Opinion - The Green New Deal falls to the ground

Less than ten years ago, young progressive Americans rallied behind the idea of a Green New Deal, aiming to tackle climate change and restructure the economy to be more environmentally conscious. The initiative called for an ambitious transition away from fossil fuels, inspired by decades of urgent warnings about the irreversible dangers of global warming. In 2019, Swedish activist Greta Thunberg captured international attention at a United Nations climate conference, famously telling leaders, You have stolen my childhood.

In the United States, environmental organizations pressured politicians to limit fossil fuel use, even as new fracking techniques unlocked vast shale oil and gas reserves. In 2020, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez drew national attention by joining Green New Deal supporters in a protest inside House Speaker Nancy Pelosis office. President Joe Biden emphasized the urgency of climate change, describing it as an existential crisis that demanded attention beyond everyday issues like inflation and immigration.

However, the Green New Deal has struggled to gain widespread traction, hindered by economic and political realities. Many Americans outside elite circles recognize climate concerns but prioritize day-to-day economic and social issues. Last year, the electorate returned former President Donald Trump, a prominent climate skeptic, to office. Trump has called climate change the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the world, withdrew the U.S. from the Paris climate accords, and rolled back major clean energy initiatives, including incentives for wind, solar, and electric vehicles. Globally, the 30th U.N. climate summit in Brazil failed to produce a new agreement on phasing out fossil fuels, with many countries falling short of previous emission reduction commitments.

For progressives, the decline of momentum behind the Green New Deal is a sobering lesson. The movement, initially seen as a way to energize left-leaning constituencies amid rising right-wing populism, failed to win broad support among working-class Americans. While educated elites embraced the vision of a post-material politics, many ordinary citizens view aggressive anti-fossil fuel policies as a threat to jobs, affordability, and energy reliability.

The reliance on fossil fuels has powered 150 years of economic growth and technological advancement. The sudden replacement of coal, oil, and natural gas is impractical and could cause severe disruption. Recognizing this, Democrats can shift toward realistic energy strategies that balance climate goals with public concerns. Working-class Americans favor an all of the above energy approach rather than extreme positions advocating the immediate abandonment of oil and gas.

Natural gas remains a critical component of the energy grid, supporting the transition to renewable power while ensuring energy stability. It also serves as a strategic tool for U.S. foreign policy by reducing European dependence on Russian gas. A pragmatic climate strategy should include investment in carbon capture, advanced energy storage, green infrastructure, and emerging technologies such as geothermal, hydrogen, and next-generation nuclear power. These solutions are vital for supporting Americas technological ambitions, including data centers and AI leadership.

While Trumps narrow energy approach risks leaving the U.S. behind China in clean energy, a balanced strategy emphasizing innovation and energy abundance offers Democrats a practical and politically viable path forward. Unlike the idealistic Green New Deal, this approach aligns climate action with economic and social realities.

Author: Ava Mitchell