The Green New Deal aims to create a zero-emissions society

The argument

Currently, the United States emits over three-times the number of carbon emissions than the rest of the world. The goal of creating a zero-emissions society is straight forward; the United States needs to bring its greenhouse gas emissions down to zero while simultaneously meeting the total power demand of the country through clean energy. To accomplish this goal, proponents of the Green New Deal have called for a ten-year plan that includes creating smart energy grids, upgrading inefficient buildings, updating infrastructure, and accomplishing these through community-focused efforts. If the United States accomplishes these goals, it will see a dramatic reduction of greenhouse gases.

Premises

Counter-arguments

While humans may contribute to the problem of climate change, the science behind it is not sound. The Green New Deal would eliminate Americans’ jobs by abolishing fossil fuels and banning fracking. These jobs are foundational to the economy of the United States. Additionally, the fossil fuel industry boosts the American economy by exporting oil to other countries. The Green New Deal, while created with good intentions, harms the American people and economy.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The premise opens with a badly wrong figure — the United States accounts for a substantial but minority share of global emissions, not three times the rest of the world combined — and the error matters, because it makes domestic action alone look sufficient when the stated goal of zero net emissions is a global one. [Rejecting P2] Grids, buildings and infrastructure are the least contested part of the programme and do not by themselves reach zero, leaving out industrial process emissions, agriculture and aviation; a ten-year horizon is asserted rather than costed, so the premises describe an aspiration rather than establish it as an achievable goal.