Last week on Capitol Hill: A freshman member of Congress with a draft climate resolution. A powerful congressional committee with the first hearing on climate change in six years. One received tons of press coverage and is already shaping the 2020 presidential campaign, the other was barely discussed.

Why are these two climate-related events, held one day apart and both led by Democrats, being talked about so differently, and what does it all mean for our policy future?

The answer just might lie somewhere in the middle.

Business as Usual (Well, Kind of)

One day before the release of the Green New Deal, on February 6, 2019, the powerful House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing titled “Time for Action:  Addressing the Environmental and Economic Effects of Climate Change.” It was the first hearing to address climate in six years.

Those testifying spoke on the urgent need to act and represented a range of backgrounds, from Democrats to Republicans, scientists to clergymen. Tellingly, Chairman Frank Pallone (D-NJ) said, “We are not going to waste any time debating the scientific facts. Instead, we must focus on solutions to the problem.”

You would think the government making a concerted shift back to action on climate would garner traditional media attention, but it didn’t. And in the age of Twitter, consider this casual observation: Retweets on the hearing reached into the tens. AOC’s Green New Deal? Retweets in the thousands.

A Media Spectacle

Before it was even released, news of a green new deal bubbled for weeks. Immediately following the announcement of Rep. Ocasio Cortez (D-NY) and Sen. Markey’s (D-MA) plan, the internet lit up with professional commentators’ opinions and the #GreenNewDeal. Beltway insiders labeled the rollout “botched,” but a week later, the hashtag is still finding its way into the tweets of Congressional supporters and opponents alike.

Some Democrats are calling it a jobs promoter and a defender of social justice while Republicans say it’s unrealistic and expensive, mocking leaked internal documents that made the plan look, frankly, a little ridiculous (flatulent cows?).

In truth, the Green New Deal covers a lot of ground without offering many concrete solutions. It clearly states what needs to change, but not really how – it’s aspirational. There are some important caveats to the Green New Deal, too.

First, it exists as what’s called a simple resolution. This means that even if voted on and passed by a chamber of Congress, it does not go to the president for his signature, nor does it have the force of law.

Second, there are only 67 co-sponsors of H.Res 109 in the House of Representatives. That might sound like a lot, but it isn’t when you consider it amounts to only about a quarter of the Democratic caucus. How’s the Senate version faring? Presidential hopefuls Gillibrand, Harris, Booker, and Klobuchar (as well as the very like candidate Sanders) have all signed on, and the Majority Leader is reportedly looking to force a vote on it soon.

Ok, so what?

But what does this reaction to the Green New Deal mean politically? It may become a Democratic litmus test and a Republican point of attack in 2020, politicizing climate change in a way that negates lawmakers’ responsibility to debate this impending disaster substantively and seriously.

At the Middle America Project, we believe that finding sensible solutions to alleviate the effects of climate change is absolutely essential. In the lead up to the hearing alone, committee staff members proposed a whole host of mitigation measures like cap-and-trade, carbon tax, fuel economy standards, alternative fuels and power sources, investment in public transit, grid modernization, green building design, and more. Surely, lawmakers can find some common ground within these proposals, any one of which could provide the first step towards real change.

Let’s keep the passion behind the Green New Deal, but channel it into encouraging lawmakers from both parties to put the facts first and come together on passable ideas. Let’s live up to the name of the Energy and Commerce Committee’s hearing: Time for Action.