Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiCan Capitalism Be Green?
TORONTO - Capitalism has proven to be environmentally and socially unsustainable, so future prosperity will have to come from a new economic model, say some experts. What this new model would look like is the subject of intense debate.
One current theory states that continuous growth can be environmentally compatible if clean and efficient technologies are adopted, and if economies leave behind production of material goods and move towards services. This is known as sustainable prosperity.
International agreements to fight global problems, like the thinning of the atmosphere's ozone layer and climate change, have used market principles to achieve compliance by the private sector.
But the problem is, "we are consuming 25 percent more than the Earth can give us each year," says William Rees, of the School of Community and Regional Planning at the University of British Columbia.
Rees and other experts have calculated that annual human consumption of natural resources exceeds the planet's ecological capacity to regenerate them by 25 percent, a proportion that has been growing since 1984, the first year they calculate that humanity crossed that capacity threshold.
"Our planet needs natural capital (resources) like trees to provide the ecosystem services of clean air and water that we all depend on," said Rees in an interview. He was one of the inventors in 1992 of the concept of "ecological footprint", an indicator of how much productive land a certain human population needs in order to supply itself with resources and to absorb its waste.
Capitalism is all about accumulation of wealth based on the consumption of natural resources, whose availability is strictly limited, he said. We are also exceeding the maximum amounts of pollution or waste products, such as carbon dioxide emissions (the main contributor to climate change), that the planet can absorb and process without affect.
Market economists call pollution and its impacts "externalities", and rarely factor them into the economic models, he said.
Rees defines sustainable prosperity as the global use of resources and generation of wastes that do not exceed the planet's capacity to regenerate and absorb. Equally important, he says, is the social dimension: true prosperity is possible only when income disparity between the rich and poor is small.
"U.S. executives are paid 500 to 1,000 times more than their workers, and this inequity continues to worsen," he said.
If everyone lived like the U.S. population, we would need five planets to provide the necessary natural resources, says the World Wildlife Fund's Living Planet Report 2006. China alone would use all the world's current resources.
Cleaner and more efficient technology is not the solution either, despite being widely touted as the path to sustainability, said Rees. Modern industrialized societies already use resources more efficiently than developing nations, but rich countries consume far more material goods and end up using more of the planet's limited natural resources.
In his opinion, the new mantras of "responsible consumption" -- buying organic or sustainably-made goods -- and dematerialization of economies -- producing services rather than products -- do not solve the problem. The only solution is to reduce pollution and consumption of resources, he said.
"All this sustainability talk implies that we don't really want to change what we are doing," he added.
Responsible shopping or corporate social responsibility won't make much of a difference, agrees Brian Czech, president of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, a Washington, DC economic think tank.
"We have to ratchet our economic growth downwards to stabilize at a steady state," Czech, a former wildlife ecologist, said in an interview for this report.
Most developing nations still need to grow economically, but rich countries have to reduce their use of resources so that can happen, he says.
The idea that growth can be sustainable by dematerialization is "nonsense", in Czech's opinion. Producing services requires use of natural resources like energy and the money generated will be used to buy something.
"Neoclassical economists at the World Bank, USAID (U.S. Agency for International Development) and elsewhere continue to believe there are no limits to growth," Czech says.
Economic success needs to be redefined: instead of increasing wealth it should be increasing well being, says Nic Marks, head of the Center for Well Being at the New Economics Foundation (NEF), in London.
The British government has recognized that the economy has to exist within the reality that there is only one planet and we are living well beyond its means, Marks said in an interview.
"However, it is politically unsustainable to say less economic growth is the way forward," Marks noted.
Instead, greener, cleaner and dematerialized growth is seen as the solution to "one-planet living". Marks says these are necessary along with major reductions in resource use.
U.S. entrepreneur Peter Barnes says the way forward is for capitalism to shift from exploiting natural resources like air and water to protecting them as "common wealth trusts" of humanity. They would belong to everyone on the planet and would have the power to limit use of scarce resources, charge rent, and pay dividends to everyone, Barnes writes in a new book "Capitalism 3.0".
Barnes envisions a large number of ecosystem trusts around the world, administered by trustees who cannot act in their own self-interest. They would be legally obligated to act solely on behalf of beneficiaries -- all citizens and future generations equally.
"Neither government nor corporations represent the needs of future generations, ecosystems, and nonhuman species. Commons trusts can do this," he writes.
This story is part of a series of features on sustainable development by IPS and IFEJ -- the International Federation of Environmental Journalists.
Copyright © 2007 IPS-Inter Press Service.
47 Comments so far
Show Allproutist_in_bklyn, I will do that for sure. It may be a couple of months, but I'll do it. :)
Thanks John. It would be great if you could do a feature on PROUT in your blog. I think that Proutism is really the future and will replace Capitalism within 50 years. Venezuela seems to moving in that direction although their economy is still fossil fuel based today.
YES of course capitalism can be green.
The workers all deserve to make living wages for their efforts. Unbridled greed and irresponsible behavior towards the environment and people are the poisons that screw it up.
J Krishnamurti May 15th, 2007 9:31 am,
Well said! I hope voices of reason connect through the Internet in an interactive way and through an understanding of the problems we will be motivated to be active.
We are up against "power and control" but through knowledge and pursuit of the "TRUTH", the masses will collectively be empowered.
The Internet should be mandatory infrastructure worldwide. Uncensored and "Net Neutral".
If we have a war in space; we will have to float balloons across the ocean to communicate from then on.!!!
The source of all human problems, big and small, lies in the psyche of the individual.
Over the million years or more that man has existed on this planet his knowledge of the external world has evolved greatly and increased his power and ability to cope with natural calamities. Inwardly, in his consciousness, man has not evolved very much. He is still very much like the primitive man - fearful and insecure, forming groups (religious and national ), fighting and preparing for war, seeking advantages for himself and hating others. He is now able to travel to the moon and communicate around the globe in a matter of minutes but he still finds it difficult to love his neighbour and live in peace. Modern man is as brutal, selfish, violent, greedy and possessive as the primitive man of a million years ago, though he may now be able to hide himself behind a lot of noble-sounding words and thoughts.
This lop-sided development of the human being has brought him close to self-annihilation. He stands now on the brink of nuclear war, just a hair's breadth away from total extinction. The power that his increased knowledge has given him has not been coupled with the right kind of intelligence and vision that are necessary. Why ? Why have we not evolved psychologically ? Is it because we have never directed our attention inwards, to understand our own mind, thoughts and feelings ? We are so satisfied, so dazzled by our achievements, our `progress' in the outer world, that we have completely neglected the inner world of our consciousness. Hatred in the primitive man could do only little damage; in modern man with all his power it is much more devastating and we are seeing the disastrous consequences of it every day all around us.
It seems to us that we can resolve this problem if we can organize things better in society. This is a deep-rooted illusion. One is of course not against efficient organization of daily life; but you cannot produce a non-violent and peaceful society with a million violent, aggressive, self-seeking individuals, however you may organize them. If you have a communist society, you will have the violence of communism; if you have a capitalist society you will have the violence of capitalism. You can contain the violence in some directions, but it will express itself in others. Revolutions have come and gone but man's tyranny on man has not ended, it has only assumed other forms.
A truly peaceful, non-violent society is only possible if the individual transforms, psychologically, fundamentally. Any other change is trivial, temporary-it will never resolve the problems, it will only enable us to cope with them for a while in certain directions. Society is what the individual is. Just as the characteristics of a bar of copper are determined by the characteristics of the atoms constituting it, the characteristics of a society are determined by those of the individuals. All problems that we see in society today are reflections of problems in the psyche of the individual. Therefore we must concern ourselves with the inner transformation of man and not just the outer organization of society.
Capitalism can be green, but only under conditions in which economic activities are so regulated that most production begins to resemble some Rube Goldberg machine. When environmental responsibility and long-term sustainability are thrown into the equation (and maximizing military production and military-related innovation is taken out of the equation), then socialism becomes more efficient than capitalism. The only problem is that those committed to capitalism control the lion's share of the resources, and that is one mountain of inertia that has to be broken.
A friend of mine states that the problem lies in our cultural conditioning based on the assumed axiom "thou shalt not steal" as opposed to "thou shalt not own".
Capitalism can never be green and it is the natural extension of private ownership...
Way up above, NMBill said:
Until we quit promoting population growth through capitalist inspired government programs, world wide, we will continue to encroach on remaining habitat for wildlife!
Interesting point, and you may be interested in the views on the subject left by a commenter on my blog:
Link to those
Population growth and capitalism are linked, but I don't think it has to be that way. We can change it.
http://growthmadness.org/
It's OK if the Conservatives/Republicans want to do something Green or Environmentally beneficial... just make sure it's real and not fake with a phony label on it, and don't believe their fake moves.
Also logical that corporations will never be the ones to fully implement fully environmentally responsible policies.
So we may see Real Green/Environmentalism alongside Fake Green/Environmentalism, just as we now see some Green Parties genuinely continuing their original purpose, while others have sold out and been taken over within... or Real Democracy alongside Fake Democracy, etc.
Remember to note the difference.
Getting over the Capitalism/Socialism black-and-white tension dichotomy may be necessary. For example the policies of Roosevelt (ahead of their time) actually worked well, were a good start in the right direction, and were only criticized by greedpigs like Wendell Willkie (and Prescott Bush) who was so POed that the rich had to make concessions and give up some of their excessive and wasted surplus of wealth and power that fed their fat egos.
Shouldn't it be obvious that Reago-Bush-Thatcher-Sarko-nomics are just a way for the privileged 'elite' to recover the old social order that justifies their misguided belief in in their own superiority?
Also remember that Socialism never was perfected to being as functional as it was idealized... so it needs some reworking, and not of the crypto-fascist sort.
I think part of the solution is to really think outside the old box and look for new paradigms. The weak and dependent masses battling with the well-armed rich is a paradigm that went nowhere, in and of itself.
Are we ever likely to be totally rid of the toehold of the Oil/Railroad/Wallstreet Barons that now run the USA?
Localization, strengthening of local autonomy, personal empowerment (in the real sense, not as a buzzword).
I can think of few places were 'Think globally, Act locally' applies and was ahead of its time.
Without economic self-reliance and local autonomy, coupled with awareness of and adaptation to the world all around us, we cannot defeat the age-old feudal monster that has ripped our planet and environment to pieces.
While doing this, remember that corporations have continually tried to buy out or shut down alternate energy/transportation/foods enterprises and cooperatives... you have to be on guard and operate defensively while progressing with a positive outlook.
Americans, West Europeans, Japanese, Australians are eventually going to have to give up extravagance and start to respect the needs of the rest of the world, and that is a key part of Environmental responsibility.
As is the passive resignation to dehumanized corporations continuing to run over us. As much as possible, stop supporting them, and stop buying from them, and actively encourage others to see how important this is... that's a big start.
Reviving some of the values of the movements for social change of the 1960s and 1970s, but without the (self-neutralizing) drugs and alienating costumes and other self-defeating attitudes and practices.
Someone wrote here that: "Capitalism has nothing to do with ecology or natural resources. Capitalism is not the problem, consumption is the problem....Our future is our responsibility, not the responsibility of industry...."
Does this mean capitalism and capitalists/industrialists are just fine--only consumers are to blame? What BS!
We don't even have much choice on what to consume. We can't buy unaltered food, drink clean water or, soon, even plant natual seeds in soil with no DDT. Although I want to buy local organic produce, the only grocery store here refuses to stock any of it. The guy would rather drag in sprayed and altered crap from 1400 miles away!
People should realize there is no such thing as "profit"; that capitalists cannot create "wealth" except by exploiting the commonwealth already there (our soil, trees, fish, minerals, people, animals, etc.). By taking much more than their share, much more than is sustainable, capitalists are creating the crisis. Over-population exacerbates the problems.
Consumers are also brainwashed by corporations on what to buy, for whom to vote,etc. Ads, unfortunately, work all too well! So capitalists/industrialists are far from innocent bystanders. They are the main players in the destruction of the planet.
No. Of course not. But there is a lot we can do right now.
http://www.freepublictransit.org
Environmentalist Edward Abbey perceptively wrote, "Growth for growth's sake is the ideology of the cancer cell." Not only has cancer risen to become a leading killer in an indtrustrialized world, but it itself is a symptom of a true cancer, Capitalism, which literally eats itself.
Another environmentalist, David Brower, wrote, "The marketplace is a dismal failure at telling us what the earth is worth. You can start with a simple question: What's a tree worth?...I don't have the answer to the question. The marketplace tells us what a tree is worth as pulp or two-by-fours; it doesn't say anything about the impact of the forest as a bank of carbon dioxide, or its role in freeing oxygen - which we humans like to use, don't we?"
Why am I quoting these two environmentalists? To argue with their own words that capitalism cannot be made greener. Capitalism cannot reform itself. Reformist capitalism has lead directly to where we are today, when most of the reforms and historic gains made have already been rolled back. No, if capitalism is a cancer, the only way to treat it is to eradicate it utterly; otherwise, it will come back, and always leads to death. The Green Party has failed wherever it came into power - Germany and New Zealand are two examples - to oppose capitalism, imperialism or war. The Green Party wants to "save capitalism from itself," by applying band-aids to cover over the cancer. It can't, and won't, and hasn't, worked. Greens need to realize this, if they are truly committed to saving the planet, all life on this planet, and a system in which man can live within it, without destroying/consuming it.
Article Quote: "Capitalism is all about accumulation of wealth based on the consumption of natural resources, whose availability is strictly limited, he said."
This article skews the fundamental definition of capitalism. Capitalism is "an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state". "Capitalism" has nothing to do with ecology or natural resources. Capitalism is not the problem, consumption is the problem.
Example: An industry that clones humans could be profitable (vital organ harvesting), but we as a society will not allow human cloning at this time because we believe it to be immoral. Based on this example we could assume that "one day" an industry that disregards environment factors (such as resources) while manufacturing goods for profit can be immoral and unacceptable. In other words we would not buy products and services from irresponsible industries.
Article Quote: "true prosperity is possible only when income disparity between the rich and poor is small."
I would think that "true prosperity" exists when the middle and poor classes no longer exist.
I agree with the article's comments on our current industry, but the article neglects one major facet of capitalism. Capitalism is closely tied to consumption and consumers control the market. So, capitalism is not Green because our consumption is not Green.
Our future is our responsibility, not the responsibility of industry. Use less and make choices that benefit the entire planet, capitalism will follow your example.
Happy Mother's Day and greetings to our Great Mother Earth. I have respect and love for this planet we share. For every action there is an reaction, equal to or greater than the action. I think we should keep this rule in mind.
Alas, I am but one mere person who struggles every week against the others here locally. These others are mainly comprised of business owners and stupid people. School enrollment down, oh god, we have to bring in more people. When they ought to be glad that the general public is having fewer children. They have always had the money to go bigger, once big they don't know how to go smaller. Employment problems, logging down and didn't see that one coming. Well, why don't we get a Federal prison or military base, that's their answer. They say we have the wrong kind of people living here, to much of the population is retired, older, and seasonable. Their solution is to bring in 20 to 30 young wealthy families. Of course, they aren't concerned about the impact of property taxes that have already sky rocketed. I asked at the last meeting, if they were going to tell the 20 to 30 wealthy families that they're trying to intice to live here about the Federal prison that they have been seeking for the area. By golly, if looks could kill. I started out here 30 years ago and lived in a tent. Damn I get tired of this shit, but I just can't sit back and let it happen. I also know that the majority feel the way I do, they just don't attend the fucking meetings. I guess I'm doing community service, and it's not court ordered, ha ha.
Today I'm going to go play with some ground, have a good one.
Nobody has the right to befoul our nest. It's time for us to demand that the politicians work for the people. The other model of them working for the rich does not work. It's a pathetic farce. We need strict laws that will put polluters in jail. They may have tons of money, but that doesn't give them the right to pour filth into our water and air. Also, to hell with them buying and selling credits. If rude dogs befoul our nest, then they can go to jail (or be sentenced to decades of community service).
Capitalism can never be green, nor remotely democratic--even if there were such a thing as a literate, intelligent and aware populace. Socialism may be a lot better, but, really, it hasn't been tried anywhere except in some First Nations' societies. Let's face it, we don't really own the land we bought anymore than we can buy the air we breathe. Same with water. A flood or earthquake can change everything--even remove it all. Nothing is permanent. At best, we have bought timeshares on the land we "own". What we need most of all is population control. No more new people, period, for 5 years, at least. Even 2 billion people are too many for other species to survive. We must treat greed for what it is--an obsessive-complusive disorder and a criminally insane offense. We must live somewhat like the North American First Nations lived way back when--totally organic and totally in balance with nature. In most places, they did not breed beyond the land's ability to provide. They had a unique philosophy that humans were in the middle, not on top, of the food chain, worth no more than a whale or raven. All other philosophies have Man in charge--a poor situation for survival of all living things.
Hello all: You all know that right-wingers are evil, and left-wingers are good, well the thing is this: i just wanna warn you about the fucking reactionary fascist economist writters of the site www.financialsense.com i thought it was a cool objective scientific site, but it's not, it's full of war-mongers elitists who think that they are smart, and anti-Bush, but they are just full of economists hungry for money and self-pride and not into any objective writting
The capitalist system needs to be honest about the accounting equation they live by. It's missing something altogether. Assets = Liability + Owners' Equity
Assets being the planet as it should be.
Liability being what we have taken without paying back.
Owner's Equity is what we as inhabitants (all life on earth) have left.
So capitalism as practiced is a big lie, they are only leading us to believe half of the equation is all that exists.
Individuals should have the right to own and manage their own personal property; corporations on the other hand should NO LONGER HAVE THE SAME LEGAL STATUS AS A PERSON.
Knowledge of government and industry should be open to discussion instead of hidden as it is now.
rtdrury wrote:
xntrk, capitalism is like a hammer. You can put it to work doing constructive things or it can be made to wreak destruction. The reason we let capitalism loose on its rampage is because we don't know any better. Americans were taught to stop thinking so we could be made into consumption slaves. Of course, the people may emancipate themselves at any time and become responsible citizens. More and more are doing it.
I reply: No, capitalism is not "like a hammer." What you are pushing here is a kind of consumerist narcissism: the illusion that we the people can control capitalism merely by making better purchasing choices. That's nonsense. As Jaded Prole and others have said, we need to plan collectively,not purchase individually, if we are to reach a sustainable future. When we purchase as individuals merely, within the capitalist system, we become easily manipulable by those who have the power within such an economy. When we plan collectively, within a socialist society (not to be confused with the bureaucratic monstrosity that the Bolsheviks created), we become wise and powerful: sustainable.
Capitalism by its very nature exploits nature, exploits human beings, concentrates wealth and decisionmaking power into profit-mad addicts who don't give a damn about the next generation. They are merely looking for their next fix, in terms of profit going into their coffers.
Glad to hear the skeptics call into question the logic of green capitalism.
Green capitalism seems to be a reflection of the plastic surgery mentality produced by capitalism itself--a makeover that might create a short term 'fix' without a sustainable solution to the built-in inequality and ecological violence that capitalism has thrived on since its early stages of devlopment laid its foundations over 500 years ago.
Seems to me that if enough of us could just find ways to create an open-ended critical dialogue about capitalism it would certainly be a step in the right direction. As of now the word is rarely mentioned because its so taken-for-granted as 'normal' and 'natural'. How often does the media do a story that actually calls into question a system that organizes the world around profiteering?
Theories of utopiam green capitalism are delusional. The basic reason capitalism can never be environmentally sustainable is that any such set-up, to be effective, must involve a great deal of social (even central) planning and control and that in itself runs counter to the "free market" ideology.
We need to move on to sustainable socialist models that work best for us. This may include small private businesses that adhere to social controls but the big things: energy, transportation, housing, etc must be publicly owned and run in a sustainable way. Just as factories are re-tooled for new products, our society must go through a period of re-tooling for a new global reality if it is to survive.
As distasteful as it may be for some to speak of population control, it is truly at the root of the problem of keeping this planet alive. This world can only handle so many beings. There is only so much arable land for agriculture. There is only so much air to breath and water to drink.
Naturally, we can and should do all possible with the advances in technology and direct them toward recycling and reusing what we can. And of course, we have to submit to the fact that oil is not the answer to anything anymore. We need - must - truly move toward renewable energy sources. Nuclear energy is not one of those sources.
After admitting that only so many beings can inhabit a finite area with finite resources, we need to go after the parasites of this world that care only for themselves and money. The largest group of such leeches is the oil industry. They are literally killing us and the planet. They are responsible for the vast majority of wars today as well.
With all their money and capital, any one of these companies could "retool" and turn their wealth toward advancing new forms of clean and renewable energy. In Pittsburgh, PA., when the steel industry collapsed, the city struggled for years to find new ways to continue existing, rather than becoming a ghost town. It's still not one of our wealthier cities, but it is still a city, dedicating much of its energies toward the science of medicine and becoming a corporate headquarters of sorts. And today, the air is much cleaner as are the rivers; and you can't stare at the sun any longer, like I could as a child in the sixties.
And without the need for war to secure the remaining oil on the planet, the military – industrial complex could also "retool" and use their vast knowledge and expertise toward positive and constructive ends, just as the oil companies could.
Finally, and especially here in the USA, we need to reeducate ourselves and our children. We need to change from a wasteful, consumer lifestyle to a lifestyle more in tune with nature. There is really no alternative. The billions of years this planet has existed are full of reminders of societies and animals that lived beyond their means. When push came to shove, Mother Nature set things right again. Mother Nature will do so again if we continue on our present course. The future is in our hands – for now.
I know this all sounds like a pipe dream, but I also believe it is a very real possibility. The idea of a "common wealth" such as forests, air, and water is an idea well past time we consider seriously. No company, nation, or group, should ever be permitted to control any of these natural resources as something that can be owned: it belongs to all of us, rich or poor.
My final question is this: where are the world's major religions? I hear nothing but silence from those who preach about caring for all. Imagine if the world's major religions stepped into the debate and began to exert their considerable influence on nations and governments? The much smaller environmental groups truly fighting this imperative need for change can only do so much. Where are those who can really begin to effect immediate change on a world wide scale? Are they also the parasites?
Sweet waters from a bitter fountain
Monetary Reform for the United States
By Richard C. Cook
This money power is not only the most governing and influential, but it is also the most unjust and deceitful of all earthly powers. It entails upon millions excessive toil, poverty and want, while it keeps them ignorant of the cause of their sufferings; for, with their tacit consent, it silently transfers a large share of their earnings into the hands of others, who have never lifted a finger to perform any productive labor.
Follow the link for the rest of the article.
http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/1359/1/
In the US huge investments are made to push the costs of energy and other inputs down to levels that encourage terrible waste, while addicting consumers to convenience and extravagance. In most industries the US has led the way in wasting resources, driven by Greenspan's "economic growth at all cost".
Let's limit the human population to something sustainable, let's also limit consumption to something reasonable, without addictions, ridiculous extravagance, etc. And while we're at it, let's make our production methods highly efficient and sustainable.
xntrk, capitalism is like a hammer. You can put it to work doing constructive things or it can be made to wreak destruction. The reason we let capitalism loose on its rampage is because we don't know any better. Americans were taught to stop thinking so we could be made into consumption slaves. Of course, the people may emancipate themselves at any time and become responsible citizens. More and more are doing it.
Reading Leahy's essay, I kept expecting the author to break out of what appeared to be deliberately inchoate musings about the need for an alternative to runnaway corporatism/capitalism with something like "it's socialism, stupid!" But, alas, Leahy seems not to have noticed the past 150 years of comparative (political) economic theory!
Do you think they can figure out a way to make money UNscrewing the environment? If so, then capitalism could go "green." It's kind of like peace. It would happen if there were any money in it.
Sorry, I think his name is Tanaro, not Tanuro, if you want to browse for it.
Capitalism will not be the system that gets the environment healthy again. To even contemplate such a contradiction in terms makes me dizzy...
Capitalism pits one person against another, encouraging waste thru mindless competition. Better to destroy something I cannot use then let a competitor benefit...
Even tho it is a loaded term, until we rebuild the community, each of us helping to enrich the group, we won't be able to achieve the goal of maintaining human life along with the rest of the beings who share this limited environment with us.
I live on an Island. There is a finite amount of land, and damned few energy sources that aren't renewable [wind, solar, and geo-thermal] Yet, we import both oil and coal to generate electricity. It's nuts.
We have terrible traffic problems, the most expensive gasoline in the country, yet the planners talk more highways instead of rail. I think Capitalism has burned out the logic boards in our brains.
OTOH, it brings in lots of money for the developers and wealthy elite - Many of whom are absentee landlords.
Yeah, Community! Unions! All for One and One for ALL!
I need help! I think I've crossed the line from Socialism to Communism. Now I'll have to worry about godless dictators destroying our Democracy...
Well actually it is green. It's just the wrong kind of green. :)
Can Capitalism Be Green?
No.
Here's one thing I don't get. These oil barons must be real SOB's because you'd think that someone would have made a killing from coming up with a clean, harmless, cheap alternative to gasoline and would have had it on the market by now. I'm not talking electric cars either.
Like, why are we still burning coal for God's sake? Windmills? Hello?
It's almost as if the people who control those industries just don't want to give it up. Haven't they made enough damn money? I guess as long as they're making money, they don't care if they're killing the planet and making things harder for most other people. They probably have plans for their heirs to live in big impermeable domes or something.
Semantics: Can one have development, otherwise known as progress/change, while being sustainable, otherwise known as stasis or no change regressive or progressive? Can progress be limited to the sort of natural progress associated with an organism's growth and development, which of course has its eventual end in entropy and death?
An example: Fire/energy. Eventually the finite minerals used to create fire/energy will be exhausted causing a natural regression rendering our current way of existence extinct. What market signals exist to inform capitalists of the need to change the current paradigm and avoid calamity? I would argue that no such market signal exists. Given the current profit levels of such mineral extraction, the current signal is to produce as much as possible now to capitalize on the current high price. The only thought to savings in such operations are related to how to lower the costs of extraction on through the retail level. WalMart's recent decision to go "green" is related to just such a thought process. The only reason we are seeing some action on the energy front is because civil society is raising its voice in opposition to how the owners of the means of production are using their property. So, we see PR based moves like BP's new moniker "Beyond Petroleum" but nothing much beyond that. The same can be said for the "Iron Triangle" existing between Congress, the Auto, and Oil industries regarding fuel mileage, for example. The only logical answer for the longterm is to regress/curtail our energy demand before such regression is forced. Can it be progressive to be regressive?
There are other nuts to crack, but the energy dilemma and its corollary climate change are certainly the most urgent. To solve both, the dominant political economy must be jetisoned. For that to occur, there must be a revolution on a scale the planet has yet to see.
Hopefully humanity will destroy capitalism before capitalism destroys humanity. Or is it already too late? Perhaps the answer will be found in a life of contemplation.
I think capitalism provides little incentive to be environmentally responsible. I'm all for a "third way", but it always seems that capitalism is that beast that always eventually runs amok despite trying to tame it.
What we need is a balance of all the 'isms.
We need an informed people who make wise buying decisions.
I used to be 4 miles from the nearest person, now I hear bulldozers on three sides of me constantly churning away. To me it represents what's happening to the planet.
I choose my fights wisely, these developers are trying to be green but believe in the bulldozer, much to my dismay. Why? Because of the competition! This is what sells! This makes the most money for investors!
For the individual, I believe in "private ownership" whole-heartedly, it's the libertarian view that if you own it you will take care of it. The problem is that it's only an investment in the capitalist mindset, and it's being done on a massive scale! WORLD WIDE
Capitalism is like a hammer; you can build with it or destroy with it, what we need is MEDIA REFORM!
My holistic view is Who Really Owns the Earth?
Check out the following article by Daniel Tanuro, a Belgian Trotskyist and professional ecologist, for
International Viewpoint Online magazine : IV387 - March 2007:
"The devil makes the saucepans, but not the lids"
Defence of the climate and anti-capitalism
at (all of the following should be placed in your browser, don't get confused by any line break imposed by the margins here):
http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/
spip.php?article1233
Some great comments in this thread.
proutist_in_bklyn, thanks for that link. Proutism looks quite promising. I'll definitely look into it.
- John
http://growthmadness.org/
Imagine how much more carbon dioxide will be blown into the air by keeping lit the computer screens of all the lurkers reading these lines. Got the message?
The best option is an alternative known as Proutism. It is an alternative to both capitalism and communism that was developed by an Indian economist and philosopher in the late 1950's.
Proutism is a cooperative and community based economic system that works because it takes man spiritual nature into account. Rather than relying on consumerism and greed as its driving force Prout (which stands for Progressive Utilisation Theory) uses cooperatives and localised government to create community structures that are self-reliant.
You can read more about the theory on this site:
www.prout.org
Common Wealth Trusts and a Green Capitalism would be a great remedy for a more sustainable future for our little planet.
It could be possible if the people of the world could end the war Economy so that "terrorism" and all the wars do not monopolize our political life.
I think even the most radical terrorist would give up suicidal killing and the big superpowers would give up their brand of terrorism too if the people of the planet could somehow organize and begin the effort for a better future.
The political right will call it socialism (evil in there minds) and the political left will call it (selling out to capitalism) and that is why it is a great idea because it leaves the old straw men of the two systems behind.
Since all economies are a mix of public and private ownership, this is a great idea and I hope it can become a movement forward. We have been moving backward long enough.
Well, unfortunately for NMBill, private property is the real basis for the environmental problems we face. To assume, as Bill and so many other Americans do, that it should be an individual's "right" to OWN a piece of land, or a factory, or whatever, is metaphysical and highly irresponsible nonsense, a leftover from 18th century political economy, and nineteenth century Social Darwinism. Enmeshed as the wealthy are in a competitive market system, as Joel Kovel points out in THE ENEMY OF NATURE, there is not much likeliehood that they will stop their ecologically destructive corporate practices.
Unfortunately the author is almost just as hazy as is Bill. What will ensure that these "common trusts" he talks about will NOT act in their own private/national/corporate private interest?
Let's just face it here and now. To save the planet, we need socialism: the democratic control of the means of production (including land) by the workers, and eventually, as classes fade out alltogether, by all of humanity.
Put a price on land and you make nature a whore. Who buys for the wildlife? Who can afford the most land?: those who whore it the most.
So down the whoreward spiral we go until humans are factory farmed.
Is stopping possible? No.
sustainable development is just another way of saying capitalism
Until we quit promoting population growth through capitalist inspired government programs, world wide, we will continue to encroach on remaining habitat for wildlife!
Comes the problem of "Private Property". I'm the last one to want to tell someone how to use his or her land. I would hope wealthy people would stop buying bulldozed acreage and prefer having sustainable houses with as much habitat as possible left in tact.
The benefit is having wildlife visit. Quit fencing off everything!
"Can Capitalism Be Green?"
NO.
By the way, I'm intrigued by the "steady state economy" idea promoted by Brian Czech and mentioned in the article, and recently wrote an introductory piece on it. I intend to write a couple more articles on it in the coming months. What do others here think of it?
Also, what about the co-op model? I'm reading the book, Market, Schmarket: Building the Post-Capitalist Economy by Molly Scott Cato, and that's part of the solution she proposes. Apparently, in the UK, cooperative economic networks were once much bigger and she sees the potential for a resurgence. Here's a link to that:
http://www.gaianeconomics.org/schmarket.htm
I also like the idea of "commons trusts" mentioned at the end of the article.
http://growthmadness.org/
This is an interesting and refreshing article. Few people dare to utter the phrase: "ratchet our economic growth downwards". However, it is incredibly naive to think commonwealth trusts would work. We have an agency called the EPA. It has a lovely ring to it, yet it protects nothing.
My definition of capitalism:
There is a contest to see who can be the first to render the Earth uninhabitable. The winner gets a million dollars, or make that a billion trillion dollars.
The Earth's resources must be priced commensurate with their value. If gasoline were $10 a gallon, we would quickly adapt and be actually happier than we are now with traffic jams and rampant consumerism. The same goes for water and electricity. A few laws could change everything if our leaders had the courage.