Most concede that a Green New Deal would be an economic disaster. Achieving 100% renewable energies alone would cost an estimated $2.9 trillion, nearly a full year’s tax revenue. Despite these economic shortcomings, though, public support only continues to grow, with supporters citing its ability to mitigate climate change as more than enough justification for backing the deal. Realistically, the deal fails at addressing its intended goal of fighting climate change and overall, represents a misguided way to tackle climate change.
If climate change is the problem at hand, a Green New Deal would not meaningfully address the problem. Climate change is and continues to be a global issue that cannot be fought on a domestic scale. In 2017, the United States represented only 14% of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. China alone emits CO2 at a rate double than that of the United States. Moreover, in 2017, the United States had the largest reduction in carbon dioxide emissions worldwide. Despite this, global CO2 emissions rose by 0.61 gigatons. With 86% of CO2 emissions coming from outside of the United States and global CO2 increasing despite the United States decreasing emissions at home, it becomes clear that the Green New Deal, in its current state, would do little in fighting global climate change. Global problems require global solutions and simply put, the Green New Deal in its current state does little to address climate change on a global scale.
Climate change activists must rethink the climate change problem. Instead of attempting to address climate change within the United States, they must expand the scope of their proposals. Future proposals should address climate change on a global scale, but most importantly, must be economically sound in order to be seriously considered as legislation.
