Capitalism Can’t Save the Environment. Only Organizing Will
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released their annual report this week. Like all its predecessors, it’s overflowing with warnings about devastating climate futures. Unlike most, it does away with prior scientific caution about probability, stressing that we are irrefutably living through climate change now and how it will only get much worse. Current and former authors spoke to the media about it all week. On NPR’s August 9th On Point episode, two former contributors noted that 1990’s inaugural report prediction of a 1-degree celsius increase in temperature by 2025 was shockingly accurate, even with much less developed analytics than we have today. They emphasized that current estimates of over 2-degrees in the next decades are likely much more accurate, discussing many disturbing eventualities. But even scarier was how they and others failed to offer meaningful solutions.
While the full report itself carries dire prognoses and makes some demands, the most widely circulated (and government edited) version doesn’t discuss Capitalism or the fossil fuel industry, or make any sweeping economic policy suggestions. The mainstream press thus only emphasize the tragedies and fills the void with predictable calls for individual consumer choices, peppered in with market-based or technological solutions. The former IPCC NPR contributors and other supporters repeatedly took this tack, too. They rightly called out how governments have failed to align in the past, but then lauded recent environmental actions by individuals, global NGOs and even corporations over government. Surprisingly, it took NPR’s otherwise mild-mannered host to suggest that consumers could consider pressuring government rather than, say, changing their lightbulbs. Maybe Meghna Chakrabarti realized that aggressive policy change is what we really need. Who knows though? She dropped it right after that comment.
It’s shocking this is still the primary press orientation, even amongst growing calls for the Green New Deal, youth climate strikes, and mass organizing by the Sunrise Movement, indigenous water protectors, and whoever James Hansen or Bill McKibben is getting arrested with this week. It’s a classic example of the deeply embedded Chomskyian Propaganda Model, where the “liberal media” (often unwittingly) filters out what viewers conceive of as possible. They simultaneously undermine belief in the need for structural changes essential for survival while elevating ideas that are at best can-kicking and at worst hasten our demise. In fact, this liberal disregard of structures can lead people to start believing some scary shit about the planet and each other… namely, that people are the problem, not systems. So much of this week’s media coverage reinforced this.
To be clear, the former IPCC authors’ suggestions on NPR were mostly harmless, as are most of the person-centric narratives emphasizing choice. They’re based on well-meaning but naive assumptions about consumers making lifestyle changes to undo 200 years of industrial Capitalism. And they sometimes open space for genuine action. Most non-neoliberals under 50 already driving electric cars or eating plant-based diets likely think what they’re doing is necessary but woefully insufficient. I know I do. But some of the views are both problematic and tempting, particularly after people realize individual actions accomplish so little. They can pull people away from real movement work and into supporting batshit crazy technology or hero-centric models. They are popular in elite circles and among middle class white dudes, and we must unpack and resist them as they will undoubtedly gain traction with the masses.
In what I’ll call the “Geojunk” variant, savvy entrepreneurs and brilliant engineers develop a market-based technological innovation to reverse climate change, such as pumping the atmosphere with more pollutants to block the sun’s rays. Leading tech billionaires such as Bill Gates openly advocate for this, governments across the world are researching it, and venture capitalists are investing tons in potential geoengineering projects and firms. There are variants around carbon sinks, GMO organisms eating C02, and others, with varying degrees of popular support. And this is way before the propaganda machine kicks into high gear, meaning interest will grow as awareness does. At this point, a certain degree of geoengineering is eventually likely. But it will only succeed under very specific conditions. In our current economic and political context, it’s likely to be an unmitigated disaster, particularly for Sub-Saharan Africa.
In what I’ll call the “Musk’s hard-on for Mars” variant, some narcissist tycoon creates a new society on Mars (or in a Space Hotel, or wherever) for the lucky few, because our planet is doomed. This is the extreme extension of “green zone” visions of society, in which the rich park their cyber trucks in environmentally protected or less devastated enclaves (or bunkers, or missile silos, or Seattle) and everyone else is fucked. This model uses fear to drum up business (whether in E vehicles, rocketry, or home defense) and false pretenses around human colonization to get an edge on space mineral extraction. There are very compelling environmental and economic reasons we should go to space, but they can’t come at the expense of addressing the profound issues of our time on earth, and certainly shouldn’t be escaping them. And for God’s sakes they’re not to burn a ton of methane putting up a fucking Pepsi billboard in space.
The core problem with these arguments is that they assume the current framework isn’t problematic, or that the things we are addressing are “bugs,” not “features” of the global economic order. They believe profit incentivizes brilliant minds to solve the greatest social dilemma in history, and that this will relieve us of impending chaos. They ignore that profit means that there must be constant growth, that corners must be cut and competition squashed. They ignore that profit is what created this mess to begin with. They ignore that much of the technology we need (such as mass transit) is unprofitable, and will only come to fruition with massive state investment into research, development, and implementation. And, crucially, they leave out any agency for the working class, short of being enlightened consumers (which most of us -including me- certainly are not). This lack of agency can contribute to despair, inaction or paranoia. I’ll return to this in a bit.
These ideas also capitalize off of an enticing but false narrative of breaking with old regimes. Technology itself is neutral. Its uses in the economy and power relations are what matters. Many recent technological developments cited as advancing “progress” only serve profit, are regressive and drive environmental devastation. Crypbrocurrency is a great example. It is not a non-fiat economic revolution… or whatever. It’s a speculative market requiring constant expansion and an advanced degree in mental gymnastics. It’s no different than other bullshit money fads over the last 200 years. Worse, its proponents deny the energy and environmental crises it creates, such as the mining operation that occupied a power station on a New York lake, turning it into a hot tub. Even green technology firms use rare earth element mining with horrendous labor and environmental impacts. Environmental externalities are likely under most economic models of production. They are inevitable under Capitalism.
But technology can be used to legitimize dangerous practices disguised as progress. Take the long-heralded ubiquity of Artificial Intelligence. While all us science fiction fans out there are wasting brain cells debating sentience, quantum entanglement or the ever so rescheduled singularity, tech giants are spewing out algorithms dedicated to manipulating consumption patterns and aid the surveillance state. Hedge funds are gaming the stock market in millisecond increments. Gig economy “employers” such as Uber, Lyft or Door Dash are driving addictive, gamified app versions of “piece work,” the dominant mode of pay during early industrialization. Incidentally, Uber and lift also just spent $224 million fighting tooth and nail to convince California voters that drivers should remain contractors, not become employees, just before Uber scuttled their idea for self-driving electric cars because it was too expensive. These contradictory arguments for free driver agency and automated green technology are conveniences tossed aside when they’re no longer necessary.
And to think we thought AI would get us fully automated luxury gay space Communisim.
As for Musk’s hardon, we should call it what it is… Ecofascism. This view assumes the problem is already permanent, human self interest is the primary cause, and escape from mass unrest the only option. It ignores the underlying economic conditions for our worst problems and exacerbates them through encouraging resource hoarding and propagating racist ideas on environmental degradation (and the pandemic). Musk himself revealed that his lower cost Tesla’s were arbitrarily throttled (which, in his defense, he temporarily remotely removed during Hurricane Irma), offered to buy and repair the Puerto Rico power grid, and openly supported the coup against Bolivia’s former President, Evo Morales, over access to Lithium. His fanboys are the same people claiming self interest is beautiful and makes our world go round, but also that when society collapses, self interest will be the cause, and it will be horrific. This madness is both tautology and paradox. And these ideas are popular among some people in my circles (usually the same folks still pontificating about Crytpo).
This may seem a bit ranty, but I promise I haven’t lost the plot and I’m not a luddite. I consider myself a futurist, and I believe we can use technology to make a better tomorrow. While I’ve been disturbed by so much of the global COVID response, I’m also impressed with new technology emerging and the mass logistical coordination to vaccinate hundreds of millions of people —all through central planning. I’m excited about shifts in public health, RNA vaccines, tidal power, cool DJ gear and even space travel. I even think Bloc chain could be a valuable ledger tool for democracy and accountability. But I hate reductivist views that ignore reality or think that somehow the profit motive is the only reason people make cool shit. Just like conspiracy theories (see a prior post here), arguments for solely technological or market-based solutions to social problems need to stop. They ignore structure, power, and that the problem is fundamentally economic. So let’s explore some alternatives.
The issues at play here are political and deeply intertwined in the history of Capitalism. They have to be addressed by policy that goes against this current and compels change, not volunteerism or mamby-pamby incentives such as cap-and-trade or carbon offset vouchers. They’re about class, race and gender in ways that too often go ignored. It’s only through legislation backed by a broad, multi-racial, multi-generational, internationalist working class movement that we’ll be able to address them. For everyone, this has to begin at home, organizing with people immediately around them for the world they most want to see. Two core things that can drive this are people in directly affected communities organizing politically through ballot measures and candidates, and the labor movement fighting for a “just transition” into a green economy. In both cases, it means workers, most frequently women and people of color, fighting to improve conditions and win material and political gains on the job and where they live.
This, in a nutshell, is Ecosocialism. A far cry from everything above.
Despite the media lapses this week, these things are happening throughout the world right now, to the greatest degree ever. Organizers have shut down transnational pipeline operations in several countries, First Nations activists have won victories around fundamental rights of nature, and frontline communities in the US have passed sweeping environmental legislation and elected activists to office. Politicians and candidates at all levels are taking up the battle cry for environmental infrastructure plans such as the Green New Deal, an idea considered fringe when a centerpiece of all Ralph Nader’s political campaigns, but now polling at 60% support. Environmentalists are abandoning decades of bourgeois liberal policy points that portrayed blue collar workers as ignorant and embracing the Protect the Right to Organize (PRO) Act, while national unions such as the United Mine Workers are endorsing just transition plans. The Portland, Maine Democratic Socialists of America Chapter recently won the most ambitious GND referendum in the country (and a $15/hour minimum wage and rent control) precisely because they worked closely with labor.
I emphasize organizing over science or policy here because there are tons of folks out there way more articulate than me who can talk bout them. There is also very little writing outside of activist circles on how and why organizing is important. But I will use the original New Deal to demonstrate why aggressive policy is crucial. The New Deal included so many agencies that people referred to it as “alphabet soup.” The majority of its programs were visionary ideas coopted from the left by the Roosevelt Administration to save Capitalism from itself. Some benefited all people. Many were deeply racist and exacerbated the racial wealth gap. But all were massive in scope. One, the Civilian Conservation Corps, provided three million urban and suburban young men with jobs over its nine years. They created infrastructure for 800 national and state parks, and built gathering spaces across the country (including several in my city, Tacoma). They planted 3.5 billion trees, more than in all years before of since. Let that carbon sink in. Think about what a Climate Corps could do today.
We haven’t won this big stuff yet, and while we’re on the right track, we will be dealing with climate catastrophes no matter what. The road ahead is still unclear, but there are no shortcuts if we want to win. The only path is through tried-and-true organizing, starting with one-on-one conversations, joining movements and escalating to powerful economic disruption. I’ve been impressed with people like Greta Thunberg and the youth climate strikers going beyond symbolic protest to withholding participation in oppression. It is an important step. But we are unlikely to win until broad segments of the organized working class cause sustained economic disruption and elect candidates accountable to the movement. People need to join organizations (if you agree with everything here, please join DSA), fight to elect working class social movement candidates to office, and forge green-blue alliances between environmentalists and unions to pass GND packages. We have to be prepared for eventual mass strikes, but also disciplined in our understanding of when and how they’ll come (hint: they’re probably not starting on Twitter this October).
Believe it or not, I’m quite hopeful. Like with so much else right now, the political tide appears to be turning. Some of these ideas are now part of the popular consciousness. And just to be clear (in case you haven’t gathered yet) most are very high tech. Massive infrastructure projects always are. But they will always be downplayed or resisted by the elite media, as they are fundamentally not in the interests of the ruling class. The rich don’t tend to like things like jobs guarantees, public infrastructure projects or getting rid of one of the most profitable industries in the world entirely. But they know that most people will and do like them, which is precisely why they portray them as pie-in-the-sky, too expensive, un-American, or somehow job-killing. It’s also one of the reasons they so disparately support outlandish technology or abandonment solutions. As the late, ever so great Mark Fisher said, it’s easier for us to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of Capitalism…particularly when the elites ram it down our throats all the time.
In short, what we need to do is:
- Empower local environmental campaigns in frontline communities, centering BIPOC and working class people
- Elect working class and BIPOC movement leaders to local office
- Pass pro union and environmental legislation such as the PRO Act and the Green New Deal
- Pass similar legislation in state legislatures and city councils, similar to what the local DSA chapter did in Portland, Maine.
- Fully fund infrastructure and technology projects that actually address climate change
- Eventually do real cool shit in space, but not like this
I’m a huge fan of the new motto created by the national DSA for the PRO Act campaign, “Workers and the World, Unite!”
