Once again an insightful article about the futility of relying on capitalism to fix the environmental crisis which that system is much to blame for.
“According to Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), there are various ways that big business exerts influence at UN negotiations. They directly influence the position of national governments; they dominate some UN bodies as well as certain discussion spaces within the UN; they are often given a privileged advisory role in negotiations; UN officials have a ‘revolving door’ relationship with the private sector; and UN agencies are increasingly financially dependent on the private sector for their funding. FOEI state that one of the most worrying consequences of this is “the emergence of an ideology among some UN agencies and staff that what is good for business is good for society”.
Invariably, the big business lobby advocates for market-based solutions to environmental problems and the ‘greening’ of economic growth, and essentially works to safeguard opportunities for private sector investment and shareholder profit. But environmentalists and civil society organisations have long argued that there is something deeply misguided about putting corporate profits and market-based solutions at the forefront of our response to climate change and the wider environmental crisis. Indeed, it is widely accepted that the endless pursuit of profit and consumer-driven growth, the deregulation of corporate activity, and the privatisation of natural resources are some of the key drivers of ecological degradation.
Most market-based solutions necessitate putting a monetary value on nature, which plays into the paradigm of commercialisation: the value of the natural world is reduced to its potential for generating financial returns. Such solutions adhere to the logic of a neoliberal economic model that continues to dominate mainstream policy discourse even despite its role in precipitating the global financial crisis in 2008. But endless growth is a primary driver of resource consumption and environmental degradation, and GDP is now widely regarded as an inappropriate measure for human progress. On the question of whether economic growth can ever be sufficiently green, the evidence suggests that we cannot decarbonise economic activity fast enough to meet pressing climate targets.
In her latest book ‘Making Peace with the Earth’, Dr Vandana Shiva reflects on the environmental impacts of a world order built on limitless growth, corporate greed and the commodification of nature. She concludes that “Green economics needs to be an authentic green, it cannot be the brown of desertification and deforestation. It cannot be the red of violence against nature and people, or the unnecessary conflicts over natural resources”.
There is clearly a huge gulf between corporate proposals for a green economy and the ‘deep green’ alternatives of environmentalists who call for extensive reforms at the national and global level. At the heart of the more progressive proposals is a vision of a new economic paradigm that is not dependent on producing and consuming ever-greater quantities of material goods for its continued success. Instead, it recognises that if we want to safeguard planet earth and survive as a species, governments need to find new ways of cooperating internationally and sharing the world’s resources sustainably. Economic sharing on a global scale means respecting planetary limits and ensuring equitable access to natural resources for present and future generations, wherever they might live.”
And as always, SOYMB asks why such a thoughtful writer who pinpoints so much of the cause of the ecological damage capitalism resorts to the tried and tested and found to be inadequate appeals to government to take action by reforms and legislation. The author Rajesh Makwana mistakes just what the State is when he explains “overcoming the illegitimate power of corporations requires that citizens of all nations reclaim their democratic right to a ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’.” I dare say, a well-read observer like himself knows that Marx described the State as the “executive committee of the capitalist class.” It is therefore futile to expect decisions made by governments not to be influenced by the immense lobbying power of the private sector. It is not a matter of getting Big Business out of politics and imagining some benevolent government but of fundamentally transforming the nature of our system of production, of replacing capitalism and establishing a socialist society. Regardless of the how radical the reforms proposed, without doing away with the entire edifice of capitalism, means nothing changes - the state will continue to act in the interests of its pay-masters. Discontent around the world may indeed be manifesting itself, but they still stop short, as does, Makwana, of demanding real change.
“According to Friends of the Earth International (FOEI), there are various ways that big business exerts influence at UN negotiations. They directly influence the position of national governments; they dominate some UN bodies as well as certain discussion spaces within the UN; they are often given a privileged advisory role in negotiations; UN officials have a ‘revolving door’ relationship with the private sector; and UN agencies are increasingly financially dependent on the private sector for their funding. FOEI state that one of the most worrying consequences of this is “the emergence of an ideology among some UN agencies and staff that what is good for business is good for society”.
Invariably, the big business lobby advocates for market-based solutions to environmental problems and the ‘greening’ of economic growth, and essentially works to safeguard opportunities for private sector investment and shareholder profit. But environmentalists and civil society organisations have long argued that there is something deeply misguided about putting corporate profits and market-based solutions at the forefront of our response to climate change and the wider environmental crisis. Indeed, it is widely accepted that the endless pursuit of profit and consumer-driven growth, the deregulation of corporate activity, and the privatisation of natural resources are some of the key drivers of ecological degradation.
Most market-based solutions necessitate putting a monetary value on nature, which plays into the paradigm of commercialisation: the value of the natural world is reduced to its potential for generating financial returns. Such solutions adhere to the logic of a neoliberal economic model that continues to dominate mainstream policy discourse even despite its role in precipitating the global financial crisis in 2008. But endless growth is a primary driver of resource consumption and environmental degradation, and GDP is now widely regarded as an inappropriate measure for human progress. On the question of whether economic growth can ever be sufficiently green, the evidence suggests that we cannot decarbonise economic activity fast enough to meet pressing climate targets.
In her latest book ‘Making Peace with the Earth’, Dr Vandana Shiva reflects on the environmental impacts of a world order built on limitless growth, corporate greed and the commodification of nature. She concludes that “Green economics needs to be an authentic green, it cannot be the brown of desertification and deforestation. It cannot be the red of violence against nature and people, or the unnecessary conflicts over natural resources”.
There is clearly a huge gulf between corporate proposals for a green economy and the ‘deep green’ alternatives of environmentalists who call for extensive reforms at the national and global level. At the heart of the more progressive proposals is a vision of a new economic paradigm that is not dependent on producing and consuming ever-greater quantities of material goods for its continued success. Instead, it recognises that if we want to safeguard planet earth and survive as a species, governments need to find new ways of cooperating internationally and sharing the world’s resources sustainably. Economic sharing on a global scale means respecting planetary limits and ensuring equitable access to natural resources for present and future generations, wherever they might live.”
And as always, SOYMB asks why such a thoughtful writer who pinpoints so much of the cause of the ecological damage capitalism resorts to the tried and tested and found to be inadequate appeals to government to take action by reforms and legislation. The author Rajesh Makwana mistakes just what the State is when he explains “overcoming the illegitimate power of corporations requires that citizens of all nations reclaim their democratic right to a ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’.” I dare say, a well-read observer like himself knows that Marx described the State as the “executive committee of the capitalist class.” It is therefore futile to expect decisions made by governments not to be influenced by the immense lobbying power of the private sector. It is not a matter of getting Big Business out of politics and imagining some benevolent government but of fundamentally transforming the nature of our system of production, of replacing capitalism and establishing a socialist society. Regardless of the how radical the reforms proposed, without doing away with the entire edifice of capitalism, means nothing changes - the state will continue to act in the interests of its pay-masters. Discontent around the world may indeed be manifesting itself, but they still stop short, as does, Makwana, of demanding real change.
No comments:
Post a Comment