Will Capitalism Survive Climate Change?

By Walden Bello*, Focus on the Global South, April 2008

THERE is now a solid consensus in the scientific community that if the change in global mean temperature in the twenty-first century exceeds 2.4 degrees Celsius, changes in the planet’s climate will be large-scale, irreversible, and disastrous. Moreover, the window of opportunity for action that will make a difference is narrow — that is, the next 10 to 15 years.

Throughout the North, however, there is strong resistance to changing the systems of consumption and production that have created the problem in the first place and a preference for “techno-fixes,” such as “clean” coal, carbon sequestration and storage, industrial-scale biofuels, and nuclear energy.

Globally, transnational corporations and other private actors resist government-imposed measures such as mandatory caps, preferring to use market mechanisms like the buying and selling of “carbon credits,” which critics says simply amounts to a license for corporate polluters to keep on polluting.

In the South, there is little willingness on the part of Southern elites to depart from the high-growth, high-consumption model inherited from the North, and a self-interested conviction that the North must first adjust and bear the brunt of adjustment before the South takes any serious step towards limiting its greenhouse gas emissions.

Contours of the Challenge
In the climate change discussions, the principle of “common but differentiated responsibility” is recognized by all parties, meaning that the global North must shoulder the brunt of the adjustment to the climate crisis since it is the one whose economic trajectory has brought it about. It is also recognized that the global response should not compromise the right to develop of the countries of the global South

The devil, however, is in the detail. As Martin Khor of Third World Network has pointed out, the global reduction of 80 per cent in greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2050 that many now recognize as a necessary, will have to translate into reductions of at least 150 to 200 per cent on the part of the global North if the two principles — “common but differentiated responsibility” and recognition of the right to development of the countries of the South — are to be followed. But are the governments and people of the North prepared to make such commitments?

Psychologically and politically, it is doubtful that the North at this point has what it takes to meet the problem head-on. The prevailing assumption is that the affluent societies can take on commitments to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions but still grow and enjoy their high standards of living if they shift to non-fossil fuel energy sources. Moreover, how the mandatory cuts agreed multilaterally by governments get implemented within the country must be market-based, that is, on the trading of emission permits. The subtext is: techno-fixes and the carbon market will make the transition relatively painless and — why not? — profitable, too.

There is, however, a growing realization that many of these technologies are decades away from viable use and that, in the short and medium term, relying on a shift in energy dependence to non-fossil fuel alternatives will not be able to support current rates of economic growth. Also, it is increasingly evident that the trade-off for more cropland being devoted to biofuel production is less land to grow food and greater food insecurity globally.

It is rapidly becoming clear that the dominant paradigm of economic growth is one of the most significant obstacles to a serious global effort to deal with climate change. But this destabilizing, fundamentalist growth-consumption paradigm is itself more effect rather than cause.

The central problem, it is becoming increasingly clear, is a mode of production whose main dynamic is the transformation of living nature into dead commodities, creating tremendous waste in the process. The driver of this process is consumption - or more appropriately overconsumption - and the motivation is profit or capital accumulation: Capitalism, in short.

It has been the generalization of this mode of production in the North and its spread from the North to the South over the last 300 years that has caused the accelerated burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil and rapid deforestation, two of the key man-made processes behind global warming.

The South’s Dilemma
One way of viewing global warning is to see it as a key manifestation of the latest stage of a wrenching historical process: the privatization of the global commons by capital. The climate crisis must thus be seen as the expropriation by the advanced capitalist societies of the ecological space of less developed or marginalized societies.

This leads us to the dilemma of the South: Before the full extent of the ecological destabilization brought about by capitalism, it was expected that the South would simply follow the “stages of growth” of the North. Now it is impossible to do so without bringing about ecological Armageddon. Already, China is on track to overtake the US as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and yet the elite of China as well as those of India and other rapidly developing countries are intent on reproducing the American-type overconsumption-driven capitalism.

Thus, for the South, the implications of an effective global response to global warming include not just the inclusion of some countries in a regime of mandatory reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, although this is critical: in the current round of climate negotiations, for instance, China, can no longer opt out of a mandatory regime on the ground that it is a developing country.

Nor can the challenge to most of the other developing countries be limited to that of getting the North to transfer technology to mitigate global warming and provide funds to assist them in adapting to it, as many of them appeared to think during the Bali negotiations.

These steps are important, but they should be seen as but the initial steps in a broader, global reorientation of the paradigm for achieving economic well being. While the adjustment will need to be much, much greater and faster in the North, the adjustment for the South will essentially be the same: a break with the high-growth, high-consumption model in favor of another model of achieving the common welfare

In contrast to the Northern elites’ strategy of trying to decouple growth from energy use, a progressive comprehensive climate strategy in both the North and the South must be to reduce growth and energy use while raising the quality of life of the broad masses of people. Among other things, this will mean placing economic justice and equality at the center of the new paradigm.

The transition must be one not only from a fossil-fuel based economy but also from an overconsumption-driven economy. The end-goal must be adoption of a low-consumption, low-growth, high-equity development model that results in an improvement in people’s welfare, a better quality of life for all, and greater democratic control of production.

It is unlikely that the elites of the North and the South will agree to such a comprehensive response. The farthest they are likely to go is for techno-fixes and a market-based cap-and-trade system. Growth will be sacrosanct, as will the system of global capitalism.

Yet, confronted with the Apocalypse, humanity cannot self-destruct. It may be a difficult road, but we can be sure that the vast majority will not commit social and ecological suicide to enable the minority to preserve their privileges. However it is achieved, a thorough reorganization of production, consumption, and distribution will be the end result of humanity’s response to the climate emergency and the broader environmental crisis.

Threat and Opportunity
In this regard, climate change is both a threat and an opportunity to bring about the long postponed social and economic reforms that had been derailed or sabotaged in previous eras by elites seeking to preserve or increase their privileges. The difference is that today the very existence of humanity and the planet depend on the institutionalization of economic systems based not on feudal rent extraction or capital accumulation or class exploitation but on justice and equality.

The question is often asked these days if humanity will be able to get its act together to formulate an effective response to climate change. Though there is no certainty in a world filled with contingency, I am hopeful that it will. In the social and economic system that will be collectively crafted, I anticipate that there will be room for the market. However, the more interesting question is: will it have room for capitalism? Will capitalism as a system of production, consumption, and distribution survive the challenge of coming up with an effective solution to the climate crisis?

 *Senior Analyst at Focus in the Global South, a program of the Chulalongkorn University Social Research Institute.

Larry Lohmann on Realities of Carbon Trading

Larry Lohmann is the editor of Carbon Trading: A Critical Conversation on Climate Change . He also works with The Corner House, a research and solidarity NGO in the UK and is a member of the Durban Group for Climate Justice. In a three part video he talks to The Real News about the realities of carbon trading and the solutions.

Part # 1: Does carbon trading really work? Larry Lohmann critiques cap-and-trade.   Part # 2: The realities of carbon trading. Larry Lohmann on the weaknesses of cap-and-trade and carbon offsetting   Part # 3: Carbon cutting: what is the solution? Larry Lohmann suggests leaving fossil fuels in the ground    

No Deal in Sight at Bali

Analysis by Anil Netto, Inter Press Service (IPS)PENANG, Malaysia, Dec 10 (IPS) - As a major United Nations ‘framework convention’ on climate change (UNFCCC) crossed into its second half on Monday, the official view is one of optimism that progress has been made in laying the ”building blocks” for a future agreement.But others say the discussions are hopelessly deadlocked and that proposals could fall far short of the drastic emission cuts required to curb global warming.  Speaking at a press briefing at the end of the first of two weeks of negotiations, UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer said the conference needed to do two things: ”First of all, it needs to deliver on a number of ongoing issues that are of particular importance to developing countries. For example, we need to advance on the question of adaptation, we need to advance on technology transfer, we need to strengthen capacity-building and we need to move forward on the issue of reducing emissions from deforestation.” ”And secondly, it needs to launch a process on climate change action beyond 2012 when the first commitment period under the Kyoto Protocol ends.” No final deal on a future climate regime will be concluded on the famed Indonesian island resort. The goal is merely to launch negotiations, to set an agenda on the ”main building blocks” of a future agreement and to set an end date for conclusion of the negotiations. According to de Boer, three divergent views have arisen. Some countries wanted legally binding targets for developing countries. Others said developing countries could limit growth in emissions provided incentives are put in place. Another major discussion centred on whether industrialised countries should accept legally binding targets or national-level targets. ”There’s good progress in the future-oriented discussion on three of the four building blocks: good progress has been made on mitigation, adaptation and technology,” added Boer. He pointed out that the fact that there has been less progress on finance did not mean the issue was difficult ”but simply points to the fact there hasn’t been enough time to discuss that issue yet”. De Boer said he had observed a strong willingness on the part of countries to get a successful outcome from Bali. But Malaysia’s leading environmentalist Gurmit Singh, when contacted in Bali, had a different assessment. ”They always give a rosy picture,” he told IPS in a telephone interview. ”I think the discussions are still deadlocked because no unanimous position has emerged.” Much of the debate centres on technology transfer, he said. ”Larger developing nations such as China, India and Brazil are holding back. They want developed nations to show they are actually reducing emissions.” The problem is that the developed countries say they will wait because the Kyoto Protocol only commits industrialised countries to legally binding reductions in greenhouse gas (GhG) emissions between 2008 and 2012. In the meantime, emissions from countries such as China, India and Brazil — and even Malaysia — have been increasing, says Gurmit, the executive director of the Centre for Environment, Technology and Development Malaysia (Cetdem). For instance, the U.N. Development Report indicates carbon emissions soared by 221 per cent from 1990 to 2004 in Malaysia — the fastest growth rate among the world’s top 30 carbon dioxide emitters. Malaysia’s largest conglomerate, Sime Darby, which is mainly involved in the oil palm, property, energy and motor vehicle sectors, has adopted the tagline ‘Developing Sustainable Futures’ and says it is going green as concern mounts over the levels of deforestation caused by the drive towards bio-fuels. Budget airlines in South-east Asia, on the other hand, are rapidly expanding their services across the region, oblivious to the emissions they are causing. . Peter Hardstaff, head of policy for the Britain-based World Development Movement, in his blog from Bali describes an encounter with Pacific Islanders who are already ”in big trouble” due to rising sea levels. He wrote of one member of the Cook Islands delegation who was ”gob-smacked by the fact that there is such strong (and currently successful) pressure to exclude aviation from emissions cuts in the next phase of the Kyoto deal.” ”He told me that it was only in the 1990s that cartographers started remembering to put his homeland on world maps because it is so small. He reckoned if the aviation industry has its way, we might as well take the Cook Islands off again,” said Hardstaff. The International Energy Agency (IEA) has forecast a rise in global energy demand of 50 per cent by 2030. Much of this will come from rapidly growing economies such as China and India. If no climate policy is put in place, it could lead to a 50 per cent increase in greenhouse gas emissions ”That’s why the developed countries especially the United States are saying, ‘Why should we reduced emissions because China’s emissions are now about the same level as the U.S.?”’ says Gurmit ”They are going to put the blame on the big developing countries for any failure in reaching an agreement.” ”So it’s left to be seen if the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) recommendations — and the EU itself — which call for massive reductions in emissions by 2020, can be achieved. That means not only developed countries, but also developing countries, have to reduce emissions.” Earlier this year, the parties to the Kyoto Protocol agreed to a range of 25-40 percent emission reduction targets by 2020. De Boer said these targets would be “an important reference frame for these discussions.” The big political question, says Gurmit, is how to ask developing countries to reduce emissions when they are not being given the technology transfer and financial aid promised in the UNFCCC, to which even the United States is bound because it has ratified the convention. ”You cannot ask developing countries to reduce the energy they need to eradicate poverty and raise the quality of life unless you give them the technology that will allow them to use more renewable energy so that they can become low-carbon economies.” The U.S. has already declared that it would not be announcing binding emission targets at Bali, dampening any chance for the agreed 25-40 percent cuts being included in any final agreement that may be hammered out on Dec.14, when the Bali conference ends. As the arguments swirl, Hardstaff grimly laid out what’s at stake: ”The science says that with an 80 per cent cut in carbon emissions — the absolute upper limit that is even being considered here by the politicians — we have a 50/50 chance of keeping the rise in average global temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius beyond pre-industrial levels.” ”Think about that for a second. The absolute maximum effort many governments are prepared to make will give us a worse chance of success than if we were playing Russian roulette. That’s insane!”

 

Heat: How to stop the planet burning

By George Monbiot. Published October 2006 by Allen Lane, Penguin Press.

We know that climate change is happening. We know that it could, if the worst predictions come true, destroy the conditions which make human life possible. Only one question is now worth asking: can it be stopped? In Heat, George Monbiot shows that it can.

Watch a video, George Monbiot talks about his new book Heat.

For the first time, he demonstrates that we can achieve the necessary cut - a 90% reduction in carbon emissions by 2030 - without bringing civilisation to an end. Combining his unique knowledge of campaigning and environmental science, he shows how we can transform our houses, our power and our transport systems. But he also shows that this can happen only with a massive programme of action which no government has yet been prepared to take.

His exciting, disturbing ideas expose the cowardice of our politicians. By showing that we can save the biosphere without losing our comfort and security, Monbiot sweeps away their perpetual excuse for doing nothing: that it would be too painful and expensive to sustain life on earth.

In every case, he supports his proposals with a rigorous investigation into what works, what doesn’t, how much it costs and what the problems might be. He wages war on bad ideas as energetically as he promotes good ones. He is not afraid to attack anyone - friend or foe - whose claims are false or whose figures have been fudged. HEAT also contains a breath-taking new exposure of the corporations trying to stop us from taking action. Inspiring, original, burning with energy, this book could change the world.

Monbiot has also launched a new website, linked to the book, exposing the false green claims made by corporations, politicians and celebrities: www.turnuptheheat.org

Further resources:

George Monbiot’s petition, sign to start saving the world!

Read articles by George Monbiot:

The Threat Is from Those Who Accept Climate Change, Not Those Who Deny It

Pundits Who Contest Climate Change Should Tell Us Who is Paying Them

The Freshwater Boom is Over. Our Rivers Are Starting to Run Dry

Visit Monbiot’s website: http://www.monbiot.org

Buy the book at online

Watch the RealNewsNetwork interview with Monbiot, part # 1

Part # 2

Part # 3

Part # 4

A New War on the Planet?

Art: Radicalgraphics.org

“The goal is clearly to save the climate — but only if capitalism can be fully preserved at the same time.”

By John Bellamy Foster*, The Indypendent

During the last year the global warming debate has reached a turning point. Due to the media hype surrounding Al Gore’s film An Inconvenient Truth, followed by a new assessment by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the climate skeptics have suffered a major defeat. Suddenly the media and the public are awakening to what the scientific consensus has been saying for two decades on human-induced climate change and the dangers it poses to the future of life on earth. Proposed solutions to global warming are popping up everywhere, from the current biofuels panacea to geoengineering solutions such as pumping sulfur particles into the stratosphere to shade the earth from the sun to claims that a market in carbon dioxide emissions is the invisible hand that will save the world. “Let’s quit the debate about whether greenhouse gases are caused by mankind or by natural causes,” President Bush said in a hastily organized retreat. “Let’s just focus on technologies that deal with the issue.”

It is characteristic of the magic-bullet solutions that now pervade the media that they promise to defend our current way of life while remaining virtually cost free. Despite the fact that economists have long insisted that there is no such thing as a free lunch, we are now being told on every side — even by Gore — that where global warming is concerned there is a free lunch after all. We can have our cars, our industrial waste, our endlessly expanding commodity economy and climate stability too. Even the IPCC, in its policy proposals, tells us that climate change can be stopped on the cheap — if only the magic of technology and markets is applied.

The goal is clearly to save the planet — but only if capitalism can be fully preserved at the same time.

Hence, the most prominent proposals are shaped by the fact that they are designed to fit within the capitalist box. There can be no disruption of existing class or power relations. All proposed solutions must be compatible with the treadmill of production.

Even progressive thinkers such as George Monbiot in his new book Heat: How to Stop the Planet Burning have gotten into the act. Monbiot pointedly tells us that the rich countries can solve the global warming problem without becoming “Third World” states or shaking up “middle-class” life —or indeed interfering with the distribution of riches at all. Politics is carefully excluded from his analysis, which instead focuses on such things as more buses, better insulated homes, virtual work, virtual shopping and improved cement. Corporations, we are led to believe, are part of the solution, not part of the problem. Less progressive, more technocratic thinkers look for substitutes for hydrocarbons, such as biofuels or even nuclear power, or they talk of floating white plastic islands in the oceans (a geoengineering solution to replace the lost reflectivity due to melting ice).

The dominant answers to global warming thus amount to what might be thought of as a new declaration of war on nature. If nature has “struck back” at capitalism’s degradation of the environment in the form of climate change, the answer is to unleash a more powerful array of technological and market innovations so that the system can continue to expand as before.

As Hannah Arendt, one of the leading political philosophers of the 20th century, explained:

“Under modern [capitalist] conditions not destruction but conservation spells ruin.” Hence, capitalism, faced by natural obstacles, sees no alternative to a new assault on nature, employing new, high-tech armaments.

The ecological irrationality of this response is evident in the tendency to dissociate global warming from the global environmental crisis as a whole, which includes such problems as species extinction, destruction of the oceans, tropical deforestation, desertification, toxic wastes, etc.

It is then possible, from this narrow perspective, to promote biofuels as a partial solution to global warming — without acknowledging that this will accelerate world hunger. Or it is thought pragmatic to dump iron filings in the ocean (the so-called Geritol solution to global warming) in order to grow phytoplankton and increase the carbon absorbing capacity of the ocean — without connecting this at all to the current oceanic catastrophe. The fact that the biosphere is one interconnected whole is downplayed in favor of mere economic expediency.

What all of this suggests is that a real solution to the planetary environmental crisis cannot be accomplished simply through new technologies or through turning nature into a market. It is necessary to go to the root of the problem by addressing the social relations of production.

We must recognize that today’s ecological problems are related to a system of global inequality that demands ecological destruction as a necessary condition of its existence. New social and democratic solutions need to be developed and rooted in human community and sustainability, embodying principles of conservation that are essential to life. But this means stepping outside the capitalist box and making peace with the planet — and with other human beings.

*John Bellamy Foster is a professor of sociology at the University of Oregon in Eugene, and editor of Monthly Review. He is the author of numerous books, including Ecology Against Capitalism.