Xcel Energy originally hoped to run their highest polluting electric plant, the Comanche Coal Plant, until 2040. Then hundreds of people wrote in and spoke out at public hearings demanding that they close the plant as soon as possible – 2030 at the latest.

In response, Xcel struck a backdoor deal with the City of Denver to keep running the coal plant until 2035, along with some nasty strings attached.

Luckily the Public Utility Commission is likely to amend or even reject this proposed settlement. We’re co-organizing a rally on Friday April 8th and a phone/email campaign telling Denver City Council to refuse any future agreement with Xcel and instead demand the Comanche 3 Coal Plant close by 2030 or sooner.

Attend the Coal Free Colorado Rally on Friday April 8th

Call or email your city council representative and tell them No Dirty Backdoor Deal for Xcel.

Denver is Turning its Back on its Climate Commitments by Signing the Xcel Settlement

Denver’s electricity provider, Xcel Energy, is trying to lock Colorado into 13 more years of coal while forcing customers to foot the bill… And the City of Denver supported it!

Here’s what’s wrong with the proposed settlement:

1. It agrees that Comanche 3, the largest single source of climate pollution in Colorado, should operate until 2035.
   
   The settlement would require the Comanche 3 coal plant to burn coal until 2035– five years longer than any other coal plant in Colorado. This is the most unreliable power plant in the state, including being offline for nearly all of 2020 because of poor maintenance practices.
   
   The coal plant is the largest source of climate pollution in the state and is located in Pueblo, a low-income, Latino community. This community doesn’t even get the electricity from the plant — just the pollution. When the PUC held a hearing in Pueblo in October 2021, residents expressed overwhelming support for retiring the coal plant by 2030 at the latest.
   
2. It prevents Comanche 3 from ever being closed earlier than 2035.
   
   The settlement would lock in a retirement date for Comanche 3 of December 31, 2034 that could never be changed, even as the plant continues to suffer malfunctions and more and more cheaper, cleaner alternatives become available. The single largest source of CO2 emissions will run for the next 14 years.
   
3. It makes Xcel’s shareholders rich on the backs of Denver ratepayers.
   
   The settlement forces us ratepayers to pay Xcel $658 million to recover costs lost because of their mismanagement. We shouldn’t be on the hook to pay millions to Xcel’s Wall Street investment for their bad business decisions.
   
   The settlement also guarantees Xcel at least $626 million in new company-owned electric generation resources to replace the Comanche 3 coal plant after 2035. The more resources Xcel builds and owns, such as new wind turbines, solar panels, or gas plants, the more money their shareholders make. Typically, Xcel has to allow other companies to bid on new electric projects. For example, instead of setting up community-owned solar farms we would have to get our new electricity through Xcel, feeding their extractive monopoly.
   
4. It assumes new gas plants would operate for at least 40 years.
   
   The settlement allows Xcel to assume that new gas plants would operate for 40 years – long after 2050, the date by which Xcel says it is aiming to be carbon-free. This violates Denver’s plan for 100 percent renewable energy by 2030, and Colorado’s goal of 100% renewable energy by 2040.
   
5. It will massively increase pollution from gas-fired power plants.
   
   The settlement says that the social cost of carbon will be used in dispatch starting in the summer of 2022. This means that gas generation will increase dramatically, to make up for the lost coal generation–because it is impossible for Xcel to acquire new renewables by next summer.
   
   
   Tell your City Council member and the Mayor that the City of Denver to protect people and the climate, rather than corporate profits!

On Dec. 2, more than 100 people registered for a Zoom call hosted by the Public Utility Commission to hear what the public thought of Xcel’s 10-year plan. Scheduled to end at 6 p.m., the event ran well past 7.

Of the dozens and dozens who spoke, only four supported Xcel’s plan. The rest of us called it out for what it is: greenwashing.

Xcel boasts that their “Landmark electric resource plan would cut carbon emissions an estimated 85% by 2030.”

The problem with that target is that it’s too late. The Biden administration’s national goal is 100% carbon-free electricity by 2035; Gov. Polis’ target is 100% renewable energy by 2040. Denver, Boulder, Pueblo, Fort Collins, Longmont, Golden, Summit County, Lafayette, Frisco, Aspen, Glenwood Springs, Nederland, and Breckenridge each have set 100% renewable electricity targets by 2030 or 2035.

We’re already in the midst of a climate crisis. We’re feeling it first-hand with the record-setting heat waves, wildfires, mudslides, droughts and air pollution.

Xcel missed its window of opportunity to help avert climate catastrophe. Now the question is, how bad will we allow it to get?

To stave off the worst of the worst, community members overwhelmingly called for the following changes to Xcel’s plan:

Close all coal plants, especially the Comanche Coal Plant, the state’s dirtiest, most unreliable and expensive source of energy, by 2030 at the latest.

Do not pass on the cost of the Comanche Coal Plant to ratepayers. This coal plant was built in 2010 and it was largely opposed then. It was a bad investment that Xcel Energy needs to take responsibility for. The general public already is paying the price with our health and the challenges of an increasingly hostile climate.

Close the Arapahoe and Cherokee gas plants by 2030. Like the Comanche Coal plant, these have been polluting the air of its nearby mostly Latino, working-class neighborhoods, contributing to our severe ozone issue and of course climate change.

Set a 100% renewable electricity goal by 2040 at the very latest — to align with Colorado targets.

The outpouring of support for these demands has been overwhelming. The hearing on Dec. 2  featured voices ranging from ski industry representatives concerned about shrinking ski days, to local business owners wanting to purchase clean electricity, to indigenous leaders highlighting the devastation coal and gas brings to the land and their communities, to parents angry about the planet on which we’re raising, and eventually will pass along to, our kids.

A strong majority of Pueblo residents (30 opposing Xcel’s plan, 7 neutral and 8 in favor) spoke out at an earlier public hearing in October. More than 1,000 residents have submitted written comments to the same effect.

Xcel Tries Striking a Backdoor “Settlement”

This surge in public participation prompted Xcel to have work behind closed doors with the city of Boulder and Denver and other parties to devise a counter-offer.

Originally the plan was to run the Comanche Coal plant until 2040. In this new deal, that closure date would be moved up to 2035. It would also pass on some of the cost of the bad investment to us ratepayers. 

At the Dec. 2 statewide hearing, however, we residents made clear that 2030 is the hard line for closing those coal- and gas-fired plants. We can’t have Xcel making closed-door deals that undermine the strong public consensus on this.

This post was taken largely from EcoSocialist Chair Clayton Dewey’s op-ed in the Colorado Sun, with his permission.

---

Thank you to everyone who showed up to the January general meeting yesterday; it was longer than normal but we covered a lot of important voting. We’re proud to announce […]

The post January 2022 General Meeting Recap appeared first on Houston DSA.

In an effort to exert its power over the Americas, the United States has enforced an embargo on Cuba ever since its revolutionary struggle for independence from American imperialism. The blockade is an effort to force regime change against the will of Cuban people who want to improve their society without foreign interference. Despite the immense suffering caused by the embargo to this very day, socialists in Cuba have made remarkable achievements in education and healthcare. DSA members Rolando, Tom, and Patrick as well as Daniel Montero, a journalist from Cuba, join us to discuss the movement to end the embargo and the fight to preserve Cuban self-determination.

Las Vegas DSA condemns the United States Navy’s poisoning of the O‘ahu drinking water aquifer amidst the ongoing military occupation of the Hawai‘i Islands.

Capitalist and colonial interests have made Hawai‘i unlivable for many native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders. While we are proud to call nearly 53,000 Pacific Islanders our neighbors and comrades here in Las Vegas — colloquially referred to as the “Ninth Island” — the destruction of their native land cannot continue to go unnoticed.

Those who remain in Hawai‘i already deal with an obscenely high cost of living on the islands, caused by the greed of the white, capitalist class. After the U.S. Navy leaked massive amounts of jet fuel into O‘ahu’s largest drinking water supply and attempted to cover it up, residents are still dealing with chemical smells in their water and rashes from bathing in it. The leak at the Hālawa shaft will be shut down until fuel is removed from the tanks and may not reopen for years to come. For residents of Honolulu, this means that a water supply which used to provide 20% of the drinking water for the region is now inaccessible.

In response, the Navy continues to confuse and gaslight community members about the viability of their drinking water during this illegal occupation of the islands. This fits an ongoing, white supremacist pattern of violence by the United States: a genocide, displacement, and erasure of the Indigenous Hawaiian and Pacific Islander population that once thrived without U.S. aided underdevelopment.

Las Vegas DSA stands in solidarity with the Hawaiian and Pacific Islander community, both in Southern Nevada and on the islands. We echo demands for the shutdown of the Red Hill Fuel Storage Facility, which caused the leaks. LVDSA also calls for the United States to cease military operations in Hawai‘i, the Pacific Islands, and all its colonies.

In addition, we’re calling for members to sign on to this petition, demanding the immediate halt to the construction of the TMT, 30 Meter Telescope on Mauna Kea, Island of Hawaiʻi. The TMT will cause harm to the mountain and destroy a sacred place for Kanaka Maoli’s spiritual and cultural practices.

Signed:
Las Vegas DSA Steering Committee

The third module of our Socialist Night School study series on imperialism focuses on how socialists have approached (and presently approach) the relationship between nationalism, self-determination, and socialist liberation. This is a pressing issue for both subjugated nations and working-class people seeking to fight capitalist imperialism from within the imperial core.

So what is the relationship between socialism and nationalism? How does this relationship differ depending on where one resides within a system of imperial domination? What are key lessons we can draw from historical and present-day experiences and struggles of Pan-Africanism and Pan-Indigenous movements in Latin America? What does it mean to show meaningful solidarity across national borders? These are some of the questions we will work through this module.

Recommended Reading

To prepare for this session, we ask attendees to read through Module 3 (pp. 54-77) of the DSA-LA Imperialism Reader, which includes:

• Immanuel Wallerstein, “The Politics of Accumulation: Struggle for Benefits” (pp. 55-57)
• Walter Rodney, “Aspects of the International Class Struggle in Africa, the Caribbean and America” (pp. 58-63)
• Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz, “Indigenous Peoples and the Left in Latin America” (pp. 64-69)
• Ramón Grosfoguel, “Latinos and the Decolonization of the US Empire” (70-77)

If you would like to dive deeper, we recommend turning to the full-length texts by the various authors:

• Immanuel Wallerstein, Historical Capitalism
• Walter Rodney, full-length version of “Aspects of the International Class Struggle in Africa, the Caribbean and America”
• Ramón Grosfoguel, Nelson Maldonado-Torres, and José David Saldívar, “Latin@s and the ‘Euro-American Menace’” (introduction to Latin@s in the World-System)

Were you unable to attend the first two sessions? No problem! You can review the content from Module 1: Is Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism? and Module 2: America’s Ascent as an Imperial Power.

Interested in attending our Socialist Night School sessions? Check our calendar for upcoming session dates.

By Pinellas DSA Member Bruce Nissen

Progressive and leftist discussions and memes these days commonly employ the word “privilege.” In fact, I’m hard pressed to think of another word more frequently used. The term is intended to educate those of us who do not face the types of discrimination or unfair treatment against certain groups that is regrettably so prevalent in the U.S. today.

The most common usage of the term is “white privilege” or “white skin privilege,” referring to the long and deeply institutionalized racial discrimination against African Americans and other people of color compared to lighter-skinned European Americans. But the term can also be used to point out the superior position society places some groups compared the less-favored categories: “male privilege” over females; “ableist privilege” over those with a handicap; “heterosexual privilege” over LGBTQ populations; and the like. In this essay I will only be discussing white privilege, although the arguments I develop can be equally applied to other types of labelling people as privileged.

Before directly addressing examples of the usage of “white privilege” rhetoric, I want to cover a few basic principles we need to adhere to if we wish to be persuasive in getting people with backward or socially harmful attitudes to change their perspective. First, our goal as Democratic Socialists must be to build a powerful working-class movement composed of all races, genders, sexes, sexual orientations, etc. to confront and defeat what are commonly referred to as the one percent, the capitalists, or the corporate elite. This movement must oppose all the discriminatory “isms” both because we are fighting for a society where they no longer exist and because movements divided along racial, or sexual or other lines historically fail.

Second, we want to choose the rhetoric that is most likely to lead to the change we seek. For example, anti-racist rhetoric is wisely chosen if it leads to a reduction in racist attitudes and practices. Rhetoric that fails to achieve this, or that may even reinforce racism in all its variants is to be avoided. The goal is to achieve results; all other objectives must be secondary.

Our rhetoric should help to build the most powerful and widely shared common front against the evil we are addressing, in this case racism. Rhetoric that alienates potential allies in the fight against racism should be avoided, while rhetoric that shows the common interests of all those who would benefit from reducing and ultimately eradicating racism should be our first choice.

While the above points are true, our rhetoric should also be truthful and accurate. It should not water down or cover up existing evil racist practices in the interest of maintaining friendly relations with everybody. To do that would be to abandon the goal, which is to reduce and erase racism in all its many forms. In other words, our rhetoric must “keep it principled” and maintain an unwavering focus on the evil we are combatting.

With these criteria in mind, I want to examine the current propensity of progressive and leftist producers of memes and analyses to use the language of “privilege” in attempts to combat racism. From the beginning, let me acknowledge that the language of white privilege is used in a wide array of ways, some with more nuance than others. A short essay like this cannot possibly get into all these differences between these different usages of the term. Perhaps a few who use the term white privilege do not fit the depiction I will be giving here, but I believe the more widely shared and popular usages of white privilege analysis fit the mold I will be portraying.

One thing that all proponents of white privilege share is that they wish to focus intently on the differences between those who are treated in a racially discriminatory manner and those who are not. They correctly perceive a widespread tendency among white U.S. residents to downplay, ignore, or even not be fully aware of the extreme differences in the way our society treats white folks and black folks or people of color in general. They also (correctly) know that the life prospects of whites versus non-whites in the U.S. overwhelmingly negatively affect the non-whites. The tragic loss of human potential and even to some degree loss of being treated with dignity or as a fully human being is evident, and the desire of white privilege proponents is to force white people to acknowledge and confront this reality.

The above sentiments are laudable, and I fully share the sentiment that the reality of institutional (and of course attitudinal) racism must be squarely faced and combated. However, I have a problem with the usage of the word “privilege” to describe all such racially discriminatory practices. What is the source of my objection?

Let’s examine the meaning of the word “privilege.” Dictionary.com defines privilege as 1. a right, immunity, or benefit enjoyed by a particular person or a restricted group of people beyond the advantages of most: the privileges of the very rich.

2. the unearned and mostly unacknowledged societal advantage that a restricted group of people has over another group: white privilege based on skin color; male privilege; children of privilege.

Both definitions point to a privilege as something given to people that they did not earn. The implication is that it is something they do not deserve. It should be taken away from them if we want to be fair or just. While that is not explicitly stated in the definitions, it is a strong implication to most people if they hear the word “privileged.” Applied to oneself, being called “privileged” is inevitably pejorative; it is something to be avoided or is something that is disapproved. Think of our attitude toward a young adult born into the lap of luxury whose parents bought them the best private schooling from kindergarten through an elite college like Harvard or Princeton (admission gained through a large donation to the college). We consider them privileged, and believe their treatment compared to an individual born into average circumstances to be unjust. The struggle for a better world includes ending such privileges: take away their unfair advantages.

Now consider the practice of labelling all white people by describing them as having white privilege. An average working-class white person is very likely to hear this as an attack upon him/her: they hear that they have undeserved privileges that probably should be taken away from them. They are likely to no longer listen to whoever made the accusation against them, insisting that they worked hard for whatever they have gotten, etc. This is not a good scenario for uniting people in a struggle against racism.

Even for those (relatively few) white working-class people who do not react defensively, the “white privilege” message is not productive. If they accept that they are privileged because their skin is white, this is a very dis-empowering message. It is highly unlikely to spur them into anti-racist action. Since their skin color is beyond their control, there is little that they can do to correct the situation. The white privilege analysis is very similar to the Christian doctrine of “original sin” — it is a deficiency that one is born with; it is beyond your control. The best that one can do is live with this undesirable condition (“whiteness”) and accept one’s unworthiness and inability to challenge what cannot be changed. The best that one can do is to realize one’s unworthiness and submit to the dictates of those not tainted by whiteness. This means unquestionably following the leadership of whoever is (falsely) considered the unquestioned leader of a unitary conflict-free non-white community that has no class distinctions within it. (No such community exists; like all communities the African American (or any non-white or non-advantaged) community is riven with class and other distinctions that lead to different interests and therefore political programs.)

The white privilege analysis is equally dis-empowering in non-white groups. Its focus is on victimhood within minority populations. A non-white person is offered few or no powerful or majoritarian opportunities to combat unequal treatment since most of the population is alleged to be permanently advantaged by the system simply based on their skin color, and therefore has an interest in perpetuating racism and discrimination.

Consider the situation of the following four people and how the white privilege analysis relates to each:

A. George is a white man born into a multi-millionaire family; his grandfather and father were both U.S. Senators and his father even became U.S. president. Despite his being a poor student his father bought his way into an Ivy League University and gave him tens of millions of dollars-worth of stock in Texas oil companies. George later becomes President of the U.S. (Think of George W. Bush).

B. Henry is a white man born into a poor family. His father worked as a janitor who faced frequent layoffs, while his mother had unstable jobs as a cashier at various gas stations. From age 8 up Henry was home alone frequently because both parents were working 2nd shift simultaneously. A mediocre student, Henry left high school and drifted through a few jobs until he landed on his current job as a road crew member in a non-union construction outfit. He supports a wife and two young children on wages that put the family right at the U.S. poverty line.

C. Emily is an African American woman who was raised in a solidly middle-class family; her father was a city administrator, and her mother was a public-school teacher. Emily went to the state university and is now Executive Vice President of a social welfare agency at an income of $110,000/year. Her husband is a lawyer working for the ACLU. Their combined family income approaches $200,000 per year.

D. Camille is an African American woman in her late 20s. She was raised by a single mother in poverty and unstable circumstances. Camille became pregnant at age 17 and ended up with a child but no adult partner. She has struggled to attain a stable life, and with the help of extended family caring for her 10-year-old daughter, she has just earned a GED high school degree and is working at an entry level office job, earning $21,000 a year.

Who among the four individuals detailed above deserves to be labeled as privileged? I would argue, only George. Here is a man given many unearned and undeserved privileges, and the world would indeed be better off if they were taken away from him and redistributed to those born into less favorable circumstances. But the white privilege analysis argues that Henry should also be accused of being privileged. Let’s examine the basis for this claim.

Henry lacks the generational wealth advantages and the “zip code” advantages that clearly privileged individuals like George possess. These types of advantages, which are clearly structural and systemic and full of obvious racial dimensions, are clearly absent from Henry’s life.

Yet according to the white privilege analysis, Henry is privileged because he will not face the possibility of being pulled over by policemen for a broken tail light and possibly killed; because he will not likely face the prospect of being beaten by cops for loitering on the street; because he will not face the possibility of being call the “n” word and being treated as less than human because of the color of his skin; because he will not face housing discrimination due to the color of his skin, because. . . we could go on and on with a list of the mistreatment Henry is not likely to face simply because his skin is of a certain color.

And all of that is true: Henry will not face these forms of mistreatment. But does not being mistreated mean that one is privileged? Is it a privilege to be given human rights? To me, receiving basic human rights should be considered a right, not a privilege. And no one will bristle and act defensively if they are told they have basic human rights, even if they are told that others are denied those same rights.

Upholders of the white privilege analysis believe that my analysis above will allow white people to downplay or ignore the racist treatment (institutionalized in major ways throughout U.S. society) of people of color? In their view, isn’t it necessary to accuse white people of having white privilege if we are to get them to own up to the deep racism carved into our society?

I don’t think that is the case. We can in fact get people (including white working-class people) to recognize and acknowledge the deep racism of our society and draw their attention to racist treatment of non-white folks without using the term “privileged” with all its disadvantages.

If we tell white U.S. citizens (particularly working class U.S. citizens who are white) that they have many human rights (we shouldn’t go overboard and say ALL human rights, as many poor and working class whites are also denied many such rights due to inability to “pay” for them), AND THAT MANY OF THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS ARE DENIED THESE SAME RIGHTS SIMPLY BECAUSE OF THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN, we can then press the case for solidarity to extend those rights to all. That is not whitewashing or minimizing the deeply racist nature of current U.S. society. We can in fact press the case that all of us except the few who benefit from dividing us have a real material interest in combating racism and similar divisive doctrines.

For those who are cynical about such a “human rights — solidarity” message resonating with most white U.S. citizens: think how much harder it will ever be to get a receptive ear to accusations that they are privileged (implying they should lose their presumably unjustified advantages over people of color). The privilege language will immediately shut down receptivity to our anti-racist message. In fact, it is likely to drive a certain percentage of white working-class individuals right into the arms of Donald Trump and his ilk. It is also a dis-empowering message that at best will encourage apathy toward attempts to build a strong united working-class movement to combat all forms of discrimination and bigotry as well as class exploitation and extreme inequality.

Recall the criteria laid out earlier in this piece for effective anti-racist rhetoric. It should be language that is most likely to lead to our goal of decreasing and ultimately eradicating racism. And it should be most conducive to building a powerful and wide united front of all who have a stake in reducing racism. And it should not ignore or downplay the degree of racism in our society. I believe the “human rights — solidarity” framework is much more congruent with these criteria than are accusations to white working-class people that they are privileged. Let’s start using a more effective language!

(I want to acknowledge the incisive feedback and comments of Sean Armil on an earlier version of this essay. He is not responsible for any of its arguments — only I am — but it is much more sharply focused and clear thanks to his commentary.)

The formation of the United Auto Workers in the 1930s represented the upsurge in organized working class militancy that pushed forward a New Deal. Since that time the UAW has been a base of support for its members that collectively provides workers with a better life. Yet the UAW has weakened as its corrupt leadership has chosen compromise with the bosses over a robust internal democracy. That’s all about to change. The successful One Member, One Vote referendum has forced open the democratic process and created space for new leadership to rise up. We’ll discuss that and much more with UAW members Kay and Chris. The UAW is much more than just autoworkers. After threatening to strike, the 17,000 member Student Researchers Union of the University of California system won recognition and officially became the newest UAW local. How did these academic workers build a new organization? We hear directly from Kat and Laura of the SRU on how they made it happen.

In consultation with a number of progressive and environmental activists and organizations and two progressive members in the state legislature, the Delaware Chapter of Democratic Socialists of America have developed the following Green New Year’s Resolution for members of the Delaware General Assembly to endorse and to demonstrate their commitments among their fellow Delawareans and legislative colleagues. We ask you to join us as a sponsoring organization before we present it to our legislators.

Whereas the people of Delaware have elected us, their legislators, to place the interests of their well-being and that of the planet at the forefront of our actions, and

Whereas confronting the climate crisis, an existential threat to humanity, has been impeded by the short-sighted interests of powerful economic players, and

Whereas the New Year is traditionally a time to take stock and re-commit ourselves to the environment and the home of our constituents and ourselves,

Therefore, we members of the Delaware General Assembly do solemnly affirm and commit ourselves to the following Green New Year’s Resolutions:

• Support a Green Amendment to the Delaware Constitution, which would grant all people, including future generations, the right to clean air and water, a stable climate, and a healthy environment.
• Support House Bill 259, requiring use of the emergency alert system to inform people of catastrophic releases of toxic pollutants.
• Support legislation requiring agencies to assess the potential cumulative impacts on proposed industrial and development action and to mitigate the aggregated effects of environmental and human health hazards on Delawareans, especially the poor, the working class, and others most affected due to geographic location. 
• Support renewed funding for Open Space programs and Farmland Preservation.
• Support legislation to disallow Emission Reduction Credits in overburdened communities 
• Support robust compliance monitoring of state agencies with either an Inspector General or State Environmental Justice Board
• Ensure that PFAS settlement funds are managed equitably, effectively, and transparently. 
• Reject campaign contributions from fossil fuel interests, including banks that fund fossil fuel projects.