The Progressive

NewsWire

A project of Common Dreams

For Immediate Release
Contact:

Peter Hart, phart@fwwatch.org

Infrastructure Deal: Wrong Priorities for the Crises We Face

Proposal shortchanges our water needs while creating hundreds of billions in fossil fuel subsidies.

WASHINGTON

Senate Democrats and the White House have released some details about the bipartisan infrastructure deal.

In response, Food & Water Watch Policy Director Mitch Jones released the following statement:

"It's clear that as it stands this plan's approach to the multiple crises we face is backwards. It underfunds our water systems and overfunds the industries killing our planet.

"The level of water funding laid out in this deal is wholly inadequate compared to the monumental challenges we face in providing clean drinking water to all and building climate-resilient infrastructure. The framework appears to limit privatization incentives to transportation projects, and as more details emerge, it is imperative that we hold the line on preventing any wasteful, expensive privatization schemes from being included in this package.

"At the same time, this deal proposes spending billions of dollars on expensive and totally ineffective carbon capture technologies and related infrastructure. This is nothing more than a new set of fossil fuel subsidies that already cost taxpayers $15 billion a year. This is a gift to the fossil fuel polluters that have cynically seized on promoting carbon capture as a climate solution, when it is nothing more than a means of prolonging the dirty energy era.

"As the details of this deal are fleshed out, we implore lawmakers to do more to provide robust funding for our urgent water needs, and to strike out wasteful fossil fuel subsidies."

Food & Water Watch mobilizes regular people to build political power to move bold and uncompromised solutions to the most pressing food, water, and climate problems of our time. We work to protect people's health, communities, and democracy from the growing destructive power of the most powerful economic interests.

(202) 683-2500