By Paul Messersmith-Glavin - The Portland Radicle, November 21, 2012
Disclaimer: The views expressed here are not the official position of the IWW (or even the IWW’s EUC) and do not necessarily represent the views of anyone but the author’s.
Capitalism is changing the weather. More fundamentally, it is changing the climate. This is the byproduct of an economic system that relies primarily on burning oil and coal to fuel production and enable the transportation of people and goods. In looking at capitalists’ responsibility for the climate crisis, a central question is whether capitalism must impact the environment in this way, or if it is capable of changing its mode of production so its continued operation does not change the climate.
A new report estimates that before the year 2030, 100 million people will die as a result of the changing climate. Ninety percent of these deaths will occur in poor countries. The ‘climate crisis’ should now be spoken of as the climate catastrophe, because this is what it is for the majority of the peoples of the earth. The droughts, melting icecaps, tropical storms, and bizarre weather we have been experiencing is just the beginning.
The dominant economic system is the driving force of climate change. It is based upon the exploitation of oil and coal, which contributes greenhouse gases to the environment, resulting in increasing global temperatures. The innermost logic of this economic system is the accumulation of capital. Whatever serves profit thrives. Currently a large part of the capitalist machine is fueled by oil and coal. The vast majority of scientific investigation points directly to the burning of oil and coal as having already raised the temperature of the Earth by 1.5 degree Fahrenheit, with the possibility of raising it over ten degrees by the end of this century. To do this would make life on earth unrecognizable, like something out of a science fiction movie. This may happen by the time today’s infants enter old age.
At one time reformists called for a Green Capitalism, for developing Green technologies and the like. Major unions, who have reconciled themselves with capital, call for Green Jobs. Reformists and unions suggest that capitalism could be ecological, that it does not have to do things like pollute the air and water and change the climate. This may be true. It may be possible to have an exploitative economic system like capitalism, based upon renewable, alternative energy. After all, the slave trade and early colonial conquest were based upon wind-powered ships and mills. A central question then is whether the logic of capitalism is inherently ecologically destructive; will capitalism continue to play chicken with our future, or will it revolutionize its mode of production to not change the nature of the environment so much that the future of civilization is put into question?
There is a debate amongst members of the ruling class, the so-called 1%, about which way to go. Some argue for the development of “carbon markets,” in which the right to put carbon into the environment is bought and sold, thus continuing to profit from the emission of greenhouse gases, while slowly decreasing them. They argue for developing alternative energy, such as wind and solar, to replace coal and gas. They promote ‘lifestyle changes’ and taxing coal and oil companies for their emissions. Right now, this section of the ruling class is losing. No real change is coming from above to respond to climate catastrophe.
It seems that if the fundamental driving force of capitalism is the further accumulation of capital, it would make sense not to change the ecology so much that you severely reduce the number of producers and consumers, threaten food production, and endanger the future of humanity. Without civilization, how can capitalism continue? Right now, the most potent anti-civilizational force on the planet is capitalism.