The Case for the Civilian Climate Corps
A national work service program would build a political base for further Green New Deal victories, making it a vital climate infrastructure demand.
Photo by Rafael Idrovo Espinoza.
As the budget reconciliation process heats up and the climate movement works to see its priorities reflected in this mega-bill, some have wondered why Sunrise Movement has made a major priority of fighting for the Civilian Climate Corps (CCC). In The American Prospect, David Dayen points out that the CCC delivers less carbon reduction than other leading demands like clean energy tax credits or utility emissions mandates. Why, then, does the CCC deserve so much attention from Sunrise amidst the dozens of other important climate provisions on the table?
The answer points to important and often overlooked elements of the Green New Deal project. As a Sunrise cofounder, I feel some license to offer insight into the strategic thinking at work here, though I must disclaim that I am no longer staff or leadership of the movement, and the assessment here is my own.
To begin, let’s identify three core elements of the Green New Deal project: its integration of the economic, political, and social; its long view of change; and its attention to ideological struggle.
The history of climate action is littered with failed attempts to legislate economic interventions (carbon taxes, most prominently) with little heed paid to addressing political obstacles or building an enduring social base for further reforms. Green New Dealers, learning from this history, depart from traditional Beltway climate thinking by viewing decarbonization not only as an economic problem, but as a social and political challenge as well.
Green New Dealers also understand climate justice as a decade-long governing project ー something that, as much as we would like it to, cannot be achieved through a single act of legislation, but instead must be won through hundreds of reforms at every level of government. It follows that whatever laws are passed in 2021 must reshape the political landscape to facilitate more victories in the near future.
Finally, Green New Dealers see ideology as an often-hidden terrain of struggle underpinning the success or failure of our governing agenda. We aim to counter and replace the dominance of neoliberal ideology, which for the last forty-plus years has blocked a serious response to the climate crisis by Democrats and Republicans alike.
We must be attentive not only to the economic dimensions of neoliberalism ー the rules it sets for government stewardship of the economy ー but also to its political dimensions. Decades of neoliberal governance have turned Americans into “neoliberal subjects,” trained not to expect nor demand much good from the state, inclined to identify as consumers of goods rather than citizens of a polity, and far removed from memory of any coordinated national project for a meritorious purpose.
Thus, in evaluating any climate policy, the Green New Deal approach asks three interrelated questions: “Does this policy advance emissions reduction and justice? Does it build a political base for further action? And, does it help erode and replace the hold of neoliberal ideology and subjectivity?”
The remainder of this essay uses neoliberalism as a lens for understanding the leading climate demands currently on the table, ultimately defending the Civilian Climate Corps as one important front in a multi-faceted campaign being waged by multiple climate justice organizations. If fully funded and properly implemented, the CCC would present a direct challenge to the logic of privatization, and has the potential to make lifelong Green New Dealers of its employees.
In her book This Changes Everything, Naomi Klein names the three pillars of neoliberal policymaking as “Privatization of the public sphere, deregulation of the corporate sector, and [...] cuts to public spending.”
Achieving climate justice requires defeating the three-headed beast of deregulation, austerity, and privatization. An anti-regulatory state cannot prohibit bad corporate actors from continuing to pollute. An austere state cannot mobilize the resources of the country to rebuild our country’s infrastructure from a fossil fuel-dependent system to a resilient and renewable one. A privatized state, wherein policy design and implementation decisions are given away to profit-maximizing private corporations, cannot coordinate this all-of-society project with the focus or longevity necessary to accomplish the job.
The climate movement has already made inroads against this beast. Since 2011, pipeline and other fossil fuel infrastructure fights have mounted direct and increasingly successful campaigns for federal regulation of fossil fuels, often under the leadership of indigenous people invoking their tribal treaty rights. The latest fight in this lineage, against Enbridge’s Line 3 in Northern Minnesota, deserves all of our solidarity and support.
Meanwhile the Green New Deal, introduced in late 2018, has continued the fight for ‘re-regulation’ while also challenging austerity and privatization. This began with the Green New Deal resolution, which calls for publicly-owned power, a job guarantee program, and all-around coordination combining the regulatory, investment, and convening powers of the federal government. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren’s Green New Deal plans and Jay Inslee’s Evergreen Platform each staked out important ground in these areas.
Biden’s subsequent proposals have incorporated some ideas pioneered by these candidates, but always to the minimum extent possible. While he has usefully adopted a sector-by-sector, investment-focused approach (rather than relying on an economy-wide silver bullet, like cap-and-trade), he prefers indirect private sector-led approaches over the direct mobilization of public institutions and resources. The signature policies he hopes to win in the reconciliation bill are a $300 billion tax credit for renewable energy development, and a Clean Energy Standard (CES) to transition the electricity sector to 100% clean energy by 2035.
To be clear: the renewable tax credit and CES will seriously accelerate the decarbonization of our economy, and both deserve strong support. Evergreen Action and others have persuasively argued that of the policies conceivably on the table for the reconciliation bill, the CES delivers the most in terms of carbon emissions reduction. Fossil fuel fighters are correct to demand full exclusion of natural gas from the CES; this important sub-fight will seemingly come down to a staring match between Joe Manchin and progressive Senators (now including Sen. Schumer).
We needn’t diminish these policies to point out that, while not exactly entrenching neoliberal paradigms, these policies don’t mark a major break either. Both are too small, slow, and shy about using federal planning and spending authority, relying instead on the private sector to do the heavy lifting. This is why it is important that while groups like Evergreen and Chesapeake Climate Action Network fight primarily to seal the deal on the CES, others fight for climate provisions above and beyond what Biden has proposed.
To push on the scale of investment, the Green New Deal Network (GNDN) and progressive representatives led by Cori Bush have called for $1 trillion for renewable energy, $600 billion for green transit, and $600 billion for green public buildings. With Senate Democrats tentatively settling on a paltry figure of around $1 trillion total for climate investments, it is up to progressives in the House to stay organized around the GNDN benchmarks and push the final number upwards. Every hundred billion won for each of these three sectors counts for a hell of a lot.
This brings us back to the Civilian Climate Corps. The CCC’s function is to take the strongest stand possible on the side of direct public employment, and create the political conditions for more democratic guidance of future climate policy. In contrast to Biden’s paltry offer of a $10 billion CCC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey have proposed a heftier $132 billion version, which is backed by Sunrise and others. AOC and Markey’s CCC would employ 1.5 million people over the next 5 years to support the expansion of renewable energy and build healthier neighborhoods. The program aims to have workers serve in their home communities when desired. All would receive at least $15 per hour and have the option to form a union.
The significance of the CCC is its potential to turn neoliberal subjects into Green New Dealers for life. Imagine 1.5 million young people connecting with their communities and their environment through a shared experience of dignified public employment. Imagine these 1.5 million getting a taste of actually building sustainability and resilience in their hometowns. Imagine friends and neighbors envying CCC workers for the opportunity to work and serve, and wanting it for themselves. In this world, climate change is more than something to fear or ignore; it’s an invitation to act together for the common good.
None of this is given, which is why above all, we should imagine the CCC as an organizing opportunity. The difficult truth—made certain the moment Joe Biden overcame Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primary—is that whatever can be won this year will be too small and restrained to fully match the climate emergency. Thus, the task in 2021 is to win as much as possible now, and win in a way that shifts the political and social terrain towards more hard-to-reach victories in the near future.
A workforce of 1.5 million people would become the cradle of a stronger Green New Deal movement. It will be up to Green New Dealers, working in the CCC, to ensure that the program follows the GND vision by being community-minded, pro-worker, and determined to zero out emissions. CCC workers could play a major role in demanding increased public employment through the CCC and other public agencies, on the way towards the long-sought-after goal of a full federal job guarantee.
In this light, Sunrise’s choice to foreground the CCC follows a similar logic to that of DSA’s Green New Deal campaign committee, which has prioritized passing the PRO Act this year to ensure that the rising wave of renewable energy jobs are unionized. Both of these left-wing climate campaigns possess a strategic logic that aims to revolutionize the quality and public perception of “climate work,” and in so doing shift the political and ideological terrain to support future Green New Deal victories.
A fully-funded CCC, while not the foremost immediate contributor to decarbonization, could punch far above its weight in building support for further pillars of the Green New Deal. Alongside a CES, the PRO Act, and as many trillions as possible for renewable energy, transit, and housing, the Civilian Climate Corps is well worth the support of all climate activists in this all-important summer.
William Lawrence is a cofounder of Sunrise Movement, where he helped shape its national political strategy from 2017-2020. He lives in Lansing, MI.
Thank you(!) for reading this piece that an author and our editors poured their hearts and souls into. Now if you donate even $2 a month, that will help us keep pouring limitless souls into new essays. The Trouble is a small non-profit and even a small amount generates many, many more words.