Centrist Democrats and some environmental groups are welcoming a subtle shift in the “Green New Deal” that could help broaden its support beyond progressives.
A “Green New Deal” resolution unveiled Thursday does not explicitly call for the end of fossil fuels or a shift to 100 percent renewable energy, as originally intended.
Instead, the proposal, introduced by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., and Sen. Ed Markey, D-Mass., would mandate “net-zero greenhouse gas emissions” by 2030 but allow for noncarbon-emitting energy sources that aren’t wind and solar power to reach the goal.
“If we’re serious about fighting climate change, the goal has to be reducing greenhouse gas emissions,” said former Rep. John Delaney of Maryland, a centrist Democratic 2020 presidential candidate. “Renewable energy is an important means to that end, but not the goal in and of itself.”
By leaving the door open for nonrenewable energy, Democrats taking their first stab at transforming lofty goals to combat climate change into policy are recognizing the political and technical realities of the nation’s energy system.
“They are trying to craft a piece of legislation that appeals to a wide part of the Democratic base,” said Kalee Kreider, a former climate change adviser to former Vice President Al Gore. “There is a lot of bread crumbs between a slogan and governing.”
A subtle but important distinction is whether the focus of combating climate change should be on stopping use of oil, natural gas, and coal, or on reducing greenhouse gas emissions in a broader context. How “Green New Deal” advocates focus their plan could make or break the level of support it gets from various components of the Democratic base, including centrists, labor groups, and progressive environmentalists.
The United Nations’ climate change panel has said that policies to eliminate U.S. carbon emissions should include “clean” energy sources that aren’t renewable for it to be technically and economically feasible. These alternatives include nuclear power, or carbon, capture, and storage technologies that can collect carbon emissions from coal or natural gas plants, and industrial facilities, and store it underground.
Lawmakers in California recognized the limitations of a wind- and solar-only approach, passing a bill last summer to require that 100 percent of the state’s electricity come from carbon-free sources by 2045 — allowing nonrenewable sources to qualify.
“I don’t know whether the sponsors’ decision [to not mandate banning fossil fuels] was political or not,” said Ryan Fitzpatrick of the centrist Democratic think tank Third Way. “But choosing to include the broadest set of low-carbon energy sources is certainly a smart move from a climate perspective.”
Labor unions that represent workers in the high-paying oil and natural gas industry have also emphasized the importance of including carbon capture and nuclear in any national clean energy policy.
But the “Green New Deal” could lose support from progressives by moving from the original promise of 100 percent renewable energy by 2030.
“A bold transition away from the fossil fuel economy that threatens our planet can’t rely on nonrenewable sources,” said Mitch Jones, senior policy advocate of the environmental group Food & Water Watch. “We can’t allow fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear energy to piggyback into a Green New Deal.”
Saikat Chakrabarti, Ocasio-Cortez’ chief of staff, is defending the new framing, saying it doesn’t reflect a significant change.
“We are saying net zero emissions,” he told Bloomberg on Wednesday. “I can’t imagine how we do that without transitioning off of fossil fuel.”
Still, a large swath of left-leaning environmental groups, including Food & Water Watch, warned House leaders in a January open letter that the country must transition to 100 percent renewable electricity by 2035 at the latest.
Proponents of a wind- and solar-only approach poke holes in other noncarbon-emitting alternatives. They say nuclear power is too expensive and dangerous, and development of smaller advanced reactors are too far-off. Hydropower, America’s most-used zero-carbon electricity generating resource, is damaging to surrounding ecosystems, opponents claim.
Carbon capture, while technically feasible, remains expensive, although costs are falling because of a law passed last year that gives tax credits for companies that build such projects.
“We are focused on moving off fossil fuels as quickly as possible,” said Heather Hargreaves, executive director of NextGen America, an environmental nonprofit organization created by liberal activist Tom Steyer. “We predict that, as you look for the lowest cost option for zero carbon energy, you will find wind and solar to be much cheaper and more readily available than [carbon capture] and nuclear.”
Other environmental groups that joined the House letter demanding 100 renewable electricity signaled flexibility to modifications of the “Green New Deal.”
Many clean energy supporters say the intermittency of wind and solar make it unrealistic and expensive to depend only on them for electricity until energy storage technologies are more widely adopted, which would enable their use when the sun sets and wind is not blowing.
“We have always recognized there will be a transition to no fossil fuels,” said Bill Snape, senior counsel at the Center for Biological Diversity. “We recognize that some of the goals, as laudable as they are, will be vague. And we will continue arguing about them. That is part of the Democratic process. The New Deal itself did not happen in a month.”
