"Eight Months After Taking Back The House, They've Instead Spent Months Reviving Old Committees"
EDIT
It’s a troubling delay, considering how quickly scientists say action is necessary. To prevent the world from warming more than 1.5 degrees Celsius—the point at which catastrophic, irreversible damages begin—global carbon emissions need to be halved by 2030, and reach net zero by 2050. In other words, Democrats are proposing to wait until the last possible moment to achieve net-zero emissions. So while the Democrats new initiative is technically in line with what the science says needs to be done to avoid the worst impacts of global warming, it is hardly a bold initiative that could lead the world to rapidly decarbonize. Instead, it’s like waiting until 8:59 p.m. to get your car out of a parking garage that closes at 9 p.m.—technically feasible, but only possible if all the other cars in front of you have left the garage, too.
That’s why the Green New Deal proposes net-zero carbon emissions by 2030: to give other countries time to use the United States as a model. And the United States has a responsibility to be that model, because the United States has emitted more greenhouse gases than any other country in the world, and has reaped substantial economic benefits from those emissions.
The Green New Deal may have a more scientifically and morally appropriate goal than the “100 by ’50” initiative. But at this point, neither are actual plans that provide any kind of functional roadmap for climate action. Indeed, eight months after taking back the House and nearly three years into the Trump presidency, Democrats across the ideological spectrum have failed to introduce comprehensive legislation to tackle the climate crisis. They’ve instead spent months reviving old committees, and producing what Tonko called “a framework of principles” to guide any future climate plan.
While process is important—particularly for a crisis as sweeping as climate change—the Democrats’ lack of concrete, comprehensive solutions stands in sharp contrast with their professed understanding of the immediacy of the threat. Releasing a plan to make a plan is fine; releasing an actual plan would be better, and Democrats have had both the time and support from their base to make that happen.
EDIT
https://newrepublic.com/article/154532/democrats-new-climate-plan-100-by-50-is-unserious
