By Christine Sheller
On February 28, 2019, Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) and Rep.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) introduced the Green New Deal resolution. It contains goals, aspirations, and specifics
of their idea, environmentally and economically in a more specific way than
previously. It is close to an “official”
Green New Deal.
David Roberts, writing for Vox.com, writes that it is a “high-wire
act”- it aims to please a diverse range of interest groups, (for example,
environmental justice, labor, and climate).
Hopefully it can lead to official legislation.
The resolution consists of a preamble, five goals, 14
projects, and 15 requirements. The
preamble states two crises: a climate
crisis and an economic crisis (namely wage stagnation and growing inequality),
and that the GND (Green New Deal) can address both.
The goals include achieving net-zero greenhouse gas
emissions, creating jobs, providing for a just transition, and securing clean
air and water. The projects include decarbonizing
electricity, transportations, and industry; and restoring ecosystems, upgrading
buildings, and electricity grids.
The Green New Deal resolution features 2 large
priorities. In the mainstream culture,
technology and markets have taken main stage.
Like Roberts states, there is nothing inherently wrong with those
things, except that they should be “servants” not “masters.”
Priorities in the GND include justice and “paying for it,” according
to Roberts. First of all, ordinary
people matter. Everything is secondary
to people. There is the fact that
climate change hits the “frontline and vulnerable communities” hardest, and
they have contributed least to the problem.
A problem with this is that they do not have the means to fund campaigns
and hire lobbyists. This is why
progressives must stand for the voices of those without power. This includes future generations.
Three out of five of the resolution’s goals are focused on
justice. For example, “promote justice
and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic
oppression to frontline and vulnerable communities.” (Roberts, David. “here’s now an official Green New Deal. Here’s what’s in it: a close look at the fights it picks and the
fights it avoids,”, VOX, Feb. 7, 2019)
Now, out of the 12 GND projects, the first three are focused
on community-level resilience and development.
Approximately two thirds of the GND requirements, direct political power
and public investment down to the state, local, and worker level. This safeguards environmental and labor
standards and prioritizes family-wage jobs.
Second, there is the investment issue. The GND goes directly to public investment,
and it is aimed at creating jobs. Much like
the New Deal era, as they say in the preamble, “the Federal Government-led
mobilizations during WWII and the New Deal era created the greatest middle
class that the US has ever seen.”
Creating jobs is the second of the five goals; investment in US
infrastructure and industry is third.
The first GND requirement is “providing and leveraging, in a
way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and
returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants,
public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting
policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal,
State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New
Deal mobilization.”
Another requirement is that there would be funding for
education and job training for frontline communities in transition, investing
in research and development, and investing in community ownership and
resilience.
“Public investment with the returns going back to the
public- it’s not a GND without that.”
(Roberts. VOX.)
A few things are avoided.
One is “paying for it.” Politicians
and activists have different ideas. GND wants
to leave that for later.
Second, GND doesn’t address “clean vs. renewable energy.” Many climate change activists/supporters prefer
a future in which all electricity is provided by renewable energy. But there are others who disagree that that
is realistic or economical in a 10-yr. time frame. They believe that renewables will need to be
supplemented with nuclear power or fossil fuels with carbon capture and sequestration
(CCS). However, there are environmental
groups on the left that push for the GND to explicitly prohibit them. So the writers of the GND left that out, probably
wanting to avoid a fight. They state
that the GND calls for the US to “meet 100 percent of our power demand through
clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”
Third, the GND does not take a position on carbon pricing. There are some who think it is not the smartest
political priority, and that “other policy instruments with more proven records
are equally important.” (Roberts, VOX)
Again Roberts takes the position that it was a good decision to not take
a position on this in the GND.
Fourth, the supply-side policy was not mentioned either,
which calls on government to directly restrict the supply and distribution of
fossil fuel- at the mine, well, or import terminal.
Roberts, asserts that the four omissions- postponed fights-
signal a movement that is able to build the broadest possible left coalition.
Last, Roberts presents a few policies that were left out of
the GND, which he thinks should have been addressed.
They are: density and
space and electrification. Only a small paragraph
was devoted to this in the GND. Density
and space addresses the big climate challenge: cars. “It reduces urban air pollution, urban noise,
and the urban heat island effect, while increasing physical activity and social
contact, all of which improves the physical and psychological health of urban
communities.” (Roberts, VOX) It also addresses
the housing crises in growing cities that price a range of different people out
of the “walkable urban cores,” including poor people, students, and longtime
residents.
Second of the policies left out: electrification. Roberts points out that the US vehicle fleet
needs to be electrified as fast as practicably possible. Also, millions of buildings in the US use
natural gas for heat, and need to find a zero-carbon alternative, quickly. This is a big job, and will create a lot of
work. The GND resolution did call for
upgrading of all existing U.S. buildings and build new buildings, to achieve
maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort,
and durability. It does note “electrification” specifically as well.
Roberts says that he thinks that “most of the resolution
consists of goals and policies that anyone who takes climate change seriously
will find necessary.” (Roberts; VOX)
There are several specific things which are very strong,
including guaranteeing family-sustaining wage, strengthening and protecting
rights of workers, enacting and enforcing trade rules which stop transfer of
jobs overseas, eradication of monopolies, and affordable healthcare for all. That is a summary of what Roberts listed.
Like stated before, this resolution is not legislation. It is serious, however, and it is
important. It rallies the progressive
movement. Two years are what the
resolution asks for, for time to bring legislation. There will be a lot of bargaining ahead,
Roberts says. Also, progressive movement
has brought to the mainstream US politics a program “to address climate change
that is wildly more ambitious than anything the Democratic Party was talking
about even two years ago.”
I think it is appropriate to end with a quote. Ocasio-Cortez said at a press conference February
7, “We are going to transition this country into the future and we are not
going to be dragged behind by our past.” (Roberts, VOX)
Source: Roberts,
David. “here’s now an official Green New Deal.
Here’s what’s in it: A close look
at the fights it picks and the fights it avoids.” VOX.
Feb. 7, 2019. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2019/2/7/18211709/green-new-deal-resolution-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-markey
No comments:
Post a Comment