| Keynesianism and the
Green New Deal
Policy responses to the economic crisis are more
or less unanimous that recovery means re-invigorating
consumer spending so as to kick-start economic growth.
Differences of opinion are mainly confined to how
this should be achieved. The predominant (Keynesian)
response is to use a mixture of public spending and
tax cuts to stimulate consumer demand.
We could highlight the emerging international consensus
around a very simple idea. Economic recovery demands
investment. Targeting that investment carefully towards
energy security, low-carbon infrastructures and ecological
protection offers multiple benefits. These benefits
include:
-
freeing up resources for household spending and
productive investment by reducing energy and material
costs
-
reducing our reliance on imports and our exposure
to the fragile geopolitics of energy supply
-
providing a much-needed boost to employment in
the expanding ‘environmental industries’ sector
-
making progress towards demanding global carbon
reduction targets
-
protecting valuable ecological assets and improving
the quality of our living environment for generations
to come.
In short, a ‘green stimulus’ is an eminently sensible
response to the economic crisis. It offers jobs and
economic recovery in the short term, energy security
and technological innovation in the medium term, and
a sustainable future for our children in the long term. Nonetheless,
the default assumption of even the ‘greenest’ Keynesian
stimulus is to return the economy to a condition of
continuing consumption growth. Since this condition
is unsustainable, it is difficult to escape the conclusion
that in the longer term something more is needed. A
different kind of macro-economic structure is essential
for an ecologically-constrained world. |
|
凯恩斯理论和绿色新政
历来对应经济危机的政策多大同小异，即通过刺激消费重振经济。不同处仅仅在于刺激经济的具体方法。凯恩斯主义主张由增加政府投资及减税来刺激消费需求。
但现在另有一种得到国际社会广泛共识的简单的新对应方法。既然经济恢复需要投资，那就投资于低碳新能源基础设施的建设。这样做的好处是多方面的，其中包括：
总而言之，“绿色刺激”是极为明智的应对经济危机之道。从短期的角度来看此法可提供工作岗位、帮助经济复苏，从中期的角度来看此法能保障能源供应、帮助技术创新，从长期的角度来看此法能为我们的子孙后代留下一个可持续发展的未来。但是，这一方法并不能帮助我们走出持续性消费增长的市场经济体系的怪圈。由于这一体系从根本上来说是不可持续的，所以从长远着眼，我们还必须另辟蹊径，寻找一种全然不同的能保护我们的生态环境的新的宏观经济体系。
|
|
Camilla Toulmin, Director of the
International Institute for Environment & Development
(IIED):
We live in a finite world but with infinite demands.
Human wants, political convenience and intellectual
inertia trump planetary limits. |
|
卡米拉·透儿敏，全球环境发展研究所所长:
我们生活在有限的世界却奢望无限的需求。人性的欲望、政治的需要和知识界的惰性使我们对地球母亲需求无度直至她最终抛弃我们。 |
|
Avner Offer, Professor of Economic
History at Oxford, author of Challenge of Affluence
Rising consumption may not be sustainable, due to
climate change, energy shortfalls, and to social and
psychological harms. |
|
阿福那·喔飞，牛津大学经济历史教授，《小康社会的挑战》作者
由于气候的变化、能源的短缺及对社会和人类心理上的负面作用，不断增长消费看来确实没有可持续性。 |
|
Bill McKibben, author
of Deep Economy
Endless growth on a finite planet, or endless misery-spreading
recession, both represent impossible futures. |
|
比儿·么尅本，《深度经济》作者
有限的地球上的无限的经济增长，或不断的经济萧条带来的无穷尽的悲惨世界，无论那一种情况都让我们失去未来。 |
|
Alan Knight, Founder of Singleplanetliving
Current growth centric economics is not fit for purpose. |
|
艾伦·乃特，生活在同一个地球公司创始人
目前的以增长为中心的经济已经异化了，[服务的对象不再是人而是资本]。 |
|
Oliver James, Author of Affluenza
Zero growth is not only necessary, it is inevitable
and will supercede Selfish Capitalism. |
|
哦里富·杰目思，《富贵病》作者
零增长不但必需，而且不可避免。零增长将埋葬资本主义。 |
