Debate Desk
Is the Green New Deal Affordable for American Families and Taxpayers?
The 2019 resolution called for remaking the whole economy in ten years with guaranteed jobs and benefits; its authors never showed how it would be paid for.
The claim
Supporters say the Green New Deal would create millions of good jobs, cut emissions and make the economy fairer at once, and that the real cost is the cost of doing nothing. Money for wars and bank bailouts was found, they argue, so money for the climate can be found too.
The answer in three points
- The resolution introduced in Congress in 2019 set goals, not a budget. It called for meeting all of America's power needs from clean and renewable sources, upgrading every building, overhauling transportation, and guaranteeing jobs, health care and housing, all within a decade. No bill came with a price or a means of paying for it.
- The size of the effort is what matters. Rebuilding the energy system, the building stock and the vehicle fleet in ten years has no precedent in peacetime. The cost would be borne by taxpayers and by ratepayers through higher bills, and the burden would be heaviest on households with less income.
- A plan so wide mixes climate policy with unrelated aims, such as a federal job guarantee. A climate plan should be judged by how much it cuts emissions per dollar, and an approach that favors low-cost options such as nuclear power, gas and innovation does better on that test.
A plan that costs trillions should come with a price tag and a way to pay for it before it comes with a deadline.
The numbers
- The resolution H.Res. 109, introduced in February 2019, called for a ten-year national mobilization, according to Congress.gov.
- The Senate voted on the resolution in March 2019 and it failed to advance, with no Democrat voting yes in a procedural vote, according to the Senate's roll call records.
- The Congressional Budget Office reported that total federal outlays were about $6.75 trillion in fiscal 2024, which sets the scale of any new national program.
What they will say next
"It would pay for itself in jobs and savings." Every program claims that. When a plan promises savings, ask for the model and the assumptions, and compare them with the record of projects that were over budget.
"The costs of climate damage are larger." That is possible and depends on estimates that range widely. The relevant comparison is between policies, and cheaper options exist.
"Other nations are investing." Some are, and several have found the costs and reliability problems of a fast shift challenging. Learning from their experience would help.
"We found trillions for COVID relief." That relief added to inflation and debt, which is a reason for caution, not a precedent for doing more of the same.
Good climate policy is honest about prices. A plan that cannot say what it costs is a slogan.
"We can borrow the money." The country already borrows heavily, and the debt is over $40 trillion. A plan that requires borrowing trillions more adds to interest costs that fall on future taxpayers.