Here Heinberg offers Susan George's vision of "Environmental Keynesianism (see her essay at http://www.globalnetwork4justice.org/story.php?c_id=313). Like Option 1, this scenario also envisions a strong central government. However it theoretically operates more democratically, and like the New Deal, creates work programs to rebuild infrastructure. Heinberg gives the example of the Tennessee Valley Authority, a vast New Deal social experiment accompanying the damming of the Tennessee River, in which thousands of Americans were moved into new experimental communities. I think the example is a good one, as this model sounds a lot like what Obama's good buddy Zbigniew Brzezinski is proposing in terms of benevolent government that improves efficiency by foregoing democratic processes.
People often forget the downside of the TVA namely that thousands of people were forced to participate in this experiment against their will. And that the creation of a large, somewhat brutal security network was necessary to police it a network run between 1950-58 by former Nazi war criminal Werner von Braun.
Under this Green New Deal, a strong central government would provide the finance capital to build public transport systems, super-insulate millions of homes and commercial buildings; develop distributed renewable energy systems; and reorganize agriculture on biointensive, organic model creating millions of jobs along the way.
George proposes to finance this massive capitalization by taxing speculative currency exchange transactions and eliminating tax havens in the Caribbean and elsewhere. She points out that half of all world trade passes through off-shore tax havens and that their elimination would automatically increase tax revenues by $250 billion dollars.
George states that the only way to bring about a Green New Deal government is to build a very powerful populist movement demanding it as no western democracy under the thumb of multinational corporations will agree to it voluntarily.
Option 3: Bottoms Up
According to Heinberg, this is a vast expansion of existing grassroots and local government activity to revamp local infrastructure to become more self sufficient in providing for basic food and energy needs. However he argues against adopting this approach prematurely. He feels we need to continue to try to arrive at national and international solutions even if our ultimate goal is a society organized according to local and bioregional principles.
Heinberg's main argument against adopting Option 3 in large industrialized countries is that most communities in North America and Europe are ill equipped to provide even the most basic services (food, water, power, security) without the support of complex regional and national systems. A breakdown in these services would likely lead to social unrest, leading whatever central government that remains to implement Option 1.
Nevertheless he believes that some areas of the world (including parts of the US) will be forced to go for Option 3, especially in places where the electrical grid and communications collapse. He points out there was also a foretaste of this after Katrina, when it was up to local citizen groups and what remained of state and local government to rescue stranded families and provide emergency food and shelter.
He also lays out one scenario in which some countries initially respond to scarcity with a law and order clampdown then as it becomes clear they don't have adequate resources to maintain a massive repressive apparatus, this gives way to local bioregions looking after themselves. And another in which countries start with a more democratic Green New Deal, only for scarcity to get so extreme it leads to social unrest that can only be quelled by heavy-handed authoritarianism.
The Punch Line
Heinberg's 2007 presentation concludes with the clear message there will be no soft landing. Even though it's not considered acceptable to say so in polite society we are in for hard times. The hard truth is that for decades human beings have been consuming beyond the limits of what the natural world can provide.
Scaling back drastically to live within those limits will be difficult and will require sacrifice. However it won't be impossible. There are numerous examples of societies pulling off a rapid coordinated response in reaction to a crisis. Heinberg points to the massive civilian adaptation in Europe and the US during World War II and in Cuba after the Soviets cut off their oil imports.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
2
2
