[image_credit]REUTERS/Alan Freed[/image_credit][image_caption]President-elect Joe Biden[/image_caption]
Polls consistently show that Americans are concerned about climate change – three out of four believe humans cause it, and half see it as a crisis. But few of us are drastically changing our carbon-intensive habits.
On the campaign trail, Biden offered his own climate plan that he said was distinct from the Green New Deal. As his administration starts shaping its plans, there are three things everyone should know about the Green New Deal: It is actually a global phenomenon. Much of it is market-driven. And as proposed in Congress, it is a comprehensive policy outline that responds to climate change.
The first use of the phrase “Green New Deal” comes from a New York Times column written by Thomas Friedman in 2007. In 2010, Edward Barbier published “A Global Green New Deal: Rethinking the Economic Recovery.”
Barbier’s book proposed a global response to climate change aimed at reducing carbon dependency. From the start, it made clear that climate change cannot be separated from deteriorating ecosystems, stressed water supplies, energy insecurity, and worsening poverty.
Since 2010, things have not gone as well as they could have. Many G20 nations announced their desire to remove subsidies from fossil fuels but failed to deliver. But there are bright spots: Germany produced more than half of its electricity with renewable power during the first three months of 2020. Sadly, the economic downturn caused by COVID accounted for part of the slump in lower emissions.
Just the same, renewable energy, both wind and solar, is gaining much ground in Europe. And many projects – in Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the U.K. – are unsubsidized. Market forces are shaping this new energy landscape.
In the United States during 2019, renewable energy surpassed coal for the first time in more than 130 years. The U.S. Energy Information Administration announced that had not happened since 1885 – when the nation was still dependent on burning wood for fuel.
The Green New Deal (GND) proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts is best articulated by Rhianna Gunn-Wright. Climate Policy Director at the Roosevelt Institute, Gunn-Wright is often cited as the author of the GND.
Like Barbier, Gunn-Wright links climate change responses to social justice initiatives. The GND proposes a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels, creating millions of high-paying jobs, investing in infrastructure, and securing clean air while promoting justice and equity. We have not seen such visionary policy proposals since the 1930s. The GND calls for a mobilization comparable to our conversion to a war-time economy during WWII.
[image_caption]Keith Luebke[/image_caption]
The GND borrows from Keynesian economic theory: Keynes argued that government has a unique role and must do things other institutions cannot do.
These ideas have congealed under the banner of “New Consensus” thinkers, including economists like Ha-Joon Chang, Mariana Mazzucato, Kate Raworth, Joseph Stiglitz, and Ann Pettifor. Their reorientation of economic theory is well-suited to an existential threat like climate change.
These economists understand the need to build “green” infrastructure and the government’s role in fostering innovation. Most importantly, they advocate direct investment at the community level.
That approach differs from the investments made after the near-collapse of the economy in 2008, when Washington saved the banks and investors. The New Consensus will have no part of that. Gunn-Wright and Ocasio-Cortez advocate for a GND that values proposals and ideas with demonstrated local support.
The GND would provide a framework, but many of the actual programs would be implemented by nonprofit organizations and other community groups. The GND’s goal is to combine leadership at the federal level with local initiatives and local administration. Our housing must become more energy-efficient, workers must have access to more training, and transportation systems must be transformed and weaned off their dependence on fossil fuels. Programs to achieve these outcomes are best implemented with local knowledge and support.
At the same time, there would be significant investments in research and development. Mazzucato reminds us that government “has historically served not just as an administrator and regulator of the wealth-creation process, but a key actor in it, and often a more daring one, willing to take the risks that businesses won’t.”
Gunn-Wright and others are on a mission to invigorate policymaking with a new set of moral principles.
“Policymaking is not a science,” Gunn-Wright says. “It is a fight over whose problems get addressed, how those problems are addressed, and how public power and resources are distributed. If politics is a fight to elect people who reflect and share our values, policy is a fight to actually enact those values—to mold the world, through the work of government, into what we think it should be.”
Responses to climate change must be global. How nations mix government sector, private sector, and nonprofit sector responses will vary. A Green New Deal is emerging and requires guidance and support from all sectors.
Keith Luebke recently retired from teaching nonprofit leadership courses and has several decades of experience directing nonprofit organizations.
WANT TO ADD YOUR VOICE?
If you’re interested in joining the discussion, add your voice to the Comment section below — or consider writing a letter or a longer-form Community Voices commentary. (For more information about Community Voices, see our Submission Guidelines.)
The greatest strength of the Republican party is anti-branding and then demonizing the anti-brand.
ObamaCare: Significantly more unpopular than the vague Affordable Care Act in the 2009-2016 or so time period.
The current election cycle saw the same thing with Radical Socialism, Defund the Police and, unfortunately, the GND.
Radical socialism? No, just fixing Social Security.
Radical socialism? No, just trying to fight opioid addiction.
Radical socialism? No, just lowering drug prices.
Defund the Police? No, just trying to insure fair processes in law enforcement.
GND? No, just giving solar and wind the same advantages oil and gas had during their start.
GND? No, just keeping our auto industry on the front end of electric vehicle production.
All of these things would be real steps forward and supported by virtually every D member of congress as stand alone advancements.
Even supported by:
House Majority Whip Rep. Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) who said: “we are going to run on Medicare for All, defund the police, socialized medicine, we’re not going to win.”
Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) Reportedly telling fellow Democrats, “don’t say socialism ever again” while warning that if the party continues moving left that in 2022 “we will get f***ing torn apart.
If getting things done is put ahead of personnel agendas that see the GND and socialism as all or nothing propositions, Spanberger will be proven correct. Apparently no big deal for the Ilan Omars of the world who know their election security is untouchable and too bad for all those conservatives Ds now replaced by new Republican members.
I completely agree. Can we please have a moratorium on catchy phrases or “memes” ? It’s time to return to “white papers” and policy reports and memos that no one reads. Like the Mueller Report and the Senate Intelligence Committee report.
Indeed.
Its hard for some people to understand that the house majority was built by people like Spanberger, who flipped (and then held) a long-time Republican seat. Nothing happens if people like her can’t win in suburban districts. Omar ran way behind Biden in her district, which would have been fatal in a competitive seat. No Democrat running for congress in Minnesota came close to the gap between Biden’s votes and Omar’s. But in her safe district, she still won in a landslide.
Republicans can anti-brand very well. So we need to brand better. “Defund the police” was an absolute gift to Trump and Republicans.
Abigail Spanberger is a neoliberal CIA Democrat who cannot see the forest for the trees, who is no doubt thrilled the Obama (I mean Biden) admin will put regime change nation building back on the table as a legitimate tool of Statecraft. As she is evidently oblivious to socialism to the tune of trillions for big banks and corporations, if her vision of the world holds sway, don’t be surprised if Dems lose 100 seats in 2022.
So you are pining for a return of Tea Partier Dave Brat or GOP insider Eric Cantor as more likely to favor your agenda?
She worked at the CIA on nuclear proliferation and counter terrorism.
After the CIA she worked on student body diversity in colleges and then on fair housing.
Simply going:
“She worked at the CIA, I’m going to attribute every nasty thing ever done by the CIA to her”
Is flat out wrong.
So because I am not a fan of Spanberger and her agenda generally, you assume I am Tea Partier or a fan of Cantor? That is one of the fundamental flaws of Western thinking, the perennial battle between good and evil, God/Devil, Black/White, if you aren’t with me you are against me.
Cantor never met a corporation he wouldn’t shill for. I am not in the least familiar with Brat.
If I am pining for anything, it is for a country that takes care of people, land, water and pollinators, that we produce most of what we need – as opposed to not really taking care of any of these while utterly dependent on global trade, and otherwise bowing before corporate, bank and billionaire demands, and finding ever more ways to increase war profiteering. No doubt Spanberger, and those WestExec co-founders/war profiteers Blinken and Flournoy running State and Defense Depts should get along great!
What I see is a continuum of choices: pure survival of the fittest, screw the environment, drill baby drill at far right end and WHD at the other.
Anything that moves the needle towards WHD is a positive development. If each incremental positive change is ridiculed and minimized and it is “All or Nothing”, nothing will win.
“These economists understand the need to build “green” infrastructure and the government’s role in fostering innovation. Most importantly, they advocate direct investment at the community level.
“That approach differs from the investments made after the near-collapse of the economy in 2008, when Washington saved the banks and investors. The New Consensus will have no part of that.”
Has the New Consensus not noticed that the Federal Reserve balance sheet swelled from a trillion dollars in 2008 to 4 trillion by 2014, and now 7 trillion just since March, three trillion buying up the bad debt of big banks, corporations and Private Equity, in 2020 alone? Goodness knows there is always money for the big dogs, but ever the cry for austerity when it comes to health care or community investment in green infrastructure. Three trillion spent on zombie banks and corps, while billionaires have made a trillion more dollars this year. Where is Biden, the GND and the New Consensus on this?
“The GND proposes a drastic reduction in the use of fossil fuels, creating millions of high-paying jobs, investing in infrastructure, and securing clean air while promoting justice and equity.”
Logic collapses here. Americans will not be inspired to mobilize as for war, based on logic like this, which sounds more like magical thinking.
As for a global movement, and a New Consensus, I wonder too how much the GND would look like the World Economic Forum’s Great Reset, which intimates a world where global corporations have cemented their place in power, and none of us have any privacy or even private property anymore. That is a dead letter and going nowhere, at least here in America.
https://www.weforum.org/great-reset
criticism: https://www.ecosophia.net/the-great-leap-backward/
When USA, China, India, Russia all have the same restrictions put on their economy at the same time then we cam look at Paris accord. As of now it is another Globalist boondoggle funded by USA. Total joke! Just another way of pushing jobs to other countries and screwing the American workers. After seeing that act play out for past 30 years, we have had enough of Globalization economics.
I’m interested in knowing what books I might read to better understand your comment?
Keith, read the agreement and dates for compliance in Paris accord. I think India can continue to build coal fired plants until 2035 and USA has to stop building immediately. Look at Canada being the biggest exporter of steel to USA thru flawed NAFTA. Canada is 18th in the world in steel production, yet led the world in steel exports to USA at nearly 20%. It was not Canadian steel being dropped on USA, it was China steel coming to USA thru Canada and NAFTA. Another American job crushing Globalist initiative that was thankfully stopped by President Trump. This has been the case since the Globalists of Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama ran the USA.
Hilarious that you think Trump’s NAFTA revisions or trade policy in general accomplished anything.
Not just me, Biden said USMCA was better than NAFTA for Americans. Has way more protections for American workers and use of Products made in North America.
Hilarious if you think that comment proved the revisions didn’t accomplish anything. I don’t know if they did or didn’t accomplish anything, but based on the tone of your comment I am inclined to believe something good was indeed accomplished.
None of the younger economists referred to in the article have an allegiance to the mistakes of globalization. Their emphasis is on green energy for the U.S. and a revitalized manufacturing sector more sensitive to reducing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. They intend to reclaim manufacturing jobs.
I understand your skepticism. These economists are equally skeptical – they would tie tax incentives to increased research and development in manufacturing. Those efforts will be linked to improved public education. The goal is to create a revitalized manufacturing sector – to fix the damage done by free trade agreements and create new living wage jobs.
I recommend Bad Samaritans: The Myth of Free Trade and the Secret History of Capitalism. It exposes the damage done by free trade agreements.
Just a quick question for you, Mr. Smith. Why do you think US jobs are going overseas (I thought the Goniff-in-Chief had added so many jobs we didn’t know what to do, but that’s another matter)?Do you think it’s due to some globalist cabal of rootless cosmopolitans, spending their time plotting fiendish plans to undermine the American worker? Or – just throwing this out as a possibility, mind you – could it be because free-market capitalists are taking advantage of the dramatically lower labor costs overseas, and are shifting production in order to minimize overhead and maximize their profits?
Jobs are not moved overseas because it’s cooler to do business in a foreign country. Jobs are moved for the profit of the business and its shareholders. I thought anyone with a basic understanding of capitalism would have figured that one out.
RB, greed, bad trade agreements, lack of caring about American workers, bowing down to China, bad favored nations status have all been to blame for 30 years of a declining American middle class. One President did something about it, President Trump, Obama/Biden certainly did nothing. Trump changed trade agreements ((Biden agreed USMCA was better), put tariffs on products when necessary and had the middle class back working in record numbers before COViD.
The profit motive is a bad thing? You have just undercut the foundation of capitalism, comrade.
Yeah, that is the point, and most of us laborers know it. Corporations and their investors ****** the half of America without a college degree, and continue to do so.
Yep. It’s about greed. It doesn’t matter who the President is, American business will do whatever it has to in order to make a profit.
If free trade is what killed American jobs, let’s remember that free trade didn’t happen in a vacuum. No evil cabal sat up one day and said “Here’s a fun idea: let’s buy all our steel from China! We’ll kick the American worker where it hurts, and show subservience to our foreign overlords. It’s a twofer!” Free trade wouldn’t have been put in place if corporate America didn’t want it.
“Corporations and their investors ****** the half of America without a college degree”
Yes, if one lacks the required skills to perform a needed service for a potential employer things may be bleak.
The paths to acquire those skills are plentiful and affordable: certificates from technical colleges requiring only a few classes, often offered at night, are a great way to attain entry level skills that lead to a rewarding career both financially and in work content: you do not need a four year or even two year degree.
If half of America can’t even get this far in pursuit of a better life and basically need the public safety net to sustain them we are in trouble.
In 2007 I was a general contractor making $40/hr. After the housing market collapsed I went to work at Best Buy World Headquarters as a copywriter at 28/hr. After the credit market collapsed in Fall 2008, I went to work for The Home Depot. Despite that I was a general contractor, and a master gardener, they offered me $10/hr, 25 hrs per week, 4-6 hrs a day 5 days a week with the schedule changing weekly, to work in the Garden Center.
A manager there told me he started at HD in 1994 at $12/hr, and was at 14/hr within a year. I was the first person at that HD to be the Employee of the Month the first month there. After six months I found a better job maintaining housing for the autistic. My managers begged me to stay. More money? No. More hours? No. Any chance of either any time soon? Nope. Good bye…
Most of the basis of income inequality, and the 401k etc retirement accounts for the professional class, is based on MBA corporate kool aid ideology impoverishing of the working class. It ain’t about training. It ain’t about hard work. And if the wealthy and powerful of America don’t get a clue and start sharing the wealth, long term they won’t have a choice.
I think it is a fallacy to think of jobs as “US Jobs”. Jobs are headed overseas due to lower labor costs but they are also headed overseas because the markets are overseas. There are 25 times more people outside of the United States than inside our borders. Economic growth is happening fastest in south Asia and Africa. US economic ties are mainly with North America and Europe. We’re focused on putting up a wall between our country and our 2nd largest trading partner while China is re-establishing the Silk Road.
The best thing we could do for our economy is invest in innovative energy technologies and not industries that are dying out. Sadly, Republican don’t have a good understanding of economics, as evidenced by their support for an incompetent trust-fund kid who blew his massive inheritance running one business after another into the ground.
The GND currently promoted by progressive recognizes the global nature of climate change, but it focuses on unsustainable economic, energy, and transportation policy here in the US. Moderate Democrats and Republicans will continue to service their status quo benefactors in health care and elsewhere, but They’re doomed to failure and their mediocrity is increasingly difficult to justify or even explain.
The GND is primarily a domestic economic stimulus package that not only creates millions of jobs, but rejuvenates the US economy by establishing a state of the energy, transportation, and financial business climate for American workers and businesses for decades to come. You can appose that if you want, but good luck.
Biden will likely not play a significant role regarding the GND, and we all can see that his first year is going to face a lot of more immediate challenges. But we’re in this for long haul and neoliberalism is in crises for a reason.
Below is the “All or Nothing” GND. And we will get nothing if it is “All or Nothing”.
Even evil moderate Democrats will sign on and vote for achievable, individual chunks. Be happy with that and work towards that.
I have 24 solar panels on my cabin roof because it was the economic best solution for my needs. Due in large part to a 30% federal tax credit through the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Signed by GWB with bi-partisan support in the House and Senate.
The GND:
“Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all people of the United States.”
“Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and affordable food, and nature.”
“Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States.”
“Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.”
“Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States, including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as much as technologically feasible.”
“Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.”
“Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.”
“Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing and industry as much as is technologically feasible.”
“Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible.”
Which are the “achievable, individual chunks”? Because I’m guessing the first three paragraphs are not a high priority.
So, if you can’t get the first 3 you don’t even care about the next 4?
Which are achievable chunks.
If you say “All for the GND” and priority 1 is free tuition and paid vacations, forget about environmental progress.
Why is it a choice between free tuition and eternal student debt? Most Americans don’t get paid-vacations, and probably couldn’t afford to do much more than stay home even if they got paid for it, barely getting by otherwise.
I am not for a renewable age if the consequence is ever greater income inequality and America turned into a third-world gmo corn-republic.
It is simply about what can get done and who it can be done with.
I have no significant issues with MFA. I recognize trying to convince Tom Emmer of that would be a fruitless endeavor.
No use wasting time.
Now, on the other hand, maybe some legislation could be crafted that incentivizes folks to better insulate their houses and that may have some appeal to folks in the 4th CD and Emmer’s hometown of Delano.
What is wrong with that?
As far as incentivizing more insulation in existing homes as part of a renewable future, as a builder I can assure you that is like the proverbial lipstick on a pig. That is feel-good legislation to make us think we are doing something while spending a lot of money not accomplishing much.
Consider most of the homes built in America the last twenty years. On average they are twice the size as the average house built from the 20’s to the 70’s. They are more “energy efficient”, but their design is still waste-based, and despite more insulation and double pane windows, they burn up a lot more energy heating and cooling than those smaller inefficient houses, a lot more. They are called by those of us awares, energy sinks. So adding some insulation is doing next to nothing. Subsidizing gluttony as it were.
Probably in 30 years most of those homes will not be viable. They will be torn down likely and rebuilt smaller and vastly more efficient.
The unique delusion that “moderates” suffer from is the belief that their limited imaginations dictate reality, and decide what is or isn’t “achievable”. The notion that whatever they can imagine achieving is ALL that ANYONE could achieve is simply entitlement, privilege, and hubris, pretending to be realism.
Not only is “moderate” mediocrity doomed to failure, but it’s politically suicidal. You guys lead your party to HRC’s defeat in 2016, and another near defeat in 2020, and yet you STILL want to be recognized as policy experts in the room? Whatever.
There you go again.
Because my limited imagination says we could get the things listed below well underway in the next 4 years and then move on from there, that is just a path to mediocrity and failure?
Obama comes out and says that sticking the flag in the ground on “Defund the Police” is not, maybe , the best way to assemble a consensus moving forward and immediately Omar and her Squad fellows say NO NO NO: we must “Defund the Police” and keep saying:
“Defund the Police”
Yeah, that’ll work. And it will work for them in their fund raising and their electorally secure districts. The rest of those moderate Ds?
Fo getta about em. Give us another 50 Devin Nunes or Kevin McCarthys.
Can’t we just agree to start with these:
“Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and ‘smart’ power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity.”
“Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency, safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through electrification.”
“Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail.”
“Because my limited imagination says we could get the things listed below well underway in the next 4 years and then move on from there, that is just a path to mediocrity and failure?”
Edward, this all or nothing right now GND agenda is a figment of your own imagination. We’ve been working towards most of the policies for decades and you think we expect to have in hand next week? These are the policies we believe we need to enact and we’re not going to abandon them no matter what happens in the interim. That doesn’t mean we’ll vote down anything and everything else. Sure, we can agree with the agenda’s you’re suggesting, those are our agendas and we’ve already started working on them. Who told we couldn’t or wouldn’t work on that?
Some of us are committed to a stable objective that we’re not going to abandon. The problem with “moderates” is you’ll agree to work towards these things, and drop them the moment someone objects.
“Edward, this all or nothing right now GND agenda is a figment of your own imagination.”
As not evidenced by the reaction of progressive house members with our own Ilan Omar ripping Obama and Biden within a week of the transition beginning for being inadequate in their respect for their agenda.
Rather than looking for all the things they can agree on, like the points above, we get all kinds of outrage on Neera Tanden (only matched by right wing outrage) for disrespecting Bernie.
And let Rahm Emmanuel get any job and a full melt down will ensue. And I’m no fan of Emmanuel, so don’t throw me in with him.
And, FYI, if not for R Govs in Vermont and MA I think Sanders and Warren would have been great cabinet picks for Labor and Treasury.
“As not evidenced by the reaction of progressive house members with our own Ilan Omar ripping Obama and Biden within a week of the transition beginning for being inadequate in their respect for their agenda.”
I don’t see any evidence that moderates are reaching out to progressives, in terms of hostility everyone from Obama to Pelosi has been in anti-progressive attack mode for months and decades. Obama actually came out of retirement specifically to confront the “threat” of Bernie Sanders. Moderate Democrats are always far more comfortable reaching out to Republicans to their right than liberals to their left. Antone’s campaign against Omar in the primary was another great example of attack politics, so whatever.
Listen, Edward, if you expect progressives to fade away behind some kumbaya acquiescence to conservative/moderate failure and mediocrity, that’s not going to happen. You can expect progressive will continue to champion their proposals despite your outrage and condemnation. You can expect us to remain committed to our agenda and we do not need, nor seek your (i.e. Party establishment moderates) permission to do so.
So here you are, attacking us, I didn’t start this thread. Don’t start a fight and then complain that the people you attack are fighting back. You want to work with us great, let’s go, show me how you reach out to Omar. You want a fight, you’ll get a fight.
I guess you missed the part where I said I’m all for progressives like Warren and Sanders for important jobs like Treasury and Labor. I would delight in seeing the Wall Street angst with Treasury Sec. Warren.
And while I certainly have no influence in who does what, I offer up two very progressive candidates for important positions and you skip over that to pick a fight wherever else you can. And that is why far left progressives will always be howling in the wilderness and then grudgingly accept the progressive advancements made by folks who know the only way forward is to make the compromises necessary to get something done.
My concern is that, while a strong brand is great for rallying the troops around, it also gives something for the “anti-brand” folks to shoot at. What a waste of everyone’s energy to spend any time on that kind of fighting. I would vastly prefer that we keep moving the focus to outcomes that more people can agree on, and indeed put their best efforts toward. We need everybody to participate in the effort to minimize climate disruption and its impacts on people and the planet.
My concern is that some people think democracy is an exercise in “branding” or “counter branding”.
Personally, while I support the concept of the GND, I think it is mostly magical thinking. I’m remembering a friend who bought a house that used base-board electric heating, not realizing in the winter it cost him $900/mnth to heat the rambler. In a northern climate, to heat a house with electric efficiently, houses would have to be a lot smaller, with a lot thicker walls and a lot less windows on the North, East and West sides of the house. Good luck getting American to accept that.
So to make it work we have to entirely rebuild every house, and really every single building, and not rebuild vehicles but recycle every vehicle existing to make an entirely new vehicle fleet…which sounds to me like we are going to have to burn up all the remaining fossil fuels to achieve? Never mind there isn’t even anything close to the availability of the materials we need to build elec vehicles and their batteries, in that quantity. And even if there were, the amount of mining involved would ravage what is left of the global ecosystem. So the personal vehicle goes the way of the dodo, or gets downsized to the point you can’t move much of anything but one person? Good luck with that.
As for ideas that nuclear will make it possible, nuclear is far and away the most expensive fuel available. Never mind, proliferating mini-nukes all over the nation and globe in a world entirely addicted to war is a folly beyond reckoning.
I suspect if we had spent the last 40 years building the GND, we would be there. But instead we burned up about a quadrillion barrels of oil in a global orgy of conspicuous consumerism. I don’t think we get a glorious renewable age after that just because we think we should.
There’s nothing magical about the GND. By and large the GND is little more than common sense, the fact that so many people think common sense if controversial leads back to the fact that so many people thought fact-based policy was a controversial idea during the Bush/Cheney era. Whatever.
Each and every one of the GND proposals will eventually become standard features of our economy, and the sooner the better.
As a long-time builder/remodeler, recognizing that everything about our existing infrastructure is waste- based, founded on the idea that resources are infinite, there is nothing “common sense” about just doing a switcheroo and making America’s infrastructure and auto-fleet “renewable”.
That said, excelling at building and remodeling with what most people would incinerate or send to a landfill, also knowledgeable about landscaped food forests, growing food and ecology generally, my skill set is particularly suited to a GND era moreso than this waste-based culture, so if society wants to get on with it I’m more than ready.
Yes and the truth is that the sooner we move towards the GND and more sustainable and efficient models and programs, the further ahead we’ll be. To the extent that we resist and delay we will find ourselves behind competitors with increasingly obsolete infrastructure. The REAL danger is that places like China will get there BEFORE we do.
Actually, the question here is: “How do we think about the Green New Deal despite the Biden administration?”
Biden and his moderate Democrats have made it pretty clear that the GND isn’t THEIR idea or agenda. Given the past several decades of DNC hostility to progressive ideas and politics I would expect them to trot out more neoliberal “tweaks” designed to preserve the status quo and reward existing benefactors. To the extent that moderates talk about the GND I would predict they’ll push out any possible adoption decades and decades rather talk about implementing anything in time to salvage our economy or environment. We will simply have to overcome moderate and conservative resistance if want to get this done.