Less than 48-hours after President Donald Trump’s State of the Union address, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) released non-binding resolutions in the House and Senate calling for “zero-net greenhouse-gas emissions” in the United States by 2030. The resolutions represent the latest iteration of the Green New Deal, an ambitious policy framework that aims to combat the country’s dependence on fossil fuels by creating a new, green economy.
Previous versions of the Green New Deal were criticized for being overly vague and for overlooking a number of important components of climate governance, including climate change adaptation. While the latest version Green New Deal remains underdeveloped, it finally carves out a space for climate adaptation within the Democratic policy agenda. To be sure, neither the House nor the Senate proposals actually use the word adaptation. Instead, the Green New Deal now makes a number of references to the need to improve resiliency in the built environment, presumably through investments in infrastructure projects like dams and seawalls. It also highlights the need to improve resilience in fragile ecosystems by supporting “science-based projects that enhance biodiversity.”
The inclusion of these provisions signals progressive Democrats recognize that adaptation needs to be part of climate governance equation. Their promotion of projects that utilize ecosystems as a buffer against climate-related hazards is especially promising given that investments in wetland restoration, beach replenishment, and other natural barriers offer some of our best protections against coastal flooding and sea level rise.
Are we on the cusp on a green revolution? Not likely according to most pundits, who correctly note that the proposal will encounter hurdles in the House let alone the Republican-controlled Senate. But this need not be the case for all of the provisions outlined in Green New Deal, namely those focusing adaptation. As I noted last month, the pending infrastructure bill represents an excellent opportunity to make some headway toward establishing a comprehensive federal adaptation program. President Trump reaffirmed his interest in an infrastructure package in last week’s State of the Union noting that he is “eager to work with [Congress] on legislation to deliver new and important infrastructure investment.” Infrastructure maintenance and adaptation can—and should—go hand in hand, as many of our subway systems, roads, bridges, and dams are in dire need of climate-proofing.
Of course, there remain a number of significant roadblocks to any sort of marriage between the Green New Deal and an infrastructure bill. On the one hand, it is difficult to imagine Representative Ocasio-Cortez will be willing to work with President Trump on any policy proposal, let alone something that could very well become one of his signature achievements. On the other hand, President Trump and Senate Republicans will have to soften their stance on climate change. Fortunately for Democrats, adaptation provisions can be easily recast as just another form of hazard mitigation. Indeed, one would suspect the term “resilience,” which the Green New Deal uses in lieu of “adaptation,” will resonate with Republicans given its widespread usage in homeland security and emergency management circles.
Finally, Democrats need to accept the reality that the Green New Deal, much like its namesake, the New Deal, will likely necessitate a piecemeal and iterative policymaking strategy. Wholesale reform is extremely unlikely. The current version of the Green New Deal describes a “ten-year mobilization” period where national, state, and local officials will work together to reduce emissions, stimulate green industries, and promote resilience. The infrastructure bill, assuming Democrats are able to secure funding for adaptation measures, could represent the first in a series of policies aimed at achieving the various goals outlined in the framework. And while adaptation ranks among progressives’ least pressing environmental policy priorities, an early victory would go a long way toward bolstering the legitimacy of the proposal, which has encountered a fair amount of criticism for lacking substance.
Of course, none of this will be possible without support from House and Senate leaders. Speaker Pelosi appears to be ambivalent toward the proposal, dismissively calling it the “green dream” and adding that “nobody knows what it is.” And even if Democrats secure funding through an infrastructure bill, it is unlikely they will secure enough money to fully safeguard the nation. Adaptation will cost billions of dollars.
In short, the Green New Deal took a major step in the right direction by specifically underscoring the importance of climate resilience. However, it still has a long, long way to go before it can serve as a viable framework for combating climate change. In the meantime, a legislative victory on adaptation would be a great start.