One solution—supported by 68 percent of Americans and with bipartisan congressional backing—is to restore the natural infrastructure that protect communities, foster wildlife, and lock away carbon. Investing in key coastal ecosystems such as salt marshes, seagrass meadows, oyster beds, and coral reefs creates jobs and helps coastal communities prepare for the now-inevitable impacts of climate change. This is especially important for historically disadvantaged communities that have and continue to experience both the disproportionate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic and higher risks of climate change. Coastal restoration can also be implemented in part through the Climate Conservation Corps—a priority for President Joe Biden supported by a majority of Democrats and independents, as well as half of Republicans.

Coastal states are ready to build back better, with “shovel ready” projects that will create jobs and revitalize communities. To support this effort, a bipartisan coalition of House members is advocating for the investment of at least $10 billion in coastal and ocean restoration; and this same amount is also included in Rep. Raúl Grijalva’s (D-AZ) recently reintroduced Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act.

Now it is time for Congress to take advantage of this historic moment and invest in coastal and ocean restoration.

How coastal restoration can help build for the future

Coastal restoration and resilience projects provide both environmental and economic benefits:

Safely locking away carbon

Blue carbon ecosystems—ocean and coastal ecosystems that capture carbon—have massive potential to remove carbon from the atmosphere. Each year, blue carbon ecosystems such as coastal wetlands and mangroves sequester carbon at 10 times the rate of tropical forests. This adds up. According to the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, by 2050, the protection and restoration of blue carbon ecosystems could prevent approximately one gigaton of carbon dioxide from entering the atmosphere. The value of blue carbon ecosystems is increasingly being recognized in the United States: For example, in the Gulf, a blue carbon network has been introduced to develop new tools and projects to benefit local governments, nongovernmental organizations, and academia.

Protecting communities

The 2020 Atlantic hurricane season cost the United States almost $47 billion, and the 2021 season is also predicted to be worse than normal. Investments in natural infrastructure such as coral reefs, wetlands, and salt marshes can, however, reduce the damage caused by severe weather like storm surge and flooding, saving money and lives. Meanwhile, habitats such as coral reefs can absorb up to 97 percent of wave energy, and just 10 meters of salt marshes can reduce 50 percent of small wave energy. During Hurricane Sandy, coastal wetlands prevented more than $625 million in property damages. Across the Atlantic seaboard and the Gulf of Mexico, wetlands have been estimated to prevent $5 million in tropical storm damage per square mile.

Conserving coastal habitats also helps communities inland. New Jersey towns upstream of preserved wetlands experienced 20 percent less property damage during Hurricane Sandy than did those without wetlands.

Creating jobs

Investing in coastal resiliency projects would support a major priority of the Biden Administration—generating good-paying jobs through improving U.S. infrastructure and climate resilience. The 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act showed that investing in the coasts works: With $167 million to allocate, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration received more than $3 billion in proposals for “shovel ready” ocean and coastal restoration projects, and the proposals that received funding generated approximately 15 jobs per $1 million invested.

If anything, the opportunities are even greater today. Nineteen coastal states submitted an initial list of 680 potential coastal restoration projects that could start in the next 18 months. This $6 billion investment would create nearly 70,000 jobs. If extended to the remaining 16 coastal states and territories, the need for investment easily exceeds $10 billion.

The case for $10 billion

Hundreds of projects across the nation are in need of funding and support. The projects below are just a few examples of the many benefits that investing in natural infrastructure can bring to coastal communities across the country.

California

Low-income communities in Oceanside, California, are disproportionately facing public health concerns due to poor water quality and flooding. Once home to the endangered tidewater goby, the now-urbanized Loma Alta Slough is little more than a creek. However, the city’s $8.67 million restoration project, once funded, would be able to restore ecological function to the wetland, decreasing flood and public health concerns and increasing public access and species habitat.

New York

After Hurricane Sandy, New York City implemented the Resilient Neighborhoods initiative to benefit Staten Island’s East Shore. This initiative includes many projects that all aim to increase the area’s coastal resiliency through preserving natural environments, investing in flood risk strategies, increasing waterfront access, and advancing building resiliency. Areas such as Oakwood Beach have already started this coastal restoration effort, recently completing a $300,000 project to restore salt marsh and sand dune habitat on their beaches. This is projected to reduce flood risks and storm surges as well as susceptibility to wildfires.

Virginia

Norfolk, Virginia, is hoping to pilot the state’s first urban redevelopment project and build a Resilience Lab and waterfront park to educate cities around the nation on coastal restoration in urban spaces. Intentionally built on a floodplain, the $2.1 million small-scale project will take into account sea level rise projections, including living shorelines and conservation easements providing native oyster habitat. The laboratory space will teach the public about ocean-based climate solutions, and the project aims to be finished by 2022. This strategy could pave the way for similar coastal education and restoration projects across the nation.

Washington

In the northern shore of Willapa Bay, Washington, communities are facing some of the most rapid erosion rates on the Pacific Coast, losing an average of 100 feet per year from 1910 to 2010. The area’s sole transit route is dwindling, with recent storms and tidal surges threatening to flood 4,000 acres of private, public, and tribal lands. The local economy is estimated to lose $3 million to $5 million annually solely from the loss of its cranberry beds. Fortunately, the community has come together to fight this problem, creating nine nature-based projects to decrease erosion and restore shorelines, including dune restoration and nature-based shoreline reinforcement. These efforts have already seen success. In particular, a 2018 nature-based shoreline reinforcement project was able to absorb wave energy and prevent upland loss during winter storms.

Conclusion

By investing $10 billion in coastal restoration, Congress has a once-in-a-generation opportunity to address the climate crisis, save lives and money, and create jobs. Americans support this approach, and states are ready to get to work. Congress must not miss its chance to act.

Jackie Quinones is a conservation intern with the Energy and Environment team at the Center for American Progress. Alexandra Carter is the deputy director for Ocean Policy at the Center. Miriam Goldstein is the managing director for Energy and Environment and the director of Ocean Policy at the Center.

The post Americans Support Investing in Our Coasts—Congress Should Too appeared first on Center for American Progress.

Washington, D.C. — The United States faces enormous opportunity to launch a clean energy-driven economic recovery that supports millions of well-paying union jobs, confronts environmental injustice, and prevents the worst impacts of climate change. On March 31, President Joe Biden released the American Jobs Plan calling for major job-creating public investments in clean energy industries, clean infrastructure, and innovation. And to ensure that these federal investments support high-quality, family-wage jobs and build worker power, the president has called for including high-road labor standards and expanding the right to unionize.

All levels of government are working to ensure that these jobs are well-paying union jobs. States have already taken steps to prepare the workforce for the transition into a cleaner future while empowering workers and partnering with unions to improve labor standards. From tax incentives to apprenticeship programs to investing in green schools, state and local officials, environmental leaders, and industry have created a road map for much-needed federal action.

Join CAP founder John Podesta on Wednesday, July 7, for a conversation with AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Liz Shuler on what it takes to ensure that clean jobs are good jobs.

If you have questions for our participants, please submit them via email to CAPeventquestions@americanprogress.org.

WHO:

In conversation:
Liz Shuler, Secretary-Treasurer, AFL-CIO
John Podesta, Founder and Chair of the Board of Directors, Center for American Progress

Introductory remarks:
Mike Williams, Senior Fellow, Center for American Progress

WHEN:

Wednesday, July 7, 2021
3:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. ET

WHERE:

You must RSVP at this link to watch the livestream event.

For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Ari Drennen at adrennen@americanprogress.org

The post NEW TIME – EVENT ADVISORY: The Clean Economy Revolution Will Be Unionized appeared first on Center for American Progress.

Nowhere is this more clear than on climate—the issue that will drive global affairs over the coming decades. President Donald Trump withdrew from the Paris climate accords and reversed many of the climate-related regulations put in place by the Obama administration. Now, the big test for U.S. global leadership is whether America can lead on the most critical issue facing the planet. Unfortunately, after a week of summitry, there were few tangible climate achievements.

G-7 climate pledges fall short

Kicking off the final week, the leaders from the world’s seven wealthiest nations—known as the Group of Seven, or G-7—met in the United Kingdom to discuss a number of pressing global challenges. But of major focus was climate change. 2021 is a critical year for climate diplomacy, and the G-7 meeting was expected to create a wave of momentum for bold climate action ahead of a number of other critical global meetings, including the 26th U.N. Climate Change Conference of the Parties (COP26). However, the outcomes of the G-7 meeting were decidedly uninspiring, with some of them falling well short of expectations. This could set the stage for others to pair back their efforts and reduces the pressure on big global emitters such as China.

To be fair, in their final communique, the G-7 nations made a number of climate commitments. For instance, they called for accelerating efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by no later than 2050, including halving collective emissions by 2030, to ensure that the 1.5-degree Celsius global warming threshold remains within reach. The final communique also sought to end new direct government support for unabated international thermal coal power generation by the end of 2021 and to conserve or protect at least 30 percent of global land and ocean by 2030.

However, these commitments were undercut by the lack of specificity provided by the G-7 countries on when they would end their own use of coal plants. Instead, they indicated simply that they were committed to “rapidly scale-up technologies and policies that further accelerate the transition away from unabated coal capacity.” Such a lack of specificity is likely to make it much harder for the G-7 nations to pressure other countries, such as China, to end their growing use of coal.

Most disappointing was the lack of real progress on climate finance. The G-7 called for jointly mobilizing $100 billion a year in public and private international climate finance to support developing countries through 2025. But this commitment fell well short of expectations and is insufficient to address this growing crisis. Moreover, it is an old, unmet commitment—the same pledge the G-7 made 10 years ago and has failed to deliver on again and again. Since then, the costs of the climate crisis have only grown, requiring a bigger response.

The climate commitments of the U.S.-EU summit were very similar to those of the G-7 meeting, though with less specificity. Instead of simply restating G-7 commitments, the United States should have used this summit as an opportunity to lend its support to the European Union’s efforts to create a new carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), which will be a necessary tool to compel companies and countries to decarbonize. Additionally, the United States could have worked with the EU to develop standard taxonomies for green finance. One new commitment made—the creation of a U.S.-EU High-Level Climate Action Group—could be quite significant; but it will require direct involvement from the president and his top advisers to have a real impact.

Conclusion: Next steps for U.S. climate leadership

In the end, President Biden’s efforts to restore U.S. leadership on the global stage will ultimately be determined by what actions the United States takes domestically on climate, rather than by what is expressed in an international communique. While U.S. officials are confident they can meet short-term climate targets through executive branch regulation, the world does not trust such an approach after witnessing during the Trump administration how easy it is for these to be undone. Therefore, for America to truly be back globally, it needs to first pass robust climate legislation that commits the United States to taking climate action.

The Europeans and the rest of the world are thus paying close attention to the climate provisions in the infrastructure bill. The outcome of this bill and whether it includes the climate provisions—to bolster electric vehicles, modernize the energy grid, and protect and restore nature-based infrastructure—will determine whether America can reclaim the mantle of global leadership. The passage of such a transformative package would suddenly make the United States a leader on climate. It would allow the United States to work with Europe in creating the decarbonized economy of the future. It would also enable the United States to press China for more action, not only diplomatically but also in the arena of global public opinion. For too long the United States has been a climate pariah, allowing China to position itself as a responsible and productive actor when it comes to the issue. Strong U.S. action would suddenly turn the tables and allow the United States to ramp up global pressure on China, which is now the world’s largest emitter, producing more carbon than all developed countries combined.

For this to happen, however, the climate provisions President Biden outlined in his initial infrastructure proposal need to make it through the legislative process. Whether they are included in the ultimate infrastructure and budget package that makes it through Congress will be critical not only for saving the planet but for preserving American global leadership.

Max Bergmann is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. Carolyn Kenney is a senior policy analyst for National Security and International Policy at the Center.

The post Climate Will Test Whether America Is Truly ‘Back’ appeared first on Center for American Progress.

Introduction and summary

“This is a critical moment to define bold and equitable climate solutions that address the legacy of systemic racism and environmental injustice while rebuilding the U.S. economy in ways that work for everyone.”¹

– Former South Carolina State Rep. Harold Mitchell Jr., ReGenesis Community Development Corp. founder and executive director, and member of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council

Low-income communities and communities of color have been confronted with environmental injustice for decades, and even centuries, in the United States.² From toxic dumps to polluting power plants, oil refineries, chemical companies, and other industrial facilities concentrated in their neighborhoods, Black, Latinx, and Indigenous people have been forced to endure dangerous and life-threatening environmental and health risks. These troubling conditions are compounded by the harms of racial and economic inequality.

While action to end systemic racism is long past due, President Joe Biden’s commitment to direct 40 percent of his administration’s climate and clean energy investments to disadvantaged communities marks a turning point in the fight for justice.³ He solidified this commitment by launching the Justice40 Initiative through the landmark climate executive order he signed in 2021. This initiative aims to begin to redress the high levels of pollution, chronic disinvestment, and lack of access to capital in communities of color and low-income areas driven by discriminatory environmental, housing, infrastructure, and economic policies. Achieving the Justice40 goal would set the country on a course to correcting persistent injustice by mobilizing substantial new investments in legacy pollution cleanup, pollution-free energy and transportation, workforce development, quality and affordable housing, and critical clean water infrastructure in communities that need it the most.⁴

To accelerate the delivery of investment benefits to communities on the front lines of environmental, racial, and economic injustice, as well as communities dependent on the fossil fuel industry for their livelihoods, the White House must direct federal agencies to remove funding barriers and strengthen existing programs where needed.⁵ Specifically, the national climate advisor, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and agency leaders must take the following immediate actions to implement the Justice40 Initiative:

• Develop and use investment criteria and guidance to ensure that federally funded projects reduce harmful local pollution and carbon emissions where possible; minimize flood, heat, and other extreme weather risks; avoid displacing existing community members; and meaningfully engage community stakeholders.⁶
• Overhaul application and reporting requirements, provide technical assistance, and waive cost-sharing rules to make grants and other federal aid more accessible to disadvantaged communities. Cost-sharing requires grantees to bear a percentage of the costs of projects funded by the federal government.
• Work with Congress to increase the amount of federal funding that flows directly to communities, including by changing distribution formulas; expanding existing infrastructure, such as Community Development Financial Institutions, that communities need to access critical investments; and increasing annual appropriations to programs that funnel resources directly to disadvantaged communities.⁷

Many of these—and other actions—were recommended by the first-ever White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC), one of President Biden’s signature initiatives.⁸ The WHEJAC includes 26 of the nation’s top environmental justice leaders and scholars, and its guidance is essential to achieving the president’s Justice40 goal.⁹ According to Richard Moore, co-coordinator of the Los Jardines Institute and co-chair of the WHEJAC:

The WHEJAC’s recommendations are the product of bringing the expertise and perspectives of environmental justice communities to the table. Communities of color and low-income communities—both urban and rural—have suffered the most from our country’s intersecting health, economic, racial and climate crises. We must continue to dismantle the systemic racism that perpetuates these crises, and ensure our communities are being heard at the highest levels of government.¹⁰

If implemented effectively and deliberately, the initiative can begin to accelerate long-overdue progress toward environmental, racial, and economic justice. In addition to achieving the Justice40 goal, the Biden administration must act immediately to integrate environmental justice into the development of all national climate policies to improve the health, safety, and well-being of all Americans.

This report details the actions needed to implement Justice40 and deliver real and measurable benefits to environmentally, and other, disadvantaged communities.

“The voices of the communities that have suffered for too long from legacies of pollution and inequality are finally being heard. Through the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, we finally have the seat at the table that we deserve. We know how to remedy the problems that have been placed in our communities, and our recommendations should form the foundation from which the Biden-Harris administration builds its policies to correct environmental, economic, and climate injustice.”¹¹

– Michele Roberts, Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform national co-coordinator and WHEJAC member

For many Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities, exposure to high levels of toxic pollution is a hazard of daily life. Fossil fuel production and refinement facilities, such as oil wells, oil refineries, natural gas facilities, and power plants, are more frequently permitted in more vulnerable communities.¹² A recent study found that the fine particulate matter—the deadliest air pollutant—emitted by almost every major fossil fuel source disproportionately affects Black, Hispanic, American Indian, and Asian Americans, irrespective of ZIP code and income.¹³

And all too often, communities of color and low-income areas are assaulted by numerous sources of pollution, leaving residents to deal with the cumulative impacts of these toxins.¹⁴ For example, Newark, New Jersey, with its rich and vibrant community culture, is surrounded by a highly trafficked international airport, highways packed with diesel trucks, a large seaport, a waste incinerator, a Superfund site (which is a piece of land contaminated by hazardous materials), and heavy industrial facilities, all of which spew toxic pollutants into the surrounding air, water, and land.¹⁵ As a result, 1 in 4 children in Newark have asthma, and Newark’s kids “are hospitalized for asthma at 30 times the national rate.”¹⁶

Long-term exposure to high levels of pollution causes higher rates of cancer, asthma, and other serious health problems.¹⁷ Simultaneously, redlining and discriminatory housing policies that discouraged lending in communities of color have led to disinvestment, concentrated poverty, and insurmountable barriers to accumulating wealth to pass on to the next generation.¹⁸ Decades of systemic racism in housing policy and the unequal pollution burden from power plants, industrial facilities, and highways has led to a correlation between high concentrations of pollution in communities of color and low rates of business loans and mortgages.¹⁹

“Environmental justice will be at the center of all we do addressing the disproportionate health and environmental and economic impacts on communities of color—so-called ‘fenceline communities’—especially those communities—brown, Black, Native American, poor whites. It’s hard—the hard-hit areas like Cancer Alley … in Louisiana, or the Route 9 corridor in the state of Delaware.

“That’s why we’re going to work to make sure that they receive 40 percent of the benefits of key federal investments in clean energy, clean water, and wastewater infrastructure. Lifting up these communities makes us all stronger as a nation and increases the health of everybody.”

– President Joe Biden²⁰

“It’s historic that we are able to represent our communities who are on the frontlines of environmental injustices through WHEJAC. … We must continue to focus on environmental justice in climate policy and ensure it goes beyond WHEJAC: It must be integrated into the development of all national climate policies.”²¹

– Former State Rep. Harold Mitchell Jr., ReGenesis Community Development Corp. founder and executive director, and member of the WHEJAC 

Environmental justice advocates have long called for an end to environmental racism, and for “the just treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income, or ability, with respect to the development, implementation, enforcement, and evaluation of laws, regulations, programs, policies, practices, and activities, that affect human health and the environment.”²² President Biden is responding to these calls with a commitment to deliver 40 percent of the climate investment benefits to disadvantaged communities aims to begin redressing historic injustice and inequity by mobilizing significant new resources to the communities that sorely need them, including communities of color and environmental justice (EJ) communities.

The White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council defines EJ communities as “geographic location[s] with significant representation of persons of color, low-income persons, indigenous persons, or members of Tribal nations, where such persons experience, or are at risk of experiencing, higher or more adverse human health or environmental outcomes.”²³ To effectively implement Justice40 over the long term, federal agencies will likely need to create new programs that are intentionally designed to repair the inequities created by unfair and harmful federal housing and other policies that have entrenched disparities in Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities. In the near term, however, the Biden administration must leverage existing federal programs to make immediate progress on implementing the Justice40 goal, including programs that support affordable housing and other community infrastructure in disadvantaged communities, as well as workforce and community development, legacy pollution cleanup, and more.²⁴

The administration should develop a definition for disadvantaged communities that includes Black, Latinx, Indigenous, Asian, and other communities of color and low-income communities in rural and urban areas; environmental justice communities; front-line or fence-line communities overburdened by pollution, climate change effects, or both; communities historically reliant on the fossil fuel industry for their livelihoods; and communities with health, wealth, income, and other disparities.

In addition to the WHEJAC recommendations for defining disadvantaged communities, the White House may wish to consider other factors, including: low percentage of dwellings with an internet connection; high eviction rates; high percentages of households with limited English proficiency; and high unemployment rates.

In his January 27 executive order on climate change, President Biden directed the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, and the WHEJAC to publish recommendations on Justice40 implementation that “reflect existing authorities the agencies may possess for achieving the 40-percent goal as well as recommendations on any legislation needed to achieve the 40-percent goal.”²⁵ The executive order also directs federal agency heads to identify federal programs that are applicable to Justice40 implementation and to develop investment guidance for program staff by late July.²⁶

The WHEJAC submitted recommendations to President Biden and the CEQ in May to guide the implementation of the president’s environmental justice commitments, including Justice40. Among the recommendations is a call for “a transformative and accountable process developed for the fair and just distribution of 40 percent or more of the benefits to be invested in frontline communities.”²⁷ Without such a process, the WHEJAC warned that federal investments will not reach or benefit front-line communities, “given the bias and ambivalence of many state and local governments, and the systemic racial bias, inertia, and resistance to change that we must never underestimate.”

To successfully implement Justice40, the Biden administration must confront the difficult reality that the communities that are most in need of resources often have the greatest difficulty accessing federal program funding. Even when communities are eligible to receive federal funds, they face a range of challenges that can prevent the delivery of real and measurable benefits, such as sustainable, equitable, and resilient community development and pollution-free transportation and energy. These challenges include:

• Program investment criteria that are unclear or too weak in some cases, leading to projects that do not address community needs or priorities, and overly stringent in others, preventing those in need from accessing the funds
• Lack of protections against the displacement of community members, who may be priced out of their neighborhoods in the wake of new investments
• Cumbersome application and reporting requirements and limited community capacity to meet them
• Cost-sharing requirements that applicants in low-income communities cannot meet
• Capacity constraints within agencies that support applicants representing disadvantaged communities

“The Justice40 commitment has the potential to make transformative investments in environmental justice communities. To seize this critical opportunity, we must ensure Justice40 is implemented to its fullest potential and in a manner guided by environmental justice values and principles.”

– Ana Baptista, associate director, The New School’s Tishman Environment and Design Center²⁸

Existing federal programs must be updated and strengthened to increase the benefits provided to disadvantaged communities, including communities of color; low-income communities; and communities exposed to disproportionate environmental, health, and other socioeconomic burdens. The Biden administration should implement the changes described below, working with Congress when necessary.

Justice-centered program guidance and criteria

In many cases, existing federal program guidance and criteria fall short of what is needed to ensure that federal investments deliver real benefits to Black, Latinx, Indigenous, low-income, and other disadvantaged communities. In addition, federal programs miss opportunities to maximize project benefits or avoid unintentional harms to the communities that they are aiming to benefit. For example, many federal programs do not have criteria to help ensure that federal investments support pollution reductions, address climate change, or avoid the displacement of community members.

Program criteria are, in some cases, too stringent, while in others they are too loose. If program criteria are too strict, there is a risk that some communities that could benefit from the program will not be eligible for aid or that certain investments that address high-priority community needs will not qualify. For example, the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) supports home energy efficiency improvements to reduce energy use and utility bills. Yet homeowners or renters who cannot afford or do not have the authority to keep up with needed home or building repairs may not be eligible for the program. Currently, WAP does not cover the cost of making outstanding home repairs, which can make the cost of energy improvements too high to meet the program’s cost-benefit tests.²⁹ The program could better reach low-income families by expanding its scope to support basic home repairs that are a prerequisite to efficiency and weatherization improvements, such as replacing leaky roofs, repairing siding, and addressing plumbing issues. The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) could also consider expanding WAP to include home improvements needed to protect against flooding and other damage from more extreme weather driven by climate change, including grading soil or lawn away from buildings, planting trees and shrubs, raising electrical outlets, installing sump pumps, or elevating homes.³⁰ Also, weatherization programs need to go further in investing in multifamily rental units where many low- and moderate-income households cannot access energy efficiency upgrades due to complicated enrollment processes, proof-of-eligibility requirements, landlord approval requirements, or lack of funding to cover these more expensive retrofits.

Conversely, if program criteria or guidance are too loose, then grantees may use federal funds to invest in projects that do not directly benefit communities. Currently, several programs offer broad guidance on how to use project funds. The benefit is that funding recipients can avoid having to adhere to strict guidelines. For example, the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program allocates funds to cities, counties, and states for community development projects in low-income neighborhoods, and recipients are allowed a lot of leeway to decide how the money is spent. The downside is that instead of supporting new and innovative community development projects, CDBG funds are often used to cover existing expenses and fill budget gaps.³¹ In addition, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the CDBG’s administering agency, may overstate the proportion of CDBG funds that actually benefit low-income communities.³² Some CDBG grantees also have stated that they would prefer more guidance on how to use funds effectively.³³

To ensure the Justice40 commitment brings real benefits to disadvantaged communities, the Biden administration must gather community input to develop clear-cut guidance for how funding recipients can successfully design projects that meet community priorities and deliver direct benefits.

Expand federal agencies’ field offices and staff capacity

In addition, federal agencies such as HUD should expand their field offices and staff capacity to support funding recipients in developing projects that incorporate community input and match the needs on the ground. The report from the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council recommends “establish[ing] outreach offices to promote awareness of federal program funding opportunities among EJ organizations and communities.”³⁴

Support projects that reduce pollution and greenhouse gas emissions

Federal agencies should also develop strong investment criteria to ensure that communities benefit from federally funded projects in both the near and long terms. Federal agencies should be wary of projects that continue or increase emissions of greenhouse gases and toxic air pollutants, which contribute to climate change and public health risks and disproportionately affect people of color.³⁵ For example, the Federal Transit Administration’s Low or No Emission Vehicles program supports the purchase or leasing of zero-emission and low-emission transit buses. While low-emission buses, such as those powered by natural gas, are an improvement relative to traditional diesel-fueled buses, they emit greenhouse gases and air pollutants that can harm the community. To reduce health and climate change risks, federal programs must ensure that proposed projects will reduce local air and water pollution, soil contamination, and greenhouse gas emissions to the greatest extent possible.

Require federally funded projects to be built to withstand climate change

Similarly, although President Biden reinstated the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard that was rolled back by the Trump administration, most federal programs do not require projects they support to be built to withstand more extreme heat and more powerful storms tied to climate change.³⁶ As a result, some federally funded projects may not adequately protect communities from and prepare them for extreme heat and other extreme weather—for example, by using high-efficiency air conditioning and building designs and planting shade trees. The White House should require all federally funded projects to be built to withstand climate change effects in order to ensure that communities are not left with damaged infrastructure and costly repairs.

Ensure that program funds do not lead to the displacement of community members

In addition, funds for economic and community development projects may drive up the cost of living and lead to the gentrification of predominantly Black neighborhoods and other neighborhoods of color, forcing existing community members to move to lower-rent areas that are often further away from economic opportunities and critical services. For example, funds from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) Brownfields Cleanup Grants were used to partially remediate the area that is now the New York City High Line, a former abandoned railroad track turned into an urban greenspace.³⁷ The surrounding area completely transformed after it opened in 2009 and many local businesses and longtime residents were forced out.³⁸ Gentrification often follows the construction and completion of projects that were meant to benefit the existing community, such as parks, contaminated site cleanups, and new businesses.³⁹ Federal agencies must ensure that program funds do not lead to the displacement of the community members they were intended to benefit. The WHEJAC recommends that agencies develop project criteria to ensure that Justice40 investments do not price existing residents out of their communities.⁴⁰

Require meaningful community engagement on project designs

Lastly, developers of projects that are supported by federal funding must engage the community during the project design phase. Stakeholder engagement is essential to identifying and meeting community needs and priorities and allowing residents to speak for themselves. A respectful and inclusive stakeholder engagement process that starts early in the project design process will help ensure that federal dollars support projects that bring direct benefits to communities, as required by the Justice40 commitment. As the WHEJAC report on Justice40 states, “All investments should incorporate a community driven, community controlled approach so that communities most directly impacted benefit as intended.”⁴¹

Current federal program guidance and criteria to address pollution, climate change, community displacement, and stakeholder engagement ranges from nonexistent to somewhat robust and usually depends on the agency administering the program. For example, programs administered by HUD, such as the CDBG Program, have stronger anti-displacement guidelines than programs administered by the EPA, such as the Brownfields Program. The EPA’s programs tend to have stronger criteria when it comes to climate change resilience and pollution reductions. Many federal programs call for some degree of stakeholder engagement, but most do not require it during the application process, preventing residents from having a say in what projects are being funded in their communities.

Ideally, all federal programs, regardless of the administering agency, would have criteria to ensure that federally funded projects, especially in environmental justice communities, achieve the following: a reduction in local pollution and greenhouse gas emissions to the greatest extent possible; a reduction in the risks and impacts of current and future climate change effects; avoidance of community member displacement; and meaningful stakeholder engagement.

Simplifying application and reporting requirements

To even have a shot at accessing federal funding, applicants—often city, county, or tribal governments; community groups; or other not-for-profit organizations—must follow rigorous, cumbersome, and often duplicative application processes.⁴⁴ For example, for the EPA’s Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, applicants seeking a grant of $30,000 or less must complete multiple forms and provide extensive documentation, including a project narrative, an itemized budget, project performance metrics, resumes for key personnel, proof of nonprofit status, and a staff roster and wages.⁴⁵ Requirements to access larger funding amounts—for example, from the EPA’s Superfund and Brownfield programs—are even more onerous.

Many eligible grantees who are in desperate need of federal funds do not have the bandwidth or expertise to meet the application requirements. Completing and submitting federal funding applications alone can take several days, or even weeks, of staff time with no guarantee that funds will be granted. In contrast, community organizations or local governments with more resources often have the staff capacity or hire consultants to prepare federal applications and access project funds. The effect is clear: FEMA records show low-income communities made up only 10 percent of the applications submitted for the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program for the fiscal year 2021 grant cycle, which is intended to help communities prepare for natural disasters and specifically encouraged low-income communities to apply.⁴⁶

Even if applicants are successful in securing federal grants, program reporting requirements can be heavy and burdensome.⁴⁷ Most federal programs mandate quarterly and final reports and post-project information on implementation details, environmental results, job creation, and more. Many agencies require grantees to use complicated portals, technical tools, and spreadsheets for reporting, which community groups and other grantees in disadvantaged communities may not have the training to use. If grantees fail to meet reporting and other program requirements, it can count against them in future applications.⁴⁸

Simplify program requirements, build community capacity to access federal funding, and eliminate cost-sharing obligations for disadvantaged communities

The White House should require federal agencies to review and overhaul existing application and reporting requirements to ensure that they are straightforward, reasonable, and easy to follow. Agencies should also provide a user-friendly, multilingual process to request application materials and portals for reporting, and allow applications to be submitted in languages other than English. In addition, agencies should simplify application instructions, including by removing complex government jargon and consolidating required forms. Agencies also should increase the size and number of capacity-building grants for nonprofits and community organizations that serve disadvantaged communities. For community development and environmental justice grants, agencies should extend grant periods to allow organizations time to build capacity and adapt, as recommended in the “Greenlined Economy Guidebook.”⁴⁹As the WHEJAC rightly points out, “transformative investments must be made in capacity building, technical assistance, and consultation, and creating a user-friendly federal process for the administration of funding and other support.”⁵⁰

In addition, agencies should dedicate more, and multilingual, staff to help applicants complete required forms and comply with reporting requirements. Agency staff should be required to undergo rigorous anti-racist and anti-bias training, one of many steps needed to “reverse racial inequities and strive to repair the environmental injustice of more than 500 years of institutional policies and practices,” a key Justice40 objective identified by the WHEJAC.⁵¹

Lastly, a number of programs aimed at helping disadvantaged communities have cost-sharing requirements, which place a substantial financial burden on city governments or other applicants representing low-income communities. The Biden administration and Congress should remove cost-sharing requirements for local governments and entities in disadvantaged communities seeking funding for projects that advance progress toward the Justice40 goal.

To make immediate progress toward the Justice40 commitment, Congress and the administration must ensure that their proposals to support economic recovery and upgrade the nation’s infrastructure direct 40 percent or more of the investment benefits to disadvantaged communities. This can be achieved in a number of ways.

Funding formulas

Several federal programs that benefit disadvantaged communities allocate funds based on a formula. For example, for Community Development Block Grant funds, 70 percent goes to larger cities and urban counties (known as entitlement communities) and 30 percent goes to states. The state funds are then allotted to smaller, midsized communities that are not eligible to be entitlement communities. Overall, 70 percent of CDBG funds must be used for activities that benefit low- and moderate-income (LMI) people. However, the criteria for entitlement communities is based on population instead of need, so funds often go to wealthier communities with less pressing wish lists than Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities harmed by systemic racism and discriminatory housing, infrastructure, and other policies.⁵² Also, rural communities can face elevated environmental and public health risks, such as from concentrated animal feeding operations, but may have difficulty accessing CDBG funds due to their smaller populations.⁵³ As the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council rightly notes in its report to the president, “currently some communities are severely underserved due to archaic formulas that have not been updated.”⁵⁴

Figure 1

Modify grant formulas to maximize benefits for disadvantaged communities

Congress and the administration should improve the grant formulas to ensure that funds are directed to communities with high concentrations of poverty regardless of size and to strictly limit the amount of funding distributed to wealthy communities that is intended for low- and moderate-income neighborhoods. For CDBGs specifically, Congress should create a single formula that “provides similarly needy communities with comparable funding per capita and more needy communities with more funding per capita than less needy communities,” as recommended by the Urban Institute.⁵⁵ Congress should also do away with designating entitlement communities based on population, and direct funds to jurisdictions in need of financial assistance, especially environmental justice communities and rural communities that are affected by the transition away from fossil fuels.

Ensuring every community has access to affordable financial services and housing

Some independent entities, such as Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) and community development corporations (CDCs), exist to serve low-income communities by providing affordable and responsible lending and financial services to support equitable community development, job creation, affordable housing, local small businesses, and nonprofit organizations. The Community Development Financial Institutions Fund, which distributes funds to CDFIs and is housed at the Treasury Department, helps create economic opportunity in many of the country’s most distressed communities. CDCs are nonprofits that are created to spur economic development in communities in need, but they are self-identified as such, not certified by the CDFI Fund or any other government body. Both CDCs and CDFIs aim to uplift and support their communities, yet residents can only benefit from them if they are served by one.

Expand CDFIs and CDCs in disadvantaged communities

The federal government should support the creation of CDFIs and CDCs in communities that do not yet have one to further the reach of federal funds and ensure that all communities in need can access affordable lending to support sustainable economic development. Congress should follow through on President Biden’s budget request for $330 million to support expanding the role of CDFIs and to create and certify CDFIs and CDCs where they are needed, with a focus on communities of color, tribal and EJ communities, and other disadvantaged communities.⁵⁶ Furthermore, the administration should help facilitate the certification of CDCs as CDFIs where applicable so that CDCs have access to funding from the CDFI Fund. Lastly, CDFIs and CDCs should be required to apply the four investment criteria described in Table 1 to reduce local pollution and greenhouse gas emissions, support resilient community development, avoid community displacement, and engage community members.

Support community land trusts to reduce community displacement

Community land trusts (CLTs) are another example of a type of entity that provides vital community services and benefits and, ideally, would exist in every disadvantaged community. CLTs are nonprofit organizations that acquire land, taking it off the real estate market, and then lease the land to homeowners, businesses, or other entities that own the buildings developed on the land, including cooperative housing corporations, nonprofit developers of rental housing, and other nonprofit, governmental, or for-profit entities.⁶³ The goals of CLTs are to help maintain community control of land and community ownership of housing and local businesses and to provide stable, affordable housing to low-income homebuyers and renters. CLTs are an important tool for preventing displacement of longtime community residents.

The Biden administration and Congress should work together to provide $1 billion for city and local governments and CLTs to develop and implement anti-displacement strategies. The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program supports the construction of affordable housing by providing formula grants to states and local governments to help communities build, purchase, or upgrade affordable housing for rent and ownership. The program is the single most important source of support for CLTs.⁶⁴ HUD should require non-CLT grantees (states, cities, and counties) to direct a portion of the HOME funds they receive to support CLTs.⁶⁵ HUD should also increase the length of time homes must remain affordable in programs such as HOME, which currently requires minimum affordability periods of 5 years to 15 years for homeownership projects, depending on the amount of HOME funds invested in the housing units, as recommended in a CAP report on CLTs.⁶⁶ CDBG recipients should also be encouraged to use a portion of their funds to back CLTs in the disadvantaged communities they support. The influx of funds to disadvantaged communities through the Justice40 Initiative is bound to spur gentrification and displacement unless intentional and thoughtful steps are taken to avoid it. CLTs are an important tool to provide stable and affordable housing as neighborhood improvements increase rents and home costs.

While the above changes to federal programs are necessary to bring measurable benefits to disadvantaged communities, Congress must also increase overall funding for federal programs that serve communities in need. Federal funding for programs that benefit low-income communities has steadily declined, leaving cities, nonprofits, and other community organizations to compete with one another.⁶⁷ Massive new investment in these programs will help provide affordable, energy efficient, and resilient housing; remediate legacy pollution; provide clean transit; and support sustainable community development for disadvantaged communities—and can help increase capacity at agencies to facilitate these essential community improvements. A spending request letter to Congress sent by co-authors of the Equitable and Just National Climate Platform and other organizations identifies critical programs that can help achieve the Justice40 goal and how much funding they should receive.⁶⁸ Examples of these programs include the Drinking Water and Clean Water State Revolving Funds, the Community Development Financial Institution Fund, the Weatherization Assistance Program, the EPA’s Diesel Emissions Reduction Act Program, the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences Environmental Career Worker Training Program, the Environmental Justice Small Grants Program, the EPA’s Superfund program, the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program, the Bureau of Land Management’s Abandoned Mine Lands program, and HUD’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program, among others. 

Over the long term, the administration should also work with Congress to create new programs, including a Healthy Communities and Resilient Infrastructure Fund, as proposed by CAP; a National Environmental Justice and Climate Justice Fund, as proposed by the Equitable and Just National Climate Platform; or a Clean Energy and Sustainability Accelerator, as proposed by Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI).⁶⁹ Any new programs created to support Justice40 implementation must be developed with input from EJ advocates and other stakeholders and be intentionally designed to reach and deliver direct benefits to disadvantaged communities.

The Justice40 Initiative has created an unprecedented opportunity to repair the harm caused by systemic racism; unfair federal and state policies; and disinvestment in Black, Latinx, and Indigenous communities, as well as to help communities reliant on the fossil fuel industry as America transitions toward renewable energy sources. The Biden administration must maintain equity and environmental, racial, and economic justice as core goals of the Justice40 Initiative throughout its implementation. To ensure that the initiative effectively delivers benefits to disadvantaged communities, the Council on Environmental Quality, the Office of Management and Budget, the national climate advisor, and agency heads should take the actions recommended above to strengthen program investment criteria, improve application and reporting processes, and increase federal funding for programs that serve disadvantaged communities. In addition, the Biden administration must act immediately to integrate environmental justice into the development of all national climate policies. By making these changes, the administration can accelerate progress toward addressing the widening racial wealth and health gaps; ensuring access to affordable housing, energy, and transportation; and protecting the fundamental right of every American to breathe clean air, drink clean water, and live in a healthy, safe, and prosperous community.⁷⁰

Cathleen Kelly is a senior fellow for Energy and Environment at the Center for American Progress.

Mikyla Reta is a research associate for Energy and Environment Policy at the Center.

The authors would like to thank Zoe Willingham, Nicole Ndumele, Lorena Roque, Jarvis Holliday, Shanée Simhoni, Meghan Miller, and Chester Hawkins from the Center for American Progress; the Honorable Harold Mitchell Jr. from the ReGenesis Community Development Corp.; Michele Roberts from the Environmental Justice Health Alliance for Chemical Policy Reform; Richard Moore from the Los Jardines Institute; Dr. Ana Baptista from The New School’s Tishman Environment and Design Center; and the participants of Justice40 convenings co-hosted by the Equitable and Just National Climate Forum and The New School’s Tishman Environment and Design Center.

The post Implementing Biden’s Justice40 Commitment To Combat Environmental Racism appeared first on Center for American Progress.

President Joe Biden committed to directing 40 percent of his administration’s investments in climate and clean energy to disadvantaged communities by launching the Justice40 Initiative through the landmark climate executive order he signed in the early days of his administration. The initiative aims to begin to address the dangerous levels of pollution, the legacy of chronic disinvestment, and the lack of access to capital in communities of color and low-income areas driven by discriminatory environmental, housing, infrastructure, and economic policies.

The report recommends that the national climate advisor, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and agency leaders take the following immediate actions to implement the Justice40 Initiative:

• Develop and use investment criteria and guidance to ensure that federally funded projects reduce harmful local pollution and carbon emissions where possible; minimize flood, heat, and other extreme weather risks; avoid displacing existing community members; and meaningfully engage community stakeholders.
• Overhaul application and reporting requirements, provide technical assistance, and waive cost-sharing rules to make grants and other federal aid more accessible to disadvantaged communities. Cost-sharing requires grantees to bear a percentage of the costs of projects funded by the federal government.
• Work with Congress to increase the amount of federal funding that flows directly to communities, including by changing distribution formulas; expanding existing infrastructure, such as Community Development Financial Institutions, that communities need to access critical investments; and increasing annual appropriations to programs that funnel resources directly to disadvantaged communities.

“President Joe Biden’s commitment to target his administration’s climate and clean energy investments in the communities who need them most marked a turning point in the fight for racial justice, environmental justice, and climate justice,” said Cathleen Kelly, senior fellow for Energy and Environment at CAP. “We have an unprecedented opportunity to address lingering injustice and build a more equitable clean energy future. By following the recommendations in this report along with the lead of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council, President Biden can make sure that disadvantaged communities finally have access to the resources they deserve.”

“This report is a road map for turning words into actions,” said Richard Moore, co-coordinator of the Los Jardines Institute and co-chair of the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council. “The Biden administration’s commitment to correcting a long and troubling history of injustice has the potential to change so many lives in the communities that have borne the brunt of dangerous pollution alone for too long.”

“With intentional implementation, President Biden’s initiative can begin to accelerate long-overdue progress toward environmental, racial, and economic justice,” said Mikyla Reta, research associate at the Center for American Progress. “In addition to achieving the goal laid out by the Justice40 executive order, the Biden administration should act to protect the health, safety, and well-being of all Americans by integrating environmental justice into the development of our national climate strategy.”

Read the report: “Implementing Biden’s Justice40 Commitment To Combat Environmental Racism” by Cathleen Kelly and Mikyla Reta

For more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, please contact Ari Drennen at adrennen@americanprogress.org.

The post RELEASE: New Report Shows How President Biden Can Implement His Justice40 Commitment To Tackling Environmental Racism appeared first on Center for American Progress.

If the bipartisan $579 billion proposal opens the door to a parallel reconciliation bill that creates a fairer tax code to support American families and makes critical investments in the clean energy jobs of the future, this can be one part of a broader agenda. If the agreement closes the door to reconciliation, then it would be a bipartisan agreement to betray both middle-class families who have been struggling with child care and home care, and our children, who will be forced to watch their planet fry for the sake of Washington gridlock disguised as bipartisanship.

To be clear, any Republican demand that reconciliation be abandoned in exchange for their support should be rejected out of hand. 

The reported list of payfors attached to this proposal also shields billionaires who have paid no taxes from contributing anything, while placing the burden on commuters and workers who are often living paycheck to paycheck. With astronomical income inequality holding our economy back, these payfors would only make the problem worse and are simply indefensible.

For more information or to speak with an expert, contact Allison Preiss at apreiss@americanprogress.org.

The post STATEMENT: CAP Founder John Podesta: Bipartisan Infrastructure Proposal Would Be a Betrayal Without Reconciliation appeared first on Center for American Progress.

States, local governments, and tribal nations have been taking meaningful action to confront the climate crisis, advance environmental justice, and ensure that more of the jobs building a 100 percent clean energy economy are high-quality union positions. In recent years, there have been key breakthroughs at the state level—including policies that light the path for Congress and the administration to follow through both executive and legislative action.

Twenty-five states and territories—representing a majority of the U.S. population—are committed to the greenhouse gas emissions reductions goals of the Paris climate agreement through the bipartisan U.S. Climate Alliance. Since 2015, 17 states as well as Puerto Rico and Washington, D.C., have taken action on 100 percent clean energy agendas, according to a recent report from the Clean Energy States Alliance. Progress has occurred in blue, red, and purple states alike: In 25 key states tracked by the Energy Foundation, 2019 and 2020 saw 218 policy victories for clean energy in state legislatures and public utility commissions, compared with only 17 setbacks. This progress followed 2017, 2018, and 2019 state elections that saw numerous climate leaders elected to statewide office and state legislatures.

States, along with local governments and tribal nations, have made important strides in areas from renewable energy deployment and conservation of public lands to environmental justice and support for high-quality clean energy jobs. According to an analysis for the U.S. Climate Alliance conducted by the Rhodium Group, 133,000 clean energy jobs were created in alliance states between 2016 and 2019, at a growth rate of nearly 7 percent—far outpacing the national economywide job growth rate during this same period.

Now, the lessons of climate leadership must travel from the state house to the White House. The Biden administration and Congress should draw from states’ experience implementing transformative policies on the ground and should engage states’ existing advocacy coalitions. Crucially, they should also pursue a policy and investment agenda that directly engages states and further empowers state and local governments to continue their climate leadership. For their part, the same advocates and lawmakers who have fought to make this progress happen across states now need to help guide the federal government.

The Center for American Progress, along with the League of Conservation Voters and other partners, launched the From the State House to the White House initiative in 2020 and are curating a series of materials to uplift the successes and voices of state, tribal, and local governments, policy experts, and advocates:

• Learning From California’s Ambitious Climate Policy, Center for American Progress, April 16, 2021
  This report describes California’s whole-of-government approach to climate policy and how the Biden administration can translate the state’s successes to the federal level.
• Three things Biden can do to unleash state and local climate action, The Hill, March 18, 2021
  This op-ed outlines suggestions for the Biden administration to leverage partnerships with state, local, and tribal leaders in order to confront the climate crisis.
• Mapping Environmental Justice in the Biden-Harris Administration, Center for American Progress, February 4, 2021
  This report analyzes California’s environmental justice screening tool, CalEnviroScreen, which uses data, metrics, and technology to help allocate climate action resources to disadvantaged communities.
• The Biden Administration Brings State Climate Leadership to the White House, Center for American Progress, January 19, 2021
  This issue brief lauds President Joe Biden’s picks for his climate Cabinet and notes that a number of them have state climate leadership credentials that will help inform their time in federal service.
• The secret weapon in Biden’s fight against climate change, The Hill, November 14, 2020
  This op-ed highlights the groundswell of support for climate action across state, local, and tribal governments and how the Biden administration can build off their progress.
• State Climate Leadership Is Coming to the Nation’s Capital in 2021, Center for American Progress, November 9, 2020
  This column analyzes a number of critical national election results from states with strong climate, justice, and clean energy policies, making the case that state climate leadership is headed to Washington, D.C.
• States Are Laying a Road Map for Climate Leadership, Center for American Progress, April 30, 2020
  This issue brief summarizes climate, environmental justice, and labor successes across power, transportation, building, and other sectors at the state level.

The post Resources From the State House to the White House: Progress on Climate, Justice, and Jobs appeared first on Center for American Progress.

In response, Christy Goldfuss, senior vice president for Energy and the Environment Policy at the Center for American Progress, released the following statement:

The Biden administration has promised bold climate action, which also requires healthy natural carbon sinks. That is why protecting the Tongass National Forest’s ability to safely store carbon—and to support the region’s billion-dollar fishing and tourism industries in the process—is both simple common sense and an important step toward the president’s goal of protecting 30 percent of America’s lands and ocean by 2030. I commend the Biden administration for moving to restore these key protections and ensure a safe climate future for all, and hope the administration will take this opportunity to meaningfully engage tribes in the region in a way that the Trump administration did not.

For more information or to speak with an expert, please contact Ari Drennen adrennen@americanprogress.org.

The post STATEMENT: Biden Tongass Protections a Win for Climate and Nature, Says CAP’s Christy Goldfuss appeared first on Center for American Progress.

Last month, the Senate Finance Committee advanced legislation that would deliver many of the key elements of President Biden’s American Jobs Plan. Chairman Ron Wyden’s (D-OR) bill—the Clean Energy for America Act—proposes major new tax incentives for clean electricity, electric vehicles, advanced manufacturing, and more. Tax incentives such as these are impressively effective climate policy—especially when it comes to clean electricity and clean vehicles— and are a must-have in any infrastructure bill. From creating good-paying jobs to laying the foundation for a clean energy economy, the United States needs ambitious clean energy tax incentives.

Consider the power sector, which needs to decarbonize rapidly in order to cleanly power the rest of the economy. A report from the Rhodium Group in March found that 10 years of tax incentives for new zero-emission electricity generation like those included in the Clean Energy for America Act would transform the power sector. In combination with regulation under existing statutory authorities, maintenance of existing zero-emission capacity, and accelerated retirement of certain rural co-op coal plants, the incentives would cut air pollution, such as sulfur dioxide, by up to 84 percent in just five years and cut carbon dioxide to 76 percent below 2005 levels in a decade. By itself, this set of power sector investments could double the share of clean electricity generation at the end of the decade, from as little as 34 percent to as much as 69 percent, flooding the economy with abundant, affordable, clean electricity; creating good jobs; and jump-starting the achievement of a clean energy future. These investments could also lead to a net gain of more than 600,000 jobs annually in the electricity sector over the next decade.

This critical headway is not limited to the power sector, either. In another analysis this May, the Rhodium Group also found major opportunities from investment in transportation electrification like those included in the Clean Energy for America Act and the American Jobs Plan, especially when combined with strong vehicle emission regulations. The model shows such investments in charging infrastructure, trucks, and passenger vehicles would drive light-duty battery electric vehicle sales from 2 percent today to between 40 percent and 61 percent of all light-duty vehicles in 2031, depending on battery prices and regulatory actions. The stock turnover brought on by this jump in electric vehicle sales would result in major emissions reductions in the 2030s. Perhaps most significantly, the investments could make the total cost to own an electric vehicle as much as 16 percent less expensive than the average gas vehicle.

Even these impressive modeling results may understate the full impact of the Clean Energy for America Act, as the Senate Finance Committee included several additional policies that would further expand the tax incentives. For example, the committee would allow renewables to take the full value of the credit as a direct pay option instead of splitting the credit with Wall Street in exchange for costly tax equity financing. And new renewable capacity investments in low-income communities or energy communities would garner an additional 10 percentage points of federal investment credit. New, more powerful incentives that support investment in the areas that need it most will further accelerate the pace of renewable deployment.

These policy changes mark a new approach to federal investments. While tax incentives for wind and solar deployment have existed for many years, they have expired and been temporarily extended more than a dozen times since 1999. In some cases, this extension was provided as a retroactive windfall rather than a forward-looking incentive, and values are currently on the decline. Investment in the future of the electricity system won’t happen fast enough without stable and supportive policy.

Not only would the Clean Energy for America Act provide a long-duration extension at full value, it would also allow both wind and solar developers the option to take either the production tax credit or the investment tax credit, as best suits each individual project. The current credit programs are rigid, offering solar a credit based only on the cost of initial investment but allowing wind a credit based on the amount of electricity generated in the first decade of operation. This production-based credit is, increasingly, a more generous offer, and providing an option between the two will maximize total renewable deployment. The Union of Concerned Scientists recently found that a tax credit package offering this flexibility and full value crediting is more than twice as effective compared to a straight 10-year extension of the current credit system.

Unfortunately, negotiations on infrastructure spending to date have not focused on how to maximize the effectiveness of clean energy tax incentives but on whether clean energy tax incentives should be included at all. In response to the American Jobs Plan, in April, Sen. Shelley Capito (R-WV) led Republican negotiators to reject investment in clean energy and clean vehicles. The White House insisted that these are must-have investments, only to have Sen. Capito again reject clean energy and clean vehicle investments in May. This week, the White House moved on to explore whether there are other more viable solutions.

Any infrastructure legislation must invest in tax credits for clean electricity and clean vehicles. This means at least 10-years of full-value tax incentives for new and existing clean electricity generation—with direct pay provisions to bypass the expensive Wall Street tax equity market and with flexibility for wind and solar developers to choose the credit design that works best for each individual situation. For clean vehicles, this means incentives for new and used passenger electric vehicles available to consumers at the point of purchase; new commercial zero-emission trucks; charging infrastructure; and automotive and supply chain manufacturing. In both sectors, incentives and requirements for good wages and domestic content will lay a critical foundation for high-quality domestic jobs.

Tax incentives are just one of the many great tools that Congress should use to invest in a more just and equitable economy that is ready to compete globally in the clean energy future. Other important tools include a clean electricity standard; investments in environmental justice and energy transition communities; funding for green school facilities; grid modernization; industrial carbon capture; the creation of a civilian climate corps; rebates for replacing fossil fuel appliances with efficient heat pumps; and more.

In short, the United States needs the full scope of American Jobs Plan, and tax incentives are a major part of the plan.

Trevor Higgins is the senior director of Domestic Climate and Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress.

The author would like to thank Sally Hardin, Elise Gout, and Will Beaudouin from the Center for American Progress, John Larsen from the Rhodium Group, and Steve Clemmer from the Union of Concerned Scientists for their contributions to this column.

The post Clean Energy Tax Incentives Will Help Fight the Climate Crisis appeared first on Center for American Progress.

We cannot overlook the power of the ocean in helping avert our climate crisis—or the damage that a changing climate can do to this ecosystem that feeds 3.1 billion people around the world. Chairman Grijalva’s bill acknowledges the ocean’s potential to store carbon, generate clean energy, and shield people who live on the coast from the impacts of an increasingly unpredictable climate. The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act recognizes the critical importance of the ocean to all Americans and the need to take action as we watch the waters become hotter, more acidic, and stormier. It’s time for Congress to lead the way to a future with a safe and stable climate.

For more information on this topic or to speak with an expert, please contact Ari Drennen at adrennen@americanprogress.org.

The post STATEMENT: The Ocean-Based Climate Solutions Act Recognizes the Critical Importance of the Ocean to All Americans appeared first on Center for American Progress.