Yeah, I mean that deal – the Green New Deal, put forth today by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (aka AOC), the newly elected Democrat from New York, and Ed Markey, Democratic
Senator from Massachusettes. And yes, it was the big news of the day. There’s plenty of coverage about it, and lots of stories and opinions flying around about origins, support, and whether it has a chance to actually change anything in relation to climate change. All of that is worth discussion, and will inevitably play out in the theater of the absurb we know as politics and media in our time. However, my main personal interest was in wanting to read the actual text and discern what it means, or could mean, for landscape architecture, planning and design.
The first part focuses on the well-known impacts, referencing specifically the IPCC Special Report and the NCA4, focusing on human-caused changes to climate and impacts like “wildfires, severe storms, droughts and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure.” (p.1) The refrain also echoed in recent reports to keep warming below key thresholds like 2 degrees Celsius are accented by more impacts, both financial, like $500 billion in “lost annual economic output” by 2100, or more that 350 million people “exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050, along with a $1 Trillion risk to “public infrastructure and coastal real estate” in the US. (p.2)
The acknowledgement of the US responsibility for significant amounts of global greenhouse gas emissions is also juxtaposed with ‘related crises’ in our nation, including declining life expectancy, wage stagnation, and massive income inequality. The GND related social issues and climate change acutely, stating that:
“…climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices… by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth… ‘frontline and vulnerable communities’.” (p.3-4)
It also mentions the real and present danger that climate change brings to our national security, but “impacting economic, environmental, and social stability of countries and communities around the world”, which was recently also mentioned in the “Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community“, and echoed in the bill.
The Green New Deal uses this foundation of real and present national crises to connect back to WWII and the original New Deal, which led to mobilization of resources resulting in an opportunity for many, but also still excluded those same people in the frontline and vulnerable communities from equal benefit. In the same vein, the present situation offers an opportunity for job creation, prosperity, and also, perhaps most important, to “counter systemic injustices.“
The main parts of plan strive to achieve 5 key “Green New Deal goals”, summarized as:
- Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions
- Creation of good, high-wage jobs
- Investment in sustainable infrastructure
- Protect and provide a healthy environment including:
- clean air and water
- climate and community resiliency
- health food
- access to nature
- sustainable environment
- Promotion of justice and equity
The proposed 10 year mobilization goes on to outline a number of projects and specifics to meet the above goals. This includes strategies to increase the overall resilience in the face of climate-related disasters, and protecting and rebuilding infrastructure systems while reducing greenhouse gas emissions and restoring environmental health. This reduced GHGs come with massive implementation of renewable energy sources, along with systems like smart grids. Section (2)(F) connects directly to the built-environment perspective, focusing on the need for:
“upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability…” (p.7)
Additional improvements focus on clean manufacturing, sustainable farming, and overlapping with sustainable urbanism principles, implementing key improvements to transportation systems through use of zero-emission vehicles, transit, rail, all of which could heal the environment and mobilize resources to employ and raise up tens of thousands of people in America.
For some landscape specifics, the greenhouse gas reductions can take ‘low-tech’ approaches, like “soil carbon storage” and nature-based techniques like “land preservation and afforestation”. The connections between landscape architecture and research is evident as well in section (2)(K), which proposes strategies like:
“restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragil ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency.” (p.9)
Further projects also include “cleaning up hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites.” (p.9) Moving beyond isolation and protectionism, the ability to develop techniques through the investment of research and development allows the US to be leaders, and in a spirit out global cooperation, “help other countries achieve a Green New Deal.” (p.10)
The final section focuses on implementation, with discussion around transparency and inclusivity of the process, workers rights, along with adequate investments to make the above goals and actions possible. Beyond financing itself, looking a triple-bottom-line approaches that weight social and environmental costs is key. While empowering those ‘frontline and vulnerable’ communities with “resources, training, and high-quality education… so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization.” (p.11)
As others have mentioned, not of this is new, with parts of this proposed elsewhere in different forms. The key also is that not a whole lot of this is radical, but rather it comes at a time where divisiveness amplifies difference, and even common sense seems audacious. Yet, it also comes at a time of our greatest need, some would argue, all of what is contained in the Green New Deal may be necessary for our future survival. I mean this not just for climate, which may be the existential crisis of our time, but also for the ability to reinvest in people and meaningful work, and to begin to tear down walls of inequity and disparity between rich and poor. If we can imbue work with meaning and a spirit of shared purpose, we may, actually, be able to accomplish stemming the tide of climate-induced disaster. And we may even be better for the struggle.
It also connects with a vision of a physically green and vibrant regenerative environment and culture that aligns directly with the goals and objectives of landscape architecture. We often question our ability to assert ourselves into the necessary spaces to expand our profession in visibility and relevance. We stay silent and apolitical in wishing not to offend a future client or to maintain our role as neutral mediator. But the ability to emerge as leaders in this new paradigm is paramount.
Plus, the ability for us to be agents of the real, tangible “green” in the New Green Deal… that is kind of a big deal.