The Green New Deal Utopia

By Wayne Brown

Any version of the widely discussed Green New Deal project must include these priorities: 1. Greenhouse gas emissions reductions will at least achieve the targets set in 2018 by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, namely a 45 percent reduction in global emissions by 2030 and the attainment of net zero emissions by 2050. 2. Investments to dramatically raise energy efficiency standards and equally dramatically expand the supply of solar, wind, and other clean, renewable energy sources will form the leading edge of the transition to a green economy in all regions of the world. 3. The green economy transition will not expose workers in the fossil fuel industry and other vulnerable groups to the plague of joblessness and the anxieties of economic insecurity. 4. Economic growth must proceed along a sustainable and egalitarian path, such that climate stabilization is unified with the equally important goals of expanding job opportunities and raising mass living standards for working people and the poor throughout the world.

\ 

Climate Crisis and the Global Green New Deal 

The Canadian version of the Green New Deal is the " LEAP Manifesto "  There is no way for me to capture the psychedelic nature of this manifesto here. Please read it for yourself. It's not long. Without actually reading this document, what I have to say about it will seem to be a rabid overreaction.

LEAP calls for an end to capitalism, the route of all evils, including climate change.  LEAP will end all forms of poverty and injustice, including the poverty and injustice created by LEAP itself. A careful reading reveals that LEAP is not just calling for an end to capitalism but an end to the economy. On the extreme far left, the "economy" is seen as an invention of capitalism. Once we dispel this illusion, anything is possible. The only historical precedent I can think of is Pol Pot's approach to getting things done without nasty things like incentives.  Pol Pot is sometimes thought of as a Marxist, but Marx was perhaps the world's first economist. Pol Pot was coming from quite a different place.

Climate "disaster" is presented in terms even more shrill than usual. Net zero by 2050 is assumed. The secret is switching to a command economy, tossing out the profit motive, and rationing fossil fuels to zero by 2050. A Universal Basic Income is included in the picture, making all citizens employees of the State, which makes sense since the fossil fuel industry will not only be nationalized but destroyed and "capitalist" incentives to work and create are rendered illegal.

The LEAP manifesto derives its urgency from the Climate Crisis--the "Deepest Crisis in Recent Memory." Without that, LEAP is simply a laundry list of the social justice agenda. It's worth asking if social justice would somehow be promoted by destroying the Canadian economy. LEAP deserves to be treated as "Far Left Activism." Unlike communists, they calling not for nationalization but outright destruction of major sectors of the economy. It's worth noting that Net Zero by 2050 includes major reductions, if not elimination, of cement and fertilizer, so it's not just the dirty business of fossil fuels to be destroyed. Construction and agriculture will take a hit. We would also face a problem importing most of the "Green" technology with almost nothing to trade for it. While Canada would look like Utopia to the Greens, to the rest of the world, it would be an economic basket case, cut off from the miracle of international trade simply because it has nothing to sell.

It's hard to imagine where the capital needed to re-tool the energy infrastructure for wind and solar will come from since the concept of private (capitalist) investment and profit is ruled out. In other words, any non-governmental agency would be expressly forbidden to make a return on investment. I have a hard time imagining how the current energy infrastructure and service level could be maintained. LEAP seems to be literally unable to keep the lights on. Ah, but I digress into economic considerations ...

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Panic Part 6 - The IPCC Summary for Policymakers

By Wayne Brown
Image
Love it or hate it, the discussion revolves around this report Bottom line: I accept the IPCC report as a kind of "hub" around which my view of climate issues must turn. It is important to understand what it is saying, along with its limitations. Legions of cherry pickers have descended on this report - many to raise alarm, many to rebut, many to blow smoke over it. It is not difficult for a reasonably intelligent person to read the report itself, especially to examine the baskets of cherries emerging from the forest. Generally speaking, I have found critics of the report to be highly misleading. To call the report "alarmist" is perhaps simply to admit that there is no shortage of worrying facts in the report. For example, the frequently cited concern of the "alarmists" - namely sea-level rise - is completely well documented. To me, the "let them drown" response at COP26 forms the basis of my assumption that the politicians of the world will not...
Read more

The Carbon Offset Hoax

By Wayne Brown
Image
  Carbon Offsets Explained to the Kiddies (or " Pickle #4") John Oliver presents a funny but true overview of "Carbon Offsets" here . As he points out, the whole thing is a hoax. But it's much worse than he says. It wouldn't work even if it were not a hoax. Planting a tree takes C02 out of the atmosphere as it makes roots, barks and leaves out of the carbon it "breathes in".  But this is a one-time thing . The "carbon offset" idea is based on the tonnage of vegetable matter created by the tree, not the entire life cycle of the tree. The Amazon forest emits more C02 than it absorbs on a net basis. So, for example, the " trillion tree campaign ", in theory, would offset a tremendous amount of carbon once . Next year, we'd need another trillion trees to be planted (or, absurdly, not cut down). As John Oliver puts it, we can't offset our way out of climate change. Even if we could, the idea is fundamentally flawed. In the ...
Read more

Dennis Hoffman and The Nature of Reality

By Wayne Brown
Image
Perplexity Massive data loss.... The great math mystery "Math works so well to describe reality because math is all there is." just 32 numbers and a bit of math Lex Fridman & Dennis Hoffman The Case Against Reality (In Kindle) This may be the wrong question: Does math work so well because it's how we perceive reality or is math a fundamental property of the Universe? Missing is the idea that consciousness itself is essential and that a mathematical description of consciousness could be "fundamental" - more "fundamental" than what we think of as "reality." "The elegance of math meets the messiness of reality" - but this is a clue to how we simplify reality for efficiency. 
Read more