The Good News About a Green New Deal
John Cassidy
Last month’s rollout of the Green New Deal, a fourteen-page legislative resolution, sponsored by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, that called for “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” through a ten-year “national mobilization,” has sparked a good deal of controversy. The resolution was larded with goals not directly tied to the environment, such as guaranteeing everyone a job, affordable housing, and high-quality health care, and even some energy researchers who are enthusiastic proponents of transitioning rapidly to a zero-emissions economy questioned the timetable of a single decade for converting power production entirely to renewable sources.
“I don’t think anybody who is deep inside the substance is talking about that,” Jonathan Koomey, a special adviser to the chief scientist at the Rocky Mountain Institute, told me. Robert Pollin, a professor of economics at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who has helped design a number of Green New Deals for individual states, including New York and Washington, said, “I think it is wonderful that the issue is being addressed, but I don’t think this movement has yet accepted that you have to do these things carefully and rigorously.”
Despite these reservations, Koomey and Pollin, as well as a number of other researchers I spoke with, said the drafters of the Green New Deal were perfectly right to urge large-scale action across many parts of the economy, and they emphasized the technological opportunities that now exist to meet many of the environmental goals that underpin the proposed legislation, if not the exact timetable it lays down. In a report released in October, which the Democratic resolution cites and endorses, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that if the world is to contain the rise in global temperatures to 1.5 degrees Celsius, carbon emissions must be reduced by about fifty per cent before 2030, and completely phased out before 2050. For a U.S. economy that currently relies on fossil fuels for about four-fifths of its energy, achieving zero emissions, or something close to it, by the middle of the century would be a historic transformation. And, according to all the researchers I spoke with, rapidly advancing technology and the falling costs of clean energy make this more achievable than ever.
“Right now, we have about ninety per cent or ninety-five per cent of the technology we need,” Mark Jacobson, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Stanford, told me. In a series of papers, Jacobson and his colleagues have laid out “roadmaps” to a zero-emissions economy for fifty states, fifty-three towns and cities, and a hundred and thirty-eight other countries, with a completion date of 2050. Just as in the Democrats’ Green New Deal, the central element of these roadmaps (and others) is converting the electric grid to clean energy by shutting down power stations that rely on fossil fuels and making some very large investments in wind, solar, hydroelectric, and geothermal facilities. Jacobson said this could be completed by 2035, which is only five years beyond the target set out in the Green New Deal. At the same time, policymakers would introduce a range of measures to promote energy efficiency, and electrify other sectors of the economy that now rely heavily on burning carbon, such as road and rail transport, home heating, and industrial heating. “We don’t need a technological miracle to solve this problem,” Jacobson reiterated. “‘The bottom line is we just need to deploy, deploy, deploy.”
Saul Griffith, a materials scientist and inventor who is the chief executive of OtherLab, a San Francisco-based technology incubator that focusses on clean energy, agrees. In recent presentations, Griffith has sketched out an aggressive plan for switching to clean power and electrifying heating and transportation, which he says could be completed within twenty years. “It’s entirely reasonable to do it,” he said. “The United States is lucky because of its natural advantages. It’s a country with low population density, good wind, good solar, and good hydro resources. The only reason not to do it is political inertia and the influence of the existing fossil-fuel industry.”
Pollin is working on a national zero-emissions plan with an end date of 2050. He said it will combine many of the elements in the Green New Deal, such as stricter emissions standards, extensive public investments, and tax incentives for reducing carbon consumption and investing in clean energy. And, like the Democratic proposal, Pollin stresses the need to provide financial aid and retraining for people currently working in fossil-fuel industries, which would be shrunken drastically under any such plan. “It needs to be done, and it can be done,” he said. “But it needs to be done judiciously.”
Underlying a lot of the optimism is a steep fall in the cost of generating electricity from renewable sources. With the development of bigger wind turbines, the cost reductions associated with wind power have been particularly impressive. Mara Prentiss, a professor of physics at Harvard whose book “Energy Revolution,” from 2015, emphasized the potential of renewable energy, pointed out to me that doubling the diameter of a turbine yields four times as much power, and that some modern turbines have diameters of a hundred metres. Costs have also fallen sharply in the solar-power industry, where there has been great progress in building more cost-efficient photovoltaic systems, including solar cells, inverters, and transformers. Just a decade ago, Pollin pointed out, electricity generated from sunlight cost about twice as much as electricity generated from coal; now, the costs are roughly equal.
Every year, the U.S. Energy Information Administration calculates a levelized cost of electricity, or L.C.O.E., which represents the average per-megawatt-hour cost of building and operating a power-generating plant over the course of its life cycle. For power facilities that would enter service in 2023, the E.I.A. estimated the L.C.O.E.s of onshore wind and solar at $42.80 and $48.80, respectively, compared with $40.20 for advanced natural-gas power stations. (The L.C.O.E. of nuclear would be around ninety dollars). Some existing coal-fired plants are cheaper, but they are also very dirty. In calculating the future cost of electricity generated from coal, the E.I.A. assumes that new coal-fired plants would be built with sophisticated systems to capture and sequester carbon emissions. Allowing for this requirement, the E.I.A. estimates the L.C.O.E. of coal-powered plants entering service in 2023 at close to a hundred dollars.
These figures suggest that, going forward, electricity generated from renewable sources will be competitive with natural gas, and cheaper than coal and nuclear power. (And these figures don’t take into account the existing tax credits for investing in clean energy. When these credits are included, the L.C.O.E.s of onshore wind and solar are even lower: $36.60 and $37.60, respectively.) In some parts of the country, energy consumers are already benefitting from these trends. Prentiss pointed out to me that Iowa now generates more than thirty-five per cent of its electricity from wind. The retail cost of electricity in the state is 8.73 cents per kilowatt-hour, she said, compared to a national average of 10.48 cents.
Iowa, of course, is a windy state. People need electricity all the time, regardless of the weather. For this reason, among others, the E.I.A. analysis pointed out that care should be taken in comparing the costs of different types of power. Defenders of fossil fuels go further. In a recent article about the Green New Deal, Myron Ebell, an analyst at the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute, which receives some of its funding from oil and gas companies, wrote that the electricity grid “cannot operate on 100% intermittent and variable power—or even 50%.”
Optimists like Jacobson and Prentiss didn’t deny the challenge in shifting to intermittent sources of power, which include dealing with seasonal variability and storing energy for long periods. But they point out that the development of modern grids, which use high-voltage direct-current lines, has made these issues easier to handle. In a series of papers, Jacobson and his colleagues have used simulations to demonstrate how it would be possible in theory to rely entirely on electricity generated from renewable sources. “If you interconnect over a very large area, you smooth out the supply,” Jacobson explained. “When the wind is not blowing in one place, it is in another. And solar and other sources, such as hydro and geothermal, complement that, too.”
Koomey said researchers generally agree that getting to eighty-per-cent reliance on renewable sources of electricity is now a practical option. “The issue is more getting from eighty to one hundred,” he said. “I don’t know yet if one hundred per cent is possible. What I do know is that the cost trends are heading in that direction. And if we can solve the problems like seasonal heat storage, we can deal with most of the remaining challenges.” When I asked Koomey about the skeptics, such as Ebell, he replied, “The folks who are saying you can’t get to fifty-per-cent or eighty-per-cent intermittency are the same folks who were saying you can’t get to two per cent when wind and solar first came on.”
To guarantee a reliable electricity supply, Koomey suggested keeping some nuclear and natural-gas plants running, at least during the transition. (The Green New Deal rules out gas plants but doesn’t rule out keeping some existing nuclear plants running for a time.) But rather than focussing on the challenges of going all the way to a hundred per cent, the most important thing is to recognize the scale of the transformation necessary and get started on it immediately, Koomey insisted. “So far, all the tweaking around the edges hasn’t reduced carbon emissions nearly enough,” he said. “You need to start shutting down high-carbon infrastructure on a schedule, and you need to stop building new carbon infrastructure. Ultimately, there is no other way.”
Even if we did succeed in creating an electricity grid entirely powered by renewable energy, getting to zero carbon emissions for the over-all economy would involve overcoming some tough problems, such as finding practical ways to store large amounts of energy for longer periods of time, and weaning long-distance air travel and commercial shipping from the fossil fuels on which they now rely. (Jacobson and Prentiss insisted that there are technological fixes on the way in these areas, too, such as the development of better lithium batteries, and advanced hydrogen fuel cells; Prentiss also emphasized the possibilities of low-carbon biofuels and synthetic fuels.) In a recent article, Pollin argued that large-scale investments in energy efficiency, such as retrofitting buildings and switching to electric car engines, which waste a lot less energy than internal-combustion engines, “can cut U.S. per capita energy consumption by roughly 50 percent over twenty years.” Even then, though, the investments needed in wind and solar would be very substantial. In “Energy Revolution,” Prentiss calculated that satisfying the country’s total average energy needs with wind power would require covering about fifteen per cent of the U.S. landmass with wind farms, and relying entirely on solar power would require about one to 1.5 per cent of the landmass to be devoted to solar farms. Not for nothing does the Green New Deal resolution talk of a Second World War-style mobilization.
To illustrate how such a clean-energy economy might work, Jacobson brought up his own home on the Stanford campus, which has solar panels on the roof, two lithium batteries in the garage, and an advanced electric heat pump. “I have no gas or oil bills, no electricity bill, and no gasoline bill for cars, either,” Jacobson said. “And I generate twenty per cent more energy than I need, so I get paid five hundred dollars by the utility.” Jacobson estimated the up-front cost of equipping his house was about sixty thousand dollars. “With the subsidies that the government provides, it is a five-year payback,” he said. “Without the subsidies, it would be a ten-year payback.”
How much would it cost to create a national version of Jacobson’s domestic economy? There are at least two ways to answer this question. The first is to look at up-front capital costs. The other is to consider long-term trends in energy costs, and to consider the large-scale social and economic dislocation that may result if we don’t drastically reduce carbon emissions.
According to Jacobson, his plan to convert the United States to clean energy would cost between ten trillion and fifteen trillion dollars, in total, depending on how it was implemented. If the plan was enacted over thirty years, that would come out to as much as five hundred billion dollars a year, or about 2.5 per cent of current G.D.P. Pollin’s estimates are a bit higher. To meet the I.P.C.C. emissions targets, he reckons that wealthy countries such as the United States need to invest about three per cent of current G.D.P. per year expanding renewable sources and raising energy-efficiency standards, compared to the current figure of 0.5 per cent.
Interestingly, a new analysis of the Democrats’ Green New Deal from the conservative American Action Forum contains figures that are comparable to Jacobson’s and Pollin’s. Taking the midpoints of its estimates, the study says it would cost $10.3 trillion to create a low-carbon electricity grid, a net-zero emissions transportation system, and to “upgrade all existing buildings” to higher energy-efficiency standards. Spread out over thirty years, the cost would be about three hundred and forty billion dollars a year, or 1.7 per cent of current G.D.P.
To be sure, that’s a large sum. But it’s less than half of the annual defense budget, and the taxpayer wouldn’t have to supply all of it. In almost all the academic transition plans that are out there, most of the capital would come from private investors and companies. The federal government would certainly make some substantial investments, too. But its main role would be to enforce strict emissions standards, provide tax breaks for investments in renewables and energy efficiency, raise carbon taxes to discourage fossil-fuel consumption and help finance the transition, and provide support for communities that are adversely affected. The great bulk of the energy industry, including most of the new wind and solar farms, would remain privately owned. Like the original New Deal, this would be managed capitalism rather than state socialism.
For actual policymaking, coming up with detailed proposals in all of these areas would obviously be critical. But the first challenge is to recognize the transformative possibilities that exist and establish ambitious goals. The Green New Deal does that. It holds out the prospect of a future in which U.S. carbon emissions are massively reduced, if not entirely eliminated, and clean, economical energy is readily available to all. That, surely, is an attractive vision.
The next step is resolving the details and mobilizing support from a broad range of individuals and groups. Both will be necessary to make progress, which the organizers of the Green New Deal recognize. “The goal has always been to release a plan by January 2020 that will include all the major elements of a pathway to zero emissions,” Rhiana Gunn-Wright, the policy lead for the Green New Deal at New Consensus, a progressive policy group, told me. Gunn-Wright said she and her colleagues were making arrangements for extensive consultations with energy experts, environmental activists, and representatives of communities that would be impacted. “A green transformation will affect everyone,” she said, “so we think that everyone should be at the table in the policymaking process.”
Some of the energy researchers I spoke with are already getting involved in that process. Griffith has been talking with people associated with Ocasio-Cortez, and last month he testified to a subcommittee of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology. Pollin is drafting a national plan, which he intends to submit to policymakers in Washington. The rollout of the Green New Deal may have been troubled, but it has started something.
John Cassidy has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1995. He also writes a column about politics, economics, and more for newyorker.com.
https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-colu ... n-new-deal
Meet the first Democrat running for president on climate change
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee dishes on the Green New Deal, the filibuster, and more.
David RobertsMar 1, 2019, 7:39am EST
Jay Inslee.
Karen Ducey/Getty Images
After years on the periphery of American political life, climate change is having a bit of a moment. Activists (along with five Democratic presidential candidates and at least 100 members of Congress) have rallied behind a Green New Deal that proposes a crash program to decarbonize the US economy. Polls on climate change show rising rates of concern across the country and among both political parties. It seems that after decades near the bottom of Democratic priority list, climate has broken into the top two or three.
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who will announce his presidential candidacy Friday morning, is hoping to seize that moment. Over the course of his 30-year career in public life — first in the Washington state legislature, then in the House of Representatives, then, since 2012, governor of Washington state — he has always prioritized sustainability, and not always to his political benefit. Now he sees his signature issue and the national zeitgeist aligning at last, and he thinks it can take him to the White House.
In 2007, Inslee released a book (co-written with Bracken Hendricks) called Apollo’s Fire: Igniting America’s Clean Energy Economy. It called for a broad suite of emission-reducing policies, led by massive investments in American clean energy jobs, with a focus on environmental justice. If that sounds familiar, well, they didn’t call it a Green New Deal, but it was pretty green, and pretty New Deal.
Now, to his delight, a youth movement has thrust a similar plan into the center of national debate. He thinks he’s the guy to take it over the finish line.
SEATTLE, WA - APRIL 22: Washington state Governor Jay Inslee speaks at a rally during the March for Science at Cal Anderson Park on April 22, 2017 in Seattle, Washington. Participants were advocating for science that upholds the common good and for politi
Washington Gov. Jay Inslee speaks at a rally during the March for Science at Cal Anderson Park on April 22, 2017, in Seattle.
Karen Ducey/Getty Images
Inslee’s life will soon involve a whirlwind of state fairs and high school gymnasiums across Iowa and New Hampshire, but earlier this week, when we met at a coffee shop (ironically called Voxx) in Seattle, he was relaxed, sipping tea, with little in the way of entourage. He’s a longtime devotee of Washington’s natural places and an avid hiker, and it shows. As a north Seattleite, I was a constituent of Inslee’s in the early 2000s and have covered his career since he first ran for the House; he’s a grandfather now, but aside from a few more gray hairs, at 68 he is as hale as ever, with an athletic build and a blunt, earnest energy.
He told me that climate change is his “driving motivation” and why he believes it can unite the party. We discussed the kind of procedural reforms that might be necessary to actually get climate legislation passed — he calls the Senate filibuster an “antebellum rule in the internet age” and wants to get rid of it, has signed Washington up to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and supports statehood (and thus Senate votes) for Puerto Rico and Washington, DC.
And we discussed his record in (and plans for) our home state of Washington, including the vexing recent failures of two climate change ballot initiatives. (“If we had an initiative on the ballot that said, ‘Washington state should move on climate change,’ that would’ve passed.”)
At the end of our interview, as he rose to leave, a woman named Janine approached Inslee and introduced herself. “I’m very proud to have you,” she said. “We need someone out here for climate change.”
Inslee glanced at me and smiled. “Janine’s not on our payroll.”
Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
A presidential bid centered on climate change
David Roberts
Why do you want to be president?
Jay Inslee
Ultimately, I believe there is one central, defining, existential-with-a-capital-E threat to the future of the nation: climate change. It is clear that it will only be defeated if the United States shows leadership. And that will only happen if the US president makes it a clear priority — the number one, foremost, paramount goal of the next administration.
That is the only way we will be victorious in this fight. And I believe I’m uniquely positioned, by willingness and history and vision, to be able to do that. So I do feel compelled to do it. On my last day, I want to be able to say I did everything I could on [climate change].
climate spiral gif
Getting pretty bad.
Ed Hawkins
David Roberts
So you’re building your campaign on climate change?
Jay Inslee
That is my driving motivation. I have many things that I care about in life — from criminal justice reform to pay equity, minimum wage, ending the death penalty, passing net neutrality, reproductive parity — and I’ve done all of those things in my state. I’d like to do them in our country.
But we have to have a priority on [climate change]. I’ve been at this for two decades. I understand the challenges inherent in getting this job done. It is a big, heavy lift. There’s many things that will help — improving voting rights, ending the filibuster, many structural things that will help — but you still have to have that presidential leadership. It will only happen if we have a leader who will prioritize it, who will develop a mandate during a campaign to do it (having that mandate is very important), and use the political capital necessary to get it done.
David Roberts
Do you believe Obama did not personally put enough political capital behind the 2008 climate bill?
Jay Inslee
This is not to be critical, it’s just an observation: The Democratic team said, “We’re going to do health care first.” And so climate didn’t get done. Now, could it have gotten done if it was put first? There are no guarantees in the historical retrospectoscope. But once health care went first, there wasn’t enough juice to get climate through.
We simply cannot have that experience again. So [climate change] can’t be on a laundry list. It can’t be something that candidates check the box on. It has to be a full-blooded effort to mobilize the United States in all capacities. I feel uniquely committed to that, among all of the potential candidates, and I understand what’s necessary to do it.
David Roberts
It does seem that climate politics are shifting on the Democratic side. Do you think the party’s moving in the right direction on this?
Jay Inslee
Yes, absolutely. And the politics have changed dramatically in the general citizenry. This used to be a chart, or a graph. When I wrote my book, 11 years ago, it was a numbers discussion.
Now it’s a Paradise, California, burning down. Kids can’t go swimming because of air quality. Houston is drowned; Miami Beach has to raise their roads. This is now a retinal issue. People see it — they don’t have to intellectually project the future.
Paradise, California Continues Recovery Efforts From The Devastating Camp Fire
Searching for human remains after the Paradise fire.
Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The Center for American Progress [Action Fund] did a poll in the first four primary states among likely Democratic voters, and for the first time, they ranked climate change as the number one priority, in a dead tie with health care. This is a pretty significant dynamic. And obviously, it bodes well for my candidacy!
David Roberts
The conventional wisdom in US politics is that you can get relatively high numbers of people to say they care about climate change, but they rarely prioritize it. How can you take an issue that’s way down on the list and ride it all the way to the White House?
Jay Inslee
The answer is the poll I just mentioned. It’s top of the list. This is objective evidence of what I’ve felt anecdotally. When traveling around New Hampshire and Iowa, the intensity of this issue is five, 10 time higher than it was when I wrote my book. It’s a whole new world.
I was asked to talk at Dartmouth and I met with a group of students. The leader said, “I’ve had two conversations the last couple days with friends, two women, who said they wondered whether it was the right thing to do to bring a child into the world, a potentially degraded experience.” This is now reaching into people’s personal lives, deeply.
Climate politics, in Washington and the other Washington
David Roberts
Washington state has had a great deal of frustration and difficulty in getting good climate policy passed. You’ve backed several legislative packages that ultimately failed to pass; a couple of ballot initiatives failed to pass. What’s the record you’re running on?
Jay Inslee
It’s both a record and a vision. Johnson hadn’t passed civil rights legislation for 20 years in the Senate, either, but he signed the civil rights bill.
And yes, we’ve had frustrations, but we have had progress here. I was very involved in passing the renewable portfolio standard [in 2006]. We went from zero to a billion-dollar wind industry in the last several years. We have moved the needle on the electrification of our transportation system. We’re number one or two, or we used to be, with electric cars [one recent study ranks Washington the third-friendliest state for EVs, behind California and, oddly, Georgia], because of the work we’ve been doing with incentives and building the electrical charging station grid on the interstate.
We have created a clean energy research facility that’s doing great work. We built a clean energy development program. So I would say we have had substantial progress here, and I have been involved in virtually all of that in some way.
It’s not like we haven’t been busy. Yes, it has been frustrating. The oil and gas companies spent $32 million [to defeat a GND-like ballot initiative]. But the most important renewable energy source is perseverance. I’m serious. That is the secret to success here.
And we are persevering. So this year, we are advancing a package of bills in the legislature, including a 100 percent clean grid bill.
Wind turbines along the Columbia River in Washington.
Wind turbines along the Columbia River in Washington.
Shutterstock
I hadn’t looked at my book for quite a while, but I looked at the Ten Rules of Climate Change in the back. One is, there’s no silver bullet; there’s silver buckshot. There’s multiple tools. If one doesn’t work, you’ve got to go to the next.
So I feel good about our ability to move forward. I think our experience has shown that progress is possible, that more is necessary, and that I’ve identified the things that will work. By the way, give me a legislature and we would have been done 12 years ago. [It was only in 2017 that Democrats won reliable control of the state Senate for the first time in Inslee’s governorship.]
Now [Democrats] have got 10 new legislators here [in Washington state]. We’ve got seven new governors — we’re now up to 21 states in the US Climate Alliance.
David Roberts
It’s an interesting time — is that the word? — in national politics. What’s your take on national climate politics right now?
Jay Inslee
The fact that people are raising the bar of ambition, that’s good. We should not be surprised if there’s some tension about whether we go 75 mph or 55 mph, but we’re heading in the same direction. There’s going to be justifiable debate about how fast that is and where the investment is and how to fashion it. I’m really optimistic about this.
David Roberts
The Green New Deal takes the approach of tying climate policy together with economic renewal, jobs, and justice. In many ways, it is the opposite of the narrow carbon pricing approach, trying to microtarget carbon in a way that can generate bipartisan cooperation. Do you believe all those policies belong together?
Jay Inslee
We should do what I said we should do in my book: a major industrial transformation to decarbonize the US economy that will result in millions of new jobs and greater prosperity. Unfortunately, no movies were made of my book [laughs], and it didn’t capture people’s imagination in 2007.
So no, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with this approach. I think it’s necessary and suitable to the times. It’s a major reindustrialization of America and we should talk about it in these terms. We need to build things again, all around the country. We’ve got to get communities involved in that. I think the youth movement on this is fantastic.
Student activists with the Sunrise Movement occupy Nancy Pelosi’s office to demand that she and the Democrats act on climate change
The youths have a question.
Sunrise Movement
David Roberts
Reindustrialization and decarbonization seem to be what most people agree on. It’s whether to do social policy alongside that is causing the tension.
Jay Inslee
Look, I want to protect a woman’s right [to] reproductive freedom. Does that have to be part of this? Not necessarily. We are going to accomplish that, though.
Kennedy said, “We’re going to the moon in 10 years and bring a man back safely.” It would have been unproductive to say, “No, I think it’s 12 years.”
David Roberts
Should PAYGO rules apply to the moonshot? [laughs]
Jay Inslee
There are so many questions that should not stop us from the launch, okay? That’s what we should be focused on right now, the launch.
I am undeterred by all of these other questions. I don’t think they’re injurious to the effort at all. I think it’s been hugely successful in getting this thing on the agenda.
David Roberts
Have you endorsed the Green New Deal?
Jay Inslee
Well, I don’t get to vote on it, but I am totally in sync and believe that it is exactly what I have said for decades. I think these aspirational goals are appropriate to the time and the scale. I love the fact that it is embracing economic justice issues as well. I think we have come to understand more about how marginalized communities have been the victims of climate change.
The filibuster, voting reform, and creating new states, oh my
David Roberts
There are all sorts of procedural difficulties for progressives in the US, but one that’s come in for a lot of scrutiny lately is the Senate filibuster. It looks to many people like, whatever momentum you gather on the front end, at the end of the line is a needle through which no camel can pass. How serious are you are about trying to get rid of the filibuster?
Jay Inslee
I believe the filibuster is an artifact of history that no longer fits American democracy. It is such an impediment to our ability to respond to multiple challenges. We know how it would prevent climate change legislation of any dimension from moving through the Senate. In the short term, it’s very difficult to see how we move forward without elimination of the filibuster.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell
Serial filibuster abuser Mitch McConnell.
Aaron P. Bernstein/Getty
By the way, it has been eliminated, any time Mitch McConnell wants to eliminate it! It’s a vestigial organ that has been transformed from a rarely used protection of regional economies to a weaponized system for the right wing by Mitch McConnell. This is not your grandfather’s filibuster; it’s a nuclear weapon. It has to go if we’re to make progress on climate change, that’s absolutely clear.
But that’s not the only reason it needs to go. I have believed for some time that democracy means one person, one vote. No senator should be looked at as superior and no senator should be looked at as inferior. The filibuster gives one senator one and a half votes.
David Roberts
Joe Lieberman, I think, is the shorthand term for that person.
Jay Inslee
What kind of sense does it make that the senator who wants the status quo gets one and a half votes and the senator who wants change gets one? That does not make sense to me. I said years ago that it should go, and I still believe it.
David Roberts
What about fears among Democrats about what Republicans would do absent the filibuster?
Jay Inslee
Obviously, the rules have to be for everyone. This means Americans are going to get what Americans vote for.
David Roberts
They’re not used to that.
Jay Inslee
If America votes for Democrats, they should get Democratic policies, aligned with some independents. If they vote for Republicans, they’re going to get Republican policies. That’s called democracy. Yes, there are risks in democracy. Certainly the election of Donald Trump has demonstrated the risks of democracy.
David Roberts
Not a majority democracy.
Jay Inslee
We’ll come to the Electoral College next.
But the filibuster means being chained to the past, because it’s a protection of the status quo. We cannot be chained to the past by a nondemocratic institution. The world is changing too fast. Bottom line, you can’t have antebellum rules in the Senate in the internet age.
And I have the same view of the Electoral College. It ought to be one person, one vote.
David Roberts
What’s the right reform there?
Jay Inslee
The fastest way is for other states to join Washington in a contract that we will vote our electoral ballots the way the popular vote goes, nationally. As soon as you get to a majority of states, you don’t need a constitutional amendment.
David Roberts
That would have changed a few key election outcomes in past decades.
Jay Inslee
It would have prevented the chaos we now are experiencing.
By the way, I read an article by Ralph Nader the other day saying that it’s a huge mistake for Howard Schultz to run because he’ll be a spoiler, but don’t be mean to him and tell him not to do it. [laughs] That was the article. Of course, he won’t get a single electoral vote, but he may get us Donald Trump again, which would be a disaster. But don’t be mean to him when he’s thinking about it.
David Roberts
I think Schultz, like Nader, may have misread the moment.
Jay Inslee
The mirror is a pretty powerful instrument.
Howard Schultz.
“What have I done?”
Joshua Lott/Getty Images
David Roberts
Lots of progressives are also talking about statehood for Puerto Rico and Washington, DC, to give them federal representation and votes in the Senate.
Jay Inslee
I’ve always supported statehood for Puerto Rico and DC. People have got to have representation — 700,000 people in the District of Columbia is as large as Wyoming.
David Roberts
That’s not saying much.
Jay Inslee
By the way, we were in a meeting with the EPA two days ago and the governor of Wyoming interrupted me to explain that wind turbines cause climate change. And Washington state is the reason we have climate change, because we have not burned enough coal. I’m not making this up.
Figuring out what Washington voters will support
David Roberts
Are you still thinking about some sort of carbon pricing system, or hooking up with California’s system?
Jay Inslee
This year, I haven’t proposed a carbon pricing system. I thought it was too soon after the initiative. We need some victories. So I decided to go the other route. But what I have proposed has roughly the same level of carbon reductions as the initiative would have had.
I would not rule out some sort of carbon pricing system, federally or statewide, in the future, but this is what I’ve proposed to move forward right now.
David Roberts
We’re constantly being told that the public’s changing their mind on climate change. But in Washington, two initiatives put straight to voters [I-732 and I-1631], very different varieties of carbon policy systems, were both rejected.
Jay Inslee
First off, if we had an initiative on the ballot that said, “Washington state should move on climate change,” that would’ve passed. We could’ve had a hundred different initiatives I believe would have passed, involving regulatory approaches, many of which are the things I’ve proposed in the legislature this year. The one that did get on the ballot was the hardest to pass, the pricing system.
1631
Washington did not, in the end, say yes on 1631.
Hannah Letinich, Yes On 1631
But that is only one of the many tools at our disposal, from 100 percent clean grid to clean fuel standards, direct incentive programs, hydrophobic elimination, and building infrastructure for clean public transportation. Don’t let one message on one plan stop an effort to build a new, clean economy.
David Roberts
One final Washington state question: I wanted to ask how you see the role of density and public transit in the climate fight. Specifically, there’s a bill brewing now among House Democrats in Washington state that’s going to cut billions of dollars of funding from Sound Transit 3 funding. Would you veto that bill?
Jay Inslee
On the legislation, I can’t make any blanket statements because I don’t know what they’re proposing. Clearly we need to continue investment in Sound Transit. Public transportation is absolutely central to defeating climate change. We have to reorient our thinking, just because of geography.
We’re not making any more dirt. There’s just no more land to use.
David Roberts
And people keep coming.
Jay Inslee
And people keep coming. So we have to increase the carrying capacity per mile of every mile of corridor. That’s just a simple physics fact. That means you have to have more options for public transportation. I’m highly protective of that.
I also think we’re going to have to recognize the need for more density. This creates controversy, but again, it’s a physical principle. We’re either going to have more density or we’re going to have single-family dwellings at the top of Mount Rainier.
This is an issue we’re going to have to grapple with. There is a bill in the legislature to promote more density. I hope it advances.
Bipartisanship, but also, partisanship
David Roberts
This is an unanswerable question, so it’ll be a good one to finish on.
Obviously, everything Democrats are dealing with right now, in terms of strategy and tactics, has to do with getting something done in the face of total intransigence from the other party. You’ve seen the same divide in our state, between eastern and western Washington.
It seems like it’s only growing, that we have two alien peoples occupying the same country. And it doesn’t seem like a country like that can remain stable over the long term. Do you see any prospect of changing it?
Jay Inslee
Actually, on climate change, the public is not as divided. Big majorities of the public want action on climate change. But the Republican elected leadership is under the thrall of Donald Trump, even though they’ll privately tell you that this is a problem. They won’t publicly say it yet.
We have to encourage those Republican leaders to step out of the shadow of Donald Trump and come to the table to find some solutions. And we’re open to that.
Now, we have had some bipartisan success [in Washington government] — a bipartisan education bill, a bipartisan transportation bill that had the biggest percentage for public transportation in the state’s history. You can get things done. But at the moment, we’ve got to defeat Republicans.
And we have been successful at that in my state. We picked up Senate seats. I’m chair of the Democratic Governors Association — Democrats flipped several governorships. Now we have 21 states in our Climate Alliance. So don’t give up hope.
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... -interview
Why the Best New Deal Is a Green New Deal
Energized Democrats are learning from their activist base that a sustainable and just environmental plan is not only good policy, it’s good politics.
By Greg Carlock and Sean McElwee September 18, 2018
Randy Bryce Wisconsin
Randy “IronStache” Bryce (seen here in Madison, Wisconsin, in 2015) is the Democratic nominee to replace Representative Paul Ryan in the US House of Representatives. He is calling for a “massive investment in green infrastructure" and jobs. (Amber Arnold / Wisconsin State Journal via AP)
As government leaders, environmental experts, and concerned citizens from around the world gathered last week in San Francisco at the Global Climate Action Summit, a message has emerged from progressive activists: Action on climate change is about more than just power plants or temperature goals. The climate movement has become a powerful political force, with tens of thousands of people from across America’s largest cities and smallest communities calling for an end to the unsustainable use of fossil fuels—but now the call includes plans that create jobs and address the possible disproportionate effects on marginal and at-risk communities. Progressive politicians are following their lead, increasingly realizing that the only way to equitably meet the challenge of a clean-energy revolution is a 21st-century economy that guarantees clean air and water, modernizes national infrastructure, and creates high-quality jobs.
Insurgent Democratic candidates have been the rock stars of the 2018 election cycle, with large parts of the progressive agenda rocketing up the charts with them. And key to that agenda is these candidates’ embrace of activist positions on climate change, jobs, and environmental justice. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—who caught the nation’s attention with her inspiring primary win over a member of the Democratic House leadership, Representative Joe Crowley—includes in her platform “transitioning the United States to a carbon-free, 100-percent renewable energy system, and a fully modernized electrical grid by 2035.” Randy Bryce—the hard-hatted, union-backed veteran known as “IronStache”—is running to take the Wisconsin seat being vacated by House Speaker Paul Ryan. He calls for a “massive investment in green infrastructure that would generate tens of thousands of new jobs,” bring an end to fossil-fuel use, and build community resilience.
Similar initiatives are championed by Michigan Democrat Rashida Tlaib, who is hoping to be the first Muslim woman elected to Congress; Andrew Gillum, the Democratic nominee who could be the first African-American governor of Florida; and Kevin de León, who is up against 26-year incumbent US senator and Democratic institution Dianne Feinstein in California. Their proposals vary in form and potential, but they each fall under the same banner.
They call it a Green New Deal.
The name draws on Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal economic reform and job programs of the 1930s. The novel environmental framing has been traced back to a decade ago, when New York Times columnist and hardly man-of-the-left Thomas Friedman used it to call—in a distinctly capitalist context—for caps on emissions and an end to fuel subsidies. But today, in the hands and on the platforms of a new wave of activist candidates, the Green New Deal has become something more comprehensive and ambitious. A new report by Data for Progress outlines this vision, demonstrating that, like in FDR’s time, this new deal is one that should energize progressive voters.
The Green New Deal is a broad, yet specific, set of policy goals and investments that blend environmental sustainability and economic stability in ways that are both just and equitable. First, the study factors in the best current research to ensure the components of a Green New Deal meet the urgency and scale of our greatest environmental threats: heading off further climate change by taking fossil fuels out of the economy, restoring our forests and wetlands so they can suck more carbon out of the atmosphere, and finishing the job of cleaning our air and water. Second, a Green New Deal is about bringing sustainability and stability to the economy. This means sustainable agriculture and zero waste, upgrading our infrastructure and urban transit systems, and building up resilience to the severe weather disasters in both urban and rural communities.
Third, a Green New Deal is a job creator. Targeted investments in clean energy, energy efficiency, reforestation, and construction will generate private-sector green jobs. The combination of training and a green-job guarantee ensures there is employment and a livable wage waiting for anyone who wants to join the 21st-century sustainable, clean-energy workforce. Finally, and most importantly, a Green New Deal is founded upon principles of equity and justice. The goal is to avoid the past mistakes of similar initiatives by resolving the inequities felt by those—particularly in low-income, indigenous, and minority communities—who historically endure a greater share of environmental harm and receive fewer benefits.
Current Issue
This is what makes the Green New Deal different. Environmentalists who might have once ignored economics and equity have learned the hard lessons of the past. In the state of Washington, for example, Ballot Initiative 732 was a first-of-its-kind carbon-tax law in 2016—however, it lost support by failing to provide for investment in the most vulnerable and hardest-hit communities. A revised initiative, 1631, which promises investments in green programs with immediate economic benefits, heads to the ballot this November. With broader support and a better chance of passing, it could provide a roadmap for beating back opposition from powerful fossil-fuel lobbies. This year, seven state houses—in Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington—have seen the introduction of carbon-pricing legislation with some consideration of equity.
And that’s a start, but organizers and progressive candidates who recognize the stakes this election cycle are infusing environmental lawmaking with a sense of urgency that inspires more than incremental steps. The Trump administration has pulled out of international accords on climate change while moving to bail out the coal industry and roll back air-pollution regulations—actions that could cause thousands more premature deaths each year.
But the federal government’s hostility to environmental stewardship could prove to be progressive candidates’ opportunity. The Data for Progress report analyzed the 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study survey results, which asked about political attitudes and policy support during the 2016 election cycle. The chart below shows specific environmental policies that have greater than 55 percent support in the median state, topping out with fuel-efficiency standards garnering 74 percent. (We analyze the median state to give a better sense of the middle of America, because polarized opinions can skew a national average and are not distributed evenly across the country.)
We also analyzed results from a public-opinion survey commissioned in July 2018 by Data for Progress and the advocacy groups Sunrise Movement and 350 Action. One question asked about support for, or opposition to, community job creation, for both generic jobs and green jobs. While 55 percent of Americans support both generic and green job creation equally, the green-job framing elicited far less opposition: 18 percent, compared to 23 percent for generic job creation. Green jobs also performed well across across all age groups, particularly among young voters, as well as across geographic demarcations, garnering high net support among urban, suburban, and rural populations. The analysis (with interactive maps) suggests that such policies would have strong support across the country.
A message around green jobs would help progressives combat the myth that environmental policies harm workers. However, even the concern that voters buy in to this myth is overstated. Also in the American National Election Studies 2016 results, which Data For Progress analyzed, were opinions on whether environmental regulation creates jobs or costs jobs: Fifty-eight percent of Americans felt that protecting the environment would create jobs–while only 22 percent felt it would decrease the number of jobs.
The more important question, however, is whether these preferences will change votes or turnout on Election Day. We also found signs this could be the case. Among eligible voters who expressed enthusiasm for the 2018 elections, 55 percent said they are more likely to vote for a candidate who supports a green-jobs guarantee. And 52 percent said they are more likely to vote for a candidate backing a 100-percent renewable-energy policy. Support for both policies jumps to 81 percent when questioning Democratic voters.
Not only is a Green New Deal practically feasible, it’s also politically feasible, especially in the Democratic party.
A Green New Deal is more than a smart carbon tax or some environmental regulation. It is one part of a progressive vision that strives to actually create the much-talked-about but still-painfully-absent 21st- century economy—with millions of living-wage jobs and justice for all. It also just happens to have the added benefits of mitigating climate change, guaranteeing clean air and water, and building community resilience.
Not a bad deal at all.
https://www.thenation.com/article/why-t ... -new-deal/
“It sounded crazy, but we dedicated our fullest resources to it, and our hard work paid off eight years later when we managed to convincingly fake the moon landing,” Bee cracked. “But if we don’t act soon to keep our planet livable, we’ll have to figure out a way to send all 8 billion of us to the actual moon.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UaDIgmilIZs
I share my cornfields with lots and lots of wind turbines
:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/15628615/trifecta_map5.jpg)
