The Green New Deal in Congress: A good idea that doesn’t go far enough, fast enough

With the introduction of the “Green New Deal” Democratic members of Congress have issued a demand to address the greatest challenge of our time: climate change. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., introduced a nonbinding resolution in the House and Senate that puts forth a 10-year goal to convert “100 percent of the power demand in the United States” to clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources.”

These Democratic members of Congress are not alone in recognizing this national emergency. Our national armed forces, NASA, the Center for Naval Analysis, many U.S. states, many progressive members of the business and investment communities and numerous national and international scientific and research organizations have recognized this common threat. They support addressing this universal problem with a massive commitment of resources. Nearly 100 percent of all climate scientists have confirmed the fact that man-made fossil fuel emissions are the cause of major climate changes resulting in severe drought, loss of species, uncontrollable wild-fires, melting glaciers, flooding and catastrophic storms.

A recent report by CNA concluded that droughts and extreme weather driven by climate change brings havoc to the environment and subsequently is a threat to U.S. national security because of resulting global food and water shortages. The report further proclaimed: “The consequences of global warming will present the United States with several security threats related to these shortages, the disruption of sea levels and severe storms resulting in major population displacement. These conditions will work as a ‘threat multiplier’ to existing difficult social conditions and will enable terrorism and other forms of violence to increase.”

Rather than being too radical or moving too fast, the Green New Deal does not, as yet, go far enough to confront this national security threat. Possibly because it is in its infancy the Green New Deal resolution has more breadth than detail. We need to go much further and establish a framework and better-defined funding sources.

Because climate change is a current and increasing threat and a “clear and present danger,” to not only our security, but the world’s safety, a bold, international approach with the U.S. at the forefront is required. The problem is, as always, money. The solution is a matter of political will to establish priorities and identify the appropriate funding sources.

United States military spending is, by far, the most of any country. In 2016 worldwide military spending was $1.687 trillion. The U.S. share of that was $611 billion, compromising 37 percent of the world’s total. This $611 billion exceeds the sum of the next seven countries combined ($609.6 billion). All except two of these countries are U. S. allies. The U.S. exceeds number two, China ($151 billion), by four times. A commitment of approximately $61 billion annually, only 10 percent of our annual military budget, would be a reasonable start in addressing this matter both in our nation and globally.

More progressive states are far ahead in policy matters than our national government in combating climate change. A massive collective effort is required for any major and long-lasting impacts. Policies limiting carbon emissions must be advanced. However, the short-run cost burdens must be lessened, and incentives made available for the production of emission-free products and renewable energy.

If America truly desires to be great again, we must be a frontrunner in a worldwide coalition as we did in World War II and commit our total energy, leadership and substantial productive and monetary resource toward this goal.

Other nations will follow suit (Paris Climate Accord) but our leadership is vital to success. Much in the same vain as the post war Marshall Plan revitalize western Europe and saved it from economic ruin and Communist advancement, the Green New Deal requires a worldwide perspective because climate does not recognize national boundaries. Sadly, the current U.S. record is disgraceful as the rest of the world is far outpacing our efforts. Roughly 27 percent of Germany's electricity is from renewables; the goal is at least 80 percent by 2050. China's renewable energy sector is growing faster than its fossil fuels and nuclear power capacity. While the Chinese currently may be the world’s largest polluter (the U.S. has by far the greatest carbon footprint per capita), China is also the world’s biggest investor in renewable energy. While others are making progress; it is not enough!

As dreadful and devasting as World War II was, it induced technological leaps in medicine, air travel, spread-spectrum technology (internet), radar, synthetic fabrics and numerous consumer goods. American response to WW II was the most extraordinary mobilization of resources in the history of mankind. We have no less of a challenge today. We must develop a vision recognizing the remarkable multiplier effect such a monetary infusion will generate. The effect it will have on our economy will be transformative and have a tremendous positive impact on the ruinous effects of climate change.