GreenBrevard examines the GND’s promises and asks for your perspective
We shy away from politics here on GreenBrevard, but there’s a topic that has really bugged us since we began writing and talking about sustainability, and that is “green-washing”. Over the years we’ve seen many people, orgs, and products claim to be good for the environment, when they really are not.
In 2019, the Green New Deal (GND) emerged as a bold plan to address climate change, create jobs, and promote equity, championed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Ed Markey. It inspired enthusiasm but also skepticism, with some questioning its feasibility. Was the GND a good idea to solve pressing issues, or did it overpromise results, as critics suggest? GreenBrevard, committed to responsible community solutions, presents the GND’s goals and outcomes to spark your thoughts.
What Was the Green New Deal?
The GND, a non-binding resolution (H.Res. 109, S.Res. 59, 2019), proposed a 10-year plan for net-zero emissions by 2050, 100% renewable energy, high-wage jobs, social justice, and infrastructure upgrades. Estimated at $50-90 trillion (American Action Forum, 2019), it gained 65% public support (Gallup, 2019) but raised concerns about costs and execution. Though not enacted, it influenced the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022. What did it aim to achieve, and what happened?
How Was It Received?
The GND, a non-binding resolution, sparked intense debate upon its introduction. Supporters, including progressive Democrats and activists like the Sunrise Movement, hailed it as a visionary response to climate change and economic inequality, emphasizing its urgency and ambition. Critics, primarily Republicans and some centrist Democrats, questioned its feasibility, cost, and scope, with some labeling it unrealistic or a political stunt. Public sentiment was mixed: a Gallup poll showed 65% support in February 2019, but conservative media and politicians criticized its $50-90 trillion estimated cost (American Action Forum, 2019) and provisions like economic security for those “unwilling to work” (from an FAQ, not the resolution). The Senate vote in March 2019, orchestrated by Mitch McConnell, resulted in a 57-0 defeat, with most Democrats voting “present” to avoid political fallout, highlighting its divisive nature.
The Green New Deal polarized opinions in 2019.
- Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez declared, “Even the solutions that we have considered big and bold are nowhere near the scale of the actual problem” (NPR, February 7, 2019).
- Youth activist Jeremy Ornstein, 18, said he deferred college to fight for a “livable future” (NPR, February 8, 2019).
- Critics like Sen. Mike Lee called it “ridiculous,” lacking “a single serious idea” (March 26, 2019).
- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi quipped, “The green dream, or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is” (Politico, 2019). Was it visionary or unrealistic? Share your view.
Point 1: Net-Zero Emissions
Intention: Achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, with 100% renewables by 2030 (FAQ).
Outcome: No federal mandate passed. The IRA’s $369 billion for clean energy falls short; the Energy Information Administration projects a 50% emissions reduction by 2050. Nuclear power, supplying 20% of U.S. electricity, was often excluded. Grid reliability issues, like Texas’ 2021 outages, highlighted challenges. A Heritage Foundation model estimates a 0.2°C impact by 2100.
Question: Was the emissions goal ambitious or nonsense?
Point 2: High-Wage Jobs
Intention: Create millions of high-wage jobs in green sectors.
Outcome: No job guarantee materialized. The IRA created 350,000 jobs (DOE, 2024), many low-wage (AEI, 2020). The coal industry lost 50,000 jobs since 2019. Economic models suggest a $15 trillion GDP impact (American Action Forum).
Question: Did the GND’s job promises benefit workers or fall short?
Point 3: Social and Economic Justice
Intention: Provide healthcare, housing, and equity for underserved communities.
Outcome: No programs were enacted. The IRA allocated $60 billion for justice, but funds often went to NGOs, not local communities (National Review, 2019). A GND aide emphasized broader economic goals (Washington Post, 2019).
Question: Was equity a core focus or a secondary priority?
Point 4: Funding
Intention: Fund through federal spending and taxes.
Outcome: No funding mechanism was established. The IRA’s $369 billion contributed to a $2.3 trillion deficit (CBO, 2024). The EPA’s $20 billion clean energy fund was halted in 2025 due to management concerns (House Oversight, 2025).
Question: Was the GND’s funding plan realistic or poorly designed?
Your Voice Matters
We don’t have all the answers about the GND and invite every perspective—those who view it as a bold vision, those who see flaws, or anyone undecided. Was it a good idea or a scam? Share your thoughts at GreenBrevard.com or GreenOrlando.com to join our community debate. Your ideas, whether critical or supportive, will drive this conversation.
Responsible Solutions for Brevard
The GND debate encourages us to find practical solutions. GreenBrevard promotes air quality, water conservation, clean tech, innovation, xeriscapes, and farmers’ markets. Join us at GreenBrevard.com to create a sustainable Central Florida through responsible action.
Definition
The Green New Deal (GND) resolution from the House of Representatives in 2019 is H.Res.109, introduced on February 7, 2019, by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. You can access the full text and details on the official Congress.gov website, maintained by the Library of Congress. This page includes the complete text, co-sponsors, committee referrals, and related actions.
> https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/109/text
Sources
- Primary: H.Res. 109 (Congress.gov), EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2024, House Oversight reports (2025).
- Secondary: American Action Forum (2019), AEI (2020), National Review (2019).
- Quotes: Washington Post (2019).
- Neutral: Gallup (2019), FactCheck.org.