[ad_1]
It’s time to face the fact that resolving the climate crisis will require a fundamental shift away from our growth-based, corporate-dominated global system.
Originally published October 9, 2021 in Salon
Global discussions on climate change have, for the most, ignored the elephant in their room. That’s strange, because this particular elephant is so large, obvious, and all-encompassing that politicians and executives must contort themselves to avoid naming it publicly. That elephant is called capitalism, and it is high time to face the fact that, as long as capitalism remains the dominant economic system of our globalized world, the climate crisis won’t be resolved.
The stakes are greater than ever as the critical UN climate talks known at COP26 draw near in early November. The daily news now includes ominous warnings about future climate shocks caused by droughts, wildfires, and floods. Yet, governments are not. They fail to meet their emissions pledges from the Paris agreement six years ago, which were themselves acknowledged to be inadequate. Respected Earth scientists are warning more about the consequences of this, and not just about the. Climate change can have devastating consequences on our daily lives, but about the Possible collapse of civilization itself unless we drastically change direction.
The elephant in the room
And yet, even as humanity faces perhaps the greatest existential crisis in its species’ history, the public debate on climate barely mentions the underlying economic system that brought us to this point and which continues to drive us toward the precipice. Ever since its emergence in the seventeenth century, with the creation of the first limited liability shareholder-owned corporations, capitalism has been premised on viewing the planet as a resource to exploit — its overriding objective to maximize profits from that exploitation as rapidly and extensively as possible. Current mainstream strategies to solve our twin crises (climate breakdown and ecological overshoot) without changing the underlying structure of global growth-based capitalism are structurally flawed.
The idea of “green growth” is promulgated by many development consultants, and is even incorporated in the UN’s official plan for “sustainable development,” but has been It was shown to be an illusion. Ecomodernists and other people who stand to benefit from growth in the short term are often called Ecomodernists. Arguments that, through technological innovation, aggregate global economic output can become “absolutely decoupled” from resource use and carbon emissions — permitting limitless growth on a finite planet. Careful and thorough analysis, though, shows that this hasn’t happened so far, and even the most wildly aggressive assumptions for greater efficiency would still lead to unsustainable consumption of global resources.
This is due to the very nature of capitalism. Under capitalism — which has now become the default global economic context for virtually all human enterprise — efficiency improvements intended to reduce resource usage inevitably become launchpads for further exploitation, leading paradoxically to an increase, rather than decrease, in consumption.
This dynamic, known as the Jevons paradox, was first recognized back in the nineteenth century by economist William Stanley Jevons, who demonstrated how James Watts’ steam engine, which greatly improved the efficiency of coal-powered engines, paradoxically caused a dramatic increase in coal consumption even while it decreased the amount of coal required for any particular application. The Jevons paradox is now proven to be true in many domains, starting with the invention of the cotton Gin in the nineteenth-century. This led to an increase in rather than decrease in the practice of slavery in the American South, to improved automobile fuel efficiency which Encourages people driving longer distances.
When the Jevons paradox is generalized to the global marketplace, we begin to see that it’s not really a paradox at all, but rather an inbuilt defining characteristic of capitalism. As the primary agents of global capitalism’s success, shareholder-owned corporations are legally structured to maximize shareholder returns. Although they are given the legal rights of “personhood” in many jurisdictions, if they were actually humans they would be Psychopaths diagnosedThey are relentless in pursuing their goals, regardless of any collateral damage. The 100 largest economies in the world today are: Sixty-nine percent are transnational companiesThey are a constant force with which to be reckoned. One overriding goalTo turn the rest of humanity and all life into profit at an unstoppable rate.
Global capitalism is a system that allows this dynamic to hold even without the involvement transnational corporations. Consider bitcoin as an example. Originally designed after the global financial meltdown of 2008 to wrest monetary power from the domination of central banks, it relies on building trust through “mining,” a process that allows anyone to verify a transaction by solving increasingly complex mathematical equations and earn new bitcoins as compensation. A great idea — in theory. In practice, the unfettered marketplace for bitcoin mining has led to frenzied competition to solve ever more complex equations, with vast warehouses holding “rigs” of advanced computers consuming massive amounts of electricity, with the result that the carbon emissions from bitcoin processing These are now equivalent to the size of a country in the middle of the scale such as Sweden or Argentina.
An economy that is based on constant growth
The relentless pursuit of profit growth above all other considerations is reflected in the world’s stock markets, where corporations are valued not by their benefit to society, but by investors’ expectations of their growth in future earnings. The main proxy that is used to assess the performance of politicians when aggregated with national accounts is their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth. It is often assumed that GDP correlates to social welfare. This is not the case once basic material requirements have been met. GDP simply measures the rate at which society transforms natural and human activity into the economy. It does not consider the quality of life. GDP is any type of economic activity, regardless of its quality, that results in economic activity. Researchers created a benchmark called Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) that incorporates qualitative components of well being. A dramatic divergence was discovered between the two measures. GPI reached its peak in 1978. It has been steadily falling since then, while GDP continues to increase.
Since 1978, Genuine Progress has been declining even as GDP continues to rise. Credit: Kubiszewski and co., Beyond GDP: Measuring global genuine progress
Despite this, the possibility that our economy could shift away from perpetual growth is not even mentioned in mainstream discourse. In preparation for COP26, the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Five scenarios were modeled exploring potential pathways that would lead to different global heating outcomes this century, ranging from an optimistic 1.5°C pathway to a likely catastrophic 4.5°C track. One of the most important variables is the amount carbon reduction achieved through negative emissions, which relies on massive implementations of unproven technologies. According to the IPCC, staying under 2°C of global heating — consistent with the minimum target set by the 2015 Paris agreement — involves a heroic assumption that we will 730 billion tonnes of carbon were lost out of the atmosphere this century. This incredible amount is approximately twenty times the Total current annual emissions from all fossil fuel usage. This assumption is closer to science fiction that any rigorous analysis worthy for a model upon which our civilization will base its future. Yet, even as the IPCC appears willing to model humanity’s fate on a pipe dream, None of them are possible. explores what is possible from a graduated annual reduction in global GDP. This scenario was considered to be feasible by the IPCC community. It seems too unlikely to be true.
This is a serious error by the IPCC. Climate scientists Models who have been successful planned reductions in GDP show that keeping global heating below 1.5°C this century is potentially within reach under this scenario, with greatly reduced reliance on speculative carbon reduction technologies. Prominent economists They have proven that a carefully managed “post-growth” plan could lead to enhanced quality of life, reduced inequality, and a healthier environment. It would, however, undermine the foundational activity of capitalism — the pursuit of endless growth that has led to our current state of obscene inequality, impending ecological collapse, and climate breakdown.
Profit-based paths to disaster
This elephant in the room will remain unspoken and our world will continue to spiral toward disaster, even as technocrats and politicians shift to other savior narratives. Along with the myth of “green growth,” we are told that a solution lies in putting monetary valuations on “ecosystem services” and incorporating them into business decisions — even though this approach Has been shown to be deeply flawed, frequently counterproductive, and ultimately self-defeating. For example, wetlands might be useful in protecting cities from flooding. It could also be a lucrative investment if the wetlands were to be drained and a luxurious new resort built on it. The case closed.
The new moniker arising from the corporate titans at the World Economic Forum is “stakeholder capitalism”: an inviting term that seems to imply that stakeholders other than investors will play a role in setting corporate priorities, but actually refers to A deeply anti-democratic process whereby corporations assume increasingly large roles in global governance. The UN Food Systems Summit took place this month. Basically, taken over by the same giant corporations, including Nestlé and Bayer, that are largely responsible for the very problems the summit was intended to grapple with — which It led to a widespread boycott by hundreds of civil society and Indigenous groups.
The UN Food Systems Summit was largely controlled by corporate interests. Source: Food Systems for People
As net-zero targets that are decades away are officially announced at COP26, implicitly based on a combination corporate procrastination, speculative technology, we can only see the climate crisis worsening. As negative emissions technologies fail in their grandiose promises, those who support reliance on them will eventually lose heart. We will be there to help to the techno-dystopian idea of geoengineering — vast, planet-altering engineering projects designed to temporarily manipulate the climate to defer a climate apocalypse. A leading geoengineering candidate, financed by Bill Gates, involves spraying particles into the stratosphere to cool the Earth by reflecting the Sun’s rays back into space. The There are many risks.This includes the possibility of causing extreme shifts to precipitation around the globe. It cannot be stopped once it is started; it will not stop ocean acidification; it may turn the blue skies into a perpetual dull fog. Despite these concerns, geoengineering is being discussed at UN meetings. The Economist It is possible to predict that, since it wouldn’t disrupt continued economic growth, it’s more likely to be implemented than the drastic, binding cuts in emissions that would head off climate disaster.
There is an alternative
Why is the elephant in a room so rarely mentioned in mainstream discourses? One reason is the collapse of communism, and the parallel era. Rise of neoliberalism beginning in the 1980s, it is assumed that “there is no alternative,” as Margaret Thatcher famously declared. Even green advocates such as the Business Green group are committed to sustainability. quick to dismiss criticism of our growth-based economic system as “knee-jerk anti-capitalist agitprop.” But the conventional dichotomy between capitalism and socialism, to which such conversations inevitably devolve, is no longer helpful. Socialism of old was just as ready to consume the Earth, as capitalism. The difference was in how the pie should been divided.
There is however an alternative. Progressive thinkers are exploring the possibility of replacing our degrading global economic system by one that offers greater sustainability, fairness, and human flourishing. Proponents for degrowth Demonstrate that it is possible to implement a planned reduction of energy and resource use while reducing inequality and improving human well-being. Economic models, such as Kate Raworth’s “Donut economics” offer coherent substitutes for the classical outdated framework that ignores fundamental principles of human nature and humanity’s role within the Earth system. Meanwhile, large-scale cooperatives, Mondragon is one example. in Spain, demonstrate that it’s possible for companies to provide effectively for human needs without utilizing a shareholder-based profit model.
Another reason people give for ignoring the elephant in the room, even when they know it’s there, is that we don’t have Time for structural change. We need to be aware of the climate emergency that is already upon us and focus our efforts on how we can address it. This is true. However, this article should not be interpreted as a reason to forgo the urgent and drastic changes that are required in consumer practices and business. Indeed, they are necessary — but insufficient. Ultimately, our global civilization must begin a transformation to one that is based not on building wealth through extraction, but on foundational principles that could create the conditions for long-term flourishing on a regenerated Earth — an ecological civilization.
There are many steps that can be taken to guide our civilization towards a life-affirming path, even if it is only for a short time. The support of Indigenous peoples on the frontline in the climate emergency is critical. Protecting biodiverse ecosystems in which they are embedded against assaults from extractive corporations. An increasing campaign is being launched to make the wholesale destruction natural living systems a criminal offense. Establishing a law on ecocide—prosecutable like genocide under the International Criminal Court. The transnational corporations have the power to do anything, and that should be addressed. By requesting their charters to be converted to a triple bottom line of people, planet, and profits, and subject to rigorous enforcement powers.
While the transformation we need may take many decades, the process must begin now. We must recognize that capitalism must be replaced with a system that promotes life-affirming value. Don’t expect to see any discussion of these issues in the formal proceedings of COP26. But, turn your attention outside the hallowed halls and you’ll hear The voices of those who are standing up for life’s continued flourishing on Earth. It’s only when their ideas are discussed seriously in the main chambers of a future COP that we can begin to hold authentic hope that our civilization may finally be turning away from the precipice toward which it is currently accelerating.
Teaser photo credit: By Hanabusa Itchō – This image is available from the United States Library of Congress's Prints and Photographs divisionunder the digital ID cph.3g08725.This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. An ordinary copyright tag will still be required. See Commons:Licensing for more information., Public Domain, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=2265247
