One of the purposes of EcoAction is to assist Green Party candidates in their electoral efforts.

Below we have pulled together information about issues we are working on, particularly climate. We are also available to answer questions and help with research.

A good starting point is the Green Party Platform on sustainability.

Contents

Climate Action
Make Polluters Pay
Oppose Nuclear Power
Carbon Fee and Dividend (carbon tax)
Ban New Large Data Centers
Promote Biodiversity – Stop Species Extinction
Agriculture
Zero Waste
Stop Single-Use Plastics
Rights of Nature
Transportation

Climate Action – Resurrect the Ecosocialist Green New Deal

In March 2026 EcoAction held a webinar on why it is time to reboot the Green New Deal. We highlighted how communities like Boston are developing local GND plans, with a focus on issues like how to promote the decarbonization of local buildings. Here is a link to the national Green Party platform on climate.

Greens promote public ownership and democratic control of our energy system. See New York’s public power campaign, which passed a state law to get the state’s public power authority to build renewable energy. Laws can also be passed to require new buildings to use renewable energy (see California). NYC’s Local Law 97 requires its largest buildings to do energy retrofits to reduce their carbon emissions. Because renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels (and nuclear), rapidly building a green energy future is critical to controlling energy prices and affordability.

The Green Education and Legal Fund has a good background book on climate and renewable energy that is free on the internet (Putting Out the Planetary Fire).

The Green Party first called for an EcoSocialist Green New Deal in 2010, combined a 10-year transition to zero emissions and 100% renewable energy with a comprehensive Economic Bill of Rights (guaranteed living wage job and income for all, universal single-payer health care,, free public college, housing for all) It includes a Just Transition to protect workers, consumers, and communities and a commitment to environmental justice.

How do the Greens differ from the GND promoted by AOC and Markey in 2008?

- the Greens call for an immediate halt to new fossil fuel infrastructure and fracking;

- the Greens call for at least a 50% cut in the military budget to pay for the GND;
 - the Greens support a 10-year timeline to zero emissions, not 30 years (2050);
 - This ecosocialist approach features extensive public ownership and planning, particularly in the energy, transportation, and manufacturing sectors, in order to achieve its goals in a decade.
 - the Greens are explicitly anti-nuclear;

- the leadership of the Democratic Party are heavily invested in corporate boondoggles such as carbon capture and sequestration

 Mainstream Democrats have not only abandoned their weaker version of the GND but they are alsoincreasingly climate evaders. They claim to be focused on the need for affordability, even though renewable energy and conservation are the cheapest sources of electricity. Inside Climate News calls itClimate Hushing. Many Democrats, including quite a few Governors, have jumped on the industry bandwagon for the so-called nuclear renaissance, even though it is the most expensive form of electricity and has myriad environmental problems. At the same time Governors like Hochul in NY are delaying implementation of existing climate laws.

Many Democratic leaders have blamed the recent spikes in energy costs on climate initiatives, when in reality it is largely due to increases in natural gas prices (prompted by allowing for export on natural gas, sanctions against Russian gas after it invaded Ukraine, continuing to build out gas infrastructure, and now the war in Iran.) Gas is the single largest source of electricity in the US, accounting for 43% in 2023.

Most current “GND” proposals largely ignore the Economic Bill of Rights (except for the critical funding for environmental justice) and often tackle a limited though important climate initiative rather than a comprehensive rapid transition to zero emissions (e.g., building decarbonization, Green Schools, Green public housing). (See the Green New Deal Network).

Climate change remains an existential threat to humanity. Global warming and extreme weather continue to accelerate globally. The world has largely lost the chance to keep global warming below the 1.5 C degree target agreed to in Paris, and increasingly it looks like we are headed to at least 2.5 C. Scientists warn that we are rapidly reaching critical tipping points in climate change. While the threat from global warming is increasing, political support and public awareness has been waning.

We Need a Revolution – Replace Capitalism with Ecosocialism. In order to prevent climate collapse, we need fundamental change in our political and economic system. The Greens understand that the various movements for racial, economic and social justice, immigrant rights, LBGTQ+, and democratic rights are interconnected and need to be joined. Instead of the increasing authoritarian rule by oligarchs, we need a system that prioritizes the common good.

Key points to make:

- The window to avoid climate collapse is rapidly running out. We need to keep global warming below 1.5 degrees C. The target has already been routinely exceeded in the last few years. Many Democrats now talk about a goal of keeping global warming below 2.5 to 3 degrees C by the end of the century.

- Democrats like Biden and Obama promote an all-of-the-above energy strategy. Under Biden, the US became the largest producer and exporter of gas, and the largest producer of oil.

- To fund the transition to a green economy, the Greens would cut the military budget by 50%

- The safe limit of carbon in the atmosphere is 350 parts per million. We are over 420 and rising

 - Climate action is healthy. The World Health Organization estimates about 7 million people worldwide annually are killed by air pollution, about half of that from fossil fuel plants. The annual health care costs in the US from burning fossil fuels is $2,500 per person.

- Fourteen years after establishing the framework of planetary boundaries, researchers at the Stockholm Resilience Center in Sweden found that six of the nine boundaries –  including biodiversity, climate change, land and freshwater impacts, biogeochemical cycles, and synthetic chemicals and substances such as microplastics – are already past their safe limit, placing the Earth “well outside of the safe operating space for humanity.”

- Renewable energy is cheaper than fossil fuels and creates jobs. One of the biggest challenges in the clean energy transition is training enough workers.

- Geothermal is an increasingly promising technology. Mainly used for heating and cooling, but Texas (a national leader in renewable energy, including wind) also uses it heavily for electricity. Geothermal is being increasingly used for district heating (HVAC for multiple buildings at once).

- Conservation and energy efficiency remains the most cost-effective way to produce energy.

What Can Green Party candidates call for:

Green Party candidates can campaign for state and local laws and plans to cut greenhouse emissions, oppose new and expanded fossil fuel infrastructure, and provide funding to assist residents to convert to carbon-free heating and power systems. Advocacy is also needed to ensure timely and effective implementation of any agreed-upon climate initiatives. Local and state laws are needed to ban fracking and data centers.

Greens’ voices are often needed to support the siting of renewable energy and battery energy storage systems (BESS). Such projects often generate opposition from nearby residents (the NIMBY effect of any project). All projects have an environmental impact, and steps should be taken to mitigate their impacts. But opponents too often highlight problems rather than seeking solutions. Yes, it would be better to site such projects on parking lots and brownfields while protecting farmland. However, the threat posed by renewable energy tofarmland is overstated, and many farmers want the revenue from hosting such projects while still using their land for agricultural purposes.

One reason the Greens promote public power is that it would give the public more of a say in where renewable energy projects are sited rather than leaving it to the efforts of developers seeking to maximize their profits.

Greens should be a source of reliable facts in the climate debate. And as support for climate action has waned, especially among elected officials, it is critical that the Green Party engage in public education efforts. However, the public remains far more supportive of climate action than politicians (who listen to campaign contributors).

Make Polluters Pay

The "make polluters pay" movement is a state-led legislative effort modeled after federal toxic waste laws, aiming to force major fossil fuel companies to pay for climate-related damages. The laws require the largest historical emitters to contribute to state-managed funds to pay for climate adaptation and mitigation infrastructure.

Vermont and New York became the first states to enact climate superfund laws, assessing billions in fees on major fossil fuel corporations for historical greenhouse gas emissions. California, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Oregon are actively considering or pushing similar "polluters pay" legislation to recoup costs for extreme weather and climate disasters. [1, 2]

There is a congressional proposal for a federal Make Polluters Pay Climate Fund.

Oppose Nuclear Power

The Green Party remains opposed to nuclear power. However, there is an increased push by the leaders of both major parties for a “new generation” of nukes with the same old problems.

New nuclear power plants would take too long to build to assist in cutting emissions in the timeframe needed. A new study from the Harvard School of Public Health found elevated levels of cancer near existing nuclear plants. Many Native American nations oppose nuclear in light of the decades-long history of "nuclear colonialism", which has heavily burdened their communities with the toxic consequences of uranium mining, radioactive waste disposal proposals, and polluted water supplies.

From Platform - End the use of nuclear power. Nuclear energy is massively polluting, dangerous, financially risky, expensive and slow to implement. Our money is better spent on wind, solar, geothermal, conservation, and small-scale hydroelectric.

An analysis done on the proposal by Governor Hochul for new nuclear power in NY contains good background information on the issue. See also the Nuclear Information and Resource Service, Public Citizen, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the July 2025 EcoAction webinar on nuclear.

Nuclear power is not carbon-free when the lifecycle of the plants is considered, with carbon emissions occurring during construction; mining, processing, and transportation of uranium fuel; and the storage of the dangerous radioactive wastes for tens of thousands of years. Nuclear power continues to have significant safety problems. While the industry likes to portray the 1.5% rate of major accidents such as core meltdown as “minor,” such incidents in fact have caused tremendous harm. The industry has been plagued by long construction delays and massive cost overruns.

Renewables are cheaper. By 2050, the Levelized Cost of Energy for utility-scale solar PV is expected to be around $25/MWh and for onshore wind around $35/MWh, while advanced nuclear power is projected to remain at $110/MWh, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The 2023 Renewable Power Generation Costs indicated that the global weighted average levelized cost of electricity for newly commissioned utility-scale solar photovoltaic, onshore wind, offshore wind, and hydropower projects experienced a downward trend.  Cost estimates for nuclear power generally do not include the cost of the major nuclear meltdowns that have taken place. Lazard’s[1]  cost estimate does not include the cost of the major nuclear meltdowns in history. For example, the estimated cost to clean up the damage from three Fukushima Daiichi nuclear reactor core meltdowns is $460 to $640 billion. Such cost figures also ignore the $500 million spent yearly to safeguard high-level waste from about 92 civilian nuclear reactors. (And smaller, experimental small reactors are likely to be more expensive due to less economies of scale.)

“Nuclear Renaissance” Is an Industry Sales Pitch for More Corporate Welfare
 As Amory Lovin notes: “An intensive influence campaign seeks to resurrect a “nuclear renaissance” from the industry’s slow-motion collapse as documented in the independent annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report. Claims that past failures won’t recur have convinced many politicians that socializing nuclear investments rejected by private capital markets, weakening or bypassing rigorous safety regulation, suppressing market competition, and commanding military reactor and data-center projects as a national-security imperative will restore nuclear expansion and transform the economy. This illusion neatly fits the industry’s business-model shift from selling products to harvesting subsidies.

“Even the most skilled firms and nations keep delivering big reactors with several times the promised cost and construction time. A swarm of startup firms that have never built a reactor are dubiously rebranding their inexperience as a winning advantage. New designs are said to be so safe they don’t need normal precautions (though not safe enough to waive nuclear energy’s unique exemption from accident liability).” The previous “nuclear renaissance” in the US several decades ago resulted in one new nuclear plant coming online.

Small Modular Reactors Are Not Cheaper, Safer or Cleaner
 Small Modular Reactors (SMRs) face problems with higher costs, extended timelines, greater nuclear waste challenges, potential safety vulnerabilities due to less containment than traditional plants, increased security risks, and significant technical and regulatory hurdles. The promised benefits of faster construction and lower costs are not being realized, as regulatory approval, the development of the supply chain for parts and fuel, and the management of waste and security all present significant challenges.

Renewable Energy Can Deal with the Intermittent Issue
 Nuclear advocates claim it is still needed because wind and solar are intermittent and need natural gas for backup. However, nuclear power itself never matches power demand, so it needs backup. Dozens of independent scientific groups have further found that it is possible to match intermittent power demand with clean, renewable supply and storage, without nuclear or fossil fuels, at low cost. Military and industrial installations already prefer 100% renewables for their most critical applications, including Apple’s data centers in four states. Ten kinds of carbon-free resources can balance variable (but highly predictable) renewables, keeping the grid stable – as is done in a number of other countries.

Nuclear Power is Related to Nuclear Weapons

Nuclear fission is partly geared toward creating isotopes for nuclear weapons. The process of enriching uranium to make it into fuel for nuclear power stations is also used to make nuclear weapons. Plutonium is a by-product of the nuclear fuel cycle and is still used by some countries to make nuclear weapons. There is a danger that more nuclear power stations in the world could mean more nuclear weapons. (See Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament)

Carbon Fee and Dividend (see Chapter on Carbon Pricing)

Most economists believe that charging those who use fossil fuels for the damage they cause (IMF estimates about $5 trillion a year) is the most effective way to speed up the transition to 100% clean emissions. A majority of Americans support taxing corporations for their carbon emissions.

The Green Party platform states: Enact a Fee & Dividend system on fossil fuels to enable the free market to include the environmental costs of their extraction and use.

The platform does not specify the level of the dividend. The Citizens Climate Lobby has traditionally advocated for a 100% dividend, both to offset the regressive nature of any energy tax and to build public support (they have adopted a weaker position in NY). One positive development from COVID was that governments learned how to send checks directly to residents; providing a carbon tax rebate via the tax system would leave out many low-income households. Polls however show that using at least some of the revenue to support building renewables leads to greater support for a carbon tax, especially among Republicans.

A carbon fee (or tax) is different from cap and trade, which is more widely condemned for being subject to Wall Street speculation and allows polluters to continue to pollute – particularly in low-income and communities of color – in exchange for investing in actions elsewhere (e.g., tree planting) to reduce emissions (in practice, that has often failed). (Why EJ groups oppose carbon offsets)

Avoid False Climate Solutions

From Platform - Stop "dirty clean energy." Many of the "solutions" offered in climate legislation aren't real solutions. Biomass incineration (trees, crops, construction debris and certain types of waste), landfill gas, and many types of biofuels will dump massive quantities of toxic pollutants into the air and water. Some of these energy sources produce more greenhouse gas emissions than coal. Natural gas is primarily methane, which is 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas. Consequently, when pipeline leakage is considered, the clean-burning characteristics of natural gas can be lost, resulting in a fuel with climate impacts as bad as coal. Biomass and biofuels will also increase deforestation, contributing to more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

Ban New Large Data Centers (20 MW)

The influx of data centers, driven by generative artificial intelligence (AI) and the crypto boom, presents one of the biggest environmental and social threats of our generation. In this age, water resources are already stretched thin and fossil fuel pollution is at a dangerous all-time high. The rapid expansion of data centers, with their enormous appetite for water and power, exacerbates the problem, taking ecological degradation to a new level. All this is compounded by the significant and concerning impacts AI is projected to have on society, including lost jobs, social instability and economic concentration.

 The harms of data center growth include the following:

●      High energy demand: Hyperscale facilities can use energy equivalent to hundreds of thousands of homes, straining local power grids and delaying the transition to renewable energy sources. Energy demand for data centers is projected to nearly triple in the coming decade. Fifty-six percent of the electricity used to power data centers is presently sourced from fossil fuels, directly contributing to climate change. In an attempt to offset this energy demand and reliance on fossil fuels, many data centers are driving the push to revitalize dangerous and expensive nuclear power. Electricity rates have increased 21.3% from 2021 to 2024 – drastically outpacing inflation – driven largely by utility upgrades tailored specifically for data centers, something that could continue to escalate over time.

●      Unsustainable water consumption: A single, large, hyperscale data facility can consume as much water as a medium-sized town of 10,000 to 50,000 residents. Data centers may place heavy burdens on local municipal drinking water and nearby watersheds, especially in water-stressed regions, where two-thirds of data centers have been built since 2022.

●      Water pollution: As water evaporates to cool massive computer servers, it concentrates and leaves behind pollutants in wastewater. Chemicals used for system maintenance and heavy metals from degrading pipes and excessive nutrients are then discharged to watersheds or to the surrounding land, leaching into the soil and contaminating groundwater and local wells.

●      Thermal pollution: Cooling systems release heated water and air, in massive quantities, back into the environment. Releasing warm water into local bodies of water drastically changes ambient temperature, which disrupts aquatic ecosystems. Large data centers have been known to be able to increase air temperatures up to 16 degrees Fahrenheit in the immediate environment, with some temperature increases being felt up to 6 miles away.

●      Noise pollution: Residents of areas near data centers report loud humming noises from power generation at the facilities, around the clock, every day of the year.

●      Economic downturn: Although developers promise jobs and tax revenue, the economic benefits for local communities are limited. Larger data centers require relatively few staff once operational, typically 20–50 employees. Tax incentives or breaks reduce the net revenue for public services. Most importantly, it must be considered that the purpose of AI data centers is to replace human workers. According to an AI executive, AI could negate half of all entry-level white-collar jobs in the next five years and spike overall unemployment up to 20 percent. In addition, service jobs such as retail cashiers and customer service representatives are all projected to be replaced or greatly reduced.

While AI and data centers provide unimaginable wealth to Big Tech billionaires, they’re pushing all the risks, downsides, and damages of this technology onto us all.

The Green Party supports a ban rather than a moratorium. Trying to regulate hyperscale data centers will not work in the existing political climate. Time after time, Democratic and Republican Party leaders eager for revenue and campaign contributions have been willing to let destructive and extractive industries write regulations as long as the state can take a cut of their profits. A moratorium starts with the assumption that we want this industry here and that we just need more time to figure out how to regulate its practices. We believe this is the wrong assumption. Across the country, the data center lobby has demonstrated a disregard for everything but its bottom line. Most politicians in power today have demonstrated that they cannot be relied on to effectively regulate most industries, especially this one.

A ban starts from the position that we cannot trust industry or the politicians promising to regulate it. If at some point their purpose and ecological footprint can be aligned with the common good, we would be open to considering regulations.

Promote Biodiversity – Stop Species Extinction

Humanity is driving the sixth global extinction of species; we are part of the web of life and depend upon other species for our own survival. Our unsustainable practices have already breached seven of the nine global life boundaries. The ocean is getting too acidic for many species to thrive and the plankton and aquatic plant life are being altered, with more algal blooms and invasive species taking over, which does not allow a sustainable or nutritious food supply for the sea life. The GP supports the “30by30” target (protecting 30% of land and sea by 2030), stopping habitat destruction, promoting land stewardship, and aligning with the UN Convention on Biological Diversity. We advocate for local land conservation efforts. The Green Party supports the Right of Nature, adopting laws that recognize the legal rights of natural communities and ecosystems to exist, flourish, regenerate, naturally evolve, and be restored.

Humanity must share the planet with all other species. Our continuing destruction of animal habitats threatens an ever-growing number of species with extinction. This not only deprives these species of their existence, but will deprive future human generations of the enrichment of having these species on Earth. Ecological systems are diverse and interlocking, and nature's survival strategy can only be found in the adaptability that comes as a result of biological diversity. All policies concerning human settlement, food, energy, natural resources, water, coastal development, and industrialization should be formulated to prevent further disruption of the non-human ecosystems' ability to maintain themselves.

The Green Party supports a strengthened and enforceable Endangered Species Act.

The Convention on Biological Diversity, first adopted at the Earth Summit in 1992, is a primary statement of purpose regarding how we can act to preserve and sustain our common genetic resources. We protest the demands of the U.S. to amend this unprecedented international agreement on behalf of the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries, with their insistence on protection of their intellectual property and technology transfer rights.

Small Scale Agroecology - Food Sovereignty

All people have a right to adequate, safe, nutritional, and high-quality food; and those who grow it have a right to a fair return for their labor. Agroecology is farming with nature to produce healthy food while protecting the land, supporting farmers, and connecting producers and consumers. We advocate regionalizing our food system and decentralizing agricultural lands, production, and distribution. This includes growing native/indigenous foods for that region and adopting regionally appropriate native/indigenous foodways. We support producer and consumer cooperatives, community kitchens, Community Supported Agriculture, urban and/or local agriculture, victory gardens, and community farms and gardens. We advocate the creation of Food Policy Councils to develop food policies at the local, state, and national levels, including changes to zoning laws to allow for community self-sufficiency. We urge the banning of sewage sludge as fertilizer. We support the Precautionary Principle. End industrialized agriculture methods, including monocropping, reliance on synthetic fertilizers and pesticides, and the use of confined animal operations. We advocate shifting price supports to organic food products. We must dramatically reduce animal consumption and the amount of land used for farm animals.

Agriculture is a major source of greenhouse gas emissions. While federal agencies estimate that agriculture contributes around 11% of emissions, others estimate the numbers are two to three times higher. One issue is that the US imports a fair amount of food from other countries, starting with livestock with their high greenhouse gas emissions. (EcoAction webinar on agriculture)

Our food system is also under threat from climate change and extreme weather, at both the level of production and distribution. The lack of access to healthy, affordable food for many is already a major domestic and global problem.

The renewed adoption of regionally native/indigenous foods and foodways has been shown to increase biodiversity, eliminate the need to add farm inputs, as well as sequester carbon. Native/indigenous fauna can usenative/indigenous plants at the same time that humans benefit from them. The plants are adapted to the environments they are grown in because that is where they evolved to exist, and native/indigenous plants tend to have considerably deeper roots. By planting integrated ecosystems, plants can work together in a complex life-sustaining web.

Extremely large, corporate-owned farms, nearly exclusively located far from city centers, have an inefficient food-mile impact and tend to be a barrier for new farmers to get started. Typically, the cost of land can be prohibitively expensive due to corporate and foreign ownership, and farms within cities are virtually nonexistent due to lack of local infrastructure.

See the August 2024 EcoAction webinar on climate and agriculture.

Zero Waste

The Green Party advocates that communities formally adopt a policy of zero waste, seeking to send no waste to either a landfill or an incinerator. The Green Party advocates to shut down existing waste incinerators, impose a moratorium on new waste incinerators, and phase out landfills.

Zero Waste means designing and managing products and processes to systematically avoid and eliminate the volume and toxicity of waste and materials, conserve and recover all resources, and not burn or bury them.

It is generally agreed that the proper solid waste hierarchy is reduce, reuse, and recycle, though unfortunately most governments - and even many environmentalists - primarily focus on recycling. There are many ways that local governments can strengthen the recycling programs, but far more important is to reduce the amount of waste that is produced and then seek to reuse as much as discarded materials as possible.

Many of the policies related to reducing waste need either state or federal action (see section onstopping single-use plastics). We need to make manufacturers responsible for the full life cycle of their products by requiring them to take back used products and packaging for remanufacturing, reuse, or recycling. Corporations should be held strictly liable for the consequences of the pollution they produce.

Communities can improve recycling by upgrading local infrastructure, launching clear education campaigns, and offering convenient collection options. Material Recovery Facilities are specialized plants that receive, sort, and prepare recyclable materials like paper, plastics, glass, and metal into marketable commodities for manufacturers. Communities need to increase the separation of recyclables at the curb in order to improve their quality and increase their marketability.

Communities should adopt curbside pickup of compostable materials; at a minimum, expand drop off sites.

A Pay-As-You-Throw garbage system, which charges households and businesses for the amount of trash they generate, provides an economic incentive to reduce waste and improve recycling.

Stop Single-Use Plastics

The fossil fuel industry is rapidly shifting its focus to plastic production. Plastic is on track to outpace coal's greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. by 2030. They are a major source of litter and pollution everywhere. For every three pounds of fish in the ocean, there is now one pound of plastic.

BeyondPlastics.org has good background information on single-use plastics, including a link to false solutions to plastics and recycling (note: only 5 to 6% of plastics are recycled in the US). Plastics are difficult to recycle because the products usually contain many different materials and contaminants which would have to be separated and removed before being remanufactured.

One issue that has popped up in many states is proposed Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) laws. The concept is very good – make those who produce waste responsible for its ultimate disposal, including costs. However, the waste industry has developed model legislation that is greenwashing while putting waste producers like Coke and Pepsi in charge of the new regulations. Many groups have supported their proposals because it would provide some funding to support municipal recycling programs. EPR needs to include strong goals focused first on short timelines to achieve a significant reduction in the amount of waste generated. Background on EPR from Beyond Plastics

The Break Free From Plastic Pollution Act is best federal legislation to make meaningful reductions in the amount of plastic pollution in the U.S.

An emerging issue is the promotion of chemical recycling, which is largely rebranding for incineration. You can read more about this greenwashing at Beyond Plastics.

“The petrochemical sector has promoted chemical recycling under many different guises including chemical conversion, molecular conversion, and feedstock recycling. Today its preferred choice is advanced recycling…. Chemical recycling aims to turn plastic waste back into its molecular building blocks, in contrast to mechanical recycling, which does not alter the chemical structure of the plastic. By far the most prevalent type of chemical recycling, pyrolysis is a process in which plastics are broken down into a range of basic hydrocarbons by heating in the absence of oxygen. The primary product is pyrolysis oil, which can be refined into fuels or further processed to create chemicals or plastic.

“Gasification uses high temperatures with low volumes of air or steam to degrade plastic. The primary product is a gas called ‘synthesis gas’, which can be processed into fuels or chemicals. Other forms of chemical recycling include solvent-based processes, which dissolve plastics and separate polymers from other components. Chemical depolymerisation uses thermal and chemical reactions to break the plastic polymer chain into individual monomers.”

The Green Party of NY supported successful initiatives to ban the use of plastic bags at many retail stores (initially passed at local level, then at state level), and to require things such as plastic straws and utensils at restaurants and take out places to only be provided on demand (because disabled individuals may need straws).

Oppose Garbage Incineration

GP platform: End the use of incineration as a cleanup technology and ensure that "cleanups" don't simply relocate toxins to chemical waste dumps in poor communities of color.

Shut down existing waste incinerators, impose a moratorium on new waste incinerators, and phase out landfills. For all possible waste streams, we support the following strategies (in order of priority) as alternatives to incineration and landfills: (a) toxics use reduction; (b) source reduction, reuse, clean recycling or composting /digestion; or (c) neutralization, sterilization, or detoxification methods where applicable.

Some background. Incineration is very expensive and often provides a financial penalty for recycling. It does not eliminate landfilling. It is the major source of heavy metals and other contaminants (e.g., dioxin) in the environment.

Rights of Nature  (EcoAction Webinar on Biodiversity and Rights of Nature, Oct 2023)

We support the adoption of local, state, and federal laws that recognize the legal rights of natural communities and ecosystems - including wetlands, streams, rivers, aquifers, and other water systems - to exist, flourish, regenerate, naturally evolve, and be restored. We support the inclusion in those laws of the ability of people and communities to file legal actions in the name of the affected natural community or ecosystem and for courts to require restoration of the natural community or ecosystem back to its pre-damaged state.

Transportation

The Green Party supports a transportation policy that emphasizes the use of mass transit and alternatives to the automobile and truck for transport. We call for major public investment in mass transportation, so that such systems are cheap or free to the public and are safe, accessible, and easily understandable to first-time users. We need ecologically sound forms of transportation that minimize pollution and maximize efficiency. Massive subsidies to the auto and fossil fuel industries, as well as an unworkable approach by urban planners, maintain the auto's dominance of our cityscapes.

Rather than improving mass transit or developing alternatives to cars and trucks for transport, most U.S. initiatives are for individually owned electric cars and other vehicles. The Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) devoted the vast majority of its $50 billion in transportation spending to make cars greener, providing only a few billion in funding for mass transit, biking, walking and trains.

To promote mass transit, the Green Party calls to:

1. Redirect resources that currently go to enhancing auto capacity into expanding human-scale transit options.
   
   
2. Develop affordable mass transit systems that are more economical to use than private vehicles.
   
   
3. Encourage employer subsidies of transit commuter tickets for employees, funded by government Congestion Management grants.
   
   
4. Use existing auto infrastructure for transit expansion where possible. Light rail could be established in expressway medians through metropolitan high-density corridors.
   
   
5. Include land use decisions in transportation issues, with consideration of the need for mass transit to have a market and be viable, and with attention paid to crosscommuting the practice of people commuting to a place where they could and should live.
   
   
6. Expand our country's network of rail lines, including high-speed regional passenger service.
   
   
7. Transfer ownership and operation of all intercity railroad trackage currently under control of freight railroads to responsible and adequately funded public agencies, as is done with highways, to provide for efficiency and safety of all rail traffic.

Sprawl — people living further and further from where they work —increases our miles of travel and leads to less dense populations, even fewer mass transit alternatives, and additional vehicle traffic. Sprawl has multiple economic costs, including increased travel costs; decreased economic vitality of urban centers; loss of productive farm and timberland; loss of natural lands that support tourism and wildlife-related industries; increased tax burdens due to more expensive road, utility, and school construction and maintenance costs; loss of the rural characteristics that make many communities attractive to homebuyers; and increased car use leading to higher air pollution and increased health care costs for diseases like asthma.

The Green Party supports promoting pedestrians and bicyclists, with steps such as these:

●      Make streets, neighborhoods and commercial districts more pedestrian friendly;

●      Utilize traffic-calming methods, where the design of streets promotes safe speeds and safe interaction with pedestrians;

●      Create auto-free zones;

●      Develop extensive networks of bikeways, bicycle lanes and paths. Include bike racks on all public transit; and, maintain free community bicycle fleets, and provide necessary support for cyclists.