The #GreenNewDeal framework is largely a deployment of federal investments in clean technologies for lots of sectors, creating millions of jobs while cleaning up fossil fuel pollution and correcting environmental injustices. That's exactly the framework of the climate crisis EO!
On emissions reductions, the EO targets net-zero carbon from US electricity by 2035 and zero-emissions vehicles for federal, state, local fleets, including @USPS trucks. Those two sectors account for close to 60% of US carbon pollution.
The electricity sector target is great, but it's not clear how much an EO can get done here. It can give @EPA a target to shoot for, but an assist through congressional legislation would be big here. I discussed the possibilities a couple weeks ago: yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/commen…
The electrification of the federal fleet is huge, and one of the most consequential components of @POTUS' climate EOs. Currently just 2% of US car sales are EVs/plug-ins (way too low!), with 1.4M on the road. The federal fleet is 650k vehicles, so would increase that nearly 50%!
Transportation is the #1 GHG emissions sector in the US (28%) and remains stagnant at 2005 levels, unlike electricity, where emissions have declined as coal has been replaced by cleaner cheaper alternatives. Federal procurement creates stable demand for EVs, which will cut costs.
California & Massachusetts also both set mandates for 100% emissions-free vehicle sales by 2035. EVs are the future. Automakers see the writing on the wall. @GM now aims for 100% zero-emissions sales by 2035 and started hiring >1000 workers at US plants making batteries and EVs.
Signing the EO, @POTUS said “When I think of climate, I think of jobs,” and it shows! The EO creates a Civilian Climate Corps like the original New Deal's Civilian Conservation Corps. GND proponents @AOC & @VarshPrakash pushed for this on the Biden-Sanders climate task force.
The climate crisis EO also stipulates that federal procurement of EVs, clean energy, energy efficiency, etc. will follow the @POTUS 'Made in America' EO. Federal procurement of EVs, etc. will thus create lots of US jobs too, as we're already seeing with @GM.
The EO also does a lot on environmental justice, including establishing a Justice40 Initiative to get 40% of investment benefits to disadvantaged communities. It includes communities of color & low-income hurt by fossil fuel pollution & regions reliant on fossil fuel extraction.
The GND & EO also both aim to remove carbon from the atmosphere by restoring natural ecosystems, both through forest preservation and also importantly agricultural practices; e.g., the EO tells @USDA to encourage the voluntary adoption of climate-smart ag & forestry practices.
The EO is obv much smaller than a full-blown #GreenNewDeal. EOs only apply to federal agencies, so there's only so much they can do. But it's great to see @POTUS following the GND framework & accomplishing so much toward its goals. Rest is up to Congress: yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/01/commen…
Now it's up to federal agencies to implement the orders outlined by @POTUS. Fortunately he's put a great climate team in place to do that! End of thread, now please go read the article for more details 😁 yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/02/bidens…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
First, HUGE CAVEAT: we can't put a $$$ value on many climate crisis consequences like suffering, trauma, extinctions, lost biodiversity, etc., as advocates like @GretaThunberg & @sunrisemvmt remind us. Nevertheless, the economic case for climate solutions is a no-brainer (2/10)
Opponents like Trump & @NikkiHaley argue against a #GreenNewDeal by inflating its cost and ignoring its benefits. They're only doing the first half of a cost-benefit analysis, and doing it in a bad faith, bullshit way (e.g. see the thread below) (3/10)
So, what's happening in the Arctic now is kinda crazy, but also really important to extreme weather throughout the northern hemisphere. Read my piece today on the topic, but here's a Thread: yaleclimateconnections.org/2020/10/warmer…
First, the basics: there's a "positive feedback" (positive in the negative sense, Trump would say), like a mutually destructive relationship. Warming melts ice & snow in the Arctic, making the surface less reflective -> absorb more sunlight -> warm more -> melt more -> etc. 1/n
As a result, the Arctic is warming 3x faster than the global avg, and sea ice is disappearing fast. Half Arctic sea ice surface area and 75% of its volume disappeared in summers between 1979 and 2012.
Then 2014–2020 were the 7 hottest years on record. Guess what happened? 2/n
We've been fighting for climate action (without a lot of success) for over 30 years now. The reason we haven't won isn't that @algore or @billmckibben are secret evil villains, as Moore and Gibbs would have us believe.
It's that THE FOSSIL FUEL INDUSTRY ARE ACTUAL VILLAINS!!
Fossil fuel companies have spent billions of dollars undermining climate policy proposals, international climate negotiations, and spreading doubt about climate science among the public, even as their own scientists warned them about climate change before I was even born.
There is soooooooo much misleading junk in this film. Most of it is focused on biomass from wood, which supplies 2% of energy in the US. And wind turbines are bad because ... they only last several decades and NIMBYs don't like them?
The film's solution is, I guess don't use any energy because no source of energy is perfect? There's no comparison of pros and cons, no consideration of benefits at all. It only looks at the downside of every source of energy and thus basically concludes that civilization is bad.
My favorite part was when they looked at a former solar farm location in Daggett, CA, now just sand, and declared the revelation that it's become a "solar wasteland."
I pulled up Google Maps and found Daggett in the Mojave Desert. It's all sand out there!!! WTF?!
@sarahknapton 2) "In 1990 the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) predicted that temperatures would rise by 0.54F (0.3C) per decade."
@sarahknapton 3) "Yet, some scientists argue that [CO2] is not capable of producing the extreme temperature rises seen in recent decades."
You can also find "some scientists" who argue the Earth is flat. There's a 97% expert consensus on human-caused global warming. skepticalscience.com/global-warming…