Something amazing is happening in American politics. Wow it felt good, and weird, to type that sentence. Not sure if you noticed, but it’s been kind of a hellish shitshow recently.

Anyway… On Tuesday 13th November 2018, a group of young climate activists descended on the office of Nancy Pelosi, expected to lead the Democrats in the US Congress. They were demanding that she set up a special committee to create a proper climate action plan for the country – a Green New Deal.

They were joined by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, a new rising star in the Democrats – more on her later – who hasn’t even officially taken her seat yet, but who dropped in to show her support of this demand on her new boss.

There’s a lot to unpack here, and we’re going to dive in to the details. But first I just want to give a shout out to David Roberts, one of my favourite climate journos, who wrote this fantastic piece about this. I am going to be drawing on his article quite a bit for the first few sections of this post. You should totally read it too.

A Green New Deal – what now?

These young climate activists and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are calling for something called a Green New Deal – a vast policy package with the aim to address climate change by decarbonising the US economy while addressing economic injustice, creating good jobs, investing in much-needed infrastructure and public services. Read this to see for yourself how eye-poppingly ambitious it is. We’re talking 100% renewable power and a slew of other goals.

The idea of a Green New Deal has been kicking around in environmental circles for years, and has long been championed by the US Green Party. But in just the last week, this is by far the most mainstream attention I have ever seen this idea get. It’s been discussed or at least mentioned on TV channels from Fox News to Russia Today, it’s been in many of the major national newspapers. As far as I know, this level of attention is unprecedented.

As the name suggests, the idea draws on the New Deal that President Roosevelt used to deal with the Great Depression. It’s basic Keynesian economics – essentially when the economy isn’t doing well, the government can fix it by spending a hell of a lot of money on useful stuff like infrastructure and research, which creates economic demand in the short term and higher productivity in the long term.

The ‘Green’ bit re-purposes this idea to be about retooling the economy to get off fossil fuels.

This most recent iteration of the concept is a little different because the US economy is not doing badly in terms of GDP – it’s actually growing. However most of that extra growth is only benefiting the rich, while ordinary Americans struggle. So the Green New Deal is more about economic justice than growth – good jobs paying living wages, public healthcare and education, affordable housing.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, part of a movement

You may well have heard of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez already, as she’s quickly become very popular in a short space of time. I have been reading up on her lately and I’m a huge fan.

She is the youngest woman ever to be elected to Congress, at 29 years old she is now going to represent the 14th district of New York – covering the Bronx and part of Queens. She caused waves when she ran for the primary against Democrat old-timer Joe Crowley and won, after he had held the seat for ten terms.

https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1063917941383671808

She is very progressive – a self-described democratic socialist, clearly very passionate about social justice and environmental issues including climate change.

She is half Puerto Rican and she comes from a working class family. She ran an incredibly impressive grassroots campaign – didn’t take any money from corporate donors and had a passionate army of volunteers and small donations from ordinary people. Such a feat is almost unheard of. She won by focusing on the issues that her community cares about, running a positive campaign rather than making it about Trump. Central to her winning strategy was reaching out directly to the disengaged and disenfranchised who don’t normally vote, because politicians don’t normally speak to them.

She has a degree in Economics and International Relations and is incredibly intelligent and articulate and comes across as refreshingly genuine, with wheelbarrows of charm.

For you British readers – think Jeremy Corbyn, except a young Latina woman and more charismatic and even more progressive – and fresh, without the inevitable baggage of having been in politics for 35 years. But her democratic-socialist principles, her authenticity, being elected on the back of a grassroots movement – in those ways she’s very similar.

Even more exciting – she’s not alone, she’s part of a movement.

The new intake of Democrats from the recent mid terms is the most diverse ever, with more women than ever, historic numbers of people of colour, other minorities, as well as teachers and scientists running and winning. Many of these won on very progressive platforms and are bringing a much needed new energy into the stuffy and corrupt world of politics.

A organisation called Justice Democrats is recruiting, training and campaigning for Democrat candidates who back their platform of progressive policies.  Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (or AOC for a cool abbreviation) is one of seven new Congress members they helped to elect in 2018.

And the climate activists who were demanding a Green New Deal? They are from a group called Sunrise Movement, a group of young people campaigning for climate justice, green jobs and the transition to a zero carbon economy.

We need strategy, not ideas

What AOC, Sunrise Movement and Justice Dems are doing here is actually very strategic. They aren’t just having a protest to demand a Green New Deal. That would raise awareness and get the idea talked about, but essentially not much else. Democrats now control Congress but Republicans have the Senate and the White House. And most mainstreams Dems aren’t even that concerned about climate action anyway. Even if they were, they have zero hope of passing this incredibly radical policy package at the moment.

But the demand isn’t actually for a Green New Deal itself. Here’s where it gets a bit ‘policy wonk’ so stick with me. This is interesting I promise.

The actual demand is for Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi to set up a special committee. This would have a specific mandate to spend two years building out a proper detailed plan for how to implement a Green New Deal, and then in 2020 when the next election rolls around, this time the big Presidential one, they would then have the plan ready for their campaign, and ready to implement if and when they win. And now that Democrats have control of Congress, Pelosi has the power to set up committees – with no approval needed from the Senate or President.

There’s another interesting part to the demand, and that is that this committee would not allow its members to take donor money from the fossil fuel industry. A smart protection against conflicts of interest co-opting it.

So far, they have got ten Congress members to support the proposal, and counting. That’s pretty damn impressive work.

https://twitter.com/sunrisemvmt/status/1063983199477473280

Nancy Pelosi herself has expressed some support for it, though hasn’t actually agreed. It’s extremely ballsy for AOC to make such a demand of her before even starting work, and siding with the external activists doing a sit-in was certainly a far cry from the usual wheeling and dealing behind closed doors that politicians usually engage in to get their ideas through.

But with this bold opening move AOC has made a name for herself and pushed ambitious climate action right onto the agenda. Pelosi may even need AOC’s support to be elected Speaker of the House, as she can’t afford to lose very many votes.

For a long time, I’ve been saying that the green left needs to stop fixating on great ideas for the end goal and focus more on strategy and tactics. That’s what’s actually happened here. The idea of a Green New Deal has been around for years, getting no where. Only now that it’s being used as part of a smart political strategy is it getting mainstream traction.

Do I think they will get their committee and make their amazing plan and then implement it in 2020 with the US becoming carbon neutral and amazing for working class people by 2030? Um… No. There are incredible obstacles in the way and getting any kind of decent climate or left wing policy through the US system is a colossal struggle – let alone something as radical as this.

But it’s good that this new movement is aiming high with their opening ask, because they will be sure to be haggled down whatever their opening is, even if it’s something that should have bipartisan appeal. By aiming big, they have moved the Overton window and shifted the conversation. A Green New Deal is now something that is within the frame of discussion, which is a significant change.

I’m very excited to see how this develops. If you’re as excited as I am, I suggest following the #GreenNewDeal hashtag on Twitter and following @Ocasio2018, @justicedems and @sunrisemvmt. And I’ll be writing about this more soon! And as always, subscribe to make sure you get the my next post.

Featured image credit: Corey Torpie, Wikimedia Commons, Creative Commons.

The post Green New Deal: A bold vision for America’s future appeared first on P2P Foundation.

The Caliph of the Ahmadyya Muslim Community spoke about how we need world leaders to prioritize helping the poor out of poverty in the same urgent manner as acting on climate change. He said that the world’s poorest do not worry about the latest greenhouse gas figures because they’re too busy worrying about whether they can feed their children today.

This comment hit me hard because it simultaneously rang true yet also seemed to contradict what I know about climate change hurting the poor most.

On the one hand, it makes perfect sense that people won’t care about longer term problems or global problems when they are focused on basic survival today.

#Climatechange will affect the worlds poorest the most. We must transition to sustainable energy sources to prevent increased poverty and inequality. #EarthDay https://t.co/4mQVv4xbBF

— Oxfam Canada (@oxfamcanada) April 22, 2018

But people prioritize, and all problems are relative.

Even if the global poor know climate change is affecting their community in a serious way, they probably won’t have it top of mind if they are struggling to feed their children and their only water source is contaminated and miles away, or their family are sick and they can’t afford healthcare. These urgent problems are naturally going to take precedence. And I think it’s important for Western environmentalists like myself to understand that.

So, do the global poor care about climate change?

I was very curious, so I decided to dig into some research. I found four surveys comparing attitudes to climate change across countries. Shall we dive in?

The research: what the global poor thinks of climate change

I’m going to summarize each of the four studies I looked at before going on to my own analysis and conclusion. I encourage you to read these studies yourself if you’re interested, as they are all packed with fascinating detail that I don’t have time to go into here.

1. UN survey 2014

• Huge survey asked citizens to rank global issues by importance
• Covered a good range of countries from rich to middle income to poor
• You can see the data here and a good analysis by Vox here
• People in rich countries rank climate change #9 on the list
• Middle income countries rank climate change #14 on the list
• Poorest countries rank climate change last on the list
• Global average placed education first and climate action last

2. YouGov survey 2015

• Smaller survey of citizens asked to rank global issues in importance
• Covered 17 countries in Europe, Asia and the Middle East plus the US and Australia
• None of the poorest countries were included – none from Latin America or Africa
• You can see the data here, with a really cool interactive datavis
• Developing countries China, Thailand, Indonesia and Malaysia were included
• China and Thailand among the most concerned about climate change
• Indonesia and Malaysia among the least
• Global average places climate action third behind poverty and terrorism (which was the top by miles – likely influenced by the timing of the survey just after the December 2015 attack in Paris, but note climate has gone from last to third place compared to the UN survey)
• UK and US among the least concerned about climate change

3. Pew Research Centre survey 2015

• Large survey covering a good spread of 40 countries
• Asked citizens a number of questions about their views on climate change
• Majorities in every country said it is a serious problem, but wide variation between countries
• Citizens in Latin America and Africa, particularly sub-Saharan Africa, are most concerned about climate impacts
• Citizens in higher emissions countries are less concerned
• You can see the data here

4. Gallup survey 2007-08

• Using older data but huge sample size covering over 119 countries
• Claims to be biggest pubic survey on climate change to date, representing 90% of the world population
• Asked citizens how much they know about climate change and if they know of it, how much of a threat is it to them and their family
• Over a third of world’s adults do not know about climate change at all
• This figure was as high as two thirds in many developing countries
• Education level was biggest determiner of climate awareness
• When people in poor countries are aware of climate change they are very concerned about it
• Perception of climate risk very high in South America and many African and Asian countries
• You can see the study in Nature journal here and a good analysis on Carbon Brief here

Analysis: What is the data telling us?

So, as you can see these four surveys show mixed results. The UN survey is very clearly aligned with the Caliph’s comment that people in the poorer countries are not concerned about climate change as they have more urgent problems to worry about.

The YouGov survey shows a much more mixed picture. But it is also the least relevant for our question because it only asks people from 17 countries, only four of which are developing countries (that’s if you count China) and none of the world’s poorest countries are included. So while fascinating in other ways, let’s set that one aside for now.

The Pew survey appears to show the opposite of the UN one: people in the poorest countries are actually the most concerned about climate change. Meanwhile, people in the countries that have the highest emissions (i.e. richer ones) are not as concerned.

Young woman gathers water from Mwamanongu Village water source, Tanzania. Image credit: Bob Metcalf / Wikimedia Commons (CC0)

The Gallup survey has two big points relevant for our question. On the one hand a high proportion of people in the poorest countries do not even know what climate change is. Clearly you can’t worry about something you don’t know exists. (Although I bet they do worry about the impacts of climate change likes floods, droughts, storms etc). But when they are aware of climate change, they tend to be very concerned about it.

The studies with the most clear-cut results are the UN one and the Pew one – which suggest opposite conclusions. Why is this? It’s possible that the Pew one, timed very close to the climate summit where the Paris Agreement was signed, could have picked up on rising awareness and excitement around that. But to be honest I doubt that the citizens of the South American and sub-Saharan African nations were so engaged in that process as to shift the results so dramatically.

What I think is much more relevant is the nature of the studies and how people think about risk.

The UN one, that said the global poor are least concerned about climate change, asked people to rank a list of global issues from most to least important. While the Pew one, that said the global poor are most concerned about climate change, asked people about their views on climate change in isolation. The Gallup survey, which said when the global poor know about climate change they are very concerned about it, was similar to the Pew study – i.e. it asked about climate in isolation.

So, my conclusion from this is that the global poor are very concerned about climate change, more so than we are, but they don’t prioritize it because they are even more concerned about other problems they face. Such as feeding their children, like the Caliph says.

This makes sense intuitively and is backed by the data. So, what does this mean for global climate action, poverty alleviation and development?

What this really means

Looking into this has made me even more convinced that tackling global poverty has to be done in tandem with tackling climate change. They are intricately connected. I think it’s important that we remember climate change is a historical injustice: the poorest countries suffer the worst impacts yet have done least to cause it and have the least capacity to address it.

Yet it is vital that they do address it. Vital for them, as they face the most serious risks, and vital for all of us as we simply can’t afford for poor countries to start polluting as much as we have. That may well be unfair but it’s tough – nature doesn’t care what is fair between humans. But we do, or should, care about fairness and justice, so it is the responsibility of the richer nations to help the poorer ones develop in a sustainable way, leapfrogging over the polluting stage of development to a clean economy.

I also think it is totally unreasonable for us to expect the poorest countries to reduce their consumption of energy and resources. Yes, efficiency gains should always be made where possible, but the reality is they are consuming way too little to meet their basic needs while we are consuming way too much.

How women in Kenya are improving their families’ food security through simple land-restoration technology https://t.co/QWZZsQnQ2G #GenderInAg #SDG5 Photo: World Agroforestry Centre / Ake Mamo pic.twitter.com/DQPr5aEeX5

— GREAT Agriculture (@GREATAgResearch) April 23, 2018

Luckily, there are many forms of climate action that the poorest countries can take that both improve their people’s lives today while also helping to fight climate change. These include conserving forests and wetlands, sustainable forestry, agroforestry, composting, offgrid renewables and others. Along with climate adaptation (such as flood defences, drought-resistant crops etc) these forms of mitigation are what they should be focusing on, because they can be done while improving livelihoods.

I’m excited to delve into each of these topics on this blog at some point. For now, please share this post and subscribe to catch the next ones. And be thoughtful about global inequality and poverty when discussing climate change solutions.

To be effective, the climate movement needs to be inclusive and intersectional.

Header photo: Children going to gather water from river, Lao PDR. Image credit: Asian Development Bank / Flickr (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

The post Do the global poor care about climate change? appeared first on P2P Foundation.

Wolfgang Hoeschele: The energy infrastructure that we inherited from the 20th century is one dominated by fossil fuels and uranium, mined in relatively few localities in the world. The distribution and refining of these fuels is tightly held by a few large corporations. Electricity generation typically occurs in plants that hold local or regional monopolies, with vast profit potential. While gasoline is burned in millions of vehicles, the distribution system remains within the control of a few corporations, which often have regional or national oligopoly or monopoly control. The environmental impacts of the energy industry are staggering. It is high time for change.

On the positive side, the need for change to a 21st century energy system based on renewable sources of energy is widely recognized, the necessary technologies exist (and are often cheaper than conventional forms of energy provision), and considerable progress has been made. We can build locally-based renewable energy infrastructures. Renewable energy from the sun, wind, water, organic waste, and geothermal heat can be found everywhere on the planet. Hence, every city and town can make use of available renewable energy sources that offer economic opportunity and enhance resilience in the face of global economic crises and environmental change. On a regional level, localities can exchange energy in order to even out seasonal or daily imbalances in supply and demand.

A locally based vision of renewable energy generation could eliminate global- or national-level domination of the energy infrastructure by a few large players, and thus the concentration of profits in the hands of a very few. It could also reduce our greenhouse gas emissions to very low levels, comparable to the emissions before the industrial revolution. But the local orientation alone would not ensure that the benefits would be shared among all sectors of the local population, and therefore it would not guarantee widespread and active support. This is where sharing solutions come in. Shared energy infrastructure means that people together own and operate both the distributed energy generation facilities and the infrastructure to deliver that energy from where it is generated to where it is used.

In a sharing vision of a local renewable energy system, many households will generate their own renewable energy (as in solar photovoltaic or solar thermal systems on their rooftops), but many more, for whom this is not an option, will share in the ownership and operation of off-site renewable energy generation infrastructure such as wind turbines. The distribution systems by which energy is delivered to households will belong to cooperatives, municipalities, or trusts that are accountable to their customers and therefore do not take advantage of the potential of supply monopolies to generate economic rents (unearned income, extraordinary profits). The energy infrastructure is built by companies controlled by their employees, ensuring equitable sharing of the economic benefits. The construction and maintenance of this entire infrastructure is financed in such a way that it benefits the producers and consumers (and often prosumers — people who both produce and consume what they produce), rather than simply providing growth opportunities for the finance “industry.” Consumers use their buying power to ensure that they obtain renewable energy that is produced under fair conditions.

All the elements of this locally-based, sharing vision of a renewable energy infrastructure already exist. Some have even been brought to considerable scale, as for example in Denmark, where a large proportion of the wind energy generation is accomplished by local wind cooperatives. The challenge is to bring all these elements together into mutually supportive networks, and to establish such networks essentially everywhere.

In many countries, much of the grid is owned by municipal authorities, which is an excellent solution as long as democratic accountability of these authorities is ensured. Unfortunately, there has been a trend in recent years to privatize electric distribution grids, on the basis of the argument that private control is automatically more “efficient.” However, this argument is only valid if there is true market competition, which is not the case in most energy distribution systems.

In this context, the best way to ensure that a business serves its customers is for the customers to take over the business. There are different models to do this: in rural areas — as in much of the U.S. — rural electric cooperatives have long played a large role in running the local grids. In large urban areas, however, this model has not been as successful. At the urban scale, municipal ownership or trusts are more prevalent.

Finally, it is important that the workers installing all this equipment get a good deal — and this works best if they themselves own their own companies and make the important decisions. The challenge now is to bring all these elements together and help them to grow, in order to build an energy infrastructure that allows all of us to live well, while ensuring good living conditions for all the other species on this planet.

The post The Case for Local, Community-led Sustainable Energy Programs appeared first on P2P Foundation.