The Ecosocialist Green New Deal budget

the

ecosocialist green new deal budget

Introduction

by Howie Hawkins and Jon Rynn

Our ecosocialist Green New Deal encompasses two major programs, an Economic Bill of Rights and a Green Economy Reconstruction Program. The Economic Bill of Rights will finally fulfill President Roosevelt’s 1944 and 1945 State of the Union calls upon Congress to enact programs to secure basic economic human rights for all.

The Green Economy Reconstruction Program will zero out greenhouse gas emissions and build a 100% clean renewable energy system by 2030. It will reconstruct all economic sectors for zero emissions, clean energy, and ecological sustainability—not only electric power production but also zero-waste manufacturing, regenerative agriculture, green buildings, and electrified transportation.

The Economic Bill of Rights will guarantee the rights to a living-wage job, an income above poverty, a decent home, comprehensive health care, a good public education from child care and preK through college, and a secure retirement.

The Economic Bill of Rights will be realized through ongoing programs of public provision funded on a pay as you go basis by progressive taxation. The Green Economy Reconstruction Program will be realized through a plan of public capital investments funded by a combination of progressive taxation, reordered budget priorities, revenues from the sales of publicly produced goods and services, and public money creation and/or public borrowing.

Implementing the Green New Deal will require ecosocialism—social ownership in key sectors in order to democratically plan the coordinated reconstruction of all economic sectors for ecological sustainability.

This is the only Green New Deal proposal that puts Federal public works projects front and center, as during the New Deal: The Federal government will plan and manage the construction of national, Federally-owned electrical, transportation, internet & housing systems, and will directly aid in the transformation of our manufacturing, agricultural & ecological systems.

In 10 years, this Program will not only eliminate the production of greenhouse gases, it will end poverty, unemployment, and underemployment by creating over 30 million good jobs in the course of transforming the nation’s infrastructure and production systems. The Program will increase the incomes and standard of living for the bottom 90% of the population, in all communities: African-American, white, Latinx, Asian, Native American; people with disabilities; urban, suburban & rural; working class & professional.

All goods and machinery needed for building these systems will be manufactured in the United States, reviving the manufacturing sector, which in turn will return power to the working class and unions, and along with infrastructure building will reignite a virtuous circle of widely shared, sustainable economic growth.

The only sacrifices will be made by the very wealthy and large corporations, who will contribute most of the funds needed to pay for this program via higher taxes for them, accompanied eventually by lower taxes for the rest.

 

Read more:

Green Economy Reconstruction Program

Green Economy Reconstruction Program

Interstate Renewable Electricity System

Reduction in total emissions: 28%

Interstate Renewable Electricity System

Reduction in total emissions: 28%

(return to menu)

Overview: Interstate Renewable Electricity System

Renewable electricity must be the foundation for any sustainable economic system. Nonrenewable energy, by definition, can be depleted, that is, used up, gone forever (or at least for millions of years). Thus, by definition, a society based on nonrenewable energy is not indefinitely sustainable. In addition, fossil fuels (oil, coal, and natural gas) pour greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, causing catastrophic climate change. Wood, which has been a nonrenewable staple for thousands of years, destroys forests, which are perhaps our most precious natural resource, after soil. Wood can be collected in a sustainable manner, but then can only be used sparingly. Catastrophic nuclear power accidents might be even worse than catastrophic climate change.

A national plan to build an economy based on renewable electricity would be composed of several components. There would be a national, interstate component, probably based mostly on wind, interconnected with a rebuilt national grid system. Solar plants and geothermal plants could be added to such a national grid, although only an a wind farm network is explored here. At the other end of the spectrum, at the level of individual buildings, we could plan for solar, geothermal, and efficiency construction that would provide for the bulk of building-level energy use, as explained in the building self-sufficiency section.

A renewable electricity system requires an electric transportation system, based on electric trains, trucks, and cars, with small-scale use of planes and internal combustion-based vehicles.

The following are the subsystems and programs required to implement a Renewable Electricity System:

In addition, in order to create an Interstate Renewable Electricity System, it will be necessary to buy out most of the electric utilities in the country, and to buy out the oil companies.

Wind Farm Network

Constructed over a 10 year period, the Wind Farm Network of the Interstate Renewable Electricity System will generate all of the electricity that the US currently consumes, approximately 4,000 terrawatt hours. The Federal government is best placed to construct this system because of the system’s cost, time span, and spatial characteristics. As shown in cost, the total cost over 10 years will be approximately 3 trillion dollars. Markets can handle neither the time scale nor the size of such an investment.

In addition, the spatial siting of the wind farms will be critical to using the Interstate Wind System as a base load for the country’s electrical system. In other words, wind farms will have to be situated such that there enough wind farms receiving enough wind at any point in time that the supply of supply of electricity will be constant. The Interstate Wind System is an example of a system: the structure of the system is as important as its elements. The placement of the elements withing the system is critical to the functioning of the system. Only the government can design a system in which the structure is critical; markets cannot place the wind farms where they need to go, in terms of the country as a whole

Another important aspect of the design of the placement of wind farms is that by placing wind farms in the Great Plains, in particular, the destruction of ecosystems and birds and bats can be minimized, as well as any discomfort for people living in the immediate area of wind farms.

Cost of building and maintaining the wind portion of the Interstate Renewable Electricity System

The cost of building a wind system that generates all of the nation’s electricity per year depends on a number of factors:

Total generating output: We have to know how much electricity we need. We want to build a system in 10 years. So we would like to know how much electricity we need in 10 years, and generally people assume a certain rate of growth. However, since we know what we are using now, and we don’t know whether we can continue on our present course, we will assume the current rate of generation, which is approximately 4,000 Terrawatt hours (one terrawatt is 1000 gigawatts, which is 1000 megawatts, which is 1000 kilowatts, which is 1000 watts; in other words, one terrawatt is one trillion watts).

Capacity: We have to know what fraction of the the potential output of a set of wind turbines actually turns into electricity. Since wind is intermittent, that is, the wind which moves the turbine which creates the electricity is not always blowing, then we have to know how much electricity comes out of, and can come out of, a set of turbines. There are several ways to determine this:
1) In 2017, wind generated 254 terawatt hours (TWh) with a capacity of 88 gigawatts ( according to the Department of Energy (p.9)) , which is a capacity factor of almost 30, that is, about 30% of the maximum capacity of wind was being used.
2) The Energy Information Administration estimates that the average capacity factor for wind turbines in 2018 is about 37%.

Using 33% to be safe, since we know we need 4,000 terrawatt hours, then we need three times 4,000, or 12,000 terrawatt hours capacity; 33% of 12,000 is 4,000. Capacity is not put in terms of hours, however; just to make things more complicated, capacity is rated assuming that the equipment was producing 24 hours per day. So we have to divide the 12,000 by the number of hours per year, and we arrive at 1,370 gigawatts capacity. However, we probably lose about 10% of our electricity through transmission; so let’s assume that we need 1,500 gigawatts of wind capacity.

Now that we have this information, we can try to figure out how much 1,500 gigawatts of wind capacity would cost. So we need:

Cost per gigawatt capacity: According to the wind industry, cost varies from $1,300 to $2,200 per kilowatt hour. Costs are continuously declining, but assuming current fairly large, up-to-date turbines, let’s figure $1,750, per kilowwatt, half way in between. Now we can figure:

Total Cost over 10 years: if a gigawatt costs $1,750, and we need 1,500 gigawatts, then we need 2.625 trillion dollars, or about $260 billion per year. If we assume 10 employees per million dollars, then we have 2.6 million jobs, with about 650,000 in manufacturing.

Smart electric grid and storage

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, our electric grid, the set of high-capacity wires that moves electricity all around the country, is in terrible shape, earning a D+ grade. The current system will simply not be able to handle a Wind Farm Network, or other renewable sources such as solar or geothermal.

We also want the grid to be “smart”, that is, able to integrate with information technology and sense and control problems and even home appliances in order to keep the national electric system running smoothly.

A well-designed grid could also include a substantial amount of storage of electricity. There are many types of storage, but we will assume a certain amount of large-scale battery storage.

Cost

According to a study by the Electric Power Research Institute, as explained in an article in the New York Times, an upgraded smart grid would require between $338 billion and $476 billion. The Climate Institute has also put forward a proposal for a Supergrid that would cost $500 billion, so let’s assume $500 billion. Let’s assume a 10-year construction period, at $50 billion per year In addition, a national set of large battery systems could be integrated into the network, providing another layer of protection against intermittency problems. Gar Lipow in his book Solving the Climate Crisis, chapter 15, estimates $1,000 per KW capacity , or $1.2 trillion over, say, 10 years, or an extra $120 billion per year to add in a battery storage system. The New York Times reports that the price of storage per kWh has declined to $300 to $400, with prices possibly declining to $100, so we could have about three times the storage capacity calculated by Lipow a few years ago, leading to about 4 terawatts of storage capacity. The solar electricity and storage program also would create about 15 terawatts more available for the grid.

51% Oil Company Buyouts

A Plan to Nationalize Fossil-Fuel Companies, by Peter Gowan

Click here to read article.

 

51% utility buyouts

If you add together the top 26 utilities market capitalization as of 2019, we have $781 billion. To buy 51%, a controlling interest, would cost about $400 billion, so over 10 years, $40 billion per year

Click to close above sections

Green Buildings and Housing for All

Reduction in total emissions: 9%
(return to menu)

Overview: Green buildings and housing for all

Homes for All

Using US Census data, the National Low Income Housing Coalition found that the US has a shortage of 7.8 million units of affordable housing for very low income (7.5 million) and homeless (400,000) households and individuals. The study used the federal standard of affordability of 30% of income.

Public Housing

It is much less costly for government to directly build public housing units than to try to incentivize private developers to build affordable units with tax breaks and subsidies. That latter approach has been the dominant housing policy since the 1970s and the housing affordability crisis has only increased under this policy. Relying on the private market to provide sufficient affordable housing has never worked because more profits are to be found in upscale housing development than in affordable housing development.

It is time to return to public housing to provide affordable housing, but this time do it the right way by building high-quality, humanly scaled developments that house affluent and middle-income people as well as low-income people. Public housing is available to all income groups in many European countries. In some European cities, as much as 60% of the housing is not-for-profit housing in the public and cooperative sectors.

We estimate the costs for Homes for All in the Walkable Community Construction Program under the Green Economy Reconstruction Program. The Walkable Community Construction Program will create 2.5 million units of public housing a year. By making 40% of these units affordable for very low income people, 8 million affordable units for very low income people will be created over the course of the 10-year program and will close the affordability gap for very low income people.

The public housing we envision will be mixed-income like public housing in many western European countries, where low-income, working-class, and middle-class people all live together in public housing developments. Mixed-income housing will cost the public treasury less because the rents will be scaled to income and the higher income residents’ higher rents will partially cross-subsidize the lower rents that low income people will pay.

Mixed-income public housing will also break down the race and class segregation in housing that has persisted and actually grown more extreme since the 1990s despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968. The old public housing increased segregation by concentrating poor people of color in housing projects that are often isolated from jobs, public transportation, grocery stores, educational institutions, and other resources, services, and opportunities. By mixing households across income levels in the new public housing, it will desegregate housing by economic class and by race because race and income stratification correlate to a significant degree.

The new public housing will be built to sequester carbon in building materials and to be powered, heated, and cooled by clean renewable sources of electricity. The developments will be located to redevelop out cities and towns into walkable communities that are more energy and resource efficient.

In sum, this public housing program will be a jobs program, a desegregation program, a walkable communities program, and a clean energy program as well as an affordable housing program.

Universal Rent Control

With the shortages of affordable housing, high rents are driving many working-class people out of their homes, often into periods of homelessness. The gentrification of working-class neighborhoods unnecessarily displaces many families away from their neighbors and community institutions even if they can find affordable units elsewhere. Displacement tears at the fabric of neighborhoods undergoing gentrification. We need to find ways to uplift communities – and re-densify poor urban communities that have lost housing and businesses – without displacing current residents. One way is to ensure new development includes sufficient affordable housing, which our public housing program is designed to do.

In the meantime, as affordable public housing units are being built, we need to protect existing residents from being displaced from their communities by rising rents. Rents are rising much faster than incomes and the cost of living in cities and towns across the nation.

We therefore advocate a federal program of Universal Rent Control that will cap rent increases each year and end evictions without a just cause so that people can stay in their homes. The federal government had national rent control during World War 2 when resources were devoted to the war effort and away from housing development, creating a tight housing market. We should do the same now to protect tenants in today’s tight housing markets. Oregon passed a state law in 2019 that ends evictions without a just cause and caps annual rent increases. We should do the same federally to help people stay in their homes while sufficient affordable housing is being built.

Walkable Community Construction Program

This program could be divided between both the transportation reconstruction program and the green buildings program, because by building apartment buildings next to each other, the program serves two purposes: decreasing building energy costs, and decreasing the needs for automobiles. In addition, it is easier to recycle.

The key to eliminating the use of petroleum for transportation is to change the way buildings are placed in relation to each other. In other words, instead of the sprawl of spread out suburbs, we need density of old main streets and city centers. While not everybody would want to live in a city as dense as New York City, and particularly Manhattan, residents of New York City contribute less than 30% of the greenhouse gases of the average American, according to David Owen in his book, “Green Metropolis”. Therefore, if everybody lived in a New York City, U.S. greenhouse gas emissions would plummet by at least one third, because transportation would use renewable electricity, and heating and cooling would be much easier. This is because the way we place buildings in relation to each other has a profound influence on the way we use energy.

There used to be something called a “town” in the United States, with a Main street where all the commercial activity took place, generally with a train station situated in a strategic position so that goods could easily be transported from the station. Almost all housing was within walking distance. Since we can now use slow electric cars, homes need not be within walking distance, but they should still be close to a town center. Since town centers have almost ceased to exist, part of a “densification” program will involve what is called “infilling”, that is, placing new, large buildings in the middle of a newly constructed town center.

Even most city centers no longer have walkable residential neighborhoods. Instead, they survive as business districts and become deserted after working hours. A densification campaign therefore would be needed in most cities as well.

When residences are in apartment buildings instead of single family homes, the heating and cooling greatly decrease, because usually only one wall is facing the outside.

Cost

Let’s assume, for the sake of simplicity and based on opinion surveys, that 25% of the 100 million American households would gladly live in a 250-unit apartment building in a walkable neighborhood. Then if a government-financed program built 100,000 such units, at $50 million each (assuming $200 per square foot, for 1000 square foot apartments), spread among the downtowns of dozens of cities and towns, the cost over 20 years would come to about $250 billion per year. We would then have one quarter of the population in walkable neighborhoods. Perhaps another 25% would be in suburbs dominated by single family homes that would be close enough to the city and to town centers that they could live comfortably with small electric cars, and another 25% that would still need cars to a great extent, so perhaps we could have another 20 year program to get fully half the population in walkable neighborhoods. About 5% of the population now lives in walkable neighborhoods, so after 40 years we would have 20% of the population that might be involved mostly with agricultural or stewardship of natural ecosystems, as in a Civilian Conservation Corps.

Reading List
Americans shouldn’t have to drive…

Solar electricity and storage
Geothermal heat pumps and retrofitting

Geothermal energy comes in two main forms: large geothermal plants that are built deep into the Earth and generate energy around-the-clock, and shallow geothermal units built to provide the heating cooling needs of one building. Geothermal plants are not addressed in this study, mainly because of the lack of research, although a system of geothermal plants could theoretically be the ideal way to provide continuous electricity for any society. MIT has proposed a crash program to develop the technology.

On the other hand, hundreds of thousands of geothermal heat pumps have been installed in the United States. According to Oklahoma State University, “Ground source heat pumps (GSHPs) are electrically powered systems that tap the stored energy of the greatest solar collector in existence: the earth. These systems use the earth’s relatively constant temperature to provide heating, cooling, and hot water for homes and commercial buildings.”

While retrofitting, that is, insulating, plugging leaks, replacing windows, etc., to make a building leak less heat or cool air, has been a major goal in the past, it is becoming more likely that, in general, using solar panels and geothermal heat pumps make more sense, unless those two options are not possible

Cost

Geothermal heat pumps become more economical the larger the building with which they are associated, so that the 250-unit apartment buildings proposed above, for instance, would reduce the costs of installation. For a single family home of 2500 square feet, a cost of $20,000 is reasonable. The Department of Energy, on the other hand, has estimated that the cost of geothermal heat pumps is $2,500 per ton, which means a 2500 square foot house would cost only $7,500. Let’s say that on average, assuming a dense living arrangement, we could install a geothermal heat pump for $10,000 per household. With approximately 120 million households in the U.S., we would need to spend $1.20 trillion over 10 years, or $120 billion per year. If the household could not use geothermal heat pumps, then presumably the money would be spent on retrofitting instead, although retrofitting is generally more expensive than geothermal.

However, we also want to provide for the heating and cooling of commercial buildings, which totaled about 87 billion square feet. We are providing geothermal heat for $120 billion per year, for 120 million households. In 1950 the square footage per household was about 1000, and there were about 3.67 people per household; in 2011, average square footage per household was about 2500, with about 2.6 people per household, for new houses. So let’s say there is about 200 billion square feet for residences; thus we need half of $120 billion, or $60 billion, for the commercial spaces. Let’s add $20 billion for a total of $200 billion and to be more conservative, for both residential and commercial space heating/cooling.

However, a building self-sufficiency plan would use either geothermal heat pumps or retrofitting to minimize the expense of home heating and cooling systems, so this plan includes a retrofitting budget as well; between retrofitting and geothermal heat pumps, every household could have cheap, non-fossil fuel based heating and cooling.

Jobs

If we assume about 12 jobs per million, then we would have about 2,400,000 jobs per year in order to install ground source heat pumps and some retrofitting for all residential commercial units in the United States.

Click to close above sections

Transportation Reconstruction

Reduction in total emissions: 29%
(return to menu)

Transportation Reconstruction

Reduction in total emissions: 29%
(return to menu)

Your Title Goes Here
Overview: Transportation Reconstruction

The only way to make transportation sustainable is to make it almost completely electric. Since oil comprises 98% of the fuel for the current transportation system (cars, trucks, diesel rail, planes, and ships), this will be quite a task. The Interstate Renewable Electricity System can provide the electricity, but to remake the transportation system will require a large-scale change in the vehicles used, the infrastructure built, and perhaps most importantly but least understood, in the way cities and towns are laid out.

A continent-sized electric transportation system will have to be based on the original, that is, one based on rail. Electric high-speed rail is actually the most recent innovation for a major mode of transportation. High-speed rail will have to replace most airline travel, since planes can not possibly be electric. A sustainable plane fleet would have to use sustainably-harvested biomass, which will mean that perhaps there will be enough for some coast-to-coast and intercontinental travel. High-speed rail means not just passenger, but also freight traffic. High-speed electric freight trains will have to replace long-distance trucking if we don’t want to use large quantities of oil. Finally, most transportation that takes within a city region will need to use electric rail — with some use of electric buses, small electric trucks, and small electric cars.

Interstate High-Speed Rail System

The United States has the worst high-speed rail system in the industrialized world; if you define high-speed rail as rail travelling in excess of about 150 miles per hour, than the U.S. actually has no high-speed rail system. Europe, Japan, and now China have much more extensive systems. One could use part or all of the Interstate Highway System to construct an Interstate High-Speed Rail system, or you could put the system next to parts of the Interstate Highway System, as proposed by the US High-Speed Rail Association. However it is put together, a High-Speed Rail System would have to replace most plane routes, since air travel will become less and less practical at shorter distances as the price of oil rises.

Cost

The US High-Speed Rail Association, proposes a 17,000 mile system. Let’s assume a 20,000 mile system. The question is how much per mile to build this system? The range worldwide is very wide, even within France.

In addition, the high-speed rail system could probably cover its own costs, if not turn a profit. Let’s take “Reason magazine’s rather negative view, at $40 million per mile, including the cost of the trains, then we have $800 billion total, or over 20 years, or 40 billion per year. Let’s bump that to $50 million per mile to be safer, at $1 trillion total, or 50 billion per year

Interstate High-Speed Rail System, freight component

The current freight train system is extremely efficient, at least four times more efficient than moving goods by truck. However, almost half of all freight train traffic is used to transport coal, which would disappear in a sustainable society. Freight trains can be converted to use electricity, however, and they could replace the use of large, long-distance trucks, if — and this is a big if — commercial areas were concentrated in town and city centers, instead of being strewn all across the landscape in malls and strip malls. If every town and city had at least one train station that could accommodate freight, then the energy needs of the country would be vastly reduced (trucks use about 1/8th of all oil). A freight system centered on trains would also require that factories be somewhat concentrated geographically. If all city regions had a ring of factories around them, it would be relatively easy to construct a rail line that would connect all factories to all city and town centers.

Cost

According to a very critical article about electrifying freight rail, it would cost on the order of $1 trillion, over 20 years, for $50 billion per year. However, without coal, we could instead use half of that money to convert to higher speed rail.

Regional Transit

Automobiles use about 50% of oil. The only way to decrease the consumption of oil is to decrease the use of automobiles, and the only way to decrease the use of automobiles is to make denser cities and towns that can use electrified transit — subways, light rail, and buses. Transit is completely dependent on density in order to thrive. There are many parts of the country that could have more transit now, even with their levels of density. But to make transit practical for most of the population, most of the population will have to live in dense areas.

Transit is a good example of how the expansion of one industry can help expand an entire industrial “ecosystem” of suppliers, as Jonathan M. Feldman points out.

Cost and Jobs

To understand the employment generated by an expanded transit network, let’s look at the greater New York City metropolitan area. The Metropolitan Transit Authority serves about 15 million people, with 65,000 employees and a yearly operating budget of $13 billion. They have spent about $3 billion per year over the past 20 years on capital improvements, that is, manufactured goods like new subway cars and improved and new stations.

If about 5% of the country now lives in transit-friendly locations, and another 25% is added after twenty years, then for about 30% of U.S. population (about 100 million) to be able to use a system such as New York City’s, then the country would need about 7 such systems of 15 million people each, or about 1/2 million people employed to operate transit in the U.S, with a yearly cost of about 90 billion dollars, after these systems are constructed, plus another $45 billion for capital improvements (NYC’s $3 billion times 15 new systems). Thus, after the systems are constructed in 10 years, it would cost about $135 billion per year to operate, which could either be recouped from fares, or could be offered free with operating money coming from general revenue.

Using $150 million mile as an average for constructing, either subway or light rail, if we wanted to construct the equivalent of 15 NYC subway systems, which is almost 900 miles long, then we have a bit over 13,000 miles to construct, or $2 trillion over 10 years, that is, $200 billion per year.

Transportation Infrastructure

The following table is based on the American Society of Civil Engineer’s Report Card on the Infrastructure. They present cost data for bridges, waterways, ports,roads, and aviation. These show how much more money needs to be spent than is currently being spent; the Green New Deal budget assumes that the Federal government will have to pick up the difference.

While most studies assume that aviation, roads, and shipping will grow at the same rates as in previous decades, the Green New Deal assumes that there may actually be a large contraction in these modes of transport. For instance, much car and truck traffic may instead be done via passenger and freight rail. We will assume that roads will be maintained for the next 20 years, but not expanded, so ASCE figures about $60 billion per year to fix roads and enhance them. Bridges should be fixed, whether the transportation system is centered on rail or on cars and trucks. The central economic program for the Green New Deal is to increase domestic manufacturing, which should mean that the level of cargo ship traffic into the U.S. could decline significantly. However, we assume that ports should be upgraded because, hopefully, any decrease in ships coming into the U.S. will be made up by a similar increase in ships carrying exports to other countries.

Air traffic will probably decline more than most studies assume, because much air traffic will be replaced by the Interstate High-Speed Rail System. However, we assume a conservative 4 billion per year to upgrade the airports, at least to implement the current air traffic control upgrades.

Transportation will have to move from being based on petroleum to being based on renewable electricity. However, it makes sense to at least maintain the current infrastructure while a new transportation system is being built. In the following table, we show those assumed cost levels.

Roads: 60 billion
Bridges: 13 billion
Ports: 5 billion
Aviation: 4 billion
Waterways: 1 billion

Total: 85 billion, rounded up

Electric Car Subsidies

Since cars and trucks account for over 60% of oil consumed, it would be critical to make cars and trucks electric, so that they can use renewable sources of energy.

There are projected to be about 280 million cars at the end of 2019 in the United States.

If one third of these were not needed in 10 years, because of the walkable neighborhood construction and construction of transit, then the Federal government would need to encourage the purchase of 200 million electric cars. If it provided $10,000 per car, that would mean $2 trillion over 10 years, or $200 billion per year.

Jobs

About 1 million people now have jobs manufacturing automobiles. If most electric cars were made in the United States, that number could be doubled. In other words, we could require that electric cars be manufactured in the United States, not imported. That means foreign firms could sell cars here, but they would have to set up the factories in the United States.

Click to close above sections

Food/Environmental Reconstruction

Reduction in total emissions: 11%
(return to menu)

Food – Environmental Reconstruction

Reduction in total emissions: 11%
(return to menu)

Programs Total Jobs Manufacturing Jobs Cost (in billions)
Regenerative Agriculture 2,240,000 120,000 $100
Civilian Conservation Corps 4,000,000 400,000 $200
Water Infrastructure 920,000 230,000 $90
Carbon Mineralization 90,000 20,000 $10
Your Title Goes Here
Overview: Food and Environmental Reconstruction

Humans have been terrible stewards of the environment. Mining, deforestation, pollution, overuse of freshwater, sprawl, depletion of natural resources – even before the threat of global warming became apparent, the authors of the book The Limits of Growth, almost 50 years ago, tried to warn humanity that the planet’s ecosystems could not survive under the assault of development without a consciously planned restructuring of society. Now both calamities, of ecosystem destruction and climate catastrophe, are feeding each other and accelerating the extinction of species – including, perhaps, humans as well.

We can turn back toward long-term survival, but only if we reconstruct a civilization that mimics nature in one important area that we have only barely initiated – recycling and reusing almost everything we produce. Since no one wants to reuse pollution, if enforced this principle would eliminate air and water pollution as well. Thus, when we manufacture, as explained in the section about manufacturing, the goods produced must be recyclable and reusable, so that we can eliminate most mining, and the attendant ecosystem destruction. One big advantage of replacing all fossil fuels is that the environmental destruction caused by the extraction of oil, coal and natural gas will also be eliminated. In addition, we can manufacture everything, including chemicals, without pollution, and if we can’t, then we won’t make it.

Agriculture, instead of mimicking the cycles of ecosystems, has also been set up in such a way that the inputs, like pesticides and artificial fertilizer, cause further environmental havoc, and the outputs, water pollution and unhealthy food, cause problems at the other end. Humans have been warping these natural ecosystems in order to maximize short-term efficiency – but as so often happens in our modern civilization, this short-term productivity leads to long-term collapse. The destruction of soil, which is the very foundation of terrestrial life, is proceeding apace, as is the pollution of water sources. Global warming will make things worse, and indeed the deforestation and destruction of critical ecosystems, including prairies and wetlands, is contributing to global warming in what is called a ‘positive feedback loop’, one increasing the other, until there will be no way to grow food for billions of people.

Misuse of ecosystems in general, including agriculture and deforestation, contributes about 12.5% and 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions respectively, that is, about 28% in total, and other sources from land misuse, such as methane from landfills, adds another 2.5%, so fully 30% of global greenhouse gas emissions can be attributed directly to destroying ecosystems. The landfill part can be dealt with by recycling and reusing, including for food products which can be used for compost, for example, and thus the Program includes a Recycling Corps. For agriculture and deforestation, we need to add other solutions.

Much of deforestation comes about simply to give livestock, particularly cattle, pasture to feed, as in the Amazon, and much of the rest comes from clearing forest to grow crops, such as palm oil in Borneo. As part of the Global Green New Deal, much of this could be stopped by exchanging green machinery from rich countries for preservation of critical ecosystems in poor ones. In addition, reforestation will be a necessary part of a path to making the planet habitable. In the United States, reforestation actually already decreases the United States’ greenhouse gas emissions. A new Civilian Conservation Corps can have as its main objectives two core tasks: to restore ecosystems, and to plant trees. Both will help to decrease emissions and to rebuild ecosystems that are critical to health and well-being.

Restoring ecosystems and planting trees will also help the agricultural sector, which needs trees and healthy ecosystems to provide services like minimizing flooding, cleaning air and water, and providing a place for beneficial organisms like insects and birds to grow. We must move towards an agricultural system that does not use pesticides, which are hazardous, not only to the health of humans, but as we are discovering, to the existence of critical insect and other populations. These pesticides are getting into everything, even mother’s milk. The Federal government needs to spend hundreds of billions to convert the nation’s farms to grow organic food that will be cheaper, better tasting, and healthier than what we have now.

Artificial fertilizer kills the soil, and the runoff ruins river and ocean ecosystems. We need to rebuild the soil in order to draw down carbon as well. Soil should be considered a strategic national resource, like oil is today.

Livestock, if allowed to rotate throughout parts of a well-functioning ecosystem, can benefit agricultural ecosystems. This sustainable livestock must replace the horrible factory-farmed livestock system, which makes the general population ill, partly because of the miserable existence of the livestock. In addition, we need to make fruits, vegetables and healthy grains much cheaper and more available so that people can easily try alternatives to meat.

Another aspect of a global Green New Deal should be to patrol the world’s oceans and ensure that fishing stocks are allowed to expand to the point where they are sustainable. Currently humans are embarking on the insane venture of wiping out most edible wild fish. A sustainable world will be one where people get much of their protein from well-protected ocean and river sources.

The transformation of agriculture can even benefit from the expansion of walkable neighborhoods in cities, which can be used to establish networks of urban gardens. In addition, a Green New Deal should encourage the establishment of farm belts around urban regions to encourage local food production.

There is much to be done to prevent ecosystem collapse, and there are many benefits to doing so. A healthy agricultural system leads to healthy people, eating better tasting food. Restored ecosystems can be left for future generations to enjoy, provided such ‘ecotourism’ takes place in a sustainable and caring way. By restoring forests, wetlands and soil, we can have a fighting chance of drawing down enough carbon dioxide to avert climate catastrophe. Why should humanity be denied the wonders of forests so a few oligarchs can buy more yachts?

Regenerative Agriculture

Agriculture is not currently sustainable. Pesticides, much irrigation, artificial fertilizers and other farming techniques destroy the soil on which all civilization is dependent. The runoff of the pesticides and fertilizer contaminate fresh water and large parts of the oceans. The foods grown with these techniques lead to myriad health problems, while factory farming of livestock leads to super bacteria and unhealthy meat. Oil is required to run farm equipment and to move food thousands of miles.

The goal of a sustainable agricultural system would be to make each region of the country as self-reliant in food as possible, with farm belts around the major city or cities, and encouragement of urban gardens. All food would be grown without pesticides or artificial fertilizer, that is, grown organic Such a system would require a much higher amount of labor, using intensive agricultural techniques, so that the main methods of farming would be closer to gardening than farming. If grains like wheat, rice and corn could be grown better in the Midwest, then we would want to switch to perennial varieties being pioneered by the Land Institute. Livestock must be raised sustainably, sustainable fish aquaculture should be encouraged, and the revival of the oceans must become a top priority.

Also, sea weed could be an excellent way to eliminate the approximately 4% of greenhouse gas emissions that cows cause by belching and farting, according to new research.

Jobs and Cost

According to a recent British study, 32% more labor is required for organic farming methods than for conventional approaches. Organic food now constitutes about 4% of the food market . If, ideally, all food was grown organically, then we would theoretically require about one-third more workers than the approximately 3 million currently employed on farms, or about one million more farmers. If we assume 20 workers per million dollars, this would mean $50 billion dollars per year, which would be paid for by the Federal government as part of a Green New Deal, in order to keep prices low — in other words, the Federal government would pay about one-third of the labor payroll for organic farms. This program would also include many more urban farmers.

The total value of current agricultural machinery is about $250 billion. So if the Federal government replaced all machinery over 10 years, it would cost about $25 billion per year, and yield 240,000 manufacturing jobs. This would be similar to the Green Manufacturing Conversion program, in that the Federal government would pay for new equipment to enable the fast conversion to sustainable production, and would also bring down the price

We could also have training programs to replicate the expertise of farmers already practicing regenerative agriculture, say at $4 billion per year.

$72 billion could be allocated to a combination of land needed for organic purposes, price supports, and the acquisition of the Federal government of some of the major pesticide/chemical and food processing producers as a way to speed up the transformation to sustainable agriculture.

Civilian Conservation Corps

This category reconstitutes one of the most successful programs of the original New Deal, the original CCC. The main task of the new CCC will be to plant trees and restore ecosystems, with the main goal of drawing down as much carbon dioxide as possible. This category reconstitutes one of the most successful programs of the original New Deal, the original CCC. The main task of the new CCC will be to plant trees and restore ecosystems, with the main goal of drawing down as much carbon dioxide as possible. It could be possible to draw down about 24 GTs of c02 equivalent per year by restoring ecosystems, according to research. Another line of research indicates that planting a billion trees could drawdown about 200 GT of c02 equivalent in total. According to a UN report, soil can be a good source of carbon drawdown. The IPCC recently released a report that concluded that, at the high end, afforestation, soil enrichment, and biochar could reach about 25 GT c02 equivalent per year. Humans now spew about 35 Gigatons into the air per year from fossil fuel sources, but since fossil fuels account for about 60% of emissions, the total equivalent should be around 50 Gigatons when all sources are included.

In addition, the CCC will address several of the issue areas in the American Society of Civil Engineers’ (ASCE) Report card on the Infrastructure. There is also the larger issue of reviving ecosystems that have been damaged, or even creating large park-like areas, such as a proposed Buffalo Commons that would cover a large part of the Great Plains, or long wildlife corridors. Also, fish sanctuaries should be established to allow to oceans to repopulate.

Public parks and recreation

According to the American Society of Civil Engineers’ report card on public parks , there is ‘only’ about 10 billion in shortfall funding for Federal parks, but close to $95 billion for state parks. So the monies for the CCC would include this work.

Hazardous Wastes

According to the ASCE, a 2004 study by the EPA estimated that $209 billion would be needed to clean up all hazardous sites in the next 30 to 35 years. Let’s assume $10 billion per year for 20 years, although it is quite possible this is an underestimate. Then we have 200,000 jobs; let’s assume less than normal manufacturing, since these jobs are mainly service jobs, so let’s assume 20,000 manufacturing jobs.

Carbon Mineralization

America’s most prominent climate scientist, James Hansen, estimated in December 2018 in “Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm” that with natural carbon sequestration (afforestation, habitat restoration, organic agriculture), it might still be possible to “return global temperature close to the Holocene range by the end of this century” by which he meant atmospheric CO2 below 350 ppm. In Hansen’s Nutshell paper, he cites a study presenting a pathway to 350 ppm by the end of the century that required a zeroing out of carbon emissions by 2030 and drawing 150 billion tons of carbon from the atmosphere, which is about the maximum estimated capacity of natural carbon sequestration through habitat restoration.

In an earlier paper in 2017, “Young Peoples Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions,” James Hansen and colleagues concluded that because we are near the limits of the capacity of natural carbon sequestration to drawdown enough carbon by the end of this century (in combination with a rapid phase out of greenhouse gas emissions), it may be necessary to find other ways to draw carbon out of the atmosphere.

Because the carbon storing capacity of natural carbon sequestration is uncertain and greenhouse gas emissions continue, it is prudent to research and develop other ways of drawing carbon out of the atmosphere in order to return to the climate safety zone below 350 ppm. A promising approach is to accelerate the natural geological carbon cycle where atmospheric carbon is mineralized in rock through weathering.

David Schwarzman and Peter Schwarzman, who are ecosocialist Green Party members and environmental scientists, argue that biospheric carbon sequestration will have to be augmented by geospheric carbon sequestration. They call for a solar-powered industrial acceleration of weathering that fixes carbon in the Earth’s crust in the natural geological carbon cycle. Water and CO2 react chemically with rocks to create carbonates that fix carbon in the Earth’s crust for geological time scales. The technical feasibility of accelerating this process industrially was recently demonstrated in Iceland where CO2 dissolved into water was injected into a basaltic rock formation and 95% of the carbon was mineralized as carbonates in the porous basaltic rocks within the following two years.

The Schwartzmans note that solar-powered industrial geospheric sequestration would need to continue well beyond 2100 because about half of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities since the fossil fuel age began has gone into the ocean and life forms. While oceans are being acidified by the absorption of atmospheric carbon, oceans also emit carbon dioxide like a carbonated drinks do, especially as they warm. When life forms die their decomposition emits CO2 and methane. The industrial carbon mineralization will be needed because natural carbon sinks in the biosphere will have been filled to capacity by afforestation, wetland and other habitat restoration, and organic agriculture.

The Schwartzmans estimate in The Earth Is Not for Sale: A Path Out of Fossil Capitalism to the Other World That Is Still Possible (pp.103-107) that it will take on the order of 25 trillion watts of global energy annually to power industrial carbon sequestration in Earth’s crust as well as to end global energy poverty and provide every person on Earth decent standard of living, as climate justice demands. Current annual global energy production is 18 trillion watts, but the Schwartzmans argue that 25 trillion watts of renewable energy production is technologically feasible. They were the first to compute in 2011 how an initial investment of non-renewable energy can create a self-reproducing and exponentially-growing 100% wind/solar renewable energy system in about 25 years under the conservative assumptions of using existing renewable technology and modest rates of energy investment in renewables (1% of non-renewables and 10% of renewables during the transition). In a 2016 follow-up study, they find that this 100% global clean energy system can be built with an initial energy investment of just 20% of proven conventional oil reserves. The wells for that oil are already producing. No fracking, arctic, or deep ocean wells are necessary. Oil is chosen because it releases less greenhouse gas than coal and natural gas over their life cycles.

If we need to drawdown 150 billion tons of carbon by the end of the century in order to return to the safe climate zone of below 350 ppm as Hansen’s scenario above indicated, and if that is near the capacity of natural carbon sequestration, it is worth starting a research and development program of carbon mineralization to have ready to scale up if it is needed.

The Iceland experiment in carbon mineralization cost $25 per ton of carbon. If 100 billion tons of carbon mineralization is needed, it would cost $2.5 trillion at $25 per ton. Spread over fifty years, it would cost $50 billion a year at the current state of technology to mineralize 100 billion tons of carbon.

For now, we have put $10 billion per year in the budget for carbon mineralization research and development because it may be needed. Carbon mineralization must not be seen as an excuse to go slow on decarbonizing the economy. Carbon mineralization should be seen as an emergency measure that may be needed to bring the atmospheric CO2 back below the climate safety zone of below 350 ppm by the end of the century.

Further Reading:

James Hansen, “Climate Change in a Nutshell: The Gathering Storm,” December 18, 2018

James Hansen et al, “Young People’s Burden: Requirement of Negative CO2 Emissions,” Earth System Dynamics, 2017

Peter D. Schwartzman and David W. Schwartzman, A Solar Transition is Possible, London: Institute for Policy Research & Development, 2011

Peter D. Schwartzman, David W. Schwartzman, and Xiaochun Zhang, “Climatic Implications of a Rapid Wind/Solar Transition

Peter Schwartzman and David Schwartzman, The Earth Is Not for Sale: A Path Out of Fossil Capitalism to the Other World That Is Still Possible, Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, 2019.

David Schwartzman, “Should We Reject Negative Emissions Technologies, Except for Organic Agriculture?”, Capitalism Nature Socialism, February 5, 2106

Valeria Perasso, “Turning carbon dioxide into rock – forever,” BBC, May 18, 2018

Jeremie Richard, “Iceland turns carbon dioxide to rock for cleaner air,” May 8, 2019

Juerg M. Matter et al., “Rapid Carbon Mineralization for Permanent Disposal of Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide Emissions,” Science, June 10, 2016.

Water Infrastructure

There are several aspects of a functioning water system: drinking systems, wastewater systems, levees, climate change mitigation, and dams. Currently, state and local governments are responsible for the cost of fixing these systems. With the general lack of revenues that local governments are experiencing, it is no wonder that water systems are deteriorating. The Green New Deal would provide Federal funds for fixing the water systems of the country, thus freeing funds for other local government needs.

Reliable drinking water must be available to all inhabitants. In their report card for drinking water, the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) estimates that $1 trillion is needed to fix the nation’s water systems. That is $50 billion per year. As we have seen in Flint, this is a high priority part of the infrastructure.

In the wastewater report card of the ASCE, it is estimated that fixing waste water systems would cost about $300 billion over 20 years, which comes out to about $15 billion per year, but let’s double that to account for climate change mitigation, to $30 billion per year.

Levees account for another $80 billion, according to the ASCE. Let’s double that number to account for climate-change related construction work, for instance, for New York City. Then we have $8 billion per year Finally, the ASCE says that we need $45 billion to fix dams in danger of collapsing. Let’s assume $2 billion per year
So our totals for cost and jobs are the following:

Drinking Water: 50 billion
Wastewater: 30 billion
Levees: 8 billion
Dams: 2 billion
Total: 90 billion, rounded up

Click to close above sections

Manufacturing Reconstruction

Reduction in total emissions: 22%
(return to menu)

Manufacturing Reconstruction

Reduction in total emissions: 22%
(return to menu)

hold down and drag menu to scroll

Programs Total Jobs Manufacturing Jobs Cost (in billions)
Green machinery reconstruction 2,040,000 2,040,000 $200
Green New Deal (U.S. contribution) 1,020,000 1,020,000 $100
Recycling 1,500,000 150,000 $100
Your Title Goes Here
Overview: Manufacturing Reconstruction

Economies are based on production, and production is dependent on the infrastructure. The economic rationale for a large-scale infrastructure-building program is to rebuild the manufacturing and other parts of the production system. Instead of using up fast disappearing resources such as oil, fresh water and various metals, the Federal government should set up a national recycling system that will provide most of the inputs for the production system. This would include organic material to compost for the redesigned agricultural system. Agriculture needs government help to move from dependence on pesticides, artificial fertilizers and other fossil fuel inputs to organic farming located close to towns and cities. Factories need help to replace their current machinery with machinery that will not pollute, will not create greenhouse gas emissions, and that will produce ‘Zero Waste’ products,which would involve emphasizing design of products so that they can be re-used, not recycled. . Companies need help redesigning products that can be pulled apart and reused instead of being thrown away as garbage.

If the agricultural and manufacturing systems are set up to mimic nature’s ability to sustainably recycle and reuse, instead of mining, polluting and destroying, then whatever is produced, either from a factory or a farm, will do so in a sustainable way, that is, it will not take more out of ecosystems than it puts back. If that is so, then economic growth can still occur, even though that growth will not include bigger things and more things, but better things, higher quality things (and services). This would probably require that the Earth’s population eventually stabilized.

This transformation will need to occur world-wide, which is why a Global Green New Deal will have to create a new Marshall Plan, to help all countries implement their own Green New Deals — in return for which they will agree to protect their ecosystems.

Green Manufacturing Reconstruction

The current value of all factory machinery is about $1.5 trillion. Therefore, to replace most machinery, including research and development, could reasonably done for $2 trillion over 10 years, or $200 billion per year (assuming we would need more machinery than we have currently, because of the added manufacturing from the Green New Deal). The machinery would not emit greenhouse gas emissions, would not pollute, and would create products that could be recycled/reused. Part of this could include a robust R&D program to create the different kinds of machinery needed.

Recycling

In order for the manufacturing system to be sustainable in the very long-run, the inputs have to be recycled from previously used goods. With the possible exception of some particularly plentiful resources such as iron and silicon, all other raw materials are being depleted at a rate that most will be gone within a century. Some resources, such as oil, may become too expensive for mass use in the next decade. In addition, mining causes serious environmental damage, as well as polluting precious water supplies.

Solid Wastes and Hazardous Waste

According to the ASCE, solid waste management is one of the better infrastructure programs in the United States. However, the Green New Deal foresees the eventual elimination of solid waste. Therefore, money for solid waste improvement is part of the recycling program in the Green New Deal. In the same way, hazardous sites should eventually disappear, because the Green New Deal will pay for the installation of nonpolluting manufacturing machinery.

Jobs

A report by the Natural Resources Defense Council estimates that if 75% of the solid wastes in the U.S. were recycled, that 1.5 million extra jobs would be created. These are, on average, relatively lower skilled jobs, so they would yield closer to 15 jobs per million dollars. Let’s say 10% are for the making the machinery for recycling.

Reading List:
We don’t mine enough rare metals…

Global Green New Deal (US actions)
All developed countries and regions would contribute green machinery to developing countries to enable the developing countries to create their own Green New Deals. In return, the developing countries would agree to protect their critical ecosystems (e.g., Amazon, Borneo), and would allow developed countries to send personnel to help protect those systems. As a start, the U.S. would commit $100 billion for this effort, but this could increase pending further analysis of what would be needed to industrialize the poorer countries sustainably. Since this would all require creating machinery, this would generate about 1 million good machinery producing jobs per year.
Click to close above sections

yearly totals, Green Economy Reconstruction Program:

Total jobs:

30,484,000

Total manufacturing jobs:

8,564,000

Total cost:

$2.75 trillion

The Economic Bill of Rights

Economic Security and Health for All

(return to menu)

 

Job Guarantee

The “Full Count” of unemployment made monthly by the National Jobs for All Coalition shows that as of July 2019 15.6 million people in the United States, 9.2% of the workforce, wanted full time employment. This number counts the officially unemployed (6.0 million), those working part-time who want a full-time job (4.4 million), and people who want jobs but are not counted in official statistics for various reasons (5.2 million).

Our Green New Deal budget projects the 34 million new jobs will be created. Most of these jobs will be in construction, manufacturing, and technical support positions in engineering, accounting, and administration. Not everyone is suited for these jobs.

Even though labor—not technology or capital funds—will be the limiting factor on how fast we can build the new green economy, converting to a climate-safe economy will not employ everybody.

We will still need a Job Guarantee program to enable everybody willing and able to work to have a job. Most people who cannot work in construction, manufacturing, or technical positions can work in positions in social services, such as child care, elder care, youth mentoring, public parks and recreation, and cultural projects. The people working in public works jobs in construction, manufacturing, and technical positions will some of these these services, notably child care.

The Job Guarantee program we envision would be similar to the Works Progress Administration (WPA) during the original New Deal. The WPA developed some public works and public service programs at the federal level, but it also relied on programs developed by counties and cities. These local governments would develop programs to employ those who cannot find jobs in the private sector. The projects would be ready to go when unemployment rises. Unemployed people would go to a local Employment Office instead of an Unemployment Office and say, “I want my job.” They would be put to work in public service and public works programs that the local government has planned to meet community needs. Like the original WPA, the federal government would provide 90% of the funding and the local government would provide 10% to ensure local commitment and buy-in to the planned projects.

In Back to Work: A Public Jobs Proposal for Economic Recovery, economist Philip Harvey estimated the federal outlay for 1 million living-wage public jobs in 2011 at $46.4 billion. These jobs would have averaged $17.46 an hour and provided federal employee health benefits. The economic multiplier of this public spending would have created more than 400,000 additional jobs in the private sector. When the additional payroll and income taxes from employers and employees and the savings from unemployment insurance and other safety net programs were accounted for, the net cost was $28.6 billion.

Harvey suggested a trust fund with dedicated revenue sources (such as a securities transaction tax and a payroll tax analogous to the current unemployment insurance tax) in order to spread the costs of the program over the entire span of the business cycle.

If we assume that an average of 5 million people need public service jobs from an WPA-style Job Guarantee over the course of business cycles (about one-third of the 15.2 million unemployed count in August 2019 according to the “Full Count” of the National Jobs for All Coalition), and we adjust upward for inflation since 2011, the job guarantee program will cost about $150 billion a year.

Income Guarantee

As the civil right movement turned “from civil rights to human rights” in the 1960s to address widespread poverty, it called for the elimination of poverty through a guaranteed minimum income above poverty in the demands of the 1963 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the 1966 Freedom Budget, and the 1968 Poor People’s Campaign.

A guaranteed income could provide every American with an income above poverty.

Providing a guaranteed income at the federal poverty line would cost about $200 billion a year. This estimate is based on a Negative Income Tax (NIT) where people below the poverty line receive income to bring them up to the poverty line, with a 50 percent phaseout rate where the NIT payment is reduced 50% for every dollar earned until the taxpayer reaches 200% of the poverty line.

The NIT is an extension of the progressive tax system to those with low incomes who receive monthly payments from the IRS instead of paying taxes to it. Just as a higher income taxpayers pay increasingly higher rates as their income goes up, a higher tax rate, those below the poverty line would pay an increasingly negative tax rate—i.e., the IRS would pay them—as their income goes down.

The other common proposal for a minimum income is the Universal Basic Income (UBI) that pays every person, rich or poor, the same basic income grant. It is many times more expensive to the federal budget, even if the grant is included in taxable income. We prefer the NIT because it involves less transfer of money back and forth from the government to people and back than a Universal Basic Income.

That $200 billion cost of NIT is about the same as all current means-tested anti-poverty programs, which do not cover all people living below the poverty line. About 40 million people currently live below poverty line. A total of 100 million people, nearly a third of the population, have incomes below “near poverty,” defined as 125% of the official poverty line. A 2013 AP survey found that 4 out of 5 U.S. adults struggle with joblessness, near-poverty, or reliance on welfare for at least parts of their lives.

The US should adjust its poverty measure to reflect the real costs of living. The current poverty line is three times a 1955 estimate of a budget for a “thrifty food plan,” adjusted for inflation. The costs of housing, health care, college, and new necessities like internet connection have grown far faster than food costs since 1955.

A more realistic poverty line, reflecting today’s real costs of living, would be at least 133% of the current poverty line. Estimates of the costs of providing an Income Guarantee of 133% of the current poverty line come to about $400 billion a year.

Because the Green New Deal program outlined here would provide for full employment at living wages, many people now among the working poor would see their incomes rise well above poverty. But many people cannot work due to age or disability. They need an Income Guarantee.

In the context of the Green New Deal, we estimate that providing an Income Guarantee of 133% of the current poverty line would cost about $200 billion a year as part of a Green New Deal.

Further Reading:

Dylan Matthews, “The 2 Most Popular Critiques of Basic Income Are Both Wrong,” Vox, July 20, 2017

Hope Yen, “4 in 5 in USA face near-poverty, no work,” USA Today, July 28, 2013

Shawn Fremstad, “The Federal Poverty Line Is Too Damn Low,” The Nation, September 14, 2016

Emily Moon, “Experts Have Wanted To Update the Poverty Line for Years—But Not the Way Trump Is Planning To Do It,” Pacific Standard, May 28, 2019

Social Security/Basic Income

A proposal to double Social Security payments was presented by Steven Hill in 2012. It would raise $650 billion per year, by lifting the ceiling on Social Security payments ($377 billion), ending the deduction for business pension expenses ($126 billion), eliminating the home mortgage deduction ($100 billion), and closing tax deductions for the rich ($50 billion). If the mortgage deduction is retained, and we don’t add the $50 billion which will be covered in other tax reform, we would have $500 billion of the $650 billion, and the extra taxes would cover the rest.

Homes for All

Homes for All

Using US Census data, the National Low Income Housing Coalition found that the US has a shortage of 7.8 million units of affordable housing for very low income (7.5 million) and homeless (400,000) households and individuals. The study used the federal standard of affordability of 30% of income.

Public Housing

It is much less costly for government to directly build public housing units than to try to incentivize private developers to build affordable units with tax breaks and subsidies. That latter approach has been the dominant housing policy since the 1970s and the housing affordability crisis has only increased under this policy. Relying on the private market to provide sufficient affordable housing has never worked because more profits are to be found in upscale housing development than in affordable housing development.

It is time to return to public housing to provide affordable housing, but this time do it the right way by building high-quality, humanly scaled developments that house affluent and middle-income people as well as low-income people. Public housing is available to all income groups in many European countries. In some European cities, as much as 60% of the housing is not-for-profit housing in the public and cooperative sectors.

We estimate the costs for Homes for All in the Walkable Community Construction Program under the Green Economy Reconstruction Program. The Walkable Community Construction Program will create 2.5 million units of public housing a year. By making 40% of these units affordable for very low income people, 8 million affordable units for very low income people will be created over the course of the 10-year program and will close the affordability gap for very low income people.

The public housing we envision will be mixed-income like public housing in many western European countries, where low-income, working-class, and middle-class people all live together in public housing developments. Mixed-income housing will cost the public treasury less because the rents will be scaled to income and the higher income residents’ higher rents will partially cross-subsidize the lower rents that low income people will pay.

Mixed-income public housing will also break down the race and class segregation in housing that has persisted and actually grown more extreme since the 1990s despite the passage of the Fair Housing Act in 1968. The old public housing increased segregation by concentrating poor people of color in housing projects that are often isolated from jobs, public transportation, grocery stores, educational institutions, and other resources, services, and opportunities. By mixing households across income levels in the new public housing, it will desegregate housing by economic class and by race because race and income stratification correlate to a significant degree.

The new public housing will be built to sequester carbon in building materials and to be powered, heated, and cooled by clean renewable sources of electricity. The developments will be located to redevelop out cities and towns into walkable communities that are more energy and resource efficient.

In sum, this public housing program will be a jobs program, a desegregation program, a walkable communities program, and a clean energy program as well as an affordable housing program.

Universal Rent Control

With the shortages of affordable housing, high rents are driving many working-class people out of their homes, often into periods of homelessness. The gentrification of working-class neighborhoods unnecessarily displaces many families away from their neighbors and community institutions even if they can find affordable units elsewhere. Displacement tears at the fabric of neighborhoods undergoing gentrification. We need to find ways to uplift communities – and re-densify poor urban communities that have lost housing and businesses – without displacing current residents. One way is to ensure new development includes sufficient affordable housing, which our public housing program is designed to do.

In the meantime, as affordable public housing units are being built, we need to protect existing residents from being displaced from their communities by rising rents. Rents are rising much faster than incomes and the cost of living in cities and towns across the nation.

We therefore advocate a federal program of Universal Rent Control that will cap rent increases each year and end evictions without a just cause so that people can stay in their homes. The federal government had national rent control during World War 2 when resources were devoted to the war effort and away from housing development, creating a tight housing market. We should do the same now to protect tenants in today’s tight housing markets. Oregon passed a state law in 2019 that ends evictions without a just cause and caps annual rent increases. We should do the same federally to help people stay in their homes while sufficient affordable housing is being built.

National Health Service

A National Health Service would deliver services largely through publicly-owned clinics and hospitals employing salaried staff, and be governed by a federation of locally-elected boards. That will provide better accountability and cost control than a top-down Medicare-like national health insurance system paying mostly private providers to deliver health services.

Currently, Professor Gerald Friedman calculates that currently the national health bill is about $3.1 trillion, and that a Medicare for All would save about $600 billion in administrative costs and lower drug prices, so the national health bill in a single payer system would be about $2.5 trillion; but then he adds back about $350 billion to expand the system to handle services like long-term care and dental, so we have about $2.8 trillion for a single payer system

However, according to the OECD, health cost per person in the U.S. is $10,209 per person, while cost per person in the U.K. is only $4,264. With 330 million people, if we had a National Health Service with the same price per person as in the U.K, the cost would be about $1.4 trillion, or about $1.8 trillion adding in Friedman’s expansion of services. Since we now spend about $700 billion on Medicare and $400 billion on Medicaid, then we could assume that the same $1.1 trillion would go to the NHS, while we would need $1.8 trillion, assuming the same cost per person as the UK NHS. This implies adding about $700 billion to the budget to get full coverage. This could be covered by the revenues covered in “How to pay for the Green New Deal” (see below). However, they could also be covered by keeping the current employer contributions to health insurance, which would go to the government instead of private insurers, about $400 billion, plus keeping the payments employees make for their health care (another $300 billion).

In other words, a Medicare for All system would cost $2.8 trillion, but assuming a similar cost as in the U.K., a $1.8 trillion system for a National Health Service. Could we really spend $1 trillion less with a National Health Service?

First, the Green New Deal will make Americans much healthier because they will 1) be provided with inexpensive organic food, including many more fruits and vegetables and 2) eventually there will be virtually no pollution. In addition, depending on how quickly walkable neighborhoods are constructed, the national health bill from car crashes will decrease, and the amount of walking will increase health. So let’s say that would save $500 billion.

Second, let’s add back $200 billion in case Americans can’t be as efficient as Britons, and we have a national health bill of $2 trillion. If we assume that we keep the $700 billion from employer/employee contributions, then we only need to add $200 billion each year to get a full National Health Service for all Americans.

Click to close above sections

Federal Internet and Education Program

(return to menu)

Federal Internet and Education Program

(return to menu)

hold down and drag table to scroll

Programs Total Jobs Manufacturing Jobs Cost (in billions)/yr
Interstate high-speed Internet system 102,000 25,000 $10
Build/rebuild school facilities 204,000 51,000 $20
Universal child care and pre-k 2,280,000 228,000 $120
Free public college $70
Overview: Federal Internet and Education Program

It has always been the responsibility of the government to create most human capital, that is, the skills needed for production in the national economy. The United States now lags behind other countries, consistent with the Reagan era campaign of destroying the government’s capacity to build up the country. So whether or not there is a climate emergency, the United States needs an expansion of Federal assistance with education, particularly before kindergarten, aid which yields great returns on investment. But since there is a climate emergency, and since that emergency will require a transformation of many areas of American life, it is even more urgent that the American population be well-educated and highly skilled, so that a transformation to a sustainable economy can take place. At the center of this upgrade should be the creation of an Interstate High-Speed Internet System that is faster and more reliable than the one we have, and that also includes what is called ‘cloud’ computing, that is, the computer processing and storage on the internet, for instance what Amazon Web Services provides to businesses could be provided to governments, schools, and even individuals.

Interstate High-Speed Internet System
Build/rebuild school facilities
Universal Childcare and Pre-K
Free Public College

Interstate High-Speed Internet System

The city of Chattanooga Tennessee developed a municipal fiber optic internet system that is now up to 10GB speed (It is run by the city’s municipal electricity company, EPB). The system covers the Chattanooga greater municipal area, which covers about an half million people. It cost $330 million to build, so if we wanted to cover 300 million people that would cost about $200 billion total. Over 20 years, that would be about $10 billion per year.

Build/Rebuild Schools

Education is a central component of the Green New Deal, and therefore school facilities are an important part of the infrastructure. According to the American Society of Civil Engineers, the last in-depth report was in 1999, however, they estimate that $270 billion worth of work is required. Assuming we want to build more schools, let’s say we need $400 billion over 20 years, or 20 billion dollars per year. If we assume $50,000 per job, including manufacturing the materials needed as well as the, mostly, construction jobs, then we are talking about 400,000 jobs, with 100,000 in manufacturing (assuming 25% of jobs are in manufacturing).

Free Public College

According to Senator Bernie Sanders, it would cost about $70 billion per year, and that includes paying more than Sanders advocates, replacing state level funding in order to give states more money.

Universal Childcare and Pre-K

According to the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, providing pre-k for all children would cost about $40 billion per year, and would yield about 9 to 1 benefits. Elizabeth Warren’s child care program would cost about $70 billion per year. The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine has a plan that provides both child care and pre-K for $140 billion. So let’s say it would cost $120 billion

Jobs

According to Pollin and Peltier, Table A2, primary and secondary education yields almost 19 jobs per million dollars. So $120 billion per year would yield about 2,280,000 jobs. Let’s say 10% would be for manufacturing supplies and furniture.

A note about K-12

As of 2015, the nation as a whole spent about $650 billion on K-12. Of this, about $55 billion was provided by the Federal government.

Click to close above sections

yearly totals, Economic Bill of Rights

Total jobs:
7,586,000

total Manufacturing jobs
304,000

Total Cost:
$1.42 trillion

How to pay for the Green New Deal

Progressive Tax Reform

(return to menu)

Cuts to Corporate Welfare, Starting with Fossil Fuels
According to a list compiled by Paul Buchheit in 2013, we have the following:

  1. According to the Cato institute in 2012, there are $100 billion in corporate subsidies, including fossil fuel subsidies
  2. According to a Bloomberg article in 2013, referring to an IMF report, banks get $83 billion in interest rate subsidies
  3. According to a GAO report Buchheit references, there are $180 billion in corporate tax expenditures
  4. According to a PIRG report from 2013, off-shore tax havens cost the Treasury $150 billion per year.

It may be that some of these are desirable, and some may be harder to access than others. We didn’t even include everything Buchheit refers to, such as local subsidies. But all together, these four tax changes alone would yield about $500 billion per year.

Financial Transactions Tax

There are many ways to tax financial transactions. In the U.S. there is the “Let Wall Street Pay for the Restoration of Main Street” which would yield $150 billion per year.

Land Value Tax

According to a study cited by Richard Florida, urban land is worth $25 trillion as of 2010, so a 1% tax, say, would yield $250 billion. Let’s say we budget $100 billion less, so that homeowners below a certain income aren’t taxed with property tax and a land value tax. Then we would have $150 billion per year from a land value tax.

Some good recent articles on a land value tax:

In praise of a land value tax

How Much Money Could a Land Value Tax Raise?

Land value tax, explained

Progressive Personal Income-Tax Reform

According to Jeff Stein at the Washington Post, the economists Emmanuel Saez and Peter Diamond calculated that raising the marginal tax rate for the top 1% would generate about $300 billion per year (this is more than Rep. Ocasio-Cortez’ plan of raising the rate for those above $10 million in income). This includes taxing capital gains at the same rate as income.

Corporate Income-Tax Reform

In the 1950s, according to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, corporations contributed about 28% of the Federal budget, and their profits were taxed at about 49% (the real rate, not the official rate before tax breaks). As of 2012 they provided only about 10%, about 9% in 2018.

To double the corporate contribution, we would want $500 billion more from the corporate sector. In the section about corporate welfare, (subsidies and tax breaks), we had about $250 billion, outside of the financial system, which has many other ways of not paying taxes. Therefore, about $250 billion per year more in corporate taxes would be called for.

Progressive Wealth Tax

According to the analysis of UC Berkeley Professors Saez and Zucman, Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s wealth tax plan would yield $2.75 trillion in 10 years, by taxing wealth over $50 million at 2%, with an extra tax of 1% for wealth over $1 billion.

Such a tax would raise $250 billion per year.

Progressive Estate Tax

Senator Bernie Sanders introduced an estate tax proposal in January 2019. It lists all of the highest income families in the U.S., and estimates that the entire estate tax liability of the country’s richest families totals $2.2 trillion. However, we don’t know who dies when, so let’s assume $100 billion per year would be available under this plan.

Ecological Taxes

We have not calculated another possible source of revenues in ecological taxes on pollution (for example, a carbon tax) and resource extraction, which would also encourage shifts to clean and efficient uses energy and resources. Public ownership and planning is the central strategy. Ecological taxes to generate revenues and incentivize behavior would be supplemental.

Social Security/Basic Income

A proposal to double Social Security payments was presented by Steven Hill in 2012. It would raise $650 billion per year, by lifting the ceiling on Social Security payments ($377 billion), ending the deduction for business pension expenses ($126 billion), eliminating the home mortgage deduction ($100 billion), and closing tax deductions for the rich ($50 billion). If the mortgage deduction is retained, and we don’t add the $50 billion which will be covered in other tax reform, we would have $500 billion of the $650 billion, and the extra taxes would cover the rest.

Click to close above sections
Reform Revenue
Cuts to corporate welfare, starting with fossil fuels up to $500 billion
Financial transactions tax up to $150 billion
Land value tax at least $150 billion
Personal Income Tax Reform up to $300 billion
Corporate Income Tax Reform up to $250 billion
Wealth tax up to $250 billion
Estate tax probably about $100 billion
Raise Social Security ceiling About $500 billion
Ecological Taxes TBD

Total revenue per year:

Approximately $2.2 trillion

Public Banks & Green Quantitative Easing, or Greenbacks

(return to menu)

Public Banks & Green QE, or Greenbacks

Borrowing: Public Banks and Green QE or Creating Greenback Currency: $600 Billion
National Debt Service: $700 billion
Total: $1.3 trillion

Building a green economy will require massive long-term capital investments.

Public Banks

Just as the original New Deal had to use deficit spending, including through a public bank, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, so a Green New Deal will need to create public money or borrow to expand public investment funds by about $1.2 trillion a year beyond what can be raised by taxes and re-ordered priorities within the federal budget.

Public banks can help finance and target the long-term capital investments by making loans at lower cost because they bypass Wall Street fees and profit demands. A Federal Infrastructure Bank could do what private banks now do with fractional reserve lending that creates new money by making loans that borrowers will pay back in the future with interest. A federal public bank could be supplemented by state banks, like the very successful 100-year-old Bank of North Dakota, and by municipal public banks.

Public Money Creation: Greenbacks

The amount of money banks can create is really limited only by how much borrowing people, businesses, and governments are willing to do. As a matter of policy to avoid risking inflation, the amount of money should be limited to what the economy can use at full capacity.

Public money can be created for these investments. By nationalizing the Federal Reserve into a Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department with the sole power to create new money as debt-free Greenbacks (digital money as well as paper notes), capital funding for these long-term investments can be financed without increasing the national debt. This proposal is a modern version of the greenback demand of the farmer-labor movement and its Greenback Labor and then People’s parties in the late nineteenth century.

Public Borrowing: Green QE

Pending enactment of this radical greenback demand of the Green Party, the US can borrow almost without limit as long as the dollar remains the reserve currency of the world and as long as the economy is below full capacity, as the Modern Money Theory (MMT) proponents note.

 

In this vein, a Green QE (Quantitative Easing) program could create the investment funds for the Green New Deal. Unlike QE during the Obama/Bernanke years, this time we bail out the people and the climate instead of too-big-to-fail banks. The Treasury Department would sell bonds on the open market and use the proceeds for green investments and other federal programs. The Federal Reserve could support this debt financing if need be by creating money on its books with which to buy these bonds once they have been sold into the open market. The Fed cannot legally buy treasuries directly from the Treasury Department.

 

Though we would prefer to add public money as debt-free Greenbacks, we would accept Green QE as the lesser evil to not making the investments we need to convert the economy to zero greenhouse gas emissions and 100% clean energy. It will cost us more in economic losses due to radical climate change if we do not make the needed investments even if we have to borrow to raise the funds.

 

A recent study in the scientific journal Nature found that if global temperatures rise 2ºC, global GDP will fall 15% by 2100 from the 2010 level. If temperatures rise to 3ºC, global GDP will fall 25%. If nothing is done, temperatures will rise by 4ºC and GDP will fall by more than 30%. That’s deeper that the economic contraction at the peak of the Great Depression when global GDP was down 25%. The difference is that this economic shrinkage would be permanent due to the destruction of environmental services upon which the human economy depends. It’s possible a contraction of this magnitude would lead to general collapse, an authoritarian regime, or both.

 

Limits of Money Creation

The difference between Greenbacks and Green QE is that, with Green QE, the Treasury Department (i.e., the taxpayers) ultimately has to pay the interest and principal on those treasury bonds. The Greenback dollars (both digital money and paper United States Notes) would be debt-free, while the QE dollars (both digital money and paper Federal Reserve Notes) would be created by incurring public debt.

 

Either way, debt-free Greenbacks or borrowing through public banks and Green QE, the amount of new money that can be created to finance government programs and investments should be limited to what the economy can use for commerce at full capacity. Above that threshold, more money may cause inflation.

 

Servicing and Reducing the National Debt

According to the Congressional Budget Office, interest on the national debt will grow over the course of this 10-year Green New Deal from $460 billion in FY 2020 to $928 billion on FY 2029, or an average of $700 billion a year. Because the very wealthy and foreign central banks own most of the national debt, paying interest on the national debt is an upward transfer of wealth to the rich. It crowds out spending on public goods and services. Because taxation is required to pay the interest and principle of the national debt in the current system, it also crowds out private investment in the real economy.

 

If the Greenback reform is passed, we should use debt-free money to pay interest on the federal debt and gradually zero out the national debt over 30 years. The wealthy hold most of the federal debt as treasury securities and these entities do not use their extra income to buy goods and service in the real economy, but instead use it mostly to invest in financial instruments that simply rearrange and concentrate ownership of real productive assets instead of creating new productive wealth. Phasing out this upward transfer of wealth with publicly-created debt-free Greenbacks will not increase spending on real goods and services that could cause inflation. However, the national debt should be reduced gradually because to reduce it quickly would cause a massive flow of investment money into corporate bonds and stock markets, resulting in massive volatility in these markets and most likely damaging the value of pensions.

 

Further Reading

Click to close above section

Total revenue per year:

Approximately $1.3 trillion

Total revenue per year:

Approximately $1.3 trillion

Cut Spending in Other Areas

(return to menu)

Cut military budget by 75%

The military budget has been a significant drag on the American economy since shortly after World War II. As the many writings of Seymour Melman have shown, the role of the Pentagon in the economy has been very negative, because the nation’s skilled workers, engineers and scientists have been diverted from working in the civilian economy, the money that has been spent on the Pentagon could have been spent on building the civilian part of the society, and the incredible inefficiencies of military production have warped the entire manufacturing sector, causing much of the damage to manufacturing that has led to its decline in the last 50 years.

 

The national security problems of the United States, and indeed for most of the rest of the planet, have nothing to do with military problems. Climate change, ecosystem destruction and depletion, and out-of-control income and wealth inequality are much more important for the continuing wealth and health of the United States and other nations as well. It is therefore imperative to redirect as much of the military budget as possible towards a Green New Deal. Indeed, we find in the following that cutting the military budget by even 75% would not impact the military defense of the country.

According to the final report of the Sustainable Defense Task Force of The Center for International Policy, in 2019 dollars, the 2000 Department of Defense budget was $425 billion, while for 2019 the budget is $750 billion. The 2019 figure includes about $200 billion for the various wars, particularly in Afghanistan, that we can safely assume should come to an end. But let’s suppose that the $425 billion spent in 2000, before the military escalation that started after 9/11, was already a very bloated budget, full of unnecessary and much too costly programs. That would mean that we could safely take $325 billion out of the current military budget, just for starters.

Trying to figure out what the Pentagon spends money on is an extremely difficult thing to do, partly because the Pentagon likes it that way, but partly because of the sprawling nature of the U.S. military establishment. However, Lynn Petrovich calculated that the hundreds of overseas bases probably cost in the neighborhood of $50 billion per year. But that is just the expense of having people on the bases. According to David Vine, who wrote a book about overseas bases, if you include the expense of moving people and material around, including all the exercises, the cost is $85 billion per year — conservatively, he says, and that’s not including the bases in Afghanistan and Iraq. So let’s say $100 billion is a conservative figure for the cost of maintaining American military overseas bases.

Let’s assume that we close all those bases — and perhaps get something back by selling them, as their assets are worth about $1 trillion, according to Petrovich, and we can save an extra $100 billion. So now we are up to $425 billion in savings, fully 50%, but now we turn to all the weapons systems that are not necessary and could easily be stopped.

According to Defense News, the Pentagon will spend $143 billion next year in procurement, much of which is for new, unnecessary military systems, and about $100 billion for research, development and testing, again, mostly for unnecessary systems. Out of this approximately $250 billion, let’s be nice and only cut $150 billion, and now we have $575 billion in savings. But wait — it turns out the back office operations of the Pentagon are incredibly inefficient (who knew?).

According to the Washington Post, one the authors being none other than Bob Woodward, the Pentagon could save at least $25 billion per year just rationalizing their back office. The entire back office operation costs $134 billion per year, of which $23 billion is for ‘property management’, meaning taking care of bases, which we would close altogether, saving many more billions. According to the figures they provide, the Army, Navy and Air Force together spend about $100 billion per year just on full-time outside contractors — not even people employed by the government.

Taken together, and even assuming some overlap in savings that have been shown, it should be straightforward, with no impact on national security, to cut the military budget by 75% or by about $550 billion per year. Here again are the savings:

$200 billion: cutting out all foreign wars and current operations (OCO expenditures, the ‘off the books’ part of the pentagon budget).
$100 billion: closing all overseas bases, not including money made from selling $1 trillion in assets
$150 billion: cutting 60% of procurement/r&d/testing budget
$100 billion: cutting waste in operations

While there might be some overlap here, remember that even simply getting back to the bloated year 2000 budget would cut $325 billion, so there is probably enough waste to negate the overlap.

It could take several years to ramp down this spending, because we might want to provide an easy path for military employees into the new Federal infrastructure programs, which will take a few years to ramp up, but this will require more advanced planning. Thus, just as in the case of fossil fuel workers, military workers would have an opportunity to land an equivalent, socially useful job. In fact, since much of the engineering and scientific skill of the nation is being wasted in the military sector, and since we may have a deficit of such skill when it comes to building a green economy, it may be crucial to use these personnel in civilian industries, as Brian D’Agostino points out in his article, Demilitarization and the Green New Deal

Reading List:
America’s monopoly crisis hits the military

Stop Federal war on drugs

According to the Drug Policy Alliance, over $47 billion per year is spent on the War on Drugs, most of it in the states. Also, about 20% of the over 2.2 million people incarcerated in the U.S. are in prison for drug related crimes, so pardoning these people would free up about 20% of the $80 billion spent on incarceration per year, freeing up about another $16 billion.

Funds redirected from safety net

According to Econofact, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TNAF) costs about $20 billion, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) costs about $60 billion, and the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP) costs about $70 billion. Together this costs about $150 billion. Since between the Job Guarantee, the Green Economy Reconstruction Program, the doubled Social Security and the Income Guarantee, everyone would be above the poverty line, and these programs would not be needed

Abolish ICE

The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement division of the Department of Homeland Security (ICE) has a budget of almost $10 billion. The budget for the Border Patrol, which is separate from ICE, has a budget of almost $5 billion, a 10-fold increase since 1993. If we eliminated ICE and reduced the Border Patrol, we could gain from $10 to $15 billion.

Click to close above sections

Total revenue per year:

Approximately $770 billion

Total revenue per year:

Approximately $770 billion

Sales of Public Goods and Services

(return to menu)

We have not calculated revenues from the sale of goods and services from the public sector industries created such as electricity sales, public transportation fares, public housing rents, and green machinery sales. These revenues will reduce the net costs and could fully pay for the Green Economy Reconstruction program over time. What those prices should be are policy decisions that will have to balance the need for revenues and the need to provide some goods and services at lower cost like clean electricity and public transportation to encourage their use.

total jobs per year for green new deal

manufacturing jobs

8,868,000

All jobs:

38,070,000

Totals per year for Green New Deal:

Total spending:

~$4.2 trillion

Total revenue:

~$4.2 trillion

Howie Hawkins 2020

Sign up to stay in touch

You have Successfully Subscribed!

Share This
X
X