Why a hipster, vegan, green tech economy is not sustainable

Vijay Kolinjivadi

Al-Jazeera

Improving eco-efficiency within a capitalist growth-oriented system will not save the environment. 

On the western borderlands of Montreal's well-to-do Outremont district and the ultra-hipsterised and gentrified Mile End lies an expanse of land where the University of Montreal is currently building a new science campus. Just across is Parc-Extension, one of Canada's poorest and most densely populated neighbourhoods and a port of call for many newly arrived immigrants.

The new campus has been touted as a model of "sustainable development". It boasts LEED-certified buildings to reduce environmental impact, rainwater collection structures, energy-efficient lighting and heat recycling, infrastructure for electric vehicles and bikes, lots of greenery, and overall, a minimal carbon footprint. A number of tech companies, including Microsoft's new AI Hub, are moving in and are expected to further enhance the "eco-efficiency" of the area.

The unspoken expectation is that once the green new campus is completed, capital and economic growth will naturally flow into the area. This means nearby neighbourhoods will get "revitalised", especially the poorer ones, like Parc-Extension.

Thus, immigrant-owned grocery stores, halal butcheries and community centres will soon be replaced by vegan chain restaurants, hip vintage clothing joints, organic food stores and coffee-shops galore, as landlords push out poor tenants to make space for more well-to-do ones. 

In the process, the implicit socio-economic violence behind gentrification will be invariably "greenwashed" and presented as development that would make the area more "sustainable", "beautiful" and "modern". 

Unfortunately, creation by destruction is what capitalism does best, and its damaging practices are anything but green. This market-driven "sustainable" vision of economic activity, ecological-conscious diets and "hipness" within modern capitalism reinforce inequality and still hurt the environment. 

Before I proceed further with my argument, I should mention that I am an academic, living in a "hip" part of Montreal and engage in activities that follow a particular aesthetic ethos, all of which make me very much a part of the reality I critique below. My aim is not to moralise, but rather to highlight the dangers of a political and economic system that profits from deceiving perhaps well-meaning self-proclaimed progressive folks into believing that a greener, more efficient capitalism is possible.

Read more

AOC's 'Green New Deal': Ideology Masquerading as Realism

Beau Christensen and Shane LaChance
Sott.net

News and social media platforms have been abuzz over Ivanka Trump's interview with Fox News on Tuesday where she commented on the 'Green New Deal' (GND) proposed by new congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC). Here's what she said:

STEVE HILTON, FOX NEWS: You've got people who will see that offer from the Democrats, from the progressive Democrats, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 'Here's the Green New Deal, here's the guarantee of a job,' and think, 'yeah, that's what I want, it's that simple.' What do you say to those people?

IVANKA TRUMP: I don't think most Americans, in their heart, want to be given something.

I've spent a lot of time traveling around this country over the last four years. People want to work for what they get. So, I think that this idea of a guaranteed minimum is not something most people want. They want the ability to be able to secure a job.

They want the ability to live in a country where there's the potential for upward mobility.

Ivanka Trump was largely blasted throughout the media as an out-of-touch privileged hypocrite who has had everything handed to her. This underscores a commonly held view by those on the Left that see the conservative 'work-for-what-you-get' sentiment as a fundamental manipulation that the elite use on the blue-collar worker to maintain their wealth.

The common worker is, on the one hand, compassionately regarded by the 'left' as a victim of capitalism, and on the other callously portrayed as a simple-minded redneck whose unlimited gullibility leads him to believe that one day he too might be 'one of them mighty fine rich folk'. Perhaps there might be something to this, but perhaps that is not all there is. There is something about this 'work for what you get' mentality that is deeply rooted within the American mindset, and exploring AOC's proposal within this context might help explain the strong response to it.

Initial reactions to the 'Green New Deal' from both the Left and Right - within the population generally and politicians particularly - has involved mostly ridicule, exasperation, scorn and dramatic condemnation (complete with hamburgers). At least one of the reasons for this was the fact that a summary of the GND (that has since been deleted from AOC's website after it was widely mocked on social media) called for economic security for everyone (even those "unwilling to work") and said air travel should be eliminated along with "farting cows." These depictions are, of course, not representative of the whole resolution, and it's possible that the outrageous summary was the work of a 'saboteur' or written up by an ideologically possessed devotee. But even after the full 'official' text was released, the response was, let's say, underwhelming, and while the proposal has its steadfast supporters (primarily among those who sponsored it), it seems that the vast majority of Americans are against it, and for good reason.

While the text does detail a few theoretically good ideas, like supporting family farms, clean water, respecting indigenous lands and treaties and reducing fossil fuel consumption to mitigate the health hazards from environmental pollution, the fine print contains all manner of objectively implausible, unrealistic or unnecessary ideas that tarnish the entire document. Basically, any 'good' is vastly outweighed by the very much ideologically-driven bad ideas. Some examples include the creation of high-speed railways, updating every building in the US within 10 years to meet new 'green' energy standards, ensuring that 100% of power comes from zero-emission energy sources, and so on. Perhaps worst of all is the fact that, underpinning the proposal is the creation of a new economy through massive government expansion. 

Read more