The real culprit of the climate crisis is not any particular form of consumption, production or regulation but rather the very way in which we globally produce, which is for profit rather than for sustainability. So long as this order is in place, the crisis will continue and, given its progressive nature, worsen. This is a hard fact to confront. But averting our eyes from a seemingly intractable problem does not make it any less a problem. It should be stated plainly: It’s capitalism that is at fault.I would find this silly if so many people didn't take it seriously. So let me give it a serious response.
As an increasing number of environmental groups are emphasizing, it’s systemic change or bust. From a political standpoint, something interesting has occurred here: Climate change has made anticapitalist struggle, for the first time in history, a non-class-based issue.
First, certain parts of the world have already tried a communist economy, and the environmental results were awful. There is simply no reason to assume that a socialist system would do any better at protecting the environment than the regulatory regimes we have now. It's just the old fantasy of Revolution: after we overthrow the oppressors, everything will be better. Trust us!
Second: is the government producing electric cars? No. Elon Musk is. And General Motors and Nissan. Capitalist firms produce what people want to buy. Ok, you have to factor in advertising and occasionally the refusal of big firms to produce certain things, but by and large capitalism is better at making the things people want than any other system. Nowadays many people want solar panels and electric cars, so capitalist firms produce them. The reason they don't make more is that most people still prefer gasoline and getting their power from the grid. In this case as in many others, what activists like Yong call "capitalism" is really just economic democracy. Firms make lots of stuff because people want it. Try to take it away from them and they are going to howl.
Third: many, many people hate it when bossy leftists tell them they have to change their whole lives and conform to the dictates of the greens: Change now! Give up your favorite things! Or the planet is doomed! Really! You must obey us or else!
People like Yong are somehow (like so many other progressive activists) incapable of hearing how they sound to other people. This whole "we must have systematic change" approach only guarantees that nothing will be done, because let me tell you we are not going to have socialist environmentalism in America. If you didn't like the backlash that gave us Trump, wait until you see the backlash to green socialism.
The only way to meaningfully reduce carbon emissions before a shattering crisis is better technology, some mixture of things that reduce emissions and things that cool the planet. The good news is that these things are possible. Some of them seem far-fetched, but if you ask me, even the craziest planet-cooling schemes are more likely than environmentally-friendly socialism.
3 comments:
So basically you think we humans - or at least a large enough percentage of us - are so monumentally set in our ways and unwilling to adapt as to be effectively suicidal?
At some point, shouldn't the stakes become high enough that it simply doesn't matter how a person says something, because the things they are saying are just so fundamentally shocking and terrifying?
If someone points a gun at your head and tells you to put your hands up or they'll shoot, just how stupid and stubborn do you have to be to rebuke them for not phrasing it in a more palatable manner?
Or perhaps a more apt analogy is a passenger in a car screaming at the driver to hit the brakes before the vehicle careens over a cliff, and the driver being so offended by getting yelled at that they take their hands off the wheel, fold them across their chest, and demand an apology and a civil rephrasing of the request before they'll even consider complying?
If people are unwilling to take the actions necessary to avert disaster, the decision might just end up being taken out of their hands by others. If the best we can do is just sit back on our asses and place all of our faith and trust in monumentally unlikely miracle tech solutions, then we deserve whatever we get.
Bingo. Agree with everything John has written here (this is not that common!). Sadly, Verloren continues with his pointless word salads and false equivalencies still. A global climate tax treaty is very far from radical systemic change, and is the optimal solution to address AGW if it really is a problem. However, I don't think progressives really grasp the consequences of permanent 2008-level fuel prices.
Uh-oh
Post a Comment