Green New Deal Policies Should Be Fueled by Frontline and Grassroots Power

Green New Deal Policies Should Be Fueled by Frontline and Grassroots Power

Angela Adrar, Olivia Burlingame, Anthony Rogers-White and Fernando Tormos-Aponte

Policies succeed when they have local buy in, especially from communities that are directly impacted by such policies. Climate change will impose asymmetrical costs across communities. Arguably, policies to mitigate climate change must take into account the concerns of these communities. For its legitimacy, this process of discovering preferences should take place through a deliberative process. Top down policies, even if effective, might not be legitimate and therefore face local resistance.

This is where climate justice (CJ) movement organizations, which both represent local communities directly impacted by climate change and are accountable to them, come into the discussions on the Green New Deal (GND).

Previous Efforts Ignored Local Engagement

Previous efforts to enact Federal level climate change policies in the US, such as the 2009 American Clean Energy and Security Act, were led by a coalition of corporations and well-resourced environmental organizations (also known as green groups), collectively known as U.S. Climate Action Partnership (USCAP). USCAP made few attempts to consult community organizations, and the CJ movement sector more generally, but failed to garner their support. Of course, 2009 efforts failed because they could not even secure a vote in the Senate, its failure reveals an important lesson. Legislative efforts to combat climate change must be anchored in mass support. If they are elite driven with only token consultation with grassroots organizations, they will have short political shelf life.

GND needs cross-sectoral support. Shortly after the proposal for a GND was announced, CJ groups consulted their constituents and found that they were unaware of the GND proposal and had not been consulted prior to its launch. Similarly, the president of the AFL-CIO, the largest federation of unions in the US, decried the process that led to the design of the GND, stating that they were not part of the process. Polls find that Democrats have heard less about the GND than Republicans. This is not to say that these organizations oppose GND per se. The point is that GND’s political appeal is diminished because its sponsoring actors did not make space for the leadership of key groups that are directly affected by climate policies.

How Grassroots Support Helps Policymaking

In November of 2018, OPAL Environmental Justice Oregon led a coalition of grassroots organizations to secure passage of the Portland Clean Energy Fund, which will generate $54-71 million a year to advance green jobs and job training programs in the city, prioritizing low-income communities and communities of color. Last year in Brooklyn, New York, Sunset Park’s local environmental justice organization, UPROSE, partnered with the NYC Economic Development Corporation, Solar One, and Co-op Power to create the first community-owned solar cooperative in New York State with goals that included promoting energy democracy and the reduction of energy costs in a community where 30% of residents live below the poverty line. Further, UPROSE engaged in coalition building efforts and scaled up its advocacy to the state level, contributing to NY state’s enactment of the nation’s most ambitious targets for a transition to 100% renewable energy.

Even in Republican strongholds, CJ organizations have seized the opportunity opened by ongoing discussions about the GND. For instance, Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KTFC) unveiled their Empower Kentucky plan, described as a set of practical steps Kentucky can implement to create jobs, improve health, ensure affordable energy, support a just transition, advance equity, and protect our climate.

CJ movement organizations contend that securing cross-sectoral support for the GND will require consulting and supporting community groups affected by climate policies, including them in the process of designing, advocating for, and implementing a GND. Further, CJ movement organizations call for simultaneously engaging in advocacy at the local, state, and federal levels of government. This form of organizing and advocacy may open up opportunities for advancing reforms above and below the national level and broaden the base of support for Federal policy change.

This commentary highlights the existing nexus between public administration theory and the CJ movement practices and contextualizes it in relation to ongoing efforts to enact a GND. Namely, grassroots support is critical for policy advocacy, especially in climate policies that will cause a great deal of disruption. Climate policies must be attentive to the needs of communities who are directly impacted by it. This sort of consultative and deliberative process enhances legitimacy. It makes for more effective advocacy and leads to more imaginative policy designs. Finally, it enhances the political life of these policies because when faced with opposition, there is an organized constituency to defend it. Twitter following should not be confused with grassroots support, especially among poor and marginalized communities who are disproportionately hurt by climate change. In one way, Twitter is a monologue while grassroots organizations want a dialogue. This is the political challenge facing the GND. 

Angela Adrar is the Executive Director of the Climate Justice Alliance.

Olivia Burlingame is the Senior Communications Advisor for the Climate Justice Alliance.

Anthony Rogers-Wright is a Policy Coordinator with the Climate Justice Alliance.

Fernando Tormos-Aponte is a Scholar Strategy Network Postdoctoral Fellow.