The Green New Deal and Beyond: The Road from Climate Emergency to Ecological Reality (City Lights Open Media)

Image of The Green New Deal and Beyond: Ending the Climate Emergency While We Still Can (City Lights Open Media)
Release Date: 
May 19, 2020
City Lights Publishers
Reviewed by: 

Stan Cox is one of those few people who dared predict the future and then watched it become true. When he was writing the book, The Green New Deal and Beyond, he scripted these prophetic words: “The oft-predicted national decline in use of fossil fuels is nowhere to be seen, and it is unlikely to occur on its own, at least until the next economic meltdown.” 


Among ideas for decreasing emissions to a sustainable level none has generated more enthusiasm than proposals for a Green New Deal (GND) to replace fossil fuels with a massive increase in solar, wind, and hydroelectric power. Yet the GND is criticized by “deep greens” who worry that increases in any type of production, solar panels and wind turbines included, will worsen environmental crises. Stan Cox jumps into this fray with the most pragmatic attempt to blend the two perspectives which has yet been written.

The powerful draw of the GND is that it links climate change to social problems by tracing both to a corporate-dominated system which puts profits above environmental protection and human welfare. Its advocates insist that both need to be addressed together.

In addition to promoting alternative energy (AltE) supporters propose to expand public transportation, build housing with maximum energy efficiency, forgive student loans, provide Medicare for All, and offer new green jobs at good pay—all of which would be powered by a growth in manufacturing that would be so immense as to dwarf growth during WWII.

Stan Cox is one of those deep thinkers who are highly cautious about unbridled support for a concept that might have drawbacks. In his foreword to the book Noam Chomsky notes that pro-GND US congresspersons do not directly challenge the fossil fuel industry. And Naomi Klein, who enthusiastically endorses what Cox writes, precautions that we must be wary that good paying green jobs do not morph into high-consuming lifestyles that add to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.





MYTH 3: “Shifting from gasoline-powered to electric cars is essential for a quick reduction in CO2 emissions.” Actually the huge increase in mines, smelters, factories, and transportation required for this transition would continue to heighten CO2 levels long before any emission savings would be realized. Additionally, it is highly doubtful that enough cobalt and lithium exist for every adult on the planet to own an electric car.



MYTH 6: “It is possible to meet GND goals for expanding infrastructure for 100% AltE by 2030.” In fact, meeting GND goals by this target date would require a 33-fold increase in industrial expansion, far more than has ever been achieved anywhere and would result in complete ecological devastation. Also, such colossal industrial growth would require more land space than used for all food production and living areas in the 48 contiguous states.


The author outlines how GND social justice goals can be accomplished without a monstrous economic buildup. Necessities could be provided for everyone via three steps of a “capping” program.





Just as there are difficulties with the GND that Stan Cox points out need correction, there are concerns with his analysis. One problem happens when the author addresses Mark Jacobson’s claim that AltE can provide sufficient energy for poor countries. The book argues that he is short-sighted for the reasons covered in MYTH 7. But is this critique too mild?



Why is this answer odd? Because he argues throughout the book that society must not expand energy production but reduce it. This is the same trap that many Medicare for All proponents fell into when asked how they would pay for the extra expenses. The answer is not “Tax the rich!” The answer should be “There are no extra expenses for something that costs less.”


Yet another question arises with the way the “cap and adapt” financial system would actually work. Cox proposes to set limits on how much fossil fuels each corporation can produce. This is strange, given that market forces push each corporation to maximize profits. Instead of suggesting that limits be managed by the very institutions that abhor those limits why not propose that fossil fuel industries be nationalized as so many eco-socialists are doing? After all Bernie Sanders made “socialism” a household word and today fewer young people fear ogres from Moscow than capitalists on Wall Street.



There is one last issue with what is overall a truly great contribution to an ongoing discussion of limits to growth. Since every form of the GND—from the 2008 version presented in the United Kingdom to later European versions, through those backed by Democratic Party candidates in 2019—proposes economic growth that would be titanic (in both meanings of that word), then why continue using the phrase Green New Deal? Why not coin a term like “Deep Green Alternative?”