Share

We Need a Green New Deal

by: Norman Solomon, t r u t h o u t | Perspective

photo
(Photo: Darrell Gulin / Corbis)

    In the Arctic, sea ice is melting. In the United States, houses are foreclosing.

    And in Washington, the Senate is becoming a real-life Bermuda Triangle for progressive agendas.

    Proposals for major limits on carbon emissions aren't getting far in the Senate, where the corporate war on the environment has an abundance of powerful allies.

    As for class war, it continues to rage from the top down. Last week, a dozen Democratic senators teamed up with Republicans to defeat a bill that would have allowed judges to reduce mortgages in bankruptcy courts.

    President Obama supported that bill. But as The Associated Press reported, he was "facing stiff opposition from banks" and "did little to pressure lawmakers" on behalf of the measure. The Senate "defeated a plan to spare hundreds of thousands of homeowners from foreclosure through bankruptcy."

    Big-money vultures are circling the Capitol dome to feast on the latest multibillion-dollar carrion, whether under the heading of "cap and trade" or "health care reform." And many billions in profits can be found inside yet another supplemental bill to fund war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Meanwhile, a familiar pattern is unfolding for the most important piece of labor legislation in decades - the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) - which would go a long way toward protecting the rights of workers to form unions. Obama says he supports EFCA. But there are no signs that he'll go all-out for its passage.

    There are pluses and minuses on Capitol Hill these days. But on big-picture items, it's clear that environmentalists and labor rights activists are mostly up against the corporate wall - and the wall is not yielding.

    We need a Green New Deal.

    It won't happen without a lot more effective grassroots coalitions - strong and sustained enough to change power relations for the long haul. But acculturation in the USA often encourages us to think along the lines of solo acts.

    There's the old American story about the solitary Dutch boy who discovers that a dike has sprung a leak. He inserts his finger, hangs in there heroically by himself and saves the town.

    But in the real world, individual heroics are a fool's gold when compared to the genuine value of building political movements. The immense obstacles to effective grassroots organizing can be overcome: not by lone rangers, but by persistent organizers and coalition-builders.

    During the last six months, I've participated in a lengthy series of meetings with many other local activists. Across two counties in Northern California, we're about to launch a long-term project called the Green New Deal for the North Bay.

    It's just a start. But, as we begin a round of public forums throughout the region, we're in the process of developing a grassroots agenda for far-reaching change that will address these two key questions:

    "How can we create a sustainable green future that includes economic equity and social justice?"

    "How can agendas for economic rights and environmental protection become more integrated and more successful?"

    Seventy-five years after the start of the New Deal, and nearly 40 years after the first Earth Day, the need for basic change on behalf of social justice and ecology is clear.

    But ideas are the easy part. In an era of massive environmental damage and vast economic inequality, we've got to organize.

    --------

    Norman Solomon, co-chair of the national Healthcare NOT Warfare campaign, is the author of many books, including "War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death." In California, he is co-chair of the Commission on a Green New Deal for the North Bay.

  

»


Comments

This is a moderated forum. Β It may take a little while for comments to go live. Be civil and on-topic, don't threaten or advocate violence, please keep it under 300 words. Thanks for participating.

Right on, brother. We need

Right on, brother. We need to attack the energy / environment problem now, not wait until New York City and Florida are submerged under a wall of water in a tsunami caused by the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet. On the other hand, if it would also submerge everything in Washington except the Capitol Dome... Hmmmm... maybe it's not as bad an option as I had thought.

Norman, Dr. Bill Wattenburg

Norman, Dr. Bill Wattenburg says that building more nuclear power plants is the only practical way to reduce greenhouse gases. Wind and solar power can provide only a tiny percentage of the power we need for current uses and, in the future, for electric-powered vehicles. Is Dr. Wattenburg right? Should atomic energy be considered "green." I'd very much like your opinion on this. Murray

What we need is public

What we need is public financed elections,with a 6 week limit on campaigns. Eliminate all private and corporate donations to politicians...only then will voters have any clout.

Conservation is the greenest

Conservation is the greenest of all green power sources. For example, if we switched to a four-day commute week, millions of white collar workers would cut their gasoline consumption by 20%. Air conditioning use could be cut by at least 10%. The list of easy and immediate ways to consume less is large, but there is little government support for such economies. I suppose it's more dramatic to talk about solar panels and hybrid automobiles.

Repubs implode, course

Repubs implode, course steady, endless war remains central theme with dems at the helm. There have been sufficient police and soldiers to enforce upper class control over freedom loving people for thousands of years. There is only one way to wrest the hearts and souls of normal people yoked to service as enforcers for pirates in black suits; fun. A successful green counter culture that unites to save the planet will spurn stimulus style consumerism and become more fun than stale corporate culture characterized by minions in black suits. The alternative to illusory quantitative success and security is qualitative growth in education, health, and fun. Boycott consumption of corporate crapola. Enjoy life. Spend quality time with family and friends. Substitute cooperation for competition. Avoid the monetary economy like the plague. Organize pertinent green politics locally, forget obsolete capitals that depend on consumer spending that destroys the planet. We are doing this now. Though there is no way to know if voluntary withdrawal from corporate consumerism will save the planet, we have no other real choice. Yes, it's an experiment; we have not much choice other than to give it a try. Make life fun and isolate the piggies.

As an Environmental Sciences

As an Environmental Sciences major from the seventies, when the movement was born, I most wish for the focus of limited resources (note that resources of a bankrupt nation are indeed limited) to be on ameliorating the most egregious problems. The fact is that there is substantial dissent in the scientific community amongst Geophysicists and Climatologists as to the CO2 cause of the warming we've experienced, although their voices are rarely reported. To get a glimpse of the absurdity of the ICCC's position and the now huge money interests feeding at the Global Warming trough watch the Great Global Warming Swindle, a BBC documentary with interviews of some heavyweight scientists who present a compelling case against the theory, the hysteria, along with the conflicts of interests that have shaped this embarrassing moment for science. A program that focuses on reduction in toxins such as mercury and the persistent estrogenic organochlorides would be more on the mark, along with reducing mercury and particulate emissions (not CO2 emissions) from coal burning power plants. Note that life on Earth would abruptly end without CO2 - it is not a toxin. Focusing on CO2 is a waste. God help us all if they get a mandate to engage in GeoEngineering and start spraying aluminum dust and the other proposed toxic chemicals into the upper atmosphere from jets to 'save us'. Lots of money will be made from these insane , hare brained schemes if they are allowed and the idea that some engineers are going to fix a broken Earth by broadcasting chemicals should raise serious doubt about those promoting such lunacy. Remember the law of unintended consequences.

Nope, I can't find the word

Nope, I can't find the word 'green' in the word 'nuclear'. Can't fink it in 'corporation' either. But I can find a rat in the woodwork. We'll never replace the ice shelves or a healthy Ocean. What we need to do is fix our spirits and prepare for a bleak future. Or maybe we could get a response for our faith if we take the steps others have mentioned about leaving the little piggies to they're gated sties. Are we adults? Or do we need big brother and his evil toys?

Murray- It is most certainly

Murray- It is most certainly untrue that solar and wind power can provide only a tiny fraction of the power we need. If everyone produced enough solar and wind power to satisfy their own needs, this would amount to 40-50% of the energy used in America today. Buildings account for over 40% of total energy use in the US: http://buildingsdatabook.eren.doe.gov/TableView.aspx?table=1.1.1 Nuclear power is the most complex to produce, the waste is toxic for thousands of years, and nuclear power places the world in danger of nuclear war or terrorism, making for at least two unacceptable consequences of it's use. If scientists made an effort similar to that expended in developing nuclear power, on renewable energy, our energy problems would be much closer to being solved, and cleanly.

Maybe we should all go on a

Maybe we should all go on a tax holiday until we start seeing some results

Green is the color of money.

Green is the color of money. That's where members of Congress are at. Money. Campaign contributions. Not identifying with "regular" folks and "easy access" for high contributors (who get what they pay for). Want money for green projects? Get an end to the wars and occupations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and incursions/drones with missiles into Pakistan must stop...close bases....There's lots of money there. Remember the "peace dividend" that was supposed to be after the Soviet Union was broken up? We want peace and the dividends into green projects.

Why is it that no one has

Why is it that no one has addressed Chemtrails as being a major contributing factor to the greenhouse affect ..... has it not occurred to anyone that these heavy cloud layers (that are being sprayed on us daily) are holding in all the pollutants beneath them as well as the heat?

obama and his cronies could

obama and his cronies could care less about the environment...the government will wine and dine you with concessions much like they do to the mexican government. fact is, as long as there are lobbyist, there will be no change...cap and trade will not happen

Murray, nuclear power is not

Murray, nuclear power is not "green", the waste management problem for nuclear has not been solved, that alone makes it un-green. Now as to the main point of the article (a green new-deal): The May 2009 edition of Le Monde Diplomatique carries an article by Peter Custers entitled: What would a real green new-deal look like". He details several points of reference. The Obama plan falls short and leans too much to military keynesianism. (Maybe Leslie Thatcher can translate this article for TO ?)

MG, Thanks for your comment

MG, Thanks for your comment and the useful link about buildings using energy--a fact that I didn't know. I am not an energy expert although I wish I were. May I ask you about the idea of individuals satisfying their own power needs through solar and wind? A neighbor of mine here in West Marin has a sophisticated solar panel system that provides him with all his electrical needs. But my lot, a quarter of a mile away, is shadowed by half a dozen oak trees. Solar is not feasible for us. And while we are in a windy local, I don't think the wind is steady enough to sustain our family. I wonder therefore if anyone has estimated the actual percentage of individuals (including those who live in foggy areas and those who live in tall apartments) who could meet their electricity needs by personal solar/wind systems. My hunch is that the amount of power generated at the household level would be rather small. But I need facts. As for toxic nuclear wastes: How do countries like France and Japan handle this problem. I've not heard of any catastrophes or illnesses--whereas we know that the system of coal-burning power generation kills many minors and causes a great deal of air pollution which probably causes much illness and even death. Finally, I am not clear on how nuclear power generation in the U.S. will increase the danger of nuclear war, whereas I am quite clear that the U.S. thirst for oil has led to conflict. That's not a hypothetical but a reality. Murray P.S. You don't owe me an education. But I am curious about these things, and if you should wish to correspond directly with me, my email is irwinhill2000@yahoo.com.

Until I educated my whole

Until I educated my whole carpool, no one was aware of the chemtrails. They never took the time to look at the sky and analyze the lines that keep coming and never evaporate. They have been spraying them for 10 years now and people have become accustomed to having a white hazy sky and rarely any blue. They don't pay any attention to the looong white tails that come from the airplanes which don't evaporate like a normal contrail but spread out into a thin haze. Citizens across the nation are testing water, soil, and snow run offs and the same chemicals keep showing up in all the tests all over. Aluminum, Barium, Cadmium, This has got to be contributing to warming in some way, or to the abnormal amount of cancers, respiratory disease, and alzheimers epidemic we have in America. Warming? Pollution? People are slowing getting sick and dying. If they don't die, they have paid a lot of money in drugs, radiation, chemo etc. to try and stay alive. Who is benefiting?