2021/04/13

What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained - The New York Times

What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained - The New York Times



What Is the Green New Deal? A Climate Proposal, Explained



Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, right, announcing the resolution on Feb. 7.Credit...Pete Marovich for The New York Times



By Lisa Friedman
Feb. 21, 2019


Want climate news in your inbox? Sign up here for Climate Fwd:, our email newsletter.

If you’ve heard a lot recently about the Green New Deal but still aren’t quite sure what it is, you are not alone. After all, it has been trumpeted by its supporters as the way to avoid planetary destruction, and vilified by opponents as a socialist plot to take away your ice cream. So it’s bound to be somewhat confusing. We’re here to help.

[A Green New Deal is Technologically Possible. Its Political Prospects Are Another Question.]
What is the Green New Deal?

The Green New Deal is a congressional resolution that lays out a grand plan for tackling climate change.

Introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Senator Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, the proposal calls on the federal government to wean the United States from fossil fuels and curb planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions across the economy. It also aims to guarantee new high-paying jobs in clean energy industries.

The resolution is nonbinding, so even if Congress approves it, nothing in the proposal would become law.


ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story




Variations of the proposal have been around for years. Think tanks, the Green Party and even the New York Times columnist Thomas L. Friedman all have had plans for tackling climate change that they labeled a Green New Deal. But after the 2018 midterm elections, a youth activist group called the Sunrise Movement popularized the name by laying out a strategy and holding a sit-in outside the office of Nancy Pelosi, the soon-to-be-speaker of the House of Representatives, to demand action on climate change. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez joined the protesters, lending her support to their proposal and setting the groundwork for what ultimately became the joint resolution.
Will there be a vote on it?

Yes.

Republicans have cast the Green New Deal as a socialist takeover and say it is evidence that Democrats are far from the mainstream on energy issues. Mitch McConnell, the Senate majority leader, plans to bring the plan to the floor as early as next week. Democrats say that the vote would be a stunt because Republican Senate leaders do not want to have a sincere debate about climate change.
What problem is the Green New Deal addressing?

Editors’ Picks
After Genetic Testing, I Took a Chance on an ‘Imperfect’ Pregnancy

Europe Plunders Paris for Talent, and P.S.G. Pays the Price

5 Minutes That Will Make You Love Brahms





ImageOil refineries near Norco, La. The Green New Deal calls on the federal government to wean the United States from fossil fuels.Credit...Bryan Tarnowski for The New York Times


The goal of the Green New Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to avoid the worst consequences of climate change while also trying to fix societal problems like economic inequality and racial injustice.

[You can get updates on the Green New Deal, and all our climate coverage, in our weekly climate newsletter. Subscribe today for free.]


ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story




The resolution uses as its guide two major reports issued last year by the United Nations and by federal scientists who warned that if global temperatures continue to rise, the world is headed for more intense heat waves, wildfires and droughts. The research shows that the United States economy could lose billions of dollars by the end of the century because of climate change. Currently, carbon emissions are rising, by 3.4 percent last year in the United States and by 2.7 percent globally, according to early estimates.

CLIMATE FWD: A new administration, an ongoing climate emergency — and a ton of news. Our newsletter will help you stay on top of it.Sign Up

Supporters of the Green New Deal also believe that change can’t just be a technological feat, and say it must also tackle poverty, income inequality and racial discrimination.
READ MORE REPORTING ON THE GREEN NEW DEAL

A Green New Deal Is Technologically Possible. Its Political Prospects Are Another Question.
Feb. 21, 2019


Liberal Democrats Formally Call for a ‘Green New Deal,’ Giving Substance to a Rallying Cry
Feb. 7, 2019


What are its main provisions?

You can read it for yourself here, but here are the essential elements: It says the entire world needs to get to net-zero emissions by 2050 — meaning as much carbon would have to be absorbed as released into the atmosphere — and the United States must take a “leading role” in achieving that.

The Green New Deal calls on the federal government to dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions, create high-paying jobs, ensure that clean air, clean water and healthy food are basic human rights, and end all forms of oppression.
Most Read Climate and Environment Stories
How Debt and Climate Change Pose ‘Systemic Risk’ to World Economy
John Topping, 77, Dies; Early Advocate for Climate Action
What’s Good for the Ocean May Also Be Good for Business
Should We Block the Sun? Scientists Say the Time Has Come to Study It.
Tiny Town, Big Decision: What Are We Willing to Pay to Fight the Rising Sea?

To achieve those goals, the plan calls for the launch of a “10-year mobilization” to reduce carbon emissions in the United States. It envisions sourcing 100 percent of the country’s electricity from renewable and zero-emissions power, digitizing the nation’s power grid, upgrading every building in the country to be more energy-efficient, and overhauling the nation’s transportation system by investing in electric vehicles and high-speed rail.

To address social justice, the resolution says it is the duty of the government to provide job training and new economic development, particularly to communities that currently rely on jobs in fossil fuel industries.


ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story



What doesn’t it say?




Image
Senator Tom Cotton of Arkansas has said the deal would force Americans to have to “ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears.”Credit...Tom Brenner/The New York Times


President Trump has claimed the Green New Deal will take away your “airplane rights.” Senator Tom Cotton, Republican of Arkansas, told Hugh Hewitt, the conservative radio host, that the proposal would confiscate cars and require Americans to “ride around on high-speed light rail, supposedly powered by unicorn tears.” And Senator John Barrasso, Republican of Wyoming and chairman of the Committee on Environment and Public Works, warned that ice cream, cheeseburgers and milkshakes would be a thing of the past because under the Green New Deal, “livestock will be banned.”

The resolution doesn’t do any of those things.

To be sure, there is some confusion about what the Green New Deal does and doesn’t say. That’s partially the fault of its sponsors, who botched the resolution’s initial rollout.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez’s office initially sent to reporters, but later disavowed, a fact sheet that included some controversial ideas, like guaranteeing economic security including to those “unwilling to work.”

The resolution does call on the federal government to make investments in policies and projects that would eventually change the way we design buildings, travel and eat. For example: cows. To reduce methane, a powerful greenhouse gas that cows and other livestock emit, the resolution proposes “working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”

The resolution itself also steers clear of endorsing or rejecting specific technologies or sources of energy, something that Mr. Markey said was done purposefully to encourage broader support for the plan.
What’s with the name?

The Green New Deal takes its name and inspiration from the major government makeover, known as the New Deal, launched by President Franklin D. Roosevelt to help the United States recover from the Great Depression.


ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story




That series of public-works programs and financial reforms included the Civilian Conservation Corps (which put people to work in manual labor jobs like planting trees and constructing park trails) and the creation of the Public Works Administration to work on the construction of bridges, dams, schools and more.

Like the original New Deal, the Green New Deal is not a single project or piece of legislation.
What are the costs?

That’s not clear yet.

President Trump claimed it would cost $100 trillion. Supporters of the Green New Deal say climate change could be equally costly to the American economy. For now it’s impossible to pin down dollar figures on the plan.

Some examples of why:

One conservative think tank has pegged the cost to the federal government of providing Medicare-to-all at $32 trillion over 10 years, but supporters claimed it would actually save taxpayers $2 trillion over 10 years.

Converting the country to 100 percent clean power? In Vermont alone, which has a goal of achieving 90 percent renewable energy by midcentury, the cost is estimated at $33 billion. Yet the state is seeing job growth in clean energy sectors and expects the transition will spur cost savings for consumers.

Modernizing the electrical grid across the United States could cost as much as $476 billion, yet reap $2 trillion in benefits, according to a 2011 study issued by the Electric Power Research Institute.

Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has acknowledged that the Green New Deal is going to be expensive, but contends the plan will pay for itself through economic growth.


ADVERTISEMENTContinue reading the main story



Do critics offer alternative proposals?

Some Republicans have called for a technology-oriented solution to climate change, but so far no critic has come out with an alternative that matches the scale or scope of the Green New Deal.
How will the Green New Deal shape the debate?

There is going to be a lot more political jockeying around the Green New Deal in coming weeks and months. Republicans have already launched video ads trying to tie Democrats to the proposal, which they have described as “radical.”

And Mr. McConnell’s vote is directly aimed at making life uncomfortable for Democratic presidential contenders like Kirsten Gillibrand, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar and Kamala Harris. Those senators have all co-sponsored the Green New Deal resolution but in some cases have avoided specifics. Ms. Klobuchar, for example, told CNN she saw the Green New Deal as an “aspiration” and “something that we need to move toward.”

At the same time, all of the attention on the Green New Deal has put new pressure on Republican critics to come up with their own plan for cutting greenhouse gases.

It is likely that the Green New Deal will remain a lightning rod throughout the 2020 presidential campaign.

For more news on climate and the environment, follow @NYTClimate on Twitter.



Lisa Friedman reports on federal climate and environmental policy from Washington. She has broken multiple stories about the Trump administration’s efforts to repeal climate change regulations and limit the use of science in policymaking. @LFFriedman








More in Science

2021/04/12

“Tell That to the Families in Flint”: AOC Demolishes GOP Claim That Green New Deal Is “Elitist” | Democracy Now!

“Tell That to the Families in Flint”: AOC Demolishes GOP Claim That Green New Deal Is “Elitist” | Democracy Now!
“Tell That to the Families in Flint”: AOC Demolishes GOP Claim That Green New Deal Is “Elitist”
STORYMARCH 28, 2019
Watch Full Show


This is viewer supported news. Please do your part today.DONATE

TOPICS
Climate Crisis


On Tuesday, Congressmember Sean Duffy of Wisconsin suggested the Green New Deal only served the wealthy. New York Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez shot back with a passionate defense of the Green New Deal. We feature her full speech.

Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.


NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, on Tuesday, Republican Representative Sean Duffy of Wisconsin suggested the Green New Deal only served the wealthy.


REP. SEAN DUFFY: [I think we should not] focus on the rich, wealthy elites, who will look at this and go, “I love it, because I’ve—I’ve got big money in the bank. Everyone should do this. We should all sign on to it.” But if you’re a poor family just trying to make ends meet, it’s a horrible idea.

NERMEEN SHAIKH: Democratic Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York shot back with a passionate defense of the Green New Deal.


REP. ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ: When we talk about the concern of the environment as an elitist concern, one year ago I was waitressing in a taco shop in Downtown Manhattan. I just got health insurance for the first time a month ago. This is not an elitist issue; this is a quality-of-life issue. You want to tell people that their concern and their desire for clean air and clean water is elitist? Tell that to the kids in the South Bronx, which are suffering from the highest rates of childhood asthma in the country. Tell that to the families in Flint, whose kids have—their blood is ascending in lead levels. Their brains are damaged for the rest of their lives. Call them elitist. You’re telling them that those kids are trying to get on a plane to Davos? People are dying. They are dying.


And the response across the other side of the aisle is to introduce an amendment five minutes before a hearing in a markup? This is serious. This should not be a partisan issue. This is about our constituents and all of our lives. Iowa, Nebraska, broad swaths of the Midwest are drowning right now, underwater. Farms, towns that will never be recovered and never come back. And we’re here, and people are more concerned about helping oil companies than helping their own families? I don’t think so. I don’t think so. This is about our lives. This is about American lives. And it should not be partisan. Science should not be partisan. We are facing a national crisis. And if we do not ascend to that crisis, if we do not ascend to the levels in which we were threatened at the Great Depression, when we were threatened in World War II, if we do not ascend to those levels, if we tell the American public that we are more willing to invest and bail out big banks than we are willing to invest in our farmers and our urban families, then I don’t know what we’re here doing. I don’t know what we’re here doing. …


We talk about cost. We’re going to pay for this whether we pass a Green New Deal or not, because as towns and cities go underwater, as wildfires ravage our communities, we are going to pay. And we’re either going to decide if we’re going to pay to react or if we’re going to pay to be proactive. And what we know is that prevention—you know, when you spend less money on prevention, you can prevent a lot of that damage from happening in the first place. So it’s not a question of whether we’re going to spend the money, because—I’m very sad to say that the government knew that climate change was real, starting as far back as 1989, when NASA was reporting this. And the private sector knew way back in the 1970s. So, we had until around the time I was born to address this issue. I wish it didn’t have to cost so much. But I’m going to turn 30 this year, and for the entire 30 years of my lifetime, we did not make substantial investments to prepare our entire country for what we knew was coming. So now it’s coming all up at the end. It’s like when we live our whole lives and we don’t eat healthily and we don’t move and we pursue unhealthy activities, and then at the end of our lives our healthcare costs are very high. We have the choice to lower the cost now, because, I can tell you, the cost of pursuing a Green New Deal will be far less than the cost of not passing it.


And with respect to our brothers and sisters and neighbors that are in agriculture, bring them to the table. Let’s hold hearings. Let’s add provisions. Let’s amend the legislation to accommodate for the just transition and for the encouragement of those industries to grow. And I would also encourage, to my colleague on the other side of the aisle that thinks we’re trying to ban cows, to actually read the resolution and understand that there’s nothing to that effect in the legislation, and not only that, but we’re trying to invest in these communities and our agricultural workers, so that they can enjoy prosperity into the next century.

AMY GOODMAN: That was Democratic Congressmember Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York. Her speech in the House committee hearing has been watched at least 13 million times. We also want to thank Rhiana Gunn-Wright, one of the lead policy writers for the Green New Deal, policy director for the nonprofit New Consensus.

This is Democracy Now! When we come back, we look at the hearings that are taking place on Boeing, on the interior secretary, as well as what happened with Monsanto, massive settlement, a massive court case against it. Stay with us.
The original content of this program is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 United States License. Please attribute legal copies of this work to democracynow.org. Some of the work(s) that this program incorporates, however, may be separately licensed. For further information or additional permissions, contact us.

Next story from this daily show
“People Are Going to Die”: The Cost of Industry Deregulation by Lobbyists Under Trump

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrats unveil Green New Deal plan: full speech


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrats unveil Green New Deal plan: full speech
29,637 views•Feb 8, 2019

317

360

SHARE

SAVE


News 19 WLTX
117K subscribers
Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and fellow Democrats introduced a joint resolution which sets a goal to meet all power demand in the U.S. through clean, renewable and zero-emission energy sources by 2030. Use of wind and solar power would be dramatically increased under the plan.
527 Comments
Sejin Lifeforce 生命
Add a public comment...
Filiberto Barrera
Filiberto Barrera
2 years ago
She keeps on saying we,But in the end it's our pockets that get emptied and hers get full.

3


jim ewok
jim ewok
2 years ago
this … is … AWESOME!!!

1


Jimmyzb36
Jimmyzb36
2 years ago
I am thankful that this was recorded!

1


Debra Joy
Debra Joy
2 years ago
Nancy Pelosi has been quoted today by YAHOO NEWS on this deal, "Doesn't know what it is". So, look out! That's what she said about Obamacare. "We have to pass it, to see what's in it." Smh

2


david eversole
david eversole
2 years ago
Being from Appalachia,I can’t wait for them green new bills,20’s and 50’s👍👍👍



Ewald Radavich
Ewald Radavich
2 years ago
These people have lost their minds. I believe someone is pulling her strings.



Big Chap
Big Chap
2 years ago
Great Scott!!!! This day is the birth of Mr Fusion Marty. Your bananas and empty beer cans will fuel the future



AP
AP
4 months ago
All these people think they are in charge when in reality they’re in for a rude awakening. Praise Jesus!



Danny Hull
Danny Hull
2 years ago
She is awesome!  I love her!

11


The Card Whisperer
The Card Whisperer
2 years ago
Cocaine is a heluva drug!

3


Nathan Kretz
Nathan Kretz
2 years ago
Actually ocasio cortex could you find a way to warm up the plantet in northern Illinois ? It’s very very cold . Like 30 below a few times this year , can you fix that ? Get it back to about 50-60 degrees year round? Thanks



George Rady
George Rady
2 years ago
We have the “Art of the Deal” with Trump 

And a “Fart of a Deal” from the Democrats... if you wait a few minutes and re-check the website... it’s like it never even happened.

2


Azam
Azam
8 months ago
awesome!!



Robert Blake
Robert Blake
2 years ago
I gave it a thumbs up for the entertainment value.  Man, this is a new season of Twilight Zone!

72


Rosko311
Rosko311
2 years ago
The largest solar farm in the United States sits on 3200 acres & produces 580 mega watt. NY uses 16,000 Mega Watts per day, it would take a 86,000 acre solar farm to produce enough energy to power NY. Just imagine how many acres of solar farms it would take to power the whole country.

1


mario Dozier
mario Dozier
2 years ago
The craziest people in the world come from the Bronx and all of Florida

7


Big Papa
Big Papa
2 years ago
Alexandria: Battle Angel ❤❤❤

3


Manuel Irizarry
Manuel Irizarry
2 years ago
Can u PLEASE share how we going to do it?

1


Brian Jones
Brian Jones
2 years ago
Wow. God bless................



Hanzo1777
Hanzo1777
2 years ago (edited)
No one in the crowd thought to ask her how she plans to implement all of this ? 😑

1


T A
T A
2 years ago
I SWEAR, this feels like I'm watching "Idiocracy" movie! So hilarious, yet scary!

32


Andrea B
Andrea B
2 years ago
Wait, what? For every dollar of tax cuts we lose money? Does she understand how things work? And these dudes behind her, do they know how things work?


Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Democrats unveil Green New Deal plan: full speech

Here's The Full Text Of Congress' Green New Deal Resolution, Introduced By Rep. Alexandra Ocasio Cortez

Here's The Full Text Of Congress' Green New Deal Resolution, Introduced By Rep. Alexandra Ocasio Cortez




CLEAN POWER
Here’s The Full Text Of Congress’ Green New Deal Resolution, Introduced By Rep. Alexandra Ocasio Cortez

Full Text Of Congress’ Green New Deal Resolution



ByJeremy Bloom


PublishedFebruary 8, 2019




251 Comments




116TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION H. RES. ____

Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New
Deal.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. OCASIO-CORTEZ submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on ______
RESOLUTION
Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create
a Green New Deal.


Whereas the October 2018 report entitled ‘‘Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5oC’’ by the intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report found that—
human activity is the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century;
a changing climate is causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure
global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—
mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;
more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year
2100;
wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western
United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;
a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;
more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and
a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the
United States; and
global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—
global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from
2010 levels by 2030; and
net-zero emissions by 2050;

Whereas, because the United States has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014, and has a high technological capacity, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation;

Whereas the United States is currently experiencing several related crises, with—
life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population;
a 4-decade trend of economic stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led
to—


hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;
the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession
the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and
inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change
at local, State, and Federal levels; and
the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—
the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91percent of gains in the first few years of economic
recovery after the Great Recession;
a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average White family and the average Black family; and
a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much
as men, at the median;

Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as ‘‘systemic injustices’’) by disproportionately affecting indigenous communities, 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 preamble as ‘‘frontline and vulnerable communities’’);

Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States—
by impacting the economic, environmental, and social stability of countries and communities around the world; and
by acting as a threat multiplier;

Whereas the Federal Government-led mobilizations during World War II and the New Deal created the greatest middle class that the United States has ever seen, but many members of frontline and vulnerable communities were excluded from many of the economic and societal benefits of those mobilizations; and

Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes that a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal is a historic opportunity—
to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;
to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and
to counteract systemic injustices:

Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—
it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—
to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;
to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;
to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;
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
to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous communities, 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’’);
the goals described in subparagraphs of paragraph (1) above (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—


building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;
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 flooding and other climate impacts; and
(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;
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 existing renewable power sources; and
(ii) by deploying new capacity;
building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘‘smart’’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity;
upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;
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;
working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate 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;
overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate 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 transportation; and
(iii) high-speed rail;
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;
removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution, including by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as preservation and afforestation;
restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;
cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites to promote economic development and sustainability;
identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to eliminate them; and
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;
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
to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—
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;
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;
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 those communities may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;
making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;
directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry 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 that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;
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;
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;
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;
strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;
strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;
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;
ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;
obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous people for all decisions that affect indigenous people and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous people, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous people;
ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and
providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.

How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates review – why science isn't enough | Science and nature books | The Guardian

How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates review – why science isn't enough | Science and nature books | The Guardian:


How to Avoid a Climate Disaster by Bill Gates review – why science isn't enough

The co-founder of Microsoft looks to science and tech to end climate crisis ... but can nations cooperate?

Bill Gates at the UN climate action summit in September 2019.
‘Show me a problem and I’d look for a technology to fix it’ … Bill Gates at the UN climate action summit in September 2019. Photograph: Jason DeCrow/AP
Gordon Brown

Bill Gates has changed our lives through his Microsoft software; he has improved countless lives through his foundation’s work to eliminate polio, TB and malaria; and now he proposes to help save our lives by combating climate change.

How to Avoid a Climate Disaster details the transformation necessary to reverse the effects of decades of catastrophic practices. We need, Gates calculates, to remove 51bn tonnes of greenhouse gases from the atmosphere every year. Failing to do so would cost more than the 1.5 million lives already lost to Covid-19 and could cause, he calculates, five times more deaths than the Spanish flu a century ago.

Ever the technologist, Gates sets out a spreadsheet for getting rid of those 51bn tonnes of greenhouse gases and achieving net carbon zero emissions by 2050. We would need to use more renewables and fewer fossil fuels (which would account for roughly 27% of the reduction needed in emissions), and change how we manufacture our goods (31%), grow our food (18%), travel (16%), and keep our buildings warm or cool (6%).

To achieve this, Gates provides a set of measures that could, if the UK government is listening, be transposed point by point into the formal agenda for the this year’s 26th United Nations Climate Change Conference, Cop26, in Glasgow. He favours a green new deal, carbon pricing and heightened corporate responsibility. But Gates’s most important proposals involve new technologies. Just as his global health initiatives specialised in scientific solutions to combat disease – “show me a problem and I’d look for a technology to fix it”, he writes – his principal interest is in a technological breakthrough, the environmental equivalent of the Manhattan Project or the moon landing.

Gates is right about the scale and urgency of the problem. Global carbon emissions are now 65% higher than they were in 1990, and the term “global warming”, with its cosy overtones and accompanying stories of vintners making English and even Scottish champagne, does not adequately explain the intensity of storms, hurricanes, floods and severe droughts that are putting our planet on course to reach temperatures not seen in millions of years. Nor, as this book shows, does it satisfactorily reflect the biggest market failure in history and the most difficult global collective action problem the world has ever had to face.

Recognising that we cannot continue to deny electricity to 800 million of the world’s poorest people, his starting point is a plan to develop clean energy and cut its costs. Already, scientific advance has brought an astonishing reduction in the prices of solar, wind and wave energy, battery storage, electric vehicles, remote sensing monitoring and smart grids. But if we are to deliver affordable clean energy, we have to go much further. Gates demands what he calls “a renewable portfolio standard” of energy pricing and an immediate quintupling of climate-related research and development. This would include investing in nuclear fusion as well as nuclear fission; thermal energy (creating energy from hot rocks underground); carbon mineralisation; sea-based carbon removal to de-acidify the oceans; and direct air capture using scrubbing machines. Because even the most advanced solar panels currently convert only around a quarter of the sun’s energy, we need to address problems caused by the intermittency in the output of renewable energy, seasonal differences in its supply, and the high storage costs.

But we must also do more to capture emissions across the entire energy, transport and manufacturing sectors before they are released back to the atmosphere: to store them deep underground or in long-lived products such as concrete, or even by combining CO2 with calcium to produce limestone that could replace concrete.

Taken together these measures could meet the world’s objective of net carbon zero. But if politics was simply the application of reason and science to contemporary challenges, we might have not only solved the climate crisis by now but easily cured Covid-19 and other infectious diseases too.

So we have to ask why, when what needs to be done seems obvious, we have been so slow to act. And why, when it is more cost-effective for advanced economies to fund the total cost of mitigation and adaptation in the poorest countries than to suffer decades of worsening pollution, has the world simply failed to come together?

Gates clearly prefers science to politics – “I think more like an engineer than a political scientist” – and his touching, admirable faith in science and reason reminds me of a similar faith, this time in economic rationality, held by the great prewar economist John Maynard Keynes. His breakthrough in economic thinking offered a way out of the world depression and mass unemployment of the 1930s. But he was unable to persuade the political leaders of the day, and in frustration decried politics as “the survival of the unfittest”. “The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones,” he concluded.

Gates is modest enough to say: “I don’t have a solution to the politics of climate change,” but he too knows that the solution he seeks is inextricably tied up in political decisions. Seemingly unanswerable scientific evidence can be torpedoed by powerful vested interests, or sidelined by bureaucratic indifference, or undermined by weak and incompetent political leaderships that make commitments they do not honour. Or they can be sabotaged by geopolitical rivalries or simply by nations clinging to old-fashioned and absolutist views of national sovereignty. As a result, the multilateral cooperation necessary to deal with a global problem does not emerge, and the very real tensions between economic and environmental priorities, and between the developed and developing world, go unresolved.

I look back on the Copenhagen climate change summit in 2009, when the UKand Europe’s enthusiasm for a deal failed to overcome both the reluctance of the US to make legally binding commitments, and the deep suspicion of China, India and the emerging economies of any obligations that they believed might threaten their development. So determined were they to avoid binding commitments that they rejected Europe’s offer to unilaterally bind itself to a 50% cut in its emissions. So bitter were the divisions that the Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd, who bravely stood out for an ambitious deal, exchanged an angry war of words with the Chinese negotiator.

The Paris accord of 2015 helped reverse many of the setbacks of Copenhagen. Agreement was reached on a global target: to prevent temperatures rising to 2 degrees above pre-industrial levels – preferably 1.5 degrees. And we created new obligations on each country to report, monitor and continuously review their emissions. And while we could not bind the major economies to precise commitments on carbon reductions, they agreed to a ratcheting up of their ambitions every five years.

The importance of Glasgow’s Cop26 in November is that it is the first of these “ratchet” points, and, with 70 countries already committed to net zero carbon emissions, it represents the best opportunity in years to make progress. It also comes at a time when the science is more definitive, the technology more cost-effective, and the price of inaction far clearer. What’s more, President Biden and his new climate envoy John Kerry are promising a renewal of American leadership, and corporations and cities are on board for change.

The Unterer Theodulgletscher glacier above Zermatt is melting at a markedly increased rate.
The Unterer Theodulgletscher glacier above Zermatt is melting at a markedly increased rate. Photograph: Fabrice Coffrini/AFP/Getty Images

In addition to accepting Gates’s proposals for more funding of new technologies, I envisage advances in Glasgow on four major fronts. First, the globally coordinated fiscal stimulus we now need for a post-Covid economic recovery should have, at its heart, a green new deal, centred around a massive expansion in environmentally sustainable infrastructure and the creation of millions of much needed new jobs.

Second, new corporate laws should be agreed, to be applied worldwide, that ensure global companies disclose their carbon footprints, adopt impact-weighted accounting that would reveal the full environmental cost of their operations, and break with business-as-usual by publishing transition plans to a zero net carbon economy.

Third, we should advance the cause of carbon pricing by agreements to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies and by taking up Biden’s plan for border adjustment mechanisms that, for the first time, tax carbon-intensive imports and exports. And fourth, we could agree a big boost to nature-based solutions from afforestation to the better land use now championed by the World Resources Institute. In doing so we could finally make a reality of the promised $100bn green climate fund that was planned 10 years ago to collect and allocate payments for climate mitigation and adaptation in the developing world.

But to operationalise the Paris agreement – to limit warming to 1.5 degrees – requires countries to halve their CO2 emissions by 2030. So vested interests like big oil will have to be enlisted for change. The populist nationalist and protectionist rhetoric of irresponsible demagogues will have to be taken head on. And supporters of a stronger set of commitments will have to show why sharing sovereignty is in every nation’s self-interest, and that coordinated global action is indeed the only way to end the mismatch between the scale of the environmental problems we face and our current capacity to solve them. Success will come by demonstrating that the real power countries can wield to create a better world is not the power they can exercise over others but the power they can exercise with others.

 How to Avoid a Climate Disaster: The Solutions We Have and the Breakthroughs We Need is published by Allen Lane. Gordon Brown’s Seven Ways to Change the World will be published by Simon & Schuster in June.