Be it resolved: ending climate change requires the end of capitalism as we know it Guests:
George Monbiot
Andrew McAfee
About this episode
The UN deadline of achieving net zero global emissions by 2050 is becoming an increasingly unrealistic goal as many countries fail to impose drastic measures to combat rising emissions. Some believe that capitalism is to blame: perpetual economic growth requires an increase in production, consumption and fossil fuel use. In order to prevent a climate change disaster, free market capitalism must give way to a new eco-fiscal reality that privileges the planet over profits. Defenders of capitalism think the opposite is true: while capitalism has contributed to climate change, it is also uniquely positioned to solve it. By harnessing the dynamism of the market through the pursuit of profit, corporations and individuals will create new technologies and the social change needed to avert the climate crisis and build a sustainable future.
Show Notes
You can read George Monbiot’s column on capitalism and climate change here.
You can read Andrew McAfee’s argument about how capitalism can help combat climate change here.
Andrew mentions the 1970 Clear Air Act. The US legislation aimed to prevent air pollution and gave the EPA more power to fight against environmental pollution. The CAA has been hailed as a success: total emissions of six major air pollutants decreased by 63% between 1980-2015
The Paris Climate Agreement was a adopted as a global effort to combat climate change. The goal is to keep the increase in global average temperature to well 2 °C. The agreement was adopted in 2016 with 195 signatories from around the world. In 2017, President Trump announced he intended to withdraw the US from the agreement.
HT/Cam_S
Emissions are a function of population.
Even if you believe in the GHG scam, 2/3 of emissions are coming from the developing world and these are the only emissions that have been growing since 1980 and will continue to grow this century. The extremely high populations of these countries are due to them having non-capitalist / democratic systems of government. The capitalist / democratic system has been shown to restrain population by imposing a capital cost on parents on raising a child, as well as providing eduction and medical facilities for family planning.
Considering the proposed change by the loony left socialists is socialism, It needs to be pointed out that socialism creates population expolosions by creating a welfare reward based on having more children, which is the exact opposite of capitaism.
All you people suffering from the present restrictions on earnings and freedoms, Welcome to a preview of “The Green New Deal”!
The UN deadline of achieving net zero global emissions by 2050 is becoming an increasingly unrealistic goal
How can a goal that was impossible to begin with become increasingly unrealistic?
Let’s have a look at those non-capitalist countries and how they have dealt with their environment. Anyone been on a Soviet oil field? Pretty ain’t it? When the Iron Curtain fell I was 20. As my parents lived 5km from it we needed to go onto the other side to see what it was like. The first thing that hit me was the stench of sulfur from the bad lignite coal they burned there. No filtering of any kind of exhaust gases of course. Any socialist country does not see a revival of its nature but rather produced some of the biggest ecological disasters this planet has seen. And that shall be the solution? Yeahh right …
Be it resolved: preserving freedom and free market capitalism requires the end of climate fascism as we know it.