AOC and the GND

[Faramond]

Candidates for president Warren, Booker, Harris, Gillibrand and Sanders ( if he indeed runs ) have all endorsed the resolution text of the Green New Deal sponsored by Ed Markey and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Why would they do this, when the GND is likely to become a liability in the general election? In most cases presidential candidates would simply ignore a resolution sponsored by a first time representative and advance his or her own plan that wasn't quite as extreme. But in this case it's clear that AOC holds a lot of power already among Democrats. Her endorsement would be valuable, sure, but even more making an enemy of her would be a disaster when it comes to trying to build support in the early primaries. At least that must be the calculation here.

You could say, well, they are endorsing this because they agree with is -- and that may be true in parts, but if you really look at it what is actually in the GND I think most of these candidates would rather have just written their own green plans that don't present such a risk in the general election.

Here is some of the text of the GND:

the goals described in subparagraphs of paragraph (1) above (referred to in this
resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal goals’’) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ‘‘Green New Deal mobilization’’) that will require the following goals and projects—

National mobilization. That means that you're drafted into this, whether you want to be or not. Rather than, for example, phase in stricter and stricter carbon emission limits as time goes on and let the free market sort it out it will be a government-run operation. In other words, socialism. This is really the heart of the problem with this GND, right here.

(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;

This is a job for local government, not the federal government. Involving the federal government in something like this would just add layers of expensive bureaucracy without actually delivering any clean water. And if the local government doesn't deliver then local voters need to vote in a new local government.

meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—
(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading existing renewable power sources; and
(ii) by deploying new capacity;

In ten years! Is this even economically and technologically possible?

upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

What if I don't want the government coming in and "upgrading" my home? I guess this is part of what is meant by "national mobilization".

working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—

Collaboratively means that the farmers and ranchers are willingly participating. Which also implies that they don't have to participate if they don't want to. If participation is mandatory then it's not collaboration, is it? But I have a feeling that ranchers and farmers won't be given a choice here.

(iii) high-speed rail;

I voted for the California high speed rail even knowing that it would almost certainly end up as it has -- costing way more and taking far longer than initially promised, with no end in sight. When I voted for it I hoped that maybe things would be different, this time. Well, they weren't. But maybe *this time*?

a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and

There's that word again -- collaboration, which implies that this is voluntary. Or at least voluntary for the groups listed. Funny, I don't see any mention of *citizens* here. If you're not in any of these groups then I guess you're just out of luck and the government will just be drafting you into the mobilization and telling you what to do whether you like it or not.

to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—

ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—
(i) existing laws;
(ii) new policies and programs; and
(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;

But if a community is not deemed "frontline" or "vulnerable", then it's okay if they are adversely affected? Obviously it is, or otherwise all communities would be included in here. Or better yet, all citizens.

providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so those communities may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;

Or better yet, "to all citizens of the United States". I'm not sure what it means for something to be for "all people", but then a focus on only some of those people. Does that mean that's it really only for the people being focused on? I mean, if it's really for everyone, then what exactly is the *focus* for?

ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;

"Prevailing wages" is a great way to make sure the government ends up spending way too much on something.

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;

I'm not sure what this has to do with reducing carbon emmissions? The first section of the GND makes it clear that the resolution is specifically to address environmental concerns.

strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;

Again, what does this have to do with the environment?

strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;

In this case the accusation that environmental concerns are being used as a pretext to smuggle in other things is completely justified.

ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;

Eminent Domain is not abused -- that seems to imply that they care about property rights -- which doesn't quite square with the whole "upgrade your house whether you want it or not" previously mentioned.

obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous people for all decisions that affect indigenous people and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous people, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous people;

That's great. What would be even better would be to apply this to everyone. Something like this: obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent ( which implies you can say NO ) of all CITIZENS for all decisions that affect CITIZENS and their PROPERTY, honoring and protecting economic self-determination and enforcing property rights.

But, of course, having something like this in the GND would completely mess up the whole "mobilization" idea.

providing all people of the United States with—
(i) high-quality health care;
(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;
(iii) economic security; and
(iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.

The first three have nothing to do with anything environmental. I mean, wouldn't guaranteeing "high-quality health care" requires its own big resolution? It's not a small or easy problem.

What it comes down to is that the GND is a wish list, a sort of grab bag of everything that is trending right now on the twitter left. It's not a serious document. Endorsing it is a mistake by Democratic contenders, in spite of AOC's apparent power in the party.

[yovargas]

Is this thread about AOC, the political response to AOC, or about the GND? I hope it's more about the latter as that conversation sounds more interesting to me.

(I assume the text you are quoting is coming from AOC’s specific proposal?)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Thanks for starting this thread, Faramond; it well-worth discussing. You may be surprised that I largely agree with you. Certainly the Green New Deal has no chance of becoming law even in the most optimistic of scenarios from the Democrats point of view, and much of its goals are pure moonshine (there was an excellent interview that I heard on NPR a few days ago with Steven Chu, who was Obama's first Energy Secretary, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, and a strong advocate for renewal energy, and he agreed that the 10 year goal was pure moonshine (he didn't use that term, but that was what I took from it).

It is a bit of a mystery to me why Ocasio-Cortez has developed so much influence so quickly. I admire her gumption and energy and agree with many of her ideas (actually the real idea person is her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, the founder of Justice Democrats, the organization that recruited her to oppose Joe Crowley in the primary), but I find it frustrating that she is so loose with the truth. I agree that seems strange that the supposed hard-hitters like Warren, Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, etc. have piggybacked on her plan rather than presenting their own plans. I do see the Green New Deal as the first outrageous offer in a negotiation, with the goal to settle for a much more realistic plan. I'm just not sure that it is the right strategy to get there. We'll see.

[Primula Baggins]

I agree with Voronwë, but especially with the idea that this is an aggressively placed starting point, which no one expects to be the final product (many of its goals being, as Faramond points out, impossible).

To me it’s heartening to see the discussion open with a proposal that is not a timid gesture toward what might be nice if we could have it, but if the Republicans don’t like it that’s OK—we don’t want to make them mad at us. The result of years of that has been years of little effective progress against a rapidly growing problem. Minor, fairly easy changes a few decades ago might have made a huge difference by now. But nobody pushed hard enough. I’m glad to see people pushing.

[Cerin]

I disagree with the idea that this GND or the candidates' endorsement of it indicate that AOC has acquired a certain power in the Democratic party. I have the impression she is a self-appointed troublemaker, and relishes the role of poking at the status quo. As perhaps the most radical member of Congress, she seems like the ideal person to put forward what is clearly going to be received as a radical proposal. But I doubt it was written in a vacuum without any collegial discussion, and I don't see people signing on out of fear of reprisal.

Climate change and income inequality are going to be big issues in the Democratic primaries, and the candidates have to win the nomination before they can start thinking about what's going to play well in the general election. I imagine that at this early juncture, they are not ready to come out with detailed official policy proposals of their own, so it is convenient for them to endorse the idea of a GND so as to position themselves favorably with the base left, which is passionate about these issues.

[yovargas]

In other words, socialism. This is really the heart of the problem with this GND, right here.

Capture.JPG (51.52 KiB) Viewed 15396 times

Hehe.

[Frelga]

In other words, socialism. This is really the heart of the problem with this GND, right here.

[/quote]
As the only person here who actually experienced socialism - it is not even remotely similar.

[Faramond]

There are obviously different flavors of socialism. But a *ten-year national mobilization* certainly sounds like one of the flavors to me. What are you mobilizing if not the entire US economy? Putting it to some degree or another under government control.

AOC is a self-described Democratic Socialist. This is essentially *her* plan. And the plan involves a vast expansion of the role of government in the economy. Even if yovargas wants to laugh at the idea and Frelga wants to dismiss it, it's pretty clear that the label is descriptive, and not just a scare tactic.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I moved my previous post and Cerin's response to the 2020 election thread

[yovargas]

I wasn't laughing at the idea, I just thought it was an amusing coincidence to see that headline just a few minutes after reading your post.

People on the right use "the evils of socialism" to rile up their base and people on the left use "the evils of capitalism" to rile up theirs. I think both terms have largely lost their usefulness as part of layman conversation because they are now mostly just propaganda terms, whether the speaker intends them that way or not. It's just easier to have an honest, meaningful debate about things if we leave those loaded terms out.

[Faramond]

Did that story just pop up? I guess I understand that post better now.

Look, one can have an argument about when the label "socialist" should apply. Some people would call raising the top marginal rate to 70% socialist, and that would probably be a real stretch, especially if it only applied above 10 million. On the other hand if the rate was raised to 70% on all income above say $50,000 then it would seem more likely that *socialist* would be more apt because at that point so much of economic output would be under government control. I understand that there will be quibbling about the exact definition of socialist here but at some point it becomes about how much of the economy is under government control.

I don't think the socialist label is important here, not really. What is important is the underlying policies being proposed. I don't think any amount of calling a 70% tax on income above 10 million "socialist" would make people who already favored it suddenly turn against it, for example. And in the case of the GND even if it was never called "socialist" it still wouldn't stop parts of it from being unpopular once people found out what was really in it.

[Faramond]

Is this thread about AOC, the political response to AOC, or about the GND? I hope it's more about the latter as that conversation sounds more interesting to me.

(I assume the text you are quoting is coming from AOC’s specific proposal?)

Yes, the italicized text comes from the proposed resolution.

The thread is about whatever it ends up being about. The mods are free to move things around if they want ( as has already been done ) but I don't care one way or the other.

I might make a post later that is mostly about AOC but if you don't reply and no one else replies then the thread won't end up being about that.

The thread has started to be about "socialism" which is not what I really intended but that cat is already loose in the yard chasing birds. But hopefully I've made my last post about the S word.

[yovargas]

Did that story just pop up? I guess I understand that post better now.

Yeah, sorry, should have made that clear.

Generally, if the concern is that a policy would give too much control to the government, than I think it's best to say just that instead of saying "this concerns me because it sounds socialist".

On to the more pragmatic question though - if one believes that the scientific consensus about the dangers of global warming are real and that our society's behavior could lead to massive global damage in the not-that-distant future, how much government control is appropriate to prevent that from happening? Even putting on my most libertarian-y of libertarian hats, I would say the answer is probably - a lot.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think both subjects are worth discussing, and likely to be connected enough to stay in one thread. My own comment about the 2020 candidates really didn't belong in this thread, so I thought I would extract it and the response while it was easy to do so. The comments about socialism, while not being the intended subject of the thread, certainly flowed naturally enough from the intended subject (both because of the content of the GND itself and because of AOC's self-definition as a Democratic Socialist). But as Faramond says, the thread will be about whatever it ends up being about.


x-posted with yov.

[Faramond]

I disagree with the idea that this GND or the candidates' endorsement of it indicate that AOC has acquired a certain power in the Democratic party. I have the impression she is a self-appointed troublemaker, and relishes the role of poking at the status quo. As perhaps the most radical member of Congress, she seems like the ideal person to put forward what is clearly going to be received as a radical proposal. But I doubt it was written in a vacuum without any collegial discussion, and I don't see people signing on out of fear of reprisal.

This is interesting, because I wasn't really thinking of it in terms of reprisal, but from what I've seen she's not shy about smacking people down on twitter in a way that really resonates with a lot of people on the left, especially young people. "New party, who dis?" Of course, it was Joe Liebermann she was responding to.

Climate change and income inequality are going to be big issues in the Democratic primaries, and the candidates have to win the nomination before they can start thinking about what's going to play well in the general election. I imagine that at this early juncture, they are not ready to come out with detailed official policy proposals of their own, so it is convenient for them to endorse the idea of a GND so as to position themselves favorably with the base left, which is passionate about these issues.

Well, this sounds reasonable. I guess we'll see if it ends up being true in the future.

Here is a sympathetic editorial about AOC that addresses some of the controversies around her so far and shows how some people view her:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2019/ ... story.html

[Faramond]

Thanks for starting this thread, Faramond; it well-worth discussing. You may be surprised that I largely agree with you. Certainly the Green New Deal has no chance of becoming law even in the most optimistic of scenarios from the Democrats point of view, and much of its goals are pure moonshine (there was an excellent interview that I heard on NPR a few days ago with Steven Chu, who was Obama's first Energy Secretary, a Nobel Prize winner in Physics, and a strong advocate for renewal energy, and he agreed that the 10 year goal was pure moonshine (he didn't use that term, but that was what I took from it).

I'm not sure I agree it has *no* chance of becoming law. But it does seem very very low.

It is a bit of a mystery to me why Ocasio-Cortez has developed so much influence so quickly. I admire her gumption and energy and agree with many of her ideas (actually the real idea person is her chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, the founder of Justice Democrats, the organization that recruited her to oppose Joe Crowley in the primary), but I find it frustrating that she is so loose with the truth. I agree that seems strange that the supposed hard-hitters like Warren, Harris, Booker, Gillibrand, etc. have piggybacked on her plan rather than presenting their own plans. I do see the Green New Deal as the first outrageous offer in a negotiation, with the goal to settle for a much more realistic plan. I'm just not sure that it is the right strategy to get there. We'll see.

But negotiation with who, exactly? Maybe moderate Democrats, and maaaybe a few moderate Republicans?

To me it’s heartening to see the discussion open with a proposal that is not a timid gesture toward what might be nice if we could have it, but if the Republicans don’t like it that’s OK—we don’t want to make them mad at us. The result of years of that has been years of little effective progress against a rapidly growing problem. Minor, fairly easy changes a few decades ago might have made a huge difference by now. But nobody pushed hard enough. I’m glad to see people pushing.

What minor changes a few decades ago?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I must admit, despite my ambivalent feelings about AOC, I enjoyed her zinging of Joe Lieberman.

On to the more pragmatic question though - if one believes that the scientific consensus about the dangers of global warming are real and that our society's behavior could lead to massive global damage in the not-that-distant future, how much government control is appropriate to prevent that from happening? Even putting on my most libertarian-y of libertarian hats, I would say the answer is probably - a lot.

Obviously, I agree with this, being far less libertarian-y than you. But even allowing for that, I worry that the stated goals of the GND with regard to climate change are so unrealistic, not just politically but scientifically, that they will be self-defeating.

But negotiation with who, exactly? Maybe moderate Democrats, and maaaybe a few moderate Republicans?

That is an excellent question for which I do not have an excellent answer. Or really any answer.

[elengil]

For context, here is the actual text of the resolution https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-con ... n/109/text

RESOLUTION
Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal.

Whereas the October 2018 report entitled “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment report found that—

(1) human activity is the dominant cause of observed climate change over the past century;

(2) a changing climate is causing sea levels to rise and an increase in wildfires, severe storms, droughts, and other extreme weather events that threaten human life, healthy communities, and critical infrastructure;

(3) global warming at or above 2 degrees Celsius beyond preindustrialized levels will cause—

(A) mass migration from the regions most affected by climate change;

(B) more than $500,000,000,000 in lost annual economic output in the United States by the year 2100;

(C) wildfires that, by 2050, will annually burn at least twice as much forest area in the western United States than was typically burned by wildfires in the years preceding 2019;

(D) a loss of more than 99 percent of all coral reefs on Earth;

(E) more than 350,000,000 more people to be exposed globally to deadly heat stress by 2050; and

(F) a risk of damage to $1,000,000,000,000 of public infrastructure and coastal real estate in the United States; and

(4) global temperatures must be kept below 1.5 degrees Celsius above preindustrialized levels to avoid the most severe impacts of a changing climate, which will require—

(A) global reductions in greenhouse gas emissions from human sources of 40 to 60 percent from 2010 levels by 2030; and

(B) net-zero global emissions by 2050;

Whereas, because the United States has historically been responsible for a disproportionate amount of greenhouse gas emissions, having emitted 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions through 2014, and has a high technological capacity, the United States must take a leading role in reducing emissions through economic transformation;

Whereas the United States is currently experiencing several related crises, with—

(1) life expectancy declining while basic needs, such as clean air, clean water, healthy food, and adequate health care, housing, transportation, and education, are inaccessible to a significant portion of the United States population;

(2) a 4-decade trend of wage stagnation, deindustrialization, and antilabor policies that has led to—

(A) hourly wages overall stagnating since the 1970s despite increased worker productivity;

(B) the third-worst level of socioeconomic mobility in the developed world before the Great Recession;

(C) the erosion of the earning and bargaining power of workers in the United States; and

(D) inadequate resources for public sector workers to confront the challenges of climate change at local, State, and Federal levels; and

(3) the greatest income inequality since the 1920s, with—

(A) the top 1 percent of earners accruing 91 percent of gains in the first few years of economic recovery after the Great Recession;

(B) a large racial wealth divide amounting to a difference of 20 times more wealth between the average white family and the average black family; and

(C) a gender earnings gap that results in women earning approximately 80 percent as much as men, at the median;

Whereas climate change, pollution, and environmental destruction have exacerbated systemic racial, regional, social, environmental, and economic injustices (referred to in this preamble as “systemic injustices”) by disproportionately affecting indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this preamble as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

Whereas, climate change constitutes a direct threat to the national security of the United States—

(1) by impacting the economic, environmental, and social stability of countries and communities around the world; and

(2) by acting as a threat multiplier;

Whereas the Federal Government-led mobilizations during World War II and the New Deal created the greatest middle class that the United States has ever seen, but many members of frontline and vulnerable communities were excluded from many of the economic and societal benefits of those mobilizations; and

Whereas the House of Representatives recognizes that a new national, social, industrial, and economic mobilization on a scale not seen since World War II and the New Deal era is a historic opportunity—

(1) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs in the United States;

(2) to provide unprecedented levels of prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States; and

(3) to counteract systemic injustices: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that—

(1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal—

(A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers;

(B) to create millions of good, high-wage jobs and ensure prosperity and economic security for all people of the United States;

(C) to invest in the infrastructure and industry of the United States to sustainably meet the challenges of the 21st century;

(D) to secure for all people of the United States for generations to come—

(i) clean air and water;

(ii) climate and community resiliency;

(iii) healthy food;

(iv) access to nature; and

(v) a sustainable environment; and

(E) to promote justice and equity by stopping current, preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples, communities of color, migrant communities, deindustrialized communities, depopulated rural communities, the poor, low-income workers, women, the elderly, the unhoused, people with disabilities, and youth (referred to in this resolution as “frontline and vulnerable communities”);

(2) the goals described in subparagraphs (A) through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal goals”) should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the “Green New Deal mobilization”) that will require the following goals and projects—

(A) building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies;

(B) repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including—

(i) by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible;

(ii) by guaranteeing universal access to clean water;

(iii) by reducing the risks posed by climate impacts; and

(iv) by ensuring that any infrastructure bill considered by Congress addresses climate change;

(C) meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including—

(i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and

(ii) by deploying new capacity;

(D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and “smart” power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity;

(E) upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximum energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification;

(F) spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible, including by expanding renewable energy manufacturing and investing in existing manufacturing and industry;

(G) working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible, including—

(i) by supporting family farming;

(ii) by investing in sustainable farming and land use practices that increase soil health; and

(iii) by building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to healthy food;

(H) overhauling transportation systems in the United States to remove pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in—

(i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing;

(ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transit; and

(iii) high-speed rail;

(I) mitigating and managing the long-term adverse health, economic, and other effects of pollution and climate change, including by providing funding for community-defined projects and strategies;

(J) removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere and reducing pollution by restoring natural ecosystems through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as land preservation and afforestation;

(K) restoring and protecting threatened, endangered, and fragile ecosystems through locally appropriate and science-based projects that enhance biodiversity and support climate resiliency;

(L) cleaning up existing hazardous waste and abandoned sites, ensuring economic development and sustainability on those sites;

(M) identifying other emission and pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them; and

(N) promoting the international exchange of technology, expertise, products, funding, and services, with the aim of making the United States the international leader on climate action, and to help other countries achieve a Green New Deal;

(3) a Green New Deal must be developed through transparent and inclusive consultation, collaboration, and partnership with frontline and vulnerable communities, labor unions, worker cooperatives, civil society groups, academia, and businesses; and

(4) to achieve the Green New Deal goals and mobilization, a Green New Deal will require the following goals and projects—

(A) providing and leveraging, in a way that ensures that the public receives appropriate ownership stakes and returns on investment, adequate capital (including through community grants, public banks, and other public financing), technical expertise, supporting policies, and other forms of assistance to communities, organizations, Federal, State, and local government agencies, and businesses working on the Green New Deal mobilization;

(B) ensuring that the Federal Government takes into account the complete environmental and social costs and impacts of emissions through—

(i) existing laws;

(ii) new policies and programs; and

(iii) ensuring that frontline and vulnerable communities shall not be adversely affected;

(C) providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States, with a focus on frontline and vulnerable communities, so that all people of the United States may be full and equal participants in the Green New Deal mobilization;

(D) making public investments in the research and development of new clean and renewable energy technologies and industries;

(E) directing investments to spur economic development, deepen and diversify industry and business in local and regional economies, and build wealth and community ownership, while prioritizing high-quality job creation and economic, social, and environmental benefits in frontline and vulnerable communities, and deindustrialized communities, that may otherwise struggle with the transition away from greenhouse gas intensive industries;

(F) ensuring the use of democratic and participatory processes that are inclusive of and led by frontline and vulnerable communities and workers to plan, implement, and administer the Green New Deal mobilization at the local level;

(G) ensuring that the Green New Deal mobilization creates high-quality union jobs that pay prevailing wages, hires local workers, offers training and advancement opportunities, and guarantees wage and benefit parity for workers affected by the transition;

(H) 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;

(I) strengthening and protecting the right of all workers to organize, unionize, and collectively bargain free of coercion, intimidation, and harassment;

(J) strengthening and enforcing labor, workplace health and safety, antidiscrimination, and wage and hour standards across all employers, industries, and sectors;

(K) enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections—

(i) to stop the transfer of jobs and pollution overseas; and

(ii) to grow domestic manufacturing in the United States;

(L) ensuring that public lands, waters, and oceans are protected and that eminent domain is not abused;

(M) obtaining the free, prior, and informed consent of indigenous peoples for all decisions that affect indigenous peoples and their traditional territories, honoring all treaties and agreements with indigenous peoples, and protecting and enforcing the sovereignty and land rights of indigenous peoples;

(N) ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies; and

(O) providing all people of the United States with—

(i) high-quality health care;

(ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing;

(iii) economic security; and

(iv) clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and access to nature.

[elengil]

edit: oops

[yovargas]

That doesn't read so much like a proposal for a Green New Deal as it does like a proposal for a hard-left political party.