Michael Hoexter in New Economic Perspectives has this:
Democratic Party Platform 7/1/16 Draft Would Lock In Catastrophic Climate Change
Party platforms are the one place, every four years, for American political parties to project a unified vision to the public at large, even if that vision is only used as an electioneering tool and not as a basis for policymaking. For the Democratic Party, as the leftward or supposedly “liberal” major Party, this means that the Platform would be a place where political ideals and plans, if they are at all tangential to upcoming policy initiatives, might be expressed.
Once again, the message is that wishy-washy language will not deflect the inevitable attacks but bold and specific language with good background fleshing out of the plank will both attract support, inform the campaign debate, and provide the framework for rapid delivery once in office. There needs to be a (1) a credible plan for offsetting the jobs currently in the fossil fuel sector and (2) a credible plan for how rewriting the tax code will cover the costs of the proposals within a finite time.
Hoexter argues that the timing of the locking in of global catastrophic climate change has now reached an point of no return and that the failure to act implied in the Democratic Party Platform is a failure of fundamental governance–the building of a vision and a mandate.
Hoexter then turns to address the specific weaknesses in the platform:
- The preamble is a call for kum-bah-yah politics without any urgency, especially with respect to responding to climate change (not to mention other areas of collapse).
- The preamble statement of climate change, although corrects, lacks motivating language.
Democrats believe that climate change poses a real and urgent threat to our economy, our national security, and our children’s health and futures, and that Americans deserve the jobs and security that come from becoming the clean energy superpower of the 21st century.
Unfortunately, the reality of climate change is not a matter of “belief”. Also, dealing with climate change involves more than just changing the energy infrastructure of the US economy. Mitigating the consequences of 30 years of inaction is also a necessary issue that should of rights motivate action.
Hoexter proposes:
Despite progress in some areas over the past 8 years, we are faced with twin challenges: not only are many Americans falling behind or left out of prosperity and a sense of social belonging but also we have not yet fully faced our greatest challenge: the imminent danger of catastrophic climate change. We Democrats think though, as in facing the Great Depression, World War II and the superpower competition with the Soviet Union, the fundamental solutions to our multiple large-scale social problems should and must be addressed through the work of Americans and government together. We Democrats believe that the best solution to our multiple sustainability dilemmas involves creating by government financial instruments, which have always been at our disposal, a full employment economy that pushes our society within a decade to a post-fossil fuel economy where everybody participates in just, equitable reward and also, for a time, shared sacrifice.
As part of a great mobilization to save our American civilization from likely destruction from eventual famine, flood, drought, or other climate-related calamities, we must via a combination of replacing fossil energy with renewable energy, energy efficiency improvements, and conservation reduce annually our global warming emissions by 10% or more per year until they are at zero within less than a decade. We can do this by building an all-electric energy infrastructure powered by renewable energy that also uses energy and resources wisely. As we have done in the past, government initiative and finance will help individuals, families, businesses and nonprofit public service agencies create together a livable prosperous future for all Americans. Government leaders will also ask for reasonable sacrifices or conservation efforts such as choosing to ride bicycles on safe bike routes rather than drive, which may also function as life enhancing options. The achievement of targets of a 10% reduction in emissions per year over a period of 10 years will create a net zero emissions society. A list of some initiatives follows:
- Declaration of a national climate emergency and an accompanying national discussion of climate solutions and sacrifices for the benefit of the young and future generations.
- A renewable energy smart supergrid to enable renewable energy to replace 24/7 fossil fuel electricity generation and tap into a wide variety of energy sources from the Atlantic to the Pacific.
- Electric roadways and electric vehicle charging infrastructure to enable our vehicles to use renewable energy to move about
- A continental high-speed rail and maglev rail system to enable an emissions-free long-distance travel across North America
- Retrofitting existing buildings and building new buildings that require little energy input to remain comfortable in heat and cold
- Creating an electric-bus, electric-rail and safe bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in urban and suburban areas to create mobility options beyond the personal (electric) vehicle, reduce congestion and increase overall health.
- Creating an agricultural and forestry system that pulls more carbon out of the air while providing nourishing foods and useful sustainable materials for a variety of uses.
- A Job Guarantee that enables all Americans to work in the transition to a sustainable energy economy or in supplying necessary services during that transition
- Shape markets and business decisions by a stable carbon tax starting at $80 per metric tonne and rising $10/year
We as Democrats believe that we will build on our tradition of working together to help ensure that our children and grandchildren will enjoy the same or better prospects that we have enjoyed. That starts now with ensuring that the natural basis of our wealth is not destroyed by our current dependence on fossil fuels.
Hoexter then turns to the specific planks. Most interesting is the plank on environmental justice.
Then this section about fossil fuel leases on public lands:
The fossil fuel banning language starts off bold:
“We oppose drilling in the Arctic and off the Atlantic coast”
But then loses conviction in the next phrase:
“…and believe we need to reform fossil fuel leasing on public lands.”
Hoexter then recommends nine edits of the text of this section, starting with:
1. Declaration of a Climate Emergency. While there is the potential for abuse of an emergency declaration, there is no substitute for recognizing that climate action is not a patch on our existing energy-related social arrangements but a thoroughgoing effort to eliminate excess greenhouse gas emissions rapidly. Climate action is the paramount priority of government and of the American public. Political rights must be maintained, in part because that is the foundation of the American Republic, but also because the effort to stabilize the climate must fully harness the creativity and good will of the public throughout.
And every single candidate campaigning as a Democrat must be supporting this direction and using consistent messages of support in their campaigns.
Democrats must not just squeak by in winning, they must win, be able to govern, and be able to deliver some pretty tall orders that have the effect of actually making America great again by hitting stride in its self-transformative tradition.
It is worth reading Hoexter’s entire argument.
Democrats must never issue a discouraging word these days about Democrats.
I thought that rule didn’t go into effect until after the convention. It’s then that the Democratic equivalent of Reagan’s “11th commandment” takes place and for four months Democrats feel free to violate Will Rogers’s observation about his Democratic Party.
Someone really should post a list of positions that are being voted DOWN by the DNC in the present platform.
They just gave a big hug to corporate subsidies…
Corporate subsidies from government are interesting critters. There are of course, unavoidable corporate vendors to government. Even in the days of federal armories, Eli Whitney was given a government contract for rifles. Direct purchases have become subsidies when the government is making an avoidable purchase or a purchase intended to modify corporate or public behavior. Middle-class housing programs function as a corporate subsidies. Food stamps function as corporate subsidies. The way corporations use unemployment insurance, it functions as a corporate subsidy. Even deductions for non-profits has become a means of subsidizing religious institutions and permitting corporate capture of non-profits. Likewise what has happened to public broadcasting.
And then there is tax spending (or failure to equally collect taxes) that provides “freedom” for the corporation to figure out how use its subsidy. The tax code is so complex because of the subsidies embedded in it, not necessarily the the bureaucratic regulations that try to prevent fraud in all of these subsidies. In addition, the complexity of the tax code itself functions as a subsidy to tax lawyers, accountants, and the tax shelter industry (back again after Reagan’s “reforms”).
That whole ball of wax needs to be a separate plank with its own discussion and messaging framework. And it should allow people to see where they would stand if it were passed in Congress.
The details of the current draft need to be analyzed at least as thoroughly as the article referenced in this post.
Having heard John Michael Greer’s arguments about the risk of transition to high-tech renewables failing because of the limits to resources problem, there should be a hedging infrastructure program (although not necessarily called that) in the specifics of the platform.
Roads – What to do when asphalt is no longer available. What to do with deteriorated concrete that clogs landfills. How to have durable roads in all regions of the country when there are constraints on the availability of asphalt and concrete.
Canals – Reintroduction of historic canals into commercial service initially as recreation waterways. Re-engineering mechanical locks to have operating mechanisms that are more durable and energy efficient.
Land – Reclamation of waste urban land, cleanup of Superfund sites, and placement into land uses while vacant that do not contribute to pollution and the heat island effect. Expanded urban agricultural uses of vacant land. Returning land to healthy soil and closing the circle on recycling.
Running dual technologies is not what the 20th century managers would call efficient; it is a necessary duplication for resilience.
I just watched the Platform Committee’s discussions of the energy platform planks. Josh Fox and his allies were very excited tonight about the amendment they were able to get in the platform.
Was it this one:
I believe that was one of the sentences. They read out something longer than that, but the fracking issue was what Fox and his allies were fighting on, very hard. The impoliteness was delightful. They didn’t get everything in and out of the platform that they wanted, but they were excited by the final outcome.
So they didn’t get the fracking language amendment in the Platform. Here’s a worthwhile summary, with video, from another Tarheel:
http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2016/07/more-to-it-than-platforms-and.html
I’m also interested in your response to Undercover Blue’s discussion of North Carolina electoral organizing.
Not getting it in signals that even Democrats do not understand the folly of propping up the fossil fuel industry with fracking (and likely tar sands as well). Putting this amendment in might not mean much, but pointedly not putting it in signals the status quo direction of policy and does not allow an implicit vote to change direction. Now, there might be some stealth environmentalists flying under the radar in order to get elected in their constituencies who did not want to tip their hands. But to me, this looks like more bad policy coming. For folks urged to work through the system, the crisis is so immediate that this vote looks like a betrayal of the future.
There is the possibility that with more people involved (the convention delegates) with fewer captive to lobbyists, a floor action could change this. If that actually happened, the Democratic Party would look like a functioning democratic institution.
Undercover Blue makes a good point that I’ve been hammering on. Having functional elections means having functional elections in over 185,000 voting places. And for a party, winning the majority of the votes within the constituency of as many of those places that constitute a majority vote for that race. That involves over half a million volunteers for an election. Party operations provide the names for election judges. (That means that third and fouth party and more organizations need to supply their own election judges where state law does not shut them out.)
You want grassroots politics. You need grassroots volunteers who will become your first line on election protection.
You probably need in addition at least 3 and certainly more volunteers to organize geographically-based canvassing of voters who will go to that voting place–an be prepared to pass the word when that location suddenly changes.
And you probably need 3 volunteers to organize voter support services — transportation, child care, other services — that remove the practical blocks to actually voting. This includes supporting voters in long lines to hang in there until they get their chance to vote,
There you are over a million volunteers just for one party to have coverage of every voting place.
And then you have the volunteers for each candidate who often do double duty by being party volunteers and even election judges on election day.
Undercover Blue’s point is well-taken. Voting is only the surface level of an electoral strategy on policy issues. You have to show up for the candidates who understand those issues to turn out all of the similar voters to you in a precinct.
That is going to the Bernie movements next challenge–delivering precincts that Democrats could not reach without Bernie in the race. And adding on to turnout in “sure” districts in the minimalist approach of past elections.
A wave election requires turnout; turnout requires lots of motivated volunteers; motivated volunteers require motivation. The convention traditionally in addition to settling party direction was the first rally of volunteers nationally.
Can the Democrats recapture that spirit from the lackluster conventions of the past 40 years.
Josh Fox and his organized delegates feel like they got something very substantial with the carbon dioxide emission pricing plank which rejects the status quo. They don’t feel that they failed overall.
I think it is overstated to claim that the proposed platform is “…propping up the fossil fuel industry…”, or that anything other than an installation of the anti-fracking amendment by the Delegates at the Convention would mean that the Party is not “…a functioning democratic institution…”. I’m rooting for the amendment to make it in the final platform, but the best language the Party has ever had on these issues is a sign that Party leaders are becoming more responsive to scientific outcomes and democratic principles, not less.
Rania Khalek:
Kevin Gosztola:
Nina Turner:
mayaberry:
Well, sentiment IS turning on Palestine, it would seem. Just not quite there yet.
Not getting your drift.
Millennials are much less willing to ignore Palestinians. 95-75? A decade ago would have been no oppo.
Ah. The generation not raised on the collective holocaust guilt and therefore, Jews deserved a homeland of their own and they could do no wrong because … the holocaust. I’m not denigrating the appropriateness of collective holocaust guilt at the end of WWII and passed down to those born during the next two decades. (The Diary of Anne Frank and Exodus were books that teen girls read informed them.) There were major lessons for humans to learn from that dreadful recent history and it did much to significantly reduces anti-Semitism in this country which has been a very good thing.
It was the Zionist propaganda that distorted our minds. The “a land with no people for a people with no land.” Palestinians were forced to pay the price for something they didn’t do. And we in this country have been paying through our taxes to prop up a very bad solution to a real issue. In part because we were too stupid to open our borders to any and all Jews that chose to emigrate.
Getting noticed that CBC is not where BLM is as regards Palestinians.
Most of the CBC has aligned completely with the Clintons on all matters. Generally, they are the old and very old guard contingent of the party. They can blow off comments from the Clintons such as “super predators” and Hillary’s willingness to stress that she’s white before white audiences. BLM folks have a different read on such comments and aren’t willing to overlook them.
Lend-Lease Act:
As Germany and Japan were becoming military superpowers, the US cavalry was still riding around on horses. On July 28, 1941 Congress did approve the construction of a new War Department building, but increasing funding to expand the peacetime military was a slow slog. This ended up meaning that after Japan attacked US and Germany declared was on US, the country wasn’t prepared and the industrial conversion from peacetime to wartime was much slower than it could have been and displaced more workers during the process.
So, when the environmental equivalent of Pearl Harbor hits, we’ll be decades late and trillions of dollars short. A difference will be that half of Democratic politicians opted for slow go with the Republicans.
All this is just rearranging the deck chairs unless we acknowledge and address the underlying major cause — global overpopulation. But that’s a politically dicey subject domestically and getting a worldwide agreement that will stop growth and lead soon to a decrease in numbers would be extremely difficult.
I’ve generally followed the global warming/climate change issue since the 1980s, but lately have grown discouraged reading about the tinkering-at-the-margins proposals our leaders offer. Modest carbon reductions just get offset each year by increased population. We need another Paul Ehrlich today — only better and more urgently.
Is getting impossible to ignore the deliberate encouragement to reproduce as a means of territorial expansion, too.
Good luck with the Christian Quiverfull movement and other groups that consider even moderation as genocide. Religions have preached “be fruitful and multiply” without realizing that resources are limited even if you practice radical sharing (which no religion actually is in practice).
The typical way overpopulation is handled in animal communities is through a catastrophic die-off. That likely is where we are headed. I don’t think that the elites in any society ever think they are the ones whom catastrophe will strike. That’s for the little people.
Radical carbon reductions don’t get offset for a couple or three years. Stopping emitting carbon dioxide from industrial and transportation processes, going cold turkey, does do the trick but it also requires more human and animal labor.
Population growth is decreasing, but there is still increase built in through earlier growth. That is, even if women today through most of the world has less then two children or are rapidly approaching two children, the generation being born is larger then the generation that is about to die, because the generation that is about to die had many children.
(gapminder.org is an excellent resource if you want to check births per woman, trends over time, etc.)
Still, UNs projections for 2050 is between 8 and 11 billions. This can be handled through lower ecological footprint, but would require a radical approach to change.