The idea of ​​a “green new deal” has gained significant ground in recent years.

A modest version has been adopted by the European Union and various national governments in the Global South. The 2019 European Green Deal has been described as a “new growth strategy”, to build a resource-efficient but competitive economy.

In the US, a green new deal tried in 2019, but it ultimately failed in the face of Republican opposition and no meaningful progress has been made since.

In Canada, the conceptual and policy framework for a Green New Deal was laid out in 2016 Leap Manifesto, focusing on renewable energy, wealth distribution, indigenous rights and building supportive social movements. However, the ambitions of the manifesto remain just that, and Canada currently has no Green New Deal on the books.

This must change if Canada hopes to achieve a truly net-zero transition.

Competing visions

There are, broadly speaking, three key approaches to achieving net zero: radical reformism (Green New Deal), green growth (our current strategy) and so-called “degrowth.”

Green growth is insufficient for a few important reasons. First, to achieve a prosperous world with net zero emissions, green growth must achieve an absolute decoupling of growth from carbon dioxide emissions. This is unlikely in the short to medium term for all but a handful of richer countries.

Second, we cannot simply convert our energy system from fossil fuels to green sources (solar, wind, hydro and nuclear) at the current level of consumption. Trying to do so is risky ecosystem damage, which must be taken into account.

The harsh reality is that reduced consumption is still the only real approach. Battery-powered cars, yes, but also smaller and fewer cars.

Green growth does not meet the climate/ecological challenge. Humanity has already crossed over six out of nine safe planetary boundaries and it already is too late to limit global warming to 1.5 C, the lower ceiling proposed in the 2015 Paris climate agreement. We must act decisively now.

Degrowth is seen by some as an alternative. Degrowth is a revolutionary idea that aims to abolish GDP and focus economic goals around meeting human needs. While the recommended measures would drastically reduce emissions here and now, degrowth is simply not politically or economically feasible. Degrowth identifies capitalism as the problem and calls for its transformation into “post-capitalism” or “post-growth”. The main problem is how to get there.

Geoengineering is also sometimes touted as a potential remedy for our planetary woes. But even if geoengineering works as planned – a very big “if” when many climate scientists dismiss it as “dangerous nonsense” — It is not a cure for global warming, but only a stopgap measure, as carbon dioxide emissions will continue to grow.

Relying on technical fixes is a risky gamble. Yes, we must continue to invest heavily in promising technologies. A technological breakthrough could happen. But we can’t count on that.

We must not let our fate depend on a breakthrough that may never happen.

A green new business

The case for a radical Green New Deal in Canada is compelling and straightforward. A Green New Deal may be more effective in delivering positive ecological change than green growth and would likely be more feasible in the short term than a regrowth model.

Unlike green growth, which was developed by technocrats, and degrowth, which is largely an intellectual movement that grew out of university discourse, green new business typically emerges from activist and political networks. This origin is significant for two reasons. First, Green New Deals are usually developed by people who can be expected to have a rough idea of ​​what might be politically feasible in their constituency.

Second, the green new deal is easy to understand. Although a critical engagement with green growth or degrowth requires graduate study, the radical green is the new business common sense.

The message is: we must quickly make a green energy transition. This transition cannot happen unless people, including those employed in the fossil fuel industry, see a better future at the end. Expansion of social protection and public services must therefore accompany ecological change.

The better future means justice, on a national basis, but even in the global south, which unfairly bear some of the worst impacts of climate change. And, perhaps most difficult of all, energy and material consumption in wealthier economies must be reduced.

This Green New Deal could usher in radical changes on the same scale as the original The “New Deal” was introduced by US President Franklin Roosevelt in the 1930s. The New Deal saved America from the Great Depression; The Green New Deal would be the first step to save us all from ecological collapse.

Obstacles ahead

The political and attitudinal obstacles to achieve this comprehensive program are important. The current political polarization within countries makes the task even more challenging. With climate denial still strong within many conservative movements, climate action has unfortunately become a culture war issue for many – as witnessed at the recent Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, Wis..

Nevertheless, two points are worth emphasizing. The dominant strategy of green growth cannot save us. And the degrowth vision, while attractive, implies the unlikely overthrow of capitalism. The radical reformist Green New Deal is a more sustainable approach to the climate crisis than green growth, and more politically promising than degrowth.

Something radical has to be done, whether we like it or not. Moderate policy measures, such as a carbon tax, might have been enough if they had been adopted in the 1980s (when the science of climate change was already established). Reversing global warming at this late stage requires more extensive action. A Green New Deal could be just the kind of radical action needed to save us all.

There is no easy way out.

This article is republished from The conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read original article.