Naomi Klein Is Half Right About Capitalism vs. the Climate

Naomi Klein is always worth reading. If you haven't seen Capitalism vs. the Climate, go ahead. I'll wait.

Her 10,000-word exposé is well worth the effort. It makes the essential point that addressing climate change means reorganizing how the world does business.

Klein makes the point by arguing that the climate-denier crowd at the typical Heartland Institute gatherings:

may be in considerably less denial than a lot of professional environmentalists, the ones who paint a picture of global warming Armageddon, then assure us that we can avert catastrophe by buying "green" products and creating clever markets in pollution.

I'm completely with Klein on her first point. Sure, buy green products. I do. But do it because organic, local apples are better for you and the local environment, not because you'll stop global warming.

But Klein is wrong in her more serious assertion: that we can save the planet only if we abandon capitalism:

Responding to climate change requires that we break every rule in the free-market playbook and that we do so with great urgency.

That's only true in so far as we consider the current situation anything close to a "free market." It isn't. Markets are woefully rigged in favor of pollution, which is also the main reason the earth finds itself in peril. (I'm pretty sure Klein would agree with that point.)

Think of it this way. My 9-month-old has less right to grow up breathing clean air than the driver barreling past us has the right to pollute. The reason is simply that markets are constructed so that few have to pay for the pollution they produce.

Every time I open my fridge, turn on the heat, hop in a car (or on a train), or do much of anything, someone else incurs the costs for the pollution my actions produce.

When I fly from New York to Vienna to see my parents, my flight produces about one ton of carbon dioxide emissions. That ton causes at least about $20 worth of damage to the atmosphere. But I don't pay a penny of that. Everyone of us seven billion pays a tiny fraction of a penny for my seeing my parents.

Klein offers two solutions. The first calls for a radical rethinking of how we lead our lives and opt for a more leisurely path. A lovely thought. I'd much rather spend weeks at a time visiting my parents in Vienna and in-laws in Bangkok than engage on jetlag-laden, multi-continent "vacations" that seem to serve no real purpose other than to make it back to my desk by Monday morning.

So yes, let's create a culture where it's OK for everyone to take off a couple of months in the summer, and perhaps another one around the winter holidays. It works for the Swedes, why not the rest of us?

But Klein realizes this sort of cultural change won't happen overnight and wouldn't by itself stabilize the climate. Which leads her to call for "taxing the rich and filthy."

Nice turn of phrase, but, unfortunately, it confuses the issue. It's really about taxing the filthy. And it's not about taxing anyone for the sake of sticking it to the man. It's about asking everyone to pay for their own pollution instead of shoving those costs onto society.

I'd gladly pay the $20 extra for my flight to see my parents. But Klein argues, correctly, that nothing will be accomplished if the only people paying are do-gooders who want to feel better about their carbon footprint. If we want to affect the planet, everyone has to pay the cost of their pollution. Only then will we truly level the playing field.

That all seems like wishful thinking, alas it can be achieved. The European Union, starting January 1, 2012, is putting a carbon price on every flight to and from the EU.

The program is starting modestly; my flight to see my parents will cost around $2 extra, not the $20 or more that would make up for my pollution. Still, it's a start. And keep in mind that the EU's system will cover a third of all miles flown -- globally. That's no longer a bunch of greens spending extra on their organically sourced ice cream. That's change on a scale the planet notices.

Europe, of course, is not alone. California will soon have the world's most comprehensive cap-and-trade system limiting global warming pollution. Australia just passed a carbon price. British Columbia has had one in place since 2008. India has a coal tax. China is pursuing carbon trading as part of its twelfth 5-year-plan. It seems only Washington is falling further and further behind.

All of these are the kinds of change that work with, not against, market forces and human desires -- desires that capture the imagination of billions and make many of us want the latest iAnything or fly on that Airbus 380.

In fact, my real argument with Klein is that in trying to escape capitalism, she is trying to evade human nature. We could and should work to make human desires less material. Some of the rich may well be in that position already, but I'm afraid that's a losing proposition for the globe.

It's not about a full-scale assault on human desires, capitalism, and free markets. It's about freeing them in the first place, and in the process freeing all of us to do the right thing. It doesn't get more ethical than that.

 

 

 

Follow Gernot Wagner on Twitter: www.twitter.com/GernotWagner

Comments

[Eileenla]

02:55 AM on 12/09/2011

The way we frame issues determines rhe answers we get to our questions. If we continue to frame life issues using a monetary framework, the so-called "solutions" have to be monetarily based and either generate profits for business or create costs for doing damage. What if we simply decided we all wanted to support humanity's chances for making it into the 21st century, and did whatever was necessary to clean up the environmental messes we've made, protect and preserve ecological diversity, establish sustainable lifestyles and cease the wholesale conversion of nature into disposable and consumable commodities? Perhaps the issue isn't whether we need to continue capitalist practices so much as whether we're intelligent enoughto properly contextualize ourselves as life forms embedded in an integrated living feedback system...one that is sending out huge warning signals that we're going to be facing extinction level events very soon if we don't expand our perspective on how to relate to reality beyond only those ways that
make "monetary sense." reality doesn't care what we can afford or if a challenge is convenient fir our budgetary purposes. All it cares about is that we evolve to successfully meet the challenges we're facing...whether we've created them ourselves, or whether nature has created them for us.

[falsy]

02:26 PM on 12/08/2011

Klein is dealing with reality/republicans, who don't accept the costs for anything. Free market = free ride.

[Pirate Prentice]

12:21 PM on 12/08/2011

When Klein says we need to break every rule in the free market playbook, she doesn't mean abandoning market capitalism completely. It's just that that rule book is very strict. In the rule book, a mixed economy with consumer markets regulated to protect the environment alongside nationalized sectors that should not be run for profit (education, healthcare, defense) and government investment in clean energy and transportation is akin to communism. What Klein advocates is not an end to the private ownership of the means of production, but recognizing that markets don't do everything more efficiently. They only do one thing best, and that's make a profit. A framework needs to be created to curtail that profit motive when it's massively destructive. Simply trying to harness that profit motive will never solve the climate crisis because more consumption will always trump less. This does not mean ridding our society of the profit motive. It means demoting it from its current status as the top priority, really the only priority, and putting the continued existence of human civilization first. People can still make a profit, but not at the expense of the health of the planet and all life on it. Multi-national corporations are the sovereign entities of the world. There needs to be something above them, not to confiscate all their profits, but to say making a profit in certain ways is too destructive to be allowed and to provide the leadership to begin transforming the world economy towards sustainability.

[Pirate Prentice]

12:21 PM on 12/08/2011

Klein isn't actually advocating for abandoning capitalism outright. Your confusion seems to lie in your conflating Free Market Ideology (ie market fundamentalism) with some supposedly objective definition of a free market which no market actually lives up to, and in turn conflating market fundamentalism with capitalism in general. The hypocrisy of market fundamentalists is well documented. For instance, they support subsidies for oil companies (in deed, if not always in rhetoric). However, simply making the market fundamentalists honest by transforming markets so that they conform to some objective definition of a free market will not solve the climate crisis as you seem to suggest. This would ultimately lead to even less regulation and perhaps a plethora of the consumer friendly "eco-solutions" which don't significantly alter consumption habits, but even that is doubtful.

[eaarth2]

06:28 PM on 12/07/2011

If we continue to pump C02 into our atmosphere at the current pace- we will not have to give up capitalism- we will be forced to. The consumption based type of capitalism we have evolved into needs a voracious amount of energy- the need for more energy- which is coming mostly from fossil fuels will be what eventually totally transforms what capitalism is.

If we allow C02 to past 450ppm- it will cause massive world wide chaos in time.

[Paul von Hartmann]

04:58 PM on 12/07/2011

Freedom to farm "every herb bearing seed" is more than just the first test of religious freedom. It is critical for realizing a truly free agricultural market based in sustainable production and consumption. Regional farm & garden economics, inclusive of all beneficial crops, must be considered for the Earth-healing values they offer: "Gaiatherapeutic" industry has an inherent value not represented in the present, catastrophically lopsided toxic chemical illness disparity and warmongering economy we currently inhabit.

Cannabis is the only crop that produces complete nutrition and sustainable biofuels from the same harvest. That makes it both unique and essential. Ending the treasonously manipulative, corporately motivated economics of Cannabis prohibition, and embracing the sustainable production of food, fuel, and atmospheric aerosols exuded by hemp, we may yet shift human values in time to regain balance with the Natural Order. The window of opportunity is closing as each spring planting season passes.

UV-B radiation is increasing. Radiation from Fukushima is spreading. Cannabis is critical to human health; for resolving climate change; for the phytoremediation of contaminated soils; and for rebalancing the Earth's atmosphere, through carbon sequestration and atmospheric aerosol production.

Google "global broiling" to find the website of the California Cannabis Ministry for more information.

[spriddler]

01:10 PM on 12/07/2011

Until renewables are cheaper than fossils in fact and not solely by rich government fiat, global CO2 emissions will continue to rise. When renewables do become cheaper the transition will happen without governments having to lift a finger. In Copenhagen, the developing world made it clear that the developed world was going to have to pay the difference if the price of power is to be artificially raised. That is because the developing world has over 1.2 billion people living without access to power. That means over a billion people living short, brutish lives dominated by disease and death. Out of a sense of moral duty or enlightened self interest, leaders of the developing world are not going to raise the price of power/slow the pace of development because that entails prolonging profound human misery. The developed world probably cannot afford a meaningful transition for the developing economies. They can afford to modify their own economies at a significant cost, but ask: why should we hobble our economy for nary a blip on the rising curve of global CO2 emissions? Then there is the larger question : Does it make sense to devote a large portion of humanity's resources/wealth to accelerate a process that will happen of its own accord? These are eminently reasonable questions. When activists pretend that they are not, they are not scoring any points outside of the choir.

[spriddler]

12:54 PM on 12/07/2011

Until there are renewable sources of energy that are cheaper than fossil sources in fact and not solely by rich government fiat, global CO2 emissions will continue to rise. When renewable sources do become cheaper the switch will happen without any government prodding. In Copenhagen the developing countries made it perfectly clear that if they were going to artificially raise the price of power the developed world was going to have to pay the difference. Developing countries have over one billion people living without power. These people live short, brutish lives dominated by disease and death. Raising the price of power slows the pace of development which in turn prolongs profound human misery. Out of a sense of moral duty or enlightened self interest, leaders of the developing world are not going to do that. The rich world is capable of making reductions now, but the question is: why hobble our economies for nary a blip on the rising curve of global CO2 emissions? Is it worth spending a large portion of humanity's resources/wealth to accelerate a process that will happen on its own? These are eminently reasonable questions. Activists don't score points beyond the choir by pretending they are not.

[Genders]

01:33 AM on 12/07/2011

Unregulated capitalism is the problem not the solution.

Cap and trade is a bankster paradise filled with the largest new derivatives market ever created.

It will boom and crash like the existing carbon markets already have.

Regulate, limit and charge a garbage fee for pollution.

No different than your trash pickup fees.

Limit and charge fees for heavy metal pollution, that's a very good proxy for CO2 from fossil fuels, and for contamination from nukes.

That will favor the only real energy solution out there:
Rooftop solar, offshore wind, waste bio char bio fuels, efficiency, and underwater turbines.
Forever, 24/7, clean, safe, cheap enough now, cheaper in the long run, ready to go now, doubling every year or 2 and able to replace fossil and nukes within 7 to 15 years, depending on our enthusiasm and will.

[Michael D Ballantine]

12:16 AM on 12/07/2011

I am not convinced. Adam Smith adequately describes capitalism and nothing has changed in 250 years. The object of capitalism is to maximize profits. The future cost of pollution on a company's balance sheet is so far removed from the here and now that a company is unable to alter its behavior without sacrificing profits. There is a direct conflict between a clean environment and a profit seeking business. Hence, the need for government "job" killing regulations to limit the profits that companies can make by destroying the environment. The government represents the people in theory against the needs of the capitalists. Where President Obama has failed is by issuing job killing regulations without offering job stimulus activities for the displaced workers, he creates a moral hazard for his enemies to take advantage of. His enemies do not care about the workers, they are simply pawns in the game. If President Obama were to support regulations that displace 10 workers and offer stimulus opportunities that employ 12 workers, his policies can be heralded as far-sighted or visionary. The enemies will still stomp and moan, but they will be toothless. We need vision in the White House beyond the next election cycle.

[jimboy71]

02:38 PM on 12/31/2011

The problem with Smith is that no one reads book two.

That is the book in which "profit" gets a social and moral dimension.

[MGhamma]

11:01 PM on 12/06/2011

Klein is correct.

Capitalism has run it's course, it's no longer a viable economic system in a world that is growing smaller by the day.

[Linus521]

01:22 PM on 12/07/2011

Capitalism is a cancer that is devouring itself while choking to death the Earth with its engorging tentacles. Of course, we can all hope, no credibility exists to the science of ecology as this science articulates how the Earth functions and cycles to create and support all life, and this eco-nomy has nothing to do with Earth killing capitalism.

The Earth's eco-nomy is her ecosystems and their biological diversity of native, wild species of animals and plants, the creators and saviors of all ecosystems. Yes, some are calling for a new worldview because, according to some scientists, each day the Earth becomes more like the surface of Mars. If it is a wild, natural land community with wild animals and plants, it's the natural real Earth, an ecosystem. Capitalism is devouring ecosystems.

[Dave Whipp]

09:12 PM on 12/06/2011

Part of the problem is the words people use. Take "Carbon Tax", for example. This is really a fee, not a tax. In fact, imposing that fee on the polluter reduces the costs that are imposed on everyone else. Its actually more analogous to a tax cut! Its easier to sell a "Carbon Tax Cut" than a "Carbon Tax".

[jimboy71]

11:12 PM on 12/06/2011

We already pay carbon taxes, in the form of gasoline, oil and coal taxes, and in the form of subsidies to the producers.

[artleads]

08:55 PM on 12/06/2011

Good sense. But it's probably too reliant on the way we think right now. I'm guessing that Klein is saying we need to think differently. If so, looking at and using capitalism might be done more imaginatively than if we just tweak it a bit...like, say, Sweden. There's the entire developing world that's coming into the equation, and equitable an ad sustainable relations with them can't be done by tweaking. It will require self examination, imagination and transformation. It's been done repeatedly in human history, "human nature" notwithstanding.

[Linus521]

01:37 PM on 12/07/2011

Someone on this site referred to the Venus Project. I believe they are calling for a new worldview.

In the 80's, the most radical of environmentalists delineated the course of actions that would save the Earth from man's avarice. They also stated, the more the individual comprehends the ecology of the Earth, the more radical he becomes. They called for a more simplistic, simple lifestyle. They also believed, new technologies would not save the Earth but suggested man seek ancient wisdoms.

An author told of a young man seeking to save the Earth and visited a library. All books in the library were about the lifestyle paradigms of the Native Americans. However, one of this nation's most ecologically astute scientists maintains it's too late. While man is busy arguing this and that, man marches down his merry road while gobbling up the Earth, his only home.

[artleads]

03:16 PM on 12/07/2011

It's never too late. One thing we can be sure of is that the unpredictable will occur. It is not our place to say what is or is not too late, or what can or cannot be achieved. Our ONLY responsibility is to keep trying to make things better, to revere the magical and mysterious existence in which we are immersed. Something bigger than (but not separate from) the individual human being decides what will be done. The best way to ensure that it's too late is to believe that it is.