The Green New Deal cites the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC in the first paragraph establishing the issues and effects of the current, and likely future, of global warming. Inside the Green New Deal, there is no mention of methane's contribution to global warming at all. However, inside the Special Report, there are several locations where methane is mentioned as a significant factor in global warming.

  1. In section C.1.2. on page 12 in the full hard copy pdf, it mentions that the modeled pathways that limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C involve deep reductions in emissions of methane (35% or more by 2050 relative to 2010.

  2. In section TS.2 on page 33, the change of methane emissions strongly influences the changes of limiting warming to 1.5 degrees celsius, and reducing methane can offset the weakening of aerosol cooling.

  3. In section TS.4 on page 42, reducing short-lived climate forcers like methane can in the short term contribute significantly to limiting warming to 1.5 degrees celsius above pre-industrial levels. These reductions would also have substantial co-benefits like improved health due to less air pollution.

There are 122 mentions of methane throughout the report and its importance as a short term reducer of warmpth. The report, on page 147 also mentions that improved agricultural management is a viable solution to methane reduction. All of these references to methane mean that the scientists who studied global warming were convinced that it was a real issue amidst global warming.

In addition to agriculture, the United States in particular has another likely methane producting issue. This issue is fracking. Fracking has had a strong correlation to the increase of methane in the United States. However, fracking is not mentioned once in the Green New Deal. All of these data points has lead me to ask...


Given the effect of methane cited in the Special Report, and strong correlation of fracking toward the increase in methane, why doesn't the Green New Deal mention fracking or methane at all?


Because the “Green New Deal” is not a comprehensive energy policy, but a resolution to state the intent to create a policy (or policies) sometime in the future

The explanation is right in the first sentence of the resolution you linked (emphasis added):

Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.

The thing you called “the Green New Deal” isn’t actually the Green New Deal, it’s a statement that the government should create a Green New Deal sometime in the future, along with a very broad description of what that should look like.

Vulgar details like whether or not fracking creates methane and how bad that is are all sort of covered under that whole bit about “eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible”. There’s no need to explicitly call out methane, or really any specific greenhouse gas or human activity, as requiring special attention. Doing it would kind of implicitly limit the scope on what is supposed to be a “10 year national mobilization”, e.g. something that should solve every problem.

| improve this answer | |

Because the Green New Deal isn't about Climate Change. It's about destroying capitalism. What the authors want it replaced with is not entirely clear. However, given Orcasio-Cortez preference for socialism, that's a logical guess.

The Washington Post quoted the Green New Deal author, Orcasio-Cortez chief of staff:

“The interesting thing about the Green New Deal,” he said, “is it wasn’t originally a climate thing at all.” Ricketts greeted this startling notion with an attentive poker face. “Do you guys think of it as a climate thing?” Chakrabarti continued. “Because we really think of it as a how-do-you-change-the-entire-economy thing.”

It's not a surprise that such a report is lacking in science. That the GND contained many provisos calling for wealth redistribution back the assertion this is a pro-socialism bill, not one primarily concerned with stopping global warming.

Dem. Rep. Max Rose (NY) referred to Ocasio-Cortez's plan as "a massive socialist economic policy platform." This provides needed context.

| improve this answer | |
  • 1
    It does include science. The whole resolution is premised on the Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5C which is over 600 pages in full length. I was just curious about an omission of a detail. – isakbob Aug 21 '19 at 19:23
  • 4
    Why is the length of that report relevant? – Robert Harvey Aug 21 '19 at 19:56
  • 1
    @Robert Harvey I take back my statement about length specifically. However, the Special Report is very robust in its methods according to the Union of Concerned Scientists as stated in this answer. – isakbob Aug 21 '19 at 21:14
  • 1
    @isakbob I just provided a very, very concrete example from the author of the GND that states unequivocally that the basis of it was economic change, not climate. I would take him at his word. – K Dog Aug 23 '19 at 14:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .