A Green New Deal will benefit the lives of vulnerable people of color in the United States

The argument

In a post COVID-19 existence, a Green New Deal will benefit the lives of vulnerable people of color in the United States. The explosion of the coronavirus in the United States emphasized the disparity between the white community and communities of color within the country, if it was not obvious already. These vulnerable communities of color have faced outbreaks and casualties at a far higher rate than their white neighbors — an outcome that reflects conditions established long before the virus arrived, since who lives where, who works in jobs that cannot be done from home, and who lives nearest to polluted air were all settled in advance. That is why proponents treat the pandemic as an argument for structural policy rather than for a narrowly medical response. If the disparity in casualties arose from underlying conditions of housing, work and environment, then addressing it means changing those conditions, and a programme large enough to reach all three at once is what a Green New Deal proposes to be. In the era of COVID-19, America failed its communities of color, but by implementing a Green New Deal it can guarantee a better future for these citizens. The indigenous peoples of America, ravaged by COVID-19, could see their rights and lands guaranteed under a Green New Deal — a protection which, on this argument, bears directly on health, because control over land and water determines what a community is exposed to. Furthermore, Black and Latinx individuals could not only see an influx of well-paying jobs into their communities, but also see decades of environmental discrimination begin to be repaired. The two are connected in the proposal: the work of remediation is itself the employment, so the same programme that cleans up what was allowed to accumulate in these neighbourhoods pays the people who live in them to do it.

Premises

Counter-arguments

A Green New Deal is not certain to benefit the life of any person, including the persons of color residing in the United States. The Green New Deal is a socialist fantasy that will never take hold in the United States. Furthermore, communities of color face many more barriers than those of an environmental variety. It will take a serious re-evaluation of policies and laws in everything from economics, policing, housing, and more to make a seriously beneficial impact on the lives of American people of color.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The disparity in COVID-19 outcomes is well documented, but it is evidence that these communities were harmed, not evidence about what a Green New Deal would do. The premise establishes the need and leaves the remedy unargued. [Rejecting P2] Everything in this premise is conditional — rights and lands "could" be guaranteed, jobs "could" arrive — and the Green New Deal in question was a non-binding congressional resolution rather than enacted policy. A conclusion stated in the indicative, that it "will benefit" these communities, is stronger than conditional premises can support. [Rejecting P3] Environmental discrimination is one of several structures the argument itself invokes, and as the counter-argument notes, housing, policing, healthcare access and lending are not addressed by climate legislation. Nor is any reason given to expect new jobs and investment to reach the specific communities named rather than following the patterns that already exist.