Below, I have posted an essay written by one of my media master’s students, Carla Zdanow, for a course in the philosophy of culture. I have placed it unmodified, to give readers of TL the opportunity to see what excellent research work is being done by some students. I have another to post after this one. Apologies for the length — it is an academic essay, though, and those who don’t want to read the full text don’t have to (it would be their loss, however). (I would not be surprised if Carla were offered work or scholarship opportunities on the strength of this!)
‘Issues on the current environmental crisis: Overpopulation, growth, technology and capitalism’.
By Carla Zdanow
Only when the last tree has been cut down,
Only when the last river has been poisoned,
Only when the last fish has been caught,
Only then will you find that money cannot be eaten.”
– Cree Indian Proverb
Abstract: With environmental and economic uncertainties at an all time high, and the impact of the current capitalist agenda coming under fire, this paper attempts to investigate the present global environmental crisis in relation to the profit-driven economic discourse of capitalism, and examines how, without exception, capital and its overarching economic ideals have had a significant impact on the progression and escalation of global warming, deforestation and a variety of issues related to the existing environmental quandary. Based on the assertion that capitalism views the environment merely as a means to accumulate wealth, this paper goes on to suggest that certain initiatives surrounding legislation and military expenditure may provide some much needed ecological relief.
With climate and environmental change becoming an increasingly popular topic of debate, and the impact of these changes becoming more and more apparent, it is no longer deniable that the world as we know it is in the midst of an environmental and ecological crisis. The occurrence of this year’s (2009) Samoan tsunami, Indonesian earthquake and Philippine typhoon within the space of a few weeks, together with the incidence of flash floods in Kenya, Somalia, Mexico and Turkey, fires in Greece and Australia, insect infestations and Ebola, Cholera and Influenza outbreaks around the world illustrates without reservation the existence of this crisis. According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, every second a parcel of rainforest the size of a football field disappears, 21% of mammals, 30% of amphibians, 12% of birds, 28% of reptiles and 70% of plants are currently under threat of extinction and the current rate of greenhouse gas emissions is likely to cause the average world temperature to rise by 2ºC (IUCN 2007). At the same time, as a result of the ever increasing impact of globalisation, the politico-economic discourse of neo-liberal capitalism has begun to penetrate world economics and entrench its profit driven, materialistic ideals into every aspect of human life, including the environment. To this end, the incessant need of humans to consume, at the expense of all else, has become paramount to their social, political and cultural interaction, existence and survival. Focusing on these concerns this paper aims to examine the impact of the capitalist discourse on the current environmental crisis. In doing so, I will explore some of the major issues surrounding the crisis, investigate capitalism’s influence on these issues, expose capitalism’s connection to the current theories on the cause of the crisis and highlight possible solutions to this global problem.
At the forefront of the present environmental and ecological crisis, a variety of issues related to the destruction of the earth’s biosphere can be found. The biosphere, which is responsible for all life on earth, is made up of the earth’s crust, rivers, lakes, oceans and its atmosphere. Through a series of interactions between these elements life on earth as we know it is sustained. The existence of this sustainability is however not guaranteed and with the current depletion and destruction of the biosphere underway, the earth’s ability to survive and flourish may be under threat. Poignant issues surrounding the destruction of the biosphere and the environmental crisis are often divided into four related areas, namely the atmosphere, land, water and plant and animal life. Although the environmental crisis has been linked to numerous incidents of pollution, extinction and destruction, the discussion to follow focuses on some of the most significant cases in point.
The destruction of the atmosphere is the first case in point, with suggestions that since the inception of the industrial age the amount of greenhouse gasses have increased dramatically. By the late 1990s it was determined that the burning of fossil fuels for the production of electricity, heating, industrial activities and transport resulted in “6.3 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, 70.7 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 28.2 million tonnes of nitrogen oxides and more than 250 million tonnes of ash and dust” being released into the atmosphere (cited in Document of the DSP 1999:23). The global carbon dioxide count, which is responsible for a major part of the earth’s warming, has increased by 36% since the mid 1700s (EPA 2008), and although carbon dioxide plays an important role in the greenhouse effect by allowing sunlight to reach the earth’s surface, it also traps the sun’s heat in the atmosphere by absorbing infrared radiation. This means that increased carbon dioxide levels lead to an increase in the earth’s surface temperature, and as such, the increase in carbon emissions over the last century (particularly as a result of the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation) has led to a global increase in the earth’s temperature of 0.74ºC (+/- 18) (International Governmental Panel on Climate Change 2007). Such changes in the earth’s temperature have been held responsible for unforeseen changes in the world’s weather patterns and the increase in occurrence and strength of natural disasters. In this regard, according to the Centre for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters, natural disasters killed 235,000 people, affected 214,000,000 people and cost US$190 billion in 2008, with the death toll rising to three times higher than the annual average for the years 2000-2007(Cited in Duncan 2009).
Apart from an increase in global temperatures, changes in the atmosphere and increases in greenhouses gasses have also resulted in the formation of acid rain (which damages rivers, lakes vegetation and buildings) and the destruction of the ozone layer (which has led to an increase in ultra violet radiation). It is believed that acid rain has been responsible for the destruction of approximately 14% of European forestlands and with Asian carbon emissions tripling since the 1980s, the large-scale die-off of forests in China and Japan have also been attributed to acid rain.
The next case in point is the impact of the environmental crisis on the land. Nielsen maintains that as a result of the destruction of trees and vegetation approximately eight million km² of the earth’s forests have disappeared (2006). A 2005 report by the United Nations Food and Agricultural organisation maintains that each year 13 million hectares of the world’s forests are lost due to deforestation (FAO 2005) and according to Philips “deforestation accounts for 1/5th of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all the worlds trains, planes and cars combined” (2009). In this regard, Wilson argues that if significant measures are not taken to prevent further deforestation, the year 2030 will see only 20% of the world’s forests remaining, with half of them existing in a degraded state (2002). Consequently, this means that in just over 20 years 80% of the world’s forests could have vanished, including thousands of irreplaceable plant and animal species with them (Wilson 2002). In terms of the ecological impact of deforestation, a variety of issues pertaining to the clearing and destruction of forests have emerged. One of the most worrying of these issues is the reduction and destruction of biodiversity. Since tropical rainforests consist of approximately 80% of the earth’s biodiversity it is understandable that (www.reuters.com 2008) the destruction of these rainforests will result in massively reduced biodiversity. Desertification, an offshoot of deforestation is another factor of the environmental crisis, with more than one third of the earth’s surface already made up of desert or semi-desert conditions. Instances of overgrazing, over cultivation, water impoundment; increased fires, deforestation and global climate change among others have resulted in the desertification of roughly 6 million hectares of fertile soil per year (Wilson 2001, Document of the DSP 1999:25) and increases in agricultural production as well as the excessive use of fertilisers and pesticides have further contributed to the problem.
The third issue related to the environmental crisis surrounds the often neglected fact that the earth has a finite supply of water. The issue of a water crisis therefore emerges when it becomes evident that the depletion in supply and the unnecessary pollution of this resource may result in severe shortages and restrictions. In relation to this there are currently about 884 million people who do not have adequate access to drinking water (WHO/UNICEF 2008:25), and roughly 2.5 billion people do not have access to water for sanitation and waste disposal (WHO/UNICEF 2008:25). Furthermore, the pollution of rivers, lakes and groundwater has also led to major water shortages, with extreme cases resulting in warfare over the depleting resource . The water crisis along with unsafe drinking water and poor sanitation has resulted in widespread disease with the World Bank confirming that 88% of all diseases are caused by unsafe water, reduced sanitation and poor hygiene (Oliver 2007). In terms of the oceans, a study published in the International Journal of Nature has confirmed that “over 90% of all the large fishes have disappeared from the world’s oceans” (Suurkula 2004). It has also been estimated that the global fish intake “exceeds sustainable yield in 11 of the world’s 15 most important fishing areas” (Document of the DSP 1999:26). Coastlines and coral reefs have also been affected by the environmental crisis with over half of the earth’s coastline and approximately 60% of coral reefs now threatened by human activity (Document of the DSP 1999:26). It has also been estimated that around 2 million tons of human waste are disposed of in water sources every day (UNESCO 2000). These instances of pollution and abuse of the world’s water supplies have had and will continue to have a considerable impact on both the earth’s biodiversity and its environment.
The final case in point is the impact of the environmental crisis on plant and animal life. As mentioned earlier, the widespread occurrence of deforestation and climate change is having an increasing impact on the extinction rate of both plant and animal species. Indeed, it was estimated that the global extinction of species during the 20th century was a thousand times higher than the average rate of extinction during the preceding 65 million years (Surkuula, 2004). Admittedly, the extinction of plant and animal species is a natural process of demise and replacement which has taken place since the beginning of time. Today however, the rate at which new species replace the old ones has been drastically reduced and the impacts of deforestation and pollution on plant and animal life is a growing point of concern. In this regard, Bhattacharya asserts that the introduction and increase in global warming may result in the extinction of one quarter of all land plants and animals by the year 2050 (2004).
These environmental issues are just a few examples of the current state of the world’s biosphere and the ecological destruction that it faces. Global warming among other things has been recognised as the root cause of these environmental issues. The cause of global warming has however been subject to mass debate with many parties refusing to admit that human activities have played a role in the planet’s destruction. Despite this however, a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, states that global warming in now “unequivocal” and “almost certainly” a result of human activity (IPCC 2007). With this conformation that the environmental crisis is linked to human activity, questions on why little is being done to prevent further destruction are being raised. It is plausible to suggest that a simple answer to these questions can be related to economics.
According to Davies, “economics describes the way in which humans interact with the environment in the production and reproduction of their lives. As such, he argues that “no environmental issue exists independent of economic relations” (Davies 2006:1). This interconnection can be seen in the common root of the words, with ‘ecology’ as the study of the house we live in (oikos) and ‘economy’ as the management of that house. Consequently, with the environmental crisis in its current state, the role of the economy needs to be brought to attention. Capitalism, the dominant politico-economic discourse of the 21st century is a system based on “private ownership, expropriating unpaid labour through the production and distribution of commodities, with the goal for the maximisation of profit” (Davies 2006:1). This maximisation of profit includes the search for “raw materials and new markets”, the cheapest resources, the cheapest labour and the cheapest way to reduce costs associated with pollution and waste (Davies 2006:1). In order to achieve this profit, growth is needed and as such, previously unused geographic regions are consistently added to the market. To this end, it has been suggested that capitalism ultimately views the environment as little more than a means to accumulate wealth (Lotta 2006:1). As such, with 80% of the world’s natural resources being absorbed by advanced capitalist countries (who make up only 15% of the population) and an ever increasing divide between the rich and the poor, the disrespect and abuse of the environment and its inhabitants seem to be an intrinsic repercussion of capitalist gains (Lotta:2006:1). According to Kovel (2002) capitalism as a means of social production has three main tendencies, these include:
o Capital tends to degrade the conditions of its own production,
o Capital must expand without end in order to survive and
o Capital leads to a chaotic world system increasingly polarized between rich and poor, which cannot adequately address the ecological crisis. (Kovel 2002:38).
Cunningham et al (2005) agree that the root of poverty and the ensuing environmental crisis can be found in the “private ownership of the means of production and the maximization of profit”. They go on to argue that “for those able to consume, the heavy environmental footprint of the consumer is a direct result of the economic system that requires the maximisation of consumption to satisfy the maximisation of profit” (Cunningham et al 2005).
Despite the overwhelmingly apparent link between the environmental crisis and the capitalist agenda, the cause of the crisis is rarely linked to this economic discourse. Rather, issues related to and as a consequence of this economic structure tend to bear the brunt of the censure. In this regard, theories on the causes of the environmental crisis including the phenomena of a human population explosion; overconsumption and too much growth and technological development tend to be the focus of popular attention. It can be argued however that these phenomena are ultimately the by-product of a capitalist system.
According to the US Census Bureau (USCB) as of the 25th of October 2009 the world population had reached 6 792 759 038 (www. http://www.census.gov). This is a vast increase from the 1.6 billion people that occupied the earth at the beginning of the 20th century, and according to further projections by the USCB the year 2040 will see the world population reach 9 billion people. This rapid growth in the world’s population is often accused of being the cause of the present environmental crisis. It has been suggested that the demands placed on scarce resources by an ever-increasing population is the reason for the current degradation of ecosystems and the environment, with the need for the production and distribution of food named as one of the major reasons for environmental damage. Indeed, world hunger is and will become an important issue, especially as the effects of global warming come into play; however, at present the world is producing 17 percent more calories per person than it was 30 years ago. This means that there is presently enough food in the world to feed everyone, even after a 70% increase in population (www.worldhunger.org 2009). It is therefore possible to suggest that hunger and starvation do not occur as a result of a lack of food, but rather due to the fact that food is distributed on the basis of income or buying power. Since levels of food consumption differ between countries and people based on their economic situations, it can be suggested that hunger and food shortages are not necessarily the result of overpopulation but rather as a result of capital and the inequalities between the rich and poor in terms of access to resource and purchasing power. With this in mind, it is plausible to suggest that a focus on the human population explosion as a cause for the environmental crisis helps to filter attention away from the underlying cause of population growth, poverty and environmental degradation, namely, the Western politico-economic discourse of capitalism.
Linked to overpopulation, another diagnosis for the cause of the environmental crisis is overconsumption and high economic growth. Growing awareness of the impact of over- consumption led a group of researchers to conduct a study on overconsumption, economic growth and pollution. From this research, it was argued that “increasing consumption produces economic growth which in turn produces pollution,” and unless the abuse of natural resources is curbed and economic growth is halted, the world was headed for an environmental catastrophe (Meadows et al 1972). This idea of a limiting of growth as a means to reduce consumption and pollution, and as such, reduce environmental risk, neglects to take into consideration that the current economic discourse of neoliberal capitalism insists that you must either ‘grow’ or ‘die’. To this end, consumption and growth form a fundamental part of capitalism and without them the production of profit (the ultimate aim of capitalism) would not be achieved. Understandably, consumption and growth do play a part in the devastation of the environment; however, as expressed by the DSP, this is not due to “the supposed affluence of the great majority of consumers in the industrialised capitalist countries,” but rather “due to the irrational and wasteful ways in which the system forces consumers to meet their needs” (1999).
Technological development is the third area that is often blamed for the ecological and environmental crisis. Although a certain kind of technology has had an impact on the environment in terms of intensifying the production of pollution, it may also be the key to creating opportunities that prevent environmental pollution. Since technology is created by humans, it is the social and economic systems that determine how technology is used and what measures are put in place to limit the damage of these technological processes to the environment. To this end, since capitalism is the dominant economic discourse of our time and since the ultimate goal of capitalism is to increase profits, it is plausible to suggest that only technological processes that advance this capitalist agenda will be used and implemented. For example, capitalist companies have found it more profitable to pollute the air, water and land than to invest in pollution control technologies. In his book, Vanishing Air (1970), John Esposito explains this practice when he writes;
‘The Monsanto Corporation claims to have an invention that will clean sulphur oxides out of waste gases, and is even willing to guarantee its operation… Monsanto itself, whose sulphur dioxide emissions are considerable, refuses to install its own device… The reason is clear. Despite the fact that it sells control devices, Monsanto has made the calculation that it is cheaper to continue to pollute than to expend money for control’ (Esposito 1970, cited in DSP 1999:47)
Therefore although technology does contribute to the growing environmental problem it is not necessarily technological advancement in itself, but rather the capitalistic use of this technology that causes harm to the environment. Attfield explains technology’s link to capitalism when he argues that “capitalism is the cause of increased pollution and the depletion of minerals, as these phenomena are often the unintended by-products of the business methods of the capitalist system” (1983:14).
Based on the above discussion it becomes astoundingly illuminating that although practices such as overpopulation, overconsumption and technology all have an impact on the environment, the source of these problems can be found in the overarching economic discourse of our time. Moreover, these findings allude to the idea that “the capitalist mode of production violates the fundamental principles of environmental sustainability” and “indeed, like an auto immune disease, in which a body’s own defence system attacks healthy tissue, our economy is assaulting the very life-support systems that keep it functioning” (cited in the Document of the DSP 1999:30). Lacan’s discussions on the capitalist discourse rings similar, when he suggests that within the discourse of the capitalist the subject “consumes so well that it consumes itself” (cited Olivier 2009:30). This insight into capitalist consumption clearly illustrates the irony of capitalism in that through its constant consumption, pollution and degradation of the earth’s natural resources it is ultimately consuming, polluting and degrading its own future existence.
Notwithstanding the seemingly all encompassing air of negativity that surrounds the idea of capitalist growth and consumption versus the environment, solutions need to be developed in order to prevent the total collapse of both the ecological and economic systems of our world. In his book The Enemy of Nature, Kovel (2002) argues that although “Green Capitalism” (where the production of surplus value occurs through the production of renewable energy technologies, waste reclamation or ecotourism) may address certain facets of environmental destruction, it still replicates the relations of capitalism globally, and must still function on the basis of the maximisation of profit (cited in Davies 2006:1). He goes on the explain that although a hybrid car is a good thing, “ it does not address urban sprawl and habitat loss, the impoverishment of the workforce, or the resource depletion that goes into the making of the car”. Consequently, Kovel asserts that;
‘While going green makes certain sense within the logic of capitalism, as a toxic environment becomes more of an internal cost, or waste can be commodified and become a new source of profit, such choices do not eliminate wealth polarisation and alienation. And so the broader destructive impact of capitalism on the planet will remain’ (cited in Davies 2006:1).
Lotta agrees that “capitalism cannot deal with the environment in a sustainable and economically viable way” (2006:1). He maintains that the inability of capitalism to assist in the prevention of further ecological and environmental destruction is a result of three underlying reasons. Firstly, he explains that capital’s logic of “expand or die” reduces the environment to a means to accumulate wealth. Secondly, he argues that capitalism’s objective of attaining short-term results without taking the long term repercussions of the objectives into account, means that capitalism is not willing to acknowledge the possible consequences of its actions 10, 20, 30 years down the line. Thirdly, he maintains that the private nature of capitalist production limits environmental concerns. Lotta explains the impact of this private ownership as follows;
‘The economy is broken up into competing units of capitalist control and ownership over the means of production. And each unit is fundamentally concerned with [itself] and [its] expansion and [its] profit. The economy, the constructed and natural environment, and society cannot be dealt with as a social whole under capitalism. It’s all fragmented into private parts. And each part looks at what lies outside itself as a “free ride.” An individual capitalist can open a steel mill and be concerned with the cost of that steel mill. But what they do to the air is not ‘their cost,’ because it’s not part of their sphere of ownership’ (Lotto 2006:2).
Jim MacNeill, architect of Our Common Future concurs that the capitalist market economy
‘…cannot take into account the external environmental costs associated with producing, consuming and disposing of goods and services. The market treats the resources of the atmosphere, the oceans and the other commons as free goods. It externalises, or transfers to the broader community, the costs of air, water, and noise pollution and of resource depletion. The broader community shoulders the costs in the form of damage to health, property and ecosystems’ (cited in the Document of the DSP 1999:58).
Based on his rejection of capitalism as a means to reduce current environmental disintegration, Lotta among others maintains that in order to reduce the impact of human activity on the environment, a sustainable socialist economic system needs to be introduced . Similarly, Cunningham et al (2005) point out that the solution to the environmental problems lies in the “re-ordering of economic priorities to suit favourable development. Indeed, although a change in capitalism’s priorities may assist in the challenge of environmental degradation, an economic system cannot be re-ordered without its ultimate destruction. In this regard, capitalism that reduces consumerism and limits growth is no longer capitalism, and as such, the rejection of capitalism may not be a realistic option. Instead, one of the major arguments for environmental protection, at present, suggests that new legislation may help to reduce carbon emissions, diminish pollution and limit the amount of natural resources made available for capital gains. The World Wildlife Fund asserts that the introduction of a universal carbon tax will help to reduce the current environmental and ecological degradation (Salgado 2008). The implementation of taxes on the use of natural resources and the production of pollution is a possible option. The enforcement of strict ‘carbon’ taxes may encourage corporations to introduce environmentally friendly technologies and pollution reducing activities as a means to ensure the maximisation of profit. If the taxes or fines that can be imposed on industries as a result of not adhering to environmental guidelines outweighs the costs of installing ‘environmentally friendly process’, then surely, in the pursuit of the maximisation of profit, corporations will be obliged to implement these protective measures?
Another possibility which has been suggested, is to devote a part of the money currently used for military purposes to that of social development. Even a fraction of the resources used by the military would be more than adequate to help solve some of the most pressing problems of the escalating ecological crisis. For example, in a recent report, the UN has estimated that between $22 billion and 36 billion dollars of global investment by 2015 could cut global deforestation rates by one quarter (Leber 2009:2). At the same time, the 2008 global military expenditure reached the amount of $1.464 billion (Shah 2009). If one compares the amount of military expenditure over one year, to the amount needed over six years to save the rainforests, it almost seems incomprehensible that the environment has been allowed to deteriorate to such a catastrophic state.
Despite a variety of other recommendations for the reduction in carbon emissions and the limiting of environmental damage, capitalist expansion and growth is still underway, the demand for fossil fuels is still growing and no clear plan for dealing with the ensuing environmental crisis has been set. The earth’s natural environment is in a state of disarray. The recent economic recession has had global reach, and people around the world are feeling both the economic and environmental pressure. With capitalism and environmentalism seemingly pushing in two opposing directions, it almost seems impossible for the one to exist in harmony with the other. Amory Lovins puts this predicament perfectly when he says, “Today we have a temporary aberration called “industrial capitalism” which is inadvertently liquidating its two most important sources of capital: the natural world and properly functioning societies. [Surely] no sensible capitalist would do that?”
Reference and reading list
1. Shah, A.(2009).Global Military Spending. URL (consulted on 10 November 2009): http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
2. Unknown. (2008). U.N. calls on Asian nations to end deforestation. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009):http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSMAN18800220080620
3. Attfield, R. (1983). The Ethics of Environmental Concern. England: Basil Blackwell Publisher Limited.
4. Bhattacharya, S.(2004). Global warming threatens millions of species. URL (consulted on 27 October 2009): http://www.newscientist.com/article/ dn4545-global-warming-threatens-millions-of-species.html>.
5. Cunningham, W., Cunningham, M. and Saigo, B. (2005). Environmental science: a global concern. Boston:McGraw Hill
6. Davies, J. (2006).Capitalism as an environmental issue. URL (consulted on27 October 2009): http://www.gocatgo.com/texts/capenv.html
7. Document of the DSP. (1999).Environment, capitalism and socialism. Resistance Books
8. Duncan, K. (2009). Disaster Management 2009: Post Conference Report. International Conference on Disaster Management and Human Health Risk. (25 – 25 September 2009). New Forest. UK. URL (consulted on 25 October 2009): http://www.wessex.ac.uk/09-conferences/disaster-management-2009.html
9. EPA. (2008). “Recent Climate Change: Atmosphere Changes”. Climate Change Science Program. United States Environmental Protection Agency. URL (consulted on 27 October 2009): http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recentac.html
10. FAO. (2005).Deforestation continues at an alarming rate. URL (consulted on 15 November 2009): http://www.fao.org/newsroom/en/news/2005/1000127/index.html
11. International Union for Conservation of Nature.(2009). Extinction crisis continues apace. URL (cited on 10 November2009): http://www.iucn.org/media/materials/releases/?4143/Extinction-crisis-continues-apace
12. IPCC (2007). Summary for Policymakers. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. URL (consulted on 27 October 2009): http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf.
13. Kovel, J. (2002). The enemy of nature: The end of capitalism or the end of the world? London: Zed Books.
14. Leber, J. (2009). A Plan to Save Rainforests Gains International Momentum (24 September).The New York Times. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009): http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2009/09/24/24climatewire-a-plan-to-save-rainforests-gains-internationa-9230.html
15. Lotta, R. (2006). Capitalism, the Environment, and Ecology under Socialism. Revolution. Vol 52
16. Meadows, D. H., Randers, D. L. and Behrens, J. (1972). The Limits to Growth. Universe Books.
17. Nielsen, R. (2006). The Little Green Handbook: Seven Trends Shaping the Future of Our Planet. Picador: New York.
18. Oliver, R. (2007). All About: Water and Health. URL (consulted on 10 November 2009): http://edition.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/17/eco.about.water/
19. Olivier, B. (2009). Lacan on the discourse of capitalism; Critical prospects. Phronimon: Journal of the South African Society for Greek Philosophy and the Humanities, Vol. 10 (1) pp. 25-42
20. Phillips, A. (2009) Greenpeace reports progress on Amazon deforestation process. URL (consulted on 10 November 2009): http://www.greenrightnow.com/kabc/2009/10/30/greenpeace-reports-progress-on-amazon-deforestation-practices/
21. Salgado, I. (2008).Green moves by big money. URL (consulted on 27 October 2009): http://http.persfin.co.za/index.php?fSectionId=590&fArticleId=4214795
22. Shah, A. (2009). World Military Spending. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009): http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending
23. Suurkula, J. (2004). World-Wide cooperation required to prevent global crisis: Part one – the problem. Physicians and Scientists for responsible Application of Science and Technology. URL (consulted on 7 November 2009): http://www.globalissues.org/article/171/loss-of-biodiversity-and-extinctions#MassiveExtinctionsFromHumanActivity
24. UNOCHA. (2007). Burkina Faso: Innovation and education needed to head off water war. UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009): http://www.irinnews.org/PrintReport.aspx?ReportId=74308
25. US Census Bureau. (2009). World Popclock Projection. URL (consulted on 25 October 2009): http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/popclockworld.html
26. US Census Bureau. 2009. World population growth rates: 1950 – 2050. URL (consulted on 10 November 2009):http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/idb/worldgrgraph.php
27. WHO/UNICEF. (2008).Progress in Drinking-water and Sanitation: special focus on sanitation. Joint Monitoring Programme for Water Supply and Sanitataion
28. Wilson, E, O. ( 2002). The Future of Life
29. World Hunger Education Service.(2009). World Hunger Facts 2009. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009): http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
30. Yakubu, A. (2008). Water vendors protest at Nyanya. Daily Trust (Abuja). URL (consulted on 09 November 2009): http://allafrica.com/stories/printable/200803040513.html
31. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation. (2000). World Water Assessment programme. URL (consulted on 05 November 2009):http://www.unesco.org/water/wwap/facts_figures/protecting_ecosystems.shtml - united nations educational, scientific and cultural organisation. –
This entry was posted
on Thursday, November 26th, 2009 at 12:42 pm and is filed under Perspective.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
55 Responses to “A brilliant student’s work on the ecological crisis”
The first paragraph points the direction of the article; “anti capitalism” not focussed on the environment “crisis”.
I visited E Germany (Soviets show country in terms of industrial development) in the 80’s and the polution there was much much worse than anything in the West: my West Germam colleague’s comment was that if this existed in W. Germany all the owners/managers would be jailed. Plus China (by its own admission) is a polution nightmare so please stick to cleaning up the planet and not cleaning up polical systems you disagree with
So sorry Bert; but “Stop the world I want to jump off!” isn’t an option and with the recent exposure of the Global Warming fraud in the UK and USA I will stick with my electricity supply and indoor plumbing. Your student might think progress is a capitalist plot but he/she must eithe come up with a practical and workable alternative or find another planet that fits their particular misanthropic socio/political/environmental agenda.
But,but,but,but… human civilisation is entirely based on ‘profit’! The agricultural revolution of 5-10,000 years ago enabled communities to reap a dividend by not having to gather food every day. The profit derived from domesticating crops was the time they could spend studying, tinkering, and ultimately studying for Ph.D.s and publishing their thoughts on the internet.
And the first sentence of Brent’s comment points in the direction that he did not get past the first paragraph. I think what he meant is people should please not post things he isn’t able to understand! (Sorry to sound catty, Brent; I also found it hard going, but really you should not criticize a well researched, closely argued piece of writing on the basis of one trip to Eastern Europe, one anecdote and one generalization, or presume to prescribe to the author what he/should or should not write about.)
I also do not like to hear it, but I must recognize that too many fingers are pointing to capitalism for me to feel comfortable with it any longer.
It’s extremely good to know that some of our students are benefitting from their so-called ‘inferior’ education. Even if I did not agree with every last word, I’m happy to know that the world will go to a generation with bright sparks in it.
Carla writes really well. I’ve read government documents with far less logic…Carla, Eskom so badly needs the likes of you!
The economy and ecology are completely inseperably intertwined and the seeds of the destruction of the current eco-system are built into the currently triumphant neo-liberal capitalist system.
In my view the prime seed in this regard is the requirement for ever increasing monetary profits and I use the term ‘monetary’ deliberately because these monetary profits are in fact inflated or false. I make this claim because all sorts of environmental costs associated with their generation are externalised and therefore not taken into account. Pursuit of such false, inflated profits is easy and naturally leads to environmentally destructive behaviour.
Bert, I think it is a good essay by Carla which does deserve praise.
The fact that it is coherently reasoned does of course not mean that we have to agree with all of it.
I find the list of ills that are attributed to capitalism unconvincing. Capitalists may behave this way but so do other people. The blame is therefore misattributed to a system which shares but does not cause undesirable aspects of human behaviour.
The suggestion that the environment is seen as “free” to be exploited is correct. This is not due to capitalism, it is simply the tragedy of the commons. Which predates capitalism.
Easter Island was similarly not capitalist.
And the environmental record of modern non-capitalist countries is in fact worse than that of capitalists. (Saying that they were actually closet capitalists misses the point: our labels have to have meaning. Communists are not capitalists, they are human. Their human failings are not capitalist just because capitalists are also human.)
Capitalism does not have to expand or die. Marx was wrong, “inevitable last gasps” and all. It wishes to expand but need not die if it doesn’t.
And humans are short term, some more than others. The failure to defer gratification is a bad thing, but not uniquely capitalist. All pre-capitalist ancient moral codes address this question.
So a good argument but weakened by its allegiance to the rather passe anti-capitalism hobby horse.
The underlying problem is not economic or ecological, it’s psychological; the rise of capitalism has relied on the creation of a culture of individual consumers who believe that they are unique and that the best way to express those beliefs is through consumption. This need to express through consumption and ownership has lead to overextension of both the economy (massive public and private debt levels) and the planet (climate change, resource depletion), and is completely and fundamentally unsustainable.
Capitalism forces individuals to maximize their own self-interests; in a world of scarce resources this will always result in over-accumulation at the expense of others. The psychological effects of this approach are staggering - we remove ourselves from society, we see everyone else as competition, and we evaluate psycho-social relationships purely on their utility to our ego. We worry about the environment, but only from the standpoint of sustaining it’s outputs, not it’s own inherent ecological vitality; as long as we can continue to take what we need from it we’re happy.
There’s no easy way out of this; simply tweaking the present economic system won’t change the underlying psychology. Krishnamurti said it best:
We are facing a tremendous crisis; a crisis which the politicians can never solve because they are programmed to think in a particular way—nor can the scientists understand or solve the crisis; nor yet the business world, the world of money. The turning point, the perceptive decision, the challenge, is not in politics, in religion, in the scientific world; it is in our consciousness. One has to understand the consciousness of mankind, which has brought us to this point.
Brillint paper and I think its sad that some people got caught up on semantics of splitting economic management theories. I think the student used capitalism as a blanket definition - it’s really irrelevant whether you’re into (neo-liberal) capitalism, Thatcherism, Maoism, Stalinism or Orefile-ism : wealth accumulation is costing us, literally, the earth.
And unfortunately, we’re ALL going to have to accept that Mother Natures ultimate weapon - extinction - doesn’t care which economics textbook you’ve studied or which specific theory floats your boat.
No one ever said you cannot reap a dividend from farming. However, the writer provides evidence that capitalism has failed.
Karl Marx said some very profound things about the relationship between humanity and the environment, everyone should read up on it even though I am not a Marxist.
What about social democracy as practiced so successfully in the Scandanavian countries. They have an incredibly good environmental record and research shows their citizens are on average more prosperous financially that those in the mighty USA.
1. we wouldn’t be having this discussion if it wasn’t for capitalism
2. there have been plenty of civilizations in the past that have reached a state of ecological collapse but did not have a modern capitalist system
3. it is perfectly possible to factor in externalities into a capitalist system. i suggest your student study economic theory before attempting another one of these essays.
Knee jerk essays like this that ask that the whole system be destroyed to fix the problem actually make the problem less likely to be solved. People do not want to surrender everything they have, if you ask them to do that they will not listen to you.
Nothing like an old-fashioned rant against nasty old-fashioned “capitalism” to fire up an old-fashioned professor, hey? Wake me up when the next paradigm-shift happens.
A clear article depicts the relations between economics and the environment. But seem lacking of fresh facts.
We have read your article about the relations between economics and the environment. It is great and it depicts the current environment so completely. We are having a symposium under University Putra Malaysia to discuss the solutions to climate change, since the climate change issues is needing our immediate attention. The symposium would be helding on the 14th - 18th January 2010. We would be glad if you can join this symposium, together do some good deeds for the Earth.
The above website have the information about this symposium. Looking for good news from you
I doubt any communist regime ever practiced what Karl Marx advocated and I doubt we will ever see a successful Marxist state but Marx should not be dismissed when analysing our current situation.
From the Green Left:
KARL MARX THE ECOLOGIST
As the world economy spirals down into its deepest crisis since the great depression, the writings of Karl Marx have made a return to the top seller lists in bookstores. In his native Germany, the sales of Marx’s works have trebled……………..
………..According to Marx, capitalism is an economic system profoundly at odds with a sustainable planet. The exploitation of nature is as fundamental to the profit system, he argued, as the exploitation of working people.
Nice essay. A few questions:
1. “is producing 17 percent more calories per person than it was 30 years ago. This means that there is presently enough food in the world to feed everyone, even after a 70% increase in population (www.worldhunger.org 2009).”
Does capitalism get some of the credit for this?
2. “ever increasing divide between the rich and the poor”. I take it this is the Marxian ‘rich getting richer, poor getting poorer’? If so, then, on any sensible interpretation, empirically, No. Just not so, and the stats are clear and uncontroversial.
3. Disastrous environmental record of socialist/communist states?
4. Economists agree that ‘non-market goods’ like the environment lead to market-failures. And almost all, even among the very right wing, agree that legislation is needed in order to price the envirnment correctly, as without legislation it is effectively priced at zero. This is economics 101 and not revolutionary or anti-capitalist.
Very well-written, well argued essay. But, I do think it would be better if the writer understood why all people who disagree with this sort of analysis are not insane propagandists, but have some strong arguments that need to be engaged with.
Bert
That a student writes this is great. That it is disputed by people is predictable. The basis of the disagreement is, however, questionable; as Wise Old Joe pointed out. Are 31 references not enough for them? Are they reading them? If not, are they looking at the increased unpredictability of the weather, especially rainfall and storms across the world?
I have just spent 5 days with Jonathon Porrit and Susan George, inter alia, and the basis of our discussion was largely the Stern report (which I am surprised was not referenced)and the impact of the increasing gap between the rich and poor.
If nothing else South Africans should be attending to that aspect of capitalism because it already biting you in the bum!
As many of you cannot look very far just attend to your own violent backyard and let us, the major culprits, attempt to sort out the policies that may just prolong your childrens’ quality of life.
Every field, including climate change, is the output of capitalist economic system. The solution now lies in demolishing this monster of capitalism at the earliest. It is certainly getting demolished on its own due to internal contradictions, known to all capitalist economists including JM Keynes, but we need to hasten its process for saving the mankind and the planet. Both Marxian economics and capitalist economics do not have any concern for huamnkind excepting exploitation of poor people by profit-centric capitalists.
We have a theoretical proposition on the alternative economics, which is fully eco-friendly. It was presented to the world in 1993. It takes care of many bad elements the mankind is presently suffering from, like poverty, excessive consumerism, economic exploitation of poor by rich, constant job losses, inflation, depression, any many other things. Marxist economic order has failed to protect humankind from these factors as such collapsed in 1990s. The alternative economics, Hindu-economics, written by Dr. M G Bokare, an Indian economist and former vice-chancellor is the new option for mankind to enjoy eternal peace in this beautiful planet. Those who are concerned about the present ecological disaster should read this new economic alternative and simulataneously attempt to destroy the present exploiative capitalist economic system. This is in the interest of the global population. Second edition of this book is now available from http://www,pothi.com It is illumination for all those who are fed up with the present disastrous economic order.
The inclusion of tsunamis and earthquakes in the list of ecological disasters laid at the door of capitalism is quite alarming. These two phenomena are a result of tectonic movement. To include the movement of tectonic plates in a list of ecological problems cause by capitalism or globalization seems to attribute to capitalism quite a stunningly long reach - up to 70km into the earth’s crust. Otherwise this is a fairly comprehensive summary of a lot of stuff most of us already knew: not exactly groundbreaking - except for the earthquakes, of course.
@jp
“ever increasing divide between the rich and the poor”. I take it this is the Marxian ‘rich getting richer, poor getting poorer’? If so, then, on any sensible interpretation, empirically, No. Just not so, and the stats are clear and uncontroversial.”
Just where do you get your stats from?
Worldwatch Institute: “The global economy has grown sevenfold since 1950. Meanwhile, the disparity in per capita gross domestic product between the 20 richest and 20 poorest nations more than doubled between 1960 and 1995.”
It has widened particularly in South Africa. Face facts, please. It is time to tax the rich over $250,000 at at least 60%.
Woody Woodpecker on November 29th, 2009 at 9:01 am
@john carlisle
Not sure I understand you on the Stern report not being referenced?
The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change is a 700-page report released on October 30, 2006 by economist Nicholas Stern for the British government, which discusses the effect of global warming on the world economy and is meticulously referenced.
Its main conclusion is that the benefits of strong, early action on climate change considerably outweigh the costs. It proposes that one percent of global gross domestic product (GDP) per annum is required to be invested in order to avoid the worst effects of climate change, and that failure to do so could risk global GDP being up to twenty percent lower than it otherwise might be.
In June 2008 Stern increased the estimate to 2% of GDP to account for faster than expected climate change.
Regarding your first question of capitalism producing much more food during the population increases of the last 30 years; - only 25% of food produced on this planet is due to large scale industrial chemical agriculture. The other 75% is produced by small farmers. Furthermore nearly 40% of the food supply in the United States goes to waste according to a new study by the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases, Nov 2009. Immediately makes one wonder about the capitalist mindset.
Some statistics, questions/answers etc. on income/wealth disparities. “The richest 10 percent of families own about 85 percent of all outstanding stocks. They own about 85 percent of all financial securities, 90 percent of all business assets.” Full article: http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
Very wide income disparities cause revolutions and civilisations to collapse. Maybe we need to catch a wake up. South Africa is one of the worst.
The Scandanavian social democracies have an excellent environmetal record compared to both capitalist and past communist governments. In addition, their citizens are on average wealthier than US citizens. US ranked only eleventh on average wealth.
What the right wing propose as legislation to look after the environment is nothing but a rubber stamp to destroy it!!!!! George W Bush’s government had an atrocious environmental record, the list is too long to go into here.
Peter Pumpkin Eater on November 29th, 2009 at 12:12 pm
“The incessant need to consume”??? Why is a constant increase of economic growth necessary? Because of uncontrolled population growth! Overpopulation is such a taboo subject that even learned researchers and PhD candidates completely leve it out of consideraton. China tried to curb it but there is doubt tha they succeeded. What does this have to do with capitalism? Population expands faster than the economy, educational and health-providing structures, employment opportunities, food supplies. Denial of this is the core of all present and future ills.
1) If capitalism is so effective why are 49 million US Americans currently suffering food insecurity, i.e they don’t have enough food for an active person?
2) If markets are so efficient why does 40% of the US food supply go to waste?
3) If the free market capitalist system is so successful, why are millions of Americans losing their homes while the tax they have paid is being used to rescue a couple of giant corporations in a $700 billion bailout?
Always interesting to read essays and comments on this subject (I work on the technical side of climate change related projects). Some quick, unstructured comments. JP makes a good point noting that environmental protection is generally recognised as being legislation driven. If the fines don’t work; send offenders to jail. This is serious stuff.
Another key word, I believe, that has come out is “sustainable”. If any economic system recognises this as a basis for development we have a chance. I cannot agree with the Pol Pot type Bakuninites who want to smash everything before re-building.
The Scandinavian “social democracies” are actually capitalistic in my view and offer some hope (although their multi-nationals are not as well behaved when they are far from home). I think the reason they offer hope is that I think their relative success is based on two things. Education - most of their populace understand the problem and why sometimes painful solutions (key word - sustainable) need to be adopted and legislated. Then democracy - they have relatively altruistic leaders who generally do what is best for their country’s people as a whole. The first point keeps them getting voted into power.
Lastly, the problem is only recently truly recognised, hugely complex, unclear, indefinite etc so really, no straight, simple solution presents itself. But, I think, most of the world, should, by now, be realising that something needs to be done.
You obviously don’t read too much about population growth, despite it being a subject your regulary blog about, don’t know why I waste my time bringing this to your attention yet again:
@john Carlisle:
(1) You say: “Worldwatch Institute: “The global economy has grown sevenfold since 1950. Meanwhile, the disparity in per capita gross domestic product between the 20 richest and 20 poorest nations more than doubled between 1960 and 1995.”
It has widened particularly in South Africa. Face facts, please.”
I do not doubt this. I also do not see how it is relevant. Marx’s claim is that income inequality WITHIN a capitalist system should increase. The opposite tends to happen, overall.
We can, of course, also look at Inequality in PER CAPITA global income. Once again, the Marxian prediction is false. http://www.columbia.edu/~xs23/papers/pdfs/World_Income_Distribution_QJE.pdf
Look at the data + graphs from page 37, onwards.
(Simply put: you stat only shows that a few relatively small countries have managed to destroy themselves. This teaches us no economics).
Whatever you label the Scandanavian countries, ’social welfare states’, ’social democracies’ or ‘capitalist’ is imaterial, they knock the spots off other counties when it comes to looking after the environment as well the wealth and quality of life they provide their citizens.
@Peter Pumpkin Eater:
“Regarding your first question of capitalism producing much more food during the population increases of the last 30 years; - only 25% of food produced on this planet is due to large scale industrial chemical agriculture. The other 75% is produced by small farmers.”
1. Source?
2. I don’t see the relevance. The relevant distinction is between capitalist/non-capitalist production, not big/small. I am not an expert, but am willing to bet that a large part of your ’small farms’ are privately owned, hence capitalist.
- Income disparity is a problem? Agreed.
- It is very bad in SA? Agreed.
Where I suspect we differ, however, is regarding the track record of capitalist systems.. the record shows that income inequality (Gini) mostly, in the long run, declines under capitalism (income distribution becomes a bell-curve, rather than L-curve.)
You say: “In addition, their citizens are on average wealthier than US citizens. US ranked only eleventh on average wealth.”
I do think that the scandinavian mix of capitalism/socialism has a lot to be said for it. But where do you get your data from? Apart form Norway, which lucked out on oil-wealth, this seems plainly false.
The 40% number: Care to explain why you blame capitalism if people buy and prepare more than they actually eat? In fact, what other system produces such abundance? (Not saying people should waste food, obviously).
I have read several of Nobel prize winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz books and he gives several examples of mixed economies working well until the World Bank and IMF came along with their structural adjustment programmes.
Hogo Chavaz nationalised the oil industry in Venzuela a few years ago and I see today in the news, “Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez said on Sunday he could nationalize private banks unless they comply with the law, adding he had “no problem with that because the banks don’t want to extend credit to the poor.”
1)and 2) “We reaffirm that our ecological food provision actually feeds the large majority of people all over the world in both rural and urban areas (more than 75%). Our practices focus on food for people, not profit for corporations….
Peasant agriculture is resilient and can adapt to and mitigate climate change…”
-From the People’s Food Sovereignty Now! Declaration, November 2009
Ranking of Properity of citizens not false no - Legatum Index (last time I looked US ranked 11th now 9th I see) - Norway with oil only 5th:
1. Finland
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. Denmark
5. Norway
6. Australia
7. Canada
8. Netherlands
9. United States
10. New Zealand
USA - 40% food wasted while 49 million US citizens suffer food insecurity - something wrong with the system or not - Huh? I mean - “More than one in seven American households struggled to put enough food on the table in 2008, the highest rate since the Agriculture Department began tracking food security levels in 1995.”
Peter Pumkin Eater on November 30th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
“The steel industry that the Korean government created was among the most efficient in the world-performing far better than its private-sector rivals in the United States which, though private, are constantly turning to the government for protection and for subsidies. Financial markets were highly regulated. My research shows that those regulations promoted growth.” Nobel Prize winning economist Prof Joseph Stiglitz - Globalism’s Discontents http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Economy/Globalisms_Discontents.html
I cannot help believing that if we had not followed the free market economics of Milton Freedman and instead followed John Maynhard Keynes (Keynesian Economics) we would not be in the global financial mess we are now.
Keynesian Economics “advocated interventionist government policy, by which governments would use fiscal and monetary measures to mitigate the adverse effects of business cycles, economic recessions, and depressions.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Maynard_Keynes
- My original comment concerned wealth, i.e. GPD per capita. Your Legatum index concerns something else. What Legatum measures is probably important, but is simply not relevant to my original post about Marx and GDP per capita, nor does it contradict it.
- The gini does sometimes get worse in specific places, but the overall trend is in the other direction (and for Marx to be right it has to pretty much get dramatically worse everywhere.) So I don’t see how one stat about the UK contradicts what I said.
- The 40% stat is troubling, sure, but I don’t see how capitalism is to be blamed. Also: Source for 49 million number?
- The 75% number sounds dubious to me (if taken to read that 75% of food is produced by non-capitalist entities. If I have time I will google a bit to try and get data).
- I do think social democracy has virtues.. but don’t know enough economics to really judge.
A well-written and reasoned paper. Thank you for sharing it. Perhaps it will lead to greater analysis of the particular facets of ‘capitalism’ that are most destructive.
The free enterprise system that capitalism is founded upon is good… the problem is that companies are not being held accountable for the costs of their environmental damage. This expense is falling at the feet of all humanity and we are all paying the price
This has just been placed on the EcoNexis web site for Copenhagen - “Agriculture and Climate Change: Real Problems, False Solutions” http://www.econexus.info/
Average GDP is not a good measure, you can have a few very wealthy people and billions of poor people and the average GDP looks ‘acceptable’.
The Legatum Prosperity Index is more representative of quality of life. The 2009 Legatum Prosperity Index is based on 79 different variables analysed across 104 nations around the world. The 79 variables are grouped into 9 sub-indexes which are averaged using equal weights.
The 9 sub-indexes are:
Economic Fundamentals
Democratic Institutions
Health
Governance
Social Capital
Entrepreneurship and Innovation
Education
Safety and Security
Personal Freedom
I also think we must move our mindset away from Marxism vs capitalism. It is no longer relevant. Marxism can be used as an analytical tool but it ain’t gonna work as a political or economic system. Capitalism as we currently practice it does not work either.
Suggest contact the ‘People’s Food Sovereignty Now! Declaration’ organisers for a reference for 75% number.
What you will probably find is communal farming does not work, but where farmers are responsible for their own plots, whether they own them or not, they can be very productive if they have the knowledge. Small scale agriculture is more productive per hectare than large scale.
One problem with giving small scale farmers in the third world land ownership, is they can be bought out by large entrepreneurs and the peasants end up destitute in slums in mega-cities with no means of production.
Peter Pumkin Eater on December 1st, 2009 at 11:50 am
@JP
1) Re: “The gini does sometimes get worse in specific places, but the overall trend is in the other direction” Did you get that from the same economic textbooks that claim in the free market wealth trickles down? I seriuosly question both assumptions/theories/beliefs.
2) My guess is 75% of the global food supply is produced by small farmers and peasants. Take the combined population of the third world (Southern and Eastern block) and compare it to the combined population of the Western industrialised world. The NGOs that worked on the Food Sovereignty Now Declaration probably did their homework.
3) It is critical we realise one economic model does not fit all. The World Bank and IMFs structural adjustment programmes imposed on fairly successful mixed economies suited global corporations and Wall Street financiers but robbed the people in those countries of their joint economic capital and livelyhoods.
4) Each countrys economic policy should be determined by its inhabitants depending on needs. Some countries need tarriff barriers, others do better without. Cheap agricultural produce from highly subsidised industrial countrys dumped on Africa forces peasant farmers off the land and exacerbates famine on the continent.
You call it capitalism, I call it people acting in their own interest. Stopping the profit motive has all kinds of unintended consequences and capitalism/acting in our own best interest will usually always win out.
The only real hope is to entertwin these.
I find it interesting how people always have a problem with some method or manner but propose no alternative solution.
As for energy, we need to go nuclear until we have the breakthroughs needed to make solar, wind, etc. economic. As for nuclear waste, there are solutions and zoning concepts.
As for global warming, this will happen and has happened without mankind so mankind stopping all their activities is not the answer. The world has been through these cycles before and will again regardless of man.
Being pragmatic, I would propose a solution of building sea walls and berms around rivers to deal with the melting of the ice caps. This is one of the few real solutions as 1) global warming will occur even if mankind stops CO2 emission 2) it allows each nation to protect themselves as even if the USA gives up its way of life and CO2 emissions, we don’t control the world and the actions of all.
Note the jobs potential in sea walls and berms for those bent on creating jobs for jobs sake (increased efficiency is what increases our standard of living; not just creating jobs).
Way to generalized and drawing conclusions where they perhaps are not valid.
Case in point……study science as it is a proven fact that water holds more CO2 at cooler temperatures than warmer temperatures. As such, the additional CO2 being measured in the atmosphere may well be the result of global warming and not the cause!!!!!!!!
Until someone explains what caused the past global warming events (I come from California where the whole San Joaquin Valley was under water), it is wrong to attribute global warming soley as a cause of humans using fossile fuels and reducing vegatation.
Whether you admit it or not, global warming will happen without man emitting any CO2 as it has happened in the past. As such, you should not put all your faith in solutions associated with reducing CO2 emissions (or methane, etc.).
Again, warm water (think vast oceans here) holds less CO2 in soltuion than in cold water. Accordingly the increase in CO2 emissions is somewhat attributable (the resultant along with many other factors) to global warming but not necessarily the cause of global warming.
Academia can be helpful……even the ’soft’ sciences as expressed here. But, it is the natural sciences which can help find the true cause and effects through experimentation, analysis and factual observations.
Don’t send a a philosophist to do a scientist’s work!!!!
“This trend toward localization is reflected in the recent rise in the number of farms in the United States, which may be the reversal of a century-long trend of farm consolidation. Between the agricultural census of 2002 and that of 2007, the number of farms in the United States increased by 4 percent to roughly 2.2 million. The new farms were mostly small, many of them operated by women, whose numbers in farming jumped from 238,000 in 2002 to 306,000 in 2007, a rise of nearly 30 percent.”
Full report: ‘Localisation of Agriculture’ by Lester R Brown
Peter Pumpkin Eater on December 2nd, 2009 at 3:48 pm
@HAS
“we need to go nuclear” ???
‘THE CODE KILLERS: AN EXPOSE ‘
Alternate title: Nuclear Power, Nuclear Weapons, Corrupt Government, Corporate Greed, Mass Hysteria, General Ignorance, and Your DNA: A Dangerous Mix? A look at the Data
That is interesting. The issue, however, was not small/big, but capitalist versus not so. I assume these farms in the states are capitalist.
(Sometimes businesses get bigger, sometimes smaller, in a given sector. For instance, the early 80’s was a time of big multi-nationals growing and amalgamating, after that was a time of them getting split up, don’t know about last decade. This stuff - leaders in a sector getting bigger, then smaller - happens.)
Will respond to other stuff when I have time, a bit busy today.
All comments must be approved by our editors, click here to read the editorial guidelines for comments. Please allow some time for our editors to approve your comment after posting.
profile
Bert Olivier is Professor of Philosophy at Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University in Port Elizabeth, South Africa. He holds an MA and DPhil in philosophy, has held postdoctoral fellowships in philosophy at Yale University in the US on more than one occasion, and has held a research fellowship at the University of Wales, Cardiff.
At NMMU he teaches various sub-disciplines of philosophy, as well as film studies, media and architectural theory, and psychoanalytic theory. He has published widely in the philosophy of culture, art and architecture, cinema, music and literature, as well as the philosophy of science, epistemology, psychoanalytic, social, media and discourse theory. In 2004 he was awarded the Stals Prize for Philosophy by the South African Academy for Arts and Sciences, in 2005 he received the award of Top Researcher at NMMU for the period 1999 to 2004, in 2006 the award for Top Researcher in the Faculty of Arts at NMMU, and in 2008 and 2009 he was both Faculty of Arts Researcher of the Year, and NMMU Researcher of the Year.
In my last post, I placed Cameron's Avatar in the interpretive framework of eco-political thought and practice. One could approach it in different way...
James Cameron's latest film, Avatar, is, as far as I can judge, a highly significant film, at least as important as the first two Terminator films (an...
In my previous post I said that one has to go further (as Kierkegaard himself went further) than the two Kierkegaardian models discussed earlier. More...
In my previous post, I reconstructed Kierkegaard's aesthetic model for existence briefly, pointing out the implications this way of living has for hum...
In Either/Or, Volumes I and II, Kierkegaard constructs different models of human existence. They seem to be primarily intended by him as mirrors in wh...
Loading ...
The first paragraph points the direction of the article; “anti capitalism” not focussed on the environment “crisis”.
I visited E Germany (Soviets show country in terms of industrial development) in the 80’s and the polution there was much much worse than anything in the West: my West Germam colleague’s comment was that if this existed in W. Germany all the owners/managers would be jailed. Plus China (by its own admission) is a polution nightmare so please stick to cleaning up the planet and not cleaning up polical systems you disagree with
Brent
(Report abuse)