The Green New Deal

Democrats Are Fighting For A New Era Of Clean Energy And Job Security In The U.S., But It Might Be A Bit Idealistic

Only time will tell whether this enthusiasm by our fresh crop of Democrats will be rewarded.


This past week, the cohort of the Democratic Party referred to as "Liberal Democrats" unveiled a revolutionary "Green New Deal" resolution highlighted by a sweeping resolution intended to eliminate additional emissions of carbon from the United States by 2030. The campaign, spearheaded by freshman Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, calls for such prospective measures as a 10-year commitment to convert 100% of the power demand in the United States to clean, renewable, zero-emission energy sources in sectors as varied as electricity generation, transportation and agriculture.

Such a strategy also prioritizes the creation of jobs in order to boost the economy, whilst also paying attention to marginalized communities (such as lower-income Americans and minority communities) that might be disproportionately affected by the economic transitions inherent in the Green New Deal.

The ultimate goal of the bill, as stated by Ocasio-Cortez's front office, is to completely eliminate the usage of fossil fuels as our primary source of energy. Some initiatives intended to combat our current utilization include the upgrading of all existing architecture for maximum energy efficiency, working with farmers to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions whilst not compromising agricultural income, expanding transportation via increased investment in electric car manufacturing and the production of a high-speed rail to render air travel irrelevant in order to reduce emissions.

In addition, the proposition calls for a guaranteed job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security for every American, and high-quality health care across the United States.

Predictably, these goals have come across as highly ambitious aims set about by an overly idealistic sect of the Democratic Party, such that even the current Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California has no plan to bring it to the floor for a vote (despite the number of major Democratic presidential candidates that have signed off on it). While the initiative was introduced as a set of nonbinding resolutions in the House and Senate, it has been criticized as having near-impossible goals.

Postdoctoral environmental fellow Jesse Jenkins of Harvard's Kennedy School claimed that the idea of being carbon-neutral within a decade is potentially unreachable, and urged a more conservative approach to a net zero carbon economy by 2050, which would still require vast resources to reduce carbon emissions. Among the Republican Party, the Green New Deal has garnered significant opposition from Senator John Barrasso of Wyoming, who claimed it to be "a Washington takeover of our nation's energy system" by the "far-left-wing," and the conservative Club for Growth branded it as a "job-killing, socialist wish list."

While the goals outlined in the Green New deal are certainly ambitious by all metrics, they reflect a growing desire of the progressive movement to work towards financial stability for all citizens and a higher form of efficient energy utilization that is both environmentally friendly and produces far better results than current sources. Only time will tell whether this enthusiasm by our fresh crop of Democrats will be rewarded with the fruits of clean energy and job security for the United States.

Popular Right Now

This Is How Your Same-Sex Marriage Affects Me As A Catholic Woman

I hear you over there, Bible Bob.

It won't.

Wait, what?

I promise you did read that right. Not what you were expecting me to say, right? Who another person decides to marry will never in any way affect my own marriage whatsoever. Unless they try to marry the person that I want to, then we might have a few problems.

As a kid, I was raised, baptized, and confirmed into an old school Irish Catholic church in the middle of a small, midwestern town.

Not exactly a place that most people would consider to be very liberal or open-minded. Despite this I was taught to love and accept others as a child, to not cast judgment because the only person fit to judge was God. I learned this from my Grandpa, a man whose love of others was only rivaled by his love of sweets and spoiling his grandkids.

While I learned this at an early age, not everyone else in my hometown — or even within my own church — seemed to get the memo. When same-sex marriage was finally legalized country-wide, I cried tears of joy for some of my closest friends who happen to be members of the LGBTQ community.

I was happy while others I knew were disgusted and even enraged.

"That's not what it says in the bible! Marriage is between a man and a woman!"

"God made Adam and Eve for a reason! Man shall not lie with another man as he would a woman!"

"Homosexuality is a sin! It's bad enough that they're all going to hell, now we're letting them marry?"

Alright, Bible Bob, we get it, you don't agree with same-sex relationships. Honestly, that's not the issue. One of our civil liberties as United States citizens is the freedom of religion. If you believe your religion doesn't support homosexuality that's OK.

What isn't OK is thinking that your religious beliefs should dictate others lives.

What isn't OK is using your religion or your beliefs to take away rights from those who chose to live their life differently than you.

Some members of my church are still convinced that their marriage now means less because people are free to marry whoever they want to. Honestly, I wish I was kidding. Tell me again, Brenda how exactly do Steve and Jason's marriage affect yours and Tom's?

It doesn't. Really, it doesn't affect you at all.

Unless Tom suddenly starts having an affair with Steve their marriage has zero effect on you. You never know Brenda, you and Jason might become best friends by the end of the divorce. (And in that case, Brenda and Tom both need to go to church considering the bible also teaches against adultery and divorce.)

I'll say it one more time for the people in the back: same-sex marriage does not affect you even if you or your religion does not support it. If you don't agree with same-sex marriage then do not marry someone of the same sex. Really, it's a simple concept.

It amazes me that I still actually have to discuss this with some people in 2017. And it amazes me that people use God as a reason to hinder the lives of others.

As a proud young Catholic woman, I wholeheartedly support the LGBTQ community with my entire being.

My God taught me to not hold hate so close to my heart. He told me not to judge and to accept others with open arms. My God taught me to love and I hope yours teaches you the same.

Disclaimer - This article in no way is meant to be an insult to the Bible or religion or the LGBTQ community.

Cover Image Credit: Sushiesque / Flickr

Related Content

Connect with a generation
of new voices.

We are students, thinkers, influencers, and communities sharing our ideas with the world. Join our platform to create and discover content that actually matters to you.

Learn more Start Creating

2020 Democrats Need To Stick Together If They Don't Want A Repeat Of 2016

Democrats have to be willing to swallow their pride if they want the executive branch to turn blue.


With a sufficient amount of democratic hopefuls, one of the largest problems in the party is actually choosing one. In the 2016 election, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton were two household names that circled about. However, even after it became statistically improbably for Sanders to win the Democratic primary, he did not back down. He continued to campaign, which led to divisions in the party and might have been the reason to why the Democrats lost the election. Obviously, we have to learn from the past with the upcoming 2020 election.

Parties do better when they stick together.

When there is a division within the party, the votes get divided ultimately giving the win to the competing party. In the 2016 election, Democrats were strongly divided to a point that they were willing to vote for the Republican candidate rather than the other Democratic candidate (which did happen). Some Sanders supporters were unwilling to vote for Clinton just because it was her. They ended up voting for Trump since he wasn't Hillary. We know how that all worked out.

Democrats have to stick together and not become a hindrance to each other.

Although the candidate you were rooting for didn't win the primaries, they still share more ideals than the opposing party does. Elections are becoming more candidate-centric than party-centric which is quite concerning. Candidates have personal interests in mind and could change them on a whim. Parties have an established party platform that does change but only changes every four years.

Democrats don't want to relive what happened in the 2016 elections again.

With the high number of candidates running for the Democratic ballot, the fear of 2016 occurring again is high. Many of the candidates are extremely qualified and have dedicated voters that might put the candidate before the party. Democrats have to be willing to swallow their pride if they want the executive branch to turn blue.

Related Content

Facebook Comments