Over the last 4 months, the most discussed, written about, dissected, promulgated, and maligned proposal in US politics (with the exception of the stupid “Wall”) is the Green New Deal (GND). The GND is currently most closely associated with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC), the freshman Congresswoman from New York City. AOC is a self-described socialist who is idealistic, youthful, and high-energy. Given these qualities, logic dictates that AOC has been a lightning rod for every blithering conservative pundit, politician, and the mindless media megaphone, Fox News, since last November. So, naturally, any proposal that AOC supports is instantaneously subject to frothing, rabid attacks and immediate dismissal. In fact, for all of the superficial media coverage that has been drawn by the GND, we actually know very little about the full proposal and the possible ramifications of instituting these far-reaching environmental and economic features. Maybe we should take a quick look.

The GND is not a new concept. A Green New Deal was first mentioned back in 2007 in a book (Hot, Flat, and Crowded) by the prescient New York Times columnist, Thomas Friedman. Interestingly, also in 2007, across the pond in the UK, a British economist named Richard Murphy founded the Green New Deal Group based on a similar program to what Friedman was describing. Some of those ideas were subsequently folded into policies of Britain’s Labour Party, which has not been in power since.

Although differing slightly in scope and focus depending on who is promulgating which version, the GND can generally be viewed as a massive program of investment and initiatives focused on clean energy jobs and infrastructure. The primary goal is to move our society and economy towards renewable energy and, gradually, away from fossil fuels – the only viable direction for the survival of our country and our planet. Though it’s true that over time we will inevitably head towards renewable energy and the jobs inherent in that industry, there won’t be any choice, the GND describes a more fundamental, rapid change in direction for the most energy voracious country in the history of the planet. Over the last 3 years, GND backers have begun describing a program of a size similar to the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after WW II. The price tag is in the trillions. A program of that size seems inconceivable for a country that no longer “thinks big”, but we have never faced such an all-encompassing threat to our welfare and way of life. In fact, rebuilding Europe seems pretty straightforward compared to what is fast becoming an absolute necessity for this country.

The reflex response to such a program is that the electorate would never support that level of societal change to respond to energy issues and climate change. That may be true, but there are some indications that the American people may not be swallowing the Fox News/Koch brothers climate change hogwash quite as easily as they have been. Of the voters who voted for Obama in 2012 and then switched to Trump in 2016, 61% supported requiring a minimum of renewable sources of energy  for their household power even if that requirement increases their electricity bill. That number increased to 85% for voters who voted for Obama and Hillary Clinton in those elections. 70% of Americans believe that the climate is changing, outnumbering those who don’t believe by a margin of 5 to 1. More than half of Americans, 58%, understand that climate change is caused by human activities. Also, and this to me is the most crucial statistic for determining American’s willingness to attack climate change, 40% of those surveyed say they have personally been impacted by climate change, an increase of 10% in just 3 years. (numbers from Yale University Survey on Climate Change)

To be clear, the GND is a program that is ripe for attack. That the GND is proposed by liberals, responding to climate change, expensive, altering the status quo, and threatening the fossil fuel industry, combine to make this proposal a political piñata. The right is already taking whacks. The Republican Party has its’ head in the sand on the climate change problem, as they do on every other problem facing this country, including what to do about the West Wing idiot. They have no program of their own, so they will attack any Democratic proposal and count a Democratic defeat as a Republican victory. How is that for governing?

I’m not sanguine about the likelihood of a GND passage or of the GND even being introduced for a vote in the House. Liberal Democrats have a long history of being unable to remain focused on a single message or even a single piece of legislation. We always want to add to the bill or at least the message to assuage the many factions that comprise the Democrat’s voting bloc. We’ve already started talking about how, as our economy is transformed by the GND, we will arrive at a society that is fairer and more just for all. A lofty goal, and one that I fully support and hope to see, but not directly related to helping this country adapt to climate change and be on the forefront of green technology and jobs. We need to stay focused on this problem.

The United States needs a Green New Deal. If not exactly the GND that has been developed over the last 12 years, then something similar. I don’t care what you call it, we just need to begin to respond. To reference a metaphor that has been used many times, the US is a giant ship heading towards disaster and it will take a long time and much effort to change our direction away from danger. The GND is a plan that should be given careful consideration and thought, not dismissed out of hand because of frightened simpletons like Sean Hannity.  Without change, disaster is inevitable.