File:Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal.jpg

From Green Policy
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 4: Line 4:
  
 
* https://bookshop.org/books/climate-crisis-and-the-global-green-new-deal-the-political-economy-of-saving-the-planet/9781788739856
 
* https://bookshop.org/books/climate-crisis-and-the-global-green-new-deal-the-political-economy-of-saving-the-planet/9781788739856
 +
 +
 +
'''Reviews of the New Book and Interview with Noam Chomsky (with comment by SJS/GreenPolicy360 Siterunner)
  
  
Line 46: Line 49:
 
🌎  
 
🌎  
  
 +
 +
 +
Noam Chomsky
 +
 +
Interview
 +
 +
Salon / October 17, 2020
 +
 +
 +
Salon talks to the venerable author about the climate crisis, the Global Green New Deal and "lesser-evil voting"
 +
 +
 +
Selected quotes from the article:
 +
 +
Noam Chomsky, one of the world's foremost public intellectuals, has provided the international left with wisdom, guidance and inspiration for nearly 60 years.
 +
 +
With dozens of books, and countless lectures and articles, Chomsky has addressed nearly every major topic of politics and economics with an orientation toward democracy, peace, and justice, but his new book is possibly his most urgent. "Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal," co-authored with progressive economist Robert Pollin, measures the stakes of climate change as threatening the survival of the human species, and offers a bold and ambitious solution that can not only stave off disaster, but create a more beautiful, hospitable and just world.
 +
 +
 +
David Masciotra recently interviewed Chomsky...
 +
 +
 +
DM: We can, perhaps, begin by spotlighting Amy Coney Barrett's remarks at her nomination hearings calling climate change a "controversial and contentious issue." One of the realities you and your co-author, Robert Pollin, identify in this book, which seems to elude most other analysts, is that while our mainstream discourse often presents a "debate" surrounding climate change, there is no debate at all – not just among scientists, but among the institutions that are actively making the problem worse. They know they are courting catastrophe.
 +
 +
NC: Not just "courting," but causing catastrophe. She not only said that it is "contentious." She said, "I'm not a scientist. I don't really know about it." Unless she is a hermit living in Montana without any contact with the outside world, it is inconceivable that anyone could even be considered for a Supreme Court position who doesn't know about the most significant environmental issue.
 +
 +
 +
DM: JPMorgan Chase used the phrase, "survival of humanity," and you are quoting it. All of your books deal with serious issues, to put it mildly. It seems, though, that the new book is the most urgent. Is that a fair characterization?
 +
 +
NC: Let's take seriously the publication of the Department of Transportation β€” their document on climate change and emission standards. It was an astonishing document, and it is shocking that it didn't get more coverage.
 +
 +
It is a careful environmental assessment from the Trump administration. It concluded that on our present course we will reach four degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. What is that? Total cataclysm. No one can even estimate the effects. Organized human life as we know it will be over. Of course, it will build up over the years, getting worse and worse with sea levels rising, extreme weather events, and so on. So, after describing this, they offer a prescription, and here it is: Let's reduce emission regulations on cars and trucks.
 +
 +
This is the most extraordinary document in human history. I can't think of anything like this. The thing that comes closest is the Nazi Wannsee declaration in 1942, which was the formal decision of the Nazi party to wipe out all the Jews of Europe. Not even that said, "Let's race ahead to make some money while destroying the prospects of all human life on Earth." Why isn't this the headline everywhere?
 +
 +
 +
DM: You've asked two questions, I assume rhetorically, but I'm curious if you can offer an answer to either. First, what kind of people have an awareness that they are threatening all livable ecology and proceed along the same course? Second, why isn't this the headline everywhere?
 +
 +
NC: I have no independent evidence about what is inside people's minds. In the case of the Trump administration, I simply think that they don't care...
 +
 +
There is also the idea, "We have force. Therefore, we can compel anyone else to surrender to it." We see that constantly in the most remarkable ways...
 +
 +
There's (also) a major [https://www.un.org/pga/75/united-nations-summit-on-biodiversity/ biodiversity conference going on right now at the UN]. It is of crucial significance not only for the many species that are being crushed, but for human survival. For example, one of the issues they are addressing is how to prepare for the next pandemic. There is one major country that is not attending. The usual one. The United States. Take a look for coverage. I did, and all I could find was approximately two minutes on NPR.
 +
 +
 +
DM: Is it possible to proceed with something like the Global Green New Deal, on the level that is necessary, without addressing the profit motive?
 +
 +
NC: That's a question that Robert Pollin and I discuss. First of all, there is the simple question of timescale. The timescale needed to deal with this urgent problem is a decade or two. Major institutional changes, which I think are very much in order, have a totally different timescale. It is a much longer process. The fact of the matter is that in order to survive we have to deal with the problem within the framework of the existing institutions. Then, comes the question, can it be done?
 +
 +
We think so. Without radical modification of the existing institutions, which on the side, we can continue to pursue – it is a parallel project – but without that happening, there are adjustments possible. This is mainly Pollin's work – looking at how we can proceed within the timescale and within the existing institutions.
 +
 +
Take fossil fuels. One thing that could be done is simply to take them over – socialize them. It isn't even that expensive. With the oil prices, they aren't worth that much right now. Then, we can put the institutions in the hands of the workforce and the community, and have them do what has to be done. What has to be done? Cut back annually – say 5 percent – on the use of fossil fuels. That would be enough to bring us to net zero emissions by the midcentury. Set the workforce to do things that they know how to do. Let's have them work on developing sustainable energy. They know how to do it. Outside of ExxonMobil, every major company has a division on this.
 +
 +
We might recall that one of the leading early environmentalists was Tony Mazzocchi, the head of the Oil, Chemical, Atomic International Workers Union. Those are the guys on the front line. They're the ones being poisoned. Mazzocchi and his union pushed for safety regulations, and the reduction of fossil fuels. That can be picked up. That's within the framework of institutions...
 +
 +
 +
DM: Too often the issue is presented as dichotomous, meaning working class economics versus environmentalism. Why is that wrong?
 +
 +
NC: There will be better jobs and more jobs for working people with a Green New Deal. Jobs ranging from construction to retrofitting houses to mass transportation to installing solar panels and wind turbines to research and development. That whole range presents many more opportunities than there are in fossil fuels, and it makes for a better world.
 +
 +
I don't know where you live. I live in Arizona right now, but I lived outside Boston most of my life. It isn't much fun sitting in a traffic jam for over an hour to get to work...
 +
 +
It would be much nicer to have a highly efficient mass transit system. You step inside, read a newspaper, enjoy a cup of coffee, and get to where you need to go in no time. It is a better world. In Arizona, I know people who pay $1,000 over the summer for air conditioning. I pay $10 a month, because we've installed solar panels on the roof. It is a better life. Furthermore, I don't have to feel guilty about using so much electricity. The sun is up there, and it is just giving it to me. Insulate your home. You are more comfortable, you are saving money, and you are saving the environment.
 +
 +
 +
DM: You are using the simple, but profound phrase, "It's a better life." It seems that the Global Green New Deal presents the left with a great opportunity to offer to people a large-scale, ambitious project for reimagining human life and society that leads to dramatic improvements.
 +
 +
NC: Absolutely. These two questions that you presented earlier β€” environmentalism or changing the institutions. This is where they coincide.
 +
 +
Let's take the auto industry. It is a huge industry; the core of American production. In 2009, after the financial collapse, the auto industry was nationalized. There were choices at the time, and if the left had been up to it, we could have made a better choice. The first choice, which is what the Obama administration did, was to pay off the executives and the shareholders, and then return the industry to its original owners, and have them go back to what they were doing β€” make traffic jams in Chicago and Boston.
 +
 +
Another possibility was to take the industry that we owned, and hand it over to the workforce and the community, and ask them to alter it in ways that were more beneficial. They might have developed an efficient mass transit system. If we start doing that, we undercut the institutions that work for profit, and transform them into democratic institutions that work for public needs. This isn't nationalization, putting it into the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats. It is giving it to workers and community members who can use it for their own needs. That is radically undermining capitalist institutions.
 +
 +
I'm sure you know the Next System Project. One of their proposals that makes great sense is to expand the postal service into general services for people, like banking. It is a perfect way to do banking β€” not commercial banking, JPMorgan Chase giving someone $2 billion β€” but the kind of banking we all do. It would be easy to do it through the post office. There are post offices everywhere, the staff is already there, the infrastructure is there. Much of what we do can happen through socialized institutions, which people are surprisingly favorable to. And it would improve our lives. It is a good part of life to have a postal carrier who you get to know. You trust him. You can ask him to feed your dog when you are away. It makes life better.
 +
 +
 +
 +
--------------
 +
 +
 +
SJS: At 91 Noam Chomsky is still learning and growing in his perspective. His take now on revolutionary 'purity politics', eg, refusing to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', or not vote, is at the center of the Salon interview. Noam is, as with GreenPolicy360, urging a realism of action now. Working within current systems and structure to make consequential changes. Noam's co-writer Robert Pollin of the new book, '''"Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal"''', tracks with your GreenPolicy siterunner's work going back to 1992 and the platform we worked on to put together for the Jerry Brown presidential campaign, followed by the Blue-Green Alliance initiative I worked up with US labor leader Tony Mazzochi, and during those years in the 1990s, the drafting of the founding Green Party Platform when it was passed by a new US Green Party and accepted at the Federal Election Commission in the  new national US Green Party's application for legal standing.
 +
 +
At the center of this is a paradigm, a Thomas Kuhn-like body of ideas that goes back to the New School in NYC where I studied alongside Robert Pollin and began together to create a new economics. For over 30 yrs I've written of it as 'Eco-nomics', and its good to see Noam Chomsky now coming along with  Robert Pollin and advancing many extension going back decades as many of us push for change day in, day out. I appreciate, we appreciate at GreenPolicy360, Chomsky's focus now on working through the existing system, organizing, given the pressing and immediate climate and political crises.
 +
 +
* https://www.greenpolicy360.net/w/Eco-nomics
 +
 +
* https://www.greenpolicy360.net/w/Green_New_Deal
 +
 +
* https://www.greenpolicy360.net/w/New_Economy_Movement
 +
 +
 +
 +
 +
~
  
  

Revision as of 11:53, 21 October 2020


"Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal"


Reviews of the New Book and Interview with Noam Chomsky (with comment by SJS/GreenPolicy360 Siterunner)


Noam Chomsky (Author) Robert Pollin (Author)...


From the Publisher / September 2020

Climate change: watershed or endgame?

In this compelling new book, Noam Chomsky, the world's leading public intellectual, and Robert Pollin, a renowned progressive economist, map out the catastrophic consequences of unchecked climate change--and present a realistic blueprint for change: the Global Green New Deal.

Together, Chomsky and Pollin show how the forecasts for a hotter planet strain the imagination: vast stretches of the Earth will become uninhabitable, plagued by extreme weather, drought, rising seas, and crop failure. Arguing against the misplaced fear of economic disaster and unemployment arising from the transition to a green economy, they show how this bogus concern encourages climate denialism.

Humanity must stop burning fossil fuels within the next thirty years and do so in a way that improves living standards and opportunities for working people. This is the goal of the Green New Deal and, as the authors make clear, it is entirely feasible. Climate change is an emergency that cannot be ignored. This book shows how it can be overcome both politically and economically.


About the Authors

Noam Chomsky is Institute Professor Emeritus at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Laureate Professor at the University of Arizona. Author of American Power and the New Mandarins and Manufacturing Consent (with Ed Herman), among many other books, he is a linguist, historian, philosopher, and cognitive scientist who has risen to prominence in the American consciousness as a political activist and the nation's foremost public intellectual.

Robert Pollin is Professor of Economics and founding Co-Director of the Political Economy Research Institute (PERI) at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Among his many books are The Living Wage (with Stephanie Luce) and the edited volume Transforming the US Financial System (with Gary Dymski and Gerald Epstein). He has worked with the Joint Economic Committee of the US Congress and the United Nations Development Program.


Reviews

"This book is a survival manual for civilization. I want everyone--yes, every person on the planet--to learn its message and to face the challenge it poses: 'What am I doing to help bring about a global Green New Deal in the early years of this decade?' For Americans, the first steps are clear: consign all climate deniers to permanent political oblivion and force all other policymakers to match fine words with deeds--i.e. commit to the Pollin-Chomsky global program for climate stabilization, a massive expansion of good jobs, and just transition."

-- Daniel Ellsberg, author of The Doomsday Machine

"The project that is the Green New Deal is enriched by the insights of two great minds: those of Noam Chomsky and Robert Pollin. Both understand that the GND will fail if it does not protect the jobs and livelihoods of the working class. They explain how a transformation needed to restore the ecosystem can, and will transform the organisations and lives of working people worldwide--for the better."

-- Ann Pettifor, author of The Case for The Green New Deal

"This little book contains a big idea: climate stabilisation that avoids the collapse of organised social life can be achieved, along with more decent jobs, improved living standards and reduced poverty everywhere in the world. Two eminent thinkers present a convincing case for a realistic, feasible Global Green New Deal."

-- Jayati Ghosh, Professor of Economics, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi Salon's Reading Li


🌎


Noam Chomsky

Interview

Salon / October 17, 2020


Salon talks to the venerable author about the climate crisis, the Global Green New Deal and "lesser-evil voting"


Selected quotes from the article:

Noam Chomsky, one of the world's foremost public intellectuals, has provided the international left with wisdom, guidance and inspiration for nearly 60 years.

With dozens of books, and countless lectures and articles, Chomsky has addressed nearly every major topic of politics and economics with an orientation toward democracy, peace, and justice, but his new book is possibly his most urgent. "Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal," co-authored with progressive economist Robert Pollin, measures the stakes of climate change as threatening the survival of the human species, and offers a bold and ambitious solution that can not only stave off disaster, but create a more beautiful, hospitable and just world.


David Masciotra recently interviewed Chomsky...


DM: We can, perhaps, begin by spotlighting Amy Coney Barrett's remarks at her nomination hearings calling climate change a "controversial and contentious issue." One of the realities you and your co-author, Robert Pollin, identify in this book, which seems to elude most other analysts, is that while our mainstream discourse often presents a "debate" surrounding climate change, there is no debate at all – not just among scientists, but among the institutions that are actively making the problem worse. They know they are courting catastrophe.

NC: Not just "courting," but causing catastrophe. She not only said that it is "contentious." She said, "I'm not a scientist. I don't really know about it." Unless she is a hermit living in Montana without any contact with the outside world, it is inconceivable that anyone could even be considered for a Supreme Court position who doesn't know about the most significant environmental issue.


DM: JPMorgan Chase used the phrase, "survival of humanity," and you are quoting it. All of your books deal with serious issues, to put it mildly. It seems, though, that the new book is the most urgent. Is that a fair characterization?

NC: Let's take seriously the publication of the Department of Transportation β€” their document on climate change and emission standards. It was an astonishing document, and it is shocking that it didn't get more coverage.

It is a careful environmental assessment from the Trump administration. It concluded that on our present course we will reach four degrees centigrade above pre-industrial levels by the end of the century. What is that? Total cataclysm. No one can even estimate the effects. Organized human life as we know it will be over. Of course, it will build up over the years, getting worse and worse with sea levels rising, extreme weather events, and so on. So, after describing this, they offer a prescription, and here it is: Let's reduce emission regulations on cars and trucks.

This is the most extraordinary document in human history. I can't think of anything like this. The thing that comes closest is the Nazi Wannsee declaration in 1942, which was the formal decision of the Nazi party to wipe out all the Jews of Europe. Not even that said, "Let's race ahead to make some money while destroying the prospects of all human life on Earth." Why isn't this the headline everywhere?


DM: You've asked two questions, I assume rhetorically, but I'm curious if you can offer an answer to either. First, what kind of people have an awareness that they are threatening all livable ecology and proceed along the same course? Second, why isn't this the headline everywhere?

NC: I have no independent evidence about what is inside people's minds. In the case of the Trump administration, I simply think that they don't care...

There is also the idea, "We have force. Therefore, we can compel anyone else to surrender to it." We see that constantly in the most remarkable ways...

There's (also) a major biodiversity conference going on right now at the UN. It is of crucial significance not only for the many species that are being crushed, but for human survival. For example, one of the issues they are addressing is how to prepare for the next pandemic. There is one major country that is not attending. The usual one. The United States. Take a look for coverage. I did, and all I could find was approximately two minutes on NPR.


DM: Is it possible to proceed with something like the Global Green New Deal, on the level that is necessary, without addressing the profit motive?

NC: That's a question that Robert Pollin and I discuss. First of all, there is the simple question of timescale. The timescale needed to deal with this urgent problem is a decade or two. Major institutional changes, which I think are very much in order, have a totally different timescale. It is a much longer process. The fact of the matter is that in order to survive we have to deal with the problem within the framework of the existing institutions. Then, comes the question, can it be done?

We think so. Without radical modification of the existing institutions, which on the side, we can continue to pursue – it is a parallel project – but without that happening, there are adjustments possible. This is mainly Pollin's work – looking at how we can proceed within the timescale and within the existing institutions.

Take fossil fuels. One thing that could be done is simply to take them over – socialize them. It isn't even that expensive. With the oil prices, they aren't worth that much right now. Then, we can put the institutions in the hands of the workforce and the community, and have them do what has to be done. What has to be done? Cut back annually – say 5 percent – on the use of fossil fuels. That would be enough to bring us to net zero emissions by the midcentury. Set the workforce to do things that they know how to do. Let's have them work on developing sustainable energy. They know how to do it. Outside of ExxonMobil, every major company has a division on this.

We might recall that one of the leading early environmentalists was Tony Mazzocchi, the head of the Oil, Chemical, Atomic International Workers Union. Those are the guys on the front line. They're the ones being poisoned. Mazzocchi and his union pushed for safety regulations, and the reduction of fossil fuels. That can be picked up. That's within the framework of institutions...


DM: Too often the issue is presented as dichotomous, meaning working class economics versus environmentalism. Why is that wrong?

NC: There will be better jobs and more jobs for working people with a Green New Deal. Jobs ranging from construction to retrofitting houses to mass transportation to installing solar panels and wind turbines to research and development. That whole range presents many more opportunities than there are in fossil fuels, and it makes for a better world.

I don't know where you live. I live in Arizona right now, but I lived outside Boston most of my life. It isn't much fun sitting in a traffic jam for over an hour to get to work...

It would be much nicer to have a highly efficient mass transit system. You step inside, read a newspaper, enjoy a cup of coffee, and get to where you need to go in no time. It is a better world. In Arizona, I know people who pay $1,000 over the summer for air conditioning. I pay $10 a month, because we've installed solar panels on the roof. It is a better life. Furthermore, I don't have to feel guilty about using so much electricity. The sun is up there, and it is just giving it to me. Insulate your home. You are more comfortable, you are saving money, and you are saving the environment.


DM: You are using the simple, but profound phrase, "It's a better life." It seems that the Global Green New Deal presents the left with a great opportunity to offer to people a large-scale, ambitious project for reimagining human life and society that leads to dramatic improvements.

NC: Absolutely. These two questions that you presented earlier β€” environmentalism or changing the institutions. This is where they coincide.

Let's take the auto industry. It is a huge industry; the core of American production. In 2009, after the financial collapse, the auto industry was nationalized. There were choices at the time, and if the left had been up to it, we could have made a better choice. The first choice, which is what the Obama administration did, was to pay off the executives and the shareholders, and then return the industry to its original owners, and have them go back to what they were doing β€” make traffic jams in Chicago and Boston.

Another possibility was to take the industry that we owned, and hand it over to the workforce and the community, and ask them to alter it in ways that were more beneficial. They might have developed an efficient mass transit system. If we start doing that, we undercut the institutions that work for profit, and transform them into democratic institutions that work for public needs. This isn't nationalization, putting it into the hands of unaccountable bureaucrats. It is giving it to workers and community members who can use it for their own needs. That is radically undermining capitalist institutions.

I'm sure you know the Next System Project. One of their proposals that makes great sense is to expand the postal service into general services for people, like banking. It is a perfect way to do banking β€” not commercial banking, JPMorgan Chase giving someone $2 billion β€” but the kind of banking we all do. It would be easy to do it through the post office. There are post offices everywhere, the staff is already there, the infrastructure is there. Much of what we do can happen through socialized institutions, which people are surprisingly favorable to. And it would improve our lives. It is a good part of life to have a postal carrier who you get to know. You trust him. You can ask him to feed your dog when you are away. It makes life better.




SJS: At 91 Noam Chomsky is still learning and growing in his perspective. His take now on revolutionary 'purity politics', eg, refusing to vote for the 'lesser of two evils', or not vote, is at the center of the Salon interview. Noam is, as with GreenPolicy360, urging a realism of action now. Working within current systems and structure to make consequential changes. Noam's co-writer Robert Pollin of the new book, "Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal", tracks with your GreenPolicy siterunner's work going back to 1992 and the platform we worked on to put together for the Jerry Brown presidential campaign, followed by the Blue-Green Alliance initiative I worked up with US labor leader Tony Mazzochi, and during those years in the 1990s, the drafting of the founding Green Party Platform when it was passed by a new US Green Party and accepted at the Federal Election Commission in the new national US Green Party's application for legal standing.

At the center of this is a paradigm, a Thomas Kuhn-like body of ideas that goes back to the New School in NYC where I studied alongside Robert Pollin and began together to create a new economics. For over 30 yrs I've written of it as 'Eco-nomics', and its good to see Noam Chomsky now coming along with Robert Pollin and advancing many extension going back decades as many of us push for change day in, day out. I appreciate, we appreciate at GreenPolicy360, Chomsky's focus now on working through the existing system, organizing, given the pressing and immediate climate and political crises.



~

File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

Date/TimeThumbnailDimensionsUserComment
current10:56, 20 October 2020Thumbnail for version as of 10:56, 20 October 2020293 Γ— 418 (33 KB)Siterunner (Talk | contribs)

Metadata

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
GreenPolicy360
Daily Green Stories
About Our Network
Navigate GreenPolicy
Hot Times
Climate Action Plans 360
GreenPolicy360 in Focus
Going Green
Global Green New Deal
Green Education
Relational Eco-Politics
Biodiversity, Protecting Life
New Visions of Security
Strategic Demands
'Planetary Health Pledge'
Global Food Revolution
Earthviews
Countries & Maps
Digital 360
Fact Checking, 'Facts Count'
Data, Intelligence, Science
GreenPolicy360 & Science
Climate Denial / Misinfo
Eco-Education
GreenPolicy Reviews
Envir Legis Info (U.S.)
Envir-Climate Laws (U.S.)
Trump Era Envir Rollbacks
Wiki Ballotpedia (U.S.)
Wiki Politics (U.S.)
Wikimedia Platform
Green News/Dailies
Green News Services (En)
Green Zines (En)
Green Lists @Wikipedia
Climate Action UN News
Climate Agreement / INDCs
Wikipedia on Climate
GrnNews Reddit Daily
Climate Current Metrics
Climate Historic Studies
Climate Change - MIT
Climate Change - NASA
Copernicus Programme
Our World in Data
Worldometer
EcoInternet Search Engine
Ecosia Search Engine
Identify Nature's Species
Meta
Tools