The Green New Deal in the United States: What it is and how to pay for it (original) (raw)
The US Green New Deal (GND) resolution introduced by Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Markey is the first comprehensive program combining climate change mitigation and the elimination of economic inequality that could, conceivably, soon be adopted as policy in a major economy. We outline its main features, together with Senator Bernie Sanders' more detailed, fully costed version, exploring its implications for pol-icymaking and social science-based energy research. We focus on two of its most striking characteristics: its macroeconomics; and its inextricable linkage of climate change mitigation and the reduction of economic inequality. We find Sanders' GND economically credible and argue that the GND's use of Keynesian demand-side macroeconomics challenges governments, policymakers and citizens to think anew about the nature of money. We suggest social scientists need to challenge neoclassical economic assumptions, which, we argue, enable both climate destruction and inequality to continue. We find the GND's combining of climate protection and equality credible, and argue that shifting the debate away from neoclassical understandings of public debt to careful assessments of inflationary impacts and resource needs will generate more productive analysis. We offer these insights as a first look at the GND and challenge others to join in this research.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
Climate, Inequality, and the Need for Reframing Climate Policy
Review of Radical Political Economics
Humans are on the precipice of dangerous climate change. In this lecture, I discuss the importance of inequality in climate solutions and the ways in which the framing of climate change has impeded action to mitigate emissions. I critique the standard formulation of a tradeoff between well-being and environmental protection. I argue for the need to reframe climate action as a positive good and discuss the impact of the Great Recession on climate discourse in the United States. I review recent history on de-coupling and argue for new approaches to climate policy, such as cap-and-dividend and the use of productivity growth to reduce hours of work and by extension emissions.
Globalizations, 2020
Climate change policy is a contested field, with rival perspectives underpinning radically different policy propositions: from encouraging the market to innovate technical solutions to climate change through to the replacement of a market economy with an eco-socialist model. These differing policy options draw upon a variety of economic concepts and approaches, with significant consequent divergences in their policy recommendations. In this paper, we consider policy as assembled from a wide range of sociomaterial components-some human, others non-human. Using a 'new materialist' toolkit, we explore four contemporary climate change policies to unpack these policy-assemblages, and assess the different uses made of economics in each assemblage. We conclude that none of these contemporary policies is adequate to address climate change. Yet despite the incommensurability between how these disparate policies use economic concepts and theories, we suggest a materialist synthesis based on a comprehensive climate change policy-assemblage.
THIS CHANGES EVERYTHING: CAPITALISM VS. THE CLIMATE
Energy Law Journal , 2016
Naomi Klein is a public intellectual with a passion for investigating issues affecting the public interest. She is an astute observer of how political and economic power are exercised in fashioning public policy. Klein devoted five years to research, reflection, and writing on climate change and the fossil fuel industry—to understand these phenomena, those who downplay their adverse effects (or doubt that climate change is “man-made”), and those struggling to avoid their adverse effects on their local environs and the future of humanity. Klein concludes that what is required to avoid or mitigate the worst effects of climate change directly clashes with our prevailing capitalist, globalized, free trade paradigms. Her most startling conclusion is that if humanity acts effectively to address climate change and establish a sustainable “steady-state” economy—which it must to survive—the oil and gas industry is doomed. The unanswered question is whether the end of that industry will leave us in a dystopian or utopian future. That question will be answered, Klein believes, and the future unalterably determined, in the next two or three years. (Published Sept. 2014)
Climate Change and Capitalism: A Reevaluation
(This article first appeared on the LA Progressive website on 3/22/2024.) Akshat Rathi’s new book, "Climate Capitalism: Winning the Race to Zero Emissions and Solving the Crisis of Our Age," claims “it’s possible to harness the forces of capitalism to tackle the climate problem” and indicates how on a global scale “the work has already begun.” But only if there is a general recognition that “government policy” will need to play “a crucial role.” He seems to have in mind something like what the economist Joseph Stiglitz has called “progressive capitalism,” which combines a market economy with government regulation. Rathi realizes that his urgings are no guarantee that his wishes will be followed. And future events--one thinks for example of the possible election of Donald Trump--could fatally halt “the race to zero emissions.”
The political economy of global carbon emissions reductions
Ecological Economics, 2009
The discussion about what reductions in greenhouse gas emissions are required and how the emissions rights might be distributed globally has fostered the belief that there is a fundamental conflict between the rich nations of the "North" and the poor but populous nations of the "South." The argument is that grandfathering the rights will only reinforce existing global inequalities, while per capita distribution of the rights would lead to such huge transfers of wealth to the South as to be unacceptable to the North. However, a very simple general equilibrium model highlighting key elements of the global economy shows that this perception is incorrect under a plausible interpretation of the goal of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to "avoid dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system." Instead of using an economic damage function to determine the optimal level of emissions reductions, the model's utility functions are calibrated to reflect scientific understanding of what would be required to stabilize the atmosphere at safe concentrations of greenhouse gases. Among policy options that would accomplish this, the United States has a preference for grandfathering the allocation of emissions rights over a per capita allocation, but this preference is not strong and could be offset by other geopolitical considerations.
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.