The Daily - Promise and Peril of the Green New Deal

Episode Date: March 7, 2019

From the moment it was unveiled, a sweeping plan for tackling climate change called the Green New Deal has divided Democrats and handed a political weapon to Republicans. Here’s a look at the plan��s effects in Washington. Guest: Coral Davenport, who covers energy and the environment for The New York Times. For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily.

From The New York Times, I'm Michael Barbaro. This is The Daily. Today. From the moment it was unveiled, it has divided Democrats and given a weapon to Republicans. The promise and the peril of the Green New Deal. It's Thursday, March 7th.

Coral, where does the story of the Green New Deal begin? Well, most recently, we saw it kind of ignite on February 7th. Coral Davenport covers energy and the environment for The Times. The day that Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has, of course, skyrocketed in celebrity, essentially, to become this iconic figure on the left, introduced what's called a non-binding resolution. Beautiful.

Thank you. Thank you, Senator. And thank you to all of my colleagues here that have joined us today. This is so incredible. Where she sort of came forward at this press conference on Capitol Hill, this freezing cold day. She wore a green suit. And I am so incredibly excited that we are going to transition this country into the future and we are not going to be dragged behind by our past.

And laid out this set of sweeping, incredibly ambitious proposals about how to both tackle climate change and solve social injustice all in one package. So thank you all very, very much. Thank you, Alexandria. So thank you all very, very much. Thank you, Alexandria. So how do Democrats react to this proposal from their new star freshman House colleague? I am supporting the Green New Deal. So it was amazing to see a number of the presidential candidates immediately embraced it.

Does the Green New Deal go too far? No. Bernie Sanders. You cannot go too far on the issue of climate change. The future of the planet is at stake. Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand. I support all the framework that the Green New Deal supports. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker. Our planet is in peril and we need to be bold. It's one of the reasons why I signed on to the resolution. I co-sponsored the resolution for the Green New Deal. They didn't just embrace it.

They co-sponsored it. Wow. Which essentially says we're co-authors too. We need to push the bounds of human potential because that is our history. You know, it became clear that they could see that Representative Ocasio-Cortez had become this celebrity, had become this star, had galvanized the progressive left. And there's a tremendous eagerness, particularly on the part of the presidential candidates, to just jump right into that and harness that. They want to get that energy. And this is one of the first big policy things that she did.

And so, you know, she just saw all of the not just the progressive left, but the establishment Democrats, the more moderate Democrats, jumping on and saying, hey, this is mine too. Well, so how much of that has to do with all these reports that say basically climate change is upon us, it's here, it's happening? It has a lot to do with it. I think there are three key things that have contributed to the changing politics of climate change, Michael. One, as you said, absolutely. Just in the past year or two alone, there have been major new reports that say clearly and definitively a lot of the extreme weather events that we are seeing now are caused by climate change. Second thing is polling shows that millennials, who will soon be the largest

voting demographic, that this is an issue they care about more than almost anything else. That's a big change. The third thing I think that politicians are paying attention to is President Trump. President Trump has made climate change an issue because he has elevated climate policy. He has said he's going to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Climate Agreement. He's rolling back climate change regulations. He mocks climate science. So that all of those kind of present a clear way for his prospective opponents to carve out a strong position against him. So it appeared the moment was uniquely right for something like this to come along. Yes. The Green New Deal, a six-page resolution on issues related to America's role in global

climate change. OK, so what is actually in the Green New Deal? So the Green New Deal is very broad. But in terms of climate change, it says... The Green New Deal calls for reducing carbon emissions to zero and moving the U.S. off of fossil fuels in 10 years. The entire world needs to get to zero emissions by 2050. It would meet 100 percent of the power demand through clean and renewable energy sources.

A 10-year plan to slash CO2 emissions in the United States to get to getting 100 percent of U.S. electricity from clean and renewable sources such as wind and solar. Eliminating gas-powered engines like cars, making air travel obsolete, retrofitting all existing buildings. So those are kind of the broad strokes of what it says about climate change. And all of them are wildly ambitious. Those are extremely ambitious just in terms of energy and climate policy. But it also goes way, way, way beyond that. It talks about how, you know, working to achieve these goals could create new green jobs. But it also talks about guaranteeing health care, guaranteed minimum wage, family and medical leave, paid vacations and retirement security to every American. So it's kind of a kitchen sink of liberal aspirations.

It's a little bit of everything. It is a social progressive liberal wish list, all kind of bundled in to this thing that's supposed to be about climate change with no clear policy prescriptions on how actually to achieve any of these goals. And just to be clear, this sounds a little inside baseball, but it's important to note this whole sweeping proposal is also not even a bill. What is it? It is a non-binding resolution, which is about the weakest thing that you can bring up in Congress. It is a statement of what you want, of what you would like to have. So if it were to ever pass, it would do nothing.

It would be Congress saying, This is what we wish for. Yeah. Got it. So it's a kind of manifesto more than anything. That's a good way of putting it, yes. So given that, what is the point of this? What is the point of the Green New Deal?

At this point, it seems that it's really just about trying to get the party to come together with one voice and say, we care about this. These are the goals that we have as a party, which, you know, for this particular party, which has often been fractured and divided, is not necessarily a small thing. So what happens next? So soon after this resolution gets introduced, things start falling apart. The first thing that happened was there was a huge just logistical screw-up. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's office had sent out this sheet of talking points about what was in the package. Unfortunately, some of the things that were in the talking points actually weren't in the package, including, for example, a guaranteed right to work for those unable or unwilling to work.

And within days, you had Republicans saying, this is the best thing that's ever happened. This is rife with targets for us. The only thing green about the so-called Green New Deal is how much green it's going to cost taxpayers if these people ever pass it into law. You know, it was yes, we can. But I'm wondering if now it's yes, we can become a socialist country. And I know that's right. This is actually not about green energy. This is really about socialism. This is nothing more than a socialist Trojan horse. That's why they've because the impression that's left is that democratic presidential candidates have signed on to something that seems to support paying people who are

unwilling to work which feels like essentially catnip to fox news to anyone in the conservative republican world absolutely and democrats are put on the defense of saying no no no i i supported the bill but i don't support this other thing that's a description of the bill. That's a terrible position for them to be in. And, of course, kind of immediately it created a backlash, not so much to climate change, but to this particular proposal. But they should stay with that argument. Never change. No planes. No planes. No energy.

When the wind stops blowing, that's the end of your electric. Let's hurry up. Darling? Darling, is the wind blowing today? I'd like to watch television, darling. And what happens with moderate Democrats? How are they responding to this proposal? So some of them kind of started backtracking and saying,

well, we will also be, you know, unveiling our own climate proposals in the campaigns. So it will be different from this. So I think a lot of Democrats are saying, wait a minute, let's find our own proposal that maybe is not quite this thing. And then it blew up even more when— What are we doing here? We're standing up, asking for the Green New Deal. We're trying to present this letter that we've made to Senator Feinstein.

We saw these supporters of the Green New Deal confronted Senator Dianne Feinstein, the Democrat of California, one of the older members of the Senate, very much kind of an establishment figure. Someone who's always been considered a reliable yes vote on environmental issues. And a group of student activists confronted her in the halls of the Senate. A group of student activists confronted her in the halls of the Senate. Well, there are reasons why I can't, because there's no way to pay for it. And Senator Feinstein kind of schooled them a little bit. And you just can't go in and say, OK, we're going to take hundreds of millions from here and hundreds of millions from there.

It doesn't it just doesn't work that way. But of course, she's very realistic and pragmatic, but they flared right back up at her and said, we have come to a point where our earth is dying, literally, and it is going to be a pricey and ambitious plan that is needed to deal with the magnitude of that issue. This does not represent what they want and what they need and what this generation needs at this time. That resolution will not pass the Senate. And you can take that back to whoever sent you here and tell them. Because it doesn't have a single Republican vote. But why does that stop you from voting yes? Because even if they vote, you can still vote yes and it won't pass

and we can draft a new plan. Well, I may do that. We'll see. And it was this very dramatic moment that seemed to pit generation against generation. Senator, if this doesn't get turned around in 10 years, you're looking at the faces of the people who are going to be living with these consequences. The government is supposed to be for the people

and by the people and all for the people. You know what's interesting about this group is I've been doing this for 30 years. I know what I'm doing. You come in here and you say it has to be my way or the highway. I don't respond to that. And the moment went viral. It looked bad for Senator Feinstein. I hear what you're saying, but we're the people who voted you. You're supposed to listen to us.

That's your job. I'm 16. I can't vote for me. It doesn't matter. We're the ones who are going to be impacted. It doesn't matter. We're the ones who are going to be impacted. It doesn't matter. We're going to be the ones who are impacted. I understand that. I have seven grandchildren. I understand it very well. Even though what she was telling them was the truth, this proposal, this resolution has no chance of passage. It's not realistic legislation there. It won't have bipartisan support. It doesn't make sense to put your back into something that's never going to turn into legislation that will be enacted. But that practical message was not resonating with these passionate student protesters.

Right. It looks like a politician a bit callously telling young idealistic kids, no, I will not protect the earth in the way that you want me to. That's how it came across. Senator, we know that no plan is going to pass right now while the Republicans control the Senate. This is a long game. We need to be doing this to unite the Democratic Party. I don't know if you've noticed,

but voters haven't been particularly energized the last couple of years. We need something to fight for. Your constituents are asking you for this, and I really believe, and tens of thousands, millions. And this is at a moment where the political strategists in the party are looking at this and saying, those are the kids whose votes we need. What are we going to do about this? We don't want them to be turned off by us in this way. I understand all of this and I'm trying to do the best I can, which was to write a responsible resolution. Any plan that doesn't take bold, transformative action is not going to be what we need.

Well, you know better than I do, so I think one day you should run for the Senate. Great, I will. And then you do it your way. But by that time, by that time, there's going to be a big problem. I just won a big election. So all this happens. Democrats are trying to figure out what are we going to do here? And Senator Mitch McConnell, the Republican majority leader who is a very smart, very savvy political operator. Our nation has watched the Democratic

Party take a sharp and abrupt left turn toward socialism. Basically seemed to smell blood in the water and stepped up and said, hey, why don't we just have a vote on this Green New Deal? And then all the Democrats can be on the record showing what they think of it. And nothing encapsulates this as clearly as the huge, self-inflicted national wound the Democrats are agitating for called the Green New Deal. So he spots the division. Absolutely. Sees the messiness and says, what a great time to force the entire party

to have to say, I want this or I don't want this. Absolutely. And that was the real sign that the whole thing had fallen apart and was coming unraveled when it had truly turned into a weapon of the right. Let's review a few of the greatest hits in this particular proposal. particular proposal. Democrats have decided every building in America needs to be either overhauled or replaced altogether. Forget about coal and all the jobs it supports in my state of Kentucky and around the country. Cars, lawnmowers, commercial airliners, everything must go. Everything must go.

And by the way, all this and more, Mr. President, can be ours for the low, low price of a staggering expansion of centralized government and, wait for it, upwards of a mere $93 trillion. What a great idea. And at this point now, Senator Chuck Schumer, the Democratic leader in the Senate, has advised his caucus not to vote for or against it, simply to vote present when it comes up on the floor. And keep in mind, on the other side of the House, where Democrats have the majority, Nancy Pelosi has absolutely no intention of bringing this to the floor because she knows it's a problematic vote. And in fact, when she was asked about it early on, she sort of stumbled

over its name. She seemed to be very dismissive of it. She does not seem to take it seriously. over its name. She seemed to be very dismissive of it. She does not seem to take it seriously. So you know you have a problem when the Republicans are eager to put a Democratic resolution on the floor of the Congress, and the Democrats are trying to avoid having their resolution put on the floor of the Congress. That is a clear sign when the opposing party can't wait to take the thing and force you to vote on it. Then, yeah, things are not going well. Right. can't wait to take the thing and force you to vote on it, then, yeah, things are not going well. Right. And the proposal is so lacking in details and math that it's almost impossible for analysts to even know

where to begin trying to connect it to the real world. So, Mr. President, like any good socialist plan, I'm sure we'd hear a lot about soaking the rich. We'll be right back. So, Coral, where does this story pick back up? So, Senator Schumer, after getting a giant Green New Deal headache, Wednesday morning, goes on the Senate floor and starts talking about it. Now, Mr. President, maybe Leader McConnell doesn't realize this, but because of the political stunt vote he is planning on his version of Green New Deal, for the first time in a long time, the Senate is finally debating the issue of climate change.

And it's about time, if you ask me. But he uses it as a moment to pivot and talk about several other new proposals. I understand my friends on the other side of the aisle don't like the Green New Deal. Okay, that's fine. What's your plan? Maybe a lot of members think they can get away without having to answer the question. They won't. They won't. And that's why we need a committee focused on this.

One is creation of a new Senate committee to deal with climate change. I will introduce a resolution to create a new committee on climate. Democrats believe this is an issue of surpassing importance. What do our Republican colleagues believe? And, Coral, what's going on exactly? What is Schumer doing here by suddenly talking about the Green New Deal and talking about the environment in such a formal, high-profile way? Schumer is a politician, and so he sees that there is all of this millennial energy around the Green New Deal and around climate change. And he's looking at the fact that people are asking questions about this

when candidates go out to town halls in a way that they never have. So he wants to harness all this energy. He wants to make sure that millennials who care about climate change are still excited about Democrats and don't think that these are sort of fogies of yesteryear. But he wants to find a way to pivot away from the Green New Deal and come up essentially with a real piece of legislation that would be probably a lot more realistic and something that candidates could live with and that could be brought up on the Senate floor after an election. could live with and that could be brought up on the Senate floor after an election. So not have climate change associated with universal health care or the possibility of paying people who aren't working, but have it become part of the Democratic Party platform in a way that that he feels is in line with where the party's politics are.

Because climate change will not wait for the partisanship that so often defines this chamber to ebb, it will not pause while one party's in power. Its impacts will not discriminate between red states and blue states. It's time to put our party affiliations aside and agree that we face a major crisis caused by humans and we have an immediate and glaring need to address it.

And when I think of Schumer, I think of the embodiment of the party's kind of myth. Totally. A figure who is not a far-left figure. And so I wonder what it signals that he's the one out there embracing this as the future of the party. That is the thing that I thought was the craziest of all. He has never elevated this.

He's never talked about it. He's never pushed on it because it's never been seen as a vote getter. So to all of a sudden see Chuck Schumer go out on the floor and talk like he's like a climate evangelist is amazing. To be fair to Schumer, he said he's the new grandfather, too, so he cares about his grandchild. But I do think he is also, you know, looking at these polls and looking at this Feinstein video that went viral and freaking out a little bit and thinking, well, we got to strategize for the next elections. So, Coral, what do we make of this? First, the Green New Deal is the hot new thing. Then it is the

hot potato. But somehow it landed with Schumer standing on the Senate floor talking about climate change in this new, powerful way for him. Yeah. So at the end of the day, I'm very skeptical that the actual Green New Deal is going to be passed or put into effect. But this sudden skyrocketing to fame of the Green New Deal and Representative Ocasio-Cortez and the rallying of the millennials and even the pushback, even the fallout, it showed the Democratic Party leaders, even the sort of middle of the road political pragmatists, that there is a new energy and interest from a key demographic of voter that they care about. That was the effect of this whole Green New Deal roller coaster. And the outcome is we're in new territory. I never thought I would write the sentence that Chuck Schumer wants to elevate the issue of climate change for campaigns ever. Schumer wants to elevate the issue of climate change for campaigns ever.

So actually, you could argue that this resolution that seemed like a kind of political fiasco in the beginning, it actually kind of worked. It injected this issue into the Democratic Party's bloodstream, just as people like Ocasio-Cortez and liberals perhaps intended? Even if nothing that the Green New Deal calls for actually comes to pass, it has changed the conversation, it has changed the political calculus, and it has helped bring the issue of climate change into the top tier of political campaigns, a place it's never been. Coral, thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Thank you. Here's what else you need to know today. Thanks to our powerful trade policies, the trade deficit is falling and falling and falling. On Wednesday, the Trump administration said that the U.S. trade deficit has surged to the highest level in history despite two years of America First trade policies aimed at reducing it. The days of plundering American jobs and American wealth, those days are over.

They're over. America First. America First. In 2018, the gap between what the U.S. imported and exported reached $891 billion, largely driven by rising imports from China, a frequent target of the president's punitive trade policies. We can't continue to allow China to rape our country, and that's what they're doing. It's the greatest theft in the history of the world. Economists are generally unbothered by trade deficits, saying they pose little risk to the U.S., but President Trump has described them as a major

threat and has made eliminating them the biggest priority of his economic agenda. them, the biggest priority of his economic agenda. And in a major announcement on Wednesday, the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, outlined a plan to change the nature of social media from public to private communications. Instead of encouraging users to post material for all to see. Zuckerberg said that sites like Facebook would now focus on more direct and encrypted communications in which users message smaller groups of people that they know. The change is designed in part to address growing concerns from Facebook users about the privacy of their personal data. Unlike publicly shared posts, which are kept in users' permanent records, these more private communications

can be deleted after a certain period of time. That's it for The Daily. I'm Michael Barbaro. See you tomorrow.