SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
The well-funded legacy of defense industrial policy demonstrates that this form of legislative and financial support for domestic industries (such as green energy) is wholly possible as long as there is the political will. (Photo: CodePink)
Setting the Precedent for a Peace Industrial Policy
There is a massive amount of resources, funding, and infrastructure that we can invest in peace, sustainability, and human needs—it is just a matter of shifting our priorities.
Jun 13, 2022
Last week, Biden invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) to speed up the production of domestic clean energy infrastructure. This Act, originally passed in 1950 as a response to the Korean War, provides support for domestic production of materials deemed essential to national defense. As invoked last week, the DPA now provides investments in the domestic manufacturing of five green energy technologies (solar energy, heat pumps, insulation for buildings, hydrogen, and grid components) and waives solar tariffs. This move is an important milestone not only for federal U.S. support for a transition to green energy, but also in harnessing the precedent set by defense industrial policy to invest in peace, sustainability, and human needs instead of war.
The lack of political will to support human needs and the drive to back the defense industry is the reason that the last move for a community and environment-driven industrial policy failed.
Industrial policy, or policy that encourages economic development and supports domestic manufacturing, has long been viewed as socialist and thus taboo in the United States. However, as scholar Miriam Pemberton has long pointed out, the U.S. does in fact maintain consistent, robust defense industrial policy. The Department of Defense has numerous affirmative policy measures to support the growth of a healthy domestic defense sector, including massive procurement contracts; extensive investment in defense-related research & development (R&D); and the defense industry's driving force, a military budget that represents the largest portion of the federal discretionary budget and increases every year (with $813 billion requested for FY 2023).
Movements for climate and environmental justice have long advocated for industrial policy to support the transition to clean energy that will be necessary if we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The well-funded legacy of defense industrial policy demonstrates that this form of legislative and financial support for domestic industries (such as green energy) is wholly possible as long as there is the political will.
Political support of environmentally- and socially-oriented industrial policy will need to be raised differently than political support of the defense industry. Weapons manufacturers and war profiteers spend substantial amounts of money on lobbying and campaign contributions, which lands them handsome returns. For every $1 on lobbying that Lockheed Martin spent in 2020, it received $5,803 from DOD contracts. Industries working to serve the planet and its communities do not have the type of funds--or, perhaps, values--to make that model feasible for them.
Indeed, the lack of political will to support human needs and the drive to back the defense industry is the reason that the last move for a community and environment-driven industrial policy failed. After the Cold War ended, the sharp reduction in defense spending created a peace dividend that President Clinton promised to invest in the workers and communities losing defense-oriented work. Worker transition programs and the Office of Economic Adjustment, all federally funded, not only helped individuals find new work but supported communities in developing alternative economic opportunities. While this iteration of peacetime industrial policy did not fully succeed--81% of the dividend went to the federal deficit, and defense corporations were granted subsidies--the goal of peaceful transition was there, and this time could be different.
The climate crisis is worsening, and it is becoming increasingly clear that an energy transition from fossil fuels to green energy is necessary for a liveable future. Biden's use of the Defense Production Act to support green energy indicates the possibility of using the precedent of defense industrial policy to instead invest in sustainable, life-affirming sectors. At a time when many Americans are struggling with inflation, debt, and the continued hardships caused by COVID, this move shows us what might be possible if we treat climate change with the necessary urgency and prioritize creating sustainable, local manufacturing jobs.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What would it look like to go beyond the Defense Production Act and move substantial funding from the Pentagon budget towards the transition to renewable energy, as the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2022 calls for? What if R&D funding and procurement contracts were instead granted to green energy development--especially to democratic, community-run energy projects like the Kayenta Solar Project? There is a massive amount of resources, funding, and infrastructure that we can invest in peace, sustainability, and human needs--it is just a matter of shifting our priorities.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Shea Leibow
Shea Leibow is a National Organizer with the Divest from the War Machine and CODEPINK Congress campaigns.
Last week, Biden invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) to speed up the production of domestic clean energy infrastructure. This Act, originally passed in 1950 as a response to the Korean War, provides support for domestic production of materials deemed essential to national defense. As invoked last week, the DPA now provides investments in the domestic manufacturing of five green energy technologies (solar energy, heat pumps, insulation for buildings, hydrogen, and grid components) and waives solar tariffs. This move is an important milestone not only for federal U.S. support for a transition to green energy, but also in harnessing the precedent set by defense industrial policy to invest in peace, sustainability, and human needs instead of war.
The lack of political will to support human needs and the drive to back the defense industry is the reason that the last move for a community and environment-driven industrial policy failed.
Industrial policy, or policy that encourages economic development and supports domestic manufacturing, has long been viewed as socialist and thus taboo in the United States. However, as scholar Miriam Pemberton has long pointed out, the U.S. does in fact maintain consistent, robust defense industrial policy. The Department of Defense has numerous affirmative policy measures to support the growth of a healthy domestic defense sector, including massive procurement contracts; extensive investment in defense-related research & development (R&D); and the defense industry's driving force, a military budget that represents the largest portion of the federal discretionary budget and increases every year (with $813 billion requested for FY 2023).
Movements for climate and environmental justice have long advocated for industrial policy to support the transition to clean energy that will be necessary if we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The well-funded legacy of defense industrial policy demonstrates that this form of legislative and financial support for domestic industries (such as green energy) is wholly possible as long as there is the political will.
Political support of environmentally- and socially-oriented industrial policy will need to be raised differently than political support of the defense industry. Weapons manufacturers and war profiteers spend substantial amounts of money on lobbying and campaign contributions, which lands them handsome returns. For every $1 on lobbying that Lockheed Martin spent in 2020, it received $5,803 from DOD contracts. Industries working to serve the planet and its communities do not have the type of funds--or, perhaps, values--to make that model feasible for them.
Indeed, the lack of political will to support human needs and the drive to back the defense industry is the reason that the last move for a community and environment-driven industrial policy failed. After the Cold War ended, the sharp reduction in defense spending created a peace dividend that President Clinton promised to invest in the workers and communities losing defense-oriented work. Worker transition programs and the Office of Economic Adjustment, all federally funded, not only helped individuals find new work but supported communities in developing alternative economic opportunities. While this iteration of peacetime industrial policy did not fully succeed--81% of the dividend went to the federal deficit, and defense corporations were granted subsidies--the goal of peaceful transition was there, and this time could be different.
The climate crisis is worsening, and it is becoming increasingly clear that an energy transition from fossil fuels to green energy is necessary for a liveable future. Biden's use of the Defense Production Act to support green energy indicates the possibility of using the precedent of defense industrial policy to instead invest in sustainable, life-affirming sectors. At a time when many Americans are struggling with inflation, debt, and the continued hardships caused by COVID, this move shows us what might be possible if we treat climate change with the necessary urgency and prioritize creating sustainable, local manufacturing jobs.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What would it look like to go beyond the Defense Production Act and move substantial funding from the Pentagon budget towards the transition to renewable energy, as the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2022 calls for? What if R&D funding and procurement contracts were instead granted to green energy development--especially to democratic, community-run energy projects like the Kayenta Solar Project? There is a massive amount of resources, funding, and infrastructure that we can invest in peace, sustainability, and human needs--it is just a matter of shifting our priorities.
Shea Leibow
Shea Leibow is a National Organizer with the Divest from the War Machine and CODEPINK Congress campaigns.
Last week, Biden invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) to speed up the production of domestic clean energy infrastructure. This Act, originally passed in 1950 as a response to the Korean War, provides support for domestic production of materials deemed essential to national defense. As invoked last week, the DPA now provides investments in the domestic manufacturing of five green energy technologies (solar energy, heat pumps, insulation for buildings, hydrogen, and grid components) and waives solar tariffs. This move is an important milestone not only for federal U.S. support for a transition to green energy, but also in harnessing the precedent set by defense industrial policy to invest in peace, sustainability, and human needs instead of war.
The lack of political will to support human needs and the drive to back the defense industry is the reason that the last move for a community and environment-driven industrial policy failed.
Industrial policy, or policy that encourages economic development and supports domestic manufacturing, has long been viewed as socialist and thus taboo in the United States. However, as scholar Miriam Pemberton has long pointed out, the U.S. does in fact maintain consistent, robust defense industrial policy. The Department of Defense has numerous affirmative policy measures to support the growth of a healthy domestic defense sector, including massive procurement contracts; extensive investment in defense-related research & development (R&D); and the defense industry's driving force, a military budget that represents the largest portion of the federal discretionary budget and increases every year (with $813 billion requested for FY 2023).
Movements for climate and environmental justice have long advocated for industrial policy to support the transition to clean energy that will be necessary if we want to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. The well-funded legacy of defense industrial policy demonstrates that this form of legislative and financial support for domestic industries (such as green energy) is wholly possible as long as there is the political will.
Political support of environmentally- and socially-oriented industrial policy will need to be raised differently than political support of the defense industry. Weapons manufacturers and war profiteers spend substantial amounts of money on lobbying and campaign contributions, which lands them handsome returns. For every $1 on lobbying that Lockheed Martin spent in 2020, it received $5,803 from DOD contracts. Industries working to serve the planet and its communities do not have the type of funds--or, perhaps, values--to make that model feasible for them.
Indeed, the lack of political will to support human needs and the drive to back the defense industry is the reason that the last move for a community and environment-driven industrial policy failed. After the Cold War ended, the sharp reduction in defense spending created a peace dividend that President Clinton promised to invest in the workers and communities losing defense-oriented work. Worker transition programs and the Office of Economic Adjustment, all federally funded, not only helped individuals find new work but supported communities in developing alternative economic opportunities. While this iteration of peacetime industrial policy did not fully succeed--81% of the dividend went to the federal deficit, and defense corporations were granted subsidies--the goal of peaceful transition was there, and this time could be different.
The climate crisis is worsening, and it is becoming increasingly clear that an energy transition from fossil fuels to green energy is necessary for a liveable future. Biden's use of the Defense Production Act to support green energy indicates the possibility of using the precedent of defense industrial policy to instead invest in sustainable, life-affirming sectors. At a time when many Americans are struggling with inflation, debt, and the continued hardships caused by COVID, this move shows us what might be possible if we treat climate change with the necessary urgency and prioritize creating sustainable, local manufacturing jobs.
And this is just the tip of the iceberg. What would it look like to go beyond the Defense Production Act and move substantial funding from the Pentagon budget towards the transition to renewable energy, as the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2022 calls for? What if R&D funding and procurement contracts were instead granted to green energy development--especially to democratic, community-run energy projects like the Kayenta Solar Project? There is a massive amount of resources, funding, and infrastructure that we can invest in peace, sustainability, and human needs--it is just a matter of shifting our priorities.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.