Home | About | Donate

The Green New Deal Is Not a Choice

The Green New Deal Is Not a Choice

Frances Moore Lappé

Here’s my question for you. If your child were dying of a disease that only a costly drug could cure, would you not go to any lengths to get it? Of course, you would. And that’s exactly what we face today, as our children’s future is dying, not to mention a habitable planet for all.

Inaction is not a choice.


The title of this article is very misleading. It should be something like, “Inaction on the Green New Deal is not a Choice”.

1 Like

Frances – The Green New Deal costs nothing. USA burns $1tn carbon fuel per year. Green energy devices will return 10% per year on average. Some will be 5% and some 20%, but on average 10%. So $10tn will displace all fossil fuels at 10% return on investment. That is just 6% of GNP. We can do GND at zero cost and supply millions of jobs…


Below may be interesting as a measure of how slow humanity can be on the uptake (or how short-term greed ‘Trumps’ everything).

During this century, there has, Mr. Cotsworth stated, been an increase in winter temperature compared with last century.
"Throughout the world the climate is changing, Mr. Cotsworth continued. "The glaciers of Alaska and Western Canada are retreating. The great Sahara Desert is moving south, drying up Nigerian rivers and the lakes of western Sudan. Australia’s deserts are increasing. The ice cap along the Antarctic, opposite Australia and New Zealand, is receding.

Mr. M. B. Cotsworth, secretary to the British Association’s
Committee on Climatic Change, January 1945.
(As reported in the ‘Christian Science Monitor’)


Hi KeeyaZ ; Yes, I agree, it does make more sense for a more specific headline Thanks for that. : )

As much as one wants to wish the youth climate leaders every success on their March 15 global climate strike, in a recent essay, Britain’s Tim Watkins, a social and economic scientist with a background in public policy, examines in detail the terrifying predicament youth, and all humanity, face in trying to prevent planetary collapse. Consider, too, that “even the cleverest of adults struggles to understand the full complexity of our predicament.”

Here’s a small sample of what students will be up against.

For starters, Watkins declares that “… few of our political leaders are taking their [students] protests seriously.”

A possible showstopper is that students are at an immediate disadvantage because they are unlikely to understand “the full scope of the human impact crisis that is breaking over us. The phrase ‘Earth System’ refers to the entirety of our planet’s interacting physical, chemical, biological, and human processes. Climate is just one element of this system and if we focus on that alone, we will misunderstand the complexity of the danger."

In brief, here’s the dilemma humanity faces, and students must understand — To avert collapse, resulting in the deaths of more than six in every seven humans on Earth, every person on the planet would have to immediately stop using fossil fuels. However, if we stop using fossil fuels that supply 85% pf Earth’s power, our oil-dependent economy will collapse, causing a global famine that will kill more than six in every seven humans worldwide.

Thus, reducing our problem to climate change, then to CO2, and finally to measuring emissions only at the point of energy production is a dramatic misrepresentation of our dilemma. Slowing climate change is crucial but navigating its challenges is only possible if it is understood as just one facet of planetary overshoot.

Finally, consider the irony of the students’ protest — Their global protest march demands an unwarranted faith in do-nothing governments. “When our school students call upon government to ‘do something’ to address climate change (itself a mere subset of the growing collapse) they [students] must engage in a high degree of denial [themselves] to overlook the fact that the government they are calling upon is made up of rank incompetents.”

Here’s a Shortlink to Watkins’ essay — https://wp.me/pO0No-4D0

That analysis is a bit simplistic, but it’s certainly in the ballpark for a first approximation. Most of the people bellyaching about the myriad obstacles fail to take account of offsets and other positive benefits from various aspects of a proposed GND.

Please see my reply to this same comment on Greta Thunberg’s article on CD yesterday, 3/15, and to Wellan’s endorsement of it farther down the page.