By Jess Taylor
California has once again faced another wildfire season. According to H.D. Palmer, Deputy Director of the State Department of Finance, the wildfires have so far cost the state $841.1 million, in September 2021.
Recently, Governor Newsom announced a $15 billion investment in climate resilience. This will involve targeting the reduction of wildfire risk and improving the health of forests and wildlands. As a result, as the stipend for fellows increases this fall, more jobs will be created in the state.
Jessica Morse, Deputy Secretary of California’s Natural Resources Agency said, “California’s unprecedented $1.5 billion investment in wildfire resilience will surge California’s capacity to keep communities and ecologies safe in the age of mega-fires.”
Earlier this summer, Presiden Biden met with west coast governors to discuss wildfires. He believes the way to tackle this malicious natural disaster goes beyond funding aerial firefighters and improved forest management; it requires one of the leading climate provisions planned in the Democrats’ $3.5 trillion budget bill, the Civilian Climate Corps.
The Civilian Climate Corps is inspired by President Franklin D. Roosevelt who initiated it from 1933 to 1942 to combat unemployment during the Great Depression. The program gave people short-term jobs or training programs that focused on renewable technology and building resilience against climate change. Roughly 3 million men went to work focused on conserving and developing natural resources in rural areas.
As nearly 80 years have passed since the original Civilian Climate Corps, obvious changes must be made. Women and people of color will be included in the diversity of the corps as well as providing an inclusive environment.
California Chief Service Officer, Josh Fryday said, “We are excited to build the first statewide California Climate Action Corps, and we look forward to building it with the help of passionate Californians, businesses, nonprofit organizations, universities, and communities across the state.”
California Climate Action Corps fellows will spend seven months to a year supporting community climate action projects through the program CivicSpark. The cities where most fellows will be placed are Fresno, Stockton, San Jose, Los Angeles and Redlands.
As the number of jobs in the state increases, so will the stipend. Last year, fellows received $22,000. This year they will receive a $5,000 increase. Economists look at these opportunities as a way to help America overcome the climate change crisis as well as the ongoing economic crisis that was kindled by the pandemic.
Progressive lawmakers showed the corps could create about 1.5 million jobs nationwide in five years that would revolve around forest management, fire mitigation, conservation projects, and building climate resilience.
Democratic Senator Ed Markey of Massachusetts commented on the Civilian Climate Corps saying, “We want good jobs with good wages, but our goal is to unleash the idealism of young people in our country and give them the ability to work on solving this climate crisis.”
The programs will be volunteer-led and will aim to engage people with any amount of time they can give. From children to seniors, all forms of volunteerism aim to battle climate change through healthy behaviors. Volunteers will plant trees, learn about composting and reducing food waste, urban forestry, and fire mitigation to name a few.
Those who obtain a fellowship will not only receive a living stipend but will also be eligible for college scholarships. Once they complete their term of service, they will also have their student loans paid off. On a national level, Congress would want members in the Climate Action Corps to move into long-term positions where their experience places them to lead against the climate crisis.
California is the first state to initiate a positive impact on our environment and unravel the damage done. There are many ways to get involved, regardless of how little spare time an individual may have. Governor Newsom hopes to inspire similar action across the nation and the globe to fight climate change.
To help and be a part of the solution go to ClimateActionCorps.ca.gov
When the gov’ment says ‘create jobs’ it means ‘subsidize jobs’.
Roosevelt didn’t initiative “it” (The Civilian Climate Corps), he initiated the Civilian Conservation Corps. Both subsidized jobs, both have three C’s, but not the same program.
That uncaptioned photo, wasn’t that from a march from years ago? I seem to remember the nametag sash.
Scientific evidence says so!
It’s true. If every state and country had such a positive impact as California has, the climate would cool by about 10 degrees.
And all the plants and animals would be happy, and would not continue losing habitat.
What is a “subsidized” job? The Climate Action Corps is not–it is no more “subsidized” than a job in the Army. It provides a public service that cannot be priced through a private transaction, which is the basis of private market jobs. If you claim that this is a subsidized job, then so are the fire and police jobs that provide public safety protection.
The article said the Climate Action Corps was inspired by Roosevelt’s CCC. Read the article more carefully before jumping off into comments. And the original CCC produced many memorable legacy projects, including many of the trails and facilities in National Parks and Monuments like the one where we enjoyed the solar eclipse. Far from subsidized–it was just collective payment for employment that produced public goods.
Alan’s correct, the article says Roosevelt initiated it, referring to the Climate Action Corps. Roosevelt initiated the Civilian Conservation Corps. Not the same program.
Heal thyself, doctor. Alan and Keith are both correct regarding the manner in which the citation is worded. It is a minor grammatical error.
All jobs, except self-employment can be considered “subsidized” by Richard Mc C’s apparent standard… the original CCC and WPA were “intended” to be gov’t subsidized to pump money into a struggling ‘depression -era’ economy… long before, there were police, fire, military, public works, industry, and even the occasional auditor.
Guessing they were ‘subsidized’, too (according to Mr McCann)… but CCC (original), WPA, Peace Corps, VISTA were definitely intentionally ‘subsidized’ by the FEDERAL government to pump money into the economy and meet ‘needs’, in fact, so it wouldn’t appear to be “charity”… folk had to work for it… not clear if what the CAC will into what ‘category’…
All public employed ‘social workers’, those “therapists” whose compensation comes at least in significant part, from ‘public sources’… what category? Most were privately financed, mainly by faith-based organizations, until about 75 years ago…
See deleted Roosevelt joke and extrapolate . . .
Meanwhile, the governor and state lost out on this (much more meaningful) environmental opportunity:
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2411582334999/50-000-acre-bay-area-land-sale-snuffs-dream-of-creating-california-s-next-great-state-park
The contrast between what’s described in the Vanguard article, vs. the loss of opportunity is a microcosm of the lack of knowledge exhibited regarding relative importance, as it relates to the environment as a whole.
Having 150,000 additional conservation workers in California will have a bigger effect than losing out on a 50,000 acre purchase that would have had almost virtually no effect on the physical status of the property. The new owner is planning to continue managing the ranch property in the same manner as has been done based on the extensive article in the SF Chronicle.
Evidence that it would have any effect?
Evidence for that claim?
Evidence for that claim, other than taking the word of the new owner? Who, like anyone else only has a limited amount of time to “own” land before it then belongs to someone else?
Unlike the state, which (so far at least) has outlived any mortal?
Did the owner pay a value equivalent to “ranchland”? That might be the first place to look for evidence as to long-term goals of the current owner, at least.
Is the new owner even a “rancher”, other than buying this “ranch”?
From the Chronicle article:
So, the new owner is going to continue that grand tradition of doing “nothing” with the land that he just paid millions for?
Is cattle ranching even a growing industry in the first place? And for that matter, is it particularly environmentally-friendly?
https://www.sfchronicle.com/travel/article/50-000-acre-Bay-Area-land-sale-snuffs-dream-of-16555971.php
Um . . . no, it isn’t. I was recently at a protest at Pt. Reyes where people may not realize that elk are penned into a small area so that cattle ranching can continue in a national park. The cattle side of the fence is smelly and trampled and pooey. The elk side is green and clean.
https://abc7news.com/tule-elk-deaths-protest-endangered/10860141/#
(from 0:20 to 0:23 I’m in the middle of the people in orange jump suites – wearing a blue shirt, sunglasses and carrying a white sign.)
You mean these folks? https://suscon.org/lca-winner/point-reyes-farmstead-cheese-company/ Or some of the other producers of sustainably raised, grass fed beef from the Point Reyes area?
Those were ranch lands decades before the park was created. The lands were bought from the ranchers who were then granted leases to continue their operations. The current management plans reflect a balance. Good description here: https://www.marinij.com/2021/09/13/point-reyes-adopts-controversial-ranch-elk-plan/
If you want to know what the more extreme environmentalists think, just read the comments on that article.
Ranching can be environmentally friendly. Interesting to note that the manure from their operation, which is certified organic, sells for about 3x the cost of regular steer manure.
Not indefinitely. They sold their land (and it was valued as such – and paid for by taxpayers) with the stipulation that the leases would eventually end.
And yet, it’s entirely predictable that this would occur decades later, and turn into a phony “property rights” issue.
The only entity that has any property rights in this case is the federal government. But, they repeatedly bow to the phony property rights issue.
You sound like an ad for Point Reyes National Park beef.
I resemble that remark.
Doesn’t mean that’s the best use. “Fear of change?” . . . (thought I’d float that one).
True.
That’s one argument.
I don’t know what that really means. There is plenty of evidence that between the destruction of forested areas to raise beef and the water consumed and methane released, cattle ranching is anything but friendly. The poop runoff at Point Reyes is rather staggering an issue as well. Maybe there needed to be a transition period, but after seeing it for myself I’m convinced the time for ranching at Point Reyes is beyond over.
If anyone doubts this, simply stand at the fence line and walk up the road from the cattle side to the elk side of the fence. You go from trampled, poo-ridden and stinky, to healthy vegetation and clean air. The difference is staggering. Pun intended.
I’m wondering, will they wear uniforms like the Civilian Conservation Corps did?
https://www.mnhs.org/sites/default/files/mgg/artifacts/img_view/uniform.jpg
I’ll take a stab at that. The answer is almost certainly “no”. Though it’s interesting that you found a uniform. Those guys (and yes – they were probably “guys”) did some great work, much of which still exists today.
Also, the California Conservation Corps has been around for a long time. One might think the author of this article might mention this.
And yeah, it was started under a governor that I prefer, at least compared to the current occupant.
Here’s a related Jeopardy-type question/clue for everyone:
Who was (both) the youngest and oldest governor of California?
https://ccc.ca.gov/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Conservation_Corps