In Michigan and Ontario, the “green economy” has been touted by government as a “win-win” solution to reducing greenhouse gasses and replacing thousands of manufacturing jobs lost before and during the global financial crisis. Some scholars, however, argue that despite economic and climate crises, there is little new about the policies being rolled out in advanced industrialized states; instead, political elites adopted business-as-usual policies after 2009 that offer little hope for greater social, economic, or ecological sustainability. In this green “publicity state”, political elites engage as much, if not more, in the politics of environmental discourse than in policymaking for a greener, more sustainable society. This thesis thus explored the research questions: To what extent have policymakers in Ontario and Michigan evoked argumentative imperatives that neoliberal policies are the way to create green jobs, increase socio-economic equality, and/or halt climate change? To what degree can policies in Ontario and Michigan be classified as ‘sustainable’? Does the policy rhetoric match the policy reality? In what similar and different ways do public policies get framed, communicated, and constrained by underlying neoliberal understandings of the economy and state that then limit the policy options that governments see as possible? In what ways does this contribute to the naturalization of green neoliberalism?
To answer these questions, we examined the public policies and political rhetoric of renewable energy in Michigan and Ontario under the administration of Governors Jennifer Granholm and Rick Snyder, and the Ontario Liberal government of Premier Dalton McGuinty between 2007 and 2012. The theoretical framework for this paper was constructed using Gramscian and critical discourse theories which maintain that ideological and economic hegemony manifests, and is constantly being reproduced, through political discourse. First, we conducted a comparative analysis of green economy policies, as well as a sample of additional social, economic, and fiscal policies that could contribute to greater or less sustainability in the two jurisdictions. These were then categorized according to a typology of green economy imaginaries.
Second, Michigan State of the State speeches and radio addresses, and Ontario Budget speeches and Speeches from the Throne delivered during the period of study were analyzed using Fairclough and Fairclough’s (2012) critical discourse analysis for political argument. It was found that political elites construct imaginaries of the green economy using various argumentative claims in ways that often do not coincide with policies and/or policy outcomes. In this study, Granholm and McGuinty often used argumentative claims around renewable energy in ways that naturalize green neoliberal approach to sustainability, while greenwashing less ‘green’ policies; take credit for making their jurisdiction ‘greener’; deflect and assign blame for a shrinking economy; and position the green economy as a ‘win-win’ to unemployment and/or climate change. Despite labelling himself a “good, green Republican”, Governor Snyder did not engage in green economy policymaking or framing, instead pursuing a ‘classic’ neoliberal policy agenda.
Furthermore, the arguments political elites are further constrained by both the existing economic regime and political institutions: a premier in a majority government has significantly more power to make bold argumentative claims and introduce policies than a state governor. This is evident in the fact that although their rhetoric around the green economy as a means to increasing jobs was similar, McGuinty was able to also frame the green economy as a means to reducing greenhouse gasses and introduce a bolder piece of renewable energy legislation than Granholm. / Dissertation / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / The “green economy” has become a popular idea over the last decade. The green economy is a term that refers to expanding the renewable energy industry including solar, wind, and hydro energy, as well as energy retrofitting of existing buildings and the electric car industry. Political leaders argue that by growing the green economy, we can create thousands of good jobs and reduce climate change.
But the green economy is not necessarily sustainable. This is partly because “sustainable development” is not a matter of just making the economy stronger at any cost, with a potential added benefit of reducing climate change. Sustainable development means that less people live in poverty, different cultures are protected, and the environment is preserved in ways that it can meet the needs of every generation of future human beings. It also means that climate change must become a priority for government over economic growth, and that technology is not the solution to every environmental problem. However, even after all the social and economic problems that became worse during and after the Great Recession in 2008-2009, the green economy is being designed using the same kinds of policies that emphasize what business wants rather than is needed to halt climate change and reduce poverty. How then are leaders able to make this kind of green economy seem like a new, great idea? Is this green economy actually sustainable?
This thesis examined these basic questions by comparing policies introduced in the Province of Ontario and the State of Michigan for growing a renewable energy industry, as well as policies that could lead to greater or less sustainability. We put these various policies into categories to ‘measure’ how sustainable they are. Then we examined the arguments made by political leaders in Ontario and Michigan to see how they framed the green economy to make it seem like common sense for a better, more sustainable future.
We found that although renewable energy can lead to more sustainability by reducing the greenhouse gasses we produce, the policies introduced by leaders between 2007 and 2012 emphasized meeting the needs of business rather than the needs of the environment or the poor. And these are in fact the kinds of policies that governments used before the Great Recession – policies that made society worse off for the last 30 years – so there is nothing new about them, even if there are a little bit ‘greener’. We also found that Governor Jennifer Granholm and Premier McGuinty made very similar arguments about the benefits of the green economy, while at the same time minimizing the downsides of their business- focused approach. Governor Rick Snyder, also of Michigan, has had no interest in the green economy, and has emphasized business policies almost entirely. Though Granholm and McGuinty had similar arguments and visions for their green economy by building a renewable energy sector, the premier was able to make arguments that the green economy was necessary for climate change, and he was able to introduce stronger policies against climate change, like shutting down all of Ontario’s coal plants. This is because premiers have more institutional power than governors. It is also interesting that even though McGuinty had more power than the governors, he still chose many of the same policies as Governor Snyder.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:mcmaster.ca/oai:macsphere.mcmaster.ca:11375/18954 |
| Date | 06 1900 |
| Creators | Tombari, Stephanie L. |
| Contributors | McBride, Stephen, Political Science |
| Source Sets | McMaster University |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis |
Page generated in 0.0059 seconds