Green New Deal Comes to Chico

Editor's note: If you appreciate being able to read posts like this one, and want to ensure ANC's ability to provide more content like this, please click here to demonstrate your support and become a paid subscriber.

In a packed house at the El Rey Theatre in Chico, Sunrise Movement ( brought the pledge for the Green New Deal to Chico. Audrey Denney signed on to the Green New Deal with cheers and much fanfare and much support.

The political establishment is scrambling to keep up with thousands of people across the country who are eager to take action and bring the promise of the Green New Deal into reality.


Charles Finlay
Charles Finlay has been a working photographer for over twenty years. After his formal studies in photography at The New York Institute of Photography, he worked in many commercial studios in New York. After serving in the US Army in Vietnam his interest turned to documentary and photojournalism. Working as a photojournalist in New York and San Francisco, he produced images for numerous publications world wide. Mr. Finlay has completed masters studies in photography at UC Berkeley, and also holds a PhD. He has been Nominated for “Best Of Photography” 1991. Photographic assignments included: Time, Woman’s Day, Newsweek, City of New York, Pageant, President Reagan’s campaign, President Carter, Governor Brown, Prince Charles, CBS News, NBC News production facility, Mayor of San Francisco, Mayor of San Jose, and many local political campaigns. Mr. Finlay has been specializing in political campaign photography, as he covers news events of interest. He is a member of the National Press Photographers Association.
Comment Policy: We welcome your comments, with some caveats: Please keep your comments positive and civilized. If your comment is critical, please make it constructive. If your comment is rude, we will delete it. If you are constantly negative or a general pest, troll, or hater, we will ban you from the site forever. The definition of terms is left solely up to us. Comments are disabled on articles older than 90 days. Thank you. Carry on.

48 Responses

  1. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    The goal of the New Green Deal is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions while addressing societal issues of economic inequality and racial injustices. Laudable goal but good luck getting everybody on board. Several groups have their “best” plan and will not concede to others “best” plan. The advocates say that the cost will be borne by an improving economy. That is what every Republicans say about tax cuts.

  2. Avatar Tim says:

    I refuse to provide economic security to those unwilling to work.

    • Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

      That part has already been removed from the New Green Deal. Likewise there will probably be so many changes it will look totally different then the plan they started with.

      • Avatar Tim says:

        Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez removed “unwilling to work” from her Green New Deal FAQ, but the actual text still says “economic security for all.” I refuse to provide economic security for those who turn down available work – just like I refuse to pay for a stranger’s degree in a negative ROI major like art history or supernatural ministry.

        No one is entitled to a career that is both financially and emotionally rewarding – that fanciful hogwash is perfectly illustrative of the selfishness inherent in today’s brand of socialism. Capitalism, on the other hand, is about finding ways to provide the most value to your neighbors – even (and especially) if you do not enjoy the work itself. Capitalism *is* pro-social.

        And the “Green” part of the green new deal isn’t very green. Switching from a visibly dirty source of energy to a less visibly, but still dirty, source of energy is no giant step forward. It may even be a step backward in that it continues to enable frivolous energy usage.

        PS: It would be nice if today’s socialists finished funding all those 1960s Great Society programs before making more promises than a Venezuelan bus driver (or Bronx bartender). Running out of resources is socialism failure 101…

        • Avatar Larry Winter says:

          Tim, can you give us an example where capitalism works the way you think it should be working. I’m having a hard time understanding how theories played out in real life can remain true to its core. It seems all democratic societies are a combination of economic theories that each society chooses to implement. Even China, a socialist country, depends on capitalists as well as capitalists need to depend on social programs that stem the unrest that inevitably occurs due to economic disparities that arise under a capitalist dominant society. Our governance model allows for change due to all kinds of reasons, including the impetus behind the Green New Deal. Love it or hate it, it will take the will of the people to implement it. So is it really socialism you abhor or a form of government that allows socialism to prosper if a society allows it? You say you refuse to oblige a socialist program such as economic security for all. There’s even one Dem candidate that’s calling for a $1,000 a month payment for everyone over 21 I believe. But do you refuse to pay into Medicare? Social Security? I have a friend who didn’t pay into these programs since he only worked under the table for the near 40 years he lived in Hyampom. It worked great for him until he became ill with cancer. He was a Seabee when he was younger so he tapped into the VA socialist program in order to stay alive and I don’t blame him one bit. So again, can you give an example where capitalism is the name of the game in a country that you can point to as a shining light on a hill?

          • Avatar Tim says:

            You need an example of capitalism working? Just look at the relatively high salaries of relatively low-skilled but unappealing jobs like sewer, garbage, & recycling workers, disaster/crime scene clean-up, traveling salesmen/truck drivers/train conductors, roughnecks, dental hygienists, mechanics, prison guards, etc.

            China has only relatively recently adopted capitalistic reforms, but in doing so has transformed itself from an all but irrelevant nation to a true superpower. Sadly, the many remnants of communism & socialism haven’t done much to protect its environment. If anything, the lingering cultural appreciation for cutting bureaucratic corners and outright cheating have quite literally fostered a toxic environment.

            As for social safety nets, there is nothing anti-capitalistic about them if done properly. It is in my own best interest to ensure that someone who accidentally maimes himself on the job is able to continue living with his family at a minimum standard. Otherwise crime & *true* poverty would grow and moderately dangerous professions like roofing would have to charge astronomical rates to offset their small, but real, chance of permanent disability.

            On the other hand, our current system is full of perverse incentives and is in desperate need of reform. Welfare mommas should not be able to improve their economic outlook by having additional children. The partially disabled should not be forced to completely forfeit their SSI if they work limited hours in lesser jobs. And 50 year-old police chiefs shouldn’t be paid 90% of their salary to *not* work in their field of expertise.

            Paying all people a good wage, even those who choose not to contribute to society, is most definitely a perverse incentive.

          • Avatar Larry Winter says:

            Tim, in your first paragraph you give examples of capitalism working. I would assert that those examples aren’t couched in capitalism alone and that those salaries wouldn’t exist without some form of a “forced taking” of taxes. Many of those jobs are government jobs. Maybe I’m misinterpreting the idea of “forced taking through taxes”, which you alluded to in another thread, as being anathema to capitalism.
            If I’m reading your view correctly, social safety nets are necessary to prevent true capitalist concepts from pricing dangerous jobs out of work as your roofer example illustrates.
            But your caveat is that these “brakes” on capitalism must be done “properly”. Well, that’s where it gets dicey. Isn’t just a matter of semantics to say a roofer today is working in a capitalist society when a social program makes it possible? It seems to me that those that call themselves Democratic Socialists recognize this symbiotic relationship but that your view is just that they aren’t doing it “properly” and therefore it’s called Socialism or Communism when it’s more of just the same social/capitalist joint venture that you see as necessary as your roofer example shows.
            If you’re defining capitalism as doing what is in one’s self interest, this goes to the heart of the problem with pure capitalism. We all have varying interests which makes our form of government best suited to winnow out the chaff. It’s just that one person’s chaff is another person’s grain.
            Demonizing opponents is a form of persuasion in our democratic republic as is promising heaven on earth, to use a locally common phrase. This doesn’t always bring about the best solution and will always define winners and losers in every case, as your “perverse incentives” comment illustrates. We do have the ability to change bad policies over time if we are willing as a country.
            And lastly, I just can’t get a handle on your “I refuse to provide economic security to those unwilling to work” while benefiting from our social/capitalist framework that would also allow what you abhor. Is it just bombastic or will you use some tax scheme to get yourself out of paying? What would be your game plan?

          • Avatar Tim says:

            An unfair tax is one levied on a minority -against its will- by the majority. When you hear someone chanting something like “tax the rich -make them pay their fair share!” you can be sure you have identified an ignorant idiot. 45% of Americans pay no net federal income tax while the top 1% pays nearly 50% of society’s taxes.

            What happens when you tax the rich too much? They either leave faster than a promising Nokia engineer or they reduce their output because “why bother?”

            For what its worth, Canada’s top tax rate is 33% vs 37% for the US. AOC is pushing for a ridiculously punitive 70%.

  3. Frank Treadway Frank Treadway says:

    I have a feeling today’s naysayers would be against Roosevelt’s New Deal, therefore not having a monthly Social Security check, not having access to Veteran’s care, not ending child labor, on and on that past Democratic led administrations have brought us, but how soon they forget.

  4. Avatar Tim says:

    The architect of the Green New Deal is flummoxed by an ordinary garbage disposal:

    Apparently AOC lived in this “bougie” apartment for 2 months and only now discovered the switch that makes the scary noise. “Is it environmentally sound?” she asks…

    Note: New York City used to ban garbage disposals over dubious concerns (Stories vary from: the Mob/garbage union was against it, to questions about sewer capacity, to environmentalists demanding exhaustive studies). Giuliani lifted the ban in 1997 (after a 2-year environmental study).

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      The absurdity of the Green New Deal will be a boost to Republicans and President Trump in 2020. The Socialist Green Deal is so laughably ridiculous even the leftist leadership of her own Democratic Party is running from it. However, most of the declared Democrat candidates are embracing the plan. Amazing.
      Why do we care what a freshman representative thinks? Why does AOC garner so much attention. My guess is it simply because she is young and attractive. Fortunately for her, the (D) next to her name immunizes her from the mocking that Sarah Palin earned.

      • Avatar Larry Winter says:

        Tim, Ad hominem attacks aside, garbage disposals aren’t a common item in New York households so is it really that ridiculous for someone of AOC’s age to have that perspective? The ban was lifted but heavily regulated to ensure nothing bad environmentally speaking happens. You blame communistic and socialistic remnants for allowing China to be environmentally blind in a previous comment, but you make fun of AOC for showing environmental concern over a subject that is still being monitored for its environmental footprint.

        • Avatar Tim says:

          I normally try to avoid ad hominems, but this is the person everyone seems to be hitching their wagon to when it comes to social & environmental “progress.” How is someone this “shook” over plants growing in her absense possibly qualified to lead us in environmental policy?

          As for the garbage disposal: I don’t think it is a good quality for leaders to respond to the unknown with kneejerk fear and negativity – that goes whether encountering foreign appliances or the foreign born.

          But worse, her line of questioning was all wrong. Is it better to truck food waste to a transfer facility, sort it, then ship it hundreds of miles to a landfill or is it better to grind it and rinse it down the drain where it will be treated and either released in diluted form into the river or shoveled out as sludge and trucked away? Does it really matter? Wasting food is the real issue! But it shows her repeating preoccupation with mandating the mundane lesser of evils – like solar vs natural gas – rather than solving the actual problem of wasteful energy usage.

          But the more I learn about AOC, the more I wonder how much she is just pretending to be a ditz. We know that she readily lies to sell whatever story is at hand. For instance, we now know that she didn’t really come up from a poor family in the bronx, but instead grew up in the suburbs as the daughter of an architect.

          So in many ways she reminds me of our current commander in chief. Fearful of the new & unknown, manipulative of the media for more attention, prone to authoritarianism, prone to half-cocked ideas, etc…

      • Avatar Larry Winter says:

        Doug, you ask why we care about what a freshman representative thinks? For Fox News it’s the ratings. She’s been mentioned on that channel daily. Over 3,000 times during one 6 week time frame. Capitalism at its best, no?

        • Avatar Doug Cook says:

 I said, she is getting attention because she is young and hot. Not because of her brilliant policy ideas. Capitalism at it’s best? No, it is politics at its worst. I believe Fox mentions her a lot because it is indicative of the mess that is the Democrat party right now….and because she is young and hot.

  5. Avatar Candace C says:

    Doug, AOC’s popularity is mainly due to the fact that she’s “young and hot”? That’s some objectifying, marginalizing, skin-crawling rhetoric. Sigh.

    • Avatar Tim says:

      Superficial attributes matter more than the substantive in politics – and probably have forever. Radio listeners said the stately Nixon won the debate against the handsome young Kennedy, yet few who saw the televised match could get past Nixon’s appearance.

      If you want to be outraged, be outraged at the fact that despite millions of bright Democrats in America, this charismatic ditz has become the new face of the party.

  6. Avatar Candace C says:

    Tim, I’m not outraged, (nor do I think AOC is a ditz) I simply find that rhetoric tiresome and disrespectful to women. You can choose your definition of outrage and I’ll choose mine.

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      Candace, I don’t believe AOC is a ditz either. I think we should have more citizen politicians like her, and I respect her accomplishments. I think her ideas are a bit nutty, but that’s ok. I suppose that is what her constituents want. There were 89 freshman House representatives elected in this Congress. Can you name any of them except for AOC? I can’t, so why does everyone know AOC?

  7. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    I must watch different news, Fox, CBS, NBC, ABC(you tube is not a news source) than others because the face of the Democratic party is shown to be Sanders, Warren, Biden, Pelosi.

    • Avatar Tim says:

      Sanders is only a Democrat in presidential election years and Warren & Pelosi both have higher unfavorable than favorable ratings, so that might make Biden the de facto face of the Democratic party. He is certainly the one leading the polls for the Democratic nomination.

      But none of them are *new.* Pelosi is 79, Sanders is 77, Biden is 76, and Warren is the youngster at 69. At 29, AOC is younger and has more followers (4M on twitter) than the other major young Democrats combined (Pete Buttigieg is 37 with 1M followers, Joe Kennedy III is 38 with 750k, Tulsi Gabbard is 38 with 350k, and Beto O’rouke is 46 with 1.4M).

      If any of the younger generation is the “new face of the Democratic Party” it is AOC. Afterall, it was her “Green New Deal” that inspired this rally in Chico!

      PS: “Watching” news might be the issue: A majority of adults over the age of 50 get most of their news from television while a majority of those under 50 get their news online. Content providers tailor their news to their viewers…

      • Avatar Tim says:

        PS: AOC presided over the House for the first time Friday (she seemed disappointed she couldn’t take a picture for Instagram).

        • Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

          AOC sat in Pelosi’s chair in a normal rotation, nothing excited. AOC is not running for president and there are many other non-president young congress people who get as many twitter followers as AOC. When it comes to cash AOC is far behind the major faces of the Democratic party. Nobody gets their news from you tube.

          • Avatar Tim says:

            Ever hear about LaMalfa or Herger presiding over the house during a routine rotation under Boehner or Ryan? Nope, because, if they ever did, they were nobodies on the national stage. AOC taking the gavel made news everywhere from Business Insider to USA Today.

            Bernie Sanders is actively courting AOC’s endorsement – he’s even appearing with her Monday at a Green New Deal rally. Warren is supposedly putting out feelers for an AOC endorsement too. Does anyone care who LaMalfa endorses?

            And I don’t know why you’re so hung up on YouTube – that’s just where you can find AOC’s unedited videos for yourself (she originally posted them to Instagram, which deletes them after 24 hours).

  8. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    Hold the presses, the dream team for the Democrats has, unofficially, been announced. Biden- Harris.

  9. Avatar Larry Winter says:

    Northstate Congressman Jared Huffman, who continues to win support from Trinity County, is one of the 69 original co-sponsors of the Green New Deal submitted by AOC in the House. He had this to say in the Marin Independent Journal in March.

    “Honestly, anyone who says it’s not realistic has a burden of putting forward how they would save the planet in the next 10 to 12 years,” Huffman said. “Otherwise, what they’re really doing is throwing up their hands and saying it’s all hopeless and we’re not even going to try.”

    My youngest son who is a forestry major at Humboldt just mentioned some classes dealing with climate change and that the overall impression he gave was that it’s pretty depressing. This is what our young people are learning and it seems to be a smart move having the youngest woman ever elected to Congress bring this bill forward. As Rep. Huffman infers, people are feeling a sense of urgency, looking for someone that is trying to bring solutions to the table. Combining climate change with economic policies that benefit the working class acknowledges their relationship to one another in that the economic powers that be are the ones that are fighting any change in the status quo.
    Despite what you feel about the particulars of the Green New Deal, it is a powerful message that is resonating with voters.

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      The whole premise of your argument goes out the window when you come up with the ridiculous notion that we only have 10-12 years to save our planet. Where does that number come from? What is the emperical evidence that shows we only have 10-12 years?

      • Avatar Larry Winter says:

        The premise of my argument is that Democratic politicians are seeing climate change as a political lever for getting votes. I was quoting a politician to help make this point. I had to google where he got that figure and found it came from the IPCC.

        • Avatar Doug Cook says:

          Larry, What AOC said was that the world was going to end in 12 years if we do not take serious action against Climate Change. That is NOT what the IPCC report said. Not even close, but average citizens will not read the IPCC reports ever, and will believe the nonsense that AOC spouts. This is the problem with discussing climate change. Nobody really looks at the actual science. They readily believe every doomsday headline printed. When I questioned Dr Craig on his prediction of sea level rise of 60ft by the end of the century…he doubled down on it, despite the actual measurements of 3mm a year for the past 160 years…about a width of a dime. 60 feet?? Really?
          So Democrat politicians are using climate change as a political lever? Does that mean they have to lie, misstate facts and scare people to get votes?

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      “…it is a powerful message that is resonating with voters.”

      Not really. Climate change continues to be at the bottom of issues that concerns Americans

      • Avatar Larry Winter says:

        No, really. Climate change is the most important issue (82%) for Democrats and Independents that are likely to vote Democratic according to a recent CNN poll.

    • Avatar Candace C says:

      Larry, off topic but if you’re ok answering me on this forum I’m wondering if you’re the Larry Winter that Ava and I used to visit? (Candy). Of course if you’re not comfortable answering that I totally understand.

  10. Avatar Candace C says:

    Tim, Yes, and I see nothing wrong with lamenting that fact. As you say, different age groups tend to consume news from different sources. OAC is young and tech savvy and utilizes what she knows best. Good for her.

  11. Avatar Candace C says:

    Doug, “Not really. Climate change continues to be at the bottom of issues that concerns Americans”. I would amend your statement to “ …some Americans” . I’m an American and I can assure you that climate change is not at the bottom of my list of concerns. I can also assure you that I’m not alone in that concern. “Americans” covers a whole lot of people with a broad spectrum of concerns.

    • Avatar Doug Cook says:

      Candace, I am talking about the polling of issues. Polls show that climate change is at the bottom. Of course some people are concerned. My question is always, what do you want to do about climate change? Stop it? Figure out what temperature is ideal and do whatever we can to maintain it? That’s silly. Now that the evidence is that temperatures are not rising as predicted. That despite the handwringing, the temperature rise is at a unimpressive 1 degree over the last 100 years. How much more stable do you want?

      • Avatar Candace C says:

        Doug, I find it silly and pointless to argue with climate change deniers. So I won’t. Have a nice Sunday.

        • Avatar Doug Cook says:

          What’s a climate change denier? I’m certainly not. I believe the climate had been changing for 4.5 billion years, and will continue to change despite the new green deal. The real climate deniers are the ones that think we can change the climate. We have been in an over 20 year pause bin global warming…did man cause the pause it was it s natural cycle. My money is on the natural cycle.

  12. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    Climate Change is only one part of the New Green Deal. Income inequality, Racial profiling, College costs, healthcare are just as compelling. One factor that all candidates seem to put forth is to make the Rich pay for it.
    This to the Democrats is like the pledge to not raise taxes was to the Republicans. Don’t join at your own peril.

    • Avatar Tim says:

      Yes, it is a fantastical bundle of promises: save the environmeny and improve standards of living — have your cake and eat it too (unless you rich, but F#&* the rich!)

      One of the great ironies is that the original new deal was responsible for much of America’s environmental destruction in the 20th century. All those dammed rivers, new roads, and electrified houses came at a huge environmental cost.

      • Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

        The New Deal didn’t cause the environmental damage, it was the tripling of population in America as well as the world that causes environmental damage.

        • Avatar Tim says:

          Aside from getting Americans hooked on cheap environment-altering energy, the New Deal’s emphasis on expanding hundreds of thousands of miles of roads all but killed the US passenger train system.

          • Avatar Doug Cook says:

            …and the auto industry killed the horse and buggy industry. Not sure what your point is

  13. Avatar Bruce Vojtecky says:

    Actually the number one concern for all voters is healthcare. After that it can be divided up into different areas and different needs.

    • Avatar Beverly Stafford says:

      Ross Perot campaigned on healthcare and the national debt, and now, 27 years later these two money-gulping issues are still not being addressed aggressively. “Where the rubber meets the sky.”

  14. Avatar Candace C says:

    Larry, it sure was!