The Green New Deal’s Requirement For Concrete Infrastructure Will Reduce Emissions How?

14
1200

There is an interesting contradiction in this Green New Deal that everyone finds so exciting. Which is that concrete produces some 6-8% of all emissions, And if we’re going to go out and build vast new infrastructure sets then we’re going to need an awful lot of concrete. From The Conversation:

The Green New Deal’s contradiction – new infrastructure and redistribution may boost carbon emissions

The Green New Deal has broadened imaginations worldwide on the subject of climate change, encouraging people to consider what action to tackle it could do for society. US congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez announced the Green New Deal resolution in February 2019, calling for a rapid transition to net zero greenhouse gas emissions, a massive investment in infrastructure and financial redistribution.

While the project would attempt to halt further warming, it would also counter inequality and compensate losers from the energy transition, such as workers in carbon-intensive industries such as coal mining.

It’s already helped wrest the political agenda in the US from the regressive policies and scandals of the Trump administration, and has gained bipartisan support among US voters, despite right-wing pundits denouncing it as a communist plot.

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unveils the Green New Deal resolution in Washington D.C. on February 7 2019. EPA-EFE/SHAWN THEW

The Green New Deal borrows its name and ethos from the New Deal – introduced in the 1930s by then US president Franklin D. Roosevelt to kickstart an economy crippled by the Great Depression. But are strategies which echo the needs of the 1930s and 1940s – ending the Depression and defeating Nazism – suitable for the rapid transition from fossil fuels that defines our needs in the early 21st century?

Can any strategy which relies on historical analogies be adapted to the current climate emergency?

Teaching an old deal new tricks

The Green New Deal’s proposed investment in public infrastructure and focus on inequality mirrors the original aims of the New Deal, but economic transformation will look very different under a Green New Deal. Whereas Roosevelt’s New Deal aimed to grow the economy, its modern equivalent entails shrinking many economic activities currently central to the economy’s operations.

Another way of looking at this is that the original New Deal spurred a massive increase in greenhouse gas emissions. By generating huge public investment in roads and power stations, as well as redistributing wealth through the emerging welfare state, it set the stage for what some call the “great acceleration” in greenhouse gas emissions during and after World War II.

In the US, military build-up was central to this early on, but then it was sustained by the expansion of consumption after the war – most directly by the shift to mass car ownership and urban sprawl that “locked in” high fossil energy use, not only in transport but in housing.

The urban sprawl which the New Deal nurtured has ‘locked in’ high consumption, high emission lifestyles. John Wollwerth/Shutterstock

The Green New Deal therefore contains a basic contradiction that anyone pursuing it will have to wrestle with as it develops. Many of the measures proposed – such as investing in infrastructure and spreading wealth more evenly – will intrinsically work in tension with efforts to decarbonise the economy.

They create dynamics that increase energy use at the same time as other parts of the Green New Deal are trying to reduce it. For example, building infrastructure such as new road networks will both create demand for carbon-intensive cement manufacture and opportunities for more people to travel by car.

To reach net zero emissions by sometime early in the second half of the 21st century, as the Paris Agreement and the IPCC Special Report on 1.5°C state we must, the global economy has to decarbonise by at least 3% per year. In rich countries such as the US, this needs to happen more rapidly so that poorer countries, which have contributed less overall to global warming, have more time to adapt.


Read more: Carbon emissions: our research shows a decade of steady decline across Europe and the US


The targets in the Green New Deal are consistent with this sort of time-frame for decarbonising the global economy. But, even if wealthy countries like the US “only” have to achieve 3% cuts per year, as the economy grows by – say – 2%, then in effect the country has to cut emissions by around 5% per year relative to the growing size of the economy. To illustrate the scale of this challenge, historically, emissions have declined relative to GDP by only about 1% per year, in the aftermath of the 2008 recession.

So the challenge is enormous. But of course, the effect of much of the Green New Deal – to invest in infrastructure, to redistribute income – will be to generate significant economic growth. Indeed, this is the point – to get the US economy out of its present stagnation.

But it’s hard to see how this will be done without generating new sources of carbon emissions – more housing, more cars and more consumption generally. Herein lies the tension that will recur through the life of the Green New Deal, even if it gets through the immediate quagmire of US politics.

A Green New Deal will aim to kickstart manufacturing – can it be done without supercharging carbon emissions?Think4photop/Shutterstock

Its supporters will have to manage this tension, even though the vast majority of the US left and environmental movement are behind it.

If one imperative is to build new infrastructure to get the US economy going, how much of this will really do more than pay lip service to the energy system transformation in practice? The “Green” in Green New Deal demands that all new infrastructure built is effectively carbon neutral.

Even new transit infrastructure, for example, would have to be entirely electric, at the same time as that electricity system is supposed to rapidly abandon coal and then natural gas. It’s easy to imagine which will win when that tension works its way through the political process.

It’s not that the Green New Deal isn’t worth pursuing – it’s an extremely promising development. It’s just important to remember Naomi Klein’s invocation that “this changes everything” – dealing with climate change is unlikely to lend itself to off-the-shelf solutions from an earlier age.

14
Leave a Reply

avatar
4 Comment threads
10 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
7 Comment authors
Rhoda KlappPeterBurgessJonathan HarstonDodgy Geezertimworstall Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
PeterBurgess
Guest
PeterBurgess

Tim Worstall’s point is well taken. Yes … virgin concrete does contribute a massive amount to GHG emissions and the problem needs to be addressed. My background is engineering, economics and accountancy, so I understand something of the difference between investment and expense … rarely referenced in policy analysis, but very important in terms of making good decisions. Right now there is a massive amount of infrastructure (buildings) that are energy inefficient, and replacement with new energy efficient structures would be advantageous over time. And concrete itself may be less of a GHG producer by substantially improved production methods. Massive… Read more »

Jonathan Harston
Guest
Jonathan Harston

Also, concrete *absorbs* CO2 while it is setting, often for many years. Improved engineering and manufacturing techniques are moving concrete towards net zero CO2 – driving off the CO2 making the cement, absorbing it back in to set it.

PeterBurgess
Guest
PeterBurgess

Great … have you any idea about the size and speed of these flows, that is the size and speed of emissions associated with the production of the concrete and the size and speed of the subsequent absorption while the concrete is in use.

BarksintheCountry
Guest
BarksintheCountry

Think decades upon decades. Likely longer than the useful life of the project.

PeterBurgess
Guest
PeterBurgess

That is what I would expect … but some engineers who are thinking about this problem tell me that we can make much better use of the concrete coming out of demolition do that less ‘virgin’ concrete is needed for a given project. Typically this might be more expensive in money terms, but the right thing to do in terms of the total value proposition … which again, is my argument for better more comprehensive business metrics.

Jonathan Harston
Guest
Jonathan Harston

Second-hand concrete should be the most recyclable product on the planet (except probably aluminium). 20 years ago my local council shockingly managed to co-ordinate demolishing a 1960s tower deck housing scheme with a road replacement scheme, and the old housing block went straight through the crusher straight into the foundation of the new road.

PeterBurgess
Guest
PeterBurgess

Good story … there should be meaningful incentives for reuse of materials of all sorts rather than constantly making use of virgin materials. The circular economy (rather than a linear economy) can improve sustainability (reduce unsustainability) substantially. Reducing what gets wasted in every sector of the socio-enviro-economic system will also make a difference. Rewarding profit ignores all these important opportunities. Valueadd is optimized when there is the least of environmental damage, positive impact on society and a decent return on the economic investment (profit). These are the metrics that are needed.

timworstall
Guest
timworstall

Which is why the correct answer is the carbon tax. As every economist on the planet has been shouting for two decades now.

Shadeburst
Guest
Shadeburst

Every economist lol. Every alarmist economist, maybe. If I can name just one top economist who disagrees (and certainly doesn’t shout for a carbon tax) will you retract this?

timworstall
Guest
timworstall
Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

Where’s the due diligence? Where is the evidence that realistic levels of CO2 emission represents a threat? Evidence from the IPCC* or those whose salary depends on it is fine, but only up to a point. We need something a little less fiddled with and a little more definitive.

*Whose remit already begs the question of CAGW.

Rhoda Klapp
Guest
Rhoda Klapp

Still bolx.

BarksintheCountry
Guest
BarksintheCountry

Straw and mud, Tim, just like early 1800’s in the countryside.

Dodgy Geezer
Guest
Dodgy Geezer

Why does anyone consider that reducing CO2 emissions is in some way beneficial, when they obviously do not have any impact on the climate, and the whole theory that they do is based on fraud?