Saturday, February 23, 2019

Green New Deal



                                                Comments due  March 9, 2019

I imagine that each of you has heard of and maybe has formed ideas about the Green New Deal. The following is the text as it was released by AOC. Since this post is a bit long and since we have an exam on March 1, 2019 I decided to treat this post as two separate assignments. That is why the due date is two weeks from now and not the customary one week. I expect to read about your views: do you think the plan is viable, do you think that we can afford it, do you think that it will make a meaningful difference if implemented. Speak your mind but as always what you say must be guided by facts.


If you prefer to read the slightly longer full text instead of the resolution then go to: http://filesforprogress.org/pdfs/Green_New_Deal.pdf

· We will begin work immediately on Green New Deal bills to put the nuts and bolts on the plan described in this resolution (important to say so someone else can’t claim this mantle).
 · This is a massive transformation of our society with clear goals and a timeline.
o The Green New Deal resolution a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and create economic prosperity for all. It will: § Move America to 100% clean and renewable energy § Create millions of family supporting-wage, union jobs § Ensure a just transition for all communities and workers to ensure economic security for people and communities that have historically relied on fossil fuel industries § Ensure justice and equity for frontline communities by prioritizing investment, training, climate and community resiliency, economic and environmental benefits in these communities. § Build on FDR’s second bill of rights by guaranteeing: · A job with a family-sustaining wage, family and medical leave, vacations, and retirement security · High-quality education, including higher education and trade schools · Clean air and water and access to nature · Healthy food · High-quality health care · Safe, affordable, adequate housing · Economic environment free of monopolies · Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work · There is no time to waste.
 o IPCC Report said global emissions must be cut by by 40-60% by 2030. US is 20% of total emissions. We must get to 0 by 2030 and lead the world in a global Green New Deal. · Americans love a challenge. This is our moonshot.
o When JFK said we’d go to the moon by the end of the decade, people said impossible.
o If Eisenhower wanted to build the interstate highway system today, people would ask how we’d pay for it.
o When FDR called on America to build 185,000 planes to fight World War 2, every business leader, CEO, and general laughed at him. At the time, the U.S. had produced 3,000 planes in the last year. By the end of the war, we produced 300,000 planes. That’s what we are capable of if we have real leadership · This is massive investment in our economy and society, not expenditure.
o We invested 40-50% of GDP into our economy during World War 2 and created the greatest middle class the US has seen. o The interstate highway system has returned more than $6 in economic productivity for every $1 it cost o This is massively expanding existing and building new industries at a rapid pace – growing our economy · The Green New Deal has momentum.
o 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Green New Deal o Nearly every major Democratic Presidential contender say they back the Green New deal including: Elizabeth Warren, Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, Jeff Merkeley, Julian Castro, Kirsten Gillibrand, Bernie Sanders, Tulsi Gabbard, and Jay Inslee. o 45 House Reps and 330+ groups backed the original resolution for a select committee o Over 300 local and state politicians have called for a federal Green New Deal o New Resolution has 20 co-sponsors, about 30 groups
 Why 100% clean and renewable and not just 100% renewable? Are you saying we won’t transition off fossil fuels? Yes, we are calling for a full transition off fossil fuels and zero greenhouse gases. Anyone who has read the resolution sees that we spell this out through a plan that calls for eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from every sector of the economy. Simply banning fossil fuels immediately won’t build the new economy to replace it – this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. We do this through a huge mobilization to create the renewable energy economy as fast as possible. We set a goal to get to net-zero, rather than zero emissions, in 10 years because we aren’t sure that we’ll be able to fully get rid of farting cows and airplanes that fast, but we think we can ramp up renewable manufacturing and power production, retrofit every building in America, build the smart grid, overhaul transportation and agriculture, plant lots of trees and restore our ecosystem to get to net-zero. Is nuclear a part of this? A Green New Deal is a massive investment in renewable energy production and would not include creating new nuclear plants. It’s unclear if we will be able to decommission every nuclear plant within 10 years, but the plan is to transition off of nuclear and all fossil fuels as soon as possible. No one has put the full 10-year plan together yet, and if it is possible to get to fully 100% renewable in 10 years, we will do that. Does this include a carbon tax? The Green New Deal is a massive investment in the production of renewable energy industries and infrastructure. We cannot simply tax gas and expect workers to figure out another way to get to work unless we’ve first created a better, more affordable option. So we’re not ruling a carbon tax out, but a carbon tax would be a tiny part of a Green New Deal in the face of the gigantic expansion of our productive economy and would have to be preceded by first creating the solutions necessary so that workers and working class communities are not affected. While a carbon tax may be a part of the Green New Deal, it misses the point and would be off the table unless we create the clean, affordable options first. Does this include cap and trade? The Green New Deal is about creating the renewable energy economy through a massive investment in our society and economy. Cap and trade assumes the existing market will solve this problem for us, and that’s simply not true. While cap and trade may be a tiny part of the larger Green New Deal plan to mobilize our economy, any cap and trade legislation will pale in comparison to the size of the mobilization and must recognize that existing legislation can incentivize companies to create toxic hotspots in frontline communities, so anything here must ensure that frontline communities are prioritized. Does a GND ban all new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear power plants? The Green New Deal makes new fossil fuel infrastructure or nuclear plants unnecessary. This is a massive mobilization of all our resources into renewable energies. It would simply not make sense to build new fossil fuel infrastructure because we will be creating a plan to reorient our entire economy to work off renewable energy. Simply banning fossil fuels and nuclear plants immediately won’t build the new economy to replace it – this is the plan to build that new economy and spells out how to do it technically. Are you for CCUS? We believe the right way to capture carbon is to plant trees and restore our natural ecosystems. CCUS technology to date has not proven effective. How will you pay for it? The same way we paid for the New Deal, the 2008 bank bailout and extended quantitative easing programs. The same way we paid for World War II and all our current wars. The Federal Reserve can extend credit to power these projects and investments and new public banks can be created to extend credit. There is also space for the government to take an equity stake in projects to get a return on investment. At the end of the day, this is an investment in our economy that should grow our wealth as a nation, so the question isn’t how will we pay for it, but what will we do with our new shared prosperity. Why do we need a sweeping Green New Deal investment program? Why can’t we just rely on regulations and taxes and the private sector to invest alone such as a carbon tax or a ban on fossil fuels? · The level of investment required is massive. Even if every billionaire and company came together and were willing to pour all the resources at their disposal into this investment, the aggregate value of the investments they could make would not be sufficient.
· The speed of investment required will be massive. Even if all the billionaires and companies could make the investments required, they would not be able to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time required to jump-start major new projects and major new economic sectors. Also, private companies are wary of making massive investments in unproven research and technologies; the government, however, has the time horizon to be able to patiently make investments in new tech and R&D, without necessarily having a commercial outcome or application in mind at the time the investment is made. Major examples of government investments in “new” tech that subsequently spurred a boom in the private section include DARPA projects, the creation of the internet - and, perhaps most recently, the government’s investment in Tesla.
 · Simply put, we don’t need to just stop doing some things we are doing (like using fossil fuels for energy needs); we also need to start doing new things (like overhauling whole industries or retrofitting all buildings to be energy efficient). Starting to do new things requires some upfront investment. In the same way that a company that is trying to change how it does business may need to make big upfront capital investments today in order to reap future benefits (for e.g., building a new factory to increase production or buying new hardware and software to totally modernize its IT system), a country that is trying to change how its economy works will need to make big investments today to jump-start and develop new projects and sectors to power the new economy.
 · Merely incentivizing the private sector doesn’t work - e.g. the tax incentives and subsidies given to wind and solar projects have been a valuable spur to growth in the US renewables industry but, even with such investment promotion subsidies, the present level of such projects is simply inadequate to transition to a fully greenhouse gas neutral economy as quickly as needed. · Once again, we’re not saying that there isn’t a role for private sector investments; we’re just saying that the level of investment required will need every actor to pitch in and that the government is best placed to be the prime driver.
Resolution Summary
 · Created in consultation with multiple groups from environmental community, environmental justice community, and labor community
· 5 goals in 10 years:
                                      o Net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers
                                      o Create millions of high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all
                                      o Invest in infrastructure and industry to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century
                                      o Clean air and water, climate and community resiliency, healthy food, access to nature, and a sustainable environment for all
                                      o Promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of frontline and vulnerable communities
· National mobilization our economy through 14 infrastructure and industrial projects. Every project strives to remove greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from every sector of our economy:
           1   Build infrastructure to create resiliency against climate change-related disasters
          2    Repair and upgrade U.S. infrastructure. ASCE estimates this is $4.6 trillion at minimum.
          3   Meet 100% of power demand through clean and renewable energy sources
          4   Build energy-efficient, distributed smart grids and ensure affordable access to electricity
          5   Upgrade or replace every building in US for state-of-the-art energy efficiency
          6   Massively expand clean manufacturing (like solar panel factories, wind turbine factories, battery and storage manufacturing, energy efficient manufacturing components) and remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing
           7   Work with farmers and ranchers to create a sustainable, pollution and greenhouse gas free, food system that ensures universal access to healthy food and expands independent family farming
          8   Totally overhaul transportation by massively expanding electric vehicle manufacturing, build charging stations everywhere, build out high speed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary, create affordable public transit available to all, with goal to replace every combustion-engine vehicle
           9   Mitigate long-term health effects of climate change and pollution
         10  Remove greenhouse gases from our atmosphere and pollution through afforestation, preservation, and other methods of restoring our natural ecosystems
          11  Restore all our damaged and threatened ecosystems
          12  Clean up all the existing hazardous waste sites and abandoned sites
          13  Identify new emission sources and create solutions to eliminate those emissions
          14  Make the US the leader in addressing climate change and share our technology, expertise and products with the rest of the world to bring about a global Green New Deal
· Social and economic justice and security through 15 requirements:
o Massive federal investments and assistance to organizations and businesses participating in the green new deal and ensuring the public gets a return on that investment
o Ensure the environmental and social costs of emissions are taken into account
o Provide job training and education to all
o Invest in R&D of new clean and renewable energy technologies
 o Doing direct investments in frontline and deindustrialized communities that would otherwise be hurt by the transition to prioritize economic benefits there
o Use democratic and participatory processes led by frontline and vulnerable communities to implement GND projects locally
o Ensure that all GND jobs are union jobs that pay prevailing wages and hire local
o Guarantee a job with family-sustaining wages
o Protect right of all workers to unionize and organize
o Strengthen and enforce labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards
o Enact and enforce trade rules to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas and grow domestic manufacturing
o Ensure public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and eminent domain is not abused
o Obtain free, prior, and informed consent of Indigenous peoples
o Ensure an economic environment free of monopolies and unfair competition
o Provide high-quality health care, housing, economic security, and clean air, clean water, healthy food, and nature to all

10 comments:

  1. I had never heard of the Green New Deal so this blog post was very informative! I think that planning is the key to a lot of this plan and it seems to be thought through and very progressive. The goal of achieving 100% clean and renewable energy is no small feat. It would be a massive overhaul but I think the United States has the willpower and the labor force to pull it off. Although not initially affordable, it could be the start to us paying off our national debt because innovation often brings in money to the country. This plan would mean the difference in our quality of life, creating a sustainable plan for us to keep our world alive.

    ReplyDelete
  2. In theory, this proposal seems great. Transitioning from fossil fuels to a clean and renewable source is obviously America's next step in climate control. The details of replacing every grid and building in America, however, seems rather ambitious especially with the timeline given. Yes, replacing every grid and updating every building in America would create a large quantity of jobs, however, I'm weary that there would be a shortage of labor to get all of this completed. In addition to fixing the grids, contractors would also be needed to construct new power plants and fix infrastructure. For the decade that this massive project would go underway, there won't be enough workers to complete these tasks as well as expand business, build new businesses, and any other private contracting jobs. This shortage in supply of labor will cause a shift from white collar workers to blue collar workers to fulfill the demand. We may also expect to see immigration begin to rise as more labor enters the country to also fulfill this high demand. By utilizing an influx of immigrants to fulfill these jobs, white collar Americans would be able to stay in their labor market and contribute to economic growth in their respective field. That is, of course, if Trump doesn't ban immigrants from coming. This whole process would lead America to become a labor intensive country. With immigrants, those who are in capital intensive jobs wouldn't need to transfer over, however, without immigrants the country may have to outsource capital intensive markets at least for the ten years of the project.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While the New Green Deal is extremely promising and hopeful, I’m not sure if it is realistic, and may potentially create unseen problems. However, this being said, I think that the Deal is a great step towards sustainability and environmental protection. I think it might stir the pot even if it doesn’t fully succeed in meeting all it’s goals. What is super exciting about the deal is that it seems to represent a true paradigm shift in economic thinking. The Deal is implying that the economy needs to work a complete different way. It needs to exist without the use of any fossil fuels that emit greenhouse gasses. In other words, the New Green Deal is trying to completely eliminate greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere. The plan to build a new “renewable energy” economy as fast as possible that will replace the current US economy is extremely inspired, and exactly what needs to happen. However, as the article states, it is almost impossible to make that shift immediately, and it would most likely take a costly 10 years to achieve that new kind of economy. The article also states that while the Deal will change destructive behavior, it will also institute new economic behavior that will positively impact both the economy and the environment. Again, this Deal is helping promote ideas of environmental stewardship, and shifting the economic way of thinking to include the environment. This is all well and good, but again, in practice, this kind of vast change will require an extreme amount of time, energy, and money. I really hope I am wrong but if history is any indicator, it doesn’t seem like this deal will actually be able to effectively achieve all of the goals it lays out. In fact, the very radical aspects of the New Deal might actually create negative environmental impacts in areas that were not considered before. For example, in 2011, Germany shut down a number of Nuclear plants, in an effort to greatly decrease nuclear waste. However, this lead to the increase in production of coal, and actually created more of an environmental impact then expected. Something like this might happen if the New Green Deal pushes to far too fast or its technical aspects aren’t well explained and implemented. In conclusion, while the Deal creates a very exciting new way of thinking of our economy within the environment, it will probably not be as successful in practice. I doubt most of these goals will be met. But I hope I am wrong, and it’s an amazing policy nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This was an extremely informative blog post and I enjoyed learning all about the Green New Deal. The concept of this deal seems amazing. The United States is definitely in need of a way to control climate change. The idea of transitioning to 100% clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources is something that our economy would absolutely benefit from. However, this would not be a small task. It would cost serious money and labor to achieve the goals laid out in the deal, especially by 2030. The deal states that it would like to improve the nation's electrical system by implementing a smart grid. This is something that will costs hundreds of billions of dollars to fulfill and take more than the time frame of 11 years to complete. The plan to upgrade all of the buildings in the United States is also something that would cost more money than I can even imagine. The deal also touched upon transportation. I think the idea of remodeling the transportation system in the United States to eliminate greenhouse gas emissions is an excellent idea. I liked the acknowledgement of needing to provide an alternative form of public transportation for the working class before this could take place. Overall, I think the Green New Deal would be great for our economy. However, I just do not know that it is achievable, especially in the desired time frame.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I did not know much about the new green deal before reading this, and reading the actual document has been very informative. The green new deal is very ambitious. As far as climate, It works towards a goal that we should try to reach eventually. Even though we should try to use 100% renewable recources and have net zero carbon emissions in the future, I do not belive this plan is viable. Along with climate issues, the GND wishes to guarantee jobs and economic security for everyone even if they do not want to work. I think offering everyone financial security even if they do not want to work is a terrible idea. Americans are very resilient and capable but this deal proposed an almost total overhaul of american society that I do not believe we need or are ready for. U.S. industries are still reliant on the fossil fuels and nuclear power the GND wants to remove. Overall it would cost roughly 1 trillion dollars a year, almost twice the 600 billion we spend on the military, to execute this plan which would be a huge amount of taxes, in addition to what we have already. Because of this I think it is too expensive of a deal. The GND would make a noticible difference on climate change and having a much cleaner America is a noble goal, but we should do it in a less expensive and more viable way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Truthfully, before reading this blog post, I have never heard of the Green New Deal. But after reading, I’ve gathered several thoughts about this proposal. At first, I was amazed about the idea of a plan benefiting our economy and environment. Without regard to, since this is a 10-year plan that has never been created before, what are the odds of it not working how it’s planned to ? 10 years seems like a short amount of time to fix all the environmental damage that has been produced. This plan aims to tackle the usage of carbon emission in our transportation/infrastructure and create a world free of carbon emission. As well as, fixing the economy by creating high-wage jobs and promoting equity. One of my questions is, how will high-wage jobs be established if our economy will already be devoting a large amount of money to create greenhouse emissions, fixing current infrastructure, etc. Be as it may, it is challenging to remove carbon emission from the air, due to the high cost of all the equipment needed. For example, to repair and upgrade U.S infrastructure, will cost America roughly at least $4.6 trillion. Only adding onto our country’s present debt. Therefore, it is quite challenging to decide if there are more advantages or disadvantages to this plan. Overall, I believe that we should take the risk because if all does go well, it will help us create a stable environment and economy.

    -Vianna Konoplin

    ReplyDelete
  7. Before reading this article, I didn’t really know many details concerning the Green New Deal just that it existed. I enjoyed reading this proposal and definitely think this is a great start to a more sustainable future. My only concern is that 10-years seem a little short to have America move towards 100% renewable energy and that we’re setting high expectations for this goal. The GND is a great start for Americans to live more consciously and to have better standards of living (better wages, better education, better health insurance, etc.) like many countries in Europe already do. It will hopefully push our country in the right direction! Even if the goal is not accomplished in 10 years, I think it will unquestionably make a difference in how we live and continue to live. My biggest concerns for the implementation of this plan are cooperation, labor, and money. In other words, will we be able to immediately start, who is going to finish the goals on time, and will there be enough money to fund the GND. It’s easy to draft up an almost flawless proposal and have people support it, but will Trump find ways to delay it? In the proposal, there’s a part about how Americans love a challenge and that “When JFK said we’d go to the moon by the end of the decade, people said impossible” and “That’s what we are capable of if we have real leadership · This is massive investment in our economy and society, not expenditure.” I agree but at the same time, all of that was accomplished through the use of fossil fuels and now we’re trying to reverse that and restore our planet. So in conclusion, I hope that the GND will follow through and only create positive outcomes.
    -Lilliana Fenner

    ReplyDelete
  8. To me, the most positive and comforting part about the Green New Deal is that not only are there plausible solutions to problems that clearly are unable to solve themselves but there are also plans and visions being looked into to allow these solutions to be productive. Meaning that there seem to be many safety nets that could protect our economy and environment when going and making the big investments and risky decisions needed to go into making this plan possible. Some good points that were made in this proposal were the fact that plans just as risky as the Green New Deal have been carried out with intense urgency and have been successful. If this same urgency was applied to the Green New Deal, there could be some real change made. The amount of risk is probably the biggest turn off of this deal, especially since people in charge of implementing the deal don’t even necessarily see a problem in the way our economy is run and the way that we treat our environment. There is and probably most likely will always be push back from bigger, money making, industrial forces that feel they need to keep their traditions and production methods the same but the ability to innovate and evolve comes from change in the way things are done. In this scenario, that means changing our ways in order to be more productive not only for the present but for the future as well. Change and growth can have a limit if things are not changed or modified. Materials are not unlimited and our economy and environment is experiencing the effects of overusing limited resources and making detrimental decisions regarding the environment to ensure our present standard of living isn’t effected as opposed to the future. Implementing this deal could open up more doors than we have now and, in the end, benefit our economy by making small sacrifices.

    ReplyDelete
  9. The Green New Deal is crucial to a sustainable future as it provides funding towards initiatives that preserve our home (Planet Earth). This initiative gives us hope and a dream of a healthier and sustainable future. Just like the French Government's recent proposal called the Energy and Climate bill which is extremely ambitious but still can be accomplished; the Green New Deal is a great way for the United States to take part in being greener citizens of planet earth. After all sustainability is at a higher expense but not as high as the cost of not being able to live on this planet. We should make long term investments which benefit our long term future rather than make short term investments that only benefit us short term. This includes the generation of the Green New Deal as a replacement for pulling out of the Paris Agreement.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I feel like a lot of people do not take the Green New Deal seriously therefore to 100% using renewable energy would be difficult. I feel like 99% could possibly be accurate, but to say in 10 years, this plan will be adapted by everyone; I think it would be longer than that. However, this proposal is a good plan but definitely will take some time to adapt into. The problem I have is the timing. How long will it be before we run out of time? It seems like a good start in the right decision, but the nation will have to do more to cut down of emitting gas emissions into the atmosphere. My concern would also be costs. Costs to transitioning also arise for me. I can prove these statements just by inserting the point that the article talks about “Even if all the billionaires and companies could make the investments required, they would not be able to pull together a coordinated response in the narrow window of time required to jump-start major new projects and major new economic sectors”. Also, I want to know where we are pulling the money from to create and start new investments of new tech and Research and Development (R&D). Yes, I just heard the United States inspired Canada to launch their own Green New Deal pact, but is it enough? The deal wants to “restore all our damaged and threatened ecosystems”. The real question is HOW? How can they also promise to “guarantee a job with family-sustaining wages”? These seems like a good plan but I need to see more of how its going to get done. For all buildings in the country to have energy efficiency, they would all need to upgrade. For example what this plan speaks to be is trying to tell me that they are going to “massively expand electric vehicle manufacturing and build charging stations everywhere”. Here is where I find it economically costly, yes we would be creating jobs for people to build these charging stations and managing them, but that’s now the nation’s cost to pay for wages and cost for these stations. Also, just because more electric cars will be built, do consumers even care for them really or it is because the government is demanding it? What makes them think that all consumers can even afford these cars? The government doesn’t seem to know how much all of this will cost them. The elites of course will go along with this plan because they do not really get bothered by cost. I feel like this causes harm to the middle and lower class because this increases taxes. It seems hard to find a balance of economic stability and a cleaner world.


    ReplyDelete