How Capitalism Affects the Environment: Best Arguments On the Other Side of the Debate
In my last blog post, I talked about how the hot topic of climate change has two very different takes on how to take action against it. The one side of the argument that I previously covered was about how we would need to have changes in regulations and laws enacted by world governments to reduce the negative effects on the climate via the capitalist system. The bottom line in this debate, regardless of which side is more right, more effective or more realistic, is that change absolutely has to happen if we all want a future for ourselves and the generations after us. So for this blog post, I will be covering the other side of the argument — the side that believes that the most effective and realistic way to prevent further damage to the environment is by getting rid of capitalism as a whole.
The first argument I will be looking at is in an article titled Ending Climate Change Requires the End of Capitalism. Have We Got the Stomach For It? by Phil McDuff. McDuff, a writer for The Guardian who writes on economics and social policy, goes over a lot of the uphill battles the generations of kids born after him will have to fight in the sense of climate change and fight for the future. In his first point, McDuff states that simply having policy tweaks such as carbon taxes won’t be enough. He believes that the re-evaluation of our relationship with things like work, capital, and ownership is fundamental. McDuff then goes on to say that there will need to be big changes to the welfare state if such a dramatic reorganization of the industrial economy is due; things like “basic incomes, large-scale public works programmes, everything has to be on the table to ensure that the oncoming system shocks do not leave vast swathes of the global population starving and destitute.” He finally mentions that a more humane view of things like poverty, worklessness, and migration must be made when the welfare system is reformed. One thing McDuff doesn’t go over is why he doesn’t think carbon taxes will be enough. He doesn’t go as far as completely throwing those out of the window, so it leaves me wondering whether or not they should still apply on top of the things he believes would work. One last thing he never goes into detail with is what economic system would replace capitalism as it’s a system used by many countries, and replacing an economic system doesn’t seem that easy in our modern age.
The second argument I will be looking at is in an article titled Here’s Why Capitalism Can’t Fix Climate Change by Stan Cox. Cox is an author of a few books like Any Way You Slice It: The Past, Present and Future and How the World Breaks: Life in Catastrophe’s Path; he has also had his writing appear in newspapers such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Guardian, and Los Angeles Times. In his first point, Cox goes over an opinion piece by Larry Elliot titled Capitalism Can Crack Climate Change. But Only If It Takes Risks and talks about where Elliot is wrong and right in some cases, followed by why Cox thinks that way. He gives insightful comments with every paragraph of Elliot’s article, saying that carbon taxes are not the solution to fight climate change. Cox notes that they would “simply be an attempt to reduce consumption indirectly by making it most costly. The tax would have to be extremely high if it is to achieve the necessarily steep emissions reduction, and that would place an insupportable burden on the world’s poor majority.” Cox then says that rationing is the only fair alternative to carbon taxes, and would “directly reduce emissions while ensuring sufficiency for all. But it would have to apply not only to consumers. Production would have to be rationed, too.” He dismisses carbon taxes and says rationing carbon is a better solution since he believes that everyone but the rich would suffer under inflation and shortages even if some of the tax revenue from the carbon taxes were redistributed. One thing Cox could have done for this argument would have been to explain how carbon rationing would be a better solution than carbon taxes to reduce emissions and combat climate change. He does successfully bring up points as to why carbon taxes may not be better, but never cemented how rationing is sufficient for everyone.
After looking at the arguments on this side of the debate, my belief in the fact there are many different ways world leaders and governments can go about solving this existential threat to the human race was further cemented. Both sides of the argument of fighting climate change with or without capitalism had compelling points and truths behind them. Thinking about my own stance on combating climate change and how capitalism affects it, there is no clear answer.
