绿色新政:什么塑造了绿色和交易?

Q1 Social Sciences Capitalism, Nature, Socialism Pub Date : 2022-05-13 DOI:10.1080/10455752.2022.2062675
L. Levidow
{"title":"绿色新政:什么塑造了绿色和交易?","authors":"L. Levidow","doi":"10.1080/10455752.2022.2062675","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In the US and UK, Green New Deal (GND) agendas have gained significant support as means to reconcile environmental sustainability with a socially fairer economy. Their transformative vision has stimulated proposals such as more public goods, workers’ cooperatives, eco-localisation and caring activities. When seeking support from major political parties, however, GND agendas have undergone pressure to accept decarbonisation technofixes, as promoted by carbon-intensive industries in alliance with their trade unions. Such promises have provided an investment imperative for dubious low-carbon remedies, or an alibi to await their feasibility, or both at once. These agendas imagine the nation as a unitary economic space needing technoscientific advance for a global competitive advantage. Divergences within the labour movement express rival sociotechnical imaginaries of a low-carbon future. This conflictual process has shaped what counts as Green and Deal for a GND. Similar tensions will arise around any low-carbon transition, given the wider capitalist frameworks of Green Keynesianism and Green Growth. To go beyond them will depend on political struggles to disrupt the hegemonic cross-class alliance, to create different alliances and to gain state support for their agendas.","PeriodicalId":39549,"journal":{"name":"Capitalism, Nature, Socialism","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Green New Deals: What Shapes Green and Deal?\",\"authors\":\"L. Levidow\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10455752.2022.2062675\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT In the US and UK, Green New Deal (GND) agendas have gained significant support as means to reconcile environmental sustainability with a socially fairer economy. Their transformative vision has stimulated proposals such as more public goods, workers’ cooperatives, eco-localisation and caring activities. When seeking support from major political parties, however, GND agendas have undergone pressure to accept decarbonisation technofixes, as promoted by carbon-intensive industries in alliance with their trade unions. Such promises have provided an investment imperative for dubious low-carbon remedies, or an alibi to await their feasibility, or both at once. These agendas imagine the nation as a unitary economic space needing technoscientific advance for a global competitive advantage. Divergences within the labour movement express rival sociotechnical imaginaries of a low-carbon future. This conflictual process has shaped what counts as Green and Deal for a GND. Similar tensions will arise around any low-carbon transition, given the wider capitalist frameworks of Green Keynesianism and Green Growth. To go beyond them will depend on political struggles to disrupt the hegemonic cross-class alliance, to create different alliances and to gain state support for their agendas.\",\"PeriodicalId\":39549,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Capitalism, Nature, Socialism\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Capitalism, Nature, Socialism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2022.2062675\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Capitalism, Nature, Socialism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10455752.2022.2062675","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

在美国和英国,绿色新政(GND)议程作为一种协调环境可持续性与社会更公平经济的手段,已经获得了大量支持。他们的变革愿景激发了诸如更多公共产品、工人合作社、生态本地化和关爱活动等提议。然而,在寻求主要政党的支持时,绿色新政议程面临着接受脱碳技术的压力,这是由碳密集型行业与工会联盟推动的。这样的承诺为可疑的低碳补救措施提供了投资的必要条件,或者为等待其可行性提供了借口,或者两者兼而有之。这些议程将国家想象成一个单一的经济空间,需要技术进步来获得全球竞争优势。劳工运动内部的分歧表达了对低碳未来的对立的社会技术想象。这个冲突的过程决定了什么是“绿色”,什么是“新政”。考虑到更广泛的绿色凯恩斯主义和绿色增长的资本主义框架,任何低碳转型都将出现类似的紧张局势。要超越他们,就要依靠政治斗争来破坏霸权的跨阶级联盟,建立不同的联盟,并为自己的议程获得国家的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Green New Deals: What Shapes Green and Deal?
ABSTRACT In the US and UK, Green New Deal (GND) agendas have gained significant support as means to reconcile environmental sustainability with a socially fairer economy. Their transformative vision has stimulated proposals such as more public goods, workers’ cooperatives, eco-localisation and caring activities. When seeking support from major political parties, however, GND agendas have undergone pressure to accept decarbonisation technofixes, as promoted by carbon-intensive industries in alliance with their trade unions. Such promises have provided an investment imperative for dubious low-carbon remedies, or an alibi to await their feasibility, or both at once. These agendas imagine the nation as a unitary economic space needing technoscientific advance for a global competitive advantage. Divergences within the labour movement express rival sociotechnical imaginaries of a low-carbon future. This conflictual process has shaped what counts as Green and Deal for a GND. Similar tensions will arise around any low-carbon transition, given the wider capitalist frameworks of Green Keynesianism and Green Growth. To go beyond them will depend on political struggles to disrupt the hegemonic cross-class alliance, to create different alliances and to gain state support for their agendas.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism
Capitalism, Nature, Socialism Social Sciences-Political Science and International Relations
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: CNS is a journal of ecosocialism. We welcome submissions on red-green politics and the anti-globalization movement; environmental history; workplace labor struggles; land/community struggles; political economy of ecology; and other themes in political ecology. CNS especially wants to join (relate) discourses on labor, feminist, and environmental movements, and theories of political ecology and radical democracy. Works on ecology and socialism are particularly welcome.
期刊最新文献
The Political Implications of Unequal Exchange: Towards a Common Agenda for Global Social Movements State of Exception, Necropolitics, and Puerto Rico: Naturalizing Disaster and Naturalizing Difference The Quest for Revolutionary Love: John P. Clark Interviews Javier Sethness about Queer Tolstoy Beyond Trash and Garbage: Shifting Perspectives on Discard Discard studies: wasting, systems, and power , Max Liboiron and Josh Lepawsky, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press, 2022, 212 pages, $30 (paperback), ISBN: 9780262543651 Rooted-South Feminisms: Disobedient Epistemologies and Transformative Politics
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1