Larry Elliott has an article under the above title in the Guardian this morning.
As he does note:
Full disclosure here: I was a founder member of the UK Green New Deal Group in 2007 and have been banging on about the idea — with almost zero impact — ever since. There was a time in 2008 when both Barack Obama and Gordon Brown seemed to be warming to it, but the moment was lost.
I know Larry's feeling - because we were co-authors then, and now. So is he right to suggest that now is the time to prepare foe the Green New Deal, even if the prospects of immediate success are slim:
Because the world faces not just one but four challenges in the coming years, and this quadruple crunch will demand new thinking.
They are, first of all, global warming, which secondly requires a translation to renewable energy. Third there is a coming financial crisis, which like me Larry thinks inevitable. And last there is the need to avoid a massive political backlash to that.
What's the answer? As Larry says:
Green New Dealers are rather like those calling in the 1930s for countries to mobilise in the fight against fascism: they think rearmament is happening too slowly, and that the fight will only be won when economies are put on an environmental war footing.
But most importantly, as he notes:
Under a green new deal, central banks would do what they did in 2008 to 2009 — print money — only this time they would use it to invest in renewables and job-creating energy efficiency schemes, rather than handing the cash to the banks.
And as he adds:
That's not just because it makes more sense to use quantitative easing to tackle the existential risk of climate change than to boost asset prices. It's also because green quantitative easing would allow the creation of well-paid, skilled jobs in places that need them most: the rust belt of the US and the old industrial towns of the UK. Failure to do this last time has turned a triple crunch into a quadruple crunch by generating a ferocious political backlash.
Unsurprisingly, as the creator of green QE I agree. As I do with this:
So far, that political anger has been exploited by the right. Ocasio-Cortez and her movement of young supporters think there is another way. And they have one big thing going for them: an idea whose time has come.
After a decade of plugging away some of us will not be giving up any time soon.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Glad you flagged this issue explicitly now. One can only hope that its time has come. I don’t always agree with Elliott, but, this time, who could reasonably claim that he is wrong?
Richard,
Good on you and Larry. I 100% believe Green New Deal’s time is coming soon.
Do you know if the new wave of young climate change protestors (Extinction Rebellion I think they’re called) are aware of the Green New Deal idea?
I think it’d be worth trying to get in touch with any organisers in this protest movement and offering your technical support.
Any links?
Adam Sawyer says:
“Do you know if the new wave of young climate change protestors (Extinction Rebellion I think they’re called) are aware of the Green New Deal idea?
I think it’d be worth trying to get in touch with any organisers in this protest movement and offering your technical support.”
Any French speakers might do well to make contact with the Gilets Jaunes. I’m a monoglot to my shame, but am getting positive responses from voices amongst the ‘American Yellow Vests’.
The level of political and economic ignorance across the pond is staggering at times, but there is an openness to looking at new ideas, as it is increasingly dawning on the dispossessed that something is not going well in America. Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez are being heard, but not necessarily understood. The degree and depth of conditioning and indoctrination is difficult to exaggerate. And the forces of conservative reaction are even more overwhelming than they are here. (And more heavily armed)
Populism is in danger of being controlled by extremists with an agenda of the right. It isn’t a given though. Populism does not belong to the right – in fact it has absolutely no business being associated with the political and economic right.
I hadn’t realised that the Green New Deal dated back to 2007 (although I probably should have).
That’s impressive. For one thing it predates Jeremy Rifkin’s ‘Third Industrial Revolution’ book. He must have been influenced. It would be too much of a coincidence otherwise. Just a thought.
Elliott is right in emphasing the point about “an idea whose time has come”. One aspect of that that deserves further emphasis is the recent, sudden falls in the cost of renewable energy, electric cars etc. The old technology is not only toxic, its cost-ineffective and obsolete.
We published in 2008
“We published in 2008”
It must have been a very long paper that it has taken so very long for people to have finally finished reading it 🙂
The complications involved in funding green technologies are a major obstacle to their development.
Companies want returns on investments for their shareholders.
Governments want returns on their investments (in the form of subsidies) for their voters and backers.
Financial interests will, in the end, always trump long term benefits.
The fossil fuel industry has been established, productive and lucrative for so long, and is so powerful, that bringing it down gradually will take a lot. They have global tentacles in all spheres of politics and economies.
The only way to convince governments is through political pressure groups, and many are forming among the young especially.
State intervention is the only way to convince private investors at the moment, those technologies still cost a lot upfront to develop, to install, and to maintain. Green energy has to be affordable for the consumer.
Investors will not see returns for a long time, and time is money.
Grouping States to do this is the way to go, the EU has funded many research projects, and has begun to fund installations and maintenance of those technologies. But an awful lot more needs to be done, a lot quicker, and if they are to be trusted, they will have to avoid the corruption and mistakes they’ve made in the past, and are still making in some parts of Europe now.
Trust has been spent, transparency and accountability will be vital.
Marie Thomas says: (And I agree entirely with the thrust of what you are saying.)
“Financial interests will, in the end, always trump long term benefits.” Which is precisely why a ‘Courageous State’ has to get a grip on the economy rather than allow the tail to wag the dog. Our politicians have been, and are, pathetic. Too many have no understanding of power beyond their self interest and the personal wealth it affords them.
“The fossil fuel industry has been established, productive and lucrative for so long, and is so powerful, that bringing it down gradually will take a lot.”
Yet it will have to be brought down only gradually. We cannot go cold turkey on oil. Too much of the world is still powered by oil as a commodity/resource. Where government is failing badly is in directing the fossil fuel magnates towards redeployment of its profits. Oil does not belong to private corporations and individuals it belongs to the common weal. It is a natural resource which weak and ineffectual politicians have allowed to be stolen from us (in exchange for a measly mess of pottage).
Particularly galling to the Scots who have seen their oil and gas revenues pillaged and squandered.
Marie re this:
“The complications involved in funding green technologies are a major obstacle to their development.
Companies want returns on investments for their shareholders.
Governments want returns on their investments (in the form of subsidies) for their voters and backers.”
Please read this quick article (one that I am admittedly quite fond of linking) from a business magazine with excellent data sourced from an international investment bank and you will see why capitalism is now finding no inherent “obstacle” in its growing attraction to renewable energy.
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/solar-power-cost-decrease-2018-5
With this article see how one of the most impressive new developments in renewable energy was developed by Tesla and funded by an Australian state govt.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-06/tesla-battery-outperforms-coal-and-gas/9625726
And how Hyundai in Korea copied that and expanded on it
https://www.ecowatch.com/hyundai-tesla-worlds-largest-battery-2622468655.html
And BTW this company is -well, check it out : https://about.bnef.com/
As the capital cost of renewables continues to fall rapidly, their vitually non-existent fuel costs become all the more attractive. I think that your fears about businesses, govenments and “obstacles” may be in need of review.
All very informative and useful, thank you.
My fears are under review, but will remain as long as oil and nuclear industries are powerful. Which they still are, I think.