Our house is on fire and our politicians still ask the question “How will we pay to put it out?”

This week thousands of children across the country took part in a walkout of classes to voice their anger at political inaction in tackling the ecological crisis which poses a threat to our survival as a species and portends planetary degradation and destruction.  Their enthusiasm and passion was uplifting and these brilliant young people of all ages showed themselves both to be informed and articulate in expressing the need for radical climate action now.

The strike movement was initiated last year by Greta Thunberg, a lone campaigner, who at the age of 15 stood outside the Swedish Parliament to make her first environmental protest. From that small acorn, there has been a growing mobilisation of young people who have been demonstrating to make their views known.  Up to 70,000 students are now making protests weekly in towns and cities across the world and an even bigger global protest is being planned for 15^th March. Across nations, it is clear that there is a huge strength of feeling building amongst the young and this is evident in the banners held aloft by protestors.  ‘The emperor is naked’ said one in Cork and “We’re here now because we want to be able to be here in 50 years’ time,” said another in Berlin.  Jake Woodier, one of the organisers from the UK Youth Climate Coalition commented that the planet’s current trajectory was completely incompatible with a clean, safe environment for future generations and that young people have been betrayed by the inaction of those in positions of power.

As the battle for the planet hots up it is exciting to see our young people taking political action for their future. It is a testament to the growing calls for change through such organisations as the UK Youth Climate Coalition and the Sunrise Movement in the US. These young people are a beacon of hope who may, in time, signify a new generation of leaders and force politicians to start listening to their future voters who will be the inheritors of climate disaster if nothing is done to address it.

As the single greatest threat facing our planet impetus for change has not come too soon. It follows the IPPCs report on climate change published last year and the warnings that we only have a dozen years left to halt its worst effects. The clock is now ticking on the capacity of our natural world to support life and it is a wakeup call for humanity and our leaders to react with urgency.

Thus, this positive activism sits very opportunely with the rise of politicians in the US who are starting to take threats to climate stability seriously.  Bernie Sanders who has just announced that he will be standing in the 2020 presidential elections and the newly elected Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are both pushing for swift action in the form of a Green New Deal which, combined with radical proposals for a federal job guarantee would tackle both inequality and climate change. It offers seeds of hope as a political step change in approach.

However, as citizens across the world begin to wake up to the dangers of inaction and face the realities of climate change every day it is to be regretted that politicians, journalists and commentators some of whom recognise the threats to human survival and would welcome action are all rushing to pose that big question ‘how would we pay for a Green New Deal’ or indeed any green programmes whether in the US or here in the UK.  Some have called it unrealistic and even impossible with the implication that it is monetarily unaffordable. Apparently, that question is far more important than the cost of fighting ecological disaster and those campaigning for a green new deal, whoever they are, should simply go back to the drawing board and put together a costed ball-park figure for the programme – fiscal credibility trumping human survival. Politicians, economists, journalists and commentators seem not to be on the same planet as those who are already suffering from droughts, floods, extreme weather events, food and water shortages, rising sea levels and destruction of the natural environment which will drive millions more people into poverty and create further refugee crises.

A sad day it will be when a future child has this conversation with its mother as the water laps around their ankles on the banks of the Thames.

‘Why didn’t we save the planet, mum?’

‘Because the world’s economists and bankers said we would ruin society if the government was allowed to run deficits for public purpose, sweetheart’.

’Oh, thank goodness, despite the destruction of everything worth keeping, the government remained financially prudent and balanced the books’

While those on the left continue to frame their ‘how they will pay for’ environmental policies in household budget terms of borrowing and taxation with a fixation on fiscal credibility rules they will seriously limit the success of their proposed progressive agenda since it can only suggest that there are monetary limits to such programmes.   Such arguments fail to recognise the sovereign powers of a currency issuing government and fail to acknowledge the modern monetary realities which already govern political spending choices.  Modern Monetary Theory is not an aspiration or a regime that you apply, it is a reality which gives decision makers the tools with which they can devise public policy to ensure that their political agenda can be delivered. For those on the left, it offers a focused lens on the choices it could make in terms of dealing with climate change, poverty and rising inequality as well as address the politically imposed scourge of unemployment.  Via full employment policies and the implementation of a Job Guarantee programme, which is central to the delivery of public purpose, economies could be stabilised, climate change could be addressed, and people would benefit.

Instead, the progressive left chooses to hide behind an economic narrative which would not just hinder those plans but ultimately stop them dead. The implication that it is in their interests not to rock the household budget boat and keep to a narrative which has not only done terrible damage over four decades and more but is also a false picture of how money works, is disappointing. The word radical is defined in the dictionary as ‘advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change.’ To claim that the left can deliver a progressive programme whilst sticking to an orthodox narrative that will not allow them to harness the power of the public purse is more than questionable. It will be downright harmful.

As Professor Bill Mitchell points out instead of focusing on a ‘funding’ narrative:

“The debate should be focused on what a GND means for real resource usage and what redistributions of access to real resources might be required to ensure that total spending (on the available real resources) can accomplish the GND goals without accelerating inflation.”

Falling into a ‘funding’ narrative trap whether through taxation or borrowing fails to focus on the very real constraints to public spending – the question of resources – whether that is people or those used in the creation of goods and services in both the public or private sector. It sidesteps the role that government must play to manage and redistribute finite resources in such a way that it delivers its programme effectively and at the same time avoids inflationary pressures.

Let’s leave the final words to Greta Thunberg who spoke at the United Nations Climate Conference last year.

“Our house is on fire. I am here to say our house is on fire. […] I want you to act as you would in a crisis. I want you to act as if our house is on fire. Because it is. […] Our leaders are behaving like children, [and] we will have to take the responsibility they should have taken long ago. […] We cannot solve a crisis without treating it as a crisis …. if solutions within the system are so impossible to find, then… we should change the system itself.”