29. Climate Memo Mondays, June 28, 2021
The Great Adaptation: Climate, Capitalism and Catastrophe
by Romain Felli. Translated by David Broder. Verso, 2021.
Publisher’s description:
How
capitalism wants us to adapt to climate change rather than stop it.
The Great Adaptation tells the story of how scientists, governments and
corporations have tried to deal with the challenge that climate change poses to
capitalism by promoting adaptation to its consequences, rather than combating
its causes. Since the 1970s, neoliberal economists and ideologues have used
climate change as an argument for creating more “flexibility” in society, for
promoting more market-based solutions to environmental and social questions.
This book unveils the political economy of this potent movement, showing how
some powerful actors are thriving in the face of dangerous climate change and
even making a profit out of it.
Laurence Shoup. “The Council
on Foreign Relations, the Biden Team, and Key Policy Outcomes: Climate and
China.” Monthly Review (May 2021).
Key Policy
Outcomes: Climate and China
In the aftermath of the disastrous Trump years, there are
numerous needed foci for the Biden administration, including the climate
crisis, growing geopolitical conflict with China, COVID-19, economic recession,
the need for democratic renewal, and confronting the ongoing racism and
misogyny in U.S. society. I will focus on two key existential threats, the
climate crisis and the growing conflict with China.
The Biden
Administration and Green New Deal Proposals (pp. 13-15).
Almost fifteen years
ago, the Green Party formulated
the concept of the Green New Deal, aiming to achieve zero carbon emissions
through creating sustainable green energy infrastructure while at the same time
providing full employment at living wages, reducing economic inequality, and
providing a “just transition.” Green candidates have had the Green New Deal as
part of their platform in state and national elections since 2010. Due to the
ongoing failure of the mainstream media to cover Green ideas and candidates,
the Green New Deal concept only gained national attention when some Democratic
Party officials recognized its value and began to advocate for a first-step
version in 2018. But the Democrats,
true to their neoliberal ideology, generally refused to go beyond advocating
for market-based approaches.
The partial exception
was Senator Sanders, who endorsed
the idea of public ownership of utilities, correctly arguing that the country
needed to remove the profit motive from the distribution of essential needs
like energy. This approach pinpointed the problem: it is the expand-or-die capitalist system that is primarily
responsible for the climate crisis, which, if not confronted, will soon result
in a planet uninhabitable for humans and other forms of life. But most other
Democrats and virtually all Republicans refuse to cross the borderline between
private enterprise and public ownership. They recognize that to do so would
mark the end of business as usual, an end to the markets-above-all capitalist
system that created the climate crisis in the first place. Continued
plutocratic rule would be placed in question.
Proper policy implementation of a
robust Green New Deal must
reflect the urgency of the climate crisis and the need to overcome the
concentrated private power that caused it. Rather than market-based
profiteering as a false solution, real answers are to be found in cooperation
and collaboration to overcome the crisis and advance the common welfare through
governmental institutions. There is a largely unknown U.S. history of public investment and government ownership to advance
the public welfare during times of crisis, a history that can help convince
people that it can be done again today as well as tomorrow. Just reviewing the
history of nationalization in the United States since the First World War one
can find numerous instances of government takeover, ownership, and management
of enterprises in the national interest. For example, during the First World
War, arms manufacturers, telephone, and railroad companies were nationalized by
the Woodrow Wilson administration. During the Depression and the Second World
War period, energy monopolies, railroads, coal mines, trucking companies, and
even some department stores were all nationalized. Steel mills were
nationalized during the Korean War. The savings and loan scandal during the
1980s provides yet another example. These governmental actions to put companies
and industries under democratic control assured that production and
distribution standards were met to serve
the public interest. They involved a form of class politics; the interests
of the corporate rich to make more profits were superseded by the needs of
common welfare. Since the current mode of private ownership is incompatible
with the need to prevent ecological collapse and assure the survival of
humanity, it is urgently necessary to have a bold, robust Green New Deal, which
would involve the nationalization and reconstruction of key parts of the U.S.
economy along sustainable lines.
The most recent and fully developed
iteration of the Green New Deal is
represented by the 2020 Green Party presidential
campaign of Howie Hawkins. He proposed a two-part solution to the
climate crisis that he estimated would cost $42 trillion over ten years, funded
by progressive taxation, reduced military spending, public borrowing, and
public money creation. The first part is Hawkins’s
Green Economy Reconstruction Program. This would result in a 100 percent
clean energy system by 2030, and would involve a reconstruction of all economic
sectors of the U.S. economy for sustainability. Implementation would require
social ownership of key sectors of the economy in order to democratically plan
an inclusive federal public works project for everything from agriculture to manufacturing
to housing to transport. The second part is focused on social justice and is
called the Economic Bill of Rights,
which includes guarantees for full employment at living wages, income above the
poverty line, a decent home, comprehensive free health care, good public
education, and secure retirement for everyone.14
A smaller Green New Deal, but a still substantial
program of public investment costing an estimated $16.3 trillion over ten
years, was put forward by Democratic Party presidential candidate Bernie Sanders in the 2020 campaign.
Sanders’s program involves some social ownership only in the electric power sector
of the U.S. economy. Unfortunately, Sanders falsely stated that “greed,” not
capitalism, was “at the very heart of the climate crisis.” Sanders did, however, stress that his program would provide
millions of green jobs, social justice for those previously left out, cuts in
military spending, and sharp reductions in carbon emissions.15
In
sharp contrast to Hawkins and Sanders is the Biden program, with
only $2 trillion in spending projected so far. Nevertheless, Biden has been
attacked by Republicans for his Green New Deal light program, which only
proposes to eliminate coal, oil, and natural gas as electric energy sources by
2035. Another promise is to conserve 30 percent of the nation’s land and water
by 2030. Biden aims for net zero emissions only by 2050 (almost thirty years
from now, when an intensified climate crisis may make such promises moot); in
contrast, the Hawkins and Sanders programs are focused on major changes by
2030. It is clear that Biden and his team are not taking the climate crisis
seriously enough. The Biden plan is obviously not large enough to save our
livable planet for humanity and other life forms. Also unclear is whether there
will be enough activist and public pressure to force Biden and his team to
expand their program to make it conform to the scale of the immense problem now
facing humanity and our planet.
The Biden team wants to continue
with a modified neoliberalism, at a
time when this ideology has demonstrably failed. The vast spending to keep the
economy afloat and the obvious shortcomings of a public health care system
based on private ownership and private profit illustrate this in the starkest
terms. The scale of infections and deaths from COVID-19 in the United States is
a form of social murder by the private profit “health care” system. Countries
with a more collectivist governmental approach to public health (for example
China, Taiwan, Cuba, Vietnam, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Australia, New
Zealand), and not encumbered by the myths of “freedom,” have done a much better
job of keeping the virus under control and saving lives than the United States.
A new public health approach in the
United States would prize equality, social justice, and health care for all
over private profit for the few.
No comments:
Post a Comment