Skip to content Skip to footer

The 2020 Democrats of the “Anti-Green New Deal Coalition”

Some 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls show less-than-full-throated support for the Green New Deal.

Rep. Tulsi Gabbard holds a news conference with female members of the House Armed Services Committee in the U.S. Capitol on Thursday, September 17, 2015.

Support for the ambitious Green New Deal proposal has uncovered widening rifts within the Democratic Party as presidential candidates begin fleshing out their 2020 platforms. To date, the Green New Deal (GND) resolution introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) has attracted more than 100 co-sponsors.

However, according to a recent report from Public Accountability Initiative (PAI), centrist Democrats and party leadership are part of what it calls an “anti-Green New Deal coalition” that could seriously impede the GND’s goal to transition the country to net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2030.

Here’s the breakdown of how the 2020 Democratic presidential hopefuls fall in their less-than-full-throated support for the GND.

To clarify, this so-called “anti-Green New Deal coalition” is not homogenous or coordinated. As report co-author Derek Seidman told The Intercept: “You have on the one end, a very powerful part of this coalition that wants to completely crush the Green New Deal, and that’s the fossil fuel industry and the Republican Party.”

And then you have what’s going on among Democrats.

The Democratic Field for 2020: Spinning Away Support for GND

The GND’s early popularity among voters, along with increasing public awareness around climate change, has made the climate issue an essential facet of any Democratic presidential platform in 2020, more so than any other election to date.

This has been huge,” said Corina McKendry, an associate professor of political science at Colorado College. “We’ve seen more Democratic candidates come out with strong climate commitments than we ever have before.”

Many Democratic candidates have voiced support for the GND. But there are still plenty who PAI says instead have joined the chorus of the anti-Green New Deal coalition, shaping their climate positions to appease its critics.

The “Hedging Their Bets” Democrats

Some candidates have leveraged the vagueness of the GND as a way to support the popular policy idea without committing to anything. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), a co-sponsor of the non-binding resolution, hedged her support in an interview with Fox News.

I see it as aspirational. I see it as a jump-start,” she said. “So I would vote ‘yes,’ but I would also — if it got down to the nitty-gritty of an actual legislation as opposed to, ‘oh, here are some goals we have,’ that would be different for me.”

When pressed if she would support specific policies, such as “drastically reducing air travel,” she replied, “I am for a jumpstart of the discussion, or framework … I am not for reducing air travel.” She made similar comments about net-zero emissions. “I don’t think that is going to happen in the next few years,” she said. A request for clarification on which GND framework policies she supports went unanswered.

Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, another Democratic candidate in the crowded field, has taken the opposite approach. In an interview with ABC’s “The View,” Gabbard said she has a strong track record as an environmentalist but doesn’t support the GND.

I think we need to take serious action to address climate change,” she said. “I have some concerns with the Green New Deal, and about some of the vagueness of the language in there, so I have not co-sponsored that resolution.”

Gabbard’s campaign website lists her accomplishments as an environmentalist but doesn’t outline how Gabbard plans to address climate change in her presidential platform. Requests to the campaign for comment were not returned.

The “I’m Still a Democrat” Crowd

Still others have voiced outright contempt for the GND and its effect on the Democratic Party.

John Hickenlooper, former governor of Colorado, a major U.S. oil and gas producer, last month said the GND shouldn’t become “a litmus test of what it takes to be a good Democrat.” He later admitted he hadn’t yet read the GND resolution, but said, “I’m going to guess that 99 percent of what’s in the Green New Deal I will be happy to embrace.” His bare-bones campaign website lists no plan or platform to address climate change.

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who recently dropped out of the race, made a similar argument. “I don’t need to co-sponsor every bill that others think they need to co-sponsor to show my progressive politics,” he said.

The “My Plan Is Better” Democrats

A handful of Democrats have deemed the proposal too unrealistic to support despite the shrinking window for avoiding catastrophic climate change. Mike Bloomberg, former New York City Mayor, criticized the GND in a statement announcing he would not run for president.

The idea of a Green New Deal — first suggested by the columnist Tom Friedman more than a decade ago — stands no chance of passage in the Senate over the next two years. But Mother Nature does not wait on our political calendar, and neither can we,” he wrote.

Former congressman John Delaney (D-MD), meanwhile, has been vocally critical of the GND. In a pair of tweets from February 14, Delaney called the GND “a step backwards in fighting climate change because its unrealistic goals and linkage to other unrelated policies will make it harder to do anything.”

The Green New Deal as it has been proposed is about as realistic as Trump saying that Mexico is going to pay for the wall,” he tweeted.

Delaney argued that his opposition to the GND revolves around the sweeping scope with which the resolution ties climate change policy to other big reforms. “I actually don’t think the Green New Deal is the way to go,” he said in an interview with The Hill. “The reason is that I want to do something about fixing climate change tomorrow. I don’t want to tie it to fixing health care.”

Delaney — who famously announced his bid for the presidency back in 2017 — stands out among Democratic candidates for already having a fully formed platform for addressing climate change, which would rely heavily on a carbon tax.

Ultimately, overcoming opposition to the GND, the PAI report says, will require strategies such as “finding ways to divide the coalition’s different parts and push some of its members, who are not all equal in their opposition, or who have bases that are more supportive, closer to the Green New Deal camp.”

Editor’s note: This article has been updated on March 14, 2019, to reflect the number of co-sponsors of the Green New Deal.

Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn

Dear Truthout Community,

If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.

We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.

Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.

There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.

After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?

It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.

We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.

We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.

Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.

We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.

With love, rage, and solidarity,

Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy