If capitalism does not grow, through the increased production/sale of commodities and appropriation of resources both human and natural it will collapse. Each enterprise must, in order to stay afloat not only generate an increase in its net profit but see an increase in its rate of profit. Environmental considerations so long as they act to decrease the capitalist rate of profit will be averted - so for instance if the perceived risk of engaging in an act environmental degradation is calculated to be lower than the potential gain, then the company will pursue the more profitable course. While its often argued by proponents of ecologism that the former description of capitalist accumulation leads to a situation whereby capitalism is unable to function in an environmentaly sustainable manner - I consider this an over-simplification. It may be difficult for capitalism to overcome the problem of externalities as they pertain to the environment, however there are clear methods by which capitalist nations may address these issues.
The state could for instance, enact legislation whereby capital is unilaterally forced into accepting unprofitable costs where it refuses to act according to an ecologically sustainable framework. The problem presents itself however in the degree to which the state institutions are controlled by big buinsess/TNCs ect - who will in seeking preservation of short term profit margins resist such measures. Given the extent to which modern political parties are effectively sponsored by, and run by the rich, it is perhaps naive to conceptualize the state as being somehow less than an extension of immediate bourgeoisie interests. Even in the event that one particular state decided to enact such measures, they would likely become subject to an outward flight of capital - thereby forcing them to re-consider their policy.
This understood, progress in terms of ecological sustainability would most likely come about in the event that it proved a profitable endeavour. One possible event that could initiate this type of structural shift would be the depletion of the earths finite fuel reserves, this would invariably cause the cost of exploration to rise disproportionate to any return in the way of profit.
This would likely incentivize capital to consider alternative forms of energy generation. However there is no guarantee that the alternative would be eco-friendly, in fact nuclear energy could conceivably be utilized as a profitable substitute. The degree to which renewable technologies can facilitate current production/consumption levels is debatable, for instance a study by the Stockholm environmental institute carried out in 1993 stated that ''renewables could supply 2.5 times the worlds current energy consumption in 2100, while up to 2030 the biggest contribution would be made biomass - but after that date the amount captured from the sun and the wind would rise rapidly'' Douthwaite 2000. However, in his book (the growth illusion) Douthwaite looks at alternate propositions, citing estimations made by another researcher - Trainer, explaining that ''in 1995 he concluded that renewables would not be able to sustain industrialized levels of world use'' - on biomass he stated that ''all energy stored each year in the earths plant mass is equal to approximately five times present world energy use''. As a result it would take all crop land in the world just to meet the present demand for transport fuel, adding that total biomass growth in the US would only provide 27% of its overall energy requirements'' Douthwaite 2000. An alternative economy of the deep green variety would likely entail either a substantial decrease in consumption, reduction in the population or both.
''Edward Goldsmith has put the global sustainability figure at 3,500 million'' Dobson 2000. In outlining how such reductions in population could be achieved through state mechanisms Dobson cites Irvines propositions that ''tax benefits for children with fewer than two children; sterilization bonuses; withdrawel of maternity and similar benifits after a second child; larger pensions for people with fewer than two children ect'' Dobson 2000. Irvine, nor Dobson however address the fact that the majority of the earths population live in the developing world, in areas where progressive taxation and pension funds are virtually non-existent. Moreover, these are the regions with the highest re-production rates, developed economies tend to have lower reproduction rates due to the availibity of social services ect. large families in the periphrial regions serve as a form of social security in the absence of any state supports.
Irvine then can only be taken to suggest that the developed world engage in redistribution of capital rather than lower actual production, however this assertion presupposes that the current levels of consumption be maintained. Additionally the notion that the global pop can be reduced by such a drastic amount seems outlandish. Even so, more realistic reductions would present massive problems.
To institue the type of state benifit scheems in periphrial economies that Irvine advocates would require substancial investment on the part of developed nations, either in the form of state aid or private donation in conjunction with some form of debt cancelation. This presents problem considering investment is largely dependent on profitability - so while the developed world may pay out large amounts to periphrial economies this is subject to the condition that the developing world provides an immdediate increase on the return. Zinn explaining the situation notes that while US corporations between 1950 amd 1965 ''in Latin America invested 3.8 billion and made 11.2 billion in profits, in Africa they invested 5.2 billion and made 14.3 billion in profits'' Zinn. Betsy Harmen also expressess the situation of the third world in the eighties as ''today giving more to the industrialized world than it takes. Inflows of official aid and private loans are exceeded by outflows in the form of repatriated profits, interest payments and private capital sent abraod by third world elites'' Bradford.
This understood the concept of an ecologicaly sustainible capitalism runs into problems to the extent that incentivising population reductions would undermine its own productive base. Expendature designed to decrease the mass of third world inhabitants would push up periphrial labor costs relative to returns thus causing a decline in the rate of profit and thereafter lead to economic stagnation. Again, capitalism runs into the problem of short term profitability vs long term collapse - it both requires an ever available mass of surplus labor to keep wage costs in check, while requireing an ever increasing market to buy up its goods.
While I consider it possible for capitalism to reduce its dependence on fossil fuels, I find capitalism (in the main) irreconsilable with ecological sustainability. Ecological sustainability would entail either a cap on consumption or a drastic reduction in the population. Each of the aformentioned tactics would require political policy to be put before the process of unhindered accumulation. Ecological sustainibility would require the mechanisms of trade be directed according to the targets of a political project. A green economy could not be based not on accumulation for its own sake - rather based on preservation and awareness of finite resources.
References:
Dobson A : (2007) Green Political Thought (Routledge:London) p.76 - 77
Harvey. A: (2005) Brief History Of Neo-Liberalism (Oxford) p. 175
Balken J: (2005) The Corporation - the pathalogical pursuit of profit and power (Constable:London) p. 33
Douthwaite R: (2000) The Growth Illusion (Lilliput Press: Dublin) p 223 - 224
McKay l: (2007) An Anarchist FAQ (AK Press:Edinburgh) p. 389
No comments:
Post a Comment