http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/oct/15/climate-change-economic-
growth-capitalism
Climate change v capitalism: the feast is almost over
Jerry Mander
guardian.co.uk, Friday 15 October 2010 14.01 BST
Six weeks from now, in Cancun, Mexico, the world's nations will gather
under the auspices of the United Nations (the UNFCCC) to again discuss
how to alleviate climate change. They'll try to pick up the broken
pieces from last December in Copenhagen, where we witnessed tortured
dances by government leaders trying to avoid the realities of our time,
and the profound conundrums we face as a society. They accomplished
nothing, and may reprise that performance in Cancun.
Take the case of President Obama. He generally signals a serious desire
to address climate issues, but, like the leaders of all the developed
industrial nations, has been caught in a terrible dilemma. He tries to
argue for lower emissions limits, both globally and in the US. But he
is simultaneously desperate to revive rapid economic growth and
stimulate a sluggish industrial economy hampered by rising costs of
energy, rapidly diminishing resources and venal bankers.
So, while Obama talked climate change in Copenhagen, he pushed for
accelerated growth and consumption, emphasising such climate-deadly
industries as private automobile production, new road construction,
nuclear power generation, and continued coal extraction (including
horrendous "mountain top removal") while extolling an entirely
theoretical "clean coal". He was also for expanding manufacture of
heavy industrial equipment, and for more export-oriented industrial
agriculture, as well as "new housing starts", increased oil drilling in
deepwater zones - such as BP's - and for deadly tar sands development,
all in hopes of growth, profit and jobs.
Watching his performance from a distance, we really don't know if he
understands the contradictions in this pattern, how one goal cancels
the other, or if he has simply made a "safer" political choice. If so,
it's safer only in the very short run, as the entire economic system,
and possibly industrial-consumer society itself, face intrinsic
systemic problems, which may not be solvable. Trying to save an old
economic model that is near collapse, he may sacrifice the opportunity
to mitigate climate change and save the world.
Does Obama know this? If so, wouldn't it be "safer" politically to tell
the truth about it? Some enlightened political leadership would be
really helpful right now. But for the moment, the main point is this:
in a choice between addressing the stresses of the planet and
addressing the stresses of corporate capitalism, President Obama
chooses the latter, while undermining the former.
Let's be fair. Obama is not alone. The leaders of nearly all
governments of the world - and their opposition leaders - exhibited
similar internal conflict and timidity in Copenhagen. Even those with
true desire to cut carbon felt that their priority was to also
stimulate economic growth for their own industries, at all costs.
Without growth, big businesses die, and so do national economies, and
jobs. The whole system is threatened. That's really all anyone talks
about now.
Whether it's the political left or right, Obama, or Cameron, or
Sarkozy, or Putin, or Wen, or Harper or Miliband or Gingrich or Palin,
or any political candidate for any office, they're all talking about
the necessity to stimulate growth. The media does, too, whether it's
the Guardian or the Murdoch press, the Financial Times or the New York
Times. They all agree on the one thing: growth, growth, growth. That's
the lifeblood of the system. Everyone is hunting the magic elixir to
revive rapid growth. How to build and sell more cars? How to increase
industrial production, from computers to heavy equipment to industrial
agriculture? How to increase exports?
But there's a missing link in the discussion, ignored by nearly
everyone in the mainstream debate: nature. They speak about our economy
as if it were a separate entity, its own ever-expanding universe,
unconnected to any realities outside itself, not embodied within a
larger system from which, actually, it emerged and can't escape. Nature
cannot be left out of the discussion. It may be the most important
detail of the entire conversation. Leaving it out of consideration is,
well, suicidal. Here's the point: never-ending growth on a small planet
with finite resources is a profound impossibility. It's an absurdity. A
fantasy. It's time to wake up.
The missing link
Look around you. The clothes you are wearing, the chair you are sitting
in, the implements on the stove, the stove, the floor and walls of your
room, its carpet, the lights and the switches, the electrical lines in
the walls, your mobile phone, the road outside, the car you drive and
all its tyres, wires, metals, glass, fabrics, batteries; airplanes,
skyscrapers, tanks, missiles, computers ... were all once minerals and
metals dug up from the earth, then shipped around the world,
transformed, assembled, shipped again to a store near you, and sold. Or
else they were living beings: trees, plants, animals, fibres, corals
that had their own independent existence. Even "synthetics" began as
natural elements. Is your shirt made of polyester? Polyester is
plastic. Plastic is oil. Oil used to be dinosaurs, trees, plants. All
of it is nature. The entire material economy began as part of the
earth, buried in the ground, or it grew from it, or it was alive before
we transformed it. But it's disappearing fast.
The whole situation is something new for capitalism, a shock. For two
centuries it's been like a closely guarded secret that the entire
economic system we live in, and assumed was forever, is actually part
of another larger system, but with only so many resources and dump
sites. But the secret is out. We are eating up the materials that
sustain us, and the feast is almost over.
During the great heydays of capitalism - the last two centuries of
spectacular development and growth - we lived in what the great
ecological economist Herman Daly called a "full world" of resources. We
thought they were unlimited, some kind of permanent gift to the human
race from God, so we could display our stewardship, or something. But
it's not a "full world" any more. Somebody should tell our leaders.
In addition to those climate impacts, we now face rapidly diminishing
supplies of cheap oil and other fossil fuels. They call it "peak oil".
This is catastrophic for our system. Cheap fossil fuels were the
primary engine that grew our society over the last two centuries.
That's soon over, and there is no combination of sustainable
alternative replacements capable of maintaining industrial society at
nearly its present level.
Perhaps ultimately even more important is the global scarcity of fresh
water. The World Bank already predicts the next world war will be over
water. Healthy topsoils are also seriously diminished, as are
agricultural lands, converted to other uses, and global food supplies,
which are ever more expensive. So are forests and their hundreds of
crucial byproducts, as well as biodiversity of every kind, life in the
oceans, coral reefs, and key minerals, including coltan (for your
mobile phone), lithium, phosphorous, lead, zinc, tin, copper, gold, and
hundreds of others. Following two centuries of voracious exploitation
of every mineral, metal and biological resource, we will soon be facing
what Daly calls an "empty world".
Watch for the big announcement: THE PARTY IS OVER. Without ever-
expanding resources, ever-expanding production and consumption, our
economic growth model becomes a relic, instantly obsolete. But so far,
no one in leadership roles (with one or two exceptions, as we will see)
is admitting to that. If they know it, they're too scared to say so.
Deal killers
No individual or group of countries was to blame for the failures of
Copenhagen last year. A lot of people accused China of dragging its
feet, seeking advantage. Others blamed the G77 poorest countries for
demanding partial compensation for prior resource thefts from colonial
days, and for having suffered most of the pollution fallout from the
over-consuming rich. Many blamed the richest countries for hanging on
to their deadly indulgences and ill-gotten favours. I shared that view.
Yet the true deal-killer was ultimately the commitment of nearly all
countries to exponential growth everywhere, while simultaneously faking
their commitment to emissions cuts. That was the impossible burden of
Copenhagen, and the real dead end, and we just might see it all
replayed in Cancun next month.
Nowhere among the assembled nations (with the lonely exceptions of
Bolivia and Ecuador) has there been national emphasis on "conservation"
- that is, advocating less production and less consumption of energy
and materials, less global export shipping, "powering down". Less
globalisation and more localisation. More emphasis on regional self-
sufficiency, especially in food and energy production and the need for
a democratic post-capitalist model, free of a growth imperative, that
could live within the carrying capacity of the planet and its
atmosphere, while seeking greater equity. Such moves would require
economic transformations that few corporate powers, bankers, heads of
state can accept.
So, we are left with a profound dilemma: do we serve the short-term
interests of profits and growth? Or do we face reality and serve long-
term planetary survival? How to solve one problem without exacerbating
the other? So far, the decisions have favoured the corporate side, as
usual. But circumstances may change that.
The rights of nature
Six months after Copenhagen, in April 2010, President Evo Morales of
Bolivia convened a meeting in Cochabamba, Bolivia, gathering some
30,000 of the protesters whose viewpoints had been ignored at the UN
climate summit. Morales found significant support from other South
American countries, many of whom are part of the G77, in attempting to
redefine strategies to deal with climate change. One of those
countries, Ecuador, had for several years been arguing in favour of
such concepts as "the inherent rights of nature", which was recently
added to Ecuador's national constitution amid great fanfare. It also
promoted an idea by which poor countries would leave their oil
resources in the ground, in exchange for compensation from rich
countries. The rich countries declined; they would rather have the oil.
Meanwhile, Morales, the only head of state from an indigenous heritage,
made his position clear, first in Copenhagen, and then in Cochabamba:
"We have a stark choice between capitalism and survival," he said. "The
countries of the world have failed in their obligations . Either
capitalism lives or Mother Earth lives."
Morales proposed three ideas: 1) nature should be granted rights that
protect ecosystems from annihilation, under a Universal Declaration of
Mother Earth Rights, with enforcement powers; 2) poor countries should
receive compensation for crises they face but had little part in
creating, as per the G77 position; and 3) there should be a continuing
"world referendum on climate change", open to all people. Further
meetings are ongoing.
Morales also denounced systemic dependency on economic growth and
overconsumption as being inherently harmful to the earth, and he
advocated for the economic practices of indigenous peoples. He pointed
out that more than 50% of surviving global biodiversity, including
forests, is found on indigenous lands. This is not accidental, he
argued, but consistent with most indigenous peoples' worldviews over
millennia, accepting non-hierarchical, non-exploitative relationships
with nature.
Morales's comments received little coverage in mainstream media, except
for one lengthy interview on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now, on the
Pacifica Network in the US. During the discussion, Goodman asked about
lithium mining activities in Bolivia. (Lithium is a crucial ingredient
for modern batteries, and Bolivia has the world's largest reserves.)
Those mines, run by Japanese multinational corporations, were subject
to protests by indigenous groups during the Cochabamba summit. Morales
admitted that he himself is not entirely free from the same conundrums
that face other leaders. Bolivia, among the poorest, most exploited
nations, desperately needs export cash, Morales said, though he bemoans
that need. He committed to studying long-term effects from these mines,
and how "to regenerate healthy lands". He also said Bolivia will now
demand at least 60% ownership in all such mining operations.
The interview offered few hints as to how Bolivia might balance
industrial extraction with protections for nature. Does Morales have
new economic structures in mind? How would he provide jobs? Would
Bolivia become a mixed economy, accepting corporate participation when
desirable, but within a state-controlled framework, like China? Or does
he really advocate an eventual return to indigenous economic models? If
so, does that imply no modern economic development on any meaningful
scale? Beginning to answer such questions was the stated mandate of the
Cochabamba process. We'll see how it proceeds and if it can influence
Cancun, or other meetings.
But the conclusion is clear. From here on, no one gets off easy.
Everyone's in the same boat, caught in the same systemic conflict. The
conundrums apply as much to Morales as to Cameron and Obama. Growth is
over, and they need a real, clear vision of a way forward. That's true
for all of us. Surely it's time to agree that the first step is to
start drawing curtains on an obsolete, out-of-date system that could
kill us all, and to shape a new one. Which brings us to the good news.
Steady state
Already there are many hundreds of groups, from every continent, at
work defining the ingredients of an alternative economic system, one
that can live within the carrying capacity of the planet. I don't have
room to describe their work here, and it varies depending on political
orientation. But, a few points.
The universal quest is to define systems that that can deliver economic
sufficiency and equity, permanently, while remaining within the
carrying capacities of the planet. Most accept that systemic economic
growth will soon be over, though growth is encouraged in specific
timely activities - for example, certain renewable energy forms, local
agriculture practice, sustainable building and the arts. Other
ingredients of a new economy that some groups advocate include:
. Adoption of an international "oil depletion protocol" for an orderly,
equitable decline of fossil-fuel use and a transition to less total
energy use; a commonly used term for this is "powering down" - that is,
aiming at minimum energy for sufficiency and equity.
. Universal emphasis on conservation and efficiency in all activities.
. Introduction of "steady state" (no-growth) economic models. Extensive
research on global, regional and local carrying capacities.
. Emphasis on localisation not globalisation (thus reducing negative
impacts of global transport). Local production for local consumption,
especially in crucial areas such as food, housing and energy.
Restrictions on the conversion of food-growing lands. Emphasis on the
revitalisation of sustainable local agriculture systems. On national
levels, revival of the "import substitution" model; an emphasis on
local production for essential needs, rather than trade. Greater
regulation and less movement of capital across borders.
. Less long-distance shipping, not more.
. Development of local participatory democracies. Various kinds have
been proposed. Many favour the concept of "subsidiarity". Political
power moves to the lowest practical level. (Climate change requires
international agreement; economic and political rule-making should be
local.)
. Ban privatisation of the "natural commons" - water, forests, genetic
structures, medicinal plants, and so on - as well as such public
commons as education, health, security, and (some say) media.
. Legal confirmation for the inherent rights of nature, with a coda and
enforcement standards. Universal application of the UN Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Return of indigenous lands
expropriated for mining and oil development.
. End legal "personhood" for corporations; introduction of "site here
to sell here" policies; establishment of local boards of directors
including significant labour and environmental representation, among
other local stakeholders. Encouragement of community-owned and worker-
owned enterprises.
. Introduction of new standards of economic measurement. Elimination of
GDP as a measurement of societal success, substituting alternative
measurements for human wellbeing and the wellbeing of the natural
world. These include such community values as health, education and
happiness, rather than wealth accumulation, and full protections for
global biodiversity.
. Advocating for standards of "sufficiency" rather than wealth
accumulation.
. Development of a formal process for the transfer of green technology,
and some degree of surplus wealth, from wealthy countries to poor ones,
given a planetary framework of reduced economic possibilities. Return
of traditional agricultural lands, expropriated during colonial days
and during more recent neoliberal globalisation.
That is the tiniest sample of what thousands of people are now
discussing in various forums, including Cochabamba, World Social Forums
and many others. For more information, I suggest internet searches of
some of the following: Post Carbon Institute, Transition Towns
movement, Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy, New
Economics Institute, Global Footprint Network, Ecosocialist
International Network, New Economy Working Group, ETC Group, The Story
of Stuff, 350.org, left or green biocentrism, Dark Mountain Project,
Indigenous Environmental Network, Tebtebba foundation, Food and Water
Watch, Navdanya, Third World Network, International Center for
Technology Assessment, Global Alliance for Rights of Nature, Rainforest
Action Network, Institute for Policy Studies, International Forum on
Globalization. These will doubtless lead to dozens of others.
. Jerry Mander is the founder of the San Francisco-based International
Forum on Globalization. His books include Four Arguments for the
Elimination of Television, In the Absence of the Sacred, and The Case
Against the Global Economy (with Edward Goldsmith) and Alternatives to
Globalization (with John Cavanagh)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the CONS-SPST-GLOBALWARM-CHAIRS list, send any message
to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]
Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp
|
