7 ms·

Capitalism is killing the planet – it’s time to stop buying into our destruction

62 points by penguin_booze 5y ago

Glavnokoman 5y ago
"In reality, the biggest source of water pollution is farming, followed by sewage" That's from the article. I do not see how the proposed wealth redistribution would make people eat and shit less. Accept it - we are just tooooo many. Rich are not the problem. Poor are, cause there are more of them and they breed faster.
dandanua 5y ago
[flagged]
- badtension 5y ago
  > WE VALUE MONEY AND POWER ABOVE ANYTHING ELSE Isn't that what capitalism enables? With money, you get more money. With more money you get power. With power you get even more money. I feel like you described current liberal capitalist world. The system is constructed in such a way that most people work towards creating wealth either for themselves or their boss. The way this wealth is later used is not as important, it can lead to overutilisation of resources, straining the ecosystem, creating pollution or just "having fun" while your neighbour has a hard time feeding his family. I don't think that this is the "leaders'" fault, in my opinion the system is mostly to blame - it either rewards or forces behaviours that you listed.
goatsneez 5y ago
The headline itself, let alone the content is so stupid it drools (well, I suspect people do not take the Guardian seriously in any case). Similar headline from Guardian about '..Oil CEOs lied ...' etc. The framing of the issues, the utter lack of contextual and theoretical framework ... just not respectable. One would have to unravel this garbage at the expense of lot of energy to even begin aspiring for useful and practical discourse on such topic.
HamburgerEmoji 5y ago
I've heard that around 130k people are delivered from poverty each day lately. That's due to markets and such, not the good intentions of people like Pol Pot. There is some argument to be made along these lines, but it involves changing human beings themselves, e.g. through something like meditation. These kinds of articles never have and never will mention such things that might actually effect the changes they seem to want to make in the world but are unable or unwilling to make in themselves.
- remirk 5y ago
  > I've heard that around 130k people are delivered from poverty each day lately. That's due to markets and such, not the good intentions of people like Pol Pot. Can you provide a citation for such a wild claim?
  - merpnderp 5y ago
    Wild claim? How is it wild? It is well established that China’s economy was stagnant for decades until free market reforms. Same with India. There is absolutely nothing wild about this claim as it is common knowledge to anyone who’s followed economic reforms in developing countries.
  - rgoulter 5y ago
    https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty This page provides some useful info. With just the briefest of glances, some cited numbers: 1.9 billion people in extreme poverty in 1990, 730 million in 2015, 650 million in 2018. The 1.9 billion -> 650 million in 28 years is 120k people / day. The 730 million -> 650 million in 3 years is 73k people / day.
- caplkx 5y ago
  Is it due to markets or to due to people who had their formative years in the 1960 student revolts selling out hard won Western IP and production processes starting in the 1980s? Thereby impoverishing the middle class in the West but driving the stock market up.
- 5y ago
Jugurtha 5y ago
"Cars are killing millions of people. It's time to stop driving towards death." type of things to say.
- lupinglade 5y ago
  Not wrong.
- fsflover 5y ago
  Sounds about right to me.
- strogonoff 5y ago
  I agree with this statement more than with the title of the article. Capitalism itself objectively is not bad, but it depends on good will of participants. (On the other hand, attempts at communism or socialism so far try to enforce such good will onto people, with predictable results.) Cars and heavily car-oriented (sub)urban areas, however, are just avoidable bad design.
  - dmos62 5y ago
    Nitpick. The principal premise of capitalism is that pursuing self-interest leads to common good. In other words, good will, in the context of capitalism, is self-interest, which is not what you normally mean by good will: usually it implies some degree of selflessness.
    - strogonoff 5y ago
      Given honest participants acting in good faith, self-interest aligns with common good. You start a business that provides value and does it sustainably with care about the environment; I recognize that and support your business by being your customer and maybe investing in your company; you profit, I get the value, everyone benefits. Now, speculative investment, information asymmetry, short-term gain seeking, etc. kind of ruin the idea.
      - 5y ago
boredumb 5y ago
`Instead of focusing on ‘micro consumerist bollocks’ like ditching our plastic coffee cups, we must challenge the pursuit of wealth and level down, not up` The mask is so close to being completely off with these malthusian social movements.
- _3u10 5y ago
  It’s the end of an era, like the sixties, buy a nice car now before all they are selling are golf carts. Right now something like 70% of energy comes from petroleum. if you ask the electric grid to triple in 10 years you’re going to have large scale blackouts meaning Teslas and nice electric cars will go the way of the 1969 Camaro SS/RS
newaccount2021 5y ago
Think of how much progress could be made if a typical HN reader changed their lifestyle to be only an average polluter instead of the top 1%
- skrebbel 5y ago
  I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion. Or do you mean something as mundane as "lives in a rich country, owns a dishwasher"?
hktlfnfnd 5y ago
Did anyone else bet that this is written by George Monbiot just from reading the title?
- Tycho 5y ago
  Didn’t even consider reading it given it was theguardian but now that you mention it that’s an additional excellent reason not to click.
- _3u10 5y ago
  When I have the misfortune of reading a Monbiot article, I like to brighten my day by going and reading a Conrad Black article which usually informs me of a part of history I didn’t know, or even better, a word I didn’t know.
avgcorrection 5y ago
I remember a story on HN about how it was the plastic industry that promoted the narrative of recyclable plastic. Doesn’t make sense at first glance, perhaps; why not sell more plastic instead of telling people to recycle it? But they promoted that narrative because it is inefficient/hard to recycle plastics, and thus there is apparently no “sustainable” way to keep using plastics. It was a useful tale to spin past a certain point of environmental consciousness. So that narrative—engineered by the plastic industry itself—became just another part of RRR (reuse, repurpose, recycle). Now think about all the billions of dollars that are in marketing. How much of the popular eco-agenda could be corporoate-sponsored? (This is just to suggest that it is possible—there are always at least a dozen people in the comments who will demand direct proof in the form of leaked memos from at least three different giant corporations were they directly and explicitly (no innuendo) tell their subordinates to come up with such agendas, signed off by at least three executives. But it might be something to consider. Or not.) Now the Zeitgeist tells us that the world will be saved by middle class Joe making better consumer choices. I.e. rock the person, not the system. The same thing goes for the economic system writ large.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > So that narrative—engineered by the plastic industry itself—became just another part of RRR (reuse, repurpose, recycle). RRR is and was Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. It should have been RR (or even just R), since reduce >>>>>>>>>>>>> reuse >> recycle (metals, paper, and glass) > garbage.
- irthomasthomas 5y ago
  The current fashion is to recycle plastic into smoke and electricity by incineration. E.g. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b908135f https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b9081... It used to be that we would sell the plastic to energy producers in places like India, where environmental controls where less strict. But, more recently, we are burning the stuff domestically. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/co2-emissions-plastic-waste-england-b1882784.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/co2-emissi... One problem with this is that the incinerators are being placed close to the source, i.e. residential areas. So that toxic smoke is adding to urban air pollution.
forgotmypw17 5y ago
I gradually went freegan. Every dollar I do not spend is one less item pulled off the shelf, one less item restocked from the case, one fewer cases pulled off the pallet, one less pallet delivered from the warehouse, one less order placed to the factory... A little bit less diesel burned by all the trucks and ships delivering it... A little bit less of my biome stripped for the resources. I live somewhere with an over-abundance of items and food and shelter, so why not reduce my complicity to the processes I don't like, while also reducing the work required for my upkeep? (Freegan means avoiding the use of currency, instead relying on barter, gift economy, gifts from above, unsubscribing, etc.)
- cinntaile 5y ago
  What's freegan? Some sort of conscious consumption?
  - forgotmypw17 5y ago
    Freegan means avoiding the use of currency. Living without the use of money, instead relying on barter, gift economy, and help from above. I still use money for domains and hosting, which works out to about 20-30 bucks per month, on average. I also sometimes travel by train or bus for my FOSS project, which gets paid for by people who support me. That's about it, I don't use money for shelter or food, with occasional minor exceptions, e.g. last month I bought a can of sweet carbonated beverage because I really really really wanted one... Combined with meditation, optimistic outlook, minimal desires, I feel so much better off than when I was working six-figure tech jobs, I don't even know how to quantify it.
    - cinntaile 5y ago
      Ok I get it. That wouldn't even be legal here, helping others and getting something in exchange would count as illicit work. How does it work for when you reach retirement age though or when you get ill, do you have a monetary fund you can tap into if needed? I guess you don't technically retire when you live like this but at some point you'll need outside help.
rmanolis 5y ago
“I bet with no freedom of press we will stop cutting trees for newspapers, books etc.” This is how The Guardian sounds.
- imw 5y ago
  I honestly don't see how you get there. To me it seems much more like an argument that newspapers should not be printed on parchment, or in 128pt font. Seems pretty reasonable to me.
_3u10 5y ago
Having travelled it seems the places without capitalism have the most environmental destruction
- fsflover 5y ago
  You probably mean democracy.
  - _3u10 5y ago
    Having had a chance to reflect. I mean subsistence living. Essentially what monbiot is advocating a return to. Where ever you see subsistence you see all sorts of environmental catastrophes. Poverty is the cause of most of these problems not the solution as Monbiot thinks.
flooow 5y ago
It is a shame that there is a law of economic nature which states that all billionaires must be dead-eyed psychopaths. Imagine if Rupert Murdoch or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg really wanted to do good. Any one of them could choose to buy up all the media in the USA and pump out 'good' propaganda, aimed squarely removing its utterly corrupt ruling class, and they might succeed. Instead the existing media/political ecosystem is supported and reinforced by the only people who have the resources to change it. (Yes, yes, I believe in democracy and everything but it's too late for all that now).
Tycho 5y ago
Why is plastic vilified. Surely compared to fuel, it is an excellent, justified use for hydrocarbons. And as for disposal, isn’t it a simple matter of not doing ridiculous stuff like dumping it into rivers or oceans.
csee 5y ago
He says a wealth tax will be more effective than a carbon tax at stopping climate change. What planet is he living on? Is reducing the wealth of billionaires supposed to stop Big Plastic from lobbying? He mentions Bill Gates' personal carbon output without mentioning his investments in nuclear power research and other initiatives? Also does anyone really think that if North Korea were more prosperous, they would be polluting less than capitalist countries? The problem isn't inherent and unique to capitalism, the problem is reckless selfishness and disregard for externalities that can emerge from cronyism (lobbying under a capitalist system), but also from nationalism and corruption which are not unique to capitalist systems. A system that is socialist internally but with high levels of nationalism will be prone to pollute because they don't care about the global commons.
lordnacho 5y ago
Capitalism is such an overused term. I like to say I prefer a system where prices are fully reflective of realities (health and safety, pollution, working conditions), and people can more or less transact as they please. This still leaves a lot of room for debate of course. But my gripe with the current world is more that things don't cost what they cost, rather than people being too free to deal. My guess is that a lot of people actually feel the same way, regardless of whether they identify as a leftie or a rightie. One thing about the world as it is now is that you see nearly nothing of how the sausage is made. We know what we're consuming, but it's rare to understand how it go to your house. Were pesticides used to grow your food? Did the cow suffer when it was slaughtered? Did the guy who drove your stuff across the country have to shit in a bag? What about the white collar guy who flies around to meetings all the time, does he see his kids during the week? The sports star who makes millions, does he suffer from relentless pressure? Some of the most rewarding experiences involve relationships with other people. We have this transactional economy where you walk into a shop and someone gives you food and you leave, but one of my favourite things to do is actually talking to shopkeeper. How is business, how does it work, what are your thoughts on things? I'm friends with a number of people whose shops I wandered into and have since kept in touch with. That could be called capitalism too, but we tend to associate the term with an uncaring sort of brutal dystopia if we're a leftie, or a kind of necessary evil if we're a rightie. YMMV of course, as I mentioned the term means a lot of things to a lot of people.
- js8 5y ago
  > and people can more or less transact as they please Capitalism and free market are not the same thing. In capitalism, the labor is a commodity sold on a free market and significant amount of capital is privately owned. Either of these can be considered morally wrong even if we otherwise accept the premise of the free markets. Can people transact "as they please" if huge chunks of economy are already owned by a very small minority? I don't think so. It seems to me (which is also pretty much basic Marx) that there is a contradiction between "transact as you please" and large scale private ownership. > But my gripe with the current world is more that things don't cost what they cost Yeah, economic externalities. But isn't that, again, the consequence of people "transacting as they please"? Some people will simply think in the short term. What time horizon is gonna win in pricing, if people "transact as they please"?
insaider 5y ago
This is my argument against cryptocurrency - it's capitalism taken to the extreme and we're already struggling to mitigate the downsides of capitalism. Don't get me wrong, capitalism is a great thing and has brought us to where we are today but it has downsides. In the 21st century a government's primary purpose is simply to mitigate those downsides. However, governments are increasingly losing this power struggle. Democracy is being manipulated by capitalist-driven propaganda machines. And now, with the rise of cryptocurrencies, we're mitigating governments of their ability to control money too. If you read that last sentence and thought that that's a good thing then maybe you've fallen prey to those propaganda machines. Government's provide citizens with everything from healthcare, roads and infrastructure, education, welfare and much more. Inflation is high at the moment because government's bailed out their most vulnerable citizens with massive welfare payments. Stripping government's of such abilities is societal suicide. It's no coincidence that the country that is most money-hungry and capitalistic is also the worst at providing these things (relatively). For when the measure of a man is the depth of his pockets, then the world shall be ran by clowns.
- _3u10 5y ago
  That’s also why everyone loves crypto. The idea of sovereignty. Vote for whatever you want every 4 years, the market votes with every purchase. Vote for stimulus, that stimulus just drives crypto higher. Everyone knows that one day all of it is going to be paid for by the people holding USD
bambax 5y ago
> the shift of power away from the democratic sphere The "democratic sphere" is where anti-vaxxers and climate deniers roam. It seems doubtful democracy will help with a solution. Other systems are worse, of course. Hence, no solution.
moffkalast 5y ago
> The ocean current that brings heat from the tropics is weakening. Without it, the UK would have a climate like Siberia’s This part's actually not quite right, there was a Science paper a few months ago that simulated various events and proposed that it's more likely that the ocean itself only contributes a few degrees to the temperatures, and that it's the atmosphere movements that cause the bulk of actual heating. Still it's impossible to say what the gulf stream's dissipation will lead to and the results could still be rather catastrophic, but that statement is pretty far off reality. Some estimate that ironically, its shutdown may help with the reduction of heat waves in the summer, and Europe is a lot more infrastructurally prepared for extreme cold than extreme heat. Aside from that, it's good to see that the unsaid thing is being said out loud more and more in recent months. I have serious doubts anything can be done in this regard though, capitalism or not. All major economic/political systems seem to hinge on an ever growing economy and as such cannot go on perpetually in a closed system. The "economic growth at all costs" mindset is so ingrained in our society that there's no stopping it at this point, even if it means our extinction.
- js8 5y ago
  > All major economic/political systems seem to hinge on an ever growing economy Um, the Soviet style economies didn't (ideologically) hinge on ever growing economy, but rather on the idea of improvements to human society. Of course the practice was less then stellar, for various reasons. But they actually attempted things like providing education and care for all members of society. There are parts of the world where this worked out better than in capitalist counterparts. Cuba vs Haiti comes to mind.
  - moffkalast 5y ago
    There is the issue that any state that had an even slight communist alignment was either completely blockaded by the west or did not qualify for loans or trade so none of them are a good case study of how it would work normally. As for the USSR + satelites they were doing 5 year plans to boost the economy as much as possible to counter the US, so no sustainable growthless economy there either. It's possible that it could be done so in theory, but then again so it is for capitalism. Both are plans that don't survive contact with reality.
b215826 5y ago
Anyone who does serious research in STEM knows that articles from Scientific Reports [1] are to be taken with a pinch (or even a lump) of salt. And yet, here we have a so-called environmental-science reporter using such an article to make doomsday predictions: > People who study complex systems have discovered that they behave in consistent ways. It doesn’t matter whether the system is a banking network, a nation state, a rainforest or an Antarctic ice shelf; its behaviour follows certain mathematical rules. This has as much scientific content as Ian Malcolm's prediction (using "chaos" theory) about the collapse of Jurassic Park. So much nonsense has been written about the complexity of natural systems and the collapse of the environment that it's very hard to take any article that starts with such claims seriously. And saying things like "it follows certain mathematical rules" as if that gives your claims some sort of credibility is just one of the many examples of the misuse of mathematics [2] in the "softer" sciences. The real reason for the majority of environmental problems is overpopulation, not capitalism. Capitalism and globalization has had an important role in bringing people out of poverty, especially in large countries like India and China. If you think this is not true, look at the poverty levels of India before economic liberalization. Less poverty means more education and better family management. Much of this is obvious to anyone who has had an objective look at capitalism, but not to the Guardianistas who come up with such low-effort pseudo-scientific tripe. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports [2]: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.705.9946&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.70...
Ginden 5y ago
> Capitalism is killing the planet Humans are killing the planet. Every single political or economical system tried over last 100 thousands of years, resulted k in humans destroying environment for short-term benefits. Hunter-gatherers destroyed most of megafauna. Ancient Greeks destroyed forests of Greece. Medieval Germans destroyed forests of Germany. French and English did it too. Aurochs were destroyed in modernity. Soviets destroyed Aral Sea. This isn't even limited to our species - algae almost destroyed life on Earth, because they found that funny photosynthetic pathway and started emitting O2 to atmosphere. The very problem is that humans are form of life and restraining ourselves or worsening quality of life "for next generation" goes against basic instincts and behaviours built by evolution in mammals.
- jayjader 5y ago
  Hmm. I agree that the problem is larger than capitalism and is closer to human nature, but saying > The very problem is that humans are form of life and restraining ourselves or worsening quality of life "for next generation" goes against basic instincts and behaviours built by evolution in mammals. seems a bit pseudo-scientific to me. Life dies out if it over-consumes from its environment, so "by evolution" the life that survives _does_ "restrain itself for the next generation" in a sense.
  - Ginden 5y ago
    > Life dies out if it over-consumes from its environment, so "by evolution" the life that survives _does_ "restrain itself for the next generation" in a sense. Dawkins deconstructs this argument in The Selfish Gene. Basically, if you restrain yourself, you put your competitors in advantageous position to consume these resources. They will have more children and their non-restraining genes will win. We have seen ecosystems destroyed by unchecked invasive species - this is especially visible for islands due to their limited biodiversity. Even reindeers introduced on island without natural predators ate everything until they died out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island

62 points by penguin_booze 5y ago

"In reality, the biggest source of water pollution is farming, followed by sewage" That's from the article. I do not see how the proposed wealth redistribution would make people eat and shit less. Accept it - we are just tooooo many. Rich are not the problem. Poor are, cause there are more of them and they breed faster.

dandanua 5y ago

[flagged]

badtension 5y ago
> WE VALUE MONEY AND POWER ABOVE ANYTHING ELSE Isn't that what capitalism enables? With money, you get more money. With more money you get power. With power you get even more money. I feel like you described current liberal capitalist world. The system is constructed in such a way that most people work towards creating wealth either for themselves or their boss. The way this wealth is later used is not as important, it can lead to overutilisation of resources, straining the ecosystem, creating pollution or just "having fun" while your neighbour has a hard time feeding his family. I don't think that this is the "leaders'" fault, in my opinion the system is mostly to blame - it either rewards or forces behaviours that you listed.

goatsneez 5y ago

The headline itself, let alone the content is so stupid it drools (well, I suspect people do not take the Guardian seriously in any case). Similar headline from Guardian about '..Oil CEOs lied ...' etc. The framing of the issues, the utter lack of contextual and theoretical framework ... just not respectable. One would have to unravel this garbage at the expense of lot of energy to even begin aspiring for useful and practical discourse on such topic.

HamburgerEmoji 5y ago

I've heard that around 130k people are delivered from poverty each day lately. That's due to markets and such, not the good intentions of people like Pol Pot. There is some argument to be made along these lines, but it involves changing human beings themselves, e.g. through something like meditation. These kinds of articles never have and never will mention such things that might actually effect the changes they seem to want to make in the world but are unable or unwilling to make in themselves.

remirk 5y ago
> I've heard that around 130k people are delivered from poverty each day lately. That's due to markets and such, not the good intentions of people like Pol Pot. Can you provide a citation for such a wild claim?
- merpnderp 5y ago
  Wild claim? How is it wild? It is well established that China’s economy was stagnant for decades until free market reforms. Same with India. There is absolutely nothing wild about this claim as it is common knowledge to anyone who’s followed economic reforms in developing countries.
- rgoulter 5y ago
  https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty https://ourworldindata.org/extreme-poverty This page provides some useful info. With just the briefest of glances, some cited numbers: 1.9 billion people in extreme poverty in 1990, 730 million in 2015, 650 million in 2018. The 1.9 billion -> 650 million in 28 years is 120k people / day. The 730 million -> 650 million in 3 years is 73k people / day.
caplkx 5y ago
Is it due to markets or to due to people who had their formative years in the 1960 student revolts selling out hard won Western IP and production processes starting in the 1980s? Thereby impoverishing the middle class in the West but driving the stock market up.
5y ago

Jugurtha 5y ago

"Cars are killing millions of people. It's time to stop driving towards death." type of things to say.

lupinglade 5y ago
Not wrong.
fsflover 5y ago
Sounds about right to me.
strogonoff 5y ago
I agree with this statement more than with the title of the article. Capitalism itself objectively is not bad, but it depends on good will of participants. (On the other hand, attempts at communism or socialism so far try to enforce such good will onto people, with predictable results.) Cars and heavily car-oriented (sub)urban areas, however, are just avoidable bad design.
- dmos62 5y ago
  Nitpick. The principal premise of capitalism is that pursuing self-interest leads to common good. In other words, good will, in the context of capitalism, is self-interest, which is not what you normally mean by good will: usually it implies some degree of selflessness.
  - strogonoff 5y ago
    Given honest participants acting in good faith, self-interest aligns with common good. You start a business that provides value and does it sustainably with care about the environment; I recognize that and support your business by being your customer and maybe investing in your company; you profit, I get the value, everyone benefits. Now, speculative investment, information asymmetry, short-term gain seeking, etc. kind of ruin the idea.
    - 5y ago

boredumb 5y ago

`Instead of focusing on ‘micro consumerist bollocks’ like ditching our plastic coffee cups, we must challenge the pursuit of wealth and level down, not up` The mask is so close to being completely off with these malthusian social movements.

_3u10 5y ago
It’s the end of an era, like the sixties, buy a nice car now before all they are selling are golf carts. Right now something like 70% of energy comes from petroleum. if you ask the electric grid to triple in 10 years you’re going to have large scale blackouts meaning Teslas and nice electric cars will go the way of the 1969 Camaro SS/RS

newaccount2021 5y ago

Think of how much progress could be made if a typical HN reader changed their lifestyle to be only an average polluter instead of the top 1%

skrebbel 5y ago
I wonder how you arrived at that conclusion. Or do you mean something as mundane as "lives in a rich country, owns a dishwasher"?

hktlfnfnd 5y ago

Did anyone else bet that this is written by George Monbiot just from reading the title?

Tycho 5y ago
Didn’t even consider reading it given it was theguardian but now that you mention it that’s an additional excellent reason not to click.
_3u10 5y ago
When I have the misfortune of reading a Monbiot article, I like to brighten my day by going and reading a Conrad Black article which usually informs me of a part of history I didn’t know, or even better, a word I didn’t know.

avgcorrection 5y ago

I remember a story on HN about how it was the plastic industry that promoted the narrative of recyclable plastic. Doesn’t make sense at first glance, perhaps; why not sell more plastic instead of telling people to recycle it? But they promoted that narrative because it is inefficient/hard to recycle plastics, and thus there is apparently no “sustainable” way to keep using plastics. It was a useful tale to spin past a certain point of environmental consciousness. So that narrative—engineered by the plastic industry itself—became just another part of RRR (reuse, repurpose, recycle). Now think about all the billions of dollars that are in marketing. How much of the popular eco-agenda could be corporoate-sponsored? (This is just to suggest that it is possible—there are always at least a dozen people in the comments who will demand direct proof in the form of leaked memos from at least three different giant corporations were they directly and explicitly (no innuendo) tell their subordinates to come up with such agendas, signed off by at least three executives. But it might be something to consider. Or not.) Now the Zeitgeist tells us that the world will be saved by middle class Joe making better consumer choices. I.e. rock the person, not the system. The same thing goes for the economic system writ large.

lotsofpulp 5y ago
> So that narrative—engineered by the plastic industry itself—became just another part of RRR (reuse, repurpose, recycle). RRR is and was Reduce, Reuse, Recycle. It should have been RR (or even just R), since reduce >>>>>>>>>>>>> reuse >> recycle (metals, paper, and glass) > garbage.
irthomasthomas 5y ago
The current fashion is to recycle plastic into smoke and electricity by incineration. E.g. https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b908135f https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2009/ee/b9081... It used to be that we would sell the plastic to energy producers in places like India, where environmental controls where less strict. But, more recently, we are burning the stuff domestically. https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/co2-emissions-plastic-waste-england-b1882784.html https://www.independent.co.uk/climate-change/news/co2-emissi... One problem with this is that the incinerators are being placed close to the source, i.e. residential areas. So that toxic smoke is adding to urban air pollution.

forgotmypw17 5y ago

I gradually went freegan. Every dollar I do not spend is one less item pulled off the shelf, one less item restocked from the case, one fewer cases pulled off the pallet, one less pallet delivered from the warehouse, one less order placed to the factory... A little bit less diesel burned by all the trucks and ships delivering it... A little bit less of my biome stripped for the resources. I live somewhere with an over-abundance of items and food and shelter, so why not reduce my complicity to the processes I don't like, while also reducing the work required for my upkeep? (Freegan means avoiding the use of currency, instead relying on barter, gift economy, gifts from above, unsubscribing, etc.)

cinntaile 5y ago
What's freegan? Some sort of conscious consumption?
- forgotmypw17 5y ago
  Freegan means avoiding the use of currency. Living without the use of money, instead relying on barter, gift economy, and help from above. I still use money for domains and hosting, which works out to about 20-30 bucks per month, on average. I also sometimes travel by train or bus for my FOSS project, which gets paid for by people who support me. That's about it, I don't use money for shelter or food, with occasional minor exceptions, e.g. last month I bought a can of sweet carbonated beverage because I really really really wanted one... Combined with meditation, optimistic outlook, minimal desires, I feel so much better off than when I was working six-figure tech jobs, I don't even know how to quantify it.
  - cinntaile 5y ago
    Ok I get it. That wouldn't even be legal here, helping others and getting something in exchange would count as illicit work. How does it work for when you reach retirement age though or when you get ill, do you have a monetary fund you can tap into if needed? I guess you don't technically retire when you live like this but at some point you'll need outside help.

rmanolis 5y ago

“I bet with no freedom of press we will stop cutting trees for newspapers, books etc.” This is how The Guardian sounds.

imw 5y ago
I honestly don't see how you get there. To me it seems much more like an argument that newspapers should not be printed on parchment, or in 128pt font. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

_3u10 5y ago

Having travelled it seems the places without capitalism have the most environmental destruction

fsflover 5y ago
You probably mean democracy.
- _3u10 5y ago
  Having had a chance to reflect. I mean subsistence living. Essentially what monbiot is advocating a return to. Where ever you see subsistence you see all sorts of environmental catastrophes. Poverty is the cause of most of these problems not the solution as Monbiot thinks.

flooow 5y ago

It is a shame that there is a law of economic nature which states that all billionaires must be dead-eyed psychopaths. Imagine if Rupert Murdoch or Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg really wanted to do good. Any one of them could choose to buy up all the media in the USA and pump out 'good' propaganda, aimed squarely removing its utterly corrupt ruling class, and they might succeed. Instead the existing media/political ecosystem is supported and reinforced by the only people who have the resources to change it. (Yes, yes, I believe in democracy and everything but it's too late for all that now).

Tycho 5y ago

Why is plastic vilified. Surely compared to fuel, it is an excellent, justified use for hydrocarbons. And as for disposal, isn’t it a simple matter of not doing ridiculous stuff like dumping it into rivers or oceans.

csee 5y ago

He says a wealth tax will be more effective than a carbon tax at stopping climate change. What planet is he living on? Is reducing the wealth of billionaires supposed to stop Big Plastic from lobbying? He mentions Bill Gates' personal carbon output without mentioning his investments in nuclear power research and other initiatives? Also does anyone really think that if North Korea were more prosperous, they would be polluting less than capitalist countries? The problem isn't inherent and unique to capitalism, the problem is reckless selfishness and disregard for externalities that can emerge from cronyism (lobbying under a capitalist system), but also from nationalism and corruption which are not unique to capitalist systems. A system that is socialist internally but with high levels of nationalism will be prone to pollute because they don't care about the global commons.

lordnacho 5y ago

Capitalism is such an overused term. I like to say I prefer a system where prices are fully reflective of realities (health and safety, pollution, working conditions), and people can more or less transact as they please. This still leaves a lot of room for debate of course. But my gripe with the current world is more that things don't cost what they cost, rather than people being too free to deal. My guess is that a lot of people actually feel the same way, regardless of whether they identify as a leftie or a rightie. One thing about the world as it is now is that you see nearly nothing of how the sausage is made. We know what we're consuming, but it's rare to understand how it go to your house. Were pesticides used to grow your food? Did the cow suffer when it was slaughtered? Did the guy who drove your stuff across the country have to shit in a bag? What about the white collar guy who flies around to meetings all the time, does he see his kids during the week? The sports star who makes millions, does he suffer from relentless pressure? Some of the most rewarding experiences involve relationships with other people. We have this transactional economy where you walk into a shop and someone gives you food and you leave, but one of my favourite things to do is actually talking to shopkeeper. How is business, how does it work, what are your thoughts on things? I'm friends with a number of people whose shops I wandered into and have since kept in touch with. That could be called capitalism too, but we tend to associate the term with an uncaring sort of brutal dystopia if we're a leftie, or a kind of necessary evil if we're a rightie. YMMV of course, as I mentioned the term means a lot of things to a lot of people.

js8 5y ago
> and people can more or less transact as they please Capitalism and free market are not the same thing. In capitalism, the labor is a commodity sold on a free market and significant amount of capital is privately owned. Either of these can be considered morally wrong even if we otherwise accept the premise of the free markets. Can people transact "as they please" if huge chunks of economy are already owned by a very small minority? I don't think so. It seems to me (which is also pretty much basic Marx) that there is a contradiction between "transact as you please" and large scale private ownership. > But my gripe with the current world is more that things don't cost what they cost Yeah, economic externalities. But isn't that, again, the consequence of people "transacting as they please"? Some people will simply think in the short term. What time horizon is gonna win in pricing, if people "transact as they please"?

insaider 5y ago

This is my argument against cryptocurrency - it's capitalism taken to the extreme and we're already struggling to mitigate the downsides of capitalism. Don't get me wrong, capitalism is a great thing and has brought us to where we are today but it has downsides. In the 21st century a government's primary purpose is simply to mitigate those downsides. However, governments are increasingly losing this power struggle. Democracy is being manipulated by capitalist-driven propaganda machines. And now, with the rise of cryptocurrencies, we're mitigating governments of their ability to control money too. If you read that last sentence and thought that that's a good thing then maybe you've fallen prey to those propaganda machines. Government's provide citizens with everything from healthcare, roads and infrastructure, education, welfare and much more. Inflation is high at the moment because government's bailed out their most vulnerable citizens with massive welfare payments. Stripping government's of such abilities is societal suicide. It's no coincidence that the country that is most money-hungry and capitalistic is also the worst at providing these things (relatively). For when the measure of a man is the depth of his pockets, then the world shall be ran by clowns.

_3u10 5y ago
That’s also why everyone loves crypto. The idea of sovereignty. Vote for whatever you want every 4 years, the market votes with every purchase. Vote for stimulus, that stimulus just drives crypto higher. Everyone knows that one day all of it is going to be paid for by the people holding USD

bambax 5y ago

> the shift of power away from the democratic sphere The "democratic sphere" is where anti-vaxxers and climate deniers roam. It seems doubtful democracy will help with a solution. Other systems are worse, of course. Hence, no solution.

moffkalast 5y ago

> The ocean current that brings heat from the tropics is weakening. Without it, the UK would have a climate like Siberia’s This part's actually not quite right, there was a Science paper a few months ago that simulated various events and proposed that it's more likely that the ocean itself only contributes a few degrees to the temperatures, and that it's the atmosphere movements that cause the bulk of actual heating. Still it's impossible to say what the gulf stream's dissipation will lead to and the results could still be rather catastrophic, but that statement is pretty far off reality. Some estimate that ironically, its shutdown may help with the reduction of heat waves in the summer, and Europe is a lot more infrastructurally prepared for extreme cold than extreme heat. Aside from that, it's good to see that the unsaid thing is being said out loud more and more in recent months. I have serious doubts anything can be done in this regard though, capitalism or not. All major economic/political systems seem to hinge on an ever growing economy and as such cannot go on perpetually in a closed system. The "economic growth at all costs" mindset is so ingrained in our society that there's no stopping it at this point, even if it means our extinction.

js8 5y ago
> All major economic/political systems seem to hinge on an ever growing economy Um, the Soviet style economies didn't (ideologically) hinge on ever growing economy, but rather on the idea of improvements to human society. Of course the practice was less then stellar, for various reasons. But they actually attempted things like providing education and care for all members of society. There are parts of the world where this worked out better than in capitalist counterparts. Cuba vs Haiti comes to mind.
- moffkalast 5y ago
  There is the issue that any state that had an even slight communist alignment was either completely blockaded by the west or did not qualify for loans or trade so none of them are a good case study of how it would work normally. As for the USSR + satelites they were doing 5 year plans to boost the economy as much as possible to counter the US, so no sustainable growthless economy there either. It's possible that it could be done so in theory, but then again so it is for capitalism. Both are plans that don't survive contact with reality.

b215826 5y ago

Anyone who does serious research in STEM knows that articles from Scientific Reports [1] are to be taken with a pinch (or even a lump) of salt. And yet, here we have a so-called environmental-science reporter using such an article to make doomsday predictions: > People who study complex systems have discovered that they behave in consistent ways. It doesn’t matter whether the system is a banking network, a nation state, a rainforest or an Antarctic ice shelf; its behaviour follows certain mathematical rules. This has as much scientific content as Ian Malcolm's prediction (using "chaos" theory) about the collapse of Jurassic Park. So much nonsense has been written about the complexity of natural systems and the collapse of the environment that it's very hard to take any article that starts with such claims seriously. And saying things like "it follows certain mathematical rules" as if that gives your claims some sort of credibility is just one of the many examples of the misuse of mathematics [2] in the "softer" sciences. The real reason for the majority of environmental problems is overpopulation, not capitalism. Capitalism and globalization has had an important role in bringing people out of poverty, especially in large countries like India and China. If you think this is not true, look at the poverty levels of India before economic liberalization. Less poverty means more education and better family management. Much of this is obvious to anyone who has had an objective look at capitalism, but not to the Guardianistas who come up with such low-effort pseudo-scientific tripe. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_Reports [2]: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.705.9946&rep=rep1&type=pdf https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.70...

Ginden 5y ago

> Capitalism is killing the planet Humans are killing the planet. Every single political or economical system tried over last 100 thousands of years, resulted k in humans destroying environment for short-term benefits. Hunter-gatherers destroyed most of megafauna. Ancient Greeks destroyed forests of Greece. Medieval Germans destroyed forests of Germany. French and English did it too. Aurochs were destroyed in modernity. Soviets destroyed Aral Sea. This isn't even limited to our species - algae almost destroyed life on Earth, because they found that funny photosynthetic pathway and started emitting O2 to atmosphere. The very problem is that humans are form of life and restraining ourselves or worsening quality of life "for next generation" goes against basic instincts and behaviours built by evolution in mammals.

jayjader 5y ago
Hmm. I agree that the problem is larger than capitalism and is closer to human nature, but saying > The very problem is that humans are form of life and restraining ourselves or worsening quality of life "for next generation" goes against basic instincts and behaviours built by evolution in mammals. seems a bit pseudo-scientific to me. Life dies out if it over-consumes from its environment, so "by evolution" the life that survives _does_ "restrain itself for the next generation" in a sense.
- Ginden 5y ago
  > Life dies out if it over-consumes from its environment, so "by evolution" the life that survives _does_ "restrain itself for the next generation" in a sense. Dawkins deconstructs this argument in The Selfish Gene. Basically, if you restrain yourself, you put your competitors in advantageous position to consume these resources. They will have more children and their non-restraining genes will win. We have seen ecosystems destroyed by unchecked invasive species - this is especially visible for islands due to their limited biodiversity. Even reindeers introduced on island without natural predators ate everything until they died out. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Matthew_Island