries around the globe. One of these countries is America. Saudi Arabia is the NUMBER 2 supplier of oil for America, according to CNN. Although it is not number 1, Saudi Arabia has used oil as a retaliatory measure, and if it chooses to do so, then it will lead to disastrous impacts which can jeopardize the US’ sovereignty and economy. According to CNBC, Saudi Arabia has stated that it is looking towards weaponizing oil, which proves that this conflict can and is happening in the status quo. If America decides to rely on Saudi for its oil economy, then it can lead to no good, as Saudi will have the higher power over America. Especially after what we have seen with Khashoggi, we know that this is not great for the US morally and strategically. We must get renewable energy so we do not have to rely on Saudi, and in turn, other countries of the globe.

    Contention 3: Terrorism
    According to FuelFreedomFoundation, there is a direct link between oil and terrorism. If big countries, such as the US, keep buying oil from terrorist run countries such as the Middle East, it only leads to the rise of radical terrorist groups. These groups run the government of most places, and when we give them money in exchange for oil, we are literally handing them money to continue their radical operations to spread terror. FFN continues that ISIS gains 1.5 MILLION dollars due to oil EVERYDAY. In addition, Mexican cartels gain $90,000 in under seven minutes by selling barrels of crude oil. This heavy reliance that global countries have on oil fuels not only cars, but terrorist groups. If a powerful country like the US were to pull out of non-renewable energy sources, then they could influence other countries to do so as well, and switch to a form of energy which only fuels cars and not radical organizations.

    It is due to these reasons and many more that I affirm the resolution that the Federal Government should implement the Green New Deal

    -Nipun Gorantla

    [read less]

    I believe that the Federal Government should implement the Green New Deal. For this argument, recognize 3 contentions. The first is climate change. Th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Mirren from California

    I do believe that the Green New Deal should be implemented into the American economy. Climate change is a real and pressing problem that is affecting society and will continue to effect society for the future unless change is implemented to stop it. Currently, there is no legislation that is protecting against the emission of greenhouse gases which perpetuates the problem because Americans are able to continue practices that increase pollution without any boundaries. The Green New Deal is an attempt to help our planet thrive with less carbon pollution in the air. While this may be expensive for the United States, there needs to be more research done on the actual cost because, right now, there is not an exact number that is attached to the proposal. The two monetary values that are being presented are biased based off the opinions attached to the Green New Deal. Republicans opposition to this proposal is that it is a socialist proposal and that is why it should not be implemented. They have gone as far to say that it will take away foods such as hamburgers in ice cream because livestock will be banned. This is a fallacy because nowhere in the proposal does it say that livestock will be banned, the proposal mainly focuses on the emission of greenhouse gases. In sum, the Green New Deal should be implemented in order to help the USA limit the amount of carbon pollution and slow down global warming.

    [read less]

    I do believe that the Green New Deal should be implemented into the American economy. Climate change is a real and pressing problem that is affecting …

    [read more]
    0
  • Jeremy from Pennsylvania

    Putting more emphasis on the Green Deal will not only help the earth we live on, but will also help many people in the long run. Fossil fuels will one day run out, leaving people with no jobs and left with a dirty polluted earth, possibly on the verge of death from the accumulations of pollution prior. Fossil fuels pollute the air w breathe, the land we farm from them and the water we drink, and they only do work for one use only and take millions of years to make. Green energy on the other hand is leaves little to no pollution, uses resources like thermal energy and wind that shall always be here as the Earth stays and is sustainable, no expensive mining or harvesting. The advantages of green energy far outcompete fossil fuels advantages, most decisions fall into a gray area, but this choice is more black and white in comparison.

    [read less]

    Putting more emphasis on the Green Deal will not only help the earth we live on, but will also help many people in the long run. Fossil fuels will one…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from Maryland

    The increase in catastrophic storms and heat index can not be denied by anyone. Our water tests in many area are marginal if not terrible. The federal government should absorb most of the increase but state government has to do their share. This is an aggressive Green Deal, I don’t believe 100% will be done by the date but anything better than now is a plus for the people

    [read less]

    The increase in catastrophic storms and heat index can not be denied by anyone. Our water tests in many area are marginal if not terrible. The feder…

    [read more]
    0
  • Amelia from Utah

    If it will create more jobs then so be it. Plus we all want what’s best for the earth so why keeping doing things to destroy and cause harm to the earth?

    0
  • Alysia from Virginia

    The Greene New Deal has the right ideas in mind, but many of its premises are somewhat difficult to achieve within the realm of the power of the federal government. I believe that the Greene New Deal could greatly improve the environmental impact that this country has, but it will fail to do so without amending some of its requirements. The Green New Deal would do great good if accepted by our government, but only if it lessened some of the burdens it places on the federal government.

    [read less]

    The Greene New Deal has the right ideas in mind, but many of its premises are somewhat difficult to achieve within the realm of the power of the feder…

    [read more]
    0
  • Katie from Texas

    The Green New Deal is simply the future. It will boost us into the point where we need to be environmentally. Currently it is the wisest choice that we have to make and should be the easiest. Do you want climate change’s effects to be permanent, if you answered no then we must make change now.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal is simply the future. It will boost us into the point where we need to be environmentally. Currently it is the wisest choice that w…

    [read more]
    0
  • Cole from California

    The Federal Government should feel compelled to implement the Green New Deal, as climate change itself has been recognised as a key issue in past administrations, and continuing to promote the use of fossil fuels will ultimately be just as costly as investing in this program. Furthermore, the Green New Deal offers solutions to many of the nation’s problems beyond environmental impacts, as implementing the plan could result in: a reduction in pollution,a limiting on fossil fuel dependency, and, economically, the reduction of unemployment. Specifically, the Green New Deal could limit pollution, as it would severely limit the release of greenhouse gases from industrial plants, thus improving air quality in many urban areas. Likewise, the Green New Deal could also benefit the scientific community, as it would prompt breakthroughs in alternative energy and limit our nation’s dependency on finite fossil fuels, in turn, creating a more sustainable nation. Moreover, the Green New deal could curb unemployment for a diverse set of people, as it would guarantee high paying clean-energy jobs, and many supporting blue-collar jobs as well. However, in order to carry out such a plan, the Federal government would need to be the one to implement it, as no single corporation in America could initiate such change, as just as in the midst of the Great Depression it took more than a single corporation or body to carry out the New Deal, today we need more than just advocates to stimulate change.

    [read less]

    The Federal Government should feel compelled to implement the Green New Deal, as climate change itself has been recognised as a key issue in past admi…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sarah from Minnesota

    We must make an effort to end the destruction prior generations have done to the Earth to, or we will be in a world of hurt soon!

    0
  • Demi from Florida

    It is because we want to protect the planet

    0
  • James from North Carolina

    Despite the lack of specification on this bill, I believe if this Bill is signed they will start taking measures in the right direction of actually paying attention to climate change instead of insisting it is a hoax.

    [read less]

    Despite the lack of specification on this bill, I believe if this Bill is signed they will start taking measures in the right direction of actually pa…

    [read more]
    0
    • Cody from Texas

      Is economic collapse the price we have to pay to “save” the world from climate change? Climate change is a tool used by the left to bring back the voters every year.

      0
  • Hamid from California

    Although global climate change is one of the greatest existential threats to date, the federal government should NOT implement the Green New Deal as a solution for three main contentions including: lack of substance and specialization, resulting ever-growing federal power, and completely unrealistic transformation goals in infrastructure and costs. Currently, anthropogenic climate change is a consistently growing problem, with widespread effects such as rising sea levels, deletion of water resources, prolonged droughts, climate changes, and pollutant outbreaks. With the exponential increase in carbon, sulfur, nitrogen, and other pollutants’ emissions, the globe is challenged with regulating profound environmental destruction, and altering the dynamic of our environment.

    Now, although this is a very serious issue, the Green New Deal (https://ocasio-cortez.house.gov/sites/ocasiocortez.house.gov/files/Resolution%20on%20a%20Green%20New%20Deal.pdf) is not a plausible or logical solution in combating the crisis. The nonbinding resolution, strives to transform 100% of energy needs towards renewable energy; creating a smart, decentralized grid; improving energy and water efficiency in appliance and buildings units; “overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector” (https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/14/politics/green-new-deal-proposal-breakdown/index.html) by investing in clean public transportation such as the high speed rail; and working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers to solve agricultural needs. These proposals and clauses contain very valid and bold points that must continue to be brought up in national dialogue, however the proposals suggested, in the time periods designated, are just simply not attainable right now. In addition, the bill vows to focus and solve issues surrounding climate change, but instead veers off course to lay out plans for numerous “socialist” policies. These include: Guaranteed job, leave, vacation and retirement; investment in trade unions, strengthen of trade deals with foreign nations, and guaranteed health care, housing, security, clean air and water, healthy food and nature. This document plainly has NO focus. It is a barrage of different ideas, with vague correlations, just to lay out a select few’s policy ambition. The opposition of the resolution is not in name of a conflicting principle or morality, but rather of specificity in language and policy.

    The resolution vows to meet the environmental and economic needs associated with climate change, with proposals that stand far too outlandish to date. It strives to “achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers…”(H.Res.109- 116th Congress, Sec. 1B). At the current situation, there is no plausible way to meet the energy and economic needs of the American people with the destruction of the fossil fuel industry. The time frame set of ten years, referenced later in the resolution, is vastly unrealistic and requires a national shift that could take more than a century. Furthermore, it also states a goal in “providing all people of the United States with— high-quality health care” (H.Res.109- 116th Congress, Sec. 2Oi). There is no existing federal healthcare system in place currently, and this resolution to meet the environmental needs of a chaotic time, should not focus on an additional investment of this magnitude. It is estimated by Bloomberg, that a plan similar to Medicare for All, to guarantee “high quality health-care” would cost $32.6 trillion, on top of the already pricey proposals also mentioned in the document. There is a long list of completely unattainable clauses that may be plausible decades in the future, but are not realistic considering current infrastructure and funding statistics.

    In addition, with the implementation of such a resolution, the federal government will continue to grow in power, leaving the American people and individual states without much power. The text lays out an ultimate transformation of the energy, water, and economic system in low-income areas that will require compliance in federal taxes by the American people, and a frightening lack of accountability available at the highest of levels. If put into law, there would need to be a steady increase in taxes on the middle and low class, as well as a sharp increase for the upper class, a defiant attack against a capitalist system. There is simply too much power being put into the federal government’s hands, without any direct policy direction.

    Those who support the resolution further state that climate change is the biggest threat to mankind, and if no action is taken in a bold manner, the threat will only live on. “The Green New Deal has the power to reshape our energy system, our economy, and our democracy” (https://www2.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2019/04/15/green-new-deal-more-than-resolution-revolution/TDoZpaaNpceLZ16on967NP/story.html). The policy would allow the federal government to completely transform the indifference and lack of care currently present on a national level, in order to lead a climate initiative that will strengthen the world. However, even though these points are valid, the resolution itself cannot be legally passed in the first place; it is a non-binding resolution. Even with change in name code, and if passed by the two legislatures, there is a sharp lack in substance within it, and this open/loose interpretation will only be damaging in terms of federal power. Furthermore, supporters of the resolution also mention how “the goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also [subsequently fixing] societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice.” Climate change will completely destroy low-income and unprivileged areas, as there is a lack of money and support with social programs present. The Green New Deal not only combats the environmental challenges present, but vows to implement solutions that may come about as a result of the effects of climate change. However, the negation of the resolution stands firm. In order for the federal government to truly have this much power in completely transforming environmental, social, and economic sectors, it is imperative that there is detailed policy present; without a clear stance on one point-the environment-no real progress can be made, and no accountability can be guaranteed in government.

    As climate change still stands as one of the most important issue of the current generation, national attention and action is needed for change to take place. The Green New Deal has sparked the national dialogue, debate, and conversation needed for individuals’ opinions to develop, but should not be implemented by the federal government. As we continue to look towards the detrimental effects of anthropogenic climate change, increased number of detailed and comprehensive policies must be proposed, in order for the American people to lead an initiative in transforming this global crisis. It must be taken boldly, but one step at a time, in an attainable and realistic fashion. That is the only way real change can be made.

    [read less]

    Although global climate change is one of the greatest existential threats to date, the federal government should NOT implement the Green New Deal as a…

    [read more]
    2
  • Brady from Illinois

    The Green New Deal, a resolution proposed by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, should not be implemented by the federal government. The resolution has the right ideas in mind, but goes about them in the wrong way. The resolution requests that the government help people without water by “guaranteeing universal access to clean water” (H.Res.109- 116th Congress, Sec. 2Bii). This is impossible. While it would be incredibly difficult to provide clean water to every American citizen, if a citizen did not have access to clean water, they could sue the federal government and win for not having access. Another part of the resolution states that the government should work on “upgrading all existing buildings in the United States…to achieve maximum energy efficiency” (H.Res.109- 116th Congress, Sec. 2E). It would cost the government a lot to upgrade every US building to maximum energy efficiency. According to Forbes, it would cost $1.4 billion to upgrade just personal residences. The industrial and commercial sectors would have costs similar or much higher. A third part of the resolution states that the government must regulate “zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing” (H.Res.109- 116th Congress, Sec. 2Hi). According to SelectUSA, 17 million cars were sold in the United States in 2017. At least 95% of those cars have emissions. Automotive companies have worked to lessen emissions, even selling hybrids in large numbers, but the federal government could not eliminate emissions in cars and have a strong economy. Cars are how most people travel. To take away the source of energy and replace with something more expensive would only expand the nation’s financial burden. Excessive government spending has always been a problem. This resolution calls to increase the amount of debt of our country. The leaders of today should try to make sure the leaders of tomorrow are not drowning in debt. The Green New Deal, while good in some ideas, is not within reason to fund.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal, a resolution proposed by U.S. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, should not be implemented by the fede…

    [read more]
    1
  • Chayton from Missouri

    AOC plans to ban air and boat travel and I have friends who live in Alaska and Hawaii who flay or take a boat since one driving is very costly and the other its impossible. Plus its not possible for car company to change from gas to electric in 10 years many are new to it. She will destroy the economy and cause a collapse

    [read less]

    AOC plans to ban air and boat travel and I have friends who live in Alaska and Hawaii who flay or take a boat since one driving is very costly and the…

    [read more]
    0
  • Natalie from Tennessee

    I agree very strongly that we need to become more aware of the environment changing and do more to help with it; however, this is not how we should make that change. This is because of the Economic Bill of Rights that is part of the plan, which is bordering on socialism. Guaranteed healthcare means that we as citizens of the United States will not be able to choose our own doctors unless we have the money to pay for private healthcare. Everyone guaranteed a job that will sustain them sounds wonderful at first glance, but how does the government propose to fulfill this? They would have to assign jobs rather than let citizens attempt to get a job on their own, so there would be plenty of people without jobs that they enjoy and want to work, which can negatively affect them as well as their friends, family, coworkers, AND pets. Free college sounds absolutely wonderful, except that the colleges will have to accept everyone, not only the people who match their standards.

    [read less]

    I agree very strongly that we need to become more aware of the environment changing and do more to help with it; however, this is not how we should ma…

    [read more]
    0
  • Andrew from California

    The global climate change is a serious problem that threats many people’s lives all over the world, but I believe the Green New Deal is not a proper solution for the global climate change. The main reason why I am against the Green New Deal is because it requires astronomical amount of money, even though we are not really ready for a life without fossil fuels. The global climate change is not an urgent problem. It is a problem that we have to gradually solve, since it is proven that abnormal climates and natural disasters may damage our lives. But do these disasters happen extremely frequently that we have to create a solution right now? I would say no. The disasters are harmful but we have time to prepare for it. We have to time to make a better solution. It is not late to make a solution later when we have technological advancements. Also, the Green New Deal promotes to use renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, but the problem is that no one is actually ready to give up using fossil fuels. For example, most cars use fossil fuels. Most people will hardly give up their car to solve the global climate change, because individualism prevail in this society. Fossil fuels produce 81% of the energy that is used in the United States, and it is almost impossible to give up this much energy supply, since so many people rely on it. Unless complete conversion of fossil fuels to renewable energy resources happen, which is considered impossible in the current society, the problem of the global climate change will persist, and there is no reason why we have to give up fossil fuels and astronomical amount of money for a plan that is uncertain and doubtful whether it will work or not.

    [read less]

    The global climate change is a serious problem that threats many people’s lives all over the world, but I believe the Green New Deal is not a proper s…

    [read more]
    0
  • Sofia from California

    I think the government should not implement the Green New Deal because it will not solve the problem with the environment. Like mentioned, this can cause taxes to go up, and a lot of money might be spent on something that is possibly not going to be beneficial. Another reason for not implementing this deal is because humans are not fully responsible for this. The world experiences changes and this is one of them.

    [read less]

    I think the government should not implement the Green New Deal because it will not solve the problem with the environment. Like mentioned, this can c…

    [read more]
    0
  • Ryan from California

    The United States Government should not implement the Green New Deal. Although the Green New Deal does include some things that our country needs to do there are many items in the Green New Deal that will be detrimental to our country as a whole and are incapable of being attained. Many of the problems the Green New Deal addresses must be solved for example we must eventually get onto renewable power, however our country is not capable to go to 100% clean energy in the time the Green New Deal states. Another example is creating the ability for all citizens to have access to the resources they need to survive. However, the approach to solve these problems in the Green New Deal is impossible. The Green New Deal has served as a stepping stone where it was first mentioned and now our Government must cooperate and work on ways to achieve these issues that are at hand in order to improve our country.

    [read less]

    The United States Government should not implement the Green New Deal. Although the Green New Deal does include some things that our country needs to …

    [read more]
    0
  • Brent from Kentucky

    The Green New Deal is a discombobulated manifesto that is filled with unachievable goals that our modern industry is not capable of. The GND states a long list of demands of action to prevent “the destruction of our planet”. The worst part of this proposed “fix” is that it will not have a significant impact on our climate. If the Federal Government were to implement this sham of a bill, the effects won’t matter much at all. China, India and Russia, and even by other developing 3rd world countries that are using natural resources and emitting CO2, will inevitably steamroll us of CO2 emissions. It will cost Americans trillions of dollars, our modern way of life and ultimately our very freedom, if we eliminate fossil fuels.
    The worst part of the Green New Deal is its Socialist dogma. The sham bill is a scheme to restructure the entire United States economy to increase the Federal Government’s power over industry and the American people’s livelihoods. The Green New Deal is often compared to President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal, but there is a clear difference between the two. The New Deal saved capitalism in the United States by introducing social and labor protections, while the Green New Deal is socialist plan to nationalize industries from the private sector, and enact more policies that would grant the Federal Government more control. Even more, the bill would do more harm than good to the economy. It would blow a hole in our strong, healthy, and building economy, and would not only affect the United States’ markets, but the world’s markets as well.
    The biggest problem however with the Green New Deal is that it calls for the elimination of the use of fossil fuels, which its use plays the largest part of our everyday lives. If the bill were to pass, we could most likely predict that we would be reduced to using lumber for fuel instead of fossil fuels. The bill would self-defeat its own purpose to exist when we have to result to using more lumber and kill the trees for fuel. This would also leave the United States and it’s trade partners with a large food shortage with the elimination of fuel for heating and cooking food, leading to a mass famine. An example of another far-left policy that led to mass starvation and death was the “Great Leap Forward” by Mao Zedong.
    The most the Green New Deal will accomplish is repeat history. Just like the “Great Leap Forward”, the GND would lead to an economic decline across both the United States and affecting other markets around the world, nationalize the economy and making everything state owned, making the United States a failing socialist nation such as Venezuela, and lastly take control over the American people’s way of life.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal is a discombobulated manifesto that is filled with unachievable goals that our modern industry is not capable of. The GND states a …

    [read more]
    0
  • Samuel from Kentucky

    This Green New Deal is more of a Green New Deal with the devil. The changes it wishes to impose are simply impossible at this time. With the vast proportion of our country running on fossil fuels, it is simply absurd to think that we can switch entirely off any time soon. This would shake America to the core as it would send us back many years to regain a foothold again. This would cost upwards in the trillions of dollars. We have yet to hear where on Earth this money is going to come from. Another mistake is mixing environmental issues with social issues. Those are on two different playing fields. They are separate issues that should be addressed separately. How we treat others isn’t in correlation with the health of our planet. Make up your mind on what is even being addressed. We should preserve the environment, not those that refuse to work. People like that are a detriment to this country and should be treated as such.

    [read less]

    This Green New Deal is more of a Green New Deal with the devil. The changes it wishes to impose are simply impossible at this time. With the vast prop…

    [read more]
    0
  • Joey from Kentucky

    I think the Green New Deal should not be implemented due to the sheer amount of miscommunication and misinformation circling. Not only this but many of the climate change statistics are unreliable due to the inability to retrieve ACCURATE climate information from far in the past. On top of this, the Green New Deal will cost a large amount of money for taxpayers. I believe that the government has a responsibility to serve its people first and fix the economic and social issues we face right now. Climate change is something that requires attention but not to the vast extent that many Democrats insist upon. The idea of a “Green New Deal” sounds beneficial, but I think it would benefit from more time being formed through a non-partisan effort.

    [read less]

    I think the Green New Deal should not be implemented due to the sheer amount of miscommunication and misinformation circling. Not only this but many …

    [read more]
    0
  • Brennan from Kentucky

    I don’t think we need the green new deal because we as humans are not doing this. The world changes just as humans change over time. For example, the Ice Age was not global warming it was simply a shift on Earth where the weather around the world changes. Where one place gets warmer one will get colder. It is simply a waste of taxpayers money.

    [read less]

    I don’t think we need the green new deal because we as humans are not doing this. The world changes just as humans change over time. For example, the …

    [read more]
    0
  • Molly from Kentucky

    The Green New Deal should not be implemented. AOC, the representative who proposed this bill, obviously lacks the education that our country needs. She is ignorant in the way our world functions. She is proposing far too exreme measures. I do agree that we need to protect our earth, but getting rid of commercial air planes is preposterous. She is a hipocrit that takes private jets everywhere. She is asking everyone to change, so she can line her pockets. Instead we should be implementing cleaner factories. We can reduce the carbon emissions, if we make more efficient factories. We need to let the big kids in Congress and let AOC take a step back and maybe go back to bartending.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal should not be implemented. AOC, the representative who proposed this bill, obviously lacks the education that our country needs. Sh…

    [read more]
    0
  • audrey from Kentucky

    I believe that reforms need to occur to help improve our environment, but I think that the green new deal is unrealistic in its goals. The Green New Deal has unrealistic goals that exceed the amount of money the US has to fix the issues. I believe that things should change to prevent pollution and help the environment, but other tactics should be used. Yes, fossil fuels factor into pollution, currently though, we lack the money to rid of it the country of them. I know the GND does not state to eliminate fossil fuels completely, but even just to cut back a lot would cost tons of money. So yes, improvements need to occur to help our environment, but the GND is not the way to solve these issues.

    [read less]

    I believe that reforms need to occur to help improve our environment, but I think that the green new deal is unrealistic in its goals. The Green New D…

    [read more]
    0
  • Tara from Kentucky

    The Green New Deal would be too expensive given the current state of our debt as it is constantly rising. I’m not trying to say that it isn’t a bad thing but in our current standings we, as a country, cannot afford the amount of money that it would take to implement the Green New Deal. Starting small and working our way towards the Green New Deal would be a better and money saving way to get things started (if it started at the state level).

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal would be too expensive given the current state of our debt as it is constantly rising. I’m not trying to say that it isn’t a bad th…

    [read more]
    0
  • Noah from Kentucky

    I do not think the Green New Deal should be implemented at all in our country. Overall, it is very expensive and trying to live like that the rest of our lives I think would eventually cause problems. Also, our environment has been affected by a lot in terms of nature as well, and not just by humans. I think that is another reason why it wouldn’t be as useful as many think.

    [read less]

    I do not think the Green New Deal should be implemented at all in our country. Overall, it is very expensive and trying to live like that the rest of …

    [read more]
    0
  • Brittany-Anne from Texas

    I believe that the federal government ought not to implement the Green New Deal as it endangers the very livelihood of many American jobs, and as an undercover brain drain is occurring within the higher socioeconomic class, it is not wise to shift away careers that citizens rely on. The Deal also proposes a detrimental cut on our military funds, which also include the fund and aid that the military supplies to third world countries such as Yemen; which means that the millions of children dying of starvation would not have any fallback against the Houthi Rebel groups that are seizing their land and destroying their family. Renewable energy also is terribly dangerous for populations of birds and marine life, as water energy plants tear apart migrating sea life and millions and thousands of acres of rainforest brush would have to be wiped out for the installation of solar panels. The next factor that needs to be put into consideration is the fact that pressuring the use of 100% renewable energy inhibits the lower classes ability to access energy and power as the will not be able to pay for this new “upgrade” in technology. At the brink where no substantial benefit can outpace harm already done, the Green New Deal is a lost cause.

    [read less]

    I believe that the federal government ought not to implement the Green New Deal as it endangers the very livelihood of many American jobs, and as an u…

    [read more]
    0
  • Kyle from California

    While something needs to be done to preserve the environment, the Green New Deal is not the way the United States should go about this. Representative Ocasio Cortez has an extreme agenda which can be seen almost as a kid circling every expensive item in a toy shopping catalog hoping for their parents to buy it for them. While the Green New Deal sounds good on paper, the logistics of the whole thing are alarming and could end up causing more harm than safety. I commend the deal for its rapid approach to combat the imperfections in our environment, but it needs to be done at a pace which the government can manage financially and economically. The coal industry is one of the biggest industries in the United States, and with getting rid of it entirely would take a big hit on the economy without proper planning. In all, I think the Green New Deal should not be implemented.

    [read less]

    While something needs to be done to preserve the environment, the Green New Deal is not the way the United States should go about this. Representative…

    [read more]
    0
  • David from California

    I believe we should not implement the green new deal as it is currently written. Climate change is a very pressing issue, there is no doubt about it. However, the goals of the policy as currently written are unobtainable in our current society. For example, one of the major tenants of the Green New Deal is to upgrade all buildings to achieve “maximal energy efficiency”. Now this does sound great and all, but the cost of this, and all of the other suggestions in the policy are way too expensive for the US to handle. The American Action Forum currently suggests that the Green New Deal could cost anywhere between $8.3-12.3 trillion dollars. In the current US budget, our expenditures already amount to 4 trillion dollars and the Green New Deal would add a completely new burden on top of our already crippling debt. I do believe that climate change is important and we do all have a part in protecting the planet, but I feel that there are other options we can explore other than the Green New Deal at combating climate change.

    [read less]

    I believe we should not implement the green new deal as it is currently written. Climate change is a very pressing issue, there is no doubt about it. …

    [read more]
    0
  • Cody from Texas

    I read this deal and it’s laughable that people take it seriously. It is not affordable and consistent for the US to survive off of. This deal is Senator Orcasio’s agenda and it would be detrimental to the further entrench of the United States if it were implemented. There is a reason that people on both the right and left have shot down this deal. That is because this deal is unrealistic and dangerous.

    [read less]

    I read this deal and it’s laughable that people take it seriously. It is not affordable and consistent for the US to survive off of. This deal is Se…

    [read more]
    0
  • Nathaniel from New York

    While the fight against climate change is a noble one the proposals put forth within the green new deal are outlandish. Some of those would have been to rebuild almost every building in the country, kill all cows, and heavily regulate the use if fossil fuels. If implemented it would completely cripple the federal, state, and local governments along with the economy and the average American citizen. Along with this when Representative Oscasio-Cortez faced criticism of this bill she tried to deflect it by saying that the wrong bill was submitted to Congress which is the kind of miss management that should not be present within the U.S. government and reminds of similar stories that have come out of the E.U. where MEPs don’t know what they are voting for on important proposals.

    [read less]

    While the fight against climate change is a noble one the proposals put forth within the green new deal are outlandish. Some of those would have been …

    [read more]
    0
    • Nipun from North Carolina

      But realize that you will be in effect crippling literal countries if you carry on with the burn of fossil fuel. Also realize that the fossil fuel supply is dwindling and if this is all you want to rely on, it is a certain doomed future. We have to begin the change into renewable energy if we want to survive as a human race, and the US doing that shows powerful influence.

      [read less]

      But realize that you will be in effect crippling literal countries if you carry on with the burn of fossil fuel. Also realize that the fossil fuel sup…

      [read more]
      0
  • Maggie from South Carolina

    The Green New Deal gets its namesake and inspiration from FDR’s New Deal. I believe that both New Deals had good intentions, but good intentions can still have disastrous results. We have to consider the consequences.
    Take a look at FDR’s New Deal, implemented in the 1930s as a response to the Great Depression. FDR’s New Deal programs caused more hurt more than they helped; instead of ending the Depression, they exacerbated the situation while greatly increasing the reach of the federal government. Take the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA), for example. In order to stimulate the agricultural economy, the government rewarded farmers for unproductive activity. The government went so far as to burn crops and slaughter pigs in order to stimulate the agricultural economy—actions that justly sparked indignation in the rest of starving America. FDR’s other programs regulated businesses and created unproductive jobs. What is tragic is the fact that America had been on the mend prior to FDR’s New Deal. The New Deal, while it was well-intentioned, prolonged America’s suffering and the Great Depression, and most likely would have continued to if World War 2 hadn’t broken out.
    Now, I’m not saying that the Green New Deal will necessarily be slaughtering any pigs in the near future. But the historical precedent is significant. To put it lightly, government intervention has not been the most prudent means of resolving problems. When a government program is inspired by the New Deal of the Thirties, we’d do well to approach it with caution.
    As far as the Green New Deal goes, I have no problem with the fact that we should be responsible caretakers of the world we live in. I have no problems with using clean energy, with the recycling program, or with buying organic food. What I do have a problem with is government intervention. It is not the government’s job to fix climate change. The government is instituted to protect our rights and administer justice. When the government oversteps its bounds, its power and susceptibility to corruption grows. We don’t need bigger government to fix the ecosystem. Do I believe that responsibility for the ecosystem exists? Absolutely. But that responsibility belongs to us, to the citizens, not the government.
    Let’s look at the Green New Deal itself. The Green New Deal has lofty goals, noble goals, but we need to consider the consequences. Obviously, there’s the national debt, which we’re already entrenched in. The Green New Deal will only raise the water level of the debt we’re drowning in. Beyond the matter of the national debt, we should ask, is clean energy sustainable now and how will this affect the citizens of America? Clean energy is still a work in progress, we’re not ready for a full-scale energy shift. I think it’s a great goal to have, but right now, it’s not practical. Again, it’s not the government’s job. Instead, we need to open up markets to this issue. It has always been free markets that succeed in innovation. Free markets will allow for competition. Competition produces the highest quality product or service at affordable costs. In the first stages, sure, it’ll be a little clumsy (kinda like mobile phones when starting out). But entrepreneurship and human creativity move forward, they progress, and the end result will be refined and made available to larger and larger consumers. If we truly want to move toward 100% clean energy and a more eco-friendly country, we should promote this idea and open our markets, not give the government more power. Now, how will the Green New Deal affect the citizens of America? The Green New Deal promises to create new jobs, but to what end? Will these jobs really move America forward? And why is it that it’s the government who must create these new jobs? The government can create all the jobs it wants, but it can’t necessarily guarantee that the jobs will be productive and create more wealth for everyone. Jobs are a means to an end, not the end itself. If jobs were an end unto themselves, you could just hire everyone to paint walls one day and remove the paint the next. The purpose of jobs is to create wealth, enriching both the producer and the consumer. If there is a demand for clean energy and the like, then people will find a way to meet that demand and jobs will be created—by entrepreneurs, not the government. Government intervention/interference will only expand its power and cannot guarantee that it will fix the problem.
    The Green New Deal has some good ideas and noble goals. But it’s not the government’s place to fix climate change or the ecosystem. It’s time for a New Deal, but not a government program. It’s time for our new deal, the people’s new deal, where we take up the mantle of responsibility we have so long neglected. What would happen if we, the people of the United States, decided to do something about the problems we look to the government to fix? What would happen if we allowed the free market to do what it does best? I believe we’d see change for the better. It’s time for a new deal, but not the Green New Deal. It’s time we, the people, learn that patriotic self-sufficiency, that inspirational entrepreneurship, that gritty pioneer spirit, and that willingness to come together as the people of the United States to “deal” with our problems.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal gets its namesake and inspiration from FDR’s New Deal. I believe that both New Deals had good intentions, but good intentions can…

    [read more]
    0
  • Caroline from Illinois

    The Green New Deal cannot be implemented in the amount of time proposed. It is much too ambitious, and it would bring radical change; change must be brought about gradually in order for something to work. Replacing natural energy resources (oil, coal, etc.) would drastically increase unemployment in the fossil fuels industry, something that would have a negative impact on our economy. Furthermore, a new study from Europe shows that electric cars actually put more CO2 in the atmosphere, something I’m sure AOC wouldn’t like. Fossil fuels are dramatically more dependable than solar and wind power. What if the wind stopped blowing, the sun stopped shining? Those forms of energy can be used, but as a supplement to fossil fuels. Renewable energy (solar and wind) can’t be used 100% of the time, whereas fossil fuels can. Yes, we need to preserve the world for our posterity, but we need to make it functional and dependable.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal cannot be implemented in the amount of time proposed. It is much too ambitious, and it would bring radical change; change must be b…

    [read more]
    0
  • Lily from Kansas

    The environment has suffered much at the hands of humans, but it can and will bounce back. Volcanic eruptions put more pollution in the air than factories and they are natural. We do not need the government to take care of us in this way.

    [read less]

    The environment has suffered much at the hands of humans, but it can and will bounce back. Volcanic eruptions put more pollution in the air than facto…

    [read more]
    0
  • Jeffrey from Massachusetts

    This plan would essentially turn our world into a third world country. There has to be a way that we can sustain our first world standards and be able to fight a big problem, even though that there is still so much we don’t know about and can’t predict precisely. It also ignores the fact that the majority of carbon emissions come from countries like China and India, and they’re not going to stop their industrial ways anytime soon.

    [read less]

    This plan would essentially turn our world into a third world country. There has to be a way that we can sustain our first world standards and be able…

    [read more]
    0
  • Gabrielle from Kentucky

    The Green New Deal is one of the most preposterous bills that has come through Congress. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who wrote this bill, is clearly lacking a proper education. The bill is only five pages long, gives no explanation as to how the bill would be implemented or funded, is completely unrealistic, and is poorly written. If this bill was handed into a high school teacher as an essay, it would barely scrape by with a C. The bill requires that the US completely eliminate all fossil fuels within 10 years, tear down and rebuild all buildings in the US, and ban cow farts. Anyone with a proper high school education can see the problems in this. Not only is this impossible because the proper technology hasn’t been invented yet, but it would cost about 6 trillion dollars. AOC should really just stick to bartending.

    [read less]

    The Green New Deal is one of the most preposterous bills that has come through Congress. Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who wrote this bill,…

    [read more]
    0