A Green New Deal is needed to restart the American economy

The argument

In a post COVID-19 existence, to fully restart the American economy, a Green New Deal is needed. The argument begins from the scale of the damage, because the remedy proposed is proportioned to it. The coronavirus and the ensuing shutdown brought about one of the worst economic depressions in American history, worse than 2008 and comparable only to the Great Depression. Months later, hundreds of thousands still file for unemployment every week and businesses operate at a fraction of what they used to. A contraction of that depth is not, on this argument, one that recovers on its own timetable. Idle workers and idle capacity persist because there is no demand to draw them back, and each condition reinforces the other, which is why proponents hold that a Green New Deal would be the exact jumpstart the American economy needs, and would guarantee its success for years to come. The historical model is explicit. The Green New Deal’s American version is well-known for emulating that of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Works Progress Administration by tying climate justice to job creation. The comparison carries the structure of the proposal with it: public programmes that employ people directly on work which has to be done in any case, so that the spending which restarts the economy also leaves something behind rather than only circulating money. By facilitating and accelerating Green New Deal policies, the idle and displaced workforce of America could find new purpose as well as make a positive impact on the planet. On this reasoning a single instrument addresses both crises at once, which is what would make the world after the pandemic better rather than merely recovered.

Premises

Counter-arguments

The Green New Deal is not essential to restarting the American economy. For one, across the board the economy is damaged, not just in energy or environmental sectors. The Green New Deal does not guarantee job creation in tourism, the food industry, the fashion industry, and more, all industries that employ hundreds of thousands of people. The Green New Deal will inarguably empower environmental justice in the United States, but to say it is essential for an economic restart is an over exaggeration.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] The severity of the contraction establishes that a large response was needed, not that this particular one was. Any programme of comparable scale — direct relief, infrastructure, health spending — satisfies the premise equally well, so it does not select a Green New Deal over the alternatives. [Rejecting P2] The WPA comparison carries more weight than it can bear: that programme employed workers directly at public expense, whereas a Green New Deal is largely a framework of standards, investment and incentives operating across private sectors. And as the counter observes, the damage was economy-wide — hospitality, retail, services — which a programme concentrated on energy and infrastructure does not reach. The premise therefore supports the claim that such a policy would help, not that a recovery requires it.