So there has been a lot of talk about a thing called a “Green New Deal” lately. What is it, what does it do, can it be done, should it be done?
The answers to these questions hinge on the intent of its creators, and that’s something addressed recently by The MIT Technology Review. Editor James Temple states the following:
The group’s letter cites the UN climate panel’s latest report in calling for rapid and aggressive action to prevent 1.5 ˚C of warming, but then it ignores the body’s finding on how that can be done. The report, released in October, says most models that keep the world below that threshold depend on significant increases in nuclear power, hydroelectric, and fossil-fuel plants that capture emissions. And all of the analyses now require removing vast amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere this century, using biomass and carbon capture technologies.
[...]
It was conspicuous to some that several of the largest environmental groups didn’t sign on to the letter, including the Environmental Defense Fund, the Natural Resources Defense Council, and the Sierra Club. The New Republic reported that at least a few were specifically concerned about the restrictive language.
The flexibility issue is a big one with these groups. They see the GND’s creators as touting the need for urgent action, yet at the same ruling off-limits the most powerful weapons in the war against carbon:
Representatives from other groups were also largely hesitant to explain on the record why they didn’t sign the letter. (Perhaps, like some Democrats, they’re afraid that Ocasio-Cortez might scold them on Twitter.) Speaking on background, though, some said the letter did not allow for enough flexibility on the details of a Green New Deal—such as one section promising that all signatories will “vigorously oppose” a deal that includes “market-based mechanisms and technology options such as carbon and emissions trading and offsets, carbon capture and storage, nuclear power, waste-to-energy and biomass energy.”
As described earlier, the GND based its calls for immediate action on the October 2018 United Nations climate change report, yet it rejects the very methods the UN’s climate change panel recommends.
Dominique Browning, the co-founder of Mom’s Clean Air Force, wasn’t shy about putting her criticisms on the record. She noted that the letter characterized market-based solutions to climate change—such as carbon taxes or cap-and-trade systems—as “corporate schemes that place profits over community burdens and benefits.” This can be true, Browning said, but “equity and environmental integrity factors could be built into those mechanisms.”
Senator Dianne Feinstein has a long and friendly record where environmental issues are concerned. It’s odd that, of all the people the Sunrise people could attack, they go after her and not someone like Mitch McConnell.
It’s also odd that, for all the hyper-urgency embedded in the GND and its supporters’ discussions thereof, its own creators admit that it’s not intended to pass right now:
Here, we hear a GND/Sunrise activists - one of the adults in the group that organized the children - shockingly admit the truth: the version of Green New Deal they want Feinstein and other members of Congress to sign on to is not actually a thing that is meant to pass. “I think the thing is that this particular resolution isn’t something that’s aimed at passing right now, obviously,” she says. She then goes on to say that the point of voting on their version of the GND is to “show the world what we really need.”
Wait a minute. If you watch the rest of the thread, you will see both adults and children peppering Feinstein with a sharp invective: climate change must be stopped within 11-12 years, or the children present would have to live with the devastating consequences! So what do they mean their resolution isn’t something that’s aimed at passing right now? Those of us who have stood by climate science believe we need immediate action on climate change from our government at all levels. And the activists visiting congressional offices supposedly to spur that action are telling us that they don’t even aim for the thing they are pushing so hard to actually pass? The activists who want us to believe they care so much about the future of the earth are not actually pushing for something to even pass?
This is ironic in light of the fact that Senator Feinstein has an actionable plan, which she shared with the Sunrise group:
Interestingly enough, Feinstein gave each attendee a copy of a climate bill she has introduced that she believes can pass the Senate and the House. Her bill is aimed at passing right now, and it has legal mandates to make the US a zero emission economy by 2050 and re-entering the US to the Paris Climate Accord, among other things. One should note that these mandates are very much in line with what Sunrise themselves touted as late as 2018. Take this excerpt from Sunrise’s endorsement of Kevin de Leon, Feinstein’s challenger in last year’s midterms, for example:
[de Leon] lists climate change and environmental justice as one of his top three reasons for running, and one of his top priorities if elected. As the President Pro Tempore of the California State Senate, Kevin authored bold climate bills like SB100, which commits California to get 100 percent of its electricity from clean sources by 2045.
Achieving zero emissions across all sectors by 2050 is quite consistent with, maybe even one step ahead of, getting 100% of power from clean sources by 2045, wouldn’t you say? That makes one wonder if Sunrise’s real problem with Feinstein is that she beat their candidate by nearly a million votes.