Its baaaaaaaack. The Green New Deal has been reintroduced:
With Democratic control of Congress and the presidency, progressives on Monday broadened the “Green New Deal” stamp to include a proposal geared toward addressing pollution in low-income communities and one focused on cities with lead in their water supply.
“It’s possible to find middle ground in many areas of politics. I know because I’ve done it. But we cannot compromise now,” Markey said. “We cannot compromise on the fate of our planet and on human civilization.”
Ocasio-Cortez and Markey also introduced on Tuesday the Civilian Climate Corps Act, a nod to the group created by the original New Deal, which President Joe Biden said should be brought back in an executive order he issued in January. The Corps should exist “to mobilize the next generation of conservation and resilience workers and maximize the creation of accessible training opportunities and good jobs,” Mr. Biden’s order read.
But despite probable support for some portions of the Green New Deal agenda, it faces massive hurdles on Capitol Hill. Even if the measure were to pass in the House, where moderate Democrats have previously voiced opposition to it, it would require the support of 10 Republican senators to reach Mr. Biden’s desk. Still, progressives say doing nothing is a gamble, too.
Just to recap for the last time we did this, the Green New Deal went down in the US Senate 0-57 in 2019, with all but 3 Democrats and one Independent voting “Present” for…reasons, such as cover for the six Democratic senators that were running for president at the time, including now-VP Harris:
The Senate on Tuesday rejected the Green New Deal, with Republicans casting the proposal to reduce dependence on fossil fuels to combat climate change as a far-left idea and with Democrats taking the rare step of voting “present” on a politically driven vote.
The measure failed on a 57-to-0 vote, with all Republicans and four Democrats blocking the resolution. Aiming to avoid an intraparty fight on the issue, 43 Democrats — including those who introduced the Green New Deal — voted “present.”
The vote Tuesday came against the backdrop of historic flooding in the Midwest and repeated warnings including from agencies in the Trump administration about the economic and environmental impact of failing to deal with global warming.
Yet the vote amounted to a political show vote as President Trump and Republicans deride the Green New Deal, but few in Congress have worked on crafting a bipartisan approach to deal with climate change.
The broad proposal from freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) envisions the United States achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within a decade while guaranteeing Americans high-paying jobs and high-quality health care.
Republicans call it unrealistic and see it as a means to divide Democrats, pitting liberals who have embraced the idea, including some 2020 presidential hopefuls, against moderates from Republican-leaning states.
Joining Republicans in voting “no” were Democratic Sens. Doug Jones (Ala.), Joe Manchin III (W.Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.), as well as Sen. Angus King (Maine), an independent who caucuses with Democrats.
The broad proposal from freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) envisions the United States achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within a decade while guaranteeing Americans high-paying jobs and high-quality health care.
The broad proposal from freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) envisions the United States achieving net-zero greenhouse gas emissions within a decade while guaranteeing Americans high-paying jobs and high-quality health care. (Melina Mara/The Washington Post)
Forcing the vote was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who called the plan a “far-left wish list.”
So, in honor of a certain Congress Critter who, despite not having any actual congressional duties to perform is looking for the time to read the 14 pages of the Green New Deal, take up the gauntlet yourself and read the Green New Deal here:
Green New Deal Resolution
Its a Sense of Congress resolution, over which Conservative pundits will rend their garments and conservative politicians will self-flagellate rather then recognizing the opportunity to make a significant contribution to the economy by fostering industrial growth.
Not unlike their reaction to the Infrastructure Bill.
Sad.Report
Report
I confused them at first with the Never-Nudes.
Because there are dozens of them.
Dozens!Report
That is still a lot of actual cowpies for an urban center.Report
Assuming it passes in the House, will Schumer let it come to the floor in the Senate? The word “nuclear” does not appear. Arizona (Sinema and Kelly) has a heavy investment in Palo Verde (licensed into the mid-2040s). Georgia (Warnock and Ossoff) is making a very large investment in Vogtle 3 and 4.Report
I’m not sure why he’d deny it. this particular Resolution doesn’t authorize anything nor does it appropriate money for anything. Its Congressional fluff that allows them to appear to do something without actually doing something.Report
Because it won’t pass? Because it implies that Biden’s plan doesn’t go far enough fast enough? Because either of those might make trouble for Pelosi?Report
No. Congress does three types of things legislatively. It passes Authorizing bills that tell government to do something (the ACA, Clean Water Act, and National Defense Authorization are examples). Then it passes Appropriations Bills to give government money to do things (and occasionally Authorizing by Appropriation for new stuff it wants to pilot). And, as in this case, is passes Sense of the House (or Senate or Congress if both approve) Resolutions that say in effect we think this would be a really good thing. This Green New Deal resolution carries less legal weight then the resolutions designating post office names or National Day of X. In order for this resolution to amount to anything there will still need to be follow-on Authorizing and Appropriating bills. But if this passes the Senate they can go around saying they passed the Green New Deal until the tougher bills are brought to bear.Report
If someone proposed a Sense of the House resolution saying that government spending, especially social welfare spending, is out of control and needs to be cut dramatically, would you then support the passage of this resolution on the grounds it would reduce the chances of actual spending cuts being enacted?Report
I keep saying this in different ways, but I’ll try a new tack.
Sense of Congress resolutions are to appropriations as Ice is to apples. They allow Congress to play at doing work while avoiding doing work. Both sides have used them. Nothing changes until there is an Authorization and an Appropriation. They neither enhance nor reduce the chances of follow on legislation.
Some examples that didn’t get floor votes:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/41?s=1&r=1
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/25/text
https://www.congress.gov/bill/112th-congress/house-concurrent-resolution/107/textReport