Roosevelt @ GWU

The Nature of Our Future: How the Green New Deal Tackles the Climate Crisis

9/11/2020

0 Comments

By: Maya Levine

What do the names Bertha, Cristobal, Dolly, Edouard, Fay, Gonzalo, Hanna, Isaias, Josephine, Kyle, Laura, and Marco all have in common? They are the names of the Atlantic tropical cyclones that have hit the U.S. this year. These tropical storms are increasing in frequency and intensity due to climate change, according to the November 2018 Fourth National Climate Assessment. Although this effect of climate change makes the primetime news, other developments are regularly overlooked by the public eye. These lesser-known consequences of climate change range from the extinction of species to a decrease in productivity of marine fisheries to the increase in poverty rates among disadvantaged and vulnerable communities, as presented in the October 2018 “Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 ºC” by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Considering the scale and scope of these natural and societal problems, we need solutions of commensurate magnitude.

Enter Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Senator Ed Markey (D-MA). On February 7, 2019, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Markey co-introduced the Green New Deal (GND), a congressional resolution that lays a framework for combating climate change and tackling social inequities in the process. Inspired by the New Deal of the 1930s and the desire to correct its systemic shortcomings, particularly on race, this legislation aims to be more inclusive in the climate fight. It intends to curb fossil fuel use and greenhouse gas emissions while creating high-paying jobs in the clean energy sector and supporting the most vulnerable populations. In other words, it is a massive structural overhaul.

The scope of the goals outlined in the GND highlight just how far-reaching the climate crisis is and will continue to be if the U.S. doesn’t change the way it operates. The first goal addresses the cause of climate change: greenhouse gas emissions. Since human activity amplifies greenhouse gas concentration levels, the GND seeks to transition the communities and workers that depend on fossil fuels to cleaner energy sources in a “fair and just” manner. It proposes to shift employees in the fossil fuel industry to the clean energy sector with its job benefits and potential for industry growth. This primary reliance on new energy sources will change what infrastructure and industry look like in the U.S., but the GND accounts for that adjustment, too. It calls for investments in sustainable infrastructure and industries that achieve greener standards. The penultimate goal of the GND simply aims to secure everyday resources provided by the environment, such as clean air, water, and healthy food. Finally, this legislation seeks to achieve environmental justice in the fight against climate change.

The “frontline and vulnerable communities” referenced in the GND experience environmental injustice, or in other words, are disproportionately affected by environmental damage and climate change. For instance, Black Americans are exposed to air pollution particles 1.54 times more than the rest of the population, as noted in a study in the American Journal of Public Health. These particles, which can cause lung disease, originate from the burning of fossil fuels. This case justifies the GND provision that calls for “high-quality health care.” Additional health problems arise from the impacts of climate change, such as extreme heat and decreased food production, that also have unequal impacts on communities of color. To protect those who have been medically affected by climate change and those that are vulnerable if these climate patterns continue, healthcare needs to be accessible. Due to the augmented effects of climate change on marginalized groups, the GND includes elements of environmental justice in order to account for the damage of climate change on all facets of life.

To accomplish these goals, the GND calls for a “10-year national mobilization” of its projects. Why ten years? According to the IPCC Special Report, countries have until 2030 to cut their anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions by 45 percent; without that cut, global temperatures could rise more than 1.5 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, and the climate crisis will get muc h, m uch worse. Many of these projects reduce greenhouse gas emissions through technological shifts to renewable, zero-emission energy sources and “smart” power grids. The GND also proposes shifts to energy-efficient buildings, modernized infrastructure with public transportation, and more sustainable land use by reducing livestock emissions. In addition to these nationwide changes, the legislation calls for community-based projects to invest in climate resiliency and manage the long-term social and economic effects of climate change.

Not only does the GND call for technological and policy solutions, but it also highlights the voices affected by these projects. Because the climate crisis directly affects the people on the ground, these are the groups the GND attempts to uplift. Once again, the GND specifically focuses on the impacts of climate change and the shift to a clean energy economy on the frontline and deindustrialized communities. To be full and equal participants in the mobilization, these communities will be provided with job training, high-quality education, and local economic development. Considering that this implementation strongly revolves around the transition between industries, the GND protects work ers’ rig hts, including unionization and safe working conditions. Another community that often doesn’t have a seat at the table is Indigenous peoples. However, the GND promotes their voice by incorporating their consent in decision-making and honoring their land rights.

Although the GND would introduce sweeping reform to address the climate crisis, it does not have all the answers. The aspects of society examined by the GND may be extensive, but the bill often fails to outline detailed plans for its proposed policies. Another notable absence is the explanation of the financing of these plans, although supporters like Senator Bernie Sanders say the plan will “pay for itself.” Other criticism emerges from the frontline communities the plan intends to protect, such as Native Americans. Members of this community have proposed “The Red Deal,” an expansion of the GND based in the Indigenous perspective that calls for “Indigenous liberation.” In recognition of these criticisms, we should consider the GND to be a starting point on the path to climate justice rather than the final answer.

The Green New Deal is a revolutionary piece of climate legislation for more than its service to the environment. It is groundbreaking because of its intersectional approach to environmental justice as it emphasizes the interaction of the social, economic, and physical effects of climate change, specifically on the frontline and vulnerable communities. Before we experience another tropical cyclone that changes our lives for the worse, we need to implement the GND to change our lives for the better.

0 Comments

It’s Time to End Money Bail in America

6/7/2020

0 Comments

By: Sean Ruddy

Over the last week millions of dollars have been donated to help protesters marching against police brutality post bail. The Minnesota Freedom Fund received so many donations that it actually stopped asking for any more funds. While this outcry of support has been inspiring we should stop and ask: Why do we still require money bail?
For those that are unaware the United States often requires that someone booked for a crime must provide a monetary payment before being released as a guarantee that they will show up for any court appearances. Similar to a deposit, this payment is either given back once the person attends their hearing or is forfeited to the government. Bail amounts differ by judge decree but are usually similar across equivalent offenses. The practice has become increasingly common, with an ACLU report from 2017 finding that the number of arrests that required money bail rose from 37 percent to 61 percent in the twenty year period between 1990 and 2009.
While the system may not seem that problematic at first glance, this ignores the semi-obvious problem that not everyone can pay bail. Analysis from the Prison Policy Initiative found that while bail is typically $10,000 for felonies, the median annual pre-incarceration income of those in local jails is only $15,109. Bail is lower for misdemeanors but even small amounts can be unpayable for the most cash-strapped individuals and awaiting trial behind bars can take a large psychological toil. Unable to pay bail, many are forced into the only "solutions" provided- bail bonds. These predatory agreements provide a defendant with money to post bail, but requires the full amount plus a premium equal to about 10 to 15 percent of the bail bonds total value is repaid in full after the Court date. Unlike normal bail these premiums aren't refundable, making those who are already financially vulnerable even worse off. Failure to pay back a bail bond in full can carry excessive consequences, as individuals can be chased down by bounty hunters, have their wages or tax returns garnished or can, ironically, be arrested. Yet as bail bonds have been ruinous for individuals it has become a booming industry, with $14 billion in bail bonds issued annually and industry raking in a yearly profit of $2 billion.
The revenue gained by the government from money bail may also worsen police brutality problems. While every jurisdiction uses these funds differently, some redirect revenues generated from the forfeiture of bail money into police state budgets. Jurisdictions with larger African American populations tend to gain more of their revenue from these types of fees, a phenomena that is seemingly not explained by differences in criminality or poverty rates. For example, in 2012 Ferguson Missouri gained $2 million or about 13 percent of its total government revenue from fines and fees, such as revenue from bail.
The problems with money bail aren’t just economic. Much like every facet of our criminal justice system, money bail is riddled with biases and discriminations against communities of color. African American and Hispanic men pay significantly higher bail amounts than white men, paying 35 percent and 19 percent more respectively. Jurisdictions with larger African American populations tend to gain more of their revenue from bail bonds, and these revenues can be used to help police budgets. Communities of color are also overrepresented in the pretrial jail population (a.k.a the population of people in local jails awaiting trial and have not been convicted of any crimes). African Americans represent 43 percent of the pretrial jail population despite composing about 12 percent of the US population and Hispanics represent almost 20 percent of the pretrial population despite only being about 13 percent of the population.
It is time that we stop conflating pretrial convictions with socio-economic status. In a system where Justice is meant to be blind, money bail represents another way that race, money, and privilege stack the deck against communities of color and the financially vulnerable. No one should be deterred from making their voices heard because they can’t afford bail. This isn’t a new or revolutionary idea, DC has restricted the use of money bail since 1992 with no issues. Several other states and localities including California, New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia have taken steps to phase out money bail without experiencing sharp declines in court appearance rates. It's time for the rest of the country to do the same and for America to end money bail.

0 Comments

Food Insecurity in the Time of Covid-19

6/3/2020

0 Comments

By: Matthew Allen

The Covid-19 crisis has disrupted so many of the things in our everyday lives, including one of the most fundamental: food. At the same time that we’re seeing shortages in grocery stores, we’re seeing surpluses on farms. Surpluses so large that farmers are crushing eggs, dumping milk, and, in a shocking case in Idaho, burying one million onions, all because they know they won’t be able to sell them. This problem of too much food where it’s not needed, and too little where it is, is a result of the inability of our supply chain to adapt. While our food distribution system is normally quite efficient, it relies on predictability. As a result of Covid-19, many of the biggest buyers of food, such as restaurants and school cafeterias, have closed. The chain has struggled to shift from supplying about half of all food to establishments such as this, to now bringing almost all of it to grocery stores. And this is exacerbated by the fact that distribution requires labor, and most workers are being told to stay home. As a result, we’re seeing farmers struggling to make a simple living, while also seeing grocery stores struggling just to stock shelves, and, in some of our more densely populated centers, limits to customers on how much of one item they can buy. In addition to creating difficulties for consumers, these shortages are also having a huge effect on our food banks. Food banks typically relied upon grocery stores for a significant portion of their total donations, but, now that grocery stores have less and less left over on the shelves, food banks have seen a 35% reduction in donations from the retail sector. This comes at a particularly difficult time when unemployment is at its second-highest in our nation’s history, and a time when millions of children who would typically be receiving free meals at their schools no longer are. In 2018, there were about 37 million food insecure people in the United States. That number is much, much, higher now due to several factors. The first of which is a massive increase in unemployment, the second worst in American history. In addition, there are higher prices for food due to a huge spike in demand from panic-buying and hoarding. There are also even more mobility issues for seniors, 5.5 million of which were already food insecure before this crisis. Since they are one of the populations at highest risk, public transportation, which- for many- is the only option, becomes very dangerous. As a result of all of this, Feeding America, a nationwide network of food banks, estimates there will be an increase of between 4.1 million and 17.1 million in individuals who are food insecure because of the Covid-19 crisis. In a time as uniquely challenging as this, everyone has difficulties and problems, whether that is having to stay at home for several months or having to leave college early. But for far too many Americans, it’s a matter of whether or not they’ll be able to put food on the table for themselves and their families that night. During this crisis, it’s even more important than usual that we remember those who need our help, both as a national community and as individuals. Our government should be doing more to ensure a steady food supply, such as financing the payroll of food distribution companies; and to help those who are unemployed, such as by canceling payments like student loan debt and rent. But we as individuals also need to take responsibility to not take up more food than we need from grocery stores, and to make donations to our local food banks. In this time of crisis, we need to come together as Americans to make sure that, while a disease can disrupt our everyday lives, it doesn’t keep people from being able to feed themselves and their families.

0 Comments

The corona virus pandemic has disrupted many aspects of life in D.C, businesses are closed, travel is restricted, and the university students have been sent home. The mayor has issued a stay at home order to prevent the spread of the corona virus. Stay at home orders are a necessary and effective step to limit the spread and cost of the virus. However, they leave behind those who are without homes to shelter in. In addition, many homeless shelters have struggled to accomodate the need for social distancing, and cities have struggled to find alternatives. Many cities forged agreements with their now empty hotels to provide housing for the homeless, giving them someplace to stay and avoiding the cramped conditions that allowed the corona virus to spread rapidly in homeless shelters. However, hotels are still an imperfect venue for social distancing given that their rooms do not have kitchens or eating areas. This necessitates residents to leave their rooms and interact with others frequently in order to get food. There is also difficulty in assembling enough capacity to house the 6,500 or so homeless people in the district.
A better alternative would be to use the now vacant college dorms in D.C. The city and George Washington University should forge an agreement to make use of the now vacant dorms at GW and other D.C schools to house the homeless. The dorms at GW and other now closed universities would provide a better way to house this vulnerable population. These dorms would not need to be filled to capacity and could instead each house 1 individual or family. At GW alone there are more than 1200 dorm units which include kitchens and eating areas, which would allow residents to social distance more effectively. If the district could forge such agreements with all of the 19 colleges and universities they should be more than able to house their homeless until the crisis is over. The Universities could rent out these rooms to the city at their upkeep cost and recoup some of the red ink the pandemic has caused, and the city could provide a safe residence for their vulnerable homeless population within blocks of the essential services they rely upon.

0 Comments

April 7th was World Health Day, and it seems the world has never been more conscious of the work our nurses, doctors, and healthcare workers do. Amid the chaos of the coronavirus, millions of healthcare workers brave the harrowing halls of hospitals and emergency rooms across the country every day. They suit up with whatever personal protective equipment (PPE) they can find, but shortages around the globe means health care workers are forced to reuse the same PPE over several days and use makeshift alternatives, like trash bags. Our healthcare workers are ill-equipped, overworked, and know full well that they are likely to get sick themselves. Still, they go in.

That’s why they’re heroes. That’s why they’re warriors. That’s why they’re applauded. Rightly so, the rhetoric around the nurses, doctors, and health care workers on the front lines of the coronavirus is inspiring. Here’s the thing, rhetoric is not enough. While many of these healthcare workers are compassionate, brave, and dedicated to their field, they’re doing their jobs. Jobs that have gotten significantly riskier (dare I say, hazardous) than ever before. At the same time, their jobs aren’t ones that can be moved to the living room (in fact, their jobs are actually keeping some out of their homes). These healthcare workers deserve just compensation for the increased dangers of their jobs; jobs that are critical to responding to the coronavirus pandemic. Our healthcare workers are putting their lives at risk to protect and save others, and there should be some kind of fair compensation for their added responsibilities and risks. Our healthcare workers have become (and I argue always have been) the backbone of our society through the pandemic, and they should be paid accordingly.

I am not alone in my beliefs. Earlier today, Senate Democrats proposed to give doctors, nurses and other essential workers up to $25,000 in hazard pay. Dubbed “The Heroes Fund” by Senate Democrats, this hazard pay is a step in the right direction for the heroes and warriors that must go to work every day. We can’t wait for private businesses to take the initiative to extend hazard pay to their essential employees (because, surprise, they won’t). Therefore, this provision is absolutely essential for any forthcoming stimulus package that comes out of Congress. I encourage all readers to take some time to contact their representatives to express support for such a provision, and take some time to look at the numerous petitions advocating a hazard pay for many essential employees. While our healthcare workers are heroes, they are also humans who deserve a fair wage for their immense contributions.

0 Comments

It’s Time for Americans to Consider a National Health Service

3/16/2020

0 Comments

(Photo Credit: Golden Cosmos/ NBC)

By: Daniel Ohiri

Currently the United States is struggling to address the global COVID-19 pandemic. As Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testified to the U.S. House of Representatives on March 12, 2020; the United States is failing in its coronavirus testing. “The system is not really geared to what we need right now,” Dr. Fauci added. In this election year, we should push for not only the system we need but the system we deserve.

On March 13th, the Trump administration belatedly declared what most Americans knew —that we are in the midst of a national emergency. Policymakers and public health officials are attempting to cope with the lack of coherent leadership from the White House and its coronavirus task force. This coming week, Americans can expect that $40-50 billion of emergency funds will be freed up to combat coronavirus. Moreover, we can expect that Congress will pass, and the President will sign, a bill that will provide free coronavirus testing, $1 billion in food aid, and extended sick leave. Nevertheless, as the President said in the Rose Garden, “we were given a set of circumstances and we were given rules, regulations, and specifications from a different time. [It] wasn’t meant for this kind of event”. Trump is right – our healthcare system is not built for an overwhelming public health emergency. Let alone the fact that our healthcare system is not even built to provide affordable comprehensive health care to all Americans and residents. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted our public policy shortcoming regarding healthcare.

Healthcare is the number one issue voters are concerned about going into the 2020 election. Because of the importance of access to healthcare, this election will prove to be pivotal. Candidates have proposed everything from a single-payer system to a full repeal of the Affordable Care Act. But now is the time for Americans to explore the creation of a national health service.

If healthcare is a human right, which I believe it is, then it is reasonable to expect the government to enact and enforce that right. In the same way that public schools, police departments, and libraries are services provided to the public so should medical care. No human being in this country should have to face bankruptcy for an unexpected medical expense. No son should have to make a plea on Facebook or GoFundMe to raise money for his mother’s knee replacement. Just as it is in the United Kingdom all medical procedures and appointments ought to be free at the point of use.

The NHS was created in the aftermath of World War II. U.K. citizens often have to pay no more than about $10 in out of pocket medical expenses. The U.S. spends more on healthcare than any other OECD Nation at $10,586 per capita while the U.K. spends just $4,070—only 9.8% of the Kingdom’s GDP. Due in part to the NHS, the U.K. has a higher life expectancy than the U.S., along with a lower infant mortality rate, and a lower rate for potential deaths due to a lack of healthcare. The British NHS is a monument to effective social policy, it is a program that U.K. citizens cherish so much they proudly, and rightly, displayed to the world during the 2012 Olympic Games.

The average American household paid $6,015 for coverage in 2019 through its laggard, patchwork system. In Canada, a nation that has adopted a single-payer system over a national health service, the average citizen paid $6,604 in taxes for healthcare coverage. In both the United States and Canada, insurance is not comprehensive. Even in Canada, the government only pays 70% of healthcare costs ignoring coverage for prescription drugs, dental, and vision. Whereas, while in the U.K., the average citizen paid just $2,000 in taxes for coverage. The U.K. National Health Service is extraordinarily broad, providing in-patient care, vision, dental, mental, long-term, and rehabilitative care. In the NHS model, there is are very little cost-sharing and copayments are low. By administrating and staffing the hospitals, the United Kingdom lowers most barriers to access seen in the American and Canadian models; moreover, it virtually eliminates regional pricing discrepancies in ambulance, diagnostic, and other healthcare fees.

The United Kingdom’s National Health Services has enjoyed over 70 years of success and satisfaction. The NHS enjoys a 54% approval rating while only 30% of Americans are satisfied with their healthcare. In Great Britain, no qualified resident is uninsured, while in the United States 87 million adults were either uninsured or underinsured. The American healthcare system cannot stay the course, the status quo is reckless and deadly. The U.S requires a major overhaul to address lack of access, coverages, cost, and satisfaction. It is time that we seriously think about adopting a national, universal health care system in the United States.

0 Comments

Democratic Access is on the ballot

11/5/2019

0 Comments

By: Daniel Ohiri

It’s election day! All across the country, people will be voting for governors, attorneys general, state house, and city council. Thousands will also be voting for several municipal propositions. I want to focus on one of these referendums in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Proposition No. 2 says,

“Shall the City of Albuquerque adopt the following amendments to update the language of the Open and Ethical Elections Code, which provides for public financing of City candidates: Vied eligible city residents with Democracy Dollars, to contribute to their choice of qualified candidates , which the candidates could redeem with the city clerk, up to a limit, for funds to spend in support of their campaigns, as directed by the City Council, and increased funds for publicly financed mayoral define family candidates?”

This simply worded proposition actually radically alters the way we finance elections. Following a 5-4 ruling from the Supreme Court, municipalities nationwide had to redo their public financing system. Paraphrasing Justice Kagan’s dissent, this ruling significantly weakens election authorities’ ability to combat the hold special interests have in our political system. No city is safe from high dollar donors corrupting their politics. In Albuquerque, Demos found that, “A small pool of donors contributing at least $1,000 each provided the majority of campaign funds in the last city election”. In a city, where the per capita income is $28,229, we are currently crippling, in a major way, the average citizen’s ability to participate in politics.

The rising cost of city council elections is damaging to our democratic process. Take for example this year’s election in Albuquerque City Council District 8. In this district one of the candidates has opted to pursue private financing while the other has chosen to be publicly financed. Trudy Jones, who is privately financed and the incumbent, raised $31,305 (mostly from the real estate industry) during Reporting Period 7 (09/03/ 2019 – 10/11/2019). During the same reporting period her opponent, Maureen Skowran, raised $0.00. The race in District 8 demonstrates the advantages that affluent incumbents have in financing their campaigns. In elections across the country we are seeing more and more that big money is unfortunately essential to a modern campaign, and without it challengers face an uphill battle to even get on the ballot, let alone mount a successful campaign. The reliance on big donor financing is damaging because it limits the entryway into public service to the affluent or affluent adjacent. Therefore, it limits the socioeconomic diversity of thought and people in the halls of power and decision making. It also affects access to policymakers, there is evidence that suggests that politicians will listen more keenly and respond to the policy proposals put forth by high dollar donors instead of low dollar constituent contributors.

Albuquerque voters have a choice in filling the public financing hole created by the Supreme Court. They have a choice in following in the steps of Seattle, WA, when they created a similar program. They also have a choice to continue the status quo. Ultimately, the choice is theirs.

0 Comments

The New Comprehensive Plan: A Positive Step for D.C

11/1/2019

0 Comments

By: Sean Ruddy

This past month, the D.C. city council took landmark action when it unanimously passed an updated Framework of the city’s comprehensive plan. The comprehensive plan is a far-reaching document that guides the decision-making of the city's zoning commission for the next 20 years, having great influence on the landscape of the city. One of the main improvements to the comprehensive plan included encouraging the Zoning Commission to approve the development of planned unit developments (PUDs), which are a type of multi-purpose development that are exempted from some zoning restrictions if they provide a public good. One of the main changes to PUD developments is that they are no longer forbidden if the development would have “incompatibility” with a neighborhood but only when there are “unacceptable project impacts in the surrounding area.” This change will ensure that new crucially needed affordable housing developments are not blocked because of frivolous subjective reasons, such as distributing the “character” of a neighborhood, while still ensuring that current residents are not harmed.
The new comprehensive plan also requires that some PUDs and developments using city funds must help provide more equitable housing within DC. These changes to PUDs are expected to improve the amount of affordable housing units throughout the District. These necessary changes come at a crucial time, with a new report finding that DC is displacing lower-income residents at the highest rate in the country. These new housing developments will help stop this displacement and move the city towards the estimated 320,000 new units that have to be built by 2030 to keep up the job growth within the city. The plan gives priority to PUDs with a “build first” approach, which prevents residents from being displaced by allowing them to stay in their homes until new facilities are built. The amendments also establish a “right to return” clause that will make sure residents are able to return to their homes following housing redevelopment projects.

Other new improvements to the comprehensive plan coming from the amendments include a focus on development density instead of height, emphasizes on renewable energy sources in construction, and encouraging the development of multimodal public transportation to connect all residents to the bustling sectors of the city.

The Roosevelt Network praises the new amendments and appreciates the D.C. council’s commitment to preventing the displacement of its citizens. We hope to work with the council and other important stakeholders to monitor implementation and make certain that these changes help the city’s most vulnerable residents.

0 Comments

<<Previous

The roosevelt Reader

The Nature of Our Future: How the Green New Deal Tackles the Climate Crisis

It’s Time to End Money Bail in America

Food Insecurity in the Time of Covid-19

Dorms for the homeless

Heroes Need Hazard Pay

It’s Time for Americans to Consider a National Health Service

Democratic Access is on the ballot

The New Comprehensive Plan: A Positive Step for D.C

OUR OFFICIAL BLOG

WRITE FOR US

CATEGORIES

ARCHIVES