Preliminary comments on the Green New
Deal Part I: Congressional Resolution
av Alexander Dunlap — 25. sep. 2019
The Green New Deal has serious implications for rural landscapes. In fact,
GND is not all that “green” and risks exaggerating extractive activities.
Senate democrats announce the Green New Deal resolution, February 7th 2019. Foto: Creative
Commons.
The Green New Deal (GND) was initially a term proposed by the infamous
neoliberal New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman in 2007, and it
transformed into the leading United States legislation designed to address
climate change and economic inequality.
1
The GND refers to President
Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal
that responded to the Great
Depression with social and
economic reforms.
While there are aspects of the
GND worth
respecting
and
acknowledging, presently it is an
accomplice to green capitalism
and, consequently, a threat to
inhabited and (socially) valued
rural landscapes.
Making the Best of a Technoindustrial Situation
The GND tries to preserve
something that is environmentally
and socially destructive instead of
Chino copper mine, New Mexico. Foto:
taking seriously the social
Wikimedia Commons
alienation and ecological crisis in
full motion. I should acknowledge, however, the genuinely positive aspects
of the GND that should be affirmed in policy. The claim to “stop current,
preventing future, and repairing historic oppression of indigenous peoples,
communities of color, migrant communities” is a step in the right direction
(p. 5). This rhetoric is important, even discursively, given the genocidal and
ghettoizing processes still happening in the US. This is especially so with
the rise of migrant concentration camps and Trump’s appeasement of white
supremacist narratives that empower neo-fascists groups across the
country.
Furthermore, the GND advocates for “supporting family farming” and
“building a more sustainable food system that ensures universal access to
healthy food” (p. 8). Wow! This is amazing, even if the impotence of
rhetorical ambiguity lingers. This is combined with challenging
environmental racism and “funding for community-defined projects and
strategies,” which exist alongside efforts of “restoring natural ecosystems
2
through proven low-tech solutions that increase soil carbon storage, such as
land preservation and afforestation” (p.9). This is music to my ears!
It continues with protecting biodiversity with “locally appropriate and
science-based projects” and, still more, “identifying other emission and
pollution sources and creating solutions to remove them” (p. 9). It also
emphasizes making housing and infrastructure energy efficient—even if
how this is implemented will have serious implications. Furthermore, the
GND document’s emphasis on equity and benefit sharing cannot be
appreciated enough. It seems the rural transformations advocated here with
“low-tech solutions,” locally appropriate” projects and “restoring natural
ecosystems” offers an important path towards socio-ecological
sustainability.
Within the authoritarian democratic or Neo-illiberal context of the US, the
GND appears as a breath of fresh air, yet there are still red flags to consider.
Omissions, Concerns & Intensifying the Present
2nd Tank Battalion, learn to setup and operate
the Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy
Network System. Foto: Diane Durden, Official
US Marine Corps
The GND situates itself within the
“climate-conflict” narrative, which is
well-known for hiding the political
and economic drivers of ecological
catastrophe (p.4). Thus reinforcing, if
not fueling, land grabbing and
environmental conflicts in the name
of the green economy and climate
change mitigation. This coalesces
with omitting the geopolitical
ecology issue of the US military
industrial complex—an entity that
pollutes more than 140 countries—
from the GND conversation.
Indicating that the public should
prepare for “ecological tanks,”
“sustainable violence” and the
rolling out of “green repression.”
The flowery green rhetoric leads to
the question: What is “clean?” What
3
is “healthy?” The usefulness of the GND will depend on how “clean” and
“healthy” air, water, food and nature will be defined (p. 5). Rural as well as
urban space will depend on this definition. The stripping of the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under Trump and the prevalence
of “corporate science” in the US does not muster confidence, instead only
highlights the severity of this issue.
Then there is the well-known policy/planning code words. Where repairing
and “upgrading the infrastructure,” buildings and deploying “’smart’ power
grids” has serious social control implications. Monitoring
consumption patterns of people through the proliferation of surveillance
devices is creating what was only a wet dream for classical fascists in the
1930s. Urban renewal, infrastructure repair and resilience are increasingly
becoming words synonymous with population control and
counterinsurgency. This is also a hazard with participatory and community
defined projects in urban neighborhoods. Overall this reliance on positive or
“yay” phrasing ignores how many of these positive projects are little more
than political technologies of control that will stifle—if not prevent—
unmediated neighborhood and grassroots organizing against environmental
control and catastrophe.
International Energy Agency (IEA) illustrating the efficient and green smart city. Foto: Energy
Atlas via Creative Commons.
4
This extents into indigenous territory. The document's uncritical view
of free, prior and informed consent (FPIC) consultations as a solution to
indigenous developmental and participation is inadequate. This perspective
implicitly hides the disingenuous and contested (colonial) politics behind
these bureaucratic procedures that define consent as consultation.
Finally, the deployment of “renewable energy” as a solution is laughable.
Proclaiming to meet “100 percent of the power demand in the United States
through clean, renewable, and zero-emissions energy sources” displays not
only a blind faith in (inaccurate and reductionary) carbon accounting, but
demonstrates an ignorance in material consumption of these infrastructural
systems and the land they require.
We must internalize that Industrial-scale renewable energy is a myth. Instead
of continuing energetic flows within people and ecosystems, they instead
power the Frankenstein that is industrial and cybernetic infrastructure.
Moreover, If we are going to be accurate—as was written elsewhere, we will
call renewable energy “fossil fuel+.” This term cuts through the propaganda
from energy companies, governments and shortsighted environmentalist that
uncritically promote industrial-scale renewable energy systems as a solution
to ecological crises.
We need to recognize the cost of powering modernist infrastructure, but also
that every single aspect of renewable energy is dependent on fossil fuels for
producing factories that make extractive machinery, which then fuels mining
activities. The fossil fuels that power mining, smelting, manufacturing and
transportation infrastructure and so on. The list is extensive and are related
to multiple and proliferating environmental conflicts. The supply chain and
life cycles of these technological apparatuses are poorly recognized;
meanwhile the expansion of fossil fuel+ systems implies a spread of land
control, resource extraction and conflict in rural areas.
Academic Resolution
The issue identified with the GND resolution also emerge in academic
debates. In the Boston Old South Church on April 11, 2019, Noam
Chomsky discussing the GND said:
5
…the general idea is quite right and there is very solid work explaining and
developing in detail how it could work. There is a very fine economist at
University of Massachusetts Amherst, Robert Pollin, who has written on this
in extensive detail in close analysis of how you can implement policies of
this kind.
Reviewing the recent debate between green growth and degrowth in the New
Left Review, it seems Robert Pollin falls carelessly into this false
conventional and renewable energy dichotomy. “[I]t is in fact absolutely
imperative that some categories of economic activity should now grow
massively—those associated with the production and distribution of clean
energy” (p. 7). This is complemented on the next page: “the single most
critical project is to cut the consumption of oil, coal and natural gas
dramatically and without delay” (p. 8).
While it is easy to agree with these statements, the problem arises: fossil
fuel+ infrastructure and supply chains are radically dependent on the
consumption of oil, coal and natural gas. Even putting to the side, the
complications of placing wind turbines around agriculture are minimized (p.
15) there are substantial issues with his vision here. Pollin’s advocacy for
job transition through infrastructure renovation and renewable energy
development is appreciated—lending some weight to Chomsky’s statement.
The fact, however, remains: economists and “modelers” celebrating the false
conventional versus renewable energy dichotomy will invalidate their work
in whole or in part, or at the least continue the externalization of economic
costs where rural, forested and mineral rich areas will be targeted for
resource extraction.
On the degrowth side of the debate, Mark Burton and Peter Somerville, were
quick to highlight Pollin’s flaws. Pointing out his uncritical use of Gross
Domestic Product (GDP), Burton and Somerville look at the faulty data
employed to propagate the myth that the US, Germany and the UK
decoupled from CO2 emissions between the years 2000-14. Importantly,
they recognize the amorphous double-headed harbinger of “rebound effect”
and fossil fuel+ when they write:
The Countries that are most advanced in developing renewable energy, such
as Denmark and Germany, have also expanded their consumption of fossil
fuels, particularly coal; the same applies to the US, China, India, Canada and
6
Australia. To replace oil, coal and gas with other sources of energy would
take something like an 18-fold increase in renewables deployment.
While Sander’s 2020 Green New Deal still requires greater attention, we can
see how this green rhetoric lead to continued disruptions and resource grabs
in rural areas. Instead, we should pressure for—in and outside policy
circles—for more serious environmental policy that will decentralized
ecological knowledge and promote the restoration of socially degrading and
ecocidal impacts created by modernist development. We should take the best
from the GND and Pollin, but continue to push towards developing
degrowth and post-development practices. The insanity of industrial
humanity must yield to needs of the earth and all of its inhabitants.
7