PART I: THE UNANNOUNCED DEATH OF THE GREEN NEW DEAL
By Michael Swifte, Wrong Kind of Green.
September 12, 2020 | EDUCATE!
What Happened To The People's Plan?
Is this a people's plan or is this a process to get elected officials a
policy in a timeline that will allow them to promote it around the 2020
election?
- John Washington speaking on behalf of Climate Justice Alliance to New
Consensus and networks on 18 March 2019 [Source]
False Solutions continue to poison, displace, and imprison communities
Nuclear, fracking, "clean coal", incineration and even prisons are offered
as economic transition solutions to the climate crisis, but only continue to
harm the health of people and the planet. The path of extracting,
transporting, processing, and consuming these technologies is paved with
communities riddled with cancer, reproductive and respiratory disease, among
other devastating health impacts. These false solutions turn low-income
communities, communities of color and indigenous communities into sacrifice
zones. These do not move us toward a just transition.
- Climate Justice Alliance, Just Transition Principles, 21 April 2017
[Source]
You could say that the Green New Deal died when the Biden-Sanders Unity Task
Force recommendations came through, or perhaps that was the moment we knew
that the Jemez Principles and the principles of a Just Transition had been
abandoned more than a year before? Perhaps they were abandoned shortly after
John Washington's straight forward, perfectly articulated warning to New
Consensus? Or perhaps they were abandoned as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed
Markey prepared the Green New Deal resolution with it's "clean" and "net
zero" language replacing the language of fossil fuel phase outs and 100%
Renewables? Perhaps the Sunrise Movement, New Consensus, Justice Democrats
and Data for Progress all fell in line with the net zero language of ruling
class carbon accounts while paying lip service to fighting fossil fuels and
pushing the advocates for First Nations and frontline communities further
from the negotiating table?
I've looked and I've watched and I may be wrong, but it seems like the
concerns of the Climate Justice Alliance fell off the map in March 2019
after they presented their position on the importance of observing the Jemez
principles in the development of the Green New Deal to New Consensus and its
connected networks. At some point between the first promises of a fossil
fuel phase out and no new nuclear energy that were part of the notional
Green New Deal endorsed by 350 dot org and 600+ of their NGO friends in
January 2019, and the release of the Unity Task Force recommendations, any
notion of actually centering-frontline-communities in the development of a
Green New Deal were, it seems, abandoned. Not long after the Green New Deal
Resolution was introduced on 7 February 2019, 350 dot org's Julian Brave
Noisecat took up a key position at Data for Progress whose September 2018
report on the Green New Deal more completely resembles the net zero language
of "clean energy" rather than the phase out language of "100% Renewables".
The exact phrase Bria Viniate used in reference to the Ocasio-Cortez/Sunrise
version of the Green New Deal in Vogue shortly before the November 2018
midterms is "100% Renewables". The new phrase at the center of the Green New
Deal after the introduction of the Green New Deal Resolution is "100% clean,
renewable and zero emissions".
Key Documents
Jemez Principles: https://www.ejnet.org/ej/jemez.pdf
Just Transition Principles:
https://climatejusticealliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/CJA_JustTransi
tion_Principles_final_hi-rez.pdf
People of Color Environmental Justice: "Principles of Working Together"
http://www.ejnet.org/ej/workingtogether.pdf
Green New Deal Resolution:
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/116/hres109/text
Biden-Sanders Unity Task Force Recommendations:
https://joebiden.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/UNITY-TASK-FORCE-RECOMMENDAT
IONS.pdf
Data for Progress - Green New Deal Report:
https://www.dataforprogress.org/green-new-deal/
Fake It Until You Make New Plans?
19 November 2018 - January 10 2019
When First Nations groups like the Lakota Law Project celebrated the
creation of a Green New Deal in November 2018 they did so after hearing
Ocasio-Cortez tell of her experiences at Standing Rock and saying "we have
to get to 100 percent renewable energy in 10 years".
Now, we find ourselves in this struggle together. Every aspect of the Green
New Deal must be implemented now.
- Chase Iron Eyes, Lakota People's Law Project lead counsel [SOURCE]
In December 2018 Climate Justice Alliance issued a statement that made it
clear that it's primary demand was that Green New Deal builders go to the
grass roots and take direction from there.
The proposal for the GND was made public at the grasstops level. When we
consulted with many of our own communities, they were neither aware of, nor
had they been consulted about the launch of the GND.
- Climate Justice Alliance [SOURCE]
In January of 2019 Climate Justice Alliance and Indigenous Environment
Network made very clear the commitments that would need to be upheld to keep
a Green New Deal functioning.
What we want to do is strengthen and center the Green New Deal in
environmental justice communities that have both experience and lived
history of confronting the struggle against fossil fuel industries,
- Angela Adrar [SOURCE]
The way that the plan was developed and shared is one of its greatest
weaknesses,
- Angela Adrar [SOURCE]
One of the most significant statements, attributable to Angela Adrar, is
hard to date. The comment appears in the Green New Deal section of the CJA
website but I could not find it in any published documents. It contains a
dire warning about "Net Zero" and the burden that will be felt by frontline
communities.
Allowing for neoliberal constructs such as Net Zero emissions, which equate
carbon emission offsets and technology investments with real emissions
reductions at source, would only exacerbate existing pollution burdens on
frontline communities.
- Angela Adrar [SOURCE]
On the eve of the release of the letter to congress from 626 environmental
groups including 350 dot org Tom Goldtooth from Indigenous Environment
Network reaffirmed the need for Green New Deal proponents to engage under
the appropriate principles.
We're asking that leadership of the Green New Deal meet with us and have a
discussion how we can strengthen this campaign with the participation of the
communities most impacted.
- Tom Goldtooth [SOURCE]
Speaking upon the release of the letter of 626 groups and in reference to
the input from IEN and CJA, Goldtooth indicated that commitment to "real
solutions" were hard won. It's important to note that at the time of the
release of this letter Ocasio-Cortez was on record supporting "100%
Renewables" having tweeted a call for a "wartime-level" mobilization in a
January 2, 2019 tweet. [LINK]
Of course, we really had to assert ourselves on different issues that are
very dear to us on seeking real solutions to mitigate climate change.
- Tom Goldtooth
Goldtooth goes on to make it very clear that "real solutions" do not include
carbon capture utilization and storage.
The techno fixes are very critical as well. In our analysis, it's part of
the false solutions. Carbon capture and storage, for an example, the
technology is still being tested out there, concerns around leakage, and a
lot of the private sector, the polluters, will benefit now, only to find out
that there's complications, and really justifying the offset regimes that
happen in this scenario to where carbon capture and storage just isn't
working. Carbon capture use and storage and these other areas are very
critical concerns with us. We have formed solidarity with other entities
that have been addressing this issue as well. And so, we're very thankful to
all the other green groups, the six hundred and twenty some signatures, that
they stand with us in looking for real solutions. [SOURCE]
Below is a key passage from the strongly aspirational letter of the 626
groups, January 10, 2019. The claims within have been rendered into empty
promises since the introduction of the Green New Deal Resolution. More than
a dozen bipartisan bills aimed at expanding fossil fuel extraction are
making their way through congress. Bills designed; to expand the refining
and use of fossil fuels through 45Q tax credits & modifications to the tax
code; develop pipeline corridors; provide support and funding for R&D; and
enable the use of financial instruments like private activity bonds. Scarce
little has been done by Green New Deal Resolution cosponsors, proponent NGOs
or climate justice and progressive NGOs to fight against the bipartisan 45Q
bills or indeed in support of the solitary bill designed to eliminate the
45Q tax credit, the End Polluter Welfare Act 2020.
Further, we will vigorously oppose any legislation that: (1) rolls back
existing environmental, health, and other protections, (2) protects fossil
fuel and other dirty energy polluters from liability, or (3) promotes
corporate schemes that place profits over community burdens and benefits,
including 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. [Source]
The Resolution And The Handover To Democrta Apparatchiks
4 February 2019 - 18 March 2019
Julian Brave Noisecat was able to see and respond to the language of the
Green New Deal resolution before it was introduced. On February 4, 2019
Noisecat made comments published in Politico that show him attempting to
bridge the contradiction between fighting for a fossil fuel phase out and
fighting for net-zero.
The language I read was clean, renewable, zero emissions - which is that
'keep the door open' approach," said Julian NoiseCat, policy director with
the climate group 350.org, adding that his organization pressed
Ocasio-Cortez to include a statement requiring the phase-out of fossil
fuels. [SOURCE]
Noisecat made his comment while he was still employed by 350 dot org.
Within a couple of months he would become the Director of Green New Deal
Strategy with Data for Progress. While 350 dot org, in theory, still support
a fossil fuel phase out, Data for Progress have always used the language as
it appeared in the GND resolution. There is nothing that Data for Progress
are doing or have done that is strategically supporting a fossil fuel phase
out. As reported on January 18, 2019 a few weeks before the GND resolution
was published, Greg Carlock, a key author of the Data for Progress - Green
New Deal Report published in September 2018, thinks carbon capture
utilization and storage is inevitable.
There is no scenario produced by the IPCC or the UN where we hit mid-century
decarbonization without some kind of carbon capture.
Carlock also works for the World Resources Institute (WRI) as Manager for
Climate Action and Data. WRI have never been committed to phasing out fossil
fuels or building 100% renewables.
It is firmly understood that going 100 percent renewable in 10 years is
technically impossible-like, physically and engineering-wise, it is
impossible, [SOURCE]
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/01/first-fight-about-democr
ats-climate-green-new-deal/580543/
In testimony to the House Resources Committee on February 6, 2019, at a
hearing titled: 'Climate Change: The Impacts and the Need to Act', Elizabeth
Yeampierre, executive director of Uprose and steering committee co-chair of
Climate Justice Alliance reiterated the need for a just transition.
VIDEO: The House Committee on Natural Resources hosted the hearing "Climate
Change: The Impacts and the Need to Act":
To effectively tackle climate change, we must invest in a Just Transition
toward specifically local, living economies of scale.
Just Transition is a vision-led, unifying and place-based set of principles,
processes and practices that build economic and political power to shift
from an extractive economy to a regenerative economy - not just for workers
but for whole communities. This means approaching production and consumption
cycles holistically and waste-free.
This transition away from fossil fuels itself must be just and equitable,
redressing past harms and creating new relationships of power for the future
through reparations, living wage jobs and economic and social development
that aims to address historical harm and discrimination. If the process of
transition is not just, the outcome will never be. [Source]
An FAQ document that was apparently released in error on February 7, 2019 in
advance of the introduction of the Green New Deal Resolution shows that the
team formulating the resolution were cognisant of the implications of the
change in language from "100% Renewables" to "100% clean and renewable" or
"clean, renewable and zero-emission energy" which became the specific
language in the resolution.
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. [SOURCE: Green New Deal FAQ Fact Sheet,
February 7, 2019]
On February 7, 2019 Indigenous Environment Network released their 'talking
points' on the Green New Deal resolution offering an instant rejection of
the "net-zero" language.
The primary goal of the AOC-Markey Green New Deal (GND) Resolution is to
"achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions". We reject net-zero emissions
language (as well as carbon neutral and zero-carbon) because it implies the
use of carbon accounting that includes various types of carbon pricing
systems, offsets and/or Payments for Ecological Services (PES).
We can no longer leave any options for the fossil fuel industry to determine
the economic and energy future of this country. And until the Green New Deal
can be explicit in this demand as well as closing the loop on harmful
incentives, we cannot fully endorse the resolution. [SOURCE]
In response to the release of the Green New Deal resolution the Indigenous
Environment Network released a statement on February 8, 2019. In it they
make very clear their position on nuclear energy and their concerns stemming
from the door being left open for nuclear in the resolution language.
The Green New Deal (GND) resolutio[n], as it is written right now, with no
exclusion of nuclear energy to be considered clean energy, would open the
door for Yucca Mountain to be reconsidered for dumping the nuclear energy
waste. It would create the largest nuclear waste transportation campaign in
history, possibly endangering residents in 44 states, thousands of towns and
cities, and our Indigenous territories. [SOURCE]
It's clear from Ed Markey's dismissive statements at a press conference on
February 11, 2019 unveiling the Green New Deal Resolution that there was a
clear break in language of and the responsibility for the Green New Deal.
His responses suppose that moderate Democrats should be kept happy. At the
same moment First Nations and frontline advocates were clearly unhappy.
We've drafted it in a way that can get the support of progressives and
moderates inside our caucus.
- Ed Markey
That's what you should focus on. Focus on the resolution.
- Ed Markey [SOURCES]
The language of the resolution itself calls for the exercise of the same
values enshrined in the Jemez principles.
in transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership
with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker
cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses. [SOURCE]
In her February 13, 2019 piece for The Intercept following the introduction
of the GND resolution Naomi Klein did not mention the disappearance of a
fossil fuel phase out or note the change in language. If 350 had pressed
Ocasio-Cortez on a phase out like Noisecat says, you would think it ought to
be mentioned by 350's leading light? Klein instead called for vigilance and
ensuring responsiveness to pressure from frontline communities.
The Green New Deal will need to be subject to constant vigilance and
pressure from experts who understand exactly what it will take to lower our
emissions as rapidly as science demands, and from social movements that have
decades of experience bearing the brunt of false climate solutions, whether
nuclear power, the chimera of carbon capture and storage, or carbon offsets.
[SOURCE]
By mid March 2019 the Climate Justice Alliance were pushed to the point
where they felt they had to ask some questions about the values held by New
Consensus: Who funds it? and, To whom is it accountable?
To this end, in order for us to continue in this process, we have four clear
demands:
Include both the Jemez Principles and the Environmental Justice Principles
of Working Together in all work stemming from this gathering and
forthcoming;
Disclose and maintain transparency in funding sources, current and emerging,
and commit that funding directly to those most impacted, including frontline
and base-building organizing groups, alliances and networks for the
development of policy priorities and language;
Clearly outline who New Consensus is accountable to and who it works for;
and why is there redundancy, going into communities where work is already
being done when the country is vast and there are so many other places where
there isn't yet consensus;
Commit to New Consensus' participation in a strategy meeting with CJA and
allied frontline partners in order to move our collective conversation and
possible relationship forward, we would ask that a MOA be entered into
between New Consensus and CJA frontlines.[SOURCE]
John Washington presented his strident arguments to new Consensus and GND
partners on March 18, 2019 following the reading of the CJA statement by
Miya Yoshitani. Robinson Meyer reported in The Atlantic in June 2019 that
"difficulties came to a head" that day, but he did not specify which 2
activists raised issues.
The meeting was bumpy from the first hour, when two environmental-justice
activists interrupted proceedings to protest the absence of the Climate
Justice Alliance, a national network of urban, rural, and indigenous groups.
The alliance had been asked to endorse the Green New Deal, but it had not
been asked to help write it, the activists charged.
But one of the major demands the environmental-justice activists raised at
the meeting has gone publicly unanswered. They asked a simple question:
Who's funding New Consensus? [SOURCE]
