5 ms·
What in particular has the production of CFC gas got to do with capitalism? In the 1980's, the Soviet Union had an estimated growth-rate of CFC production at 1
by krona 8y ago
What in particular has the production of CFC gas got to do with capitalism?
In the 1980's, the Soviet Union had an estimated growth-rate of CFC production at 18% annually (estimated because they couldn't be bothered to measure it themselves accurately) which by 1990 would've accounted for 50% of global CFC production.
- titzer 8y agoMaybe I am using capitalism in too broad a sense: I meant to express that if the use of CFC gives one competitor an advantage over another, they may go right ahead and do it, regardless of the consequences. Capitalism constantly prides itself on how great competition is, but competition actually makes this problem worse, not better.
- pc86 8y agoIf by "too broad a sense" you mean "incorrectly," then sure.
- titzer 8y ago"An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state." --Oxford Did you have a different definition in mind?
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- mantas 8y agoYet Soviets made a complete mess of environment without competition. There was no incentive for ecology, thus nobody cared. Capitalism, if market agrees that ecology is important, can encourage competition. Soviet-style economy didn't offer a choice. Government running the economy didn't help either. Government-worker-environmentalist won't fine government-worker-factory-worker. Even if they did, it's basically paying from one your own pocket to another.
- frockington 8y agoI have no idea how competition makes things worse. The competition to have the highest MPGs during the gas crisis has had lasting positive effect. The competition to be the first in space certainly had tremendous scientific impact.... the list goes on and on
- js8 8y ago> What in particular has the production of CFC gas got to do with capitalism? Not of CFC in particular, but the production in general does. There is an argument of David Graeber somewhere that socialist economies were effectively places where workers (who had benefit of full employment and government guarantees) didn't have to work very hard, so the resulting national product was lower. There was, albeit implicit, social contract saying that it's OK to work maybe 6 hours a day, because the state economy is bad anyway. Capitalism, being more efficient in, among other things, getting people to work hard, also causes bigger strain on natural resources (actually pretty much any resource). If people were willing to chill out more and work less, then perhaps there would be less fridges and less freons produced.
- Reason077 8y agoYes, the Soviets left behind a pretty awful environmental legacy. Emphasising production and growth without regards to the environmental cost is not a unique feature of capitalism.