The opposition of the financial services sector to things like the Green New Deal is becoming ever more apparent. As the FT has reported this morning:
Some of Wall Street's most powerful figures have poured money into the campaign to defeat Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in her bid for re-election to the US House of Representatives, underscoring the self-described Democratic socialist's tense relationship with her city's most prominent industry.
Donors including Blackstone's Stephen Schwarzman and David Solomon of Goldman Sachs have lined up behind Michelle Caruso-Cabrera, a former CNBC television journalist who is challenging Ms Ocasio-Cortez in the June 23 Democratic primary election in New York's 14th congressional district.
So, major banks do not want AOC, the leading proponent of the Green New Deal in the USA, in the House. I guess there is no surprise there, but this always has to be recalled when the government here claims that it is taking action here on such issues because the people that they call upon to populate their commissions and working groups are all too often those who are opposing real action to address climate change.
There are soft options for addressing climate change, like Mark Carney's so-called Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures rules, that are so weak that they let Gatwick Airport claim it is carbon neutral because the emissions of the aircraft that take off and land can be ignored under those rules. Or there are real options for change. Sustainable cost accounting would not permit such a claim.
There are no soft or easy options in climate change. Financial services may claim there are. They may try to unseat AOC for suggesting that they are wrong. But the fact is that it is the proponents of the status quo who are wrong. Now is the time to accept that the only way out of the current crisis is to accept that we now have to face, head on, the next one that we might have to address, which is the climate crisis. This requires that we now do the hard stuff.
AOC is right to say that this is what we must do. I sincerely hope AOC wins, and that Goldman Sachs and their friends lose. For the sake of the planet that has to happen.
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:
Locally, the Conservative hold the casting vote on the district council. The Greens got more seats in the last election and have formed a rainbow coalition. They want to bring in some climate related actions, many of which are capable of being rolled out quickly. The Conservative majority insist that the Greens put together an entire programme for discussion / debate before any action can be taken.
That’s local democracy inaction.
Can, kick, road.
Same stuff, the world over – we know what to do, but vested interests continue to hold it back.
I am currently reading Stephanie Kelton’s book at your recommendation. The Deficit Myth is eye opening and crystallises several thoughts. The state has a monopoly in currency creation and licences banks to share in that monopoly. If the Green New Deal is directly monetised the banks will see their share at the trough diluted. Are they effectively not saying no green deal unless we get our share?
This leads to the question why our politicians take any notice of these extorting pirates when delivering policies their voters want and need?
Will be interesting to see how much Stephanie illuminates this latter point.
Enjoy…
In a way we can be grateful that the vested interests are now playing their games more in public. It hints at desperation but let us remember that money rules and Goldman and Co have loads of it in order to undermine democracy.
I think that the nature of politics has to change to combat this and seems to me that the gloves have to come off at some point.
The people who work against AOC and other like minded democratic progressives here and the US are nothing but extremists and that is how we should construct the narrative around them.
The days perhaps of being nice and compromising with Neo-libs who – to my mind at least – have NEVER compromised on anything – are maybe over. What is politically possible is changing and is maybe turning towards something more based on conflict.
I agree – to an extent…
Reasonable people tend to be able to see many points of an argument and frame their answers in that way. In Brexit, remain were only too accommodating by e.g. acknowledging fault in EU etc, whereas Leave were unequivocal.
The reasonable people do need to make strong points and to frame them in believable ways. Particularly the ‘masses’ need to be able to take hold of an argument that says the wealthy elites can be overcome by collective action, without either being untruthful nor sounding extreme.
To my mind it isn’t enough that your argument is ‘right’ but that more people have grounds to accept it. The Labour hand wringing report, just released, identifies that people didn’t believe what was being offered – so in my view there is no point overloading stuff, because even if it is true, it won’t get accepted.
Yes to very strong statements, but keep it simple and true.