You live in a mixed economy like almost every country on earth.Pure capitalist or socialist countries do not exist. It is a matter of which industries want to subsidise countries. In The United States of America, more than 600 billion dollars of state aid is given annually to the defence industry. Several tens of billions of agricultural subsidies are spent annually In Europe. In The United States there was under Obama a federal plan to spend annual $15 billion green energy subsidies. In Europe, annual subsidies are about EUR 6 billion per year in green energy. Trump’s overhoging in the defence industry alone this year (52 billion extra) is 4 times the total budget for reusable energy budgets in the US. But no one complains that this defence spending is an end to the capitalist system.
Capitalism assumes that people make sensible (rational) choices when purchasing products and services.And that investors follow these choices when providing or extracting money from companies.
There is an interesting tension field present.Apparently consumers do not choose rationally for environmentally friendly products and services. And so it follows the money from investors where consumers spend their money: in less environmentally friendly companies.
The tension is created because a fairly large group of these consumers is politically in favour of environmental friendliness.
Apparently this issue needs to be resolved collectively, because we are not prepared to pay the price individually.
Then I note that the current way of working, whereby the Government with subsidies and taxes insists on society a certain direction is a direct problem for the free choices that consumers and investors make (read: Free market operation).
Large companies are able to influence political decision-making (and therefore subsidy or tax) through pressure and lobbying.This distorting the market, so that consumers cannot make a pure choice.
What we see here is a tension that is present in human nature. We want to have as much freedom of choice as possible individually, but at the same time we also opt for decision-making in the collective, as this has led to better results in the past as individual decisions.
However, We organize in various ways of working together, part of which is aimed at creating value (a company is a collaborative form) and a part is focused on controlling undesirable outlasses in society (government is another Way of working together).
This creates choice models at different levels, with a tension field.
The field of tension around the environment is not entirely strange to me.I also see this from my work, looking for environmentally friendly investments for the pension money of some two million Dutch people.
And then I am the occasional blunt farmer: Suppose that I make a pot “socially irresponsible investing”, and that the return of this investment is so much better that the shortening of pensions is not necessary (this is not the coverage question of now , this has another cause). What do people choose?
What you ask here is that people make a choice.A choice between the environment and pensions. This makes the tension field visible because it gets a “price”. How much discount on the pension we allow before the environment is no longer our preference. Zero Euro per month, one euro per month, ten euros per month?
Actually, you ask someone: what is the value of the environment for you now?
I can also turn this on the other side.I expect that the amount of people wanting to give up in the negative choice is also proportional to the amount of people making the positive choice for the environment. There is no factor 10 in this, if people accept a tenner less retirement per month they will not be willing to spend one hundred euros per month more on environmentally friendly (re) products and services.
What you see here is how people make choices.
And apparently we collectively make other choices as individual, because we vote “for environment” but are not willing to do this same with our wallet.
Or does it?
The question I want to ask seriously is:
To what extent is the government’s subsidy and tax regime in the way of this kind of market operation.Where people can choose between environmentally friendly or less environmentally friendly alternatives without the price being influenced by government subsidies (think agriculture or livestock).
We are going to run into other issues, namely that the current consumption pattern of people is not sustainable with purely environmentally friendly alternatives.
This will drive up the price, and that hurts in the wallet, and that was the question “what is the value of the environment for you now?“.There is a maximum.
This has nothing to do with capitalism.Capitalism assumes that environment is one of the components on the basis of which people make choices.
These choices lead to a better risk/return ratio of a company, and therefore more expensive or cheaper financing (investments).
As people en-masse choose environmentally friendly products and services, the companies that deliver them are more attractive to investors.
And that doesn’t happen, and the big question is why not?
We make choices based on ideology (politics), labour market cooperation (companies) and price (value), and these are not by definition consistent.And we expect as a collective (community, political choices, company) to make other choices as individual. The company and government need to cut back, we understand it. But not on my wages and I also do not want a tax increase.
You can write thick books on these issues.
This is the essence of economic science, which is a behavioral science that tries to express choices in money.
Capitalism is an economic system, an observation of behavior (choices) of people which assumes great degree of freedom of choice and relatively little influence from outside “the market”.Capitalism assumes that without these influences people organise themselves as efficiently as possible, whereby the environment can be regarded as a piece of efficiency.
On the other hand, we see thoughts-flows that approach people a lot less positively.People cannot make good choices individually in the interests of society as a whole, and need a “parent, educator, auditor” to realise this for them.
However, these flows are never economic systems, but social and political systems.Given that people cannot make good choices: how can we organise ourselves to limit the damage.
This issue is strongly seen in the US government, where a federation model has been set up to balance the influence of a central government between the various states.On the basis of individual voices, the “dictatorship of the majority” can wreak havoc on residents of relatively sparsely populated states.
Here too, you see that a limit of choices is made.
If you want to address climate change, you should not look at the economic model, but what is behind it, namely the way people take decisions.What makes people opt for “socially irresponsible”, as far as they already do. Is the lack of alternatives, is socially responsible too expensive, it is difficult to get, people are not interested, etc, etc?
These are the relevant questions, not the question of whether we should put an end to the economic model which describes this behavior in an ideal situation of freedom of choice displayed in decline in value and paying a price for it.
This ideal situation is an illusion, as I have indicated in my example of subsidies and taxes.
And that is why the relationship between capitalism and climate change is irrelevant, but the choices people make.
Ending capitalism and replacing it with what then?All other forms just as well lead to climate change.
Fact is that capitalism only works through and thanks to competition.It delivers nice products, so we call it a success. But if we come together for a big problem, we do not really succeed in solving it. Or, well, climate change shouldn’t be a big problem for us because we have everything we need to make an energy transition. But it does not succeed because it is not a specific advantage for anyone if we are all less bad, because of the prominence of competition in society, we do not succeed in doing anything about it. This has become a very big problem. I think capitalism shows its weaknesses as cooperation is needed, so I would say yes we need to replace it. Does anyone remember what?
Also not capitalist systems are polluting.In fact, In the former communist countries, environmental pollution was many times worse than in the capitalist countries. Nowadays, a communist country like China is the biggest outcrop of CO2.
Capitalism can be reformed perfectly.Just as capitalism was reformed to build up the current welfare states.
This is a nonsense question.You can not stop climate change. The whole idea that everything is caused by man is debatable anyway. Do we contribute? Sure. Can it be better? Sure.
Stopping capitalism does not help.As if the Soviet Union was all so clean?
As usual, the term ‘ capitalism ‘ is more than reveals it.Perhaps someone who calls such a thing is actually a good idea against climate change. However, because of the provocative wording, it sounds like an attack on what is in practice the most climate-friendly methods to get people out of poverty.
Industrializing peasant societies hard to arm an army to defeat the capitalist West has a tremendous ecological footprint.The only realistic savings are the millions who starve through the disruption of their food supply. A less fanatical approach, however, has never been enough to end capitalism.
Meanwhile, market-based solutions -such as emission allowances, CO2 taxes and carbon reserves -ensure that all methods of limiting CO2 in the atmosphere become more attractive.Whether that’s ‘ capitalist ‘ solutions depends on who you ask.
Should we put an end to capitalism to stop climate change?
Capitalism is a system in which the money has it for saying.It is a Marxist term, based on the most important work of Marx ‘ Das Kapital ‘. It’s a dished word.
The supporters of a money-driven economy will call themselves ‘ liberal ‘.A term with more meanings. Capitalism is then the clearer term.
Freedom of the liberal capitalists is economic freedom.Free extraction of raw materials, free production, free movement of persons and goods and monetary freedom.
In reality, this freedom is not absolute, but it is hampered in many ways.The various governments use rules and taxes. This way you can’t just send money around, you can’t just start your own bank, etcetera. Also you can’t just be a doctor, brain surgeon for example because that deserves so well, no you have to follow a training first.
Apart from the capital itself, ownership of means of production, a Marxist would say, there is also a service sector.The entire banking sector can also be called a service sector, but also education, etcetera. In addition, many goods are actually state property. Many infrastructures are state-owned, especially the road network, sewage, etcetera.
Roughly, there are two types of societies.One with the greatest possible equality and one with great inequality. Greater equality seems to give more returns, but people often strive for inequality (self-enrichment). This is also always shown in history. A period of flowering is followed by a period of greater inequality.
It should be the responsibility of the Government to stimulate equality in order to make the economy flourish so indirectly.
Because capitalism is kept in check by the government, the government can also take measures to limit climate change.That is exactly what we see happening now.
Another weird aspect of economic liberalism is the belief in growth.The economy could only function if it grows. No one can explain why this is so (it is rather unclearly incorrect) but it really is a belief.
If you really want to tackle climate change, you need to develop a vision on economic shrinkage and zero growth.This shrinkage offers many possibilities. Now there is a system of economic growth and the climate grows with it. In a system of economic shrinkage you can make sure that the climate shrinks with it.
In fact, this shrinkage is also propagated, but one chooses for terms like ‘ transition ‘ that are much more obscure.
For example, if you are fuel for tax on aircraft, then you are not in a state to Spey the Treasury, but to shrink aviation.Fewer flight tourists, less air transport and at least a halving of the number of aircraft. But no one who says so openly.
Another nice problem is, for example, melting the polar pole.As a result, new soil treasures are released. Petroleum from the Arctic Ocean. We cannot wait to win. But if one wants to do something about the CO2 pollution, then one has to win less petroleum. Then the oil pumps in Saudi Arabia must close. We already know that this is not going to happen. So then one comes up with solutions to store CO2 underground. Unfortunately, I do not have the right training to be allowed to participate in conferences on underground CO2 storage, because I think it is very good.
So it will not succeed in doing something about climate change within the current semi-capitalist system.
No, capitalism is not the main culprit.
We should not throw away the kitchen because there is poor food on the table.The cook needs to learn to cook as it should.
Let me go back in time for a hundred and one hundred and twenty years.Woman to the hearth and subjected to her husband. The suffragettes will be more than badly felt in their pursuit of equal rights. But look what they have achieved.
The young people of today, who come on the streets for a policy that restores the climate back.They are not taken too seriously and they get a lot of dredging about themselves. Don’t let them give up please. Help them become a global movement that demands that the measures imposed are effective.
Now, the governments have only taken measures that do not hurt much, except for the middle class, which is always the first to pay for measures to resolve crises.
The companies are consciously being denied, the transport, such as planes, ships and heavy trucks, are deliberately being seen.The middle class can no longer enter the large cities with its car. Not that that measure is bad, it is not, it is the skewed relationship.
The smart power meter has been made to distinguish between what the solar panels on your roof deliver to the grid and what your way of life decreases from the grid.Why would that be, do you think? Because the day comes that you pay the consumer price for what you are declining and at the same time get the wholesale price for what you deliver. The profit goes to the company, the burden to the population.
That is what needs to change, not to drain capitalism, the burden that the Klmaatherstel will ask must be divided over all groups.