This article is by a researcher in environmental policy and politics at Lancaster University. It was originally published on The Conversation, who allow republication. I thought it worth sharing:
What a splendid irony it would be if the enduring legacy of Donald Trump's presidency was the Green New Deal — a radical, government-directed plan to transition the US to a socially just society with a zero-carbon economy.
Of course, it isn't Trump's idea. The Green New Deal was first proposed a decade ago, but has only recently captured the public imagination. Environmental activists from the “Sunrise Movement” protested in the office of House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, on November 13 2018, demanding the deal. And they were joined by recently elected congresswoman, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who has argued passionately on behalf of the plan ever since.
Still, it's partly thanks to Trump and the shock of his election that radical ideas are getting a hearing and his opponents are being forced to think bold. That's just what is needed if the world is to get serious about tackling climate change.
Alongside an aim for net-zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% renewable energy, the Green New Deal demands job creation in manufacturing, economic justice for the poor and minorities and even universal healthcare through a ten-year “national mobilisation”, which echoes President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal in the 1930s.
The UK has, for the past decade, thought of itself as a climate leader. It's true that the 2008 Climate Change Act, which sets a legally-binding framework for carbon reduction, is ambitious compared to legislation in many other countries.
But the UK's approach — like so many other countries — is based on quiet consensus. So far, climate politics has been a polite conversation between government, industry and researchers, not a subject of heated debate in parliament.
My research with UK politicians shows a reluctance to speak out on climate change, as many prefer a low-key approach — dressing up climate action in the language of economic policy and market mechanisms to avoid confrontation with colleagues, the electorate or the industries that risk losing out in the shift to a low-carbon economy.
Some members of parliament even told me that they deliberately avoid mentioning climate change in speeches to the House of Commons or in their constituency, fearing it could backfire. One worried that he would be branded a “zealot”, and marginalised by his colleagues if he argued too vociferously in favour of climate action.
This approach is severely limiting. Moving to a zero-carbon society will require changing the way that people live in their homes, travel around, shop, eat and source their food. It's impossible to do all this without people noticing and attempting to impose change from above, without social consent, may also cause a backlash.
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, found this to his cost when he tried to implement fuel tax rises which disproportionately affected poorer consumers. The result was the Gilets Jaunes protests which erupted in France in late 2018.
Climate policies should involve and excite people by addressing their concerns and aspirations. Climate policy proposals have typically centred around technically optimal solutions — trying to establish the least disruptive or costly approach, without paying attention to the question of whether people might vote for them.
Barack Obama's well-intentioned climate policies as US president fitted this mould. His Clean Power Plan, which sought incremental carbon reductions from existing power stations, was a pragmatic response to a divided political scene.
After decades of technocratic and consensus-building climate politics, the Green New Dealswaggers onto the scene — an avowedly political and idealistic take on climate action.
The Green New Deal's first victory
The Green New Deal was put forward as a Resolution to the House of Representatives, by Ocasio-Cortez and supporters from both houses on February 5 2019. It's only a non-binding statement of intent at this stage and would require complex legislation. Bold political plans often founder on the rocks of implementation, especially when politics are as fractious as in the current Congress.
But the Green New Deal has already succeeded in one important aspect: it puts climate policies on the agenda that are as ambitious as the science of climate change demands. This makes it impossible for opponents to stay silent. The Green New Deal is forcing Democrats and Republicans to consider their own stance on climate change.
Some Democrats have branded the plan as unrealistic — a “green dream”, as Pelosi called it. Veteran senator, Diane Feinstein, was similarly dismissive, when young campaigners asked for her support. Republicans, meanwhile, have branded it a socialist takeover to rally their own supporters. But the Green New Deal's opponents can't simply criticise. They will need to find their own answer to the climate question.
For the Republicans, denying or dismissing the science of climate change is becoming less tenable by the day. The impacts of climate change are mounting, public concern is rising, and schoolchildren are striking.
The Green New Deal has drawn attention to a gaping hole in right-wing politics — the confident articulation of a climate strategy. If you agree with the scientific consensus that rapid action is necessary, but you don't like the strongly social flavour of the Green New Deal, what do you propose in its place?
In the UK, the fog of Brexit has clouded any serious political debate on climate change, but when politicians manage to take a breath, they too will face the same challenge. The Labour Party has promised action but the Conservatives have been told that their own commitments aren't compatible with the Paris Agreement and so they, too, need a plan.
The fight is not nearly won. But the Green New Deal is already succeeding in putting climate action where it belongs, as the defining political issue of our time. How strange that we have dysfunctional US politics to thank for this huge step forward.
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:
Link to Labour Party has promised action 404.
Here is the link:
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2019/02/14/labour-scrambles-develop-british-green-new-deal/
I am aware of what is happening…
“I am aware of what is happening… ”
Not a lot it would seem.
I’m old enough to remember when Labour had a Castle, in charge of industrial policy.
Now they can only manage a Long-Bailey. 🙁
“shadow secretary for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Rebecca Long-Bailey launched a year-long “unprecedented call for evidence” to inform Labour’s “green jobs revolution”.”
So what has she been doing for the past two years ? And WTF was her predecessor doing since 2010 ? Tossing…vague ideas about?
It seems rather late in the day to be seeking ‘evidence’ prior to thinking about something which will produce endless squabbles before it even makes it to conference as a policy proposal, let alone see anything implemented ….on the off chance they can win an election…..a prospect which might have been enhanced by doing some of this work years ago.
FFS. !! This is opposition ?
Apparently so…..
“But the UK’s approach — […] — is based on quiet consensus. So far, climate politics has been a polite conversation between government, industry and researchers, not a subject of heated debate in parliament.”
True but (though not always polite!) we’ve only just recently reached a stage where Lawsonite climate change denial BS has ceased to respectable and given ludicrous prominence (most shamefully by the BBC, but other culprits abound)
“My research with UK politicians shows a reluctance to speak out on climate change, as many prefer a low-key approach — dressing up climate action in the language of economic policy and market mechanisms to avoid confrontation with colleagues, the electorate or the industries that risk losing out in the shift to a low-carbon economy.”
Gutless, in thrall to big corporate, and rich individuals’ interests ….. short-termism and vision-less. Total failure of either politicians or corporate boards to envisage the vast opportunities thrown up by development of sustainable industrial and energy policies.
The past decade of austerity policy need never have occurred. The 2008 crash was predicated on corporates and individuals seeking profit out of casino finance. Much of that easy, lazy money could have been harnessed to ‘Green’ development and profitably so. Real profit; actually generating the societal benefits (including shareholder and pension fund returns) that capitalism claims to be so good at, but consistently fails where it matters.
Even if the crash of 2008 had not been prevented or of reduced impact, and had happened as it did, Green development launched in 2008/9 in all major spheres of industry: transport, domestic and industrial heating, power generation and distribution, energy efficient new build projects etc et(bloody) cetera…. would have had us living for the past eight years in a vibrant society with a flourishing economy. Education and training (and research) would have been given a huge boost, employment would be much more plentiful (tax takes would be higher for those perennially wedded to tax and spend thinking) the NHS could have been better staffed, and better financed and doing the job it was intended for.
But no. We’ve always done it like this ….and we got rich doing it !!
Small ‘c’ conservatism at it’s most lethal. All of this could have been paid for easily, upfront costs would not be all due immediately and would have siphoned some money from private sector casino activity seeking safe investment vehicles, and serious ‘pump-priming’ government spending which creates guaranteed returns if the policies are there to back the direction of travel.
And what have we had? Austerity, misery and the debacle of Brexit. What a terrible waste of human life and ‘happiness’. A truly dismal decade of almost dark-ages stupidity.
In the run-up to 2020 there’s going to be a powerful reactionary campaign to diss the GND in the US. Probably too early to call in terms of how majority voters will react – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IkSprbfcFMc. Believe it or not millions of Americans across all classes watch & believe Fox News. Even though we lack high-profile advocates such as AOC, Bernie Sanders & Jay Inslee (https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/jay-inslee-presidential-candidate-2020-801415), I’m guessing it will attract wider public support here. I can’t envisage Theresa May – or whoever replaces her – taking such an unequivocally hostile stance as Trump. Of course the economics behind it will be trashed by the usual media suspects. It’ll be interesting to see how it plays out strategically with the LP in its election manifesto. And if it were to become a major policy plank, what effect would it have on the Green Party vote, which is already precariously small?
Let’s see if Labour really raises to the challenge…
It could only rise to the challenge if it understood money and it doesn’t . If it did it wouldn’t have this nonsensical ‘ fiscal rule ‘ . On the face of it it seems that the AOCs., Bernies et al have as the basis of their politics ‘ making the impossible possible ‘ . Who’s doing that here ?
No one. Every one of our politicians is caught up in the Brexit custard pie throwing challenge so no new debate, discussion, conversation can be had. There is no ‘ big picture ‘ debate . Brexit has consumed every once of political capital and until it’s over ( if that is even possible ) no politician ( MP ) is going to enter into any kind of dialogue because in less than a month’s time they might be out of a job.
Even supposedly ‘progressive’ economists here won’t back MMT
“Even supposedly ‘progressive’ economists here won’t back MMT”
It’s not a matter of ‘backing’. It’s a matter of coming to terms with economic reality, and then considering how that can be harnessed to useful ends, without spending on foolish projects with no social or financial rewards except to the elite few usual pillagers.
You know this, Richard, but you keep making references to MMT as if it were politically progressive per se.
Understanding MMT is not policy prescriptive…. tedious as it is to keep on, it has to be said over and over….and over and over again until it sinks in. We’re light years away from the point where most people understand a shorthand reference. Hence frequent sniping comments about the ‘MMT cult’.
It reminds me of the New Testament reference to belief in God; The Devil himself believes in God and quakes in his boots….or however it goes.
The regressive right has been screwing us for decades by understanding the MMT mechanism and not letting on.
I have to disagree
Backing MMT is about demanding the consequences of the understanding
we know MMT is right
But the reality is that MMT says full employment is possible and backing it means designing policy with that objective in mind
And thee are economists on the left who will not embrace that as a sustainable goal, in my opinion
John Hope says:
“………no politician ( MP ) is going to enter into any kind of dialogue because in less than a month’s time they might be out of a job.”
There speaks the eternal optimist. !!
We should be so lucky. If we lost the whole current batch of MPs we wouldn’t lose many that were worth keeping…..a few, but far too few. Scotland would mourn for a while, but memories are short.
“But the reality is that MMT says full employment is possible and backing it means designing policy with that objective in mind”
Yeah but, yeah but…..
‘Unemployment is a price worth paying’ is the Tory mantra. It was in Thatcher’s day, as the price of containing inflation, and it is now in Tory terms because it depresses wages and encourages ‘flexible’ employment terms. There is the pretence that this is to prevent inflation, but it has more to do with company profits. The manner in which said profits are distributed between stakeholders is another can worms entirely and politicians are too frightened to touch on it,……… and which economists are likely to be told is none of their business and they are straying into the political realm. Tut Tut ! I seem to remember that being a Wren-Lewis defence for churning out some sort of piffle recently)
The progressive argument has to deal with not only the fact that ‘full’ employment is economically feasible, but also that it is politically (socially) desirable; above and beyond being a sort of charitable largesse at the expense of the already wealthy.
Orthodoxy says full employment leads to inflation and we have all been assiduously conditioned to ‘know’ that is a bad thing ….’Winter of Discontent’ is a piece of powerful folk memory of bogeyman status and carries ‘inflated’ weight in political discourse amongst a generation that either don’t remember it or uncritically blame it all on the unions (something else many don’t really remember !)
The political climate which blames the victims for their poverty suits the Tory mindset very well indeed. It wonderfully reinforces their sense of moral virtue.
So called progressives are heavily in step with this vicious puritanical ‘protestant work ethic’ morality. It infects the parameters of their consideration of the issues I believe and in the case of the trained (I’m not going to dignify them with the term educated) economists this is the orthodoxy they have hard wired into them. The rebels and mavericks are few and far between are they not ? And to be qualified they had to trot out the right mantras, even if they didn’t like them.
I don’t quite believe you disagree with where I’m coming from on this. Unless I’m missing something.
I am not sure where you are coming from
I am saying buying the argument is one thing
Walking the talk is another
And I want the latter as well as the former
Believing MMT has a good argument is not enough, in other words
@John D says:
“I can’t envisage Theresa May — or whoever replaces her — taking such an unequivocally hostile stance as Trump.”
I think perhaps you suffer from a lack of imagination. Tory leaders do what they are told, or allowed to do. Besides which, much of what Trump says is what we used to vulgarly refer to as ‘piss and wind’. Because he is only going to get to do what his sponsors allow too. ‘The Wall’ is just a convenient distraction. Trump may want it, but the PTB just want the media pack on that rather than their real agenda…..whatever that is; world domination I think, aka business as usual.
He’s not even making policy on the hoof…he’s generating soundbites on the hoof.