Climate change and capitalism

[caitlinwaters]

So I had this debate at school this week about climate change and everybody was arguing that if we were just able to use less energy or use more sustainable energy, we might be able to save our environment a bit more. I get that this is quite a controversial topic right now, but what I was thinking when everyone was saying we should do less of this or more of that was: capitalism.
If our society was based on individual growth (spirituality, emotional needs, social relations, etc) instead of capitalism, we could save more space for the environment in our world. We are more focused in having stability in our economical systems than adaptability. by that I mean that it's hard to change our ways.
Our society is based on the making of money and on economic growth rather than social relations. There would be no way that a company, whose goal is primarily to make money, would prioritize sustainability before money, as ecologic as that may be, because it will cost them more money. Of course, there are always exceptions to a rule, but I think we can all agree that the environment is not their biggest concern: losing money and making money is.
And this doesn't just apply to companies. It applies to us in our everyday lives too. I'm sure that most of us would not spend more money on - let's say- a more expensive fridge ($$$) that is more sustainable and would last longer when we could spend less and have one that functions just as well. It's the same principle but on a much larger scale involving bigger risks.
So I say, the biggest obstacle towards being more sustainable and "saving" the Earth while we still can, would be our pre-established values and habits that can be linked to capitalism. (such as the more money you have, the more valuable you are)
What are your opinions on the matter?

 

[Hadoblado]

I basically agree. In theory government is supposed to be able to step in and adjust the capitalist system to prioritise certain things such as climate change (with a carbon credit system for instance). But government is corrupt and busy and subject to the whims of an uneducated population as well as the same corporate interests that are driving climate change in the first place.


This guy is great for the science on all things climate change. The video above is a take on how we can tackle climate change from within the capitalist framework.

 

[caitlinwaters]

Yepyep..
The problem isn't capitalism itself but it's our inability to adapt our capitalist system. Right now, we don't see as big catastrophes as we will in the future, and I think the biggest issue is the fact that the government is all too set on the present (as in right now to a couple of years) instead of focusing more on our future and the fact we might not have one, if things stay as they are.

Sent from my SM-N950W using Tapatalk

 

[Grayman]

Capitalism is fine so long as you tax things that impact the environment and impact shared resources. The increased costs will direct consumers to more sustainable products.

Setting a culture in combination to capitalism would be the best but replacing capitalism with whatever this "If our society was based on individual growth (spirituality, emotional needs, social relations, etc)" is makes no sense. But then neither does your concept of capitalism it seems...

 

[Tenacity]

So I had this debate at school this week about climate change and everybody was arguing that if we were just able to use less energy or use more sustainable energy, we might be able to save our environment a bit more. I get that this is quite a controversial topic right now, but what I was thinking when everyone was saying we should do less of this or more of that was: capitalism.
If our society was based on individual growth (spirituality, emotional needs, social relations, etc) instead of capitalism, we could save more space for the environment in our world. We are more focused in having stability in our economical systems than adaptability. by that I mean that it's hard to change our ways.
Our society is based on the making of money and on economic growth rather than social relations. There would be no way that a company, whose goal is primarily to make money, would prioritize sustainability before money, as ecologic as that may be, because it will cost them more money. Of course, there are always exceptions to a rule, but I think we can all agree that the environment is not their biggest concern: losing money and making money is.
And this doesn't just apply to companies. It applies to us in our everyday lives too. I'm sure that most of us would not spend more money on - let's say- a more expensive fridge ($$$) that is more sustainable and would last longer when we could spend less and have one that functions just as well. It's the same principle but on a much larger scale involving bigger risks.
So I say, the biggest obstacle towards being more sustainable and "saving" the Earth while we still can, would be our pre-established values and habits that can be linked to capitalism. (such as the more money you have, the more valuable you are)
What are your opinions on the matter?

(I once wrote a paper on this subject matter, out of choice. I don't know where the paper is since this was over 6 years ago, so I'm writing off the top of my head. I did all the scholarly research, etc. Wish I could link them here, but hopefully what I type below is sufficient for the time being.)

The solution is for capitalism to shift toward conscious capitalism.

I went through the same belief systems as certain people who are angry at capitalism and related corruption, and I am still angry at it at times, and try not to let it influence my day-to-day focus. Yet, it appears that capitalism cannot be avoided - only adapted.

Whole Foods is a great case study on how capitalism can be used to enable a cultural paradigm shift, i.e. influence social change while being relatively apolitical. John Mackey's book on Conscious Capitalism does a good job on outlining this, while several chapters are quite obviously self-promotion.

There are ultimately the least amount of downsides and the best ability to be sustainable and purpose-driven as companies, thus maximizing the net positive impact of capitalism:

• Minimized negative externalities on climate change.
• Focus on reusability minimizes supply chain waste, thus improving overall efficiency, thus maximizing cost effectiveness. There will be initial hiccups due to having to deal with the alternative energy processes, but it will go through the same maturation process as any business in burn rate and subsequent. achievement of economies of scale, if leadership knows what they are doing
• Brand equity becomes highly differentiated, i.e. a company's value isn't just to turn profits.
• Better workforce engagement, retention, happiness, wages, as companies who care about climate change have a greater likelihood of caring about healthy employee relationships in the long-term.
• Proliferation of technological and scientific advancement in innovation over un-renewal resources.

 

[ZenRaiden]

I remember the old days. One washing machine my grandpa had for 20 years. Got replaced after it exploded lol. Car. Well you had to fix it yourself. Phone breaks down? Well you take the older phone and fix that and replace it lol. Going shopping? Same two bags used for over 12 years. I think we still have them somewhere. Straws and plastic? Not that much? Kitchen appliances had to last or you were back to the mechanical ones. Plus my grandma used mechanical ones anyways. Everything was made to last a lifetime.

 

[Maou]

I am under the impression climate change is natural, and even if brought upon by humans, irreversible. I support cleaning up the ocean, and planting trees, non the less. But I do feel many corporations are trying to take advantage of this "green energy" bullshit. For example, did you know a lot of lithium mining is the result of strip mining the jungles? Yeah, I didn't either for a time. Yet others try to tell me you can do that with seawater. Yeah, in 30 years or so maybe. Essentially all the "Solutions" are just corporate scams to make you buy their inferior product to a superior product... like nuclear energy.

 

[byhisello99]

Capitalism is an economic system, and a relationship-oriented culture can adopt any economic system it wishes. The two are hardly mutually exclusive. Relationship-oriented versus Task-Oriented is much more pleasant, but has serious limitations when it encounters modern technology. Successful simultaneous use of intersecting runways has nothing to do with the relationship between the aircraft pilot and the air traffic controller.

As for climate change, geologists are discouraged from participating in the discussion because they have billions of years of data rather than centuries cited by climate scientists. The money is all spent by government, and government wants solutions to the problems. No problems, no money. Therefore problems must exist. This doesn't take away from the core tenet of anthropogenic global warming, that too much fossil fuel is being used. Fossil fuels remain the simplest and cheapest path to First World
Status.

There is a compelling argument for reducing fossil fuel use without mentioning AGW at all. But, then, virtue signalers won't have people to beat up so that they feel better about themselves

 

[sushi]

humans fuck with the enviroment whether there is capitalism or not,,

communist countries arent doing a much better job.

 

[gilliatt]

Climate is primarily a scientific problem, not a political problem. If say your neighbor damages the climate, we have courts, laws against that. You can hold him responsible for messing around with the environment. Laissez-faire capitalism, only a social system based on individual rights, it bans force.. Communist, socialist countries, they have no money to do anything with. Another thing, the universe is a big thing, the earth is hardly a grain of sand on all the seashores of earth. One more, with laissez-faire capitalism you with have lots of wealth, new discoveries, new technologies etc, which means achievement, advancement in all fields, cleaner world, have the climate any way you please.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

The primary motivation in capitalism is maintaining financial position, the second is profit. Think, do you change your lifestyle on your own if you don't have to? I didn't. Businesses are the same, against losing their position by default if they don't have a direct motive to do so.

In this case we would like to bring in competition or have government involvement. The business itself can be a channel for change if it counseled within itself and had power to act on that counsel.

 

[Grayman]

Obstruction! Capitalism is basically captain Planet! The only thing that needs to be corrected is that impacts to the environment need to be appropriately taxed. This will allow funds to be available to counter those impacts and also make highly impactfull commodities less attractive due to their costs.

Anything else is just a pipe dream.

I've got dementia or something... this is a year old! No wonder I don't recall already responding. Gotta watch hadoblados vid

 

[Grayman]

I am under the impression climate change is natural, and even if brought upon by humans, irreversible. I support cleaning up the ocean, and planting trees, non the less. But I do feel many corporations are trying to take advantage of this "green energy" bullshit. For example, did you know a lot of lithium mining is the result of strip mining the jungles? Yeah, I didn't either for a time. Yet others try to tell me you can do that with seawater. Yeah, in 30 years or so maybe. Essentially all the "Solutions" are just corporate scams to make you buy their inferior product to a superior product... like nuclear energy.

It's not really strip mined, not in the same way other materials are. Strip mining leaves large piles on top of the surface that isn't immediately good for the environment.

When mining lithium they pull liquids out and evaporate it leaving behind the materials they need.