Capitalism is Killing the Planet

[Shadow Wolf]

Distraction from what? Waiting for billionaires to save us with their space magic?

It's more accurate to say models of industry and consumption are bad for the Earth. Hence Soviet Russia didn't have a great record themselves. Nukes? A Capitalist country funded the research into Fat Boy and Little Man. The Tzar Bomb was funded was funded by a Communist government.
And ultimately Hitler's stylized socialism was ahead of the game for animals and environment and theybestablished modern Germany's animal anti-cruelty law.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Actually per capita USA and Australia are the world's worst polluters, china just pollutes a bit more because it has 3 times as many people

Utterly false. Countries in Asia and Africa are. All the way back from 2017 2018 to now.

Smog In Western U.S. Starts Out As Pollution In Asia, Researchers Say


Asia, Africa Cause 90% of Plastic Pollution in World's Oceans

 

[Lyndon]

CO2 Emissions per Capita - Worldometer,

Note the countries are ranked by total pollution, not per capita, some very small countries are per capita higher than USA but of big countries, USA, Australia, and Canada are right at the top, China is half the per capita pollution fo USA.

 

[Mock Turtle]

What do you mean by doing anything? And what kind of energy are we depleting?

I meant many might not want to lower their standard of living or expectations, if this was a result of controls necessary. And it's more about the balances - as to what nations can do as to contributing, what nations want with regards progress, and what fairness one thinks should exist - as to entitlement. And as to China, per capita it emits less greenhouse gases than many of the more industrialised nations, including the USA:

Greenhouse gas emissions per capita | Environmental Performance Index

Are we supposed to ignore the past as to how the current 'rich' countries became so or the rights of other nations to become more prosperous?

 

[Secret Chief]

What is " doing something"? Wind turbines? Terrible for the environment.
Electric cars?
Terrible for the environment, but hey it's not our environment they are destroying so I guess we are not supposed to notice.

Whatever the something may be, what is your answer to my question?

 

[Secret Chief]

Over-consumption & perpetual growth are not fundamental
to capitalism. Don't like those things? Regulation can
address them, eg, making the cost of disposal of items
part of the price.
Socialists love to believe they have the solution. History
shows they do not.

I disagree. Over-consumption (eternal growth) is the key driver of capitalism. Minimalist libertarian "regulation" is just a sop.
I do not claim to know "the solution", but the problem (capitalism) is clearly not the solution.

 

[exchemist]

Advertising is a real problem. Billions aren't pumped into it because it doesn't works and fails to yield results. Especially in regards to children, advertising is insidious and devious. McDonald's, Walmart, Nestle, and GE are already massive companies everyone knows. But they still advertise. Even if you don't eat at McDonald's it's hard to get away from with it putting images, coupons, and other mediums in all sorts of places. They want you to be seeing and thinking of them, so even if you see Starbucks in the trash they're glad they got in your head.

I do agree there is too much advertising for stuff we don't need. But this is not the real driver of climate change: it just tends to make things a bit worse. As I have been saying elsewhere, the big four are our heating (and cooling), our transport, our diet and our electricity generation.

One of the reasons I am attracted to carbon taxes is that they would charge companies according to the carbon footprint of all their activities, which would give them a real incentive to work in low carbon ways. But perhaps methane emissions should also be included. So, to take your example, beef from intensively reared cattle would incur a penalty, which would start to drive MacDonalds away from hamburgers.

Of course, with an emissions footprint tax - if we call it that - the cost of paying it will get priced into the goods and services we buy, or into wages for employees being lower than they would be otherwise, so we all pay in the end. There is no magic money tree, after all. But it would drive behaviours in the right direction, rather the free-to-emit situation we have now.

 

[exchemist]

What is " doing something"? Wind turbines? Terrible for the environment.
Electric cars?
Terrible for the environment, but hey it's not our environment they are destroying so I guess we are not supposed to notice.

Doing something is, yes, wind turbines, solar power, nuclear power, storage systems, electric cars, hydrogen generation, heat pumps, insulation, using timber instead of concrete, and all the other things you have read about. Nobody pretends that any of these things are pollution-free. However the climate change imperative trumps all those objections. We must do all these things and manage the environmental impacts as well as we can.

It seems the last ditch of climate change denial - now that both the science and people's real life experience make its reality beyond question - is to try to sweep up climate change together with other environmental impacts and claim the countermeasures will be just as bad as what we do now. That is disingenuous and wrong, because it dodges recognising that climate change is uniquely urgent.

 

[Revoltingest]

I disagree. Over-consumption (eternal growth) is the key driver of capitalism. Minimalist libertarian "regulation" is just a sop.

"Minimalist" is your presumption of fecklessness.
Moreover, Ameristan is not libertarian.

I do not claim to know "the solution", but the problem (capitalism) is clearly not the solution.

To condemn something with no better alternative
is worse than a "sop" (whatever that is).

Anti-capitalists are all about despising economic
liberty, but if they want to solve any problems,
they should consider real world solutions.
We aren't going to give up private ownership of
the means of production, Vladimir.

 

[Stevicus]

I do agree there is too much advertising for stuff we don't need. But this is not the real driver of climate change: it just tends to make things a bit worse. As I have been saying elsewhere, the big four are our heating (and cooling), our transport, our diet and our electricity generation.

One of the reasons I am attracted to carbon taxes is that they would charge companies according to the carbon footprint of all their activities, which would give them a real incentive to work in low carbon ways. But perhaps methane emissions should also be included. So, to take your example, beef from intensively reared cattle would incur a penalty, which would start to drive MacDonalds away from hamburgers.

Of course, with an emissions footprint tax - if we call it that - the cost of paying it will get priced into the goods and services we buy, or into wages for employees being lower than they would be otherwise, so we all pay in the end. There is no magic money tree, after all. But it would drive behaviours in the right direction, rather the free-to-emit situation we have now.

What I see at present is that much of the pollution has come from the developed industrialized world, which has been wealthier and better able to build and maintain the infrastructure for energy distribution, transportation, pipelines, etc. This, among other things, has made many people's lives easier and more luxurious, to a large degree.

That's what capitalists might point to, as they'll point out all the consumer goods and other items available to the common man - TVs, computers, smartphones, cars, SUVs, RVs, air conditioning, McMansions on their 3.3 acre plot of land. That's what many might call "living the good life" and realizing the American Dream. That's what it's all about.

The capitalists say that anyone who works hard enough can realize that dream and end up owning all this really cool stuff and wonderful energy-consuming gadgets.

And of course, they want to open it up to the entire world, with a global capitalist economy. All the people in the developing world want to enjoy the benefits of a modern, industrial economy and have all that cool stuff, too. A while back, I was reading an article about young professionals in India, who were more affluent and could afford to have air conditioning in their homes - a luxury which was pretty rare in that country. But he wanted it and could afford it, and why not? He wanted to have his parents move in and enjoy the comforts of a nice, air-conditioned home. How could anyone fault him for that?

Even if we assume that the governments and corporations of the world have the best of intentions, and assuming that all they want is a free, peaceful world where all the nations cooperate in a free and open market. Moreover, we're assuming a goal where the underdeveloped parts of the world would ultimately be developed and modern - with all the benefits of industry and technology which have benefited the West, then where will it leave us?

Many people condemn the burning and destruction of the Amazon rainforest, but then again, the people doing this are just working class average Joes trying to eke out a living as best they can in a capitalist economy. Because they really have no other choice. They're doing exactly what the capitalist ideologues would have them do: Work hard, and the financial rewards will be yours.

 

[metis]

How does this make any sense when the worst polluters are not capitalistic countries?

First of all, that is not true as someone else posted.

But my point is this, namely do you believe two wrongs make a right? Should we legalize rape because most rape cases never amount to convictions? I don't believe that Jesus would say that "X is OK because some other people act worse".

 

[Revoltingest]

Many people condemn the burning and destruction of the Amazon rainforest, but then again, the people doing this are just working class average Joes trying to eke out a living as best they can in a capitalist economy. Because they really have no other choice. They're doing exactly what the capitalist ideologues would have them do: Work hard, and the financial rewards will be yours.

The problem with the anti-capitalist pro-socialist lens is to
see all problems as replacing one economic system with
another. Neither system is inherently pro environment.
What matters is the public policy, ie, is environmental
preservation valued & enforced. We could do far more
to protect it than we do. I favor such regulation upon
private ownership of the means of production.

How can voters be motivated to care more?

 

[Secret Chief]

Ameristan is not libertarian

I never mentioned America.

To condemn something with no better alternative
is worse than a "sop"

I see nothing wrong in shouting fire, even if one doesn't have a bucket of water.

We aren't going to give up private ownership of
the means of production

I agree.

 

[Revoltingest]

I never mentioned America.

The post I quoted has been poofed.
But my statement stands.

I see nothing wrong in shouting fire, even if one doesn't have a bucket of water.

To extend your analogy, you're criticizing
fire extinguishers without an alternative.
Til you have one better, I'll still use'm.

 

[Secret Chief]

To extend your analogy, you're criticizing
fire extinguishers without an alternative.
Til you have one better, I'll still use'm.

Fine, the planet will carry on burning then.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fine, the planet will carry on burning then.

Instead of carping about capitalism, why not
make it about inadequate regulation of
manufacturing, sales, waste disposal, etc?
To merely complain about something that
isn't the problem would be to let it burn.

 

[Secret Chief]

Instead of carping about capitalism, why not
make it about inadequate regulation of
manufacturing, sales, waste disposal, etc?
To merely complain about something that
isn't the problem would be to let it burn.

Because I don't want the rules of capitalism tweaked.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because I don't want the rules of capitalism tweaked.

So things should remain as they are?
Or you'd replace capitalism with what....socialism?
Communism? Feudalism? Hunter gatherism?

 

[Wildswanderer]

First of all, that is not true as someone else posted.

But my point is this, namely do you believe two wrongs make a right? Should we legalize rape because most rape cases never amount to convictions? I don't believe that Jesus would say that "X is OK because some other people act worse".

I don't believe we are killing the planet like some seem to. The USA for example has a lot less pollution in many ways then we used to.

 

[Lyndon]

I don't believe we are killing the planet like some seem to. The USA for example has a lot less pollution in many ways then we used to.

Some see ignorance on climate change as a virtue!