Republican Party

05/13/2019 | Press release | Archived content

The Radical Green New Deal Is A Tough Sell In New Hampshire


The Facts:


Harris , Booker, Biden and Warren will campaign in New Hampshire this week.

The Green New Deal has the backing of nearly all of the Democrats seeking the party's 2020 nomination including 11 Senate so-sponsors .

Bernie Sanders is even speaking at a rally today with the bill's lead sponsor Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to promote the bill.


In a since deleted 'explainer document' released alongside the Green New Deal the resolution's lead sponsors said that the deal 'will not include investing in new nuclear power plants.'

Nuclear energy is the single largest source of electricity in the nation, and experts at home and abroad agree on the ' necessity ' of emissions free nuclear power in climate solutions.


New Hampshire's Seabrook Station Plant provides enough power to meet the energy needs of 1.2 million families.

Eliminating the plant would undoubtedly cause a spike in the use of fossil fuels as it did when the Yankee Nuclear Plant closed in neighboring Vermont.

Within a year of the Yankee Plant's closing carbon dioxide emitted by the regional power sector increased 2.5 percent as most of its capacity was replaced by natural gas because renewables were unable to quickly replace such a large capacity.

Nuclear plants are a vital part of their communities and when plants close it hurts the local economy and forces governments to increase taxes to replace lost revenue.


The Green New Deal would require that the U.S. shift to 100 percent renewable energy within ten years, a time frame that many experts say is impossible.

The Green New Deal would ' undoubtedly ' come with a huge price tag, one study puts the cost at $93 trillion , more than 1000 times New Hampshire's GDP

The Green New Deal would almost certainly cause tax increases as proposed cost offsets fall well short of financing the bill, and would cost more than $625,000 per household over 10 years in New Hampshire.

Unions, who represent more than 1 in 10 employees in New Hampshire, have denounced the Green New Deal as a job killer and offering a 'critical' assessment of the resolution.



Dozens Of Democrats, Including Many 2020 Candidates, Have Lined Up Their Support For The Green New Deal

The Green New Deal Has The Backing Of Nearly All The Democrats Declared As Candidates Seeking The Party's 2020 Nomination. 'The plan has the backing of almost all the Democrats declared as candidates seeking the party's 2020 presidential nomination.' (Timothy Gardner, 'U.S. Republicans Set 'Green New Deal Vote' In Bid To Divide Democrats,' Reuters , 3/26/19)

11 Senate Democrats Cosponsored Sen. Jeff Merkley's (D-OR) Green New Deal Including 2020 Candidates Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand (D-NY), Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), And Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN). ( S.Res. 59 , Introduced 2/7/19)

Sen. Sanders Is Even Hosting A Rally Today With One Of The Lead Sponsors Of The Deal Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) In D.C. 'Sen. Bernie Sanders will speak at a Green New Deal rally at Howard University on Monday that also features Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, organizers said. The event, organized by the Sunrise Movement, gives the 2020 contender a high-profile platform to court the environmental left. Sanders' planned appearance comes as Democratic candidates are starting to spar over their climate plans and recent polls show environmental issues taking on greater importance for Democratic voters than inprior elections.' ( NBC News , 5/11/19)


A Fact Sheet Provided By The Green New Deal's Lead Sponsors Promised To Exclude Nuclear Power In It Green Technology Investments

In An 'Explainer Document' Released Alongside The Green New Deal The Resolution's Lead Sponsors Said That The Deal 'Will Not Include Investing In New Nuclear Power Plants.' 'As Democrats last week rolled out their long-awaited Green New Deal, one of the plan's lead sponsors also released a fact sheet to explain in plain English how the United States could drive down to zero greenhouse gas emissions over the next decade. Such explainer documents are typical when members of Congress introduce new bills. What was notable about this one was the fact sheet and the official Green New Deal resolution it was supposed to be explaining didn't see eye-to-eye on one crucial piece of the nation's energy mix: nuclear power. The Green New Deal 'will not include investing in new nuclear power plants,' read the fact sheet shared with reporters by the office of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.). Another fact sheet posted on Ocasio-Cortez's website Thursday morning contained similar language.' ( The Washington Post , 2/11/19)

The Resolution Itself, Uses Vague Language And Does Not Discuss Specific Power Sources That Could Be Used To Reduce Emissions. 'The resolution itself, however, does not say a word about nuclear power - either for or against its inclusion in a climate change action plan. Rather, the nonbinding measure simply calls for getting 100 percent of the nation's power 'through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources' over the next 10 years.' ( The Washington Post , 2/11/19)

One Of The Bills Lead Sponsors Sen. Ed Markey (D-MA) Slammed Nuclear Power And Said That 'He Doesn't Want To See The U.S. Government Spend Billions Of Dollars Subsidizing Them.' 'Markey pointed out the tough economic headwinds faced by nuclear reactors, but said he doesn't want to see the U.S. government spend billions of dollars subsidizing them. 'Nuclear power has met its maker in the marketplace,' Markey said. 'We're adding no new nuclear not because of any granola-chomping protesters outside the construction site but because they're not economically viable.'' ( The Washington Post , 2/11/19)

Nuclear Energy Is The Single Largest Source Of Electricity In The Nation, And Experts At Home And Abroad Agree On The 'Necessity' Of Emissions Free Nuclear Power

In The U.S. Nuclear Is The Single Largest Source Of Electricity In The Nation, One In Five Megawatts Powering Homes And Businesses Comes From Nuclear Reactors. 'In the United States, one in five megawatts powering homes and businesses comes from nuclear reactors. That is the single largest source of electricity in the nation that comes from power plants that do not release significant amounts of climate-warming carbon dioxide into the air.' ( The Washington Post , 2/11/19)

Experts 'At Home And Abroad' Note The 'Necessity' Of Nuclear Power In Staving Off Dangerous Warming. 'Experts at home and abroad note the necessity of nuclear power in staving off dangerous warming. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change says more nuclear power plants are needed in most scenarios to keep warming under 1.5 degrees Celsius. Barack Obama's energy secretary, Ernest Moniz, issued a report last week urging the United States to spend more on developing the next generation of nuclear reactors. 'Nuclear has been the backbone of [the United States] carbon-free energy and will play a crucial role in meeting future climate goals,' said Lindsey Walter, an energy policy advisor at the center-left think tank Third Way, which supports federal research in and tax breaks for advanced nuclear reactors.' ( The Washington Post , 2/11/19)

The Union Of Concerned Scientists, A Longtime Critic Of The Nuclear Industry, Recently Came Out In Support Of Nuclear Plans Because Climate Change Dictates That 'We Keep An Open Mind About All Of The Tools In The Emissions Reduction Toolbox.' 'For example, the Union of Concerned Scientists, a longtime critic of the nuclear industry, recently came out in support of keeping existing nuclear plants open in many circumstances. The 'sobering realities' of climate change 'dictate that we keep an open mind about all of the tools in the emissions reduction toolbox-even ones that are not our personal favorites,' Ken Kimmell, the organization's president, wrote in a blog post last year.' ( The Washington Post , 2/11/19)


Electric Power From New Hampshire's Seabrook Station Plant Provides Energy For 1.2 Million Families

New Hampshire's Nuclear Plant Provides Enough Power To Meet The Energy Needs Of 1.2 Million Families . 'The State of New Hampshire has one nuclear power plant within its borders, Seabrook Station in Seabrook, NH. This plant generates approximately 1,244 million watts of electricity per year, enough power to supply the annual needs of approximately 1.2 million families. There are seventeen (17) New Hampshire towns within the 10-mile EPZ around Seabrook Station: Brentwood, East Kingston, Exeter, Greenland, Hampton, Hampton Falls, Kensington, Kingston, New Castle, Newfields, Newton, North Hampton, Portsmouth, Rye, Seabrook, South Hampton and Stratham. There are also six Massachusetts towns in the Seabrook 10-mile EPZ.' ( New Hampshire Department Of Safety , Accessed 5/12/19)

Eliminating The Plant Would Undoubtedly Cause A Spike In The Use Of Fossil Fuels As It Did When The Yankee Nuclear Plant Closed In Neighboring Vermont

Many Advocated For The New Hampshire Plant Citing The Closure Of The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant In 2014 Which Led To An Emissions Strike In New England. 'Some recalled the 2014 closure of Vermont Yankee Nuclear Plant, which they say led to a spike in natural gas use in New England. Seabrook is about twice the size of Vermont Yankee. 'We do not have the luxury of cherry-picking which clean energy solution we want to employ,' said retired engineer Herrmann Bautzmann of Portsmouth.' ( WBUR , 2/14/19)

The Retirement Of The Vermont Yankee Nuclear Station In Vernon Led To Higher Carbon Dioxide Emission Rates Across New England For The First Time In A Decade. 'The retirement of Vermont Yankee nuclear station in Vernon led to higher carbon dioxide emission rates across New England for the first time in a decade, according to the latest ISO New England Electric Generator Air Emissions Report.' ( MassLive , 2/18/17)

Within A Year Of The Vermont Plant's Closing The Amount Of Carbon Dioxide Emitted By The Regional Power Sector Increased 2.5 Percent In 2015. 'When Vermont Yankee closed in December of 2014, it removed 604 megawatts of zero-emission capacity from New England's electricity grid. Within a year, the region's power sector saw a 2.9 percent increase in its carbon emission rate, the ISO's figures show. In all, the amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the regional power sector increased 2.5 percent in 2015, from 39,317 to 40,312 kilotons. Carbon dioxide is one of several greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change. Nuclear power plants, while controversial, don't produce such emissions when they generate electricity.' ( MassLive , 2/18/17)

When Vermont Yankee Went Offline Most Of Its Capacity Was Quickly Replaced With Natural Gas Generation. 'N Vermont Yankee once produced around 4 percent of New England's power. When it retired, most of its capacity was quickly replaced with natural gas generation, according to the ISO. That's despite the growing deployment of renewables, energy efficiency, and demand response measures.' ( MassLive , 2/18/17)

Though Renewables Are Making Progress They Were 'Not Able To Quickly Replace The Nuclear Plant's Capacity.' 'At the same time, New England power plant emissions have declined significantly over the last 15 years, due in large part to natural gas replacing coal and oil. Renewables are making progress, but were not able to quickly replace the nuclear plant's capacity. Moving into the future, the power system will still have large generators connected to the regional transmission system -- however, demand will also be met by thousands of small resources connected 'behind the meter' at customers' homes and businesses, van Welie said.' ( MassLive , 2/18/17)

Shortly After Vermont Closed The Yankee Nuclear Plant The State Fell Well Short A Long Term Emissions Goal Like The One In The Green New Deal

In 2005, Vermont Lawmakers Set A Goal To Reduce Greenhouse Gases From The State's 'Significantly More Aggressive And Made Before Similar Pledges.' ''By 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 and 50 percent by 2028,' the proposal was 'So it was no surprise when Vermont sought to lead the way in cutting carbon pollution, vowing to reduce greenhouse gases from the state's power plants, cars, and other sources by 25 percent below 1990 levels by 2012 and 50 percent by 2028. Those goals, set by lawmakers in 2005, were significantly more aggressive and made before similar pledges in Massachusetts and other states.'' (David Abel, 'In Vermont, A Progressive Haven, Emissions Spike Forces Officials To Consider Drastic Action,' The Boston Globe , 1/28/19)

  • The Green New Deal Would Require That the U.S. Achieve A 'Net-Zero Greenhouse Gas Emissions Through A Fair And Just Transition For All Communities.' 'That it is the sense of the House of Representatives that- (1) it is the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal- (A) to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions through a fair and just transition for all communities and workers.' ( H.Res. 109 , Introduced 2/7/19)
  • The Green New Deal Seeks To Meet 100% Of U.S. Power Demands Through 'Zero-Emission Energy Sources.' 'Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources, including- (i) by dramatically expanding and upgrading renewable power sources; and (ii) by deploying new capacity; (D) building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and 'smart' power grids, and ensuring affordable access to electricity.' ( H.Res. 109 , Introduced 2/7/19)

14 Years Later, Vermont 'Has Yielded Not So Much Cleaner Air, But Embarrassment' As Emissions Actually Increased 16 Percent Over 1990 Levels, Sandra Levine, A Senior Attorney Based In Vermont For The Conservation Law Foundation Noted, 'We Were Moving Backward.' 'But 14 years later, the zeal in the Green Mountain State has yielded not so much cleaner air, but embarrassment. A report released last year found that emissions had actually increased 16 percent over 1990 levels, a startling divergence from the goal.' (David Abel, 'In Vermont, A Progressive Haven, Emissions Spike Forces Officials To Consider Drastic Action,' The Boston Globe , 1/28/19)

Sandra Levine, A Senior Attorney Based In Vermont For The Conservation Law Foundation Noted, 'We Were Moving Backward.' 'It wasn't just disappointing and ironic, it was surprising,' said Sandra Levine, a senior attorney based in Vermont for the Conservation Law Foundation. 'Many thought we were at least moving in the right direction. But we weren't just missing the target, we were moving backward.'' (David Abel, 'In Vermont, A Progressive Haven, Emissions Spike Forces Officials To Consider Drastic Action,' The Boston Globe , 1/28/19)

Nuclear Plants Are A Vital Part Of Their Communities And When Plants Close It Hurts The Local Economy And Forces Governments To Increase Taxes

When The Vermont Yankee Plant Shut Down The Town It Was In Was Forced To Cut Its Budget In Half. 'But in 2013, Vermont Yankee's owner, Louisiana-based Entergy, announced that it would close its single-unit reactor by the end of 2014. The announcement, while not unexpected, forced Vernon into some difficult decisions as Vermont Yankee employees started putting homes up for sale, taking with them six-figure incomes that fed the local economy for decades. The town's $2 million budget would need to be cut in half.' ( Lohud , 7/12/17)

Before It Shut Down In 1998, The Zion Nuclear Power Station Tax Revenues Plummeted And The Town Was Forced To Increase Taxes. 'Before it shut down in 1998, the Zion Nuclear Power Station on the shores of Lake Michigan, 50 miles north of Chicago, paid nearly $20 million to the town that had been its home since 1973. Last year, Zion's tax income from the plant was around $1.6 million. That's translated into fewer cops to patrol a town of about 24,000. Taxes on homes and businesses have more than doubled and property values have plummeted. 'We can't draw businesses because the taxes are so high,' said Zion Mayor Al Hill. 'And the taxes are so high because we can't draw businesses.' Nearly 70 percent of Zion's housing stock is in rentals, Hill said. In healthy communities the figure should be around 23 percent. Taxes on a $300,000 home have surged from $8,000 to $20,000 per year, he said.' ( Lohud , 7/12/17)

In 2013, The Crystal River Nuclear Plant On Florida's Gulf Coast, Resulting In The Loss Of 600 High-Paying Jobs And Caused The Average Value Of Single-Family Residence Plummeted From Nearly $154,000 In 2008 To $115,000 In 2016. 'In 2013 Duke Energy, shut down the Crystal River Nuclear Plant on Florida's Gulf Coast, resulting in the loss of 600 high-paying jobs in a region already reeling from the downturn in residential construction after the recession. A 2009 attempt by the plant's previous owner, Progress Energy, to replace two 500-ton steam generators cracked the reactor's containment wall. The plant was built in 1977. As hundreds of high-paying jobs left the area, residential property values witnessed a dramatic downturn. The average value of single-family residence plummeted from nearly $154,000 in 2008 to $115,000 in 2016.' ( Lohud , 7/12/17)

The Shutdown Of The Kewaunee Power Station In Wisconsin Lead To The Loss Of 600 Jobs And $85.5 Million In Annual Salaries Leading To An Increase In Sales Tax. 'In Wisconsin, the May 2013 shutdown of the Kewaunee Power Station, located on 900 acres on the western shore of Lake Michigan, 25 miles southeast of Green Bay, led to the loss of 600 jobs and some $85.5 million in annual salaries. The shutdown was a blow to the power station's home in Carlton, where cows outnumber the town's 1,000 residents four to one. Earlier this year, Kewaunee County, which includes Carlton, increased its sales tax a half percent in an attempt to make up for the $750,000 in annual income generated by the power plant.' ( Lohud , 7/12/17)


The Green New Deal Would Require That The United States Shift To 100 Percent Renewable Energy Within Ten Years A Goal That 'Defies The Laws Of Physics'

The Green New Deal Would Require That '100 Percent' Of United States Power Come From 'A Zero-Emission Energy Source' By Ten Years At The Latest. '[T]he goals described in subparagraphs (A) 7 through (E) of paragraph (1) (referred to in this resolution as the ''Green New Deal goals'') should be accomplished through a 10-year national mobilization (referred to in this resolution as the ''Green New Deal mobilization'') that will require the following goals and projects….meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources….' ( H.Res. ___ , Introduced 2/7/19)

  • Though Ocasio-Cortez's Resolution Mandates A Transition To Exclusively Renewable Power It 'Doesn't Specify How The U.S. Should Wean Itself Off Non-Renewable Power Sources.' 'Ocasio-Cortez's resolution, however, doesn't call for a mandate for renewable energy. It also doesn't specify how the U.S. should wean itself off non-renewable power sources. The proposal also would consist of a nationwide build-out of a 'smart' electrical grid and mass energy-efficient building upgrades.' (Timothy Cama, 'Five Things To Know About Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal,'' The Hill , 11/24/18)

Increasing Renewables From 17% To 100% Of Electricity Production In The U.S. Would Represent A 'Dramatic' Transition And Would 'Undoubtedly Come With An Exorbitant Price Tag.' 'Such a dramatic energy transition would undoubtedly come with an exorbitant price tag. It would involve a massive build-out of new electric generation, transmission and storage, and it would likely necessitate new technologies, particularly for storage, since wind and solar cannot always generate power at all times of the day. The United States got only 17 percent of its electricity last year from renewable sources, with 7.5 percent coming from hydropower, according to the Energy Information Administration. The United States got only 17 percent of its electricity last year from renewable sources, with 7.5 percent coming from hydropower, according to the Energy Information Administration.' (Timothy Cama, 'Five Things To Know About Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal,'' The Hill , 11/24/18)

Robert Pollin, An Economist At The University Of Massachusetts Amherst Said That The Resolutions Aim Of Achieving Net Zero Emissions In 10 Years Is 'Completely Unrealistic.' 'Pollin, however, strongly disagrees with the resolution's aim of getting to net zero with just a decade of investment. 'I think it's completely unrealistic and it's not worth costing out,' he said of the Green New Deal.' ( , 3/14/19)

Tom Pyle, President Of The Institute For Energy Research, Says That Such A Transition Would Be Impossible, 'One Hundred Percent Renewable Energy Defies The Laws Of Physics.' 'Critics say the transition would be impossible. 'One hundred percent renewable energy defies the laws of physics,' said Tom Pyle, president of the Institute for Energy Research, a fossil-fuel-backed conservative think tank. 'It would be impossible to achieve.' Paul Bledsoe, a strategic adviser at the Progressive Policy Institute, said it does a disservice to the real seriousness of climate change to set such an unrealistic goal. 'I understand the value of aspirational goals,' he said. 'My personal view is, that undermines the credibility of the effort.'' (Timothy Cama, 'Five Things To Know About Ocasio-Cortez's 'Green New Deal,'' The Hill , 11/24/18)

A Study By The National Academy Of Sciences Concluded 'That It Is Extremely Difficult To Achieve Complete Decarbonization Of The Energy System, Even When Using Every Current Technology And Tool Available.' 'Many previous studies of deep decarbonization of electric power illustrate that much can be done with wind and solar power but that it is extremely difficult to achieve complete decarbonization of the energy system, even when using every current technology and tool available, including energy efficiency and wind, hydroelectric, and solar energy as well as carbon capture and storage, bioenergy, and nuclear energy (1-6, 8-10). In contrast, ref. 11 asserts that it is cost-effective to fully decarbonize the US energy system primarily using just three inherently variable generating technologies: solar PV, solar CSP, and wind, to supply more than 95% of total energy in the proposal presented in ref. 11. Such an extraordinarily constrained conclusion demands a standard of proof that ref. 11 does not meet.' (Christopher T. M. Clack, et al, 'Evaluation Of A Proposal For Reliable Low-Cost Grid Power With 100% Wind, Water, And Solar,' Proceedings Of The National Academy Of Sciences Of The United States Of America , 6/26/16)

The Green New Deal Would Cost $93 Trillion And Almost Certainly Cause Tax Increases As Proposed Cost Offsets Fall Well Short Of Fully Financing The Bill

The Green New Deal Will Cost $93 Trillion, According To A Study Co-Authored By Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Former Director Of The Congressional Budget Office. (Douglas Holtz-Eakin, Dan Bosch, Ben Gitis, Dan Goldbeck, and Philip Rossetti, 'The Green New Deal: Scope, Scale, And Implications, American Action Forum , 2/25/19)

  • Over The Last 10 Years The U.S. Spent 13.1 Trillion On Discretionary Spending. ( CBO , Accessed 2/25/19)

The Only Concrete Way Rep. Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Has Proposed To Pay For Her Plan Is A Tax On Americans Earning More Than $10 Million A Year That Would Raise Just $720 Billion, Or .8% Of The Revenue Needed To Make The Plan Cost Neutral. 'Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) floated a 60 to 70 percent tax rate on the richest Americans in an interview with CBS News's '60 Minutes' that was released Friday, arguing higher taxes on multimillionaires could help pay for the 'Green New Deal' she and other left-wing members of the Democratic Party have proposed. Talking to Anderson Cooper, the new House member suggested the new tax rate apply to Americans earning more than $10 million a year, noting that similar rates existed in America a few decades ago… How much revenue could new taxes on the rich really raise? We looked at the numbers, enlisting the help of a number of tax experts, including Mark Mazur, a former Treasury Department official now at the Tax Policy Center, a centrist think tank; Joel Slemrod, a tax expert at the University of Michigan; and Ernie Tedeschi, an economist who served in President Obama's Treasury Department. 1. $720 billion/decade: Ocasio-Cortez's suggestion for nearly doubling taxes on people earning more than $10 million.' (Jeff Stein, 'Ocasio-Cortez Wants Higher Taxes On Very Rich Americans. Here's How Much Money That Could Raise.,' The Washington Post , 1/5/19)

$93 Trillion Is More Than 1000 Times New Hampshire's Entire GDP. ( Bureau Of Economic Analysis , Accessed 5/13/19)

Based On The Number Of Taxpayers In New Hampshire Compared To The National Total, The State Would Be Responsible For Just Over $437 Billion Over Ten Years Or $625,688 Per Household Over Ten Years. ( IRS , Accessed 5/13/19)


1 In 10 Workers In New Hampshire Is Represented By A Union

In New Hampshire 77,000 People Or 11.6% Of Employees Are Represented By A Union. ( Bureau Of Labor Statistics , 5/13/19)

Union Leaders, Including The AFL-CIO, Have Repeatedly Denounced The Green New Deal As A Job Killer

The AFL-CIO, The National Arm For U.S. Labor Unions, Offered A 'Critical' Assessment Of The Green New Deal Saying That The Deal Presents 'Threats To Our Members' Jobs And Their Families' Standard Of Living.' 'The AFL-CIO, the national arm for U.S. labor unions, offered a critical assessment of the Green New Deal, warning that the ambitious plan to combat climate change could adversely affect U.S. workers. In a letter last week to Sen. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), the lawmakers who introduced a resolution last month detailing the key components of their plan, the AFL-CIO said it could not support a proposal that did not address their concerns. 'We will not stand by and allow threats to our members' jobs and their families' standard of living go unanswered,' wrote Cecil Roberts, president of the United Mine Workers of America, and Lonnie Stephenson, president of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers.' (Colby Itkowitz and Dino Grandoni, 'AFL-CIO Criticizes Green New Deal, Calling It 'Not Achievable Or Realistic',' The Washington Post , 3/12/19)

  • The AFL-CIO's Rebuke 'Complicates Matters' For Democrats Who Rely On Labor Support Because The Plan Will Be A 'Hard Sell' For Democrats Without Support From Unions And The Business Community. 'But the AFL-CIO throwing water on the plan complicates matters for Democrats who rely on labor support. Without the backing from unions or the business community, it will be a hard sell for Democrats to get it beyond grass-roots support.' (Colby Itkowitz and Dino Grandoni, 'AFL-CIO Criticizes Green New Deal, Calling It 'Not Achievable Or Realistic',' The Washington Post , 3/12/19)

In A Letter To The Plan's Architects, Union Leaders Called The Plan 'Not Achievable Or Realistic.' 'In their letter to Markey and Ocasio-Cortez, Roberts and Stephenson called the Green New Deal 'not achievable or realistic.' They urged the lawmakers to include labor in conversations related to climate change, but they said such work shouldn't impinge on other priorities such as infrastructure.' (Colby Itkowitz and Dino Grandoni, 'AFL-CIO Criticizes Green New Deal, Calling It 'Not Achievable Or Realistic',' The Washington Post , 3/12/19)

Labor Unions Are Withholding Support For The Green New Deal, Arguing That The 'Loosely-Defined' Plan Could Kill Jobs. 'Labor unions say they are withholding support for a Green New Deal unveiled by Democrats last week to transition the American economy away from fossil fuels, arguing the loosely-defined plan could kill jobs if its architects aren't careful.' (Valerie Volcovici, 'Labor Unions Fear Democrats' Green New Deal Poses Job Threat,' Reuters , 2/12/19)

Union Officials Are Skeptical Of The Language In The Green New Deal Calling For A 'Just Transition' For Workers Involved In 'The Job Losses That Will Surely Come From Some Of The Policies In The Resolution.' 'Union officials told Reuters they were skeptical. 'We will never settle for 'just transition' language as a solution to the job losses that will surely come from some of the policies in the resolution,' said Yvette Pena O'Sullivan, executive director of the Laborers' International Union of North America (LIUNA), whose members work in construction and other industries.' (Valerie Volcovici, 'Labor Unions Fear Democrats' Green New Deal Poses Job Threat,' Reuters , 2/12/19)

  • Phil Smith, A Spokesman For The United Mine Workers Echoed That Concern Saying 'We've Heard Words Like 'Just Transition' Before, But What Does That Really Mean? Our Members Are Worried About Putting Food On The Table.' 'Phil Smith, a spokesman for the United Mine Workers (UMWA), which represents workers in the coal industry, echoed the concerns. 'We've heard words like 'just transition' before, but what does that really mean? Our members are worried about putting food on the table,' he said.' (Valerie Volcovici, 'Labor Unions Fear Democrats' Green New Deal Poses Job Threat,' Reuters , 2/12/19)

Sean McGarvey, President Of The North America's Building Trades Unions, Representing Construction Workers Across All Sectors Including Energy Said Workers Are 'Skeptical Of 'Green Job' Promises.' 'LIUNA and UMWA said they were not contacted for input on the resolution before it was released. Sean McGarvey, president of the North America's Building Trades Unions, representing construction workers across all sectors including energy, said his staff had been contacted by Markey's office about the Green New Deal, but said his members are skeptical of 'green job' promises.' (Valerie Volcovici, 'Labor Unions Fear Democrats' Green New Deal Poses Job Threat,' Reuters , 2/12/19)

ElectionsElection 2020