Capitalising on the Climate
We’re told that doing a little bit to help prevent climate change is the best way to prevent the catastrophic destruction of our planet — but it isn’t. Our capitalist system is ill-equipped to deal with this threat, and in the interest of the planet, drastic action needs to be taken.
Sam Brooke
___________________________________________________________________
Things are getting worse. The Great Barrier Reef can no longer be saved, bees have been added to the US endangered species list, and in March it was reported that the Arctic’s sea ice has depleted to its lowest maximum on record.
Those facts make Donald Trump’s decision to pull the USA out of the Paris climate agreement even more worrying. Not only that, but the US President had information on climate change withheld from government websites and continues to push ahead with the Dakota Access oil pipeline, which has already leaked almost 400 litres of oil in two separate incidents in March. The fact that the climate change-denying Democratic Unionist Party has also entered a confidence and supply deal with the Conservatives in the UK also shows that we’re heading in the wrong direction in terms of environmental policy.
You could be forgiven to think that Trump, the Republicans, and the DUP are mere aberrations — after all, only two countries didn’t sign the Paris Climate Agreement: Nicaragua and Syria. Yet, despite the signing of the agreement, the world isn’t saved. Climate change will still be rife and the agreement doesn’t go nearly far enough — a United Nations Environment Programme report claims that the targets for cut emissions, if met, will only limit the temperature rise to 3 degrees Celsius, well above the 2 degree target.
“If met” is the operative phrase there. The agreement mostly consists of promises and aims rather than set programs, expecting countries to voluntarily lower their emissions — something that climatology professor James Hansen has heavily criticised. In fact, the agreement is heavily reliant on not governments, but global corporations to lower emissions, as Director-General of the World Pensions Council Nicholas Frizli has said.
This is no good thing.
The global economic system is driven by profit first and foremost — companies will do whatever they can to increase their income by lowering production costs, whether that’s by cutting jobs, automating tasks, or using unsustainable, cheaper fuels. Companies are simply not incentivised to make long-term decisions.
Why would a corporation such as Exxon stop selling oil and lose money when it could, say, spend over $30 million on climate change-denying thinktanks for 27 years? It’s noteworthy to say that Exxon actually knew of climate change in 1981, seven years before it became a well-known issue.
In fact, the book Merchants of Doubt investigated the financing of conservative and climate change-denying scientists in the US, finding that they “played a disproportionate role in debates about controversial questions.” Not only that, but Cold War, anti-communist nuclear scientists such as Fred Singer and Fred Seitz have been constantly funded by corporations and conservative foundations through thinktanks such as the George C. Marshall Institute, allowing them a platform to push their anti-environmental views. It’s clear that corporations and the capitalist system are more concerned with money rather than the welfare of the planet they inhabit.
But why don’t they care about climate change?
This is all down to the “rich idiot” effect, a phenomenon identified by the Climactic Change journal in 2014. The study found that Republicans with higher incomes were much more likely to dismiss the dangers of climate change, primarily because the consequences of environmental change will affect them less. Concerned more with profits than the environment, these people will destroy the Earth with their greed if left unchecked.
In fact, a study by University of California, Berkeley shows that Northern countries — mainly those in Western Europe and North America — will have a vast increase in GDP by 2100 compared to a world without climate change, while those in Africa, South America, and Asia will suffer a big decrease in GDP. Companies and governments aren’t just refusing to take urgent action against climate change because it’s expensive, but also because climate change is profitable.
Of course, we’re told that all we need to do to stop climate change is make sacrifices in order to save the planet, whether that’s using less water and electricity, paying to make our houses more energy-efficient, or sourcing our products responsibly. This is a lie.
In 2016, geographer Richard Heede calculated that just 90 companies and government-run industries are responsible for 2/3 of carbon emissions. One of the greatest lies of recent history is that we’re all responsible for climate change. Yes, we should all make an effort to decrease our energy usage, but we are not to blame for the crisis that faces our planet — that lies on the companies and organisations that have exploited resources and wrecked this planet in the name of profit.
The solution is nationalisation and regulation. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s plan to bring energy companies under public ownership is the best way to ensure that energy and electricity is provided from sustainable sources without the risk of job losses. As private companies aren’t incentivised to take the environment into account, a government-run energy sector would mitigate this issue, gradually phasing out non-renewable energy sources. This would ensure that enough progress is made in order to slow the progress of climate change.
We need a fundamental change to our system if we are to preserve Earth for future generations. It’s obvious that corporations and the rich cannot be trusted with the responsibility of sustainability, and its time that we let them know. Alternatives put forward are not simply other options: they are our only option if we are to weather the climate storm.
