The Green New Deal (GND), a resolution sponsored by House Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Edward Markey, proposes a sweeping reform of the nation’s environmental and social policies. Its bold proposals, while popular among voters, have already soured the faces of congressional leaders. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has dismissed the proposed deal as “a dream, or whatever they call it,” while Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell plans to hold a vote on the GND to portray Democrats who support it as naïve and radical. Something these leaders have in common? At roughly 80 years of age, they will never live to see the worst effects of climate change devastate communities across the globe.
 
In the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) landmark report last year, the panel noted that failing to keep the world from warming 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperatures, as opposed to a more ambitious target of 1.5 degrees, will impose devastating consequences. The extra 0.5 degrees of warming could expose 10 million more people to risks associated with sea level rise, increase the number of people living under water stress by 50 percent, and put several hundred million more people at the simultaneous risk of poverty and climate change-related harm. Right now, the Climate Action Tracker projects that the world is nowhere close to preventing these devastating effects and is in fact on track to warm a catastrophic 3 degrees Celsius.
 
At the same time, the United States is grappling with economic inequality and widespread social injustice. It is no secret that wages for everyday Americans are stagnating, while the top 1 percent of earners continue to capture most of the nation’s wealth. No less troubling, racial and gender pay gaps show few signs of budging.
 
In the face of this troubling evidence that environmental, economic, and social well-being are on a rapid decline, the Green New Deal is a welcome call to action. By addressing both the climate and socio-economic crises in one plan, the resolution encourages us to consider the possibility of complete transformation rather than piecemeal reform. Leaders are reasonable to call its feasibility into question, but dismissing it out of hand is equally short-sighted.

​The Green New Deal proposes to mitigate climate change, as well promote economic and social equity, through the achievement of several projects by 2030. Some of the most eye-catching ideas include:

1. Reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions through transforming the energy, transportation, and agricultural sectors. This includes providing 100 percent of US energy through renewable sources and rapidly increasing the accessibility of electric vehicles, high-speed rail, and public transportation.
2. Upgrading all buildings in the US to be more water and energy efficient.-
   
3. A jobs guarantee program that ensures every family has a living wage.
4. Making education available to everyone.
5. Guaranteeing health care and affordable housing.

Commentators have been quick to point out that the GND’s policy ambitions require a great deal of government spending and may be infeasible to accomplish within the proposed ten-year timeframe.
 
A report recently published in Forbes attempts to clarify how much the proposal might actually cost. Among the deal’s environmental objectives, switching to renewable energy would cost around $200 billion per year, while taking steps to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere may cost about $110 billion annually.
 
The cost of some of the GND’s proposed economic reforms is even more formidable. Providing universal healthcare could cost around $1.4 trillion a year, and a jobs guarantee program could run annual costs of $543 billion. A universal basic income proposal was also included, which added trillions to the jobs guarantee.
 
A Bloomberg report estimates that the GND’s most significant policy proposals could cost $6.6 trillion dollars annually, roughly the same amount that the federal government spent last year.
 
In addition to its jaw-dropping price tag, the technical feasibility of the deal is also questionable. While the GND proposes meeting all US energy demand with renewables by 2030, experts are hoping to reach this goal by 2050. Additionally, the plan proposes a massive switch from traditional automobiles to electric vehicles, something the industry might not be prepared to do in just ten years. Others criticize that the deal does not include policies like the carbon tax, an externality tax on carbon emissions, nor does it address global emissions deals at a time when the USA only represents 14% of total emissions.
 
It is well worth noting, however, that some of the GND’s individual proposals seem quite reasonable on their own. The annual estimated cost of switching to renewable energy, for example, is less than half of federal defense spending in 2018.

​Despite its impracticability, the Green New Deal makes a valiant effort to focus national attention on a set of issues that are fundamental to the well-being of Americans. It calls upon the nation to rise above its internal divisions and provide to the next generation the simple yet profound guarantees of safety and equality.
 
We should approach the deal with this in mind and, rather than dismiss it, develop it further. Perhaps what we need is a plan that carries us through more than a single decade - one that proposes realistic, long-term actions we may take to achieve a more sustainable society. Or, rather than an avalanche of sweeping reforms, Congress may want to consider just a few of the GND’s signature proposals, all of which are likely to make a huge difference. First and foremost, we must tackle climate change, as its effects will be irreversible, destabilizing, and further devastate already vulnerable populations.
 
Whatever we do, we must not ignore the Green New Deal. While the plan itself verges on naïve, the problems it seeks to address are undeniably linked to the long-term vitality of our planet. It is a plea for change that we ignore at our own peril.

​The news industry has had a rough go of it in recent years. While some news outlets are able to sustain themselves on a healthy dose of subscriptions and advertising revenues, many digital newsrooms and local outlets have suffered. Quality reporting at the state and local levels is particularly vulnerable. News deserts, areas without any local newsrooms, are widespread throughout the country. If implemented, a Universal Basic Income (UBI), what is in essence a universal supplemental income program or “Social Security for All,” may be the policy to help revive local reporting.

Proponents of UBI often remark that such a policy would help to establish a baseline of economic security in a world of underemployment, the gig/service economy, and wage stagnation. If this argument proves true, a UBI may also serve to allow local journalists and newsrooms to sustain themselves despite economic uncertainty, transforming news deserts into fertile ground for local reporting.

To clarify, I am not referring to a UBI or a wage subsidy specifically for journalists or a scheme like the UK’s BBC. Such a system might lead to punitive actions being taken against journalists for reporting that government officials do not like. I am speaking more broadly about how a UBI may affect journalists.

It is worth noting that UBI gives many people hesitation. UBI is not well-studied, but efforts are underway to better understand its potential impacts. Preliminary work out of the University of Pennsylvania’s School of Social Policy & Practice shows promising results.

​This is not to say that a UBI is the only answer to the financial problems the press faces. Outlets across the country are experimenting with a number of different models. For example, Civil has launched a journalism network built on blockchain technology and Civil’s proprietary cryptocurrency, CVL tokens. As interesting an idea as this is, I find it hard to believe that this model will be sustainable given that the public’s understanding of blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies is limited. In Academical’s interview with the Virginia Mercury’s Editor-in-Chief Robert Zullo, we discussed how their outlet operates without revenue, at least for the time being, by relying on investor dollars.

​In speaking about the financial conditions of the press, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist James Risen said,

​It is possible that a UBI will provide individual reporters and journalistic institutions the necessary strength to thrive.

The nearly 2,000 year old philosophical question “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?” loosely translates to, “Who watches the watchmen?” Underpinning the question are the matters of power and oversight. The United States Constitution tackles this question in two ways.

First, the government is structured such that we have a separation of powers between the Legislative, Executive, and Judicial branches of government. In theory, this system allows for each of the respective branches to provide checks and balances on the other two, i.e., oversight.

Second, the first amendment establishes that the government make no law abridging the freedom of the press. It is incumbent upon the press to report on news, facts, policy and politics, and, most important of all, to provide additional government oversight. Journalists police the police, oversee the overseers, and hold power to account. The press is called the fourth branch of government for good reason; it serves a role that, in many cases, the government cannot and should not reasonably be expected to serve itself.

​Voice of America aside, this country does not have a state-run media operation and I see no reason to believe that one will soon be established on the domestic front. As terrifying as that sort of propaganda machine would be, equally terrifying is the loss of local press outlets across the country. As news deserts become more prevalent, necessary journalism is suffocated out of existence and oversight dwindles. A UBI may provide much needed oxygen.

The views expressed above are solely the author's and are not endorsed by the Virginia Policy Review, The Frank Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy, or the University of Virginia. Although this organization has members who are University of Virginia students and may have University employees associated or engaged in its activities and affairs, the organization is not a part of or an agency of the University. It is a separate and independent organization which is responsible for and manages its own activities and affairs. The University does not direct, supervise or control the organization and is not responsible for the organization’s contracts, acts, or omissions.

Nicolás Maduro is an illegitimate president. He retained office through a sham election and has abused his powers in the process of creating a humanitarian crisis in Venezuela. Leaders across the political spectrum in the United States and beyond have recognized Juan Guaidó as the true president of the nation in chaos.
 
One of the leaders recognizing Guaidó is President Donald Trump. President Trump and his administration have been consistent and forceful on the situation in Venezuela. Even before European countries sided with Guaidó, Vice President Pence delivered a message of support to the Venezuelan people, promising that the United States would stand with them “until Democracy is restored” and their “birthright of Libertad” is reclaimed. The Administration has taken a stand on the right side of history, choosing the oppressed over the autocrat, precious freedom over brutal tyranny.
 
For an administration that has been resoundingly criticized for a number of foreign policy missteps, Venezuela seems like an exception. The Trump Administration’s course of action has been the correct one. So, how worthy are they of our praise? The answer is complicated, but the reality is clear: if you are only concerned about human rights when it is politically expedient, then you aren’t actually concerned about human rights.

​Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is responsible for the dismembering of a journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, and a war in Yemen that has killed so many innocent people that the United Nations can no longer keep an accurate count. However, President Trump has defended the Crown Prince at every turn.
 
Vladimir Putin has his political opponents imprisoned and killed, denies basic rights to minorities, and props up the Assad regime in Syria that gassed its own people. However, President Trump heaps praise on Putin and sides with him over the U.S. intelligence community.
 
In North Korea, Kim Jong Un tortures, murders, and starves his own people, yet President Trump has said he and Kim “fell in love.”
 
In short, President Trump does not care about human rights. His narrow focus on putting “America First” is a misguided mentality that reflects a misunderstanding about foreign policy. In his final book, The Restless Wave, John McCain wrote:

​The universal application of a human rights framework to world affairs is not only morally just, it also advances the cause of American security. There is no American interest more sacred than defending our founding idea, that all Men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights. President Trump has done that in Venezuela. Now, the administration must stand up for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in Saudi Arabia, Russia, North Korea, and everywhere else that freedom is threatened, now and always.