( Three minute read) 

Why?

Because CAPITALISM turns everything into a product including us. 

Global warming is rooted in an economic system that has a parasitold relationship with the Earth upon which we live.

Capitalism is simply incompatible with social justice and living in harmony with the Earth, so it has to be changed, and changed quickly. The clock is ticking.

We are entering a new era of profound challenge ― and free market capitalism cannot dig us out.

Economies that rely on the power of markets, don’t even recognize the problem as they’re too focused on short-term profits to take account of longer-term issues like climate change and environmental destruction.

Trusting that the free market capitalist dynamics will get us to net Zero, that of course is not going to happen.

The question now is the relationship between policy, mass movement and how radical we need to go to save the planet.

——————

Capitalism as a system is highly exploitative of both people and planet. It is driven by a desperate need for profit and accumulation. It is apparent that left on its own, our economic system will continue to destroy the basis for life on this planet until it is too late.

Why?

Because capitalism allows to much wriggle room, impeding effective action. As long as our economy chases after profit it will seek ways to circumvent any regulation.

If adequate policies had been adopted 30 years ago, we would be well on the way to achieving a zero-carbon economy at a very low cost. The fact that we did not is, in part, capitalism’s fault.

Merely regulating the private sector rather than making deep inroads into socialising capital and businesses.

Private property doesn’t remove the profit motive from the economy, it only seeks to constrain it in various ways.

State-led investment is fine, but on its own it does not particularly challenge capitalism as a socio-economic system. Indeed at its worst it props it up and helps overcome aspects of capitalism’s inherent instability. Venture capitalists financing brilliant technological breakthroughs have been matched by industry lobby groups successfully arguing against required regulations or carbon taxes.

All developed economies should commit to achieving net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

And zero must mean zero, with no pretence that we can continue burning large quantities of fossil fuels in the late twenty-first century, balanced by equally large quantities of carbon capture and storage.

Once clear prices and regulations are in place, market competition and the profit motive will drive innovation, and economies of scale and learning-curve effects will force down the costs of zero-carbon technologies. And if we do not unleash that power, we will almost certainly fail to contain climate change.

We consistently hear the need to rapidly phase out all fossil fuels. 

“A green industrial revolution expanding public, democratic ownership as far as necessary for the transformation”

“As far as necessary”. What is meant by that, only time will tell.

It is in the ambiguity of such phrases that you can read anything you like.

It could be read to mean a radical nationalisation plan which takes energy, transport, logistics, retail and all the other sectors that are heavy carbon emitters into public ownership to introduce plans to reduce their carbon footprint.

Or

It could mean a far more modest limited plan of taking bankrupt industries into temporary public ownership in order to ‘green’ them.

——————-

How to square the circle of the increasing need for socialised and democratic global solutions in a world of nation states and jealously guarded private property?

This is where a serious fight against climate change that tries to get to the root of the problem of capitalism is going to clash head-on with our political and legal system.

Of course if you see climate change from a revolutionary perspective then you rip up those capitalist laws that are protecting the ill-gotten gains of the rich who are plundering our natural environment until we are on the brink of social collapse.

The question is going to be both the interpretation of “as far as necessary” and also the political will to drive through the changes that will be necessary to start to plan our economy. 

————

People are increasingly feeling the effects of rapid climate change. Cities boil in more than 120-degree heat, California burns and the Arctic thaws, thousands dyeing. 

Meanwhile, biodiversity loss is reaching terrifying levels, with animals going extinct at about 1,000 times the natural rate. In addition, as societies, we’re facing increased inequality, unemployment and soaring personal debt levels.

Faced with these interconnected crises, “It can be safely said that no widely applicable economic models have been developed specifically for the upcoming era.”

In other words, we are at an ecological crunch point and we don’t have the economic tools to deal with it.

We are past this discussion of should we have capitalism or should we have something else.

Do we aim for more consumption or do we aim for liveable environments in the future?

All these changes require concerted political action.

There must be a comprehensive vision and closely coordinated plans. Otherwise a rapid system level transformation towards global sustainability goals is inconceivable.

People are starting to genuinely worry about their future security and looking for collective action.

These kind of things might actually start to matter quite a bit more than caring about a new iPhone.

Sovereign governments cannot run out of money, thus debunking the argument that economies cannot afford to make the transformations needed to address climate change.

Humanity has lost the battle against climate change. 

If we are to be honest we can’t blame climate change anything but ourselves. 

All actions now need will have an effect on how the world goes into any future of adaptation.    

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com