Climate change and capitalist growth

That 'ecological rift' stuff I wanna read more on. I like Clark, York & Foster's little marxist take on science and ecology niche at the moment. I read their books on Stephen Jay Gould and Intelligent Design and have wanted to check our Ecological Rift for a while. Anyone read it?

As far as the argument, I think you're right that they may underestimate capitalism's dynamism. I recall a thread about this very subject 3-4yrs ago where the competing voices were similar but the voice recognising and not writing off a capitalist solution was drowned out by the hysteria of ARE YOU SAYING CAPITALISM CAN SAVE THE ENVIRONMENT?

When in fact what was said, as you've repeated, was that capitalism may find some mechanism to reduce global temperatures but it will be on the terms of capitalists and likely be with massive social costs - we know who will bear the brunt of that. No free lunch eh?

sorry was just editing my post as you replied!

Joseph Kay

there's a second contradiction between the forces and relations of production together, and the 'conditions of production' i.e the natural (and i think social) environment. Iirc O'Connor saw the workers movement as the agent fighting the first contradiction, and 'new social movements' as the agent fighting the second.

That second seems similar to Harvey's 'relation to nature' as one of his 'seven activity spheres' in Enigma of Capital. I think Harvey seems the new social movements playing a similar role too.

Yeah, I agree with Joseph's comments here.

While the issue of climate change is something which is much more urgent than the way it is being dealt with (or not as the case may be) I agree that theoretically it is something which could be solved in a capitalist society.

As can be seen from the types saying "reform is impossible", many radicals and revolutionaries have a millenarian sort of apocalyptic approach, where they think everything is going to come crashing down at some point - but of course this has been prophesied for hundreds of years and has yet to materialise…

will have a wee jook at that

In other words, while the theorists of the ecological rift argue expanded commodity production requires burning fossil fuels, this isn't strictly true. It merely requires energy.

I'm not certain this is true - at least in theory, expanding commodity production is compatible with even reducing energy use. For starters, when it comes to industry more energy intensive doesn't necessarily mean more productive. But more fundamentally, there's a difference between expanding commodity production in general, in terms of expanding value, and expanding the production of particular commodities quantitatively in terms of making more toasters, cars, iPhones or whatever.

It seems to me the basic problem with theories like the theory of the ecological rift, which see capitalist accumulation as fundamentally incompatible with ecology, is they make the classic error of confusing social relations for things. Capitalism must expand endlessly, but what it must expand is profits, which are a social phenomenon rather than real things; value not use values. In some cases it can actually be in capitalists' interests to produce less in order to make more money. And capitalists can switch from investing in things which cost a lot of energy e.g. manufacturing cars to things which have lower energy costs but are still profitable e.g. selling adverts on social networking sites.

Of course in practice the development of capitalist industry *has* meant increasing energy demands, but I don't think this is necessarily a universal principle.

~J.

I broadly agree with Joseph on the possibility of an ecological movement emerging to 'push' capitalism in the right direction. As someone who's come out of the people and planet/green party/activist circle we went nowhere. The combined attempts at summit hopping protests, lobbying and parliamentary politics haven't come close to shifting capitalism and there doesn't seem to be much vision of what to do next other than more of the same.

There's been very little link up between activists and working class struggle, with one or two exceptions (Vestas perhaps). Trade unions have made token moves in terms of environment reps etc. but again this isn't anything like a concerted class struggle to impose a real engagement with the necessity of climate change.

I think it's possible, though I'd certainly not suggest we should rely on it, that we'll see some form of mass movement from the global South in response to climate change. There have been some signs of that so far, and it is where we should expect to see the worst effects of whatever climate change does occur, so that may concentrate minds in a way that doesn't happen here.

I think the shift from within capitalism, frankly, is the best we can hope for though (barring a sudden collapse in capitalism for some other reason in the meantime/revolution predicated on some other struggle). There are growing numbers of people talking about how capitalism could be reformed to deal with the problem, and with numbers that seem to make some sense both economically and environmentally: Jonathon Porritt, Amory Lovins, Philippe Legrain,... Desertec, for example, as mentioned, has huge potential and some pretty serious backers now: Munich Re, PWC, etc.

I suspect any global capitalist solution will involve quite a lot of nuclear power, will see costs in energy and food passed on and resulting shortages in parts of the world and some form of expanded carbon trading (with associated derivatives and therefore potential for accumulation) possibly at both international and domestic levels.

I have to say I don't really buy the idea that capitalism is inherently incapable of dealing with the problem at all, though it does make a nice argument against capitalist realism I've found. You just have to be careful it doesn't descend into some kind of deep green/de-growth/primitivist/anti-civilisation thought instead.

great blog post btw

This is a great blog post, informative, unnerving, and thought provoking. I agree with the skepticism Joseph has over the stuff about how capitalism is inherently ecocidal. I think that kind of thing is partly about people wanting theoretical predictive answers when it seems to me that what actually happens is historical and very much up in the air (it's under-determined, so to speak). I think it's possible that the collective institutional stupidity within the current arrangement of capitalism has too much power and momentum that change won't happen in time to avert ecological catastrophe and I find Joseph convincing when he says that the worst case scenario is a really bad one. Joseph, could you say a bit more on that worst case scenario in terms of the potential for disrupting human societies massively? It seems to me that if things get bad enough in terms of the consequences of ecological damage it could help enough capitalists to change their minds and move in a different direction toward a greener capitalism. And really eco-catastrophe could provide a growth market for the industries of catastrophe and aftermath management as well as for the various things needed in rebuilding. That may not happen, and it may not happen fast enough to avert really awful and irreversible climate change, but the outcomes here aren't predetermined within capitalism. Different capitalisms are possible within the framework of capitalist social relations.

I don't know how to put this clearly but I do think there's like a magnified risk because of the massive technological forces that exist. It's like with nukes - I think that people in charge are dumb/evil enough to actually use then, that's a real threat, and there systemic tendencies that predictably produce that kind of evil and stupidity. Likewise with ecological crisis, it's a real possibility and some of the correctives that are tied to biotechnology (I'm thinking of efforts to create micro-organisms that eat pollutants etc - I recently listend to this radio program http://www.radiolab.org/2008/apr/07/ where they talked about bio-engineering and it was kind of unnerving to hear people talk about this kind of work as just a matter of tools). I think aspects of capitalism encourage a reduction of moral and political problems to administrative and technical problems, which encourages large scale mistakes and negative consequences. But it's possible that capitalism can solve the problems it generates, solve them on its own terms in a way that maintains the core problems of exploitation and hierarchy and so on and which makes further future problems likely. We don't know if those problems will necessarily end capitalism or if they will get solved or not, because those outcomes are historical and contingent.

Thanks Joseph. Yeah, very grim. But not "end of human society" or "total social breakdown" grim, meaning that capitalism could persist through all of this and the very wealthy could probly count on being insulated from most of it. So maybe they'll further fuck the rest of us and our descendents. Ugh.

Joseph Kay

This didn't really fit in anywhere in the blog, but Corporate Watch have done an excellent critical guide to climate change technologies (if you ignore the odd bit of somewhat liberal editorialising). Even if you're in the 'we need a revolution' camp, we still need to think about this stuff since if we overthrew capitalism tomorrow one of the first tasks for the workers councils would be a massive shift from fossil fuels to renewables, district heating schemes, public mass transit and so on, or we'd still end up with dangerous climate change.

I agree, but how would you respond to someone who pointed out that communism might actually put more strain on the environment by lifting billions out of poverty and allowing them to consume many more goods? Seems to me (as I argued in this thread) that we might also have to voluntarily reduce our own population to reduce strain on the earth's resources. I recognize this is a controversial position, but it seems to me the cessation of poverty might balance out or even be a greater strain on resources than that eliminated by the expropriation of the rich and the reduction in production of luxury items. As I understand it alternative energy sources could not immediately replace fossil fuels, it would take a long time to replace the current infrastructure with cleaner technologies, so I think a purely "technological solution" to this problem is not feasible...

James Lovelock of "Gaia" fame wrote a book a few years ago outlining the worst case global warming scenario: 6 degree temperature rise by 2100 with the last 200 million humans being able to live only along the arctic and antarctic coasts.

I guess I should say here that I am thinking of a time when the immediate struggle against the capitalists is more or less over and production is being re-organized. Obviously during the revolution itself we will have more pressing concerns than ecological problems.

Joseph Kay

tastybrain

I agree, but how would you respond to someone who pointed out that communism might actually put more strain on the environment by lifting billions out of poverty and allowing them to consume many more goods?

Don't ask me, ask all the sweatshop workers in the workshops of the world who spend 18 hour shifts making consumer goods. I don't suspect they'll be overthrowing capitalism then resolving to ramp up output!

No, of course not. But all of the labor doesn't have to be done by those people (who may never want to work in production again...). What about the formerly unemployed, those who were in unproductive jobs like advertizing and insurance, expropriated bourgeois, and so forth. Presumably, if they themselves are reaping the full benefit, people may be willing to continue to produce more or less necessary consumer goods, usually with the same old ecologically destructive methods.

Joseph Kay

I think in any hypothetical communist movement superseding capitalism, economic output is likely to collapse, not least with strike waves, factory burnings, armed conflicts etc. And economic collapse is good for the climate (note, economic collapse i.e. value isn't the same as a collapse in wealth i.e. use-values, so despite economic collapse i'd imagine there'd be an immediate bump in living standards for the majority - less work and more stuff).

I am imagining a scenario of a society a few years into the revolutionary process, after the glut of goods in the warehouses from the capitalist years is gone and we are confronted with the necessity of continuing production.

Joseph Kay

I'd imagine the 'communisation' of society will be a very immediate necessity of securing food supplies and enough bullets to squash counter-revolutions. I doubt plasma TVs for everyone will be very high up the agenda.

I never said the rise in consumption would be primarily comprised of luxury items --- although I imagine some workers in the third world would love to experience the luxuries that we take for granted. There would also be a rise in consumption in such necessary items as water filtration equipment, fertilizer, farm equipment, medical supplies, building materials (to construct sewers, water filtration plants, hospitals, schools, etc). All of this would also have to be transported to the point of consumption. The bottom line is, even disregarding luxury items, the end of poverty will mean a rise in consumption for those at the bottom that may balance out or exceed the drop in consumption among those at the top and therefore also negate any ecological gains we may have made.

Joseph Kay

I think there'd likely be widespread abandoning of workplaces (think of the death-trap Chinese coal mines that are driving CO2 emissions growth), and once basic necessities were being met and the threat of counter-revolution receded, there'd be a conversation about levelling living standards, launching massive public works schemes to bring clean energy to everyone, and the gadgets that are powered by it, maybe re-commencing production of consumer goods and the like, if the conditions of production could be sufficiently humanised for people to undertake it voluntarily.

But tbh, I don't really find this a useful line of argument. It's impossible to imagine what a hypothetical communist revolution might look like, and how it will relate to ecological issues. I think what's far more likely, given the balance of global class forces, is some form of woefully inadequate capitalist 'solution' (as outlined in my repsonse to Nate above). As i think that's much more likely than global communism in the next couple of decades, it seems like it's more worth thinking about, especially as in many ways it's already in motion.

Well I'm certainly not predicting immanent revolution. I agree the capitalist "solution" to this problem is something that is "worth thinking about". But surely we can also imagine potential communist solutions. Yes, it's impossible to provide a perfect blueprint of a future society, but I don't see why that means we can't think about the problems a future society might face, and in my view the sooner this conversation begins the better, as the stakes are very high. Capitalism will not solve this problem; any capitalist solution, rather than fixing global warming, will likely only delay the effects.

I actually don't think post capitalism this would be a huge problem, as Joseph says initially production would almost certainly drop significantly. As time went on that would probably increase again but at that point there are a lot of things we can organise differently so as to use far less energy than now. We of course can't predict exactly what a communist society would look like but I imagine we would all work less, consume less, share more and have far better public transport, for a start.

I also don't think its true to say that renewable technologies are far from being able to replace all our energy needs. Concentrating solar power alone could supply all our energy with current technology if there was the money/will to do it. And there have been a number of reports showing how to provide all our energy from low carbon sources, I remember one particularly from Greenpeace and David McKays work (which is actually a bit pesimistic I think) for example.

If we manage to get communism before we solve our energy problems I think we'll be fine, so I'd agree with Joseph that's its more useful to consider what happens in the far more likely scenario that we don't.

Just want to say, another great blog posts. I think the mini blog explosion libcom's experienced has really ratcheted up the level of discussion.

i have always speculated about this (less eruditely) with some of my mates, like yourselves unsuprisingly never coming to some certain conclusion. but with all of us landless peasants likely to get it in the neck its hard for thoughts not to take a bit of a survivalist direction.. & a practical direction based on what to do if the half assed semi solution that keeps capitalism staggering on and more and more of us suffering is what manifests. plenty of people have died as result of climate change already and it doesn't seem to have brought us closer to any useful form of social change revolutionary or otherwise.

specifically one thing re tastybrains post is that lots of evidence shows that if circumstances improve for women economically and in terms of access to contraception (and general personal independence would help too) then population levels fall. and in my opinion if anything is to be meaningfully called an anarchist or libertarian communist revolution then these things would occur.

Reproductive Rights and Wrongs : The Global Politics of Population Control by Betsy Hartmann

http://www.southendpress.org/search?query=betsy%20hartmann&by=release_date&search_key=all&page=2
is a good one

although if you want to give a more lively bit of text to someone who thinks that maybe some people will need to die of as part of the world rebalancing itself (as emerged from the mouth of one of my younger friends during a slightly drunken night) then this is better :-

CONQUEST :Sexual Violence and American Indian Genocide by Andrea Smith (one of my favourite books)

http://www.southendpress.org/2005/items/Conquest

Alasdair

I actually don't think post capitalism this would be a huge problem, as Joseph says initially production would almost certainly drop significantly. As time went on that would probably increase again but at that point there are a lot of things we can organise differently so as to use far less energy than now.

I'm not sure I agree...the production process will have to resume pretty much immediately during and after the revolution. I doubt we will have the luxury of planning a totally new infrastructure before things start up again. I anticipate at least a few years of "intertia" where production, by necessity, is carried out via the same technical means. With so much work to be done in the wake of the revolution I guess I would worry that environmental change would be ignored. That's why I think the conversation about a transition to a communist society that is also in harmony with nature should happen as soon as possible (and the transition should happen as soon as possible if a communist revolution did occur).

Alasdair

We of course can't predict exactly what a communist society would look like but I imagine we would all work less, consume less, share more and have far better public transport, for a start.

Workers with comparatively high incomes in "first world" countries may consume less, but under conditions of global communism surely the majority of people would consume more? Also, if production was conducted in a truly democratic way, people would decide how much they work and consume...some communities might opt for low production and consumption, some for high.

Alasdair

I also don't think its true to say that renewable technologies are far from being able to replace all our energy needs. Concentrating solar power alone could supply all our energy with current technology if there was the money/will to do it. And there have been a number of reports showing how to provide all our energy from low carbon sources, I remember one particularly from Greenpeace and David McKays work (which is actually a bit pesimistic I think) for example.

I'll take your word for it. But even so, making the transition to clean energy would require a great deal of labor and would be an intense project.

Alasdair

If we manage to get communism before we solve our energy problems I think we'll be fine,

Why? I think a classless stateless society could still be ecologically harmful. Certainly industrialism was an aspect of classical anarchism, ecology is a relatively recent presence in the anarchist/communist milieu. It could be that we manage to overcome capitalism but get fucked over by the ecological backlash (climate change) because its too late to do anything! (or we could miss our decisive opportunity to halt the progress of climate change by not making it enough of a priority).

Alasdair

so I'd agree with Joseph that's its more useful to consider what happens in the far more likely scenario that we don't.

I mean, yeah, but assuming we don't we don't have much control over what comes next. Also, whatever "fix"capitalism comes up with will surely be stopgap in nature, imagining a society truly in harmony with nature won't be rendered a waste of time by capitalism's successful resolution of the problem (and its failure would surely render such imagining even more important). Anyway, wanting to defer this discussion to when communism gets here (!) almost seems like an excuse for a paucity of libertarian communist ideas on bringing the economic process into harmony with nature. I realize we can't plan the future society, but I think it's good to have some sort of tentative program or body of thought worked out to deal with climate change and ecological disaster, rather than this sort of "it'll work itself out come the revolution" attitude. That way, when we criticize the capitalists for killing the planet and they say "well what would you do differently" we have something to point to.

tastybrain

Alasdair

If we manage to get communism before we solve our energy problems I think we'll be fine,

Why? I think a classless stateless society could still be ecologically harmful. Certainly industrialism was an aspect of classical anarchism, ecology is a relatively recent presence in the anarchist/communist milieu. It could be that we manage to overcome capitalism but get fucked over by the ecological backlash (climate change) because its too late to do anything! (or we could miss our decisive opportunity to halt the progress of climate change by not making it enough of a priority).

You're right that we might overcome capitalism, but do it too late, but that's more of a reason to consider how to engage critically with and to think about what will happen prior to overcoming capitalism. There's no point in us thinking we'll solve the environmental problem after we overthrow capitalism and then realising it's no longer possible when/if we do.

We could also miss our opportunity by not making it a priority, and that might be the worst tragedy. Post revolution I'll certainly argue that it must be a priority, but my point wasn't intended so much that we'll definitely be fine - you're correct in saying that we won't - but that there would be no real forces in the way of our succeeding, perhaps other than time. It will require a lot of effort and restructuring, but the technology all already exists - it just isn't all efficient to deploy under a capitalist economy without some push to overcome the divergence between who can afford the up-front capital costs and who benefits longer term.

While it is theoretically possible that capitalist industries/countries could convert operations to a minimal fossil fuel based system and maintain profitability, there are several reasons to think that this will probably not happen:

1. Time. The lead time needed to research, design, build, and install the solar thermal/solar electric, wind, wave, geo, and biomass replacement for fossil fuels is probably 40 years. By 2050, global warming will either be beyond our control, or we will have attained a less than 400 ppm concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. I wouldn't count on the latter. Nuclear power plants don't take 40 years to build, but it might take 40 years to complete the conversion to nuclear from fossil fuels.

2. Sacrifice. In order to achieve a stabilization, then reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere in the next 10 years, economic activity will have to slow down dramatically, because industry will have to cease and desist from manufacturing unnecessary consumer goods, and consumers (whose purchases make up more than 70% of the GDP) will have to get along on a good deal less. This will lead to a downward economic spiral -- even with great capital investments in non-fossil energy. I am not suggesting a mild inconvenience here. Reducing CO2 production in the near future (10 to 15 years, max) means a sharp reduction in the quality of life--as citizens of industrialized nations have so far known it.

3. Vested Interests. It seems highly unlikely, extremely unlikely really, that the owners of fossil fuel production, transportation, and use facilities will relinquish what are extremely profitable businesses. It is equally unlikely that consumers in industrial nations (and industrializing nations) will willingly relinquish their chance at a more comfortable life on behalf of a gamble. We might have no choice, at some point, but as long as we have a vote in the market place, economic retrenchment is unlikely to happen.

4. Nature. With respect to the environmental crisis of global warming, capitalists are not evil monsters from hell. Neither are consumers in capitalist countries. Neither are farmers, ranchers, slash and burn agrarians, meat eaters, car drivers, prolific plastic bag wasters, coal miners, and so on. We human beings are behaving normally, for our species. IF we have blundered into our own self-destruction, it is not because we are wicked. It is because we are gifted primates who do not have 20/20 vision into the future.