A diagram illustrating the concept of taiji, called a taijitu.
The above design, depicting interlocking swirls of yin and yang around a
central void, is the symbol's original form as introduced by Ming-era
philosopher Lai Zhide.
Taiji (太極) is a compound of tai (太 'great', 'supreme') and ji (極 'pole', 'extremity'). Used together, taiji may be understood as 'source of the world'. Common English translations of taiji in the cosmological sense include "Supreme Ultimate", "Supreme Pole", and "Great Absolute".
Core concept
Scholars Zhang and Ryden explain the ontological necessity of taiji.
Any philosophy that asserts two elements such as the yin-yang
of Chinese philosophy will also look for a term to reconcile the two,
to ensure that both belong to the same sphere of discourse. The term
'supreme ultimate' performs this role in the philosophy of the Book of Changes. In the Song dynasty it became a metaphysical term on a par with the Way.
Taiji is understood to be the highest conceivable principle from which existence flows. This is very similar to the Daoist
idea "reversal is the movement of the Dao". The "supreme ultimate"
creates yang and yin. Movement generates yang, and when its activity
reaches its limit, it becomes tranquil. Through tranquility the supreme
ultimate generates yin. When tranquility has reached its limit, there is
a return to movement. Movement and tranquility, in alternation, become
each the source of the other. The distinction between the yin and yang
is determined and the two forms (that is, the yin and yang) stand
revealed. By the transformations of the yang and the union of the yin,
the 4 directions then the 5 phases (wuxing) of wood, fire, earth, metal and water.
Taiji is, ometal ond then water. larity, revealing
opposing features as in expanding/contracting, rising/falling,
clockwise/ anticlockwise. However, taiji has sometimes been thought of as a monistic concept similar to wuji, as in the Wujitu diagram. Wuji literally translates as "without roof pole", but means without limit, polarity, and/or opposite. Compared with wuji, taiji describes movement and change wherein limits do arise. While wuji is undifferentiated, timeless, absolute, infinite potential, taiji
is often wrongly portrayed as conflictual, differentiated and
dualistic, where as the core to this philosophy is their harmonious,
relative and complementary natures.
Yin and yang are reflections and originate from wuji to become taiji.
In Chinese texts
Zhuangzi
The Daoist classic Zhuangzi introduced the taiji concept. One of the (ca. 3rd century BCE) "Inner Chapters" contrasts taiji (here translated as "zenith") with the liuji (六極). Liuji literally means "six ultimates; six cardinal directions", but here it is translated as "nadir".
The Way
has attributes and evidence, but it has no action and no form. It may
be transmitted but cannot be received. It may be apprehended but cannot
be seen. From the root, from the stock, before there was heaven or
earth, for all eternity truly has it existed. It inspirits demons and
gods, gives birth to heaven and earth. It lies above the zenith but is
not high; it lies beneath the nadir but is not deep. It is prior to
heaven and earth, but is not ancient; it is senior to high antiquity,
but it is not old.
Huainanzi
The 2nd century BCE Huainanzi mentions a zhenren ("true person; perfected person") and the taiji that transcends categories like yin and yang, exemplified with the fusui and fangzhu mirrors.
The fu-sui夫煫 (burning mirror) gathers fire energy from the sun; the fang-chu方諸
(moon mirror) gathers dew from the moon. What are [contained] between
Heaven and Earth, even an expert calculator cannot compute their number.
Thus, though the hand can handle and examine extremely small things, it
cannot lay hold of the brightness [of the sun and moon]. Were it within
the grasp of one's hand (within one's power) to gather [things within]
one category from the Supreme Ultimate (t'ai-chi太極) above, one could immediately produce both fire and water. This is because Yin and Yang share a common ch'i and move each other.
I Ching
Taiji also appears in the Xici, a commentary to the I Ching. It is traditionally attributed to Confucius but more likely dates to about the 3rd century BCE.
Therefore there is in the Changes the Great Primal
Beginning. This generates the two primary forces. The two primary forces
generate the four images. The four images generate the eight trigrams.
The eight trigrams determine good fortune and misfortune. Good fortune
and misfortune create the great field of action.
This sequence of powers of two includes taiji → yin and yang (two polarities) → Sixiang (Four Symbols) → Bagua (eight trigrams).
The fundamental postulate is the "great primal beginning" of all that exists, t'ai chi
– in its original meaning, the "ridgepole". Later Indian philosophers
devoted much thought to this idea of a primal beginning. A still earlier
beginning, wu chi, was represented by the symbol of a circle. Under this conception, t'ai chi was represented by the circle divided into the light and the dark, yang and yin, .
This symbol has also played a significant part in India and Europe.
However, speculations of a Gnostic-dualistic character are foreign to
the original thought of the I Ching; what it posits is simply the
ridgepole, the line. With this line, which in itself represents
oneness, duality comes into the world, for the line at the same time
posits an above and a below, a right and left, front and back – in a
word, the world of the opposites.
Song dynasty
Zhou's Taijitu diagram
In the Neo-Confucianism philosophy that developed during the Song dynasty, taiji was viewed "as a microcosm equivalent to the structure of the human body." The Song-era philosopher Zhou Dunyi (1017-1073 CE) wrote the Taijitushuo (太極圖說)
"Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Ultimate", which became the
cornerstone of Neo-Confucianist cosmology. Zhou's brief text synthesized
aspects of Chinese Buddhism and Daoism with the metaphysical discussions in the I Ching. Zhou's opening lines are:
Non-polar (wuji) and yet Supreme Polarity (taiji)! The Supreme Polarity in activity generates yang; yet at the limit of activity it is still. In stillness it generates yin;
yet at the limit of stillness it is also active. Activity and stillness
alternate; each is the basis of the other. In distinguishing yin and yang, the Two Modes are thereby established. The alternation and combination of yang and yin generate water, fire, wood, metal, and earth. With these five [phases of] qi harmoniously arranged, the Four Seasons proceed through them. The Five Phases are simply yin and yang; yin and yang
are simply the Supreme Polarity; the Supreme Polarity is fundamentally
Non-polar. [Yet] in the generation of the Five Phases, each one has its
nature.
The martial art tai chi draws heavily on Chinese philosophy, especially the concept of the taiji. The Chinese name of tai chi, taijiquan, literally translates as "taiji boxing" or "taiji fist". Early tai chi masters such as Yang Luchan promoted the connection between their martial art and the concept of the taiji. The twenty-fourth chapter of the "Forty Chapter" tai chi classic that Yang Banhou gave to Wu Quanyou says the following about the connect between tai chi and spirituality:
If the essence of material substances lies in their
phenomenological reality, then the presence of the ontological status of
abstract objects shall become clear in the final culmination of the
energy that is derived from oneness and the Real. How can man learn this
truth? By truly seeking that which is the shadow of philosophy and the
charge of all living substances, that of the nature of the divine.
In economics, philosophy, and social choice theory, a person's entitlement
refers to the value of goods they are owed or deserve, i.e. the total
value of the goods or resources that a player would ideally receive. For
example, in party-list proportional representation, a party's seat entitlement is equal to its share of the vote, times the number of seats in the legislature.
Even when only money is to be divided
and some fixed amount has been specified for each recipient, the problem
can be complex. The amounts specified may be more or less than the
amount of money, and the profit or loss will then need to be shared out.
The proportional rule is normally used in law nowadays, and is the default assumption in the theory of bankruptcy. However, other rules can also be used. For example:
The people can also agree on their relative entitlements by a
consensus process. For instance they could say what they think everyone
else is entitled to and if the assessments agree then they have an
agreed impartial consensus division.
Priority rules are another kind of mechanism for allocation with different entitlements.
In the Talmud
The Talmud has a number of examples where entitlements are not decided on a proportional basis.
The disputed garment problem. If one person claims the whole of a cloth and another half then it is divided 3/4 and 1/4.
The estate division problem. Three wives have claims to 100, 200 and 300 zuz.
Three cases are considered, if the estate is 100 zuz then they get 33
and a third each, if 200 then 50, 75, 75, and if 300 then 50, 100 and
150.
Profits from a joint fund. If two people put 200 and 100 into a fund
and buy an ox for ploughing and use it for that purpose, they must
divide the profit evenly between them. But if they instead they
slaughter the ox, they divide the profit in proportion. This is
discussed in the Babylonian Talmud (just after the estate division problem).
Ibn Ezra's problem. This is a later problem of estate division that
was solved in a different way. A man with an estate of 120 dies
bequeathing 120, 60, 40 and 30 to his four sons. The recommendation was
to award (120–60)/1+(60–40)/2+(40–30)/3+(30–0)/4 to the first and sums
with leading terms removed for the rest ending with 30/4 for the last.
This allocation is different from the previous estate division.
Fair cake-cutting
is the problem of dividing a heterogeneous continuous resource. There
always exists a proportional cake-cutting respecting the different
entitlements. The two main research questions are (a) how many cuts are
required for a fair division? (b) how many queries are needed for
computing a division? See:
Cloud computing
environments require to divide multiple homogeneous divisible resources
(e.g. memory or CPU) between users, where each user needs a different
combination of resources.
Fair item allocation
Identical indivisible items - dividing seats in parliaments
In parliamentary democracies with proportional representation,
each party is entitled to seats in proportion to its number of votes.
In multi-constituency systems, each constituency is entitled to seats in
proportion to its population. This is a problem of dividing identical
indivisible items (the seats) among agents with different entitlements.
It is called the apportionment problem.
The allocation of seats by size of population can leave small
constituencies with no voice at all. The easiest solution is to have
constituencies of equal size. Sometimes, however, this can prove
impossible – for instance, in the European Union or United States. Ensuring the 'voting power' is proportional to the size of constituencies is a problem of entitlement.
There are a number of methods which compute a voting power for
different sized or weighted constituencies. The main ones are the Shapley–Shubik power index, the Banzhaf power index.
These power indexes assume the constituencies can join up in any random
way and approximate to the square root of the weighting as given by
the Penrose method.
This assumption does not correspond to actual practice and it is
arguable that larger constituencies are unfairly treated by them.
Heterogeneous indivisible items
In the more complex setting of fair item allocation, there are multiple different items with possibly different values to different people.
Aziz, Gaspers, Mackenzie and Walsh define proportionality and envy-freeness
for agents with different entitlements, when the agents reveal only an
ordinal ranking on the items, rather than their complete utility
functions. They present a polynomial-time algorithm for checking whether
there exists an allocation that is possibly proportional (proportional according to at least one utility profile consistent with the agent rankings), or necessarily proportional (proportional according to all utility profiles consistent with the rankings).
Farhadi, Ghodsi, Hajiaghayi, Lahaie, Pennock, Seddighin, Seddighin and Yami defined the Weighted Maximin Share (WMMS) as a generalization of the maximin share to agents with different entitlements. They showed that the best attainable multiplicative guarantee for the WMMS is 1/n
in general, and 1/2 in the special case in which the value of each good
to every agent is at most the agent's WMMS. Aziz, Chan and Li
adapted the notion of WMMS to chores (items with negative utilities).
They showed that, even for two agents, it is impossible to guarantee
more than 4/3 of the WMMS (Note that with chores, the approximation
ratios are larger than 1, and smaller is better). They present a
3/2-WMMS approximation algorithm for two agents, and an WMMS algorithm
for n agents with binary valuations. They also define the OWMMS, which
is the optimal approximation of WMMS that is attainable in the given
instance. They present a polynomial-time algorithm that attains a
4-factor approximation of the OWMMS.
The WMMS is a cardinal notion in that, if the cardinal
utilities of an agent changes, then the set of bundles that satisfy the
WMMS for the agent may change. Babaioff, Nisan and Talgam-Cohen introduced another adaptation of the MMS to agents with different entitlements, which is based only on the agent's ordinal
ranking of the bundles. They show that this fairness notion is attained
by a competitive equilibrium with different budgets, where the budgets
are proportional to the entitlements. This fairness notion is called
Ordinal Maximin Share (OMMS) by Chakraborty, Segal-Halevi and
Suksompong. The relation between various ordinal MMS approximations is further studied by Segal-Halevi.
Babaioff, Ezra and Feige present another ordinal notion, stronger than OMMS, which they call the AnyPrice Share (APS). They show a polynomial-time algorithm that attains a 3/5-fraction of the APS.
Aziz, Moulin and Sandomirskiy
present a strongly polynomial time algorithm that always finds a
Pareto-optimal and WPROP(0,1) allocation for agents with different
entitlements and arbitrary (positive or negative) valuations.
Relaxations of WEF have been studied, so far, only for goods. Chakraborty, Igarashi and Suksompong
introduced the weighted round-robin algorithm for WEF(1,0). In a
follow-up work, Chakraborty, Schmidt-Kraepelin and Suksompong
generalized the weighted round-robin algorithm to general
picking-sequences, and studied various monotonicity properties of these
sequences.
Corradi and Corradi define an allocation as equitable if the utility of each agent i (defined as the value of items plus the money given to i) is rti ui (AllItems), where r is the same for all agents.
They present an algorithm that finds an equitable allocation with r >= 1, which means that the allocation is also proportional.
Bargaining
Cooperative bargaining
is the abstract problem of selecting a feasible vector of utilities, as
a function of the set of feasible utility vectors (fair division is a
special case of bargaining).
Three classic bargaining solutions have variants for agents with different entitlements. In particular:
The term "Blue Greens" is often applied to those who espouse eco-capitalism. Eco-capitalism can be thought of as the right-wing equivalent to Red Greens.
The roots of eco-capitalism can be traced back to the late 1960s. The "Tragedy of the Commons", an essay published in 1968 in Science by Garrett Hardin, claimed the inevitability of malthusian catastrophe
due to liberal or democratic government's policies to leave family size
matters to the family, and enabling the welfare state to willingly care
for potential human overpopulation.
Hardin argued that if families were given freedom of choice in the
matter, but were removed from a welfare state, parents choosing to
overbear would not have the resources to provide for their "litter",
thus solving the problem of overpopulation. This represents an early
argument made from an eco-capitalist standpoint: overpopulation would
technically be solved by a free market. John Baden, a collaborator with Garrett Hardin on other works including Managing the Commons, founded the Political Economy Research Center (now called the Property and Environment Research Center)
in 1982. As one of the first eco-capitalist organizations created,
PERC's ongoing mission is "improving environmental quality through
property rights and markets". The most popular eco-capitalist idea was emissions trading, or more commonly, cap and trade.
Emissions trading, a market-based approach that allows polluting
entities to purchase or be allocated permits, began being researched in
the late 1960s. International emissions trading was significantly
popularized in the 1990s when the United Nations adopted the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.
Eco-capitalist theorists
Terry L. Anderson, a graduate of the University of Montana who received his Ph.D. from Washington University, and who serves as the co-chair of the Hoover Institution's
Property Rights, Freedom and Prosperity task force, has advocated that
free markets can be both economically beneficial and environmentally
protective. Anderson specializes in how markets impact Native American
communities and their economies. Anderson is a co-author of Free Market Environmentalism,
a book that explores how free market ideas could be used to solve
environmental issues, based on Anderson's conclusion on a few case
studies.
Bruce Yandle, a graduate of Mercer University, attended Georgia State University where he earned an MBA and PhD. Yandle is the dean emeritus of Clemson University's
college of business. He is prominent in the field of eco-capitalism for
his story of the "Bootlegger and the Baptist". Yandle's theory of the
Bootlegger and the Baptist posits that ethical groups, religious
institutions and business captains can align their organizations in the
interest of regulation and economic growth.
Paul Hawken is the architect of the United States first natural foods
company, Erewhon Trading Company, where all products were organically
composed. Hawken founded the research organization, Natural Capital
Institute, and developed Wiser Earth,
a program focused on providing a platform for all to communicate about
the environment. Hawken has authored hundreds of publications, including
four best selling books.
In his writings, Hawken stresses that many viable ecological options
exist for businesses that will benefit the environment, while
simultaneously bringing about economic profit. One idea discussed in his book, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution,
is the possibility of developing lightweight, electricity-powered cars
as an alternative to current transportation modes. Hawken attributes the
hesitancy of adopting these options to lack of knowledge of these
alternatives and high initial costs. Hawken is now the head of OneSun, Inc., an energy corporation concentrated on low-cost solar.
Lester Brown began his career as a tomato farmer in New Jersey, before earning a degree at Rutgers University and traveling to a rural India
for a six-month study of the country's food and population crisis.
Brown has primarily focused on finding alternatives which he contends
would provide solutions to the world's population and resources problem.
With financial support from Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Brown created the Worldwatch Institute, the first dedicated to researching global environmental problems. In 2001, Brown founded the Earth Policy Institute,
an organization that outlines a vision for creating an environmentally
sustainable economy. Brown has authored over 50 books and received 25
honorary degrees.
In his publications, Brown posits that the key to an eco-friendly
economy is an honest market. He advocates for replacing harmful aspects
of the environment, like fossil fuels, with renewable energy. In June 2015, Brown retired from Earth Policy and closed the institute.
Transition to eco-capitalism
The ideology of eco-capitalism was adopted to satisfy two competing needs:
the desire for generating profit by businesses in a capitalist society and
the urgency for proper actions to address a struggling environment negatively impacted by human activity.
Under the doctrine of eco-capitalism, businesses commodify the act of addressing environmental issues.
The following are common principles in the transition to eco-capitalism.
Externalities: Correcting of a free market failure
A central part of eco-capitalism is to correct for the market failure seen in the externalization of pollution. By treating the issue of pollution as an externality
it has allowed the market to minimize the degree of accountability. To
correct for this market failure eco-capitalism would have to internalize
this cost. A prime example of this shift towards internalizing
externalities is seen in the adoption of a system for carbon trading. In a system like this people are forced to factor the pollution cost into their expenses.
This system as well as other systems of internalization function on
large and small scales (oftentimes both are tightly connected). On a
corporate scale, the government can regulate carbon emissions
and other polluting factors in business practices forcing companies to
either reduce their pollution levels, externalize these costs onto their
consumers by raising the cost of their goods/services, and/or a
combination of the two.
These kinds of systems can also be effective in indirectly creating a
more environmentally conscious consumer base. As the companies who are
creating the most pollution face falling profit levels and rising prices
their consumers and investors are inclined to take their business
elsewhere. This migration of investment and revenue would then be
expected to make its way to business who have already incorporated the
minimization of pollution into their business model thus allowing them
to provide lower prices and higher profit margins attracting the
migrating consumers and investors.
At the conception of the ideology, major theorists of eco-capitalism,
Paul Hawken, Lester Brown, and Francis Cairncross, saw an opportunity
to establish a different approach to environmentalism in a capitalist
society.
These theorists posited that consumers as well as producers could
shoulder the social responsibility of environmental restoration if
"green technology, green taxes, green labeling, and eco-conscious
shopping" existed. The resulting "shopping our way to sustainability" mentality encouraged the development of organic farming, renewable energy, green certifications as well as other eco-friendly practices.
A 2015 report from the Nielsen Corporation
lends credence to this theory. According to the report, consumers have
more brand loyalty and are willing to pay higher prices for a product
that is perceived as being sustainable. This is especially true among Millennials and Generation Z. These generations currently make up 48% of the global marketplace
and still have not hit their peak spending levels. As these
generations' preferences continue to shape how businesses operate and
market themselves, they could drive a continued shift toward green
consumption.
According to the Annual Review of Environmental Resources, "the
focus of policy makers, businesses, and researchers has mostly been on
the latter (consuming differently), with relatively little attention
paid to consuming less".
A review of how to encourage sustainable consumption from the
University of Surrey shows that, "Government policies send important
signals to consumers about institutional goals and national priorities." Governments can pull a variety of levers to signal this including product, trading, building, media, and marketing standards.
Creating perhaps the first major eco-capitalist endorsement, many
political and economic institutions support a system of pollution
credits. Such a system, which assigns property rights to emissions, is
considered to be the most "efficient and effective" way for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in the current neoliberal global economy.
Especially in the case of tradable pollution credits, the resulting
market-based system of emissions regulation is believed to motivate
businesses to invest in technology that reduce greenhouse gas emissions
using positive reinforcement (i.e. ability to trade unused credits) and punishment (i.e. the need to buy more credits).
Full cost accounting
Environmental full-cost accounting
explains corporate actions on the basis of the triple bottom line,
which is best summarized as "people, planet, and profit". As a concept
of corporate social responsibility, full cost accounting not only
considers social and economic costs and benefits but also the
environmental implications of specific corporate actions.
While there has been progress in measuring the cost of harm to the health of individuals and the environment,
the interaction of environmental, social, and health effects makes
measurement difficult. Measurement attempts can be broadly categorized
as either behavioral in nature, like hedonic pricing, or dose-response which looks at indirect effects. A standardized measurement of these costs has yet to emerge.
This should not be confused with the full-cost method used by
organizations searching for oil and gas that "does not differentiate
between operating expenses associated with successful and unsuccessful
exploration projects".
Genuine progress indicator
The current standard of using the gross domestic product (GDP) as an indicator of welfare is criticized for being inaccurate. An alternative to GDP, the genuine progress indicator
compensates for the shortcomings of the GDP as a welfare indicator by
accounting for environmental harms as well as other factors that affect
consumption, such as crime and income inequality.
A majority of the criticisms from traditionally unregulated capitalism is due to eco-capitalism's increased regulation. Pollution credits
(as a means for regulating greenhouse gas emissions) is traditionally
at odds with economically laissez-faire ideologies. Elements of unregulated capitalism prefer environmental issues to be addressed by individuals who may allocate their own income and wealth, oppose the commodification
of by-products like carbon emissions, and emphasize positive incentives
to maintain resources through free-market competition and
entrepreneurship.
Proponents of eco-capitalism view environmental reform like
pollution credits as a more transformative and progressive system.
According to these proponents, since free market capitalism as
inherently expansionist in tendency, ignoring environmental
responsibility is a danger to the environment. Approximately 36% of Americans are deeply concerned about climate issues. Proponents of eco-capitalism typically favor political environmentalism,
which emphasizes negative incentives like regulation and taxes to
encourage the conservation of resources and prevent environmental harm.
Political theorist Antonio Gramsci cites theories of common sense,
which suggests that, in general, free market capitalism absent of
environmental reform, is ingrained in the minds of its members as the
only viable and successful form of economic organization through cultural hegemony.
Therefore, the proposal of any alternate economic system, like
eco-capitalism, must overcome the predominant common sense and economic
status quo in order to develop opposing theories. Nonetheless, movements
in the United States and abroad have continued to push for reforms to
protect the environment in current capitalistic systems.
Another political theorist, Daniel Tanuro, explains in his book, Green Capitalism: Why it Can't Work,
that for green capitalism to be successful, it would have to replace
current mainstream capitalism with eco-socialist methods, while defying
corporate interests:
If
by "green capitalism" we understand a system in which the qualitative,
social and ecological parameters are taken in account by the numerous
competing capitals, that is to say even within economic activity as an
endogenous mechanism, then we are completely deluded. In fact, we would
be talking about a form of capitalism in which the law of value was no
longer in operation, which is a contradiction in terms
However,
Tanuro adds that social and economical change to the current capitalist
systems is necessary, because technology will invariably increase
emissions as manufacturing processes and distribution systems progress. Tanuro argues for changes in three areas:
Despite this argument, critics still claim that green consumption,
sustainable behavior on the part of the consumer, is not enough to be
instituted as a socio-environmental solution. In accordance with hegemony,
capitalism agrees that the government has little control over market
and buyers, sellers, and consumers ultimately drive the market. In
contrast, in green capitalism, the government would have more control
therefore; consumers do not have direct power over the market, and
should not be held accountable.
Environmental scholar Bill McKibben
proposes "full scale climate mobilization" to address environmental
decay. During World War II, vehicle manufacturers and general goods
manufacturers shifted to producing weapons, military vehicles and war
time goods. McKibben argues that, to combat environmental change, the
American Military Industrial Complex and other national arms producers could shift to producing solar panels, wind turbines and other environmental products in an eco-capitalist system.
Appeal of renewable energy in the capitalist market
Tom Randall, a correspondent specializing in renewable energy for Bloomberg, calls to attention that wind and solar energy are "outperforming" fossil fuels.
In terms of investments, clean energy outperforms both gas and coal by a
2-1 margin. This positive margin may be attributed to the consistently
falling price of renewable energy production. Renewable energy sources
hold assertive advantages over fossil fuels because they exist as
technologies, not fuels. As time proceeds, renewable energy becomes
inevitably more efficient as technology adapts. Technologies for
extracting fuels may change, but the fuels remain as constants. Both the
solar and wind industries have proven growth over time: Over the last
15 years, the solar industry has doubled seven times and the wind
industry has doubled four times.
In contrast, the fossil fuel industry has declined over the last 15
years. America's coal industry has lost 75 percent of its value within
the past few years.
Renewable energy sources also gain advantages over the fossil fuel industry through international governmental support. Globally, governments implement subsidies to boost the renewable energy industry. Concurrently, various global efforts fight against fossil fuel production and use.
The demand for renewable energy sources has skyrocketed in the last 15
years, while fossil fuels have drastically fallen in demand (in
capitalist societies).
The worldwide concern of climate change (also known as global warming) is notably the largest contributor to the green energy industry's rapid acceleration, just as it is largely responsible for the decline of the fossil fuel industry.
The overwhelming scientific consensus of climate change's reality and
its potential catastrophic effects have caused a large part of the
world's population to respond with panic and immediate action. While the
world's response has been strong, environmentalists and climate
scientists do not believe the response has been strong enough to counter
climate change's effects, and that the transition from fossil fuels to
renewable energy sources is moving far too slowly.
The global efforts and concerns of both governments and
individuals to take action regarding implementing and transforming a
society's energy sources from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources
show the enormous potential of the green energy market. This potential
is seen in the countless renewable energy projects under way. Currently,
there are over 4,000 major solar projects being implemented. These, and all renewable energy projects, set goals of long-term economic benefit.
The Global Apollo Programme,
set up by both economists and scientists, has a goal of creating a
solar capability that can stand as a cheaper alternative to coal-fueled
power plants by 2025. In capitalist markets, solar energy has the very real potential of becoming a direct competitor to coal plants in less than a decade.
Barriers to transition
One
of the most daunting barriers to the transition to an eco-capitalist
system is the systemic barrier that can be created by former models.
Dimitri Zenghelis explores the idea of path dependence
and the how continuing to build infrastructure without foresight
seriously impedes the implementation and benefits of future innovations.
Zenghelis uses the term "locked-in" to describe situations where the
full implementation of a new innovation cannot be seen because an
earlier infrastructure prevents it from functioning well. This barrier
is exemplified in older cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco and New
York where the infrastructure was designed around urban sprawl to accommodate private vehicles. The sprawl has been researched with the results returning that the moving forward mega-cities need to be constructed as eco-cities if the hope of curving emission levels down is going to have any hope.
Humanity's economic system viewed as a subsystem of the global environment Green New Deal (GND) proposals call for public policy to address climate change along with achieving other social aims like job creation, economic growth and reducing economic inequality.
Since the early 2000s, and especially since 2018, other proposals
for a "Green New Deal" had arisen both in the United States and
internationally.
The first U.S. politician to run on a Green New Deal platform was Howie Hawkins of the Green Party when he ran for governor of New York in 2010. Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein ran on a Green New Deal platform in 2012 and 2016.
History
Sustainable agriculture combined with renewable energy generation
Throughout the 1970s and 1990s, an economic policy to move the United
States economy away from nonrenewable energy was developed by activists
in the labor and the environmental movements.
If
you have put a windmill in your yard or some solar panels on your roof,
bless your heart. But we will only green the world when we change the
very nature of the electricity grid – moving it away from dirty coal or
oil to clean coal and renewables. And that is a huge industrial project –
much bigger than anyone has told you. Finally, like the New Deal, if we
undertake the green version, it has the potential to create a whole new
clean power industry to spur our economy into the 21st century.
Friedman expanded upon the idea in his September 2008 book Hot, Flat, and Crowded. This approach was taken up in Britain by the Green New Deal Group, which published its eponymous report on July 21, 2008. The concept was further popularized and put on a wider footing when the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) began to promote it internationally.
In early 2008, author Jeff Biggers launched a series of challenges for a Green New Deal from the perspective of his writings from coal country in Appalachia. Biggers wrote that then-presidential-candidate Obama "should shatter these artificial racial boundaries by proposing a New 'Green' Deal to revamp the region and bridge a growing chasm between bitterly divided Democrats, and call for an end to mountaintop removal policies that have led to impoverishment and ruin in the coal fields." Biggers followed up with other Green New Deal proposals over the next four years.
The Green Party of the United States and Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein proposed a "Green New Deal" beginning in 2012. A Green New Deal remains officially part of the platform of the Green Party of the United States.
By 2019, international calls for a Green New Deal had already become
more prominent. This reflected the popular support the GND had received
in the US in late 2018, growing recognition of the global warming threat
resulting from recent extreme weather events, the Greta effect and the IPCC 1.5 °C report.
In addition to activity within conventional national & multilateral
politics, there has been support for a Green New Deal within city diplomacy. In October 2019, the C40 committed to supporting a Global Green New Deal,
announcing there will be determined action from all its 94 cities, with
30 cities having already peaked their emissions and progressing rapidly
towards net-zero.
There were further proposals to include a GND, both in the US and internationally, in the recovery program for the COVID-19 pandemic.
In December 2020, however, the United Nations released a report saying that a high proportion of the world's COVID-19 recovery stimulus was not going towards clean energy. UN secretary-general António Guterres declared the world's governments were "doubling down" on fossil fuels.
As of 2021, commentators such as the Council on Foreign Relations have noted that in addition to climate-friendly policies being enacted in the U.S. by Joe Biden,
other major economies such as China, India, and the European Union have
also begun "implementing some of the policies envisioned by the Green
New Deal."
The 2019 United States congressional resolution Recognizing the duty of the Federal Government to create a Green New Deal introduced by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey
advocated a "just transition", counteracting previous systemic
injustices that had disproportionally hurt vulnerable communities.
Commentators have called for future Green New Deal-type programs to also
emphasize environmental justice, both in the United States and
overseas.Other commentators, while agreeing on the need for the incorporation of justice, have cautioned against excessive emphases on identity politics,
or on bundling in too many economically progressive measures. They fear
including too much in a GND package will make it harder to achieve
broad based majority support.
Australia
The Australian Greens have advocated for a "Green Plan", similar to the Green New Deal, since 2009. Deputy Leader Christine Milne discussed the idea on the ABC's panel discussion program Q&A on February 19, 2009, and it was the subject of a major national conference of the Australian Greens in 2009.
Canada
In
early May 2019, with rising concerns about the need for urgent global
environmental action to reduce potentially catastrophic effects of
climate change, a non-partisan coalition of nearly 70 groups launched
the Pact for a Green New Deal (New Deal vert au Canada in French).
With press conferences in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver, the
coalition called for fossil fuel emissions to be halved by 2030.
On May 16, 2019 the Green Party released a 5-page summary of their plan
entitled "Mission: Possible: The Green Climate Action Plan".
On continental Europe, the European Spring coalition campaigned under the banner of a "Green New Deal" for the 2019 EU elections. In December 2019, the newly elected European Commission under Von der Leyen presented a set of policy proposals under the name European Green Deal. Compared to the United States plan, it has a less ambitious decarbonisation timeline, with an aim of carbon neutrality
in 2050. The policy proposal involves every sector in the economy and
the option of a border adjustment mechanism, a 'carbon tariff', is on
the table to prevent carbon leakage from outside countries.
A pilot program for a four-day workweek, under development by Spain's Valencian Regional Government,
has been described as a "helpful counter to ... fearmongering about the
bleak, hamburger-free world climate activists are allegedly plotting to
create with a Green New Deal."
In April 2020 the European Parliament called to include the European Green Deal in the recovery program from the COVID-19 pandemic.
The proposals were criticised for falling short of the goal of ending fossil fuels, or being sufficient for a green recovery after the COVID-19 pandemic.
In its place, it has been proposed that the EU enacts a "Green New Deal
for Europe", which includes more investment, and changes the legal
regulation that enables global warming from coal, oil, and gas to
continue.
In July 2021, the European Commission released its "Fit for 55"
legislation package, which contains important guidelines for the future
of the automotive industry; all new cars on the European market must be
zero-emission vehicles from 2035. According to European Commissioner for Climate Action Frans Timmermans, "the best answer" to the 2021 global energy crisis is "to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels."
South Korea
In
2020, after the Democratic Party won an absolute majority in the
National Assembly, the leadership of the country began to advance a
Green New Deal. It includes:
In March 2019, Labour Party members launched a grassroots campaign called Labour for a Green New Deal.
The aim of the group is to push the party to adopt a radical Green New
Deal to transform the UK economy, tackle inequality and address the
escalating climate crisis. It also wants a region-specific green jobsguarantee,
a significant expansion of public ownership and democratic control of
industry, as well as mass investment in public infrastructure. The group states that they got their inspiration from the Sunrise Movement and the work that congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has done in the US. Group members have met with Zack Exley, co-founder of the progressive group Justice Democrats, to learn from the experiences that he and Ocasio-Cortez have had in working for the Green New Deal campaign in the US.
On April 30, former Labour Party leader Ed Miliband joined Caroline Lucas and former South ThanetConservative MP Laura Sandys in calling for a Green New Deal in the UK. The left-wing campaigning group Momentum also wish to influence the Labour Party's manifesto to include a Green New Deal.
In September 2019, the Labour party committed to a Green New Deal at its 2019 annual conference. This included a target to decarbonise by 2030.
Polling undertook by YouGov in late October 2019 found that 56% of British adults support the goal of making the UK carbon neutral by 2030 or earlier.
In July 2020, while the UK government promised a "green recovery" from the COVID-19 pandemic,
this was criticised as being insufficient, and lacking changes to
regulation that enabled coal, oil, and gas pollution to continue. An alternative "Green Recovery Act", widely endorsed by politicians and the media,
was published by an academic and think tank group that would target
nine fields of law reform, on transport, energy generation, agriculture,
fossil fuels, local government, international agreement, finance and
corporate governance, employment, and investment. This has the goal of
establishing duties on all public bodies and regulators to end use of
all coal, oil and gas "as fast as technologically practicable", with
strict exceptions if there are not yet technical alternatives.
United States
Early efforts
In
2006, a Green New Deal was created by the Green New Deal Task Force as a
plan for one hundred percent clean, renewable energy by 2030 utilizing a
carbon tax, a jobs guarantee, free college, single-payer healthcare, and a focus on using public programs.
Since 2006, the Green New Deal has been included in the platforms of multiple Green Party candidates, such as Howie Hawkins' gubernatorial campaigns in 2010, 2014, and 2018, and Jill Stein's 2012 and 2016 presidential campaigns.
A "Green New Deal" wing began to emerge in the Democratic Party after the November 2018 elections.
A possible program in 2018 for a "Green New Deal" assembled by the
think tank Data for Progress was described as "pairing labor programs
with measures to combat the climate crisis."
A November 2018 article in Vogue
stated, "There isn't just one Green New Deal yet. For now, it's a
platform position that some candidates are taking to indicate that they
want the American government to devote the country to preparing for
climate change as fully as Franklin Delano Roosevelt once did to reinvigorating the economy after the Great Depression."
By the end of November, eighteen Democratic members of Congress
were co-sponsoring a proposed House Select Committee on a Green New
Deal, and incoming representatives Ayanna Pressley and Joe Neguse had announced their support.
Draft text would task this committee with a "'detailed national,
industrial, economic mobilization plan' capable of making the U.S.
economy 'carbon neutral' while promoting 'economic and environmental justice and equality,'" to be released in early 2020, with draft legislation for implementation within 90 days.
A Sunrise Movement protest on behalf of a Green New Deal at the Capitol Hill offices of Nancy Pelosi and Steny Hoyer on December 10, 2018 featured Lennox Yearwood and speakers as young as age 7, resulting in 143 arrests. Euronews,
the pan-European TV network, displayed video of youth with signs saying
"Green New Deal," "No excuses", and "Do your job" in its "No Comment"
section.
On December 14, 2018, a group of over 300 local elected officials
from 40 states issued a letter endorsing a Green New Deal approach. That same day, a poll released by Yale Program on Climate Change Communication
indicated that although 82% of registered voters had not heard of the
"Green New Deal," it had strong bi-partisan support among voters. A non-partisan
description of the general concepts behind a Green New Deal resulted in
40% of respondents saying they "strongly support", and 41% saying they
"somewhat support" the idea.
On January 10, 2019, over 600 organizations submitted a letter to
Congress declaring support for policies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. This includes phasing out fossil fuel extraction and ending fossil fuel subsidies,
transitioning to 100% clean renewable energy by 2035, expanding public
transportation, and strict emission reductions rather than reliance on
carbon emission trading.
Green New Deal Resolution
Ed Markey speaks on a Green New Deal in front of the Capitol Building in February 2019.
On February 7, 2019, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Edward Markey released a fourteen-page resolution for their Green New Deal (House Resolution 109, closely related to S. Res. 59).
Their proposal advocated transitioning the United States to 100%
renewable, zero-emission energy sources, along with investment in electric cars and high-speed rail systems, and implementing the "social cost of carbon" that had been part of the Obama administration's plan for addressing climate change within 10 years. Besides increasing state-sponsored
jobs, this Green New Deal also sought to address poverty by aiming much
of the improvements in "frontline and vulnerable communities" which
include poor and disadvantaged people. The resolution included calls for
universal health care, increased minimum wages, and preventing monopolies.
According to The Washington Post (February 11, 2019), the resolution called for a "10-year national mobilization" whose primary goals would be:
"Guaranteeing a job with a family-sustaining wage, adequate
family and medical leave, paid vacations, and retirement security to all
people of the United States."
"Providing all people of the United States with – (i) high-quality
health care; (ii) affordable, safe, and adequate housing; (iii) economic
security; and (iv) access to clean water, clean air, healthy and
affordable food, and nature."
"Providing resources, training, and high-quality education, including higher education, to all people of the United States."
"Meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources."
"Repairing and upgrading the infrastructure in the United States,
including . . . by eliminating pollution and greenhouse gas emissions as
much as technologically feasible."
"Building or upgrading to energy-efficient, distributed, and 'smart'
power grids, and working to ensure affordable access to electricity."
"Upgrading all existing buildings in the United States and building
new buildings to achieve maximal energy efficiency, water efficiency,
safety, affordability, comfort, and durability, including through
electrification."
"Overhauling transportation systems in the United States to
eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the transportation
sector as much as is technologically feasible, including through
investment in – (i) zero-emission vehicle infrastructure and
manufacturing; (ii) clean, affordable, and accessible public
transportation; and (iii) high-speed rail."
"Spurring massive growth in clean manufacturing in the United States
and removing pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing
and industry as much as is technologically feasible."
"Working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United
States to eliminate pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the
agricultural sector as much as is technologically feasible."
Various perspectives emerged in late 2018 as to whether to form a
committee dedicated to climate, what powers such a committee might be
granted, and whether the committee would be specifically tasked with
developing a Green New Deal.
Proposals for the House Select Committee on the Climate Crisis
did not contain "Green New Deal" language and lacked the powers desired
by Green New Deal proponents, such as the ability to subpoena documents or depose witnesses.
Representative Kathy Castor of Florida was appointed to chair the committee.
January 2019 letter to Congress from environmental groups
On
January 10, 2019, a letter signed by 626 organizations in support of a
Green New Deal was sent to all members of Congress. It called for
measures such as "an expansion of the Clean Air Act; a ban on crude oil exports; an end to fossil fuel subsidies and fossil fuel leasing; and a phase-out of all gasoline-powered vehicles by 2040."
An article in The Atlantic
quoted Greg Carlock, who prepared "a different Green New Deal plan for
the left-wing think tank Data for Progress" as responding, "There is no
scenario produced by the IPCC or the UN where we hit mid-century decarbonization without some kind of carbon capture."
The MIT Technology Review
responded to the letter with an article titled, "Let's Keep the Green
New Deal Grounded in Science". The MIT article states that, although the
letter refers to the "rapid and aggressive action" needed to prevent
the 1.5 ˚C of warming specified in the UN climate panel's latest report,
simply acknowledging the report's recommendation is not sufficient. If
the letter's signatories start from a position where the options of
carbon pricing, carbon capture for fossil plants, hydropower, and
nuclear power, are not even on the table for consideration, there may be
no feasible technical means to reach the necessary 1.5 ˚C climate goal.
A report in Axios suggested that the letter's omission of a carbon tax, which has been supported by moderate Republicans, did not mean that signatories would oppose carbon pricing.
The Director of the Center for Science, Technology, and Innovation Policy at George Mason University
was quoted as saying, "As long as organizations hold onto a rigid set
of ideas about what the solution is, it's going to be hard to make
progress ... And that's what worries me."
Criticism
Many who support some goals of the Green New Deal express doubt about feasibility of one or more of its parts. John P. Holdren, former science advisor to Obama, thinks the 2030 goal is too optimistic, saying that 2045 or 2050 would be more realistic.
Many members of the Green party have also attacked the plan due
to its cutting of multiple parts of their plan, such as the elimination
of nuclear power and jobs guarantee, and the changing of the goal from a
one hundred percent clean, renewable energy economy by 2030 to the
elimination of the U.S. carbon footprint by 2030.
Economist Edward Barbier, who developed the "Global Green New Deal" proposal for the United Nations Environment Programme
in 2009, opposes "a massive federal jobs program," saying "The
government would end up doing more and more of what the private sector
and industry should be doing." Barbier prefers carbon pricing, such as a carbon tax or cap-and-trade
system, in order to "address distortions in the economy that are
holding back private sector innovation and investments in clean energy."
When Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) was confronted by youth associated with the Sunrise Movement
on why she does not support the Green New Deal, she told them "there's
no way to pay for it" and that it could not pass a Republican-controlled
Senate. In a tweet following the confrontation, Feinstein said that she
remains committed "to enact real, meaningful climate change
legislation."
In February 2019, the center-right American Action Forum, estimated that the plan could cost between $51–$93 trillion over the next decade. They estimate its potential cost at $600,000 per household.
The organization estimated the cost for eliminating carbon emissions
from the transportation system at $1.3–2.7 trillion; guaranteeing a job
to every American $6.8–44.6 trillion; universal health care estimated
close to $36 trillion. According to Bloomberg Businessweek,
Wall Street is willing to invest significant resources toward GND
programs, but not unless Congress commits to moving it forward.
The AFL–CIO,
in a letter to Ocasio-Cortez, expressed strong reservations about the
GND, saying, "We welcome the call for labor rights and dialogue with
labor, but the Green New Deal resolution is far too short on specific
solutions that speak to the jobs of our members and the critical
sections of our economy."
In an op-ed for Slate, Alex Baca criticizes the Green New Deal for failing to address the environmental, economic, and social consequences of urban sprawl.
Adam Millsap criticizes the GND's overreliance on public transit to
make cities more environmentally friendly, since public transit
integrates better in monocentric cities than in polycentric ones. He
suggests land use reforms to increase density, congestion pricing, and eliminating parking requirements as measures that can be applied more flexibly to cities with monocentric and polycentric layouts.
Although the Green New Deal is often presented as a left-wing
proposal, criticism of it has come from left-wing commentators who have
argued that the Green New Deal fails to tackle the real cause of the
climate emergency, namely the concept of unending growth and consumption
inherent in capitalism, and is instead an attempt to greenwash capitalism. Left wing critics of the Green New Deal argue that it is not the monetization of Green policies and practices within capitalism that are necessary, but an anti-capitalist adoption of policies for de-growth.
Supporters
In September 2019, Naomi Klein published On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal. On Fire
is a collection of essays focusing on climate change and the urgent
actions needed to preserve the planet. Klein relates her meeting with Greta Thunberg
in the opening essay in which she discusses the entrance of young
people into those speaking out for climate awareness and change. She
supports the Green New Deal throughout the book and in the final essay
she discusses the 2020 U.S. election saying "The stakes of the election
are almost unbearably high. It's why I wrote the book and decided to put
it out now and why I'll be doing whatever I can to help push people
toward supporting a candidate with the most ambitious Green New Deal
platform—so that they win the primaries and then the general."
On February 9, 2019, United States President Donald Trump voiced his opposition using sarcasm via Twitter
as follows: "I think it is very important for the Democrats to press
forward with their Green New Deal. It would be great for the so-called
"Carbon Footprint" to permanently eliminate all Planes, Cars, Cows, Oil,
Gas & the Military – even if no other country would do the same.
Brilliant!"
Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein objected to the plan saying "there's no way to pay for it" and is drafting her own narrowed down version. Democratic Senator Joe Manchin criticized the plan as a "dream" adding that 'it would hurt regions dependent on reliable, affordable energy."
Republican White House aide Sebastian Gorka
has referred to the deal as "what Stalin dreamed about but never
achieved" and that "they [proponents of the deal] want to take your
pickup truck. They want to rebuild your home. They want to take away
your hamburgers." The comments about hamburgers are a common criticism
of the deal by conservatives, who have gone on to criticize
Representative Ocasio-Cortez for allowing her Chief of Staff to eat a
hamburger with her at a Washington restaurant.
On February 13, 2019, Rep. Mark Walker (R-NC) released a parody video on his verified Twitter account comparing the Green New Deal to the failed Fyre Festival, using the hashtag #GNDisFyre.
On March 14, 2019, Rep. Rob Bishop, a Republican representing Utah's 1st congressional district, said that the legislation was "tantamount to genocide," adding shortly afterward that his comment was "maybe an overstatement, but not by a lot."
During a Fox Business
interview on August 13, 2020, President Donald Trump again voiced his
opposition, declaring that adopting the Green New Deal would result in
demolishing the Empire State Building and abolishing all animals.
Legislative outcome
On
March 26, in what Democrats called a "stunt," Republicans called for an
early vote on the resolution without allowing discussion or expert
testimony. In protest, 42 Democrats and one Independent who caucuses with Democrats voted "present"
resulting in a 57–0 defeat on the Senate floor. Three Democrats and one
Independent who caucuses with Democrats voted against the bill, while
the other votes were along party lines.
2020 presidential campaign
Howie Hawkins, the Green Party's
2020 presidential candidate, ran on a Green New Deal platform calling
for the U.S. to reach zero greenhouse emissions and 100% clean energy by
2030.
Democratic Party presidential candidate and president-elect Joe Biden
has declined to endorse the full Green New Deal plan proposed by
members of his party, but he has promised to increase generation of
renewable energy, transition to more energy efficient buildings and
increase fuel efficiency standards for automobiles.
The joint policy proposals developed by the Biden and Sanders
campaigns, which were released on July 8, 2020, do not include a Green
New Deal.
In 2021, commentators noted that early climate-related executive actions by President Biden, such as re-joining the Paris Agreement,
have much in common with the 2019 GND proposed by Rep. Ocasio-Cortez
and Sen. Markey. According to Mike Krancer, while he sees the Biden Plan For A Clean Energy Revolution And Environmental Justice and the 2019 proposal as very similar, a key difference is that the Biden plan includes a prominent role for carbon capture and storage technology. President Biden's infrastructure package, which pledges to halve 2005 U.S. greenhouse gas emissions levels by 2030,
has been criticized by progressives, including Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, as
not being ambitious enough to achieve the scale required to mitigate
climate change. Biden's climate plan is incorporated in his American Jobs Plan and American Families Plan, which would in part lead to the creation of a Civilian Climate Corps modeled after the Civilian Conservation Corps.
In August 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law the Inflation Reduction Act, which contains the largest climate investment by the U.S. federal government in history.
2021 reintroduction
On April 20, 2021, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez, Sen. Markey and fellow Democratic lawmakers reintroduced the Green New Deal Resolution at the National Mall.
The resolution reaffirms the threat produced by climate change and the
responsibility of the US to recommit to meeting the emission goals
outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The Red Deal
In April 2021, The Red Nation Indigenous advocacy group released the Red Deal.
The Red Deal is a proposal designed to supplement the Green New Deal,
and incorporates a range of anti-capitalism and Indigenous
decolonisation proposals designed to halt climate change.
International
After the Green New Deal idea was proposed by Thomas Friedman in 2007 and developed by the British Green New Deal Group, a plan for an international green new deal was advanced by the United Nations. On October 22, 2008, UNEP's Executive Director Achim Steiner unveiled a Global Green New Deal initiative as a response to the Great Recession, aiming to create jobs in "green" industries, thus boosting the world economy and curbing climate change at the same time. The UN continued to promote the global green new deal into 2009 both to the G20 and its wider membership. The International green new deal was also supported by Gordon Brown. Yet despite the success of Brown and others in bringing about a short lived worldwide return to Keynesian stimulus policies,
the focus of extra government spending was on supporting existing
economic activity, rather than speeding the transition to the green
economy. In 2019, United Nations officials and others once again called
for a global green new deal. In July 2021, the Global Alliance for a Green New Deal was launched, a group of politicians from around the world campaigning for an international Green New Deal.
. This symbol has also played a significant part in India and Europe. However, speculations of a Gnostic-dualistic character are foreign to the original thought of the I Ching; what it posits is simply the ridgepole, the line. With this line, which in itself represents oneness, duality comes into the world, for the line at the same time posits an above and a below, a right and left, front and back – in a word, the world of the opposites.
.svg){kind=small}
_(46105849995)_(cropped).jpg)
