The Kernel of It

After some throat-clearing, H. R. 109 gets down to its kernel:

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

(D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—

(i) clean air and water;

(ii) climate and community resiliency;

(iii) healthy food;

(iv) access to nature; and

(v) a sustainable environment; and

(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal goals”) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal mobilization”) that will require the following goals and projects—

(A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;

(B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—

(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;

(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;

(iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and

(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;

(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—

(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and

(ii) by deploying new capacity;

(D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and “smart” power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity;

(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

(F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;

(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—

(i) by supporting family farming;

(ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and

(iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and

(iii) high-speed rail;

(I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;

(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;

(K) restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;

(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites;

(M) identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them; and

(N) promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal;

(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and

(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—

(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;

(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—

(i) existing laws;

(ii) new policies and programs; and

(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;

(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;

(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;

(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;

(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;

(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;

(H) guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States;

(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;

(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;

(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—

(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and

(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;

(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;

(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;

(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and

(O) providing all people of the United States with—

(i) high-quality health care;

(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;

(iii) economic security; and

(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.

I take that as a statement of objectives and my commentary on it has largely been devoted to pointing out that those objectives cannot be accomplished by the means also in the plain text of the resolution without dire secondary effects. For example:

(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—

(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and

(ii) by deploying new capacity;

cannot be accomplished with existing technology and there is good reason to believe that the technology to accomplish it will never exist.

Recently, I have been taken to task for taking the resolution seriously and I should withhold my commentary until implementing legislation is made available. My view is that a it’s completely fair to respond to a statement of objectives by demonstrating that the objectives cannot be accomplished.

Remarks?

11 comments… add one
  • Gray Shambler Link

    That says more about how they want to be perceived than what they intend to achieve. In short, an untruth.

  • Guarneri Link

    “Remarks?”

    Seriously? The usual defense advocates put forth: “its aspirational,” “a starting point,” or “just designed to spur discussion” is pure bullshit. We might as well spur discussion of perpetual motion machines. Those rationale are designed to put a smokescreen in front of the new class of elected kindergarteners and base pandering presidential candidates.

    Said differently, its nonsense virtue signaling by some, and self identification as a moron by others. Total nonsense. No rational discussions of things like nuclear, the limits of renewables etc need apply. And that’s unfortunate.

  • TastyBits Link

    When a Democrat presidential candidate claims to believe in science and eats dirt for its spiritual healing qualities, it tells you all you need to know about the “science-based” party.

  • Andy Link

    There are certainly a host of things in there that work at cross-purposes.

    Perhaps the biggest problem is how it’s addressed in terms of “mobilization.” AOC and others have specifically made direct comparisons to the mobilization in WWII. That itself is a huge incongruity with many of the stated goals. I wonder if they know what mobilization for WWII actually consisted of.

  • steve Link

    I think it is perfectly fine to criticize a wish list, as long as you acknowledge you are criticizing wishes. Would expect serious commentary to wait until we have actual legislation. May just be my imagination but you seem to have given this more time than other famous claims made by much more powerful and influential people like “we will have health care for everyone and it will better cheaper and it will be easy”.

    Steve

  • Would expect serious commentary to wait until we have actual legislation.

    One would expect a wish list to anticipate what can actually be accomplished. At least among adults.

    Yes, I have devoted more time to it. That’s because I’m more concerned about the Congress than the president. Under our system the Congress has most of the power. That they elect to abrogate it does not change that reality.

  • Andy Link

    “May just be my imagination but you seem to have given this more time than other famous claims made by much more powerful and influential people like “we will have health care for everyone and it will better cheaper and it will be easy”.”

    Were those claims ever put up as a platform and incorporated into a legislative resolution?

    In short, while I agree that this is best characterized as a wish list, it is still a formal wish list put into legislative language. To me, that means it must be taken more seriously than simple talk.

  • Also, look back over my posts of the last several years. I rarely complained about Obama just as I rarely complain about Trump. I frequently comment on policies and very frequently complain about the Congress.

    I didn’t perseverate over Benghazi; I don’t kvetch about Russian collusion. There is a reason for that. I don’t think that presidents are as important as most Americans seem to. I do think that Congress is important and that an overemphasis on the president promotes Congress’s desire to avoid taking stands.

  • Guarneri Link

    I would simply note that Congresspeople have no spine. So they react to the whims of the day. Whims come in the form of stupid proposals and stupid formal legislation. It’s dangerous to let whims gain traction. Crazy shit happens.

  • steve Link

    “That they elect to abrogate it does not change that reality.”

    But they do elect to abrogate it and policy largely comes from the executive branch. This Congress has been very careful about not doing anything to offend Trump. POTUS has increasingly dominated our government and Trump continues that progression. He owns the party so you have to take it seriously.

    “Were those claims ever put up as a platform and incorporated into a legislative resolution?”

    They tried and failed to pass health care reform. Trump says they are going to try again. Let’s see if ti really does cover everyone, if it is better and if it is cheaper. He has already failed the easy test.

    Steve

  • Andy Link

    “They tried and failed to pass health care reform. Trump says they are going to try again. Let’s see if ti really does cover everyone, if it is better and if it is cheaper. He has already failed the easy test.”

    I don’t think they ever got to the try part. Maybe I missed it, but I haven’t even seen a statement of goals/principles similar to the GND – the GoP does not seem to have any kind of reform plan or even an outline beyond platitudes. If they ever get to the point of writing something akin to the GND, I certainly will not hold back giving my opinions on it.

Leave a Comment