Another Step Taken On The Long Road Towards Environmental Progress
The role of the new Climate Crisis Committee
By Sameer Jain
The Progressive Teen Staff Writer
NO MORE THAN A WEEK AFTER THE NOVEMBER ELECTION that solidified a Democratic victory in the House of Representatives, Rep. Nancy Pelosi, the then likely future Speaker of the House, found her office crowded with environmental protesters. The group of political activists, comprised of citizens who had flown in from all over the country to fight their cause, was lobbying the Democratic majority in the House to initiate work on a “Green New Deal”. With visions of an economically stable, sustainable future for America in mind, protesters expressed their desire for the creation of a special House committee tasked with drafting and fighting for this ambitious new proposed deal.
Later that day, Pelosi made a promise to an energized left wing to form that committee, and evidently followed through. Unveiled through a rules package that will govern House procedure over the next two years, the committee, officially known as the Select Committee on the Climate Crisis, is not an entirely new concept, but one whose necessity is more apparent now than ever. However, while its renewal in the House is a major step towards a sustainable future, not everyone is entirely satisfied with the level of power granted to the committee.
Prior to its renewal, secured during the first session of the 116th Congress, a similar committee existed from 2007 to 2011, then too initiated by Rep. Pelosi. Born into an era of spiking, record-high oil prices, the committee played a significant role in the 2007 Energy Act, as well as dealing with the ramifications of the Deepwater Horizon accident and subsequent oil spill. However, the republican-majority 112th Congress failed to renew the committee when it took session in early 2011. And while some progress has no doubt been made in renewable energy expansion in an effort to strengthen America’s “energy independence,” the American people are now becoming increasingly aware of the need for a solution to the long term-issue at hand — global climate change.
Within the past few years, many of the environmental policies set forth by Donald Trump’s administration have been a cause for alarm for environmental activists around the country and around the world. Trump’s environmental policy has been consistently characterized by drastic rollback of conservation-minded regulations established by the Obama administration, as well as continued promotion of fossil fuels, all while forecasting a potentially disastrous 7-degree rise in global temperatures by 2100. Trump’s environmental policy has been largely centered around neutralizing Obama-era gains, with the number of Obama-era policies that have been pushed back, targeted for repeal, or blocked entirely numbering at 78 as of late December. And while Trump’s battle against environmentally conscious policy is one that has been fought within the confines of Washington, its destructive effects have left an “indelible mark” on communities throughout the US.
One such community is the Fort Berthold Native American Reservation in eastern North Dakota. When the EPA made a visit in June of 2018 to inspect the air quality of the area, the results were nothing short of alarming, with harmful, toxic fumes at dangerously high levels throughout the reservation. Subsequent observation concluded that the improper burning of methane while burning excess industrial oil, as well as the burning of natural gas, were both resulting in the spewing of pollutants that pose serious health risks to those exposed. While the local oil and gas industries in the area have been booming in recent years, it comes at a clear price.
The root cause of these findings can be traced back to the Trump administration’s repeated strategy of cutting costs by deregulating industry and encouraging domestic energy growth, drastically loosening the environmental standards that these industries must abide by. By prioritizing short-term economic gain, Trump’s administration has overlooked the long-term risks that such policies have on the health and well-being of Americans.
Fast-forward to post-election season, 2018. With a Democratic majority secured in the House, optimism among activists for definitive steps towards environmental sustainability is growing, largely rallied by the newly elected Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York City. She and her supporters are advocating what is known as the “Green New Deal”, the name a reference to Franklin D. Roosevelt’s series of public works intended to lift America out of economic depression back in the 1930s. Essentially, the deal is a proposal to transition the US to consuming 100% renewable energy by 2030, as well as to subsidize the renewable energy sector to create thousands of jobs in response to arguments about the effects of these kinds of changes on communities dependent on their fossil fuel industries. Proponents argue that switching to renewable energy sources would decrease utility costs around the country, improving quality of life for the average citizen while contributing to a more sustainable future for generations going forward.
So when Nancy Pelosi announced on that Tuesday afternoon in November her promise to create a special House committee focused on climate change, environmental activists were thrilled at the prospect. However, while this development is no doubt a significant step to towards change, many are unsatisfied with the level of authority the committee has been issued, as well as its lack of the specific central focus that protesters had in mind. For one thing, unlike its 2007 counterpart, the new committee lacks subpoena power, the authority to approve legislation, which the 2007 committee lacked as well. While chairwoman Rep. Kathy Castor has claimed that the committee will act “in the spirit of the Green New Deal”, it has not explicitly been tasked with developing legislation corresponding with the proposed deal, drawing heavy criticism from many of the deal’s advocates.
Attitudes towards the committee’s potential to initiate environmental reform going forward are uncertain at best. While a Democratic victory in the House this past election has rekindled some ambitions among American progressives, there is no doubt a long way to go. Weighed down by a Republican-majority Senate, as well as a Republican administration, for the time being, the committee may well struggle to gain a political foothold from the start.
But just as important as the creation of the committee is the symbolic value that it will carry going forward. The actions of countless political activists within these past few months have shown Americans that, despite an often chaotic and frustrating political climate, change is indeed possible. While this political battle is one that will be fought by elected officials in Washington, it is, above all, one whose implications will be felt by citizens across the country. And as this past election season has proven, it will be the efforts of everyday American citizens that will truly determine the environmental future of this nation.
