Stan Cox: Well, yes, you are following that to its logical conclusion which would be just that--a race to the top--or the bottom--between all of the countries. They talk about going to the moon, and others may refer to the Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb. Those are technically relative and simple compared to the situation we face now, which is our lives and economy have to be transformed. Even when they use WWII as the example, which it does serve as a kind of example because there too we had a situation where one part of the economy had to be walled off, in this case for war and armaments production. And then the rest of the economy had to live on what was left. When they talk about WWII as Bill McKibben and others have written about--they focus only on the war production side being the analogy to build up energy and how we marshalled our productive forces and achieved this great amount of production and so forth and that's a fair comparison.
(40:39) Dan Young: It's a fair comparison that they are talking about taking resources, walling them off and marshalling them to change out the infrastructure from fossil fuels to renewables. Is that the part that is the fair comparison?
Stan Cox: Right. That's fine, but they ignore the other side of it. The result of that was we had to force civilian production for the rest of the economy. We had to reduce the amount of stuff that was being produced--or in the case of food, try to increase it. There was something called the War Production Board that diverted resources to products or industries that were needed. They shut down industries that were producing unnecessary goods. Then that resulted in shortages of some stuff and then rationing was required. So we would also be facing that kind of problem in a world where we are voluntarily cutting back on our access to resources, while at the same time building up new resources. And all of that has to take place, as they keep saying, within the next decade or two. So we can't wait around until all the renewable infrastructure is built up (42:10) and then start eliminating fossil fuels. We have to do it at the same time.
Dan Young: From what's been put out about this GND, what do you like about it? what do you dislike? Do you think this could somehow be a jumping off point for something great or that it all needs to be rethought?
Stan Cox: Well, I'm told that in the discussions that formulated this initial version of the GND that any talk about "ensuring sufficiency for everyone and excess for nobody" that any type of that kind of thing was shut out--or any talk about controlling what we produce. And ignoring that part of it and just allowing reckless growth to continue, they're eventually going to fall back on nuclear power. That's my biggest fear. But that said, with the Right attacking the GND as going too far--I think we do have to defend it [the GND] but to say what parts of it we are defending. And I think we need to support its efforts to provide economic security to the now insecure majority, to redistribute economic power, to eradicate racism and all forms of repression, and to rebuild energy capacity, and to reduce energy waste through efficiency--all those things we should be defending, but at the same time stressing that if this GND evolves, it has to go much farther, and all of that needs to be pushed quickly and we have to let go of these dreams of Green growth. (44:25)
Dan Young: Do you feel if they fell back on nuclear power they could meet their goals--carbon-wise?
Stan Cox: Well, the trouble with building up nuclear power is that, like renewable power, all of the energy expenditure and the emissions generated to build it up, come upfront while it is being constructed, and to generate that much nuclear electricity would be a huge construction project, and mining and waste disposal--all of these things. And all of that would be coming in the next couple of decades right at the time when we need to be reducing emissions. Now, of course, it is going to generate emissions to build up renewable energy as well, but not nearly as much. But then there are all the other dangers of nuclear energy and to just go on a building spree (45:35) is very reckless. And there eventually would come-- we have been through concerns about peak oil--a peak uranium problem, and the ecological consequences would not be worth it. We would be much better off just living with less energy.
Dan Young: It [the GND] also doesn't deal with--if production of everything else continues based on uranium and nuclear energy--the habitat loss, the loss of arable soil, the continued loss of drinkable water, especially if you see more American suburban living expanding to other parts of the world that don't have it yet. It's all powered by nuclear power!
Stan Cox: Right, and that concern--I'm glad you brought it up again--for all these other problems, setting aside greenhouse warming, we have to keep focused on that. It's not all just about energy. And this is a concern with the renewable energy build-up because there are researchers, some in Australia, who are pointing out if we were to attempt to supply as much energy as we use now with renewable energy we would be pressing wind and solar farms into more and more ecologically fragile areas and that there probably would be, we would hope, a popular outrage at that. That would be another limit on the amount of energy we would be able to produce. (47:29)
Dan Young: All right, I think I am going to wrap up. Do you have anything else you wanted to say about anything we have covered?
Stan Cox: One thing that I have been trying to emphasize is that if the GND comes along in its current form, it is only going to be after we wage a protracted politically bloody struggle. But if it succeeds in its current form, we are going to find that it is not stopping global warming. So if we are going to wage this fight, then we better fight for a transformation that actually has a chance of preventing catastrophic warming. (48:11)
Dan Young: Well, thank you very much for speaking with me today, Stan. I have speaking with Stan Cox about the GND. Cox is a plant breeder and geneticist working on sustainable agriculture, and he is also a prolific environmental writer and a political activist So, again, thanks so much, Stan.
Stan Cox: Thank you, Dan.
Dan Young: This is Dan Young and today I spoke with two long-time environmental activists and writers about the GND. Don Fitz and Stan Cox presented a critical analysis of the GND, grounded in environmentalism and ecology. Key to their critique was concerns that the GND proposals are based on plans for massive growth in the economy and in industrial production. Cox and Fitz feel that the economy and industry needs to shrink in order to avoid ecological disaster. They feel that the growth called for in the GND would be unlikely to stop global warming and would only worsen numerous other global and environmental crises. Instead of so-called green growth, they want to see a rapid changeover to renewable energy coupled with economically egalitarian reforms and a major reduction in industrial production (49:18).
(Article changed on May 4, 2019 at 04:20)
(Article changed on May 4, 2019 at 04:41)
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
