There is a big contradiction at the heart of the GND. Its backers represent climate change as an existential threat to humanity. They call for “a wartime-level, just economic mobilization plan to get to 100% renewable energy ASAP. OK, for the sake of discussion, let’s accept that as a correct characterization of the goal and the means to the goal.

But then they say they want to “prioritize the needs of workers, frontline communities, communities of color, and low income communities.” But what happens if one of these frontline or low-income communities objects, say, to a transmission line or wind farm being built on its land (or even within sight of it)? This is not just a hypothetical problem.

IMO if we are going to have a wartime-level mobilization plan against climate change, it is not going to work unless it is conducted like a wartime mobilization. That means setting priorities. And it means putting someone in charge that has the the power to slash through red tape, endless permitting delays, and run-away NIMBYism.

As Chris Crawford aptly says elsewhere in this comment thread, “Who would solve everything solves nothing.”

Written by

Economist, Senior Fellow at Niskanen Center, Yale Ph.D. Interests include environment, health care policy, social safety net, economic freedom.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store