We introduce a themed collection of articles on approaches to configuring a Green New Deal as a response to the current capitalist crisis marked by ecological breakdown, economic stagnation and growing inequality. The Green New Deal is a contested political project, with pro-market, right-wing nationalist, Keynesian, democratic socialist and ecosocialist variants. Critiques of the Green New Deal include pragmatic queries as the feasibility of implementation, and theoretical challenges from the right regarding reliance on state forms and from the left regarding efforts to ameliorate capitalism. They also include concerns about technocratic bias and complaints about lack of meaningful consultation with Indigenous peoples on proposals for large-scale shifts in land use. Debates over the ideological orientation, political strategy and implementation of the Green New Deal must now account for the economic and employment impacts of COVID.

Proposals for development of ‘green jobs’ emerged when environmentalists, labour organisations and political economists recognised the need for economic restructuring to reduce climate change. Current proposals for a Green New Deal go further by putting additional emphasis on fiscal stimulus, ‘just transition’, reducing socio-economic inequalities, and political empowerment. This article analyses the development of this more comprehensive policy approach, its rationale, the constraints it would face and its prospects in the Australian context.

Most proposed solutions in the Global Green New Deal literature involve finance and technology transfers to address the imbalance between the Global North and Global South, while providing little discussion of the internal socioeconomic structures within countries in the Global South. This article uses China as a case study to show that without addressing the issue of domestic informality, the potential benefits of a Global Green New Deal are less likely to be fully realised in the Global South. We use the Input-Output method and our originally constructed data on formal and informal employment to calculate the informal employment share in two exemplary renewable energy sectors: solar and wind. We find that more than half of the jobs created in the solar and wind energy sectors, with a given level of spending, will be in the informal economy, and hence are associated with low wages and little social welfare protection. The results imply that, without addressing informality, both renewable energy sectors perpetuate the informal structure in the broader economy. We also question the capitalist nature of ‘green jobs’ created by the Green New Deal. Based on the results, we call for a more organic integration of a Global South perspective in the studies of a Global Green New Deal.

Green New Deals are being widely discussed as both a means to confront climate change and to improve aspects of social well-being. An important facet of the discussion is how they should be financed. The negative impacts of Covid-19 on national budgets and sovereign debt question whether the implementation of Green New Deals is feasible if austerity needs to be introduced to achieve sustainability. This article assesses whether a wealth tax based upon the work of Michal Kalecki could help avoid austerity measures and facilitate the introduction of Green New Deals. While wealth taxes have traditionally been defined on net worth or assets to reduce wealth inequality, the formulation is meant to be equitable by applying to gross wealth or assets. Estimates are calculated for the United States and turn out to be quite modest. The approach not only generates revenue to cover expected net interest outlays on national debt, but additional revenue to pay down portions of it and/or support green initiatives, such as Biden’s de-carbonisation policy. The article concludes with a discussion of challenges for the tax’s effectiveness.

We propose a carbon tax policy for Delhi—the most polluted capital globally—which will fundamentally change the energy mix of Delhi’s economy toward clean, green energy and guarantee universal access to electricity, transport, and food, up to a certain amount. Any carbon mitigation strategy needs to alter our dependence on fossil fuels, requiring a systemic overhaul of its energy mix. Implementing a carbon tax will mitigate emissions and mobilise revenue for our proposed redistributive program: Right to Food, Energy, and Travel (RFET). The policy is designed to advocate for the ‘poor over the rich’ to compensate for the ‘rich hiding behind’ the poor by emitting the majority of carbon and pollutants. Using input–output analysis, we estimate the class-wise distribution of carbon emissions in Delhi. We find that the necessary tax would be US$112.5 per metric ton of carbon dioxide in order for this program to work. The free entitlement of fuel and electricity per household comes out to be 2040 kWh per annum, and there is an annual universal travel pass of US$75 per person for use in public transport and an annual per capita availability of food of US$205.

This article explores the relationship between precarious employment and seafarers’ control over the scheduling and location of their work, and considers the implications of this relationship for their occupational health and safety. Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 20 permanently and 17 precariously employed seafarers. In contrast with those on permanent contracts, seafarers employed by crewing agencies on temporary contracts were deployed at short notice and commenced work on vessels irrespective of whether they had experienced an adequate rest period at home. Such precariously employed seafarers were also deployed across the various sectors of the industry on unfamiliar vessels. Seafarers felt strongly that scheduling and location uncertainties were closely linked with increased risks to their safety and well-being, and it was clear that these areas of uncertainty were frequently experienced in combination, in particular, by those with precarious employment arrangements. The article, therefore, suggests that the widespread disorganisation of the employment relationship increases the occupational health and safety risks faced by those working in an already dangerous industry. It concludes that this lack of commitment by shipping companies to their workforce means that, for many seafarers, protection against these additional risks is effectively at the discretion of the captain on board.

Non-compliance with labour standards impedes enforcement of workers’ rights in human resource supply chains. Despite governments’ efforts to improve labour standards and encourage employer-centred voluntary compliance programmes, infringements of workers’ rights are widely reported. Using a qualitative socio-legal study of Chinese seafarers’ workers’ compensation rights, we investigate whether shipping companies and their crewing agencies comply with their legal obligations following workplace injuries and fatalities. Through 74 semi-structured interviews and analysis of crew management policies from 7 shipping companies, we identify a failure of most shipowners’ internal policies to comply with legal obligations. Furthermore, multinational shipping companies use crewing agencies to evade their liabilities to injured seafarers. We propose the establishment of a joint liability mechanism between employers and labour intermediaries to fill this compliance gap that exists in global human resource supply chains.

This article assesses the regulatory steer provided by the Maritime Labour Convention 2006, against the research evidence as to what works in making for effective worker representation and consultation on occupational safety and health. Based on the testimony of seafarers and regulatory agencies, it demonstrates that the Maritime Labour Convention provisions lack the necessary elements for an effective regulatory steer. This is because the conditions shown to support this form of representation are absent from or underdeveloped in the shipboard work environment. The article concludes with some suggested ways to enhance the Convention’s provisions to achieve a more positive effect for seafarers.

This article critically analyses the opportunities for Australia to revitalise its strategically important manufacturing sector in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. It considers Australia’s industry policy options on the basis of both advances in the theory of industrial policy and recent policy proposals in the Australian context. It draws on recent work from The Australia Institute’s Centre for Future Work examining the prospects for Australian manufacturing renewal in a post-COVID-19 economy, together with other recent work in political economy, economic geography and labour process theory critically evaluating the Fourth Industrial Revolution (i4.0) and its implications for the Australian economy. The aim of the article is to contribute to and further develop the debate about the future of government intervention in manufacturing and industry policy in Australia. Crucially, the argument links the future development of Australian manufacturing with a focus on renewable energy.