,
27 tweets,
13 min read
Read on Twitter
Today, @AOC & @EdMarkey released a Congressional Resolution calling for a #GreenNewDeal, "a 10-year plan to mobilize every aspect of American society at a scale not seen since World War 2 to achieve net-zero greenhouse emissions and create economic prosperity for all." My take...
You can read the full text of the #GreenNewDeal resolution here: apps.npr.org/documents/docu…
And a fact sheet being circulated by @AOC to define her vision of the plan here: apps.npr.org/documents/docu…
Both are short, so dig in yourself if you haven't yet.
And a fact sheet being circulated by @AOC to define her vision of the plan here: apps.npr.org/documents/docu…
Both are short, so dig in yourself if you haven't yet.
I commend @AOC, @EdMarkey & #GreenNewDeal co-sponsors for putting the urgent need to confront #climatechange with an ambitious clean energy mobilization on the top of the political agenda. This is an urgent threat. Confronting it is a real opportunity for economic renewal.
The text of the #GND Resolution itself (apps.npr.org/documents/docu…) frames the broad challenge and opportunity. Much of the language is ambiguous and details are sparse, but as a starting point for a serious legislative debate to follow, the Resolution is constructive.
The Resolution aims to set the US on path to "net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition." The science is clear: #climatechange is already happening. We must zero out U.S. (& world) emissions to stave off even worse effects. Dramatic action is needed.
The resolution calls on the US to meet "100% of power demand through clean, renewable, and zero-emissions energy sources." That includes "dramatically expanding ... renewable power sources" but can also be read as inclusive of clean, CO2-free sources like nuclear & carbon capture
If read that way, the #GreenNewDeal follows states like CA & NY in taking an ambitious step to confront the #climatecrisis that takes advantage of all carbon-free solutions. That’s exactly what I urged GND supporters to do in a @NYTimes op ed last month nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opi…
As dozens of studies have shown, harness a diverse set of low-carbon resources is the most cost-effective, reliable way to get to net zero CO2. Narrowing our set of tools in the face of a true crisis is ludicrous and self-defeating. We need all hands on deck for this challenge.
Based on convos w/several Hill offices & past statements from co-sponsors, I believe the Resolution was careful to avoid a narrow call for 100% renewables & that was key to secure broader co-sponsorship, including people like @CoryBooker, who embrace a tech-inclusive approach.
However, a fact sheet being circulated by @AOC (apps.npr.org/documents/docu…) could undermine all of that. It is unclear whether this FAQ represents her vision alone, or that of co-sponsors, but she is driving this agenda and has a powerful microphone to define the GND for the public.
I urge @AOC not to undermine the coalition built for the #GreenNewDeal Resolution – and the broader one needed to actually enact any legislation – in order to appeal to a narrow subset of her base. That could turn a constructive start of debate into a self-defeating moment.
.@AOC's FAQ says GND will focus only on renewables, will aim to phase out the whole nuclear fleet as soon as possible, invest in no new nuclear, and casts doubts about utility of carbon capture & storage. That appears in conflict with Resolution text & co-sponsors’ positions.
The FAQ also claims the goal is complete transition to net zero emissions by 2030 -- despite acknowledging that even IPCC 1.5C report only calls for 40-60% cuts by 2030. Getting to net zero by 2050 would be more consistent with IPCC guidance & hugely ambitious challenge itself.
Compressing the timeline to 10 years like this is unrealistic, unecessary, & raises costs tremendously as it requires replacing virtually the entirety of the U.S. energy infrastructure in just ten years and means scrapping a lot of assets before their usual replacement rate.
For one estimate of how much that would cost, @DrChrisClack calculates about $48 trillion over ten years to replace U.S. energy infrastructure for a net zero emissions goal. That's about 25% of US GDP and more EACH YEAR than total WW2 spending in absolute, inflation adjusted $.
So if the fact sheet @AOC is circulating comes to define what a #GreenNewDeal means, it could be a complete non-starter. It excludes important climate solutions, alienates potential allies, and proposes an unecessarily costly and unrealistic timeline.
So when people ask, "Do you support a #GreenNewDeal?" I'm still left without a clear answer. WHAT Green New Deal? Whose vision? It is clear that this discussion is still just beginning...
My view is that #climatechange is a serious crisis that threatens every American, our children, and generations to come. Confronting the crisis should be at the top of the political agenda, and doing so in the right way does offer opportunities for economic renewal we also need.
A ten-year national mobilization to put America on a path to a net zero emissions economy is an appropriate response to the urgency and scale of the climate challenge. We have to get to net zero emissions by 2050. A major 10 year push can turn the country around & put us on track
However, actually accomplishing that transition requires an all hands on deck approach that harnesses all available solutions -- and requires making some hard decisions about real tradeoffs.
A succesful legislative agenda also requires building a real, expansive coalition from across the country, not just appealing to a subset of the grassroots left. I hope champions of a #GreenNewDeal are serious about making real, legislative progress, not just riling their base.
Truly confronting the #climatecrisis requires consensus-building & a broad coalition of support. We have to get to net zero emissions by 2050 to limit the damages from a #climate already changed & getting worse. There is no time to waste. I look forward to the debate ahead.
/end
/end
Update: @GavinBade quotes @SenMarkey as saying anti-nuclear language in AOC fact sheet “not part of the resolution.”
“The resolution is silent on individual technologies."
“The resolution is silent on individual technologies."
As I said above: there's the Resolution & there's AOC's vision, as articulated in her fact sheet. They're not the same it appears, and the co-sponsors of the Resolution signed up for the text of the Resolution, not the Fact Sheet.
Update 2: The FAQ has no disapeared from AOC's website. It used to live here: ocasio-cortez.house.gov/media/blog-pos… 
What I think this whole kerfuffle with the FAQ tells us: the smarter strategy -- both for coalition building reasons & technical merit -- is to be inclusive of all clean, carbon-free tools at our disposal.
(Also: don't end run your co-sponsors. It doesnt go over well.)
(Also: don't end run your co-sponsors. It doesnt go over well.)
Addendum, postscript, whatever...
For more good takes on the GND, please read:
@leahstokes
@DrJaneFlegal
@alexbaca slate.com/business/2019/…
For more good takes on the GND, please read:
@leahstokes
@DrJaneFlegal
@alexbaca slate.com/business/2019/…
