How Does the American Climate Corps Compare to Its Predecessor?

Sizing up Biden’s new plan.

A group of people, mostly masked, hold yellow and black signs with slogans like "Our future is non negotiable" and "Pass a bold civilian climate corps." In front of them several hold a banner that says "Sunrise stands with labor."

Lev Radin/AP

On Wednesday, the Biden administration launched the American Climate Corps, a climate-focused youth job training program. The plan will put some 20,000 people to work doing clean energy, wildfire prevention, and coastal resilience jobs and has already cost $150 million in investment. It’s far from the original vision, which Biden announced in 2021 and which would have invested $30 billion for more than 300,000 workers. Despite this, activists, including those in New York City for the Climate Week protests, are celebrating.

It is no secret that the American Climate Corps is meant to mirror Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal–era Civilian Conservation Corps, best known for leaving the world with more trees, national parks, and photos of shirtless men doing labor. In fact, the original (much more progressive) ACC legislation was also the progeny of New Deal parents Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.). Biden has emphasized how different the program is to its predecessor: Gone are the days of $1 daily wages, segregated camps, and a no-women-allowed ethos. The new program has promised a “living wage” (although the only crew that has been explicitly guaranteed $15 per hour is the Forest Corps) and a “focus on equity and environmental justice.”

But the American Climate Corps really has a whole lot in common with the CCC. Roosevelt’s corps is most famously remembered as part and parcel of the president’s efforts to restart the economy after the Great Depression, but it was also a response to what was arguably white America’s first climate disaster: the Dust Bowl. While the Dust Bowl was not caused by the climate change we experience now, it was manmade, the result of decades of poor land management and exasperated by other climatic shifts such as drought and sea surface temperatures. In a letter to state governors, Roosevelt wrote, “The nation that destroys its soil destroys itself.” It was no doubt on Roosevelt’s mind as he built a program meant to rebuild the workforce.

That’s not so far off from Biden’s proposal, which also aims to prepare both the workforce and the environment for the ramifications of our mismanagement of natural resources. A lot of the work itself will also be very similar. Where the CCC restored prairies to combat the effects of dust storms, the ACC plans to restore damaged coastal wetlands to protect communities from storm surges and flooding. Wildfire management was a priority for Roosevelt, just as it is for Biden. Both corps prioritize job training. In the ’30s, the CCC hosted educational seminars for workers on ecological science. Today, the ACC plans to be a “pathway into good-paying union jobs,” providing “classroom instruction and on-the-job training for the purpose of obtaining an industry-related certification to install energy efficient building technologies.” 

The environmental impacts of the CCC were a mixed bag, as they used very new and not always sound ecological techniques. For example, the workers in the CCC planted 3 billion trees, creating a massive carbon sink that likely lessened our growing emissions; at the same time, those trees were all of one species, making the forests more vulnerable to disease and disaster. The CCC led to an influx of resources for and interest in the budding fields of ecology and land management, which continue to be vital to our climate fight. In his book Nature’s New Deal, historian Neil M. Maher demonstrates how the Civilian Conservation Corps jumpstarted the country’s nascent environmental movements. The idea of “landscape”—a realm of human and nature interaction, rather than separation—”grew organically from the New Deal era,Maher says, “a period that perhaps more than any other in U.S. history witnessed the transformation of public spaces by the federal government.” It propelled the nation into a new phase of environmental consciousness and activism. On the other hand, Roosevelt is also the president we can thank for the steady supply of oil from Saudi Arabia, though of course, he didn’t know what we do now about greenhouse gasses.

Biden doesn’t have that excuse. He recently gained criticism for approving a huge oil project in Alaska. So while some activists celebrate our generation’s corps, others dismay. “A Climate Corps that focuses solely on promoting renewables doesn’t do the job,” said activist Keanu Arpels-Josiah, one of the core organizers of the record-breaking March to End Fossil Fuels in New York City. “The executive actions we desperately need are those that will directly and swiftly phase out fossil fuel expansion and production.” 

More Mother Jones reporting on Climate Desk

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate