By: Maia Lemman
Starting as thunderstorms that travel west across Sub Saharan Africa, these weather systems grow in size and magnitude as they move across the warm waters of the Atlantic Ocean. As the moisture evaporates it rises creating twisting air flows that develop into hurricanes. One such storm developed in the summer of 2017. Harvey was first labeled as a slow-moving tropical storm on August 17th as it made its way towards North America from the Gulf of Mexico. Two days later Harvey was downgraded, only to steadily regain strength until making landfall in Texas as a Category 4 hurricane on August 25th.
As Harvey approached, many Texas counties declared mandatory evacuations, while other towns sandbagged their houses in preparation for the influx of water. Hospitals set up diesel generators to keep them powered during the storm and extra staff members were brought in to manage the expected increase of individuals requiring medical attention. Despite these preparations people caught in the storm’s path were in severe danger. Texas was battered by a deluge of rain that dumped 27 trillion gallons of water in the span of 6 days. Catastrophic flooding, and wind speeds of 130 miles per hour destroyed homes, flooded roads, and claimed 88 lives. In total, NOAA estimates that Harvey incurred $125 billion in damages.
While the rescuers and city officials worked diligently to care for the citizens, chemical plants, oil refineries, and toxic waste sites had not sufficiently prepared for Harvey. Battered by the hurricane, numerous sites poured uncontrolled pollution into the air and water. Oil refineries with damaged equipment could no longer manage their emissions, flaring an estimated one million pounds of pollutants into the air.4 The level of toxic chemicals such as benzene and sulfur dioxide far exceeded the levels permitted by the EPA. When other toxic chemicals were taken into account, the Center for Biological Diversity estimates that close to 5 million pounds of chemical pollutants were poured into the environment. In Houston the level of volatile organic compounds was registered at 15,000 parts per billion. This is ten times higher than deemed safe by health officials.
The environmental damage was not limited to pollution from chemical plants and oil refineries. Texas is home to 53 superfund sites. These are sites which the federal government has deemed toxic and pays to cleanup. The EPA reported that 13 Superfund sites were flooded during Hurricane Harvey. To the dismay of those living near these sites, the EPA failed to assess the potential spread of the toxic pollutants from these sites in the days following the flooding.
The chemical plant that received the most attention was the Arkema plant in Crosby Texas. This chemical plant houses 19.5 tons of volatile chemicals that depend upon refrigeration to remain stable and prevent combustion. However, as Harvey knocked out electricity, and then Arkema’s backup generators, the plant lost power and burst into flames releasing a plume of toxic chemicals. While the EPA maintained the stance that there were no threats from the toxicity, local officials suggested a 1.5-mile evacuation radius around the plant. Two hundred people living within the radius to the plant were evacuated, and twenty-one individuals required medical attention.
In the wake of Hurricane Harvey, attention has been focused on the operations of these polluting industries. Dozens of civil suits were filed against Arkema, and additionally in August of 2018 the attorney general brought criminal charges against the chemical manufacturer and two of the leaders of Arkema.8 Besides the fight to determine who should be held responsible for these pollutants there has been a push to ensure that toxic industries take preventive measures against potential damage from future natural disasters. With hurricanes are occurring at larger magnitudes and battering the southeast U.S. where many of these polluting industries are located, it seems logical that they should develop comprehensive contingency plans, insure their machinery is operational and assess whether their site is within a flood plain. Furthermore, the EPA should be assisting in assessing damagers and enforcing emission controls after a storm. While people struggle to recover from the storm, they should not also be assaulted by plumes of toxic air pollution that will damage their health.
Category: Backyard Talk
CHEJ Blog
Last week the EPA announced its “Action Plan” for a group of chemicals referred to as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances or PFAS chemicals. In its news release, the agency described this effort as “historic” and as the “most comprehensive cross-agency plan to address an emerging chemical of concern ever undertaken by EPA.” However, environmental advocates and people who live in communities contaminated by PFAS chemicals were not impressed by the agency’s plan. Group after group released news statements blasting the plan as inadequate and lacking action, lamenting the agency’s failure to create a standard to regulate PFAS chemicals in drinking water.
In response to questions from reporters, EPA expressed the need to set a standard that would be defensible in court and promised that the agency will develop a standard “according to where the science directs us.” While this might make a good sound bite, it falls far short of what environmental advocates and people who live in communities contaminated by PFAS chemicals had hoped for.
The National PFAS Contamination Coalition, a network of communities impacted by PFAS contamination described the agency’s plan as “woefully inadequate for those who have been suffering from exposure to contamination for decades” and that “it fails to prevent current and future exposure to PFAS in the environment.”
The EPA’s failure to set a health standard for PFAS chemicals is nothing new for the agency. They have not issued a new standard for drinking water in over 22 years since the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in 1996. Andrew Wheeler, Acting Administrator of EPA, described setting a standard for PFAS chemicals as “charting new territory” at the agency’s press conference. Really? Has it been so long that the agency no longer recalls what it needs to do to issue a new standard?
Not having a health standard is huge. Without a standard, there is no clear legal handle that the agency can use to force a polluter to clean up contaminated water to the standard or to require that a water company to provide water that does not have PFAS at the level of the standard. With only a health advisory, the agency has no standing to force a polluter to take the necessary steps to clean up contaminated water or require a water company to provide water that does not have PFAS at the level of the advisory. They can ask. They can recommend. But that cannot require. At least not legally.
More study and analysis as called for in the EPA “Action” plan, will not change this scenario. The agency needs to stop stalling, recall its roots and issue a health standard for PFAS chemicals. The communities that have been contaminated by PFAS chemicals and the American people deserve nothing less.
By: Daisy Clennon
PFAS is short for per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances. It is an umbrella term for manmade chemicals that have a carbon and fluorine atom backbone. PFAS encompasses PFOA (Perfluorooctanoic acid) and PFOS (Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid) as well as hundreds of other compounds. PFAS are used in industrial processes and consumer products such as non-stick cookware, grease resistant paper, fast food wrappers, microwave popcorn bags, stain-resistant carpets and fabrics, cleaning products, and more. PFAS frequently get into groundwater though industrial factories, military bases, and also because they are used in firefighting foams. PFAS contaminates soil and water and can contaminate food grown in contaminated circumstances.
PFAS take a very long time to break down, so they build up in organs and tissues. Scientists are still learning about the health risks from PFAS, but the chemicals have been linked to affecting growth, learning, and behavior of children, lowering a woman’s chance of pregnancy, interfering with the body’s natural hormones, increasing cholesterol, affecting the immune system, and increasing risk of cancer. Lab animals exposed to PFAS have shown problems with liver, thyroid, and pancreatic functions. PFAS has been widely used since the 1950s and has recently come to national attention through crises in Hoosick Falls, NY, Plainfield Township, MI, Parkersburg, W. VA, and Parchment, MI.
So far, PFAS have been found in dozens of states, including Vermont, New Hampshire, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Colorado, New York, North Carolina, West Virginia, Washington, Kansas, Massachusetts, Arkansas, Alabama, Minnesota, California. Many impacted communities are near military bases, airports, and industrial sites, where PFAS are used. Most people in the United States have some level of PFAS in their body. A sample done by the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey found that the average blood levels of PFAS in Americans are as follows: PFOA is 2.1 parts per billion, the average level of PFOS is 6.3 parts per billion, and the average level of PFHxS is 1.3 parts per billion.
So what is being done in 2019 about this contaminant?
State level bills about PFAS are working their way through at least 13 states, including Michigan, Massachusetts, Kentucky, and Connecticut. Many bills center around making sure PFAS can’t be used in firefighting foam or in food packaging. States are also struggling to set PFAS contaminant levels. A Michigan state bill would limit PFOA and PFOS to 5 parts per trillion, considerably lower than the EPA advisory limit of 70 parts per trillion. After a PFOA crisis in Bennington, Vermont state legislators set the limit to 20 parts per trillion for PFOA, PFOS, PFHxS, PFHpA, and PFNA combined.
On the federal level, a bipartisan bill has been introduced that would add PFAS to the list of chemicals covered by CERCLA (Superfund) legislation. This would allow the EPA to work towards cleaning up PFAS sites. Furthermore, on January 23rd, Rep. Dan Kildee of Michigan and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania initiated a bipartisan task force with at least 18 other Congress members. The task force will hold informational events to educate other members of Congress about PFAS, craft legislation to address PFAS contamination, meet with committee chairs to ensure PFAS is addressed, and fight for funding through federal appropriations to clean up PFAS contamination.
The EPA has not yet released its decision on adding PFAS to Superfund legislation. Reports say they will not be regulating PFAS through the Safe Drinking Water Act. This has not been confirmed, but lawmakers have slammed the apparent decision. Michigan legislators have said that they will act if the EPA refuses to. Rep. Kildee said that “while the Trump administration has claimed it wants to address PFAS, they have been all talk and no action,” and the other leader of the bipartisan task force, Rep. Fitzpatrick, said “If the EPA refuses to do its job, Congress must intercede.”
You can track policy details for state PFAS legislation here, and keep up to date with PFAS news here.
You can also sign this petition, to tell Congress to enact a total ban on the production and use of PFAS by 2020. CHEJ is planning a training call/webinar with Nationwide PFAS Coalition that will provide a general overview of the PFAS situation nationally, and include a discussion of what groups are working on now at the state and federal level.
UPDATE: EPA released their action plan on Thursday, February 14th. The plan lists PFOA and PFOS as pollutants or contaminants under CERCLA (Superfund), but not as a hazardous substance. EPA has “initiated the regulatory development process to designate PFOA and PFOS as CERCLA “hazardous substances”, which would extend CERCLA order and cost recovery authorities.” It also states that EPA plans to take the “first step” to regulate PFAS under the Safe Drinking Water Act by the end of the year. It does not say when regulations will be put into place.
By: Jeremy Buchanan
Trees are one of the most important resources we have available to us. Traditionally, trees have been most valued by those living in rural communities where they are mainly used for building materials or for warmth during the winter. However, recent evidence suggests trees provide further benefits to the health of people living in urban areas. As tree cover loss accelerates within urban communities though, it’s important to understand how your health could be at risk.
A study from Urban Forestry & Urban Greening estimates that between 2009 and 2014, an average of 175,000 acres of tree cover in urban areas across the United States was destroyed per year. This equates to a 1% reduction, approximately 180 million individual trees, in the overall US urban tree cover with the largest losses recorded in Oklahoma, District of Columbia, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Georgia. What does that mean for your health?
One of the most well-known facts about trees is that they produce oxygen by absorbing Carbon dioxide. A less-known fact is that trees also play a major role in reducing air pollution through this same process. Trees in urban areas play a crucial role in absorbing Ozone (O3) and particulate matter (PM2.5), which are two of the most harmful air pollutants threatening human health. The World Health Organization links air pollution to a variety of health issues including reduced lung function, respiratory infections, heart disease, stroke, and various cancers.
Trees not only play a role in improving conditions for increased physical health, but also mental well-being. Recent studies have found that green spaces in urban environments allow people an escape and can play a large role in reducing stress and improving comfort levels. The benefits don’t stop there. Lastly, they also help to lower the average temperature in buildings and automobiles during those hot summer months reducing financial, physical, and mental stresses.
So, what is being done?
Globally, there are numerous projects being undertaken, both privately and through government funding, attempting to address the issue. In the United States, some cities are beginning to take notice and have implemented programs to increase the abundance of trees. The Nature Conservancy is currently partnered with local organizations on their “Plant A Billion Trees” campaign in Chicago, Boston, New York City, Los Angeles, and Philadelphia. Both Austin, Texas and King County, Washington have pilot programs in place that allow businesses and individuals to offset their carbon emissions by purchasing credits for tree planting.
Moving forward, as more programs are put into action, we hope to see increased health in urban populations and gain further insight into the health benefits we receive through re-introduction of trees into urban areas. In the meantime, get outside and take notice of the trees around your neighborhood. Are there any? If not, plant one.
By: Sharon Franklin
When their children in Johnson County, a suburban Indianapolis community fell ill with cancer, no one had heard of Glioblastoma, Ewing’s Sarcoma, or Acute Lymphocytic Leukemia. Now, families in a county that voted overwhelmingly for President Trump are making demands of his administration that collide directly with one of his main agendas: rolling back health and environmental regulations.
A community group in Franklin, Indiana documented at least 58 cases of childhood cancer, including blood and brain cancer since 2008.
Families and residents started asking whether the cancer cases are related to contamination. These concerns about contamination and childhood cancer prompted the involvement of state and federal agencies. The findings from EnviroForesensics showed that cancer-causing chemicals were found in the groundwater, which originated from at least one former industrial site, Amphenol, which had a history of contamination problems. The main contaminants in question were trichloroethylene, or TCE, and tetrachloroethylene, or PCE, which the CDC (Centers for Disease Control) have said cause cancer in humans. According to the EnviroForensics report, the chemicals and levels found “show that additional work is necessary to determine the extent of the groundwater and soil gas impacts south of the former Amphenol site.”
How did the Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) respond to the residents of Johnson County, Indiana? The USEPA commissioned the IWM CONSULTING GROUP, LLC to prepare an Offsite Work Plan by December 21, 2018. According to the Workplan, the preliminary laboratory results will be supplied to representatives from the USEPA as soon as possible once the information has been received and reviewed. Then the analytical results will be validated by a third party and the validation will be included the letter report being submitted to the USEPA. The letter report will summarize the sampling activities, results, and make recommendations regarding the need for additional sampling or investigation activities.
The families of Johnson County who represent a cross-section of the political spectrum have also spoken out against the Trump administration’s drive to weaken restrictions on TCE, a colorless fluid with a subtle, sweet odor used by as many as four-fifths of the nation’s 65,000 dry cleaners, as well as about 2,200 factories and other facilities. Steve Barnett, Franklin, Indiana’s mayor and a Republican, said “When it comes to public health, we can go against party lines. And I don’t agree with trying to roll back the EPA.’s role,” “Back in the day, there weren’t any rules. That’s why there was so much contamination.”
By: Daisy Clennon
This past Wednesday, the 16th of January, was Andrew Wheeler’s EPA confirmation hearing. The hearing came at a controversial moment: in the midst of the longest-ever government shutdown, and with no immediate reason to confirm the acting administrator as the official EPA head. For this reason, the hearing was criticized by Democrats for wasting time that could be better spent finding a shutdown solution. Furthermore, Wheeler had some of the EPA staff who were deemed “essential personnel” help him prepare for the hearing. Democrats and environmentalists found this frustrating, as they thought there were more “essential” tasks for the fraction of still-working EPA staffers.
Agency nominees are confirmed by the Senate, and since Republicans hold the majority, it is almost certain that Wheeler will be confirmed. Wheeler became acting head of the EPA when Scott Pruitt resigned over the summer. Pruitt was a high profile figure in the Trump Administration and was well known for his lawsuits with EPA prior to becoming its administrator. Since Wheeler is about to be confirmed, let’s take a look at his record and at his confirmation hearing.
Wheeler was Pruitt’s deputy and has been acting head of EPA since July of 2018. His first foray into the environmental world was in 1991, as a special assistant for the EPA’s toxics office. Wheeler then worked with the Senate Committee on Environment and Public works in different roles, two of which were Chief Counsel for Senator Jim Inhofe, and Chief Counsel to the Committee itself. In these roles, Wheeler worked in favor of industry deregulation. Senator Inhofe is notoriously anti-climate change and well known for bringing a snowball to the Senate floor to prove that climate change isn’t real. After working as Chief Counsel, Wheeler spent nearly a decade as a coal lobbyist. He defended some of the most prominent coal lobbying firms in the United States.
During his confirmation hearing, Wheeler stated that he would try to implement the Trump Administration’s environmental agenda and that he would stick to Pruitt’s plan for the EPA. Wheeler also refused to criticize Pruitt in any way. Fortunately, Wheeler does admit that climate change is real and that people have impacted the climate. Despite this acknowledgement, Wheeler was not prepared to make any changes to deal with climate change. He said that as Administrator, the EPA would follow the directive of Congress in terms of environmental laws, but would not go further. The vast majority of legislation surrounding environmental issues came out of the 1960s and 1970s. While climate change was on the horizon by this point (the issue was first discovered in the 1800s, confirmed by 1860, and was further researched throughout the 1900s) the vast majority of our environmental legislation does not deal with what is arguably the worst crisis humanity has ever faced.
Instead, the Trump Administration’s directive is to continue the deregulation of industries. Scientists have found that following the Trump Administration’s environmental plan is worse than doing absolutely nothing at all. This is reminiscent of the Reagan Administration’s environmental rollbacks of the 1980s. The EPA, then lead by Anne Gorsuch, dismantled many of the environmental successes of the Carter and Nixon administrations, implemented harsh budget cuts, and worsened the bureaucratic complexities of the agency.
The ties Wheeler and Pruitt have to the corporations EPA is supposed to regulate brings up the concept of regulatory capture. Regulatory capture is when a government agency works in favor of the industries it was created to regulate. In an analysis by the Environmental Data & Governance Initiative, it was determined that there was a systematic shift in the influence of corporations over the first year of the Trump administration. Wheeler has shown no initiative in deviating from this agenda.
At such a crucial time in history, it is obvious that at the very least, an EPA administrator should have no ties to the corporations that have changed the very chemistry of our planet. In order to make much needed change, in order to protect the communities that have been destroyed by toxins, in order to protect communities dealing with climate change-exacerbated natural disasters, in order to protect the water supplies that are rapidly becoming a scarcity, and in order to make the United States a leader in the greatest global crisis we have faced, we need to have an Environmental Protection Agency administrator who wants to protect the environment.
By: Katie Pfeifer
According to US Energy Information Administration (US EIA), more coal plants in the US were retired in President Trump’s first 2 years in office than the whole of Former President Barack Obama’s first term. This is despite lawmaker’s and Trump’s efforts to “revive” the industry, one of Trump’s key campaign promises during the election. Recently released data shows more than 23,400 MW of coal fired power plants were shuttered in 2017-2018 compared to 14,900 MW shut down between 2009-2012.
This shouldn’t be too much of a shock, since coal has been on the decline since 2011, when the industry hit its peak. Coal will continue to decline as inexpensive natural gas and renewables, as well as consumer demand for cleaner forms of energy generation. In 2017, Energy Secretary Rick Perry ordered a grid study to asses the stability and reliability of our nation’s grid, with a focus on renewables effecting the reliability of the grid. The results of the study pointed to cheap natural gas as the culprit for the retiring coal and nuclear plants. The study as concluded that closure of said plants does not affect the grid negatively, in fact, the grid is more diverse and reliable as ever.
Still after the release of the study, Trump ordered Perry to stop the shutdown of coal and nuclear plants by creating a plan to order grid operators to favor certain plants, in the name of national security. The plan would also exempt those plants from environmental regulations and laws. It would cost billions for the plan to work and would only cost more as time goes on. The health impacts of the plan would be harmful for people and the environment. Luckily, the plan was shot down after push back from utilities and lawmakers.
Coal is not only economically inefficient, it’s downright dangerous and detrimental to human health. Coal mines are known to be dangerous workplaces, in 2010 an explosion at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia killed 29 miners. In 2017, 15 coal miners were killed due to accidents in the workplace. The health of miners and surrounding mine communities is in decline along with the industry. According to research, mortality rates, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, kidney disease and birth defects are all increased in and around areas that mine coal. In 2014, Researchers made a link between the toxic dust from mountain top coal removal and growth of lung cancer cells in nearby communities. As the cost of renewables plummet, a bigger shift towards clean energy has started and will continue for generations to come.
By: Sharon Franklin
As we look back at the holiday season, it is only a reminder to Mike Dunn of the health issue his wife Sandy encountered, who was a 40-year employee of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA). Mike is reminded of the 2008 Christmas Eve when Sandy left their Alcoa, Tennessee home and her family and headed to the Kingston Fossil Plant, where 7.3 million tons of coal ash was spilling from a busted dike. Sandy knew nothing about coal ash, even though she worked in the safety division of the largest producer of coal ash in the nation.
Six years later, Sandy was dead, poisoned, her family says, by coal ash dust that her bosses said was safe. According to the Dunn family today, more than 30 workers at the clean-up site are now dead, and more than 250 are sick, and many more may be sick.
Coal ash contamination and its affects are also being reported in other areas, such as the one reported by Molly Samuel, a reporter at WABE, an Atlanta, Georgia Public Broadcasting radio station. Ms. Samuel reported that the toxic coal ash pollutants are leaking into groundwater from 92 percent of Georgia coal-fired power plants, according to an analysis by the Environmental Integrity Project and Earthjustice.
The report Georgia At a Cross Roads documents widespread groundwater contamination at Georgia’s coal ash dumpsites It reports that eleven of the state’s 12 coal-fired power plants are leaking pollution into the state’s underground water supplies, and 10 of these 11 polluting plants are owned by a single company, Georgia Power. The report outlines the effects of coal ash, and explains the hazardous brew of toxic pollutants such as arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, radium, selenium and other toxic elements. The toxic elements in coal ash can cause cancer, heart disease, reproductive failure and stroke, and can inflict lasting brain damage on children. Additionally, the report noted that Georgia Power owns all of the contaminated waste sites that are located near lakes and rivers. The Environmental Integrity Project attorney Abel Russ, one of the authors of report said “Georgia is at a crossroads with respect to the toxic legacy of coal-burning.”
The report concluded that “We do not know the extent to which the tested groundwater is used for drinking, but regardless of use, these levels represent a significant deterioration of water quality by coal ash. Releases of these pollutants to the environment are particularly troublesome, because once they leach into groundwater, the harmful pollutants do not go away or degrade over time.”
If you think the last two years were bananas, 2019 is going to be a real doozy.
My colleague, James Mumm at People’s Action Institute, wrote this insightful forward looking piece and thought I’d share it with you. I spent the last few hours of 2018 thinking about what we need to do next year to defeat Trump and Trumpism. We played solid defense this year. We created a #PeoplesWave to take back the House and many states in the midterms. But Trump is still president and McConnell and the GOP have a stronger grasp on the Senate.
Here is what I know. Trump blames everyone but himself when things go wrong. Now that the economy is off the rails thanks to his erratic international and domestic actions, he is pointing fingers in every direction except where it belongs (squarely at himself).
Trump tries to act big because he feels small inside. His edifice complex will not bring him the love of his mother or father, nor the majority of the American people. Truth is, his world is very small. A shrinking circle of yes men and women, campaign rallies with diehard fans, and a chorus of Fox News right-wing extremists.
If you think the last two years were bananas, 2019 is going to be a real doozy. With an incoming Democratic majority in the House and Mueller’s investigation coming to a crescendo, the walls are closing in on Trump. His entire world is shrinking and that makes him panic.
- Trump will double down on anti-immigrant white nationalist populism.Trump is going to lash out with all the power of his office against immigrants, women, LGBTQ communities, people of color, low-income families. We will need to play ferocious defense against these attacks.
- The Trump 2020 campaign will swing into high gear and make us all fear that he could win again.I learned a hard lesson in 2016. Michael Moore and my mom both said that Trump was going to win. I scoffed. Well, I scoff no more. This could happen and it terrifies me (you too I bet).
- Trump’s instability and chaos will cause a recession.One year ago, Donald Trump, Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan rammed their tax scam through Congress. The result? Big corporations gave CEOs and investors one trillion dollars in the form of stock buybacks. The tax scam did not create jobs; it made millionaires and billionaires wealthier while creating a mountain of public debt that the rest of us have to pay off. Trump took a lot of unwarranted credit for the economy when it was booming. Now Trump will have to own the coming recession. And the next Democratic president will have to do something bold (see next prediction) to pull America out of a spiraling crisis.
- The word of the year in 2019 will be “Green New Deal.”This is a bold idea that Democratic presidential contenders will be wise to endorse. A Green New Deal that is 100% Just is a total winner. 100% Just means 100% renewable energy and 100% equitable for the communities of color and low-income communities on the frontlines of climate change. This could be the answer to how we save people and planet at the same time.
- Lightning will strike twice and the #PeoplesWave will continue with thousands of fearless progressive women, people of color and young people running for (and winning) local office. There are thousands of city council, county, school board, and more elections happening across the country next year. The country is changing from the bottom up and there is nothing that Trump and the GOP can do about that.
Excitement is building among environmentalists as Washington prepares for the arrival of new lawmakers elected by the #PeoplesWave. Led by New York Representative Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, these insurgents promise to infuse new energy into the movement for climate justice.
By Ben Ben Ishibashi, People’s Action Network
Ocasio-Cortez, through a series of high-profile public protests and statements, has focused the minds and hearts of activists, and laid down a gauntlet for the Democratic Party.
Now is the time, she says, for a Green New Deal that confronts climate change head-on with bold solutions that can fundamentally alter our nation’s course on both the environment and rising income inequality through a real commitment to renewable energy.
Last month, she led over a thousand young people in three simultaneous sit-ins at Democratic leadership offices on Capitol Hill to demand action on climate change.
“This is going to be the New Deal, the Great Society, the moon shot, the civil-rights movement of our generation,” she said.
36 members of Congress have already joined her call to action. On Friday, more than 300 local officials signed an open letter of support, adding to the thousands of young people from the Sunrise Movement who helped coordinate the Capitol Hill protests.
But what exactly is a Green New Deal? More importantly, what should it be?
At People’s Action, we often find ourselves at the front lines with those most affected by environmental injustice. We know that a new energy economy must go far beyond simply replacing fossil fuels.
We welcome this new influx of excitement and resources to the fight for environmental justice. We invite new lawmakers to join us in working to pass and implement policies that address our needs for a just and equitable energy transition – to an economy that is not only 100 percent renewable, but also 100 percent just: an economy that puts those most affected by our climate crisis, people of color and the working class, at the center of our new economy.
At present, the Green New Deal is a proposal – a statement of intent, really – to create a Select House Committee with House members who have never taken money from the fossil-fuels industry. This committee will draft legislative language for the Green New Deal by March 1, 2020.
Goals include a dramatic expansion of renewable power to meet 100 percent of national power demand through renewable sources, upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing, agricultural transportation and other industries, and making the U.S. a global leader in the creation and export of “green” technology, industry, expertise, products and services.
In order to be 100 Percent Just, any Green New Deal must include truly renewable fuels, democratizing the grid, and an end to “sacrifice zones” where Black and Brown communities disproportionately bear the human costs of dirty energy extraction.
Good green jobs must be created both for communities that have survived decades of disinvestment, as well as those communities that now depend on extraction.
We have an opportunity – indeed, an obligation – to transform our energy economy so we can not just meet the challenges of climate change, but also transform our economy overall to put people and planet before profits.
A 100 Percent Just Green New Deal goes far beyond good intentions: it frames justice and equity as necessary components that make this project strategically possible. It mandates that dirty energy pollution end by the earliest date, spelling out clearly and intentionally how this happens.
It must include a plan for investment and reparations for communities that have been sacrificed on the altar of polluter profits. And this commitment to equity must be part of the structure of the plan – from the very first resolution, establishing the first House Select Committee, all the way through to final bill language and commitment to follow through with jobs, training, accessibility and investment for working class people and communities of color.
This means a 100% Just Green New Deal not only mandates that we stop burning fossil fuel for energy by 2030, but that we fully end the extraction fossil fuels and other forms of dirty energy by 2025, and do so in a way that doesn’t leave extraction workers or their communities in the lurch.
A 100% Just Green New Deal will mandate that we phase out fossil fuel energy, but will also require that that this starts with the closure and reclamation of the dirtiest power plants, located in the communities most overburdened by pollution.
We must commit to and adopt the principle that the residents of sacrifice zones that have most borne and bear the burdens of dirty energy now become the first to receive benefits of the new, democratic and non-extractive economy.
A 100% Just Green New Deal doesn’t just offer a blanket promise of good green jobs and training for everyone, it will ensure that jobs training programs and investments in job creation are targeted and available first to the communities that need them most.
The Green New Deal, in its current form, aspires to some of these things, but not all of them. We know this is a work in progress, and welcome this influx of new energy, but we know there is much more work to be done.
For the United States is to position itself globally as a green technology leader, we must push for the kinds of broader restructuring of international trade and global economic structures that will lay the ground for a truly equitable, just and transformative global economy.
Finally, any 100% Just Green New Deal must include the voices of those who are directly impacted. The people who are closest to the problems of sacrifice zones, the consequences of extractive industries and the private monopoly control of energy, must be invited into the process of drafting and proposing solutions that flesh out this bold new framework.
Their voices must be heard, and it is up to our new lawmakers to put their vision, needs and priorities at the heart of this exciting new process from its beginning through to the end.