Why Capitalism is our Greatest Environmental Threat

[rainforests1]

http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-capitalism-not-population-our-greatest-environmental-threat
I can't agree with all of it, but some parts were very interesting. Any thoughts?

 

[Virpukka]

I have started to think in same way without all those statistics. I don't think it actually is even any brainer when you start to think where we are enviromentally and econimically on these days. Example we have few global companies that runs pretty much the world with what we buy from the stores and their only value is how much profit they can make to their stock holders. That creates poorly treated animals and humans. The factory farms aren't only result. Poor people get paid under minium wages and even if they would be paid the minium wage it would not be enough to get the
fill the bill. There has never been this much wealth in the world the problem is that it is devided only between few people.

What comes to our planet, that would need radical actions and "global goverment" to make it happen since there is no place to selfish demands if we want to actually make something to happen. Do I think it will happen...nope. That would need us to put our religions, political views and our personal greed aside. We are too selfish to do that and when politicians are looking after best interest of their country and those who have paid the bill for them getting voted to the position where they are, they just don't see the bigger picture. When we debate how much we have right we have pollute the world and try to get as big share as possible from the rights to create CO2 gasses so that at least our factories can work without doing the expensive changes we forget that this is something that touches every single one of us. There is no place in this earth that won't feel the aftereffect of the climat change.

Where this goes dummy in my opinion is that the big companies that wants all the possible profits without thinking the bigger picture....they destroy this planet from themself too. I don't see much profit coming from areas that are destroyed by hurricanes and other extreme weather conditions hits. And where do they think that their next generation will live? They better have some crazy good plan to move on some other planet after this one is not livable anymore.

And one thing where the capitalism has gotten it totally wrong is the constant growth. I don't think it is possible in long run. This planet has limited resources and that alone puts limits to the growth there can be! But since we have started to think that we are better than God or mother nature we seem to think that we can go pass those limits and then cry when there is a price to pay. Or worse, we sit in denial thinking that it wasn't because what we did and keep doing same stuff. I, example, have one friend that still thinks that this climat change is just natural thing and that history shows that. But the thing is that this is first time ever when humans have put so much chemicals on this planet and played with weather itself and produced CO2. So even if there has been similar changes that has happened naturally I don't think this is same thing. But I do think that the good that may end up coming out from this is that if we go back to ice age again the humans hopefully will learn something and we are better with sharing what we have.

 

[Second Summer]

I think I agree with several of your points, Virpukka.

The way capitalism has been practised, so far at least, seems to assume infinite resources. This is obviously wrong as long as we're all living here on planet Earth at least.

One of the problems with climate change is that there are so many different interests and countries benefiting (in the short term) from continuing as before. There is no one with sufficient authority to force everyone to follow the necessary standards.

 

[yakherder]

Non capitalist governments do the same or worse though. China may introduce a fancy innovation now and then, but it's still burning coal to the point that many of the cities around the plants are barely habitable.

The problem isn't capitalism, or any other form of government for that matter. They all have a common denominator: people

 

[prioritarian]

Non capitalist governments do the same or worse though. C

China is hardly a non-capitalist nation. Since 1978 China has gradually moved towards a market-based authoritarian regime. Today China is, IMO, more of a pure capitalist society than most european social democracies. And given how corporate fascist europe has become that is not saying much.

 

[yakherder]

China has a weird blend of capitalism and strict government control, and not all areas are governed equally. Doing business in Fuzhou, Wenzhou, or Shenzhen, for example, is quite different than doing business in Beijing or Shanghai I regards to how much the government is involved.

They also tend to create the illusion of free market to promising start ups, then the second you start making profits the government pops in with a list of demands.

In any case, the governments of pretty much all countries that aren't impoverished and starving are heavily involved in securing the resources they and their economies depend on.

 

[Spang]

Non capitalist governments do the same or worse though. China may introduce a fancy innovation now and then, but it's still burning coal to the point that many of the cities around the plants are barely habitable.

China is making a lot of the things that we buy, thus burning all of that coal, precisely because of capitalism.

 

[Clueless Git]

I can't agree with all of it, but some parts were very interesting. Any thoughts?

Well, yes ...

Capitalism depends on overpopulation.

Without overpopulation the demand for labour would exceed supply.

When demand for labour exceeds the supply of labour that puts power in the hands of labour. Then you have free enterprise socialism at best.

If the definition of overpopulation is when you have more people on the planet than it's resources can support then that's easy to manipulate.

All you have to do is ensure that the section of the population you need wastes enough resources to leave none for the section of the population you don't need.

A principle capitalist mechanism for creating artificial overpopulation is, because it's a colossal resource waster, is to encourage the consumption of meat.

 

[yakherder]

China is making a lot of the things that we buy, thus burning all of that coal, precisely because of capitalism.

A very valid point, but what's the alternative? Short of an apocalyptic catastrophe, all countries are at this point reliant on short term solutions that screw us over in the long term. Even the least materialistic citizens of those countries have become reliant on the resource dependent infrastructure built around them from transportation networks to modern medicine, having convinced themselves that such things are human rights rather than luxuries. Even the most enthusiastic environmentalists are only willing to give up superficial aspects of their privileged lifestyle. It's gonna take a hell of a lot more than giving up meat and riding a bike to work to stop this storm. When we're ready to start tearing down hospitals, sewage treatment facilities, and all the other modern necessities absolutely dependent on energy and damaging resource reclamation procedures, then we might have something... at least until a neighbor notices our weakened state and comes to capitalize on it, ultimately leading to the same end except with us impoverished instead of privileged, even if just temporarily.

I don't see a rational solution other than being as close to the top as possible while we still have the option. I've honestly reached the point where I just don't care anymore because I realize it's about as productive as screaming in frustration at a hurricane heading towards you. If it's coming either way, might as well play the game for all it's worth in the interim.

Note that I'm in the middle of my 8th consecutive 16 hour overnight shift surrounded by *** holes, and that might be contributing to my negative outlook. I'll re-read this next time I have a day off and some sleep.

 

[prioritarian]

China has a weird blend of capitalism and strict government control, and not all areas are governed equally. Doing business in Fuzhou, Wenzhou, or Shenzhen, for example, is quite different than doing business in Beijing or Shanghai I regards to how much the government is involved.

They also tend to create the illusion of free market to promising start ups, then the second you start making profits the government pops in with a list of demands.

In any case, the governments of pretty much all countries that aren't impoverished and starving are heavily involved in securing the resources they and their economies depend on.

In free-market capitalism some agency (regulatory or governmental) attempts to prevent owners of capital from cornering the market but there are many other forms of capitalism where the market is less "free". China is largely a "state capitalist" system in that state-owned enterprises are motivated by "profit" and are not directly controlled by the state.

 

[das_nut]

I'd say, for the most part, poverty is the greatest environmental threat.

Rich nations can afford to care about their environment. Poor nations don't have that luxury.

 

[Blobbenstein]

yes, but rich nations are only rich because of the fossil fuel they use etc.

 

[das_nut]

yes, but rich nations are only rich because of the fossil fuel they use etc.

I disagree. Rich nations may consume more fossil fuels, but that's because they can afford more. And even that is changing - look at a chart of CO2 production per capita - China and Sweden are roughly equal, even though Sweden is far richer than China.