Does capitalism cause climate change?

[ellenrr]

I came across this statement from Climate and Capitalism.com:

"Like other global crises, climate change arises principally from historically unequal economic and social structures, from practices and policies promoted by rich, industrialized countries, and from systems of production and consumption that sacrifice the needs of the many to the interests of a few."
http://climateandcapitalism.com/2013/03/30/global-campaign-to-demand-climate-justice/

My response is:
Climate change is a result of a complex intermingling of factors but some of the basic factors are: carbon dioxide produced by autos and coal-burning plants, and methane produced by factory farms. So it is possible to envision a world of social and economic equality where everyone drives a car and eats hamburgers, and derives energy from coal. So- altho capitalism certainly exacerbates climate change - it doesn't cause it.

What do you think?

[napoleon_in_rags]

1. You're right.

There's a substantial legacy of environmental damage in USSR including things like Chernobyl. Politicizing the problem in that way makes a hard problem even harder.

[CRH]

2. Individual human activity multiplied by total global population, ...

has caused a global heating episode that is now systemically fueling and sustaining the heating. The 'warming' and changing climate are a natural reaction of systemic heating.

The type of government and economy, Capitalism vs communism vs socialism vs fascism, matters little. Nature is non political, Venezuelan oil produces the same CO2 as Exxon.

It is --- human activity X population --- that generates the pollution causing today's crisis. Human activity includes agriculture, transportation, industry, housing, Nascar, or typing on a computer. Even a spartan existence times 7.5 billion units, equals anthropogenic climate altering change.

[pscot]

3. Population, population, population

[ellenrr]

4. I agree. Population is a huge problem but what do you do about it?

an individual can choose to not reproduce, but what about other people - do you force them, persuade them, shame them....

pay them, as they did in China I think.

[pscot]

5. I don't see there's much anyone can do about population

Ultimately, the problem creates it's own solution. When a species overshoots the carrying capacity of its range, population collapse, or dieback, happens.

[stuntcat]

8. and since our range is the entire planet ..

and our existence depends on all the LIFE covering the planet, then our species is like a cancer killing it's only host.

[pscot]

10. Cancer has no choice

It does what it's programmed to do. We like to think we have the freedom to choose, but I wonder if that's true. If we really had a choice would we be doing what we're doing? We seem to be as much driven by biological imperatives as any colony of rabbits or lemmings. Whatever the truth, we've set ouselves up for a world of pain.

[ellenrr]

11. replying to #8 and #5

I agree that humans are like a cancer, killing their only home. but then I agree with psco too.
Yesterday at a talk I gave on Deep Ecology, an audience member said, "We are only doing what we do." I'm paraphrasing, she said it better than that. but it was to the effect that humans can only be human.

It felt like a ray of light when she said that. Bec. I have a lot of anger, contempt and hatred for the human species, due to what they do to the earth and non-human animals.

hearing her say that, I felt some of all this negative energy that I have, lift and lighten.
I always looked at it like humans were deliberately stupid and evil, and I see that may not be the case.

[pscot]

15. At our best, we're fully human

At our best we are reasoning, empathetic creatures. Sadly, the norm is considerably less than our best. The ferals are in charge, and they're going to take us all dowm.

[One_Life_To_Give]

16. Reminds me of Asimov's Psychohistory, in the foundation series

For all our purported individuality and choice. Collectively we are governed by a fixed set of equations. Incapable of changing the inevitable.

[wtmusic]

6. Would socialism prevent it?

Capitalism is also what funds carbon-free energy sources. The idea that a socialist China would emit no greenhouse gases is farfetched.

"Sunlight" is one of the more direct causes.

I think people will blame whatever lets them off the hook (since you asked). Some arbitrarily stop at "population", although of course there's no direct connection. It allows people to admit people are to blame, while pushing it off on the third world.

It's all those other people.

[limpyhobbler]

7. yep

Since capitalism is the name of our global economy, I'll say yes.

Climate change is chemistry and physics so any form of economic organization could cause climate change by emitting greenhouse gasses and cutting down trees.

But we do have a particularly dominant form of economic organization and it does cause some problems.

• We have massive inequality and the most powerful people are a privileged super-elite. The elite class is relatively safe and isolated from the dangers posed by climate change. They won't drown in a hurricane and they won't suffer from a lack of food. Because they have a lot of money. The decision makers don't have a personal incentive to do anything that helps the masses of people because their fate is relatively separate. That goes for any issue, including the climate change issue. And that's function of the inequality.
  
  
• Coal and oil companies use vast accumulated wealth to exert power over the government, the media, the universities, and public opinion. I think it would be a mistake not to recognize these powerful profit-driven interests affect how we respond to climate change.
  
  
• Can you believe capitalists have actually funded climate denial think tanks? They actually fund university professors to create science reports they want to see and then they fund politicians to appoint those professors into the government. Then they pay the media to either lie about it or ignore it.
  
  
• Insanely, global capitalism depends on constant growth to keep the system operating. It has to keep expanding. Can you believe capitalists actually measure the health of their system by GDP? When the GDP grows slower than 3% capitalists consider that a failure. I heard the recession was actually one of the reasons US carbon emissions went down a little bit. I doubt whether a constantly expanding system is compatible with life on a planet of finite resources. By the capitalists' own measures of the health of their system, it seems that whenever capitalism thrives, the climate suffers.
  

At this point a little non-capitalism could help. We could nationalize all US coal and oil companies. Lets' ban them from advertising/propagandizing on the TV. Redirect 100% of coal and oil profits to build clean energy, enforce conservation and efficiency, and adapt society for a sustainable way of life on a warmer planet. No one should profit from the destruction of our habitat.

Any society that emits greenhouse gases is causing climate change.

Yes - it is possible to envision an imaginary world of social and economic equality where everyone drives a car and eats hamburgers, and derives energy from coal - but that would be imaginary world.

In our particular world we have global capitalism as the system that governs most of our economic activity, so this system can take the blame. On the parallel earth with global socialism we can go there and blame socialism.

(my 2 cents, YMMV)

[ellenrr]

12. i agree. Yesterday on the news I heard a report that

american capitalist exploiters were upset cuz China's rate of growth is 7%, and that the US doesn't have that rate. it is appalling that they don't get it. Growth is the enemy not the solution.

But that is a state of mind. I don't think that is an economic/political ideology. I think it goes much deeper.

You can look at the Soviet Union and its satellites (if you consider that socialism or communism - some people don't) - the countries formerly under the sway of USSR were horrible to the environment. China is one of the worst polluters in the world.

I think the assault on the Earth is deepr than capitalism or socialism. I think it arises from the fact that we have become alienated from our home and think that we are independent beings who have no need of and have no relation to the mountains, the rivers, etc. That is why I like the Deep Ecology approach that we are all part of the web of life.

re the comment re population - to clarify --
when I speak of exploding population growth I am not using that as an excuse to slam 3rd world peoples. It is well known that one person in the US has a carbon footprint several times as large as someone in the underdeveloped world. And we all know that the eco-catastrophe was created by the so-called first world, and the so-called third world is the one paying the price.

[limpyhobbler]

17. yes

I really agree with that.

Also labels like capitalism and socialism may have limited value since people don't always agree on the meanings. I usually just call the whole global economy capitalism, with a few pockets of socialist experimentation.

I don't think the USSR can be held responsible for climate change because during the time they existed there wasn't really as much consensus and awareness about the urgency of climate change.

Looking at China, my guess is their per capita carbon footprint, and their total carbon footprint, skyrocketed after the introduction of capitalist reforms in the 1980's and continuing through to today. For me China is capitalist because they make all that stuff at Walmart. China is where capitalists build factories and employ production workers. They are integrated into global (capitalist) economy through the WTO and other arrangements.

On the other hand if you look at Venezuela, it wants to be socialist, and their economy is based on oil. On the other-other hand, they are mostly selling oil to fuel the demand from capitalist economies. But they are also using the oil money to fund social programs like health and education. It's bad news because they seem pretty addicted to it. Venezuela should start changing it's economy to get away from oil.

Then we have capitalist countries like Germany and Norway that many people consider leaders on climate change policy. On the other hand those countries also have some socialistic aspects in the way their economies are organized. It may be that because they don't have as much influence from private oil companies, they are able to take more steps to address climate.

The picture is not so clear cut. I think you're right the root cause is not any ideology. It's caused by greenhouse gas emissions. I also say it's caused by people who try to block needed changes just so they can get money. Even if they have a good goal for what to do with that money, such as funding health programs in Venezuela, or for other such purposes.

[ellenrr]

18. I agree - not so clear cut

China! When they can see the results of autos and coal-burning plants. And still continue down that path:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/04/02/176017887/chinas-air-pollution-linked-to-millions-of-early-deaths

Over a million premature deaths due to pollution.

but not to worry. The govt is taking this "very seriously"- they've put in place a monitoring system. ! When eyes start to smart, and throat gets raspy as soon as you enter cities in China, I would say it is beyond the point of monitoring.

[cprise]

9. Capitalism indeed causes it

...in the sense that it makes people care primarily about money (a man-made abstraction); If something doesn't rate in the money system (individuals reacting in self-interest to corporate schemes), then it is rendered essentially worthless and will eventually be put in the path of the "development" juggernaut.

That is why it is folly to teach people to "help" by "saving money on your energy bill" because it conditions them to reject some worthwhile opportunities for reducing carbon emissions. So in some ways they will increase efficiency, but in other ways they will undermine that by favoring policy decisions that will keep their monthly bills low. We undermine our ability to reach the goal by censoring the goal (lower carbon emissions) out of the advice and the propaganda we supply, and we censor in order to make some aspect of our message palatable to capitalist sensibilities.

And no, socialism is not the opposite of capitalism. It doesn't help to look at the problem through any dualistic lens. However, those places where socialism has some cache are where people are more likely to accept shared or political responsibility for reaching ecological goals.

[ellenrr]

13. good point:

"However, those places where socialism has some cache are where people are more likely to accept shared or political responsibility for reaching ecological goals."

[ellenrr]

14. more on this: if you see the movies about Cuba

The Accidental Eden
and
power of community

both great films, both show how people pitch in together in the face of crises in a way that cannot happen in the US for example, where we have no tradition of collective action.