r5 v Carmel Valley Independent AK
1
Adv 1 – Climate
The Green New Deal creates for a green transition which solves warming. Griffith et. al 6-29
Griffith, S., Calisch, S. and Laskey, A.. Mobilizing For A Zero Carbon America: Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, And More Jobs A Jobs And Employment
Study Report, 29 July 2020,
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e540e7fb9d1816038da0314/t/5f209173294b6f5ee41ea278/1595969952405/Jobs_White_
Paper_Compressed_Release.pdf. //LHPYA
In 2018, Otherlab worked under ARPA-e (Department of Energy) contract DE-AR0000853 to
conduct a highly granular energy flow analysis of the American energy system, identifying
every energy flow in the American economy, from supply through demand, that could be determined from public data3 . These flows can
be seen in Figure 1. This study builds on that tool to develop fully decarbonized future energy scenarios .
This study maps out a decarbonization pathway consistent with the most rapid rates of
industrial transition in U.S. history [2]. The scenario utilizes only existing technology
commercially available today. The scenario does not assume retirement of current assets
before amortization of original capital costs — known colloquially as “early retirements” — though agrees with the analysis that early
retirement of our heaviest emitters has enormous advantages in speeding our decarbonization and limiting cumulative emissions. The pathway is almost entirely focused on
electrification, the exception being 5-10 Quads of non–electrical energy sources coming from an upper–bound utilization of our total identified biofuel potential as determined
in the DOE “billion ton” report [3] 4 . Hydrogen or other synthetic fuels (which are generated from electricity) are deployed for a few high–temperature applications.
The
scenario does not rely on any deployment of carbon capture and storage (CCS) 5 , and all
primary energy sources are net zero. We do not assume significant efficiency or behavioral
changes, but rely on technology transformation instead. High electrification of the economy can be shown to reduce our primary
energy needs by more than 50% (from ∼98 Quads down to ∼42) using only the inherent efficiency of electric vehicles over internal combustion engines (ICEs), of heat pumps
we build a “machines-up” account of the
decarbonization transition, counting each specific piece of equipment required to make the
transition. This accounting includes solar panels, heat pumps, and electric dryers, and also
electrifying equipment that can be used for energy storage such as hot water heaters and
electric vehicles. The jobs analysis presented here is grounded in the physical machines and
equipment built for the decarbonization transition. The new machinery and equipment are
priced against the fossil alternative (e.g. $30,000 electric vehicle (EV) vs. $20,000 internal-combustion engine (ICE) vehicle) and the
resulting difference is established as the cost incurred for the changeover. These costs are
then used to calculate direct, indirect, and induced jobs, using standard economic methods
based on data from IMPLAN. We compare this economic job creation estimation with existing
estimates of energy jobs, engineering estimates of jobs created, and with historically
analogous projects of this level of ambition to confirm the reality of the very large number of
jobs that this model projects. Analysis Summary • The maximum feasible transition (MFT) involves two primary stages: (i) an aggressive WWII–style
over combustion heat sources, and on a smaller scale of LEDs over incandescents. From this model
production ramp–up of 3–5 years, followed by (ii) an intensive deployment of decarbonized infrastructure6 and technology up to 2035. This includes supply–side generation
technologies as well as demand–side technologies such as electric vehicles and building heat electrification. • MFT also calls for close to 100% adoption of decarbonized
technology when fossil machines reach retirement age. This is fairly simple to imagine: when someone’s car reaches retirement age, it is replaced with an electric vehicle. When
a natural gas plant is retired, it is replaced with nuclear or renewables. •
An MFT approach would create as many as 25 million
net new jobs at peak. • Every American household would accrue savings of $1,000–2,000 per year due to lower, more predictable energy prices. 4This is
sufficient to run all aviation (≈ 2 Quads), non fossil mining and construction equipment (≈ 0.5 Quads), on-farm diesel (≈ 0.6 Quads) and a good portion of freight trucking (≈ 5.5
Quads) 5While “tech neutral” and politically seductive, the cost of CCS puts all fossil fuel sources at a severe cost disadvantage to wind and solar. Further, a CCS-heavy scenario
assumes we have enough places to reliably sequester this carbon, which is impractical to say the least. 6We use a broad definition of infrastructure encompassing all machinery
that generates, stores, or can shift electrical loads. This means including EV’s, home HVAC, and the like as 21st century infrastructure. 3 • The government spending portion for
This decarbonization pathway is
commensurate with a global climate target of limiting warming to between 1.5◦ C/2.7◦ F and
2◦ C/3.6◦ F – assuming there is no significant deployment of carbon dioxide removal, that other major
manufacturing nations (China, Germany, Japan, and South Korea) all follow suit in short order (within a decade), and that some nations are
unlikely or unable to decarbonize quickly and are slower to respond. • The job creation and the costs of such an
ambitious nation–building project turn out to be similar in size and scope and new employment opportunities to the mobilization of U.S. industry for WWII. This study
such a transition is $300bN per year for 10 years for an approximate total of $3 trillion. •
articulates a decarbonization strategy from the ground up. It provides an engineering account
of what machines and infrastructure need to be replaced economy–wide, and on what
timeline. This analysis is based on an assessment of the physical industrial setting – that is, rather than set emissions-reductions
targets for various points in time and work backwards from there, as most models do, our approach
looks at what machines and equipment currently exist and models the resulting “bottom-up”
decarbonization pathway that follows. This approach demonstrates and illustrates the sort of
transition that is possible and beneficial for first–mover economies that act rapidly and
concertedly. Figure 3 illustrates the decarbonization pathways for various climate targets. The pathways highlight the question of so–called committed emissions, the
carbon emissions that will be emitted by machinery and infrastructure already in place through their useful lifetime [4]. What we can see from these
simplified charts is that close to 100% adoption rates of decarbonized technology at end–of–
life replacement are required for pathways commensurate with limiting warming to under 2◦
C/3.6◦ F . End of life–time replacement can be illustrated in a straightforward manner. When a car reaches retirement age, it is replaced with an electric one. When a coal
plant is retired 7 , it is replaced with nuclear or renewables. In order to create a very specific estimate of jobs created by
an energy system transition, we use detailed energy data to model out a pathway to
completely decarbonize all energy related emissions in the U.S. The energy sector addresses ∼85% of emissions, with the
remaining emissions coming from agriculture [5] and some esoteric industrial emissions. As per Figure 4 we move sector by sector through the economy and use existing
No efficiency
measures are assumed other than the inherent efficiencies of the substitution technologies. As
technologies that can eliminate carbon emissions in that sector. We then estimate the future energy flow required to service that sector.
an example it is assumed that nearly all vehicles will be electrified and that because the electricity is coming from renewables and nuclear, it will eliminate 16 quads of primary
energy8 ; similarly, by producing all of our electricity with non-combustion sources, we eliminate 25 quads of thermo-electric losses. Electrification of buildings and the
elimination of energy used to find, mine, and refine fossil fuels offer similarly large savings. It is found that the US only requires 40-50%9 of its current energy needs by this high
electrification pathway. It is assumed that biofuels or (something like) renewably generated hydrogen will be used in some of the small but difficult to decarbonize sectors such
as long-distance aviation and steelmaking. This much electrification would mean the U.S. would need between 1,500 and 2,000 GW of net delivered electricity – between 3 and
4 times the current average of around 450GW. We assume the majority of this electricity will be produced with solar and wind, along with a doubling of the current nuclear
electricity fleet from 100GW to 200GW. The decarbonization pathway we model is highly electrified. This specific model of complete energy system decarbonization allows for a
ground-up jobs estimate — based on knowing which machines and infrastructure need to be replaced with emission–free electrical machines and infrastructure 10. The model
Similarly we don’t
assume any behavioral change, rather relying on technology transformation. This translates as replacing gas—
does not assume much by way of efficiency apart from the inherent efficiencies of the electrical machinery replacing the fossil equipment.
powered pick-up trucks with electric pick—up trucks, and natural gas burning furnaces with electric heat pumps.
The time to act is now, high unemployment from COVID provides a unique opportunity to
transition to clean energy and US workers are best. Griffith and Laskey 6-29,
Griffith, Saul, and Alex Laskey. “Commentary: To Recharge America's Job Market, Build a Green Electric Grid.” Fortune, Fortune, 29
July 2020, fortune.com/2020/07/29/climate-change-clean-energy-electricity-green-jobs/. //LHPYA
Sadly, due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we now have the highest unemployment we’ve seen
since the Great Depression. Many of those jobs will disappear forever in the post-COVID world, and others will take years to return to normal. But
with great crises come great opportunities. Today we have a once-in-a-lifetime chance to
solve our current economic crisis: by switching to clean energy. At Rewiring America, we estimate we can
create some 25 million U.S. jobs if we move on from fossil fuels and electrify the economy by
2035, as we’ve detailed in a recent study . This estimate comes from an in-depth energy and engineering analysis from comprehensive datasets of energy, labor, and
materials, conducted by the two of us and MIT engineer Sam Calisch. We know, with great precision, where our energy currently comes from, how much we use, what we will
clean energy
technologies require more labor in manufacturing, installation and maintenance than fossil
fuel technologies. It takes more people to install and keep a wind farm running than it does to drill a well and keep it pumping to produce the same amount of
need to build to transform our system to one with zero carbon emissions–and how many people it will take to build those things. Simply put,
energy over time. All those jobs have a multiplying effect: The woman installing wind farms will get a handsome paycheck that she'll spread around her local economy, reviving
To power our lives without fossil fuels to the level of comfort we
enjoy today (cars, heated homes, and other push-button conveniences), we’ll need to build capacity to generate approximately 1500 GW of electricity, which is more
than three times the amount of energy that the U.S. currently generates. The scale of electrification will be more massive than
any project America has seen in decades. We will need hundreds of thousands of wind
turbines, six million zero-emission trucks, a million miles of transmission lines, hundreds of
restaurants, shops, and other hard-hit businesses.
millions of electric vehicles, heat pumps and electric induction ranges, billions of solar cells
and more than a trillion batteries. And we’ll need tens of millions of jobs to manufacture,
build, install, and manage all those things. When we get to work, we’ll have clean energy jobs
in every zip code, because we’ll need to install solar panels on our homes and wind turbines in our fields. These aren’t jobs we can
outsource to other countries; they will stay close to home. People hit hard by the current crisis
will have an opportunity for good new jobs, while helping to transition their communities to
cleaner and safer sources of power. We have the technological solutions to electrify America
renewably, but we’ll also need new policies and financing in place. Transitioning to clean
energy will require higher up-front costs, building new, more widely distributed electrical
infrastructure. Since much of this infrastructure will be personal–the solar panels on your roof
and the electric vehicles in your garage–we’ll need access to inexpensive financing to make it
work.
Transition is feasible, solves warming, and gets modeled by other countries, Burns 18:
[(Sean Burns, a visiting assistant professor at The College of William and Mary,) "All the selfish reasons we need an anti-oil foreign
policy. It's not just about climate.," USA TODAY 11-29-2018] RE
As a new U.S. government report shows, climate change will have massive negative effects on our economy and cause significant displacement of Americans. Republicans responded by questioning the science of
In fact, a transition to renewable
energy is quite feasible. And, separate from its effects on the environment, it would advance
long-term U.S. foreign policy interests by undermining the international influence of oil.
Climate change is the global challenge of our time. Limiting its effects will require the rapid
replacement of carbon-producing fossil fuels with battery-powered vehicles and renewable
energy sources. But moving away from carbon-based fuels should not be thought of as a cost that America must pay to help the world. It is, rather, an opportunity to advance U.S. domestic and
foreign policy goals. America should pursue an aggressive strategy of rapid decarbonization of the world economy for its own selfish interests. We can't fix climate alone, but
others will follow Climate change is a worldwide problem that requires a worldwide solution. Sasse and other Republicans, when they accept climate change exists, argue that the United
climate change, or like Sens. Mike Lee and Ben Sasse, claiming that a switch to renewable energy sources would hurt the nation.
States cutting emissions won’t help because other countries will not follow suit. It is a dubious claim, but it reflects a real concern. In the terms of economic and political theory, climate change is a collective action
It is easiest to solve a collective
action problem when one player is big enough to solve the problem alone and will uniquely
benefit from its solution. America is still the world’s only superpower. Ending the world’s
reliance on fossil fuels is in its power and would provide us with unique and individual
benefits. America cannot solve climate change alone, but it can unilaterally drive down
renewable energy prices so much that it makes sense for most of the world to switch away
from hydrocarbons, and it should do so to advance its own interests. Oil and natural gas prop
up authoritarian states and create security challenges for our country. Hydrocarbon rentier
states — nations such as Saudi Arabia that depend on fossil fuel exports for large portions of
their revenue — are less democratic, more corrupt and more wasteful than similar states
without oil. Oil creates conflict, which often requires U.S. intervention. And much of the U.S.
foreign policy exposure, particularly in the Persian Gulf, is a result of the U.S. desire to protect
world oil supplies. Most important, however, is that oil and gas wealth props up and
empowers U.S. enemies and force the United States to enable and depend on dubious allies.
Fossil fuel wealth and control empower Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Iran's government gets most
of its revenue from oil exports. And U.S. relationships with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states have long represented a trade-off between long-term interests in
democratization and short-term interests in keeping the oil flowing. America has the power to cripple the oil states while building on its own technological superiority. Renewable energy
technology is becoming cheaper at a rapid rate and, as David Roberts at Vox has shown, it can
be purposefully sped up. The industrial learning curve measures the price drop that comes
with every doubling of production. It is separate from economies of scale and represents
problem. Everyone will benefit from a reduction in fossil fuel use, but everyone hopes someone else will pay the bulk of the cost.
learning how to do things better. We have not reached the bottom of the learning curve for solar or wind, and we are not near the bottom for batteries. So no
major technological discoveries are required, just practice. Renewable energy will kill fossil fuels soon It costs less in some places to create
wind or solar farms than to keep running coal or natural gas plants. We are on the cusp of making electric cars the standard, and they are ultimately cheaper to own than internal combustion vehicles.
Buying more of this technology will make the technology even cheaper, leading to a death
spiral for fossil fuel prices. The United States should make large investments in buying and deploying renewable energy technology, both at home and abroad, as a means of
disempowering oil states and reducing U.S. defensive exposure abroad. It should do so at home by cutting fossil fuel subsidies, creating a much needed next-generation national power grid, and buying electric cars
for its vehicle fleets. Abroad it should provide subsidies for developing countries to buy U.S. renewable energy technology. Eventually, a carbon tax on both domestic and imported goods would be beneficial. Most
important, the United States should be clear about what it is doing. America should announce that it plans to make oil and natural gas all but obsolete in the international economy within 20 years. This will have
immediate impact on the foreign and domestic affairs of the oil states and reduce potential conflicts over new sources, particularly in the Arctic, Mediterranean and South China Sea. The Montreal Protocol against
ozone layer depletion is often cited as a model for climate change mitigation, but it probably would not have happened if the largest producer of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons, DuPont, did not have a
America should
lead a world push toward renewable energy, not only to slow climate change but to also
disempower its rivals, break free from dubious allies, reduce the number of conflict
flashpoints, and increase U.S. technology dominance. It can do so simply by doing what is
already in its domestic interests: rapidly scaling up the use of renewable and battery
technology, and subsidizing the spread of American technology to the developing world.
replacement product ready or if America had not pushed for the treaty. A U.S. company had the technology and the United States led the change. We need that boldness again.
Warming causes extinction – a confluence of nonlinear and unpredictable effects will make
human and natural systems inhospitable while increasing escalatory conflicts – even if the
impacts are far off, only drastic action now solves. Melton 19
[Michelle Melton is a 3L at Harvard Law School. Before law school, she was an associate fellow in the Energy and National Security
Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, where she focused on climate policy. Climate Change and National
Security, Part II: How Big a Threat is the Climate? January 7, 2019. https://www.lawfareblog.com/climate-change-and-nationalsecurity-part-ii-how-big-threat-climate]
At least until 2050, and possibly for decades after, climate change
will remain a creeping threat that will
exacerbate and amplify existing, structural global inequalities . While the developed world will be
negatively affected by climate change through 2050, the consequences of climate change will be felt most acutely in the developing
world. The national security threats posed by climate change to 2050 are likely to differ in degree, not kind, from the kinds of threats
already posed by climate change. For the next few decades, climate
change will exacerbate humanitarian
crises —some of which will result in the deployment of military personnel , as well as material and
financial assistance. It will also aggravate natural resource constraints , potentially contributing to political and
economic
conflict over water, food and energy . The question for the next 30 years is not “can humanity survive as a
species with 1.5°C or 2°C of warming,” but, “how much will the existing disparities between the developed and developing world
widen, and how long (and how successfully) can these widening political/economic disparities be sustained?” The urgency of the
climate threat in the next few decades will depend, to a large degree, on whether and how much the U.S. government perceives a
widening of these global inequities as a threat to U.S. national security. By contrast, if
emissions continue to creep
upward (or if they do not decline rapidly), by 2100 climate-related national security threats could be existential . The
question for the next hundred years is not, “are disparities politically and economically manageable?” but, “can
the global order, premised on the nation-state system, itself based on territorial sovereignty,
survive in a world in which substantial swathes of territory are potentially uninhabitable ?”
National Security Consequences of Climate Change to 2050 Scientists can predict the consequences of climate change to 2050 with
some measure of certainty. (Beyond that date, the pace and magnitude of climate change—and therefore, the national security
threat posed by it—depend heavily on the level of emissions in the coming years, as I have explained.) There is relative agreement
across modeled climate scenarios that the world will likely warm, on average, at least 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels by about
2050—but perhaps as soon as 2030. This level of warming is likely to occur even if the world succeeds in dramatically reducing
greenhouse gas emissions, as even the recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report implicitly admits. In other
words, a certain amount of additional warming—at least 1.5°C, and probably more than that—is presumptively unavoidable. Looking
ahead to 2050, it can be said with relative confidence that the national security consequences of climate change will vary in degree,
not in kind, from the national security threats already facing the United States. This is hardly good news. Even
small
differences in global average temperatures result in significant environmental changes, with
attendant social, economic and political consequences . By 2050, climate change will wreak
increasing havoc on human and natural systems —predominantly, but not exclusively, in the developing
world—with attenuated but
profound consequences for national security . In particular, changes in
temperature, the hydrological cycle and the ranges of insects will impact food availability and
food access in much of the world, increasing food insecurity. Storms, flooding, changes in
ocean pH and other climate-linked changes will damage infrastructure and negatively impact
labor productivity and economic growth in much of the world. Vector-borne diseases will also
become more prevalent , as climate change will expand the geographic range and intensity of
transmission of diseases like malaria, West Nile, Zika and dengue fever, and cholera. Rising
public health challenges, economic devastation and food insecurity will translate into an
increased demand for humanitarian assistance provided by the military, increased
migration —especially from tropical and subtropical regions—and geopolitical conflict . Long-term trends such as
declining food security, coupled with short-term events like hurricanes, could sustain unprecedented levels of migration. The 2015
refugee crisis in Europe portends the kinds of population movements that will only accelerate in the coming decades: people from
Africa, Southwest and South Asia and elsewhere crossing land and water to reach Europe. For the United States, this likely means
greater numbers of people seeking entry from both Central America and the Caribbean. Such influxes are not unprecedented, but
they are unlikely to abate and could increase in volume over the next few decades, driven in part by climate change-related food
insecurity, climate change-related storms and also by economic and political instability. Food insecurity, economic losses and loss of
human life are also likely to exacerbate existing political tensions in the developing world, especially in regions with poor governance
and/or where the climate is particularly vulnerable to warming (e.g., the Mediterranean basin). While the Arab Spring had many
underlying causes, it also coincided with a period of high food prices, which arguably contributed to the protests. In some situations,
food insecurity, economic losses and public health crises, combined with weak and
ineffectual governance, could precipitate future conflicts of this kind—although it will be difficult to know
where and when without more precise local studies of both underlying political dynamics and the regionally-specific impacts of
climate change. 2100 and Beyond While the national security impacts of climate change to 2050 are likely to be costly and disruptive
for the U.S. military—and devastating for many people around the world—at some point after 2050, if warming continues at its
current pace, changes
to the climate could fundamentally reshape geopolitics and possibly even the
current nation-state basis of the current global order. To be clear, both the ultimate level of warming and its attendant political
consequences is highly speculative, for the reasons I explained in my last post. Nonetheless, we do know that the planet is currently
on track for at least 3-4°C of warming by 2100. The “known knowns” of higher levels of warming—say, 3°C—are frightening. At that
3°C of warming, for example, scientists project that there
will be a nearly 70 percent decline in wheat
production in Central America and the Caribbean, 75 percent of the land area in the Middle
East and more than 50 percent in South Asia will be affected by highly unusual heat, and sea level
rise could displace and imperil the lives hundreds of millions of people, among other consequences.
But even higher levels of warming are physically possible within this century. At these levels of warming,
some regions of the world would be literally uninhabitable , likely resulting in the depopulation of the
tropics, to
say nothing of the consequences of sea-level rise for economically important cities
such as Amsterdam and New York. Even if newly warmed regions of the far north could
theoretically accommodate the resulting migrants, this presumes that the political response
to this unprecedented global displacement would be orderly and conflict-free borders on
fantasy . The geopolitical consequences of significant levels of warming are severe, but if these changes occur in a linear way, at
least there will be time for human systems to adjust. Perhaps more challenging for national security is the
possibility that the until-now linear changes give way to abrupt and irreversible ones . Scientists
forecast that, at higher levels of warming—precisely what level is speculative—humanity could trigger
catastrophic, abrupt and unavoidable consequences to the ecosystem . The IPCC has
considered nine such abrupt changes; one example is the potential shutting down of the Indian
summer monsoon . Over a billion people are dependent upon the Indian monsoon, which
provides parts of South Asia with about 80 percent of its annual rainfall; relatively minor changes in the
monsoon in either direction can cause disasters. In 2010, a wetter monsoon led to the catastrophic flooding in Pakistan, which
directly affected 20 million people; a drier monsoon in 2002 led to devastating drought. Studies suggest that the Indian summer
monsoon has two stable states: wet (i.e., the current state) and dry (characterized by low precipitation over the subcontinent). At
some point, if warming continues, the monsoon could abruptly shift into the second, “dry” state, with catastrophic consequences for
over a billion people dependent on monsoon-fed agriculture. The IPCC suggests that such a state-shift is “unlikely”—that is, there is
a 10 to 33 percent chance that a state-shift will happen in the 21st century—but scientists also have relatively low confidence in
their understanding of the underlying mechanisms in this and other large-scale natural systems. The consequences of abrupt, severe
warming for national security are obvious in general, if unclear in the specifics. In 2003, the Defense Department asked a
contractor to explore such a scenario. The resulting report outlined the offensive and defensive national security strategies
countries may adopt if faced with abrupt climate change, and highlighted the increased risk of inter- and intrastate conflict over natural resources and immigration . Although the report may be off in its imagined
timeframe (positing abrupt climate change by 2020), the world it conjures is improbable but not outlandish. If the Indian monsoon
were to switch to dry state, and a billion people were suddenly without reliable food sources, for example, it is not clear how the
Indian government would react, assuming it would survive in its current form. Major wars or low-intensity proxy conflicts seem
likely, if not inevitable, in such a scenario. This is not to say that a parade of climate horribles is certain—or even likely—to come to
pass. Scientific understanding of the sensitivities in the climate system are far from perfect. It is also possible that emissions will
decline more rapidly than anticipated, averting the worst consequences of climate change. But this outcome is far from guaranteed.
And even if global emissions decline precipitously, humanity cannot be sure when or whether the planet has crossed a climate
tipping point beyond which the incremental nature of the current changes shifts from the current linear, gradual progression to a
non-linear and abrupt process. Within the next few decades, the most likely scenario involves manageable, but costly, consequences
on infrastructure, food security and natural disasters, which will be borne primarily by the world’s most impoverished citizens and
the members of the military who provide them with humanitarian assistance and disaster relief. But
while the head-turning
national security impacts of climate change are probably several decades away, the nature of
the threat is such that waiting until these changes manifest is not a viable option . By the time
the climate consequences are severe enough to compel action, there is likely to be little that can
be done on human timescales to undo the changes to environmental systems and the human
societies dependent upon them .
Adv 2 – Green Infrastructure
A federal jobs guarantee is key for green infrastructure and causes adaptation. Bozuwa 18.
Bozuwa, Johanna. “Shovel Ready Green Jobs: The Job Guarantee and Climate Resiliency.” TheNextSystem.org, 26 Apr. 2018,
thenextsystem.org/learn/stories/shovel-ready-green-jobs-job-guarantee-and-climate-resiliency.//LHPAS
Under this plan, every American would be entitled to a $15 an hour job, with benefits,
through the program. But a key question people are asking is: what would these jobs be? What kind of socially
necessary work can be connected to the jobs guarantee, and how would this work as the economy improves and people leave their
guaranteed jobs for traditional employment? One answer is that a temporary influx of federally
funded workers could
be extremely useful as we prepare for the continuing onset of climate change, now locked in thanks
to our collective inability to limit emissions. Climate change puts increasing pressure on our
already-crumbling infrastructure in the United States—higher seas, more rain, and bigger
storms are coming for our cities and towns, and we are woefully unprepared. In addition to effectively
eliminating unemployment, the job guarantee could mobilize an army of workers to build the
climate-resilient nation we desperately need—from renewables deployment to infrastructure retrofitting.
Particularly, the workers could be fundamental in deploying green infrastructure projects for
water management to dramatically improve public health and climate resiliency. Crucially, because
these projects often do not require high skill levels and have low requirements for
capitalization, they are a perfect fit to absorb a temporary wave of jobs guarantee workers. This
answers a key concern from job guarantee skeptics like Jonathan Chait, who in an article suggesting the job guarantee could be “a
huge mistake,” bemoans that unlike in the days of the FDR’s employment infrastructure program, the WPA, “these days, not a lot of
construction work can be done with just shovels.” What Chait doesn’t realize is that some of the most effective strategies for dealing
with stormwater are literally shovel-ready. Our cities are concrete jungles
barely built to deal with small
fluctuations in water, let alone the extreme weather patterns associated with climate change. Just
look at Houston during Hurricane Harvey in fall 2017. White-capped waves surged on Houston’s interstate, transformed into a
roaring river with over nine trillion gallons of water. All of Houston’s concrete meant that the water had nowhere to go—a common
problem in our cities’ urban sprawl. On
top of that, much of the stormwater infrastructure in the United
States was built in the early 1900s. Over 40 million people are served by combined sewer
systems that discharge raw sewage directly into our waterways and contaminate precious
drinking water when only a few inches of rain hit the ground. Green infrastructure harnesses natural
systems to divert stormwater before it even reaches the sewer system. It attempts to restore
wetlands, plant trees to soak up water, and eliminate impermeable surfaces like concrete.
Creating more green spaces can also dramatically lower asthma rates, endemic in low income
communities; alleviate the urban heat island effect, key in a warming climate; and produce
spaces for communities to congregate. Desperate Need for Investment. In order to upgrade our stormwater
infrastructure, the EPA estimates we would need to invest at least $270 billion over the next 25 years, the majority spent in the next
five years to deal with the most urgent projects. In other words, we need rapid and expansive mobilization for green infrastructure.
With Darity, Hamilton, and Paul estimating a $543 billion annual cost for a federal job guarantee in their CBPP analysis, this means
we could could potentially absorb a fairly significant share—perhaps even as high as five percent—of federal job guarantee jobs
dealing just with the stormwater crisis.The EPA provides cities with some funding through its Clean Water State Revolving Fund, but
it is not nearly enough. Capital
projects and maintenance for water management can be some of the
costliest for municipalities trying to comply with federal standards. The jobs guarantee could
go a long way in providing means for municipalities to deal with their stormwater through an
activated labor force—particularly those on coastlines and prone to flooding. Why Green
Infrastructure Jobs? Green infrastructure, with its low threshold for entry, is well positioned for job
guarantee projects. Most of the projects can be done by someone with little previous training and
yields well to on-the-job learning. The majority of openings would require a high school
diploma or less, for example, to maintain green spaces or construct a bioswale. At the onset, green infrastructure could use a
huge influx of workers to overhaul our cities on the short term—for example, pulling up miles of impermeable surfaces and planting
native species in thousands of medians. (There’s a historical precedent here—FDR, responding to the Depression and the Dust Bowl,
used the WPA and associated efforts like the soil erosion service to plant 220 million trees in seven years). Our 21st century effort
to meet our own combined ecological and economic crisis could also create longer-term work
for relatively smaller groups of workers through the consistent maintenance, like weeding, required
to make sure the projects still deliver benefits long after installation.While many workers could be employed with little previous
training, there is also
room for upward momentum. Bernie Sanders’ plan proposes Job Training Centers,
which could help to transition workers to higher paid opportunities. Cities are already starting to groom
such a new green infrastructure workforce. DC’s Water Utility has started a certification program as part of the
District’s Infrastructure Academy that reaches out specifically to underemployed populations, facilitates their apprenticeships, and
then requires a certain number of its employees and contractor’s employees be certified under the program. The
job
guarantee could set up similar programs so that it both provides comfortable jobs with
benefits to any American as well as avenues to advancement. Furthermore, $15 an hour workers
with benefits could revolutionize construction and landscaping sector hiring practices. A
notoriously underpaid and unstable career, particularly for immigrant workers, providing
access to guaranteed jobs could shift the norm towards better paid jobs with benefits. Private
firms would have to offer jobs that were at least as good as a guaranteed job. Building Economic and
Climate Resilience Low income communities are often the first and hardest hit by climate change
because of their lack of access to economic stability. The jobs guarantee could create a dual
benefit of economic and climate resilience by tackling green infrastructure without much
worker training—answering a key objection of job guarantee skeptics. Why not provide good, green
jobs while building the infrastructure we need to weather the storms that climate change will send our way?
Adv 3 – Green Housing
And, Public Housing is intrinsically bad in the squo. Repairs are inevitable and they cause
massive climate change– meaning the plan is key. Cohen et al.
Cohen, Daniel. A GREEN NEW DEAL FOR AMERICAN PUBLIC HOUSING COMMUNITIES, Data For Progess, 2019,
filesforprogress.org/reports/green-new-deal-public-housing-national-summary.pdf. //LHPAS
The current
situation of national public housing is desperate. A Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) 2010 study estimated the capital needs deficit of the country’s roughly 1.1 million public housing
units. It estimated that at that time, the nation’s public housing stock required $25.6 billion in capital repairs to address endemic
conditions of ill repair, from peeling lead paint, to molding or rotting subflooring, to failing HVAC systems. HUD estimated
that there would be a total need for $89 billion worth of repairs and ongoing accrual costs in
public housing over the 20 year timeframe to 2030—assuming that the original repair needs were filled in an
orderly fashion starting the same year of the study. Meanwhile, public housing, like all housing, is a major
contributor to greenhouse gas emissions that are causing the climate emergency. We estimate
that nationally public housing is responsible for about 5.6 million metric tons annually, the
equivalent of 1.2 million cars used throughout each year. Through energy efficiency measures,
electrification of building systems, and acquisition of energy from clean sources, these
emissions would be brought to zero. And residents of public housing suffer health harms caused
by mold, lead contamination, poor indoor air quality, and unsafe temperatures. Studies have
indicated that certain health conditions, such as asthma, are more prevalent in public housing
compared to other households.1 Substandard housing conditions can additionally contribute
to mental health problems, engendering symptoms of chronic stress, depression, and hostility.
The creation of new jobs through the Green New Deal is key for green housing. A creation of
jobs for repair, safety, and establishment of new public housing is necessary for economy and
environmental effects, and it will get passed. Data For Progress 19
“Green New Deal For Public Housing.” Data For Progress, 2019, www.dataforprogress.org/green-new-deal-public-housing. //LHPAS
Public housing is a critical part of the Green New Deal. With an ambitious and equitable
approach, public housing can be leveraged to reduce emissions, create good jobs and alleviate
inequality. At present, however, the United States’ stock of permanently affordable publicly owned
homes is a site of government neglect, environmental hazard and segregation. The New York
City Housing Authority (NYCHA), the nation’s largest public housing authority, is in grave
physical, financial and political disrepair and faces a repair backlog of $31.8 billion. Though
New York City is large, it is not unique. Public and tribal housing authorities across the country
face similar challenges. But if we take on these systemic problems, we have a generational
opportunity to strengthen public housing communities while creating jobs and growing the
high-skilled green technology economy of the 21st century. Data for Progress research shows that a tenyear mobilization of up to $172 billion would retrofit over 1 million public housing units, vastly
improving the living conditions of nearly 2 million residents, and creating over 240,000 jobs
per year across the United States. These green retrofits would cut 5.6 million tons of annual
carbon emissions—the equivalent of taking 1.2 million cars off the road. Retrofits and jobs
would benefit communities on the frontlines of climate change, poverty and pollution and the
country as a whole. Our analysis shows the legislation would create 32,552 jobs per year in New York City alone. A large
portion of the jobs nationally—up to 87,000 a year—will be high-quality construction jobs on
site at public housing developments. The bill will actually create more on-site construction jobs in Republican states
than in Democratic ones. Our research finds that a
Green New Deal for public housing would create on-site
46,000 jobs per year in states that voted for Trump in 2016, and 29,000 in states that voted for
Clinton. Up to another 12,000 on-site jobs per year will be created in territories without
national voting rights (Puerto Rico in particular). And in red congressional districts, federal investments would provide
approximately 12,000 jobs for public housing residents. For more details on where new jobs would be created
nationally, view our national report. For more details on where jobs would be created in New York City specifically, see the NYCHA
This investment would also reduce public housing water bills by up to 30% per year, or
$97 million, and reduce public housing energy bills by up to 70% per year, or $613 million. In
report.
addition to our policy research, Data for Progress fielded surveys in September and November, exposing respondents to Democratic
and Republican messages to understand how voters might view the legislation. We found the
Housing has net positive support, 46 percent to 35 percent.
Green New Deal for Public
Plan
Thus the plan: The United States ought to provide a federal sustainable infrastructure jobs
guarantee from the Green New Deal. Carpenter and Hamilton 4/30,
Carpenter, Daniel, and Darrick Hamilton. “A Federal Job Guarantee: Anti-Poverty and
Infrastructure Policy for a Better Future.” Scholars Strategy Network, 30 Apr. 2020,
scholars.org/contribution/federal-job-guarantee. //LHPYA
To combat the current health and economic crisis, and build national infrastructure in the
public health, environmental and transportation domains, American government should
directly hire millions of citizens in the coming two years, offering a federal job guarantee (FJG)
that strengthens government at all levels, especially local and state. Doing so would transcend the limits of current
stimulus programs. Those programs confer money but not stable, dignified work. This direct government employment (DGE) would
rebuild sectors of our country that have withered – our public health clinics and agencies, our
transportation network, our physical plant for education and services in both urban and rural
settings. DGE would also supply workers for the vital transition to a new, energy-efficient,
reduced-carbon infrastructure. Unlike other relief programs, a federal job guarantee can
eliminate involuntary unemployment, directly build the capacity of government to reduce the
likelihood of future crises and respond effectively to those crises that do arise. A FJG can
complement other relief programs including social insurance and income support, but there is
no substitute for its poverty-combatting, inequality-reducing, worker-empowering, nationstabilizing, and infrastructure-building potential. Scale matters. To meet the needs of the nation, a FJG would
provide millions of new jobs, ranging from public health positions (at least 250,000 jobs),
enhanced postal services, including postal banking (at least 100,000 jobs), construction,
rehabilitation, retrofitting and staffing of schools, clinics, parks, senior centers and civic
centers (at least 1 million jobs), new infrastructure, energy transition and conservation work,
including solar installation (many millions of jobs), as well as investments in unemployment
and social insurance and job training (hundreds of thousands of jobs). And a FJG would
rejuvenate America’s civil service at a moment of mass impending retirements, injecting
greater diversity and youth into a system that sorely needs it.
Workers will be federally employed and locally deployed. Millions of jobs with a range of
required skills sets will be generated and jobs are in sustainable infrastructure – this card
explains what I will defend as implementation. Carpenter and Hamilton 2,
Carpenter, Daniel, and Darrick Hamilton. “A Federal Job Guarantee: Anti-Poverty and
Infrastructure Policy for a Better Future.” Scholars Strategy Network, 30 Apr. 2020,
scholars.org/contribution/federal-job-guarantee. //LHPYA
The program would be administered by the Department of Labor and overseen by the
Secretary of Labor. The Secretary and Department of Labor will be charged with working in
conjunction with other agencies, and states and localities to identify an inventory of public
infrastructure tasks and associated jobs. 1. Jobs to support state and local governments. State and local governments account for most of the
government employment in the United States, and they comprise an important part of our federalist system. In a range of policy domains –
public health, education and job training, infrastructure, health provision and conservation – it
is state and local governments that have the legal authorities and historical capacities to act . Yet
state governments also have the weakest capacity to respond to an economic crisis. First, state governments have nothing like the Federal Reserve to back their debt (this is one
among several reasons that the Federal Reserve has recently been looking into mass purchases of municipal bonds). They cannot print money. Second, state governments lack
the expansive revenue-generating capacity of the federal government. Beyond this, state governments have in recent decades constrained their powers with balanced budget
amendments, while a number of states (Illinois and Connecticut are two examples) have badly underfunded pension systems, and still others have tethered their income to
Workers and some
capital costs for projects at the local, county, or state levels can be funded in a way to provide
regional full employment and infrastructure needs. The projects and areas with the greatest
needs could be cued to receive the federal intervention sooner. The Department of Labor
would work closely with local governments. Local and state governments would, in conjunction with
community organizations, develop project proposals to address local infrastructure needs , similar to the local, state, and
federal collaborations in the design of direct government employment programs of the New Deal. Localities are likely most aware of the
infrastructure needs to offer the greatest benefit to their communities. In order to minimize inequality across
commodity (especially petroleum) sales, which are at historically low prices and whose price declines have damaged state revenues.
states and reduce the burden of discrimination, the workers under this program would be federally employed but would be tasked or apportioned (perhaps by formula, to
the
federal government needs to step in to provide the jobs, and there are a range of tools it has
to do so. The traditional tool consists of program-specific block grants that have been an important feature of American government since the New Deal and especially
reduce near-term political discretion) to states according to their economic, public health, and infrastructure needs. Even if the work occurs at the state and local level,
the Nixon era. The problem with these grants is that they often permit state and local officials to withhold important resources from populations in need, as occurred with so
Our proposal would build upon the strengths of
grants by making the jobs available to states and local governments, but would address the
inequality-related weakness of these programs by making the employees federal workers
who, as such, are made available to state and local governments. In order to avoid potentially unconstitutional
many states’ refusal to take Medicaid expansions under the Affordable Care Act.
imposition of requirements upon state governments (which were declared unconstitutional in NFIB v. Sebelius (2012)), the federal government could offer these jobs as an
option, as it did with Medicaid expansion in the Affordable Care Act. Another alternative is to allow state and localities to develop a bank of proposals for physical and human
infrastructure from which a federal authority (operating under formulaic or discretionary procedures) can prioritize with regards to urgent and useful needs. The state and
the workers would be ultimately employed by the
federal government, as opposed to state or local employees by way of a federal grant. 2. Jobs to
support federal agencies. Direct government hiring by federal agencies would be essential for many
reasons. First, in a polarized political environment, it is quite possible that some states may
obstruct cooperation with federal government employment. Having a robust program of
federal hiring, including directly in uncooperative states, would broaden the distribution of
benefits and mechanize the mandate for guaranteed employment. The federal government
has a well-established personnel system that has expanded before: witness the mobilization of government
localities can even administer the program with federal oversight, however,
employment after the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks, including the creation of a new Cabinet-level department and the launching of new agencies such as the
Transportation Security Agency (TSA). Congress should both create new federal programs and fund federal agencies to expand existing programs. The kinds of programs can and
What kinds of programs and what kinds
of jobs make the most sense? Public health infrastructure. The news that we get on a daily
basis on COVID-19 comes largely from the numbers collected by state health departments,
should be shaped by the imperative social, political, and economic needs of the American republic.
agencies that are usually invisible but ever a bulwark against the most daunting health threats. Yet state and local health agencies have shed capacity since the 1980s. Then
the American public health system has lost 55,000 jobs since
2008. Reliable estimates suggest that the deficit in American public health infrastructure
amounts to at least 250,000 additional jobs. An assertive program of public hiring would include nurses,
physicians, epidemiologists, health care aides, mental health professionals, social workers,
health clinic administrators, workers to perform contact tracing for this and future pandemics,
and building services workers like janitors. Rebuild our crumbling cities. Urban infrastructure
would be an important part of any American rebuilding effort, but key to rebuilding America’s
cities would be to invest in the public hospitals, health clinics, schools, and libraries (including
informatics and digital training centers) that would promote both civic engagement and human capital formation. Construction jobs alone to build
the new buildings and renew the older ones required for first rate public health, education,
and library systems in cities and towns could provide hundreds of thousands of jobs, with
many more in buildings operations and maintenance. Funding these positions would also allow
governments to target black and brown communities and lower resourced communities in
came the Great Recession. From an already weakened state,
general who have traditionally been passed by in government employment programs.
Expansion of rural programs through augmented postal services. The post office is the branch of government that
Americans probably know best, with offices in essentially every zip code in the country. Until 1970, the Post Office Department provided banking services in its branches,
providing an important tool of savings that dated from the Progressive Era. Over one hundred countries around the world offer a postal banking option. In addition to banking
post offices could be augmented to provide rural broadband (not merely network extension but installation and
repair consultations), health and wellness clinics, and claims processing for federal programs . Building
upon our postal system would leverage existing infrastructure and provide rural benefits. There are
services,
approximately 35,000 post offices in the United States, with just under 500,000 employees. Each office that adds banking services would add an employee or more.
Transforming the post office into a local service provision agency would offer the opportunity
for the creation of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of jobs. Preschool, Pre-kindergarten and
childcare for all. Americans have been confronting the reality that many jobs in our rapidly evolving society require an education beyond that provided by the K-12 system.
Proposals for a vocationally-focused 13th and 14th grade have emerged, whether through reformed public school systems or through community college and vocational school
pre-kindergarten and pre-school programs have important precedents in
Head Start and have been shown to bring a wide range of social, economic, and cultural
benefits. As the economist Randy Albelda has argued, programs like these, as well as expanded child-care and
after-school options, can augment parents’ ability to participate in the labor force while also
delivering educational benefits to their children as students. Important educational and non-economic by-products would
include better student-to-teacher ratios, augmented tutoring, and increased student services. Infrastructure and the Green New Deal.
expansion. In the other direction,
Important proposals for a Green New Deal – a series of programs that invest heavily in the renovation and transformation of our energy infrastructure and prepare the country
direct government employment on the
model of the Civil Works Administration, Works Progress Administration, and the Civilian
Conservation Corps would efficiently and robustly serve the ends of environmental economic
transformation in the United States. Jobs could include solar panel installation
for the energy revolution in wind and solar power – have been written about elsewhere. Yet
Some more spec –
a] Workers can be fired for consistently not showing up to their job or for endangering others.
b] Anyone not currently employed can get a job, including those who choose to quit private
jobs.
c] Wages start at 15$ an hour with basic health benefits and adjusts for inflation.
Framing
I value morality and the standard is maximizing expected well-being.
Prefer the standard:
[1] Use epistemic modesty – inevitable chance we’re wrong about complex frameworks
because we’re human and logic is hard, so contentions should count to arg probability to be
prudent and not risk infinite harm
[2] It’s a lexical pre-requisite. Threats to bodily security and life preclude the ability for moral
actors to effectively act upon other moral theories since they are in a constant state of crisis
that inhibit the ideal moral conditions which other theories presuppose.
[3] theory:
[a] Topic lit – most articles are written through the lens of util since they’re crafted for
policymakers and the general public to understand who take consequences to be important,
not philosophy majors. Fairness and education since it’s a lens through which we engage the
res.
[b] Policy Making – We have to use util because then we can actually understand how to
create and make policy action in the real world. The US has to look at the consequences to do
the greatest good by the greatest amount of people.
Fairness is a voter because debate’s a game that needs rules and you have to vote for the
better debater not the better cheater. Education because that is why schools fund debate.
These are framework warrants, not a reason to drop the debater.
[4] Reject Calc Indicts and Util Triggers Permissibility Arguments - a) Empirically denied—both
individuals and policymakers carry out effective cost-benefit analysis which means even if
decisions aren’t always perfect it’s still better than not acting at all
[5] no intent forsight distinction - we need to use consequences because what we intend to do
is influenced by what we know will happen
[6] Extinction hijacks and side constrains the framework – you can never be 100% certain in
your theory so you shouldn’t explode the world to bet on it, Bostrum 12’
Nick Bostrom (Faculty of Philosophy & Oxford Martin School University of Oxford). “Existential
Risk Prevention as Global Priority.” Global Policy 2012.
These reflections on moral
uncertainty suggest[s] an alternative, complementary way of looking at existential risk; they also suggest a
new way of thinking about the ideal of sustainability. Let me elaborate. ¶ [That] Our present understanding of axiology
might well be confused. We may not now know — at least not in concrete detail — what outcomes would
count as a big win for humanity; we might not even yet be able to imagine the best ends of our journey. If we are indeed profoundly
uncertain about our ultimate aims, then we should recognize that there is a great option value in preserving —
and ideally improving — our ability to recognize value and to steer the future accordingly. Ensuring that there will be
a future version of humanity with great powers and a propensity to use them wisely is plausibly the best way available to us
to increase the probability that the future will contain a lot of value. To do this, we must prevent any
existential catastrophe.
UV
[1] 1AR Theory Paradigm – a) aff gets 1AR theory and metatheory - the neg could be infinitely
abusive with no check on the abuse and meta theory ensures that they are not reading
abusive theory and that I can engage in same layer as them on theory, and we o/w neg theory
bc the neg can be infinitely abusive