Since our last newsletter, many climate-related events have happened nationwide and around the world. Two extremely destructive hurricanes hit the Southeast over the summer, California experienced its largest and deadliest wildfires in recorded history (which led to Pacific Gas & Electric, one of the state’s major utilities, to pursue bankruptcy due to its fire-related liabilities), the Great Lakes area got hit by a dislodged Polar Vortex that created bitter cold, and extreme heat waves hit both Europe and Australia. Many other unprecedented climate events happened across the globe.

The world is becoming more alarmed. In the Fall, the United Nations released a report stating that we have only a dozen years to entirely transform our economic and industrial systems if we are to avoid the most dramatic and destructive impacts of climate change, which they deem will occur when the globe reaches 1.5°C above pre-industrial average temperatures (we have already crossed the 1.0°C threshold). However, as noted in our climate change overview on the New Earth Disability page, “the reality is that every fraction of a degree can have major effects, so life under these targets will still be much different than today… This means that it’s incredibly important to prepare, adapt, and increase our resilience to climate impacts for all people.” Americans are also catching on: in a recent survey from Yale University and George Mason University, 69% of Americans are “somewhat worried” about climate change and 29% are “very worried.” These are levels we’ve never seen before.

Climate change was also a major topic in the 2018 US midterm elections, and after the election a group of Democrats started calling for a “Green New Deal” (GND) that would entail a massive, national mobilization to create a green economy and reach net-zero carbon emissions as quickly as possible. (Net-zero doesn’t necessarily mean that we aren’t emitting any greenhouse gases – but rather, that any remaining emissions are offset by “carbon sequestration” such as replanting forests and using technologies that suck CO2 out of the atmosphere). It would fight climate change in a way that also provides jobs, stimulates the economy and addresses social prosperity, similar to the 1930-40s New Deal (but cleaner).

Just over 2 weeks ago, a caucus from the United States House of Representatives released the first draft of the “Green New Deal” to be refined and submitted for a vote in the entire House. (The full text is available here). The GND is a resolution and not legislation, which means that it is essentially a statement of the overall position of the House that sets a vision for more binding, concrete legislation moving forward. It has gotten mixed reviews (to say the least), and WID is neither in favor nor opposed to the Resolution itself. However, given the importance of the GND, it’s worth breaking down – and reflecting on its importance for people with disabilities (PWDs).

A man at a podium with a sign that says "Green New Deal." Several other men and women stand behind the speaker.

Green New Deal co-sponsors Ed Markey and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speak about the Resolution | Wikipedia

What is the Green New Deal?

The GND is a resolution “Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.” As mentioned above, the GND is a resolution and not legislation, which means that it is essentially a statement of the overall position of the House that sets a vision for more binding, concrete legislation moving forward. It consists of 2 main sections with several parts each. These 2 sections are:

“Whereas” clauses that set out the problems at-hand (global warming and related problems, declining public health, economic stagnation and inequality, etc.) and general statements about economic, political and environmental conditions (e.g. “the House of Representatives recognizes that a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization not seen since World War II and the New Deal era is a historic opportunity… To create millions of good, high wage jobs in the United States…” etc.)
“Resolved” sections that present the overall vision of how the Federal Government will approach these problems and conditions going forward. Because the GND addresses climate change, infrastructure, employment, economic inequality, and more, this section has 4 categories, which state that:
1. It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to create a GND in order to achieve several environmental, economic, and social goals;
2. the GND should be accomplished through a 10-year mobilization to radically transform power generation, infrastructure, industry, agriculture, transportation and more in a way that moves toward net-zero carbon emissions and achieves other environmental goals (there are also some specific goals, such as 100% of electricity from zero-emissions sources within 10 years);
3. the GND “must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration and partnership” with several key stakeholders (e.g. “frontline and vulnerable communities,” labor unions, business, etc.);
4. the GND will require a multitude of goals and projects, which are laid out in detail in 15 sub-sections. Many sections in the GND don’t address specific policy solutions, and some are broad enough to leave open the door for a range of actions – for example, economic methods to reduce emissions could use a carbon tax, cap-and-trade, and/or hard quotas enforced by the Federal Government on utilities. Although the resolution itself is often what’s referred to as “policy agnostic,” several GND sponsors have released an FAQ that states certain policies they prefer and some they don’t prefer or just consider off-limits, even though the GND itself is not specific.

(So, that’s a brief breakdown – the entire GND is 14 pages, so go download it and read the whole thing if you’re curious about the details.)

The GND is intriguing in that it doesn’t just call for a transition to environmentally sustainable industry, energy production, infrastructure, and so on. Instead, it presents a vision of an entire economic and social transformation alongside these goals. Among other things, this transformation includes:

guaranteeing jobs with good wages and benefits to all people of the United States;
enforcing new international trade rules to prevent outsourcing of jobs and pollution;
preventing concentrated economic and political power by monopolies;
negotiating fairly with indigenous populations during GND efforts in indigenous territories & reservations; and
providing access to healthcare, housing, economic security, and clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.

So, what exactly is the GND? First, it’s a call-to-action for a 10-year mobilization to drastically reduce emissions while remedying environmental problems nationwide. But it also sets out an entirely new political, social and economic regime – which its proponents argue is necessary to both achieve its environmental goals and address the many socio-economic problems and inequities in the United States. It’s a multi-faceted outline for a political-social-economic-environmental transformation that will guide legislation, policy and practice for the next decade and beyond.

A collage of six pictures: An apartment complex, a blood pressure cuff, a road with the sign "Clean Water," boxes of vegetables, a man installing solar panels, and a forest.

The Green New Deal includes more than just reducing carbon emissions: some other sections call for housing, healthcare, clean water, healthy food, quality jobs, and access to nature for all Americans.

What's good in the GND?

Firstly, we are facing potential environmental catastrophe from climate change, here in the United States and around the globe. There will be cascading effects from environmental changes – such as hunger from reduced agricultural productivity, poverty and unemployment as jobs are lost and infrastructure is damaged, and massive domestic and international migration that will create social and economic tensions. We are also facing many other social, economic and environmental problems – including racism; ableism; economic inequality; highly concentrated wealth and social/political power; inadequate healthcare; widespread pollution; and disproportionate burdens on the “frontline and vulnerable communities” laid out in the GND (“indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the un-housed, people with disabilities, and youth”).

It is important and admirable that the GND lays these and other concerns out, in detail, right at the beginning in the “whereas” clauses of the Resolution. The GND’s strong call for a more sustainable social-economic-environmental system is valuable in its own right – although the strategy of including many pieces in one resolution is questionable (more on that later).
The Federal Government must be a major player in any industrial/environmental/economic changes toward sustainability. The GND recognizes this and calls for much-needed federal action, while laying out the clear urgency of acting at a massive scale. Thumbs-up.
The GND itself is somewhat “agnostic” about policy solutions for reaching net-zero emissions. This is a good thing, especially in a resolution! Many proposed policy solutions exist to reduce climate emissions (e.g. carbon fees/taxes, cap-and-trade systems, and limiting the number of permits for fossil fuel development and fossil fuel imports). These should be debated under the umbrella of well-defined goals, which can be laid out in resolutions.

It’s also great that people with disabilities (PWDs) are recognized as one of many frontline and vulnerable communities, as we are disproportionally exposed to existing environmental dangers; have high rates of poverty and unemployment; are being affected by cuts to social services, healthcare benefits, and income supports; will be heavily affected by climate change; and have fewer resources to prepare, adapt and respond to climate consequences. PWDs are far-too-often left out of conversations about climate change and/or economic inequities, so it’s fantastic that we are recognized by the GND and included in its proposed solutions.

The United States capitol building

The GND recognizes that the Federal Government is central to the transition to a low-carbon economy.

What's bad (or kind-of-bad)?

The GND addresses a wide range of environmental, social and economic problems and related solutions. The breadth of topics – and specific sections therein – do have some weaknesses. Specific sections have questionable policy implications, and the overall framing of climate solutions mixed with economic actions by the Federal Government may slow the GND, politically. As far as I’m concerned, there are 3 major sticking points:

Statements by the GND’s champions and proponents may hamper legitimate policy debates about how to reach net-zero emissions (which would slow the transition). In their FAQ, GND’s authors want to phase-out nuclear power (which, despite its problems, e.g. storing nuclear waste, has few greenhouse emissions) and seem to resist – but not entirely dismiss – a carbon tax, cap and trade, and CCUS (carbon capture, use and sequestration: a still-developing technology to pull CO2 out of the atmosphere) as specific policy measures. Instead, the FAQ prioritizes public investment as the main way to transition from fossil fuels to renewables, and replanting trees (“afforestation”) as the main carbon sequestration tool. In my opinion, market-based solutions should not be resisted in this way. For example, legislation around a carbon fee and dividend (where fossil fuels are taxed at the extraction point, then every resident gets a monthly check from carbon taxes to manage any increasing costs) already has bipartisan support and strong backing from many environmental groups; dismissing a carbon fee both eliminates this reasonable policy solution and create discord between GND advocates and carbon fee/dividend advocates – who both have the goal of saving the planet. I see a couple main problems here. First, unity by climate advocates is vital and that includes leaving the door open for collaboration on securing workable policy solutions. Second, it would be a good political strategy for the GND’s proponents to follow the actual Resolution’s policy-agnostic language instead of jumping to their ideal policy proposals in an FAQ and press conferences.
The GND’s statements that are not directly climate change-related create policy and political problems. It’s true that the GND presents a larger vision for pairing up the transition to a green economy with economic, political and social goals, which together encompass the complete ideal social system of its proponents. Some of these non-climate goals are admirable, but unfortunately, many are logistically and politically infeasible (and some have legitimate problems policy-wise). For example, the GND includes expanding public education, ensuring certain labor protections, creating potentially-protectionist trade policies, providing all people with “high quality healthcare… affordable, safe and adequate housing… economic security [and] access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature,” and “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.” Just a federal job guarantee is politically infeasible and a logistical nightmare (sorry to be a wet blanket), and although healthcare and housing are important, they aren’t directly connected to climate change (and plenty of efforts are already going into healthcare and housing without them needing to be put directly in the GND). Finally, the public investment in green technologies and infrastructure needed to achieve net-zero emissions will already be massively expensive; adding on a job guarantee, universal healthcare, expanding education, and providing everyone with housing would raise the price tag even more.
The GND addresses climate resilience – which is a good thing – but could do more on that front. One of the first statements of the GND is to support goals and projects that “[build] resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies.” It also mentions upgrading infrastructure in ways that “[reduce] the risks posed by flooding and other climate impacts.” However, there’s not much else. As many NED publications have noted, adaptation and resilience absolutely must be cornerstones of any climate change-related efforts, so the GND could address this adaptation in more detail (including by mentioning some of the more difficult parts of climate adaptation, such as planned migration away from low-lying coastal areas).

Ultimately, these sticking points create several barriers:

The non-climate-related social and economic goals (the 2^nd section above) make the GND a non-starter with conservatives, many moderates, and some progressives, including groups who would otherwise support the GND’s calls for a net-zero economy. This loss of support will basically make the GND untenable as far as passing the House (and certainly the Senate) goes, which will then hamper movement toward constructive policies and investments. It also plays into many conspiratorial and general conservative tropes about how advocates fighting climate change are all socialists and using the “climate change myth” to impose some socialist agenda. Given the (unfortunate) power of these tropes in media and politics, that’s a dangerous setup.
Some of the non-climate sections are economically difficult or impossible to put into action and are simply aspirational. Governments and economists around the globe have worked toward raising employment numbers, reducing homelessness, guaranteeing quality education, and providing universal healthcare, among other things. Of these, education and healthcare have been the most successful, but a federal jobs guarantee and housing guarantee are unrealistic goals (especially in the United States). The unrealistic goals would better be left out if proponents don’t want to be labeled as naïve – given many are new in Washington, that’s happening regardless – which will further slow things down.
The policy prescriptions put forward in the FAQ can alienate net-zero proponents that want to use certain technologies (e.g. nuclear or CCUS) or market-based mechanisms, such as a carbon-fee-and-dividend or cap-and-trade. This isn’t the time to cause divisions within climate activist circles: it’s a time to state the urgency of climate action, work out the policy details as a team, and implement climate mitigation and resilience quickly, powerfully and effectively.
Ultimately, these barriers will slow down the adoption and implementation of ALL climate resolutions, policies, investments and transformations. It may turn the GND into a failed effort that takes up many activists’ energy for many months – energy which could be going toward efforts with much more potential to transform economies, infrastructure and investments for the better. Given the urgency of mitigating climate change, pursuing concrete policies is better than putting energy into a nonbinding resolution with little chance to pass a full vote.

Climate activists should use their time and energy in the best ways possible.

What's the connection to disability rights?

People with disabilities have faced discrimination, oppression, and other social barriers for thousands of years. In the early- and mid-20^th century, PWDs in the United States were prevented from accessing employment, public areas, and many federal services that would support their independence and quality-of-life. Many PWDs lived in institutions with often-awful and sometimes-abusive conditions. Activists saw this as a problem and pushed for legislation, regulation and public awareness to gain civil-rights for PWDs nationwide. It began with a sit-in in Washington DC for passage of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which “prohibits discrimination against people with disabilities and programs that receive federal financial assistance.” Then, Ed Roberts (one of WID’s founders) and several other PWDs in Berkeley, CA began the modern Independent Living movement in the 1980s, which fought for access to accessible housing and the personal care and medical supports needed to live outside of institutions (they then received funding for a Center for Independent Living and other services). In 1990, the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guaranteed access to all places of public accommodation, including businesses and services nationwide. These and subsequent civil rights laws gradually increased the provision and accessibility of goods, services, employment, and public spaces so that PWDs could live vibrant, independent lives. Each also had concrete provisions that would receive appropriate funding and could be legally enforced. Of course, there is much more to be done – but this strategy of expanding access to civil rights and services has been successful so far.

Advocates fighting for a net-zero economy, climate resilience and other climate-related goals may want to check out disability rights activists’ strategy for achieving civil rights. It entailed concrete, enforceable policies and regulations that addressed specific issues and built off each other. A climate movement could do the same, addressing such issues as:

Specific federal funding for sustainable infrastructure and technology research, planning and installation. The public-investment model mentioned in GND could be used to recoup some money and re-invest in new, expanded technologies and infrastructure.
Market mechanisms to facilitate the transition from a high-carbon economy to a net-zero carbon system. Many economists support a carbon-fee-and-dividend, while some support cap-and-trade. Other options such as limiting permits for fossil fuel production can be explored.
Climate resilience investments and policies, e.g. federal funding for coastal seawalls, improved disaster readiness and response efforts, and assisting communities that may need to relocate due to climate factors.
Guarantees that each of these policies includes social justice considerations. For example, federal investments could provide targeted jobs in low-income and minority communities, especially those that are currently reliant on fossil fuel-based industries. Existing civil rights rules and regulations, including disability-focused ones, must be enforced throughout.

The signing of the Americans with Disabilities Act was just one piece in the movement for disability rights

Of course, there are a few major differences between the disability rights movement and efforts at climate mitigation and resilience. People with disabilities wanted civil-rights as quickly and comprehensively as possible, and the gradual expansion of civil rights has still taken decades. Meanwhile, climate change presents an immediate threat that will require radical economic, industrial, environmental, social, and infrastructural transformations in just one or two decades. Climate activists, though, likely have a better opportunity to create radical change in a short timeframe, compared to the disability rights movement. Why? First off, there is simply a larger mobilization of activists and politicians pushing for climate mitigation (and hopefully adaptation) than there ever has been pushing for disability rights. As far as political strategy goes, disability activists had to chip away at the system by moving sequentially from Section 504 to Independent Living supports to the ADA and more – but climate activists can move faster by addressing multiple concrete policies concurrently, with the right strategies. Each of the 4 bullet points above (funding infrastructure, supporting market mechanisms, proving climate resilience, and guaranteeing human and civil rights throughout) and relevant climate efforts can be developed, legislated, funded and implemented alongside the others; if one hits a speed-bump, the others can still move forward and achieve their own benefits. Pushing for those tangible policies with focus and collaboration is a great way for advocates to spend their energy – especially given the urgency needed to address the climate crisis.

Welcoming the 2019 Board of Directors

At the beginning of the year, we welcomed several new members to the World Institute on Disability’s Board of Directors! Long-term member Kevin Foster is also now the Chair of the Board. Please welcome them and read more at our website: https://wid.org/2019/02/04/welcoming-in-the-2019-wid-board-of-directors/

In the News

And finally, some timely articles and other resources about climate change and/or disability!

“Employment Matters for Everyone” – World Institute on Disability video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSHefuYju_Q&fbclid=IwAR1wl0ZAaCB4gPx0n11chpWBld4dRSNRtn_uANFrOQWEg5Uoq4UOdKCmYXc

“Poor, elderly and too frail to escape: Paradise fire killed the most vulnerable residents” – LA Times https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-camp-fire-seniors-mobile-home-deaths-20190209-story.html

“2018 fourth warmest year in continued warming trend, according to NASA, NOAA” – NASA Climate https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2841/2018-fourth-warmest-year-in-continued-warming-trend-according-to-nasa-noaa/

“Climate Change Is a Public Health Emergency” – Scientific American https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/climate-change-is-a-public-health-emergency/

“A ‘Green New Deal’ Is Far From Reality, but Climate Action Is Picking Up in the States” – New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/08/climate/states-global-warming.html

“PG&E’s Wildfire Plan Includes More Blackouts, More Tree Trimming and Higher Rates” – New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/business/energy-environment/pge-wildfire-plan-blackouts.html

“Wildfires, hurricanes and other extreme weather cost the nation 247 lives, nearly $100 billion in damage during 2018” – Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2019/02/06/wildfires-hurricanes-other-extreme-weather-cost-nation-lives-nearly-billion-damage-during/?utm_term=.c91ede2ae198

“Big Win for Web Accessibility in Domino’s Pizza Case” – Lainey Feingold https://www.lflegal.com/2019/01/dominos-ninth-circuit/

New Earth Disability February 2019: Exploring the Green New Deal

Recent NED News

The Newsletter: Exploring the Green New Deal