Stark Contrasts in Maryland Climate Plans
By: Owen Silverman Andrews
Tags: Climate Change, Green Party, Green Energy, Maryland, Green New Deal

Analyses of the Differences Between the Maryland Commission on Climate Change 2020 Annual Report (R/D) and the Maryland Green New Deal (G)

On November 15, 2020, the Republican-Democratic Maryland Commission on Climate Change released its 2020 Annual Report. Here the Commission’s recommendations are contrasted with the Green Party Maryland Green New Deal proposal. Further below, a keyword search analysis reveals some of what was left out of the the Commission’s Report.

Side-by-side, Keyword Analyses: MD Commission on Climate Change Report (D/R), MD Green New Deal (G)

Commission Report Recommendation

50% reduction by 2030

Net zero emissions by 2045

Maryland Green New Deal Requirement

100% reduction by 2032

Ban on fossil fuel infrastructure after 2032

Commission Report Recommendation

“…as early as 2045…”

Maryland Green New Deal Requirement

By 2032

Commission Report Recommendation

Transition off “…remaining coal-fired plants by no later than 2030…”

Maryland Green New Deal Requirement/Analysis

Private industry has already moved farther and faster than the rate at which centrist Dems are willing to legislate.

MDGND sets a definitive 2032 sunset date for all fossil fuel.

Commission Report Recommendation

Equity language: “…regardless of race, income, culture and social class…”

Maryland Green New Deal Requirement/Analysis

Racial justice; BIPoC empowerment

Commission Report Recommendation

Environmental justice: calls for “equity analysis” to try to make sure it doesn’t get worse for POC during transition/climate crisis, does not address past and ongoing harm done by white supremacist, capitalist, climate destroying people and systems.

Maryland Green New Deal Requirement

Reparations for environmental racism

Commission Report Recommendation

“…addressing any disproportionate impacts of climate change on low-income and vulnerable communities…” [stress added]

Maryland Green New Deal Requirement

Maryland Environmental Neighborhood Defense Corp (MEND) work guarantee controlled by communities at local level

Commission Report Recommendation

“Representation” from “vulnerable communities”

Maryland Green New Deal Requirement

Community control of resources

Commission Report Recommendation

Transportation: focuses on decarbonizing new trucks, (less but still some focus on buses, single occupant commuter cars)

Maryland Green New Deal Requirement

Focuses on greatly expanding public transit and making it fare-free, bike-able, walkable communities

Commission Report Recommendation

Continued sprawl; no substantive recommendations for reducing climate crisis-inducing, environmentally destructive suburban sprawl.

Maryland Green New Deal Requirement

Rights of nature and of Marylanders to a healthy environment are prioritized over the interests of corporate developers’ profits in the DC and Baltimore suburbs and across the state.

Commission Report Recommendation

“Soil sequestration”, an unproven and potentially dangerous form of geoengineering, is paired with “forest sequestration”, which just means planting more trees and acknowledging the value of existing trees.

Maryland Green New Deal Analysis

Geo-engineering tricks like carbon sequestration either don’t work at scale, or are not part of the solution. These “geohacks” distract from the known solutions: ending fossil fuel use, moving from linear to looped production/consumption cycles, and reducing the lavish, climate destroying consumption of the wealthiest people and corporations. The Commission should clarify what it means when it uses the term “soil sequestration.”

Commission Report Analysis

Greenwashed capitalism (focus on expansion of production and consumption, regardless of limitations on resources and without addressing unsustainable linear production-consumption chain)

Maryland Green New Deal Analysis

Ecosocialism, willing to use eminent domain for the public good to spur private sector transition away from dangerous fossil fuels; zero waste model, reduced consumption by wealthiest people and corporations