High-Level Notes on the Green New Deal
Insofar as the concept of the “Green New Deal” is in the news, it’s worth looking at some of the broad ideas that would serve to support such a concept in general…or that might invalidate it as an unavoidably wasteful and ill-conceived boondoggle. Before we go on, however, let’s note that the GND is only one of many concepts being floated as a top-down policy aimed at solving major societal problems. Others include universal healthcare (aimed at eliminating masses of people suffering from and dying of curable diseases), and free higher education (aimed at creating a more productive and participative society whose members commit fewer crimes, thus reducing victimization and incarceration rates).
As suggested above, however, we should also acknowledge that there is always the potential for waste, whether via corruption, incompetence or both, associated with any program implemented in the public sector (see below for more).
As the name suggests, the GND proposes to invest public funds into developing technologies and creating jobs that result in a cleaner environment. This, of course, cuts a wide swath: renewable energy/storage, electric transportation, smart grid, efficiency solutions, sustainable ag, etc. Just as the subjects addressed here are diverse, so are the justifications for such an endeavor:
• Employment at a Living Wage. Yes, the U.S. unemployment rate is very low, but so are wages for a huge portion of Americans. Think of the people working for Amazon, Walmart, and the fast-food giants who live in poverty. 40% have insufficient savings to deal with one unexpected piece of bad luck. As the top 1% comes to own more and more of the total wealth in our country, the bottom 75% is forced to live on smaller pieces of the pie.
• Global Competitiveness. Sovereign entities that have the resources to prepare themselves for success in the unfolding global marketplace of the 21st Century recognize where growth lies, as well as where it doesn’t; they have taken steps to ensure that they are not rendered irrelevant as huge economic trends, e.g., cleantech, make themselves increasingly obvious as the years go by. Thus we have the folly of things like “Trump Digs Coal,” as coal jobs cannot possibly gain in number due purely to economic circumstances, not to mention ecological concerns. Countries that do not take such steps, whether via ignorance or extortion from the fossil fuel industries, are destined for increasing levels of obscurity as we move through the 21st Century.
• Dealing with Environmental Collapse While It’s Still Possible. As presented in this article, the cost/benefit analysis of dealing with environmental collapse will skyrocket as time passes, and will soon reach a point of no return, past which our civilization will be doomed to suffer extreme consequences of our folly.
A recent presentation by esteemed climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe concluded with a short discussion of the choices we have in front of us with respect to global warming: mitigation, adaptation, and suffering. The less we have of one, the more we’ll have of the other two. Mitigation means phasing out fossil fuels and reforming our land use. Adaptation includes things like using scarce water resources more efficiently, improving building codes to deal with future climate conditions and extreme weather events, building flood defenses, and developing drought-tolerant crops. Suffering needs no explanation; it’s the natural and unavoidable product of fires, hurricanes, floods, and droughts. Of course, whether we care about such things are not remains to be seen.
Will Any of This Actually Happen?
The short answer: probably not. Predictably, public response to the GND breaks down across party lines, just like universal health care, universal background checks for prospective gun owners, etc. True to form, the majority of Americans support these ideas, but they’re somewhere between difficult and impossible to get through congress.
From an earlier post here called “The American People Want Clean Energy, But….”
Over the years here at 2GreenEnergy, we’ve repeatedly made the point that the will of the American people is almost always frustrated by special interests. In fact, we in the U.S. suffer under a political machine that systematically ignores the will of the people, as suggested here: a few facts that came from a recent presentation that Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig gave to a large and earnest audience.
- According to surveys of thousands of Americans, we almost unanimously agree on two things: a) money has too much influence on politics, and b) there is nothing that can be done to change this.
- 4 million Americans (a little under 2%) made cash donations to a politician in the last election, but the top 100 gave more than the bottom 4.75 million.
- A study from Princeton University shows an almost 100% correlation between Congressional votes and the interests of these Top 100.
- The same study shows that the decisions that Congress makes on the variety of issues are completely independent of the will of the people. Whether 20%, 40%, 60%, or 80% of the electorate supports a certain subject, this has no statistical bearing whatsoever on how the Senate and the House will vote on the matter.
Good ideas don’t disappear as our democracy breaks down, but they fail to make traction, sputter, and ultimately fail. This seems like a good place for the often-told story: upon exiting the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
News flash: It’s increasingly clear that we’re not keeping it.
** From above, here’s a:
Question: What is the only major U.S. organization in either the public or private sector that is so grossly mismanaged that it is “unauditable,” meaning that there are no means by which to track large amounts of missing funds? Hint: In terms of dollars (or dollar-denominated assets), it’s the largest on Earth.
Answer: The Pentagon, with it’s three-quarter trillion dollar annual budget.
Craig,
I wondered when you would try to work out an apologia for the incredibly ill-conceived wish list announced,then enthusiastically endorsed, by many prominent Democrats as a political manifesto.
Once many of those politicians realized the reaction (even among democrats) to this astonishingly naive and far-fetched manifesto, ranged from embarrassed disbelief to open hoots of derision, a lot of back-peddling suddenly occurred. !
Suddenly from a battle flag for “true believers”, the GND became merely a ‘discussion paper’, as apologist propagandists desperately tried to excuse the political ship-wreck.
Basically, the “Green New Deal” was always a silly, poorly thought out manifesto, which started dishonestly and is now just ludicrous nonsence.
However, three important issues have emerged;
1) The American political left can’t divorce their ideological rhetoric from environmental issues. The left have once again proven they have no real commitment to environmental issues, seeing the environment as merely a means to further leftist ideology and to be discarded when the environment clashes with leftist political ambitions.
2) On every environmental issue, the left always promote ‘Their” chosen technology. Not the best, most acceptable, or even the most practical, but the technology that suits leftist ideological purposes.
3) The American left, (in common with all Leftist movements) is basically dishonest and disingenuous. Wrapping old, failed policies in a ‘green’ wrapping is a ‘watermelon’ political disguise. (Green on the outside, Red all the way through).
This is why the left always seeks to divide and sow envy, hatred and disharmony. Having betrayed and lost the US working class to a populist, the left now seek to create a new constituency among the young, naive, and suburban elite.
The old left had principles, real manifesto’s that spoke clearly about their aims and desire for power. They may have been woolly headed, impractical and at times downright murderous, but they were clearly spelt out.
The desire for power remains, yet the candor and honesty has disappeared. The new American Left has become a mere venal, bitter harlot. A harlot willing to clothe herself in any stolen garment that will serve as a disguise to conceal the barren, decayed hypocrisy at her core .
Craig, can’t you see the morass of dishonest contradictions in which you are now floundering ?
“Unemployment is now at an all time low” . This should be good news and the Trump administration deserves credit. (they would get the blame if the opposite were true).
Yet you seek to turn this good news, into something negative, why?
Wages are rising slowly as the natural consequence of a tighter labour pool and Trump administration initiatives.
Would you rather have high unemployment, but high wages for those few fortunate enough to have a job in a globalized economy?
It’s an unfortunate fact that while all American want high wages, the also want low prices. Like any market, Labour is a component of the cost of goods and services.
The American worker is in international competition with lower paid workers of rival nations with much lower living costs. Those workers can sell goods and services on the American market much cheaper than American enterprises.
Sadly, US consumers don’t “Buy American”, just the best bargain.
The Trump administration has performed an economic miracle to reverse the trend of Obama’s globalization, and as a result employment and higher wages are growing steadily.
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports in 2018, US workers had an average gain in hourly wages of 3.2 % in December. (the average for the previous five years was 1.4 %)
US employers are beginning to aggressively compete for workers. To do so, they are raising pay for starting workers. This often leads to workers with more seniority seeing increases as well.
Costco raised its minimum to $14 an hour. Target went to $12 and Walmart to $11. 3 Disney reached a deal with its unions for a $15 an hour minimum wage at Disneyland in California.
It’s a slow process, but proof the administrations policies are working.
(However there is a definite slow down in the demand for social workers, welfare advisors, government funded relief schemes etc 🙂 ).
Now Craig, here’s an idea, why don’t the Democrats “practice what they preach” and “re-distribute” the $500 million donation from Amazon’s Jeff Bezos back to those poor Amazon workers you are so worried about, eh??
(I’ll bet you remain very quiet about that, won’t you eh?)
Craig, listening to advocates like Justin Talbot-Zorn rating about an alternate reality, will only result in you also becoming divorced from reality and living in a “bizzaro” dimension.
The “Green New Deal” would be laughably ludicrous, if it wasn’t for the damage it has done to the credibility of genuine environmentalists.
(Oh, and btw, you continually confuse “democracy” and ” Republic”.
A Republic is simply any form of government that doesn’t have a hereditary Head of State. Thus Denmark is not a Republic, while North Korea is theoretically a Republic).
Craig,
As I wrote the above comment, I was sitting waiting for a delayed fight from Hong Kong to London. ( I watched enviously as one of my clients took off for Singapore in the family private jet).
To kill time, i read an account in the NYT by a “reporter” named Scott Reyburn that the British economy had been ” thrown into paralysis,” as a result of Brexit.
‘Roads are gridlocked with trucks. Empty supermarket shelves. People are arming themselves and preparing to emigrate anywhere to get away from the imminent collapse of UK society.
This journalist who seemed to not be aware of the difference between reporting and writing a futuristic novel, went on to predict the disasters to follow if Britain leaves the EU.
Naturally, the Daily Mail and Guardian follow with even more hysterical reports. The volume of excitable social media pundits took the hysteria to new heights.
In fact, nothing at all is occurring, no public panic, no drama as the May government spinelessly fumbles about trying to appease everyone and pleasing no one.
By and large, outside the world of the media, the British people have accepted the inevitability of Brexit and simply want the government to get on implementing an orderly exit strategy, or if that’s not possible, a determined and defiant exit with decisive action to assert UK sovereignty and independence.
A disorderly Brexit, (which seems inevitable)will provide many more benefits and opportunities for the UK than a disintegrating EU, sliding into recession.
This a problem of modern journalism, if one ‘reporter’ gets it wrong, or simply fantasizes, the story adopts a life of it’s own as it becomes repeated and re-repeated in increasingly distorted versions by lazy journalists, until it becomes an accepted “truth”.