#GreenNewDeal... Or Bust

Ayn Rand has left the building and in a few days a new Congress begins work. Many millions of Americans think there is nothing more important facing it than to start to deal seriously with Climate Change. There are now 43 members of Congress who have signed onto a framework for doing just that, the Sunrise Movement's GreenNewDeal. These 43 members asked Pelosi and her leadership team to enable a Select Committee on the GreenNewDeal. Pressured by corrupt and powerful Democrats within the caucus-- and led by deceitful (as in living a life in the closet) New Jersey scumbag Frank Pallone-- Pelosi has turned them down and instead opted for a toothless sop of a committee (the Committee on Climate Crisis) that has no power and that will no doubt be dominated by Hoyer's and Pallone's pals at Big Oil and Gas. Pelosi hopes it attracts lots of progressives so their energy will be drained in a maze that leads nowhere.

The young leaders of the Sunrise Movement have already informed their allies that they believe that "any Select Committee on Climate Change will be wholly inadequate without a clear mandate to develop a comprehensive plan to confront the climate crisis at the scale and speed that scientists tell us is necessary. We have before us an opportunity to create millions of good jobs, virtually eliminate poverty in the United States, and lift up communities that have been left behind by racism and disinvestment. Developing such a plan is a moral necessity. To our knowledge, the proposed resolution from Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for a Select Committee on a Green New Deal is the only proposal on the table we know of that takes that mandate seriously."



They have asked that all committee members take the No Fossil Fuel Money pledge, which would, by the way, "inspire a historic level of support, enthusiasm, and renewed trust in the Democratic Party from young voters and potential voters. These actions are not only what are needed to ensure our rights to clean air, water, healthy communities, good jobs, and a livable future-- they are also in the party’s best interests politically, as 81% of voters support the goals of a Green New Deal."


What we are talking about goes beyond politics. This is about survival, this is about existence, this is about the world we will grow old in and leave behind for our children. Does the Democratic Party leadership stay up at night with the same fears held in the hearts of our generation, or are they just concerned with their next election?

In their badly titled Washington Post article yesterday, Elise Vierbeck and Dave Weigel, pointed out that the "committee will not have authority to approve legislation and is not expected to have subpoena power [and that] its work may not carry weight with the powerful standing committees in the House. The coming battle will test liberals' clout as tensions between the activist left and the Democratic establishment underscore the ideological and strategic rifts that will affect the party ahead of the 2020 presidential primary."

They quoted Varshini Prakash of the Sunrise Movement: "Without a mandate to create a plan and a requirement that its members don't take fossil fuel money, we are deeply concerned that this committee will be just another of the many committees we've seen failing our generation our entire lives."

Emphasizing the destructive turf war Pallone is leading, Weigel noted that "The committees still have moved to defend their turf on climate issues" and that Pallone is moving to push his own hearings-- Pallone has taken $135,689 in bribes from Big Oil and Gas interests-- and noted that "the New Jersey Democrat has not backed the Green New Deal. 'The goal of trying to reduce fossil fuels and get to a carbon-neutral economy is important and something that I agree with. The question is how long it takes to do that,' he said recently, according to the Asbury Park Press. 'The Green New Deal says you can do it in 10 years. I don't know if that's technologically feasible. . . . Beyond that, it's probably not politically feasible.' Critics of standing committees argue that they can be easily distracted from ambitious work and may be more susceptible to influence from lobbyists." Uh, huh... "not feasible", like McCaskill's "pie-in-the-sky" is what defenders of the status quo label ideas that... threaten the status quo, the way the American Revolution did, the emancipation of the slaves did, free education did, passing the Social Security Act did, the minimum wage did, rural electrification did, consumer protections did, Medicare did... all that stuff... not feasible. Just remember which side Frank Pallone, like McCaskill, is on.

Last week, Scientific American ran an interview by Anne Mulkern with California Congressman-elect Mike Levin who is the only one of the 7 California freshmen to have signed onto the GreenNewDeal and who favors making Climate a 2020 election issue. Levin flipped an Orange County/San Diego district that had been occupied by Darrell Issa campaigning on climate issues. He beat Kevin McCarthy's handpicked Republican candidate, Diane Harkey, 166,453 (56.4%) to 128,577 (43.6%, the biggest margin of any of the flipped California seats.

Levin’s an environmental attorney who also ran a clean technology trade group. He picked the title “Clean Energy Advocate” for his ballot description.

As they take control of the House in January, Democrats shouldn’t shy away from seeking action on global warming, Levin said. They can set parameters for the 2020 elections and let potential candidates know “that we do expect them to take bold and aggressive action to get us back on a course toward global leadership as it pertains to climate change,” he said.

“That’s something that I think we’ll be holding all of the presidential candidates to account for,” Levin said.

His election represents a big change for California’s 49th District, which stretches along the coast from Del Mar in north San Diego County to Dana Point in south Orange County. It includes a large Marine Corps base and several neighborhoods with median home prices close to or topping $1 million.

During the last part of his tenure, Issa said he accepted climate change but opposed actions to address it that he saw as costly. He criticized President Obama’s “Green Jobs Initiative,” a bid to fund investments in the clean energy sector and create 5 million jobs. After narrowly winning re-election in 2016, Issa joined the House Climate Solutions Caucus.

Shortly after launching his bid for the office, Levin confronted Issa about his views on climate at a town hall meeting, holding up the book “Climate Change for Beginners.” (He also mailed it to the congressman.) Levin asked why Issa supported President Trump’s agenda “to gut the EPA, to gut basic science.” He also joined protests outside Issa’s local office urging him to retire.

Here’s what he told E&E News in a recent interview:

Why did you believe running as “Clean Energy Advocate” would appeal to voters?

My background for the last decade-plus has been in clean energy and environmental protection. A lot of the work that we’ve done in California is potentially a national model for what is possible in the United States.

I ultimately campaigned on climate change and the environment because one, it was my background, and two, I think it was the right thing to do.

There was an article that was written by the Washington Examiner that said I was gambling by campaigning on climate change. I think just the opposite is true: We’re gambling if we don’t talk about climate change.

How so?

All you have to do is look at any of the recent reports [such as the fourth National Climate Assessment released by the Trump administration or the most recent U.N. International Panel on Climate Change report].

If you read even the summaries of those and the impact that global climate change will have here to our economy, to our environment, then not acknowledging the scientific consensus and taking affirmative steps to reduce our emissions footprint is a gamble that we cannot afford.

What sort of feedback did you hear from voters about your emphasis on clean energy and climate? The district is changing demographically but still has many conservatives.

It has been and continues to be a coastal district. The overwhelming feedback has been that we need to protect the quality of our air and water, and our beaches, and our oceans.

You said in a recent email that to reduce carbon emissions, “we must consider several ideas and not be afraid of bold action.” Can you give me an example of potential bold actions?

We do need to create a new select committee on climate change that can both re-educate the public on the dangers posed by climate change, as well as do stakeholder engagement with a wide variety of important organizations and industry partners in the clean energy industry.

Then ultimately we’ll draft policy... It will be a “Green New Deal.” The details are the key: what that will look like, how quickly we can transition, what type of jobs we’re creating and who will benefit economically? My hope is we’ll have a just transition from fossil fuel use to renewables as quickly as possible.

What is your strategy on how you’re going to get any of this accomplished over the next two years, with a GOP-controlled Senate and White House?

We’ve got to take the long view. Obviously we’re not going to get a “Green New Deal” with Donald Trump in the White House. What we can do is try to piece together as many elements, sort of a down payment on the “Green New Deal” over the next two years, try to work with our friends across the aisle to whatever extent possible, but also plant a stake in the ground for all those running for president in 2020.