Read this article:
Democratic National Committee to Jay Inslee: No climate-focused debate
The little-known governor of Washington state just unveiled the ambitious second phase of his climate plan, and there are more pieces of the puzzle to come. That’s no surprise to those familiar with his platform: Jay Inslee is running as the climate candidate.
Some of Inslee’s fellow presidential candidates have embraced a progressive climate plan called the Green New Deal. A resolution outlining that plan, introduced by Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey, points to some vague and rather massive policy ideas. But AOC’s policy plan isn’t expected to roll out until next year. Until then, Inslee’s plan is beginning to look like the closest thing we have to a road map.
Much like the Green New Deal, Inslee’s plan (the parts of it we’ve seen so far) offers a federal jobs guarantee, a 10-year mobilization on clean energy, and even healthcare benefits for impacted coal workers. Inslee wants to spur a $9 trillion investment that will fight off the worst of climate change and enable workers to find gainful employment in the transition to renewable energies.
One of the advisors to New Consensus, the think tank building out the Green New Deal, saw positive similarities between the two. “I think what Governor Inslee is doing very well and what the Green New Deal does very well is approach the problem through not only an environmental lens but also an economy lens,” said Brandon Hurlburt, who served as chief of staff to Stephen Chu, secretary of energy under President Obama. “We need people to understand the type of job that they can have in the mobilization effort that Governor Inslee is talking about.”
Inslee isn’t shy about drawing parallels between his plan and the history that inspired the Green New Deal. “Eighty-six years ago this month, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt laid out the details of the New Deal in a radio address,” the first line of Inslee’s plan reads. “Just as it did in the 20th century, America must rise to this 21st-century challenge with a bold plan.”
Here’s how his Evergreen Economy Plan aims to make that happen:
A $9 trillion investment in infrastructure, labor, green industries, and new technologies. That doesn’t mean that Inslee expects Congress to cough up $9 trillion on his first day in office (the same goes for Beto’s $5 trillion climate plan). The plan leverages money to jumpstart investment: $300 billion in average federal spending plus an additional $600 billion more from the private sector every year.
A green bank. Inslee calls this the “Clean Energy Deployment Authority” and it’s like an ATM for green spending. The bank will get start off with $90 billion to invest in low-cost solutions that the private sector has been ignoring.
Helping out rural America. Inslee aims to accomplish this by providing debt relief to struggling communities, starting clean electricity coops, funding energy efficiency upgrades, and investing in regional authorities. It’s a bottom-up plan that lets rural states maintain control of the energy transition.
Under Inslee’s plan, federal agencies will have to purchase 100 percent clean energy by 2024 using union labor. The plan will also spend $3 trillion on upgrading and building more resilient infrastructure, another opportunity, Inslee says, for good-paying jobs. Some of these skilled-labor positions could clock in at $25 an hour.
A G.I. bill for workers affected by the transition to renewables, particularly folks employed by the dying coal industry. That includes: securing retirement benefits for impacted workers by stabilizing the nation’s retirement system, guaranteeing access to healthcare for qualifying workers, educational stipends and income support for workers who want to transition to new jobs, and more.
There’s a lot more in Inslee’s plan: a Clean Water For All initiative that invests in upgrading the nation’s crumbling water infrastructure, grants for smart grid networks, investments in public transit systems (helllooooo, MTA). Almost every piece of the Evergreen Economy Plan provides opportunities for thousands of new jobs.
“We need to have a jobs program that makes sure everyone has a shot at these good jobs in terms of training and otherwise,” Inslee told Grist in an interview in April. “When we’re defeating climate change, what we should be doing is increasing economic equality. That’s invested throughout this whole system.”
Unlike many of the now 23 presidential hopefuls, the governor of the Evergreen State actually has some achievements under his belt to point to as he makes a case for why America needs to tackle climate change full-on.
But Inslee is polling at a paltry 1 percent. His involvement in the 2020 presidential race, however, could have the effect of inspiring other, more established candidates to roll out their own climate plans.
New Consensus advisor Hurlburt pointed out that thanks to candidates like Beto O’Rourke and Inslee, voters will have a wide array of choices. “If Democrats are trying to outdo each other by proposing the most ambitious policy to meet the scale of the problem, that’s a good way to start addressing [climate change],” he said.
Continue reading:
There are glimmers of a Green New Deal in Inslee’s big new climate plan
The peer pressure to clean up the electric grid is gripping the country.
Recent weeks have brought a flurry of ambitious clean-energy pledges. On Earth Day, Nevada’s governor signed into law a measure banning fossil-fuel generated electricity by 2050. Washington’s legislature just sent a bill to Governor Jay Inslee (the presidential contender) that would have the Evergreen State running on purely carbon-free electricity by 2030. Last month, New Mexico committed to 100 percent clean electricity by 2045. California, Hawaii, Washington D.C., and Puerto Rico, passed similar laws a bit further back. There are similar bills pending in Illinois, Minnesota, New York, New Jersey, Virginia, Florida, and Massachusetts. And don’t forget the 100-odd cities — from Orlando, Florida to Pueblo, Colorado — that have vowed to kick their fossil-fuel addiction.
“Voters and state legislatures are being pretty darn clear that there’s widespread support for getting the electricity sector to 100 percent clean,” said Josh Freed, who runs the energy program at the Third Way think tank in Washington, D.C. “In our wildest expectations, we couldn’t have anticipated this much action this quickly.”
It’s a seismic shift from the 1990s and 2000s, when states made goals to get get a certain share of their electricity from renewable power. Those laws were designed to help the nascent renewables industry find its footing, Freed said. Now that the industry is up and running, “the next question is, how do we get carbon off the grid?”
That’s why everyone seems to be excited about the same goal. And this isn’t just the flavor of the month — there’s a good reason to focus on a carbon-free electric system. Though there are still hurdles to leap, states basically know how to eliminate emissions from the electrical grid, said Mike O’Boyle, head of electricity policy at the think tank Energy Innovation in San Francisco. You can’t say the same about eliminating emissions from air-travel or concrete production, at least not yet. So squeezing the greenhouse gases out of electricity is a clearly achievable goal. And there are beneficial knock-on effects: It paves the way to clean up transportation (by switching to electric vehicles) and buildings (by switching to electric heating and cooling).
“It think its a robust and meaningful trend,” O’Boyle said. “A lot of gubernatorial candidates, and presidential candidates, have campaigned on 100-percent clean electricity. It’s become part of the conventional wisdom that it’s a realistic and effective policy goal.”
Originally from:
Washington and Nevada join the swelling list of states aiming for 100% clean power
EXECUTIVE DISORDER
19 Sep 2014 8:39 PM
Share
Northwest states talk green, invest dirty
You know those proposed coal terminals and the ramped-up oil-train traffic that many Washingtonians and Oregonians vehemently oppose? You know, the ones that, if they all were to go through, would carry five times the potential climate damage of an approved Keystone XL pipeline?
Well, some investigative reporting from the sustainability think-tank Sightline Institute shows that both Pacific Northwest states are stealthily financing these schemes to place the region at the center of the global carbon trade — even as their leaders lambast them.
Oregon’s climate-conscious Gov. John Kitzhaber publicly disapproved of a major coal export proposal that’s since been denied a crucial permit, and Gov. Inslee of the Evergreen State is sowing the seeds of post-carbon prosperity. Meanwhile, both states’ executive branches have been quietly investing in the climate-threatening infrastructure projects.
From the Sightline Daily post by Eric de Place and Nick Abraham:
The Oregon Investment Council (OIC) and the Washington State Investment Board (WSIB) oversee all public investments made for their respective states. … Normally, once invested, funds are very difficult to track. But private equity funds pitch investors like the OIC and WSIB on specific portfolios of investments, highlighting not only the overarching theme of the investment package but often specific companies. While state funds are combined with other monies, investors have a much more specific idea about where their dollars are going. They can’t claim ignorance about its final destination.
In other words, it allows us to follow the money.
Their financial spelunking revealed some outrageous examples of state money invested in fossil fuel ventures. Here are a few:
The two states have combined to pour $350 million into a fund that’s supporting an oil-by-rail facility sending North Dakota shale oil to West Coast refineries and a project aimed at barging coal down the Columbia river for shipment to Asia.
The Oregon Investment Council has invested hundreds of millions in GSO Capital, which recently bankrolled the purchase of an oil train facility on the Columbia River to the tune of $70 million.
OIC also invests heavily in Blackstone Capital, a company that recently sold $962 million worth of oil tankers to Kinder Morgan, the energy giant never runs out of plans to ship fossil fuels through the Northwest.
WSIB dumped another $250 million in Global Infrastructure Fund II, which invests in pipelines and other fossil fuel transportation projects.
The original article is worth reading if you’re into the nitty gritty details.
There’s really no reason to believe the state governments are deliberately deceiving citizens; it’s probably a case of the governor’s office charged with managing the state not talking to the office down the hall that manages its money.
But the inconsistency will surely irk folks who don’t want dirty freight shipped through their state. Perhaps it’s time for a divestment campaign aimed at state governments.
Source:
How State Public Money Pays for Coal Exports and Oil Trains
, Sightline Daily.
Find this article interesting?
Donate now to support our work.Share
Please
to view the comments.
View original article:
Libros
