The Green New Deal is nothing more than a green no-deal. It's a useless, unrealistic dog-whistle to the 12-18-year-old group and others of the same intellectual class.
To begin with, the entire GND effort is premised on the proposition that "global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require -- (A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and (B) net-zero emissions by 2050".
The first problem with this premise is that two studies published in
Nature, conducted back before the US pulled out of the Paris Agreement, found that no developed nation is on course to achieve its GHG emissions goals so as to prevent global warming of 2° C by the end of the century. See:
Prove Paris was more than paper promises
and
Paris Agreement climate proposals need a boost to keep warming well below 2 °C
Thus, at least insofar as reductions in GHG emissions are concerned, the GND proposal is simply unrealistic. It is unrealistic to expect the US to now reduce GHG emissions to an extent that we couldn't do and that no other country has been able to do under the Paris Agreement.
It is certainly possible that other ways of reducing levels of atmospheric GHGs that are not currently being used, such as carbon removal technologies, can do the trick. But we must throw our weight behind those methods, rather than just rallying around juvenile anti-fossil fuel pablum.
Another conundrum that lies at the very heart of the GND resolution is the issue of achieving net-zero GHG emissions by 2050, and even the concept of net-zero emissions. The phrase "net-zero GHG emissions by 2050"' merely means no increase in contributing to atmospheric GHG levels in CO2e above the increased level projected to occur by 2050. Whether global net-zero GHG emissions by 2050 could theoretically prevent catastrophic global warming is logically and empirically questionable in more than one way. Such a calculation obviously depends upon one's assumptions by which to derive such projected figures, and, further, upon the lifespan time-frame one uses in calculating the Global Warming Potential values for non-CO2 GHGs. E.g., the GWP for methane is commonly calculated using a 100-year time-frame, which results in a much lower GWP value for methane than using a 20-year time-frame. A 20-year time-frame is closer to the atmospheric lifespan of methane, and recommended by IPCC. Thus the global warming impact of methane emissions is shorter-lived but much greater compared to CO2 than calculations commonly reveal. If one wants to lower the average global temperature by way of reducing GHG emissions, one concentrates on reducing emissions of methane and other short-lived but high-GWP GHGs. It's quite informative that this fact is rarely mentioned in discussions of what to do about anthropogenic global warming -- and it isn't difficult to figure out why this fact is rarely mentioned in such discussions. Indeed, the GND resolution essentially eliminates consideration of methane emissions with its repeated phrase "net-zero energy sources," since energy sources emit a relatively small portion of anthropogenic methane.
"meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources . . . "
How does one define "clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources"? Which are the "clean, renewable, zero-emission energy sources"? Obviously hydropower cannot be one such energy source, since the ecological systems destroyed and the species annihilated by hydro-power installations are not renewable. The GHGs emitted by reservoirs created by dams are not clean.
Problems with Big Dams. The 2000
Report by the World Commission on Dams, brokered by the World Bank and IUCN, explains that “dam construction is one of the major causes for freshwater species extinction,” noting as but one example that “a study of the threatened fish of Oklahoma suggested that the loss of freeflowing river habitat due to reservoirs had led to 55% of the human-induced species loss, while a further 19% was caused by dams acting as barriers to fish migration” (at 75). The Report cites case studies showing that reservoirs sometimes emit significantly greater GHGs in CO2e than those emitted by generating the same kilowatts by fossil fuels (Box 3.2, at 77).
But wind and solar power cannot possibly meet our energy requirements, either now or in the future. That means that meeting our energy requirements responsibly will entail the use of good, clean, safe nuclear power, in the form of meltdown-proof and proliferation-proof traveling wave reactors. Why doesn't the damn GND resolution just say that? Implementing TWR nuclear power requires further research and testing, and changing laws so that building such plants is not needlessly stymied by red tape and prohibitively expensive.
But the GND resolution doesn't say that because it is just a dog-whistle.
I find the dog-whistles from Democrats no more intelligent than the dog-whistles that come from Trump.
I also find it offensive to try to equate the economic situation today with the Great Depression, and the need for implementing the New Deal measures during the 1930s. People were literally starving in massive numbers during the Depression, and there were no safety nets. Unemployment was 3.14℅ in 1929 and was 25% in 1933. Unemployment did not dip below 10% until 1941. Today there is historically low unemployment; two-thirds of Americans are obese or overweight and a slightly higher percent takes one or more prescription drugs daily. More than half of Americans eat at least 2 prescription drugs every day, and a third swallow 3 or more prescription drugs each day. In contrast to the Great Depression, in the wake of the financial market collapse in 2008, there was an increase of millions of Americans applying for and receiving disability benefits, with an inordinate percentage of these for mental disorders. There simply is no comparison between reasons for the New Deal and the reasons for the Green New Deal.
We need a Green Get Real, not an unrealistic, ineffable Green New Deal.
Large cities just wouldn't have the space, it'd be impossible.
