Last week, President Joe Biden invoked the Defense Production Act (DPA) to speed up the production of domestic clean energy infrastructure. Originally passed in 1950 as a response to the Korean War, the DPA has often been used to provide support for the domestic production of materials deemed essential to national defense.
Recently, we’ve been able to see what the DPA can do when put to a progressive purpose. Earlier this month, Biden invoked the act to address the baby formula shortage, and just last week, by increasing funding for heat pumps, insulation for buildings, hydrogen, and other green energy technologies, he highlighted a path toward federal support for peace, sustainability, and investment in human needs instead of war.
Industries working to serve the planet and its communities do not have the money—or, perhaps, values—to make that model feasible for them.
Public investment in domestic manufacturing has long been viewed as socialist—and thus taboo—in the United States. The Green New Deal, for example, was blocked by Senate Republicans in March 2019 on the grounds that it was infeasible or that, with a proud democratic socialist, Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, penning the deal, it could initiate a descent into socialism. However, as scholar Miriam Pemberton has pointed out, the United States has long supported robust public investment in domestic manufacturing serving the defense industry.
For decades, the Department of Defense (DOD) has received billions of dollars in lucrative contracts, allowing it to build a robust domestic defense sector. This is in addition to the defense industry’s driving force: a budget that that represents the largest portion of the federal discretionary budget, and one that increases every year (with $813 billion requested for FY 2023).
Environmental justice movements, such as the Labor Network for Sustainability, often advocate for industrial policy to support the transition to clean energy. The well-funded legacy of defense industrial policy proves that a federally-funded transition plan is possible, so long as there’s enough political will behind it.
But raising support for such a plan is much more challenging than, say, increasing the Pentagon’s annual budget. 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 money—or, perhaps, values—to make that model feasible for them.
The lack of political will to support human needs and the drive to back the defense industry is the reason why the last move for a community and environment-driven industrial policy failed.
After the Cold War ended in 1992, the sharp reduction in defense spending created a peace dividend that President Bill Clinton promised to invest in the workers and communities that were losing defense-oriented work. Worker transition programs and the Office of Economic Adjustment, all federally funded, not only helped individuals find new work, but they also supported communities in developing alternative economic opportunities.
While this iteration of peacetime industrial policy did not fully succeed—80 percent of the dividend went to the federal deficit, and defense corporations were granted subsidies—the goal of peaceful transition was there, and this time it could be different.
The climate crisis is worsening, and it is becoming increasingly clear that the transition from fossil fuels to green energy is necessary for a liveable future. Biden’s use of the DPA to support green energy indicates the possibility of using the precedent of defense industrial policy to invest in sustainable, life-affirming sectors.
At a time when many Americans are struggling with inflation, debt, and the continued hardships caused by COVID-19, 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 toward the transition to renewable energy, as the Energy Security and Independence Act of 2022 calls for?
There are a massive amount of resources, funding, and infrastructure that can be invested in peace, sustainability, and human needs—it is just a matter of shifting our priorities.