As discussed on the Evolution of Capitalism page, capitalism is an economic system that institutionalises the practice of making money from money. In such a system, money is not just a means to facilitate the exchange of goods and services but also a means for accumulating wealth. While this practice has been in existence for thousands of years (money-lending to make more money by charging interest was already a well-established practice at the time of Jesus Christ, who did not condone it), it was institutionalised as a political-economic system in from the 14th century in the Italian city-states and other European trade centres (like Amsterdam and Antwerp), to support lucrative long-distance trade. These early forms of institutionalised (financial and merchant) capitalism were followed by the rise of industrial capitalism based on the development of technology that enabled mass production. Industrialisation became the principal motor of capitalism and economic growth by generating substantial profits that could be reinvested to expand production capacity and generate further income (accumulating capital). This expansion was also supported by financial institutions whose primary business was to make money by lending money. States played a key role in enabling and legitimating capitalist practices, notably by creating institutional frameworks (rules legitimating and protecting “private” property, regulating commercial transactions, and labour laws, among many other things), and by supporting the development of infrastructure (among others, roads, railways, and ports).
Although there are differences between countries in the ways capitalist systems evolved, we can identify three core characteristics of capitalism: the profit motive, competition, and the growth imperative. As discussed on the Evolution of Capitalism page, making a profit (money from money) is the fundamental rationale of capitalism. The owners of capital (financial and the means of production), capitalists, compete with each other in a struggle for the highest returns, and hence survival. This implies that they must continually find new opportunities for investments and markets, both individually and collectively. Individually, failing to do so would mean being forced out of business by others. Collectively, this would cause economy-wide stagnation, contraction, and crises. Therefore, economic growth is not an “addiction” but a systemic imperative of capitalism.
Whether capitalism can be greened implies several sub-questions: first, what does “greening” mean and require; second, whether capitalism as a system can meet those requirements; third, whether and how those requirements can be met in (political) practice.
What does greening capitalism mean and require?
As discussed on the Environmental integration page, to enhance their durability (sustainability), societies (and the world as a whole) must respect the biophysical systems on which their survival depends. This means, first, not upsetting or destroying the ecosystems of which all life is an integral part; second, limiting resource use to levels that, to our best knowledge, are ecologically sustainable; third, putting constraints on the modification of the biophysical environment (the creation of the human-made or altered environment), to also protect human health and well-being. These three requirements can be referred to as the ecological, resource, and human dimensions of the environment and environmental management.
To meet these requirements, societies need to integrate these environmental imperatives into all human thinking, actions, and institutions that have a (potentially) significant impact on the environment. This involves being guided by the best available knowledge about how the environment “works”, respecting the intrinsic value of non-human nature (including all forms of life) even if these do not appear to be of immediate use or importance to humans; and incorporating this knowledge and these values into all realms of management (cognitive frameworks/theories; policies and practices; and institutions – rules and organisations). Moreover, these integration efforts must be mutually compatible, supportive, and consistent to ensure or promote their effectiveness. Therefore, the environmental challenge is a collective challenge that needs to be addressed at all governance levels and requires coordination.
In the first instance, greening capitalism requires putting (ecologically derived) limits on resource exploitation and use, and putting constraints on modifying the biophysical environment, for the sake of protecting ecosystems (at all levels). Given the capitalist imperative of continuous expansion and economic growth, this poses a huge challenge. Yet, the supporters of capitalism argue that growth can continue indefinitely without causing further environmental degradation and/or the destruction of ecosystems. This argument relies heavily on the assumption that it is possible to reduce resource consumption to ecologically sustainable levels, and that production and consumption (and human practices and behaviour in general) can and will occur in ways that cause no further harm to ecosystems and humans.
These arguments or assumptions are highly problematic for several reasons. First, the inherent features of capitalism work against the idea that it can or may reduce pollution and prevent the generation of new threats to nature and humans. Second, evidence for the claim that capitalism can reduce resource use to sustainable levels is weak at best. Third, the idea that governments can green capitalism, even if capitalism as a system cannot, is highly implausible. I will elaborate on each of these three arguments below.
Can capitalism clean up its act? The logic of competition
In a competitive capitalist system, businesses must minimise costs and maximise profits to outcompete their rivals. It is therefore in the very nature of capitalist firms to ignore the adverse social and environmental effects of their operations if preventing or addressing those effects would come at a cost that would put them at a disadvantaged competitive position. They will only consider such costs if the law requires them to do so and/or if the government (or governments in the case of international competition) create a level playing field by imposing the same requirements on all the competing companies. However, even then, imposing the same requirements does not necessarily imply creating a level playing field, as companies may have different cost structures related, among others, to local conditions and the age, nature, and state of technology they use. This may lead them to strongly oppose such rules or requirements. This situation can be observed in many industry sectors at both the national and international levels, for instance, in relation to the growing demand for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. However, this business imperative has been at work across all economic sectors and industries, with various damaging social and environmental effects.
The argument that businesses take social and environmental concerns seriously is commonly backed up by examples of individual companies. Such businesses are held up as models or sources of inspiration for other companies to follow on the assumption that the whole system of production and consumption can be greened if all or most businesses follow suit. This could be referred to as the individual company pathway towards sustainable capitalism, which, according to some, is already being utilised extensively.[1]
There are several weaknesses in this line of thought. First, the assumption that what may be possible in some companies can be applied to whole sectors or even the entire economy is problematic, given the significant differences between industries. For instance, while some industries may produce truly sustainable clothing, cosmetics, furniture, or carpets, this is much more problematic in a range of other industries that produce more complex items with many inputs (such as computers, mobile phones, televisions and many other electronic products, cars, trains, planes, and ships), or that almost by definition are unsustainable (like the coal, oil and gas, concrete, and mining industries). Second, many of the most sustainable businesses cater for relatively small niche markets and can survive because of this focus. However, even then, competition from other, less scrupulous companies in these markets may start to impinge on the bottom line of green companies. The resulting pressure may force green companies to compromise or even push them out of business altogether. Third, while it cannot be denied that some companies or managers appear genuine in their greening efforts, their environmental achievements have been mostly modest and have failed to make a significant dent in the unsustainable practices of the sectors in which they operate. This is reflected in the ongoing environmental degradation caused by industries across all sectors, including agriculture, manufacturing, energy, mining, transportation, and urban development.[2]
Neither should one be fooled by the expressions of environmental and social concern of billionaires and their charitable activities. At best, these are inspired by genuine feelings, even if mixed with considerable guilt about the vast discrepancy between their wealth and the poverty and misery suffered by millions or billions of people worldwide. However, looking at these activities more sceptically and realistically, these efforts constitute public image exercises that may prove profitable given the positive public attitudes they generate towards their companies. They may also forestall calls for the abolition of obscene inequalities in wealth and income that have emerged. At the same time, they do nothing about the causes and sources of the misery and problems created by capitalism, instead applying small plasters to some of its symptoms. Moreover, in societies where governments take the interests of their citizens seriously, there should be no need for charitable activities, as states and governments should guarantee that all the basic needs of people and society are met.[3]
The competition imperative also drives capitalism’s built-in dynamic for technological innovation, which generates a continuous stream of new materials, products, and processes, often with adverse environmental and social effects. While governments may introduce measures, policies and/or legislation to mitigate such effects, usually only after these effects have manifested themselves and public concerns have reached politically sensitive levels, the roots of the problems linked to power and control over science and its subservience to capitalist ends are ignored. As a result, environmental problems continue to be shifted, resurface, and intensify, while new problems and risks emerge, and environmental degradation persists unabated. Almost every new technology or material produces (often invisible) forms of pollution and “side effects”, posing health, environmental, social, political or other threats that are only revealed or discovered later. While some of these effects may be unforeseeable, in many cases the potential effects are not even (seriously) subjected to rigorous independent scrutiny before they are adopted or put on the market, let alone to public debate about their acceptability and democratic decision-making.
However, while it may be true that, in a capitalist system, businesses can be guided or forced towards the development of less unsustainable technologies, practices, and products, economic imperatives compel them to use production methods and practices that maximise productivity and do not compromise the “bottom line”. Products or services must be sold at a competitive price and profit, regardless of their social and environmental costs. These are offloaded to workers, communities, societies and the environment. This has been frequently illustrated in the case of pesticides and the many other human-made materials and chemicals that have become standard inputs in many processes and products. Technological innovation often involves shifting problems and generating new ones rather than creating sustainable processes and products. These uncertainties, risks and potentially uncontrollable and disastrous effects have only become greater with the development of ever-smarter and more complex technologies, including genetic manipulation, nanotechnology, and artificial intelligence. Yet, as long as the “private” sector remains mostly in control of science and technological development (“technoscience”), it will, driven by economic imperatives, continue to ignore or downplay the (potential) problems and risks and emphasise the (possible) advantages and benefits of new technologies. Those who raise concerns and objections against new technologies and products are often dismissed as Luddites or opposed to progress.
The growth imperative and resource consumption
As discussed above and on the Evolution of Capitalism page, capitalism requires continuous expansion and economic growth. Although economic growth may take a purely monetary (financial) form, for instance, in the case of the growth of a bank’s financial assets due to lending, borrowing, and speculation, most economic activities involve using resources such as materials and energy. Even the so-called service industries, such as retailing, hospitality, tourism, transport, computer data services, and financial services, use significant resources, even if their needs are relatively low compared to heavy industries like mining, steel production, and the fabrication of planes and cars.[4] Although the defenders of capitalism, including many academics, claim that economic growth can be (made) compatible with a reduction of resource use and other environmental effects, this argument, while it may apply to some resources and some effects in some industries in some countries, remains pie-in-the-sky if whole economies (national and global) are considered. I will elaborate on this argument further here, as it is likely the primary basis for the claim that capitalism can be greened.
The belief that capitalism can be greened is commonly linked to the technological innovation drive inherent to capitalism. As noted above, competition drives innovation as businesses aim to increase productivity and thus the costs per unit produced. This makes it possible to offer lower prices than their competitors and/or to offer new or “better” products. This systemic tendency of capitalism works across all businesses, sectors, and the economy as a whole. It has been argued that one effect of this dynamic is that production systems become increasingly efficient, producing more from less, including energy, materials, and labour.[5] Similarly, managers also have strong incentives to continuously improve productivity and efficiency by managerial means, such as by providing incentives and restructuring that cut costs and/or reduce resource use. Thus, it is said, capitalism promotes continuous improvements in resource and materials efficiency, greening it, as it were, from the inside. It has been argued that this tendency is at work regardless of any efforts by governments. However, it is usually acknowledged that (notably small) businesses may need some financial or regulatory stimulus to put them onto this path.[6]
Thus, businesses and governments place much of their faith in the greening of capitalism, assuming that its environmental impacts can and will be mitigated by technological and managerial means. While it is often (explicitly) acknowledged that capitalism requires continued economic growth, it is thought that these impacts can be mitigated by a continuous improvement in resource efficiency. This claim is supported by research demonstrating that resource efficiency gains have been achieved in various sectors, yielding favourable environmental outcomes. Such developments, which have been studied foremost in the context of high-income countries, are said to only scrape the surface of what is possible, and it is believed that much higher levels of resource efficiency can be achieved.[7] This thinking is further buttressed by ecological modernisation discourse [8] and has been at the heart of the sustainable development agenda.[9] Nonetheless, most advocates of these schools of thought recognise that governments need to play an active role in that transition, as “the market” on its own is unlikely to (be able to) overcome the economic and other obstacles that stand in the way of the implementation of these ideas.[10]
Although it is plausible that resource efficiency can be significantly increased and that waste and pollution can be minimised, the evidence that this is occurring is shaky. In this context, the literature distinguishes between relative and absolute decoupling. Relative decoupling means that over a particular period, resource consumption, emissions, pollution, or waste increase proportionally less than GDP, while absolute decoupling means that these decline in absolute terms while GDP increases. If one accepts that reducing environmental pressures is necessary or desirable, only absolute decoupling may meet this requirement. Relative decoupling implies that resource consumption, emissions, pollution, and waste continue to increase in absolute terms, thereby adding to existing pressure levels. The claim that economic growth and environmental protection are compatible can only be upheld if indicators of resource consumption, emissions, pollution, and waste continuously decline while GDP increases.[11] Moreover, this trend must be observed globally. Even if some (high-income) countries were to show such a trend, other countries may negate these improvements, partly because more resource-intensive and polluting industries have shifted from high- to low-income countries. Given the increasingly interrelated global production chains, countries’ environmental performance can only be meaningfully assessed from an international perspective.
While there is some evidence to support the view that relative decoupling has occurred in some areas in high-income countries, notably in energy consumption and some forms of air pollution, there is virtually no evidence to support the idea of absolute decoupling. In 2010, the Worldwatch Institute reported that, despite a 30% increase in resource efficiency, global resource use had expanded by 50% over the preceding three decades.[12] If resource consumption embedded in trade is measured by the Material Footprint (MF) yardstick, the consumption of materials in high-income countries has kept pace with the rise of GDP.[13] In other words, high-income countries may seem to have reduced their consumption of resources in relative or even absolute terms. Still, when their material footprint associated with producing imported goods is taken into account, this apparent improvement evaporates. With the internationalisation of production in global value chains, measuring the environmental (including resource) performance of high-income countries based solely on domestic production and activities provides a distorted picture of their environmental and resource impact associated with their consumption levels. The shift of more energy-intensive and polluting activities to low-income countries has simply amounted to displacing pollution. China, in particular, which has taken on the role of the world’s factory, has paid for this with disastrous environmental consequences.[14]
The rising tide of material consumption in high-income countries, measured in absolute terms, is also reflected in the amount of household and other waste produced in these countries. Between 1990 and 2017, the total amount of municipal waste produced in OECD countries increased from 551 million tons to 675 million tons, while per capita generation increased from 502 kilograms to 524 kilograms.[15] Apart from this, a rapidly growing stream of electronic waste (e-waste) amounts to approximately 44.7 million tons globally each year. Only 20% of this is collected and recycled, with the rest being undocumented, although much of it has been exported for “recycling” to low-income countries, notably Nigeria.[16] Another material waste stream that has recently become a focus of global public concern is that of plastic. It has been estimated that the production of plastic materials grew from 2 million tonnes in 1950 to 322 million tonnes in 2015, resulting in a cumulative total of 8.3 billion tonnes of plastic in 2017.[17] In 2016, higher-income OECD countries exported 70% of their plastic waste to lower-income countries in East Asia and the Pacific, with China and Hong Kong accounting for more than 72% of the imports. China’s introduction of a ban on importing plastic waste (from 2018) was expected to displace an estimated 111 million tons of plastic waste by 2030, creating headaches in the countries of origin.[18]
Similarly, energy consumption, a crucial factor affecting climate change, has increased in absolute terms with economic growth, even in high-income countries, which are supposedly best placed (both economically and technologically) to adopt energy-efficiency measures. Although energy efficiency in those countries increased slightly per unit of GDP between 1990 and 2005, the rise was much slower than in preceding decades. In absolute terms, energy consumption increased by 15% over that period.[19] According to the International Energy Agency, global primary energy demand increased by 39% between 2000 and 2017, despite a 15% improvement in energy efficiency.[20] In the most optimistic “Efficient World Scenario” sketched by the IEA, between 2016 and 2040, energy intensity (energy use per unit of GDP) would improve by 3% per year. However, total world energy demand would still rise by 7%. Although it is argued that this scenario would lead to an overall decline in GHG emissions of 12% on 2017 levels (based, among other, on an increase in renewable energy production and fuel switching – to natural gas), this would only contribute 40% of the abatement required to be in line with the Paris Agreement.[21]
Altogether, these figures and developments contradict the claim that economic growth can be achieved with an absolute reduction in material throughput and its associated environmental impacts. While there is no doubt that resource efficiency can be significantly increased in many areas, and that this makes eminent sense to mitigate pressures on the environment, we should not fall into the trap of thinking that increasing efficiency can be maintained at a rate that will more than compensate for continuing economic growth and lead to a significant reduction of environmental pressures. In large part, this is also a matter of costs: the first measures taken to increase resource efficiency may be quite cost-effective, taking advantage of opportunities to reduce costs and increase profits, often referred to as the “low-hanging fruit”. However, after the easiest and cheapest ways of doing so have been exhausted, further increases in efficiency become increasingly complex and costly. This makes it unlikely that resource efficiency gains can be maintained at the same rate and costs over time. Simple mathematics dictates that even if the economic growth rate were a modest 2% per year, resource efficiency would have to increase by close to 3.9% every year for 35 years to halve resource use, and at 4.8% if the growth rate were 3%. If the rate of economic growth rises to 5%, still considered modest for “developing” countries, the annual increase in resource efficiency in those countries would have to be at 6.6% per year for 35 years to halve resource use. Justifiably, it has been concluded that the argument that continuous economic growth can be achieved while reducing resource consumption is based on a “heroic assumption” and should be dismissed as a myth not supported by the facts.[22]
Moreover, even if resource efficiency can be improved significantly for a range of products, there are economic and absolute (and logical) limits to an infinite reduction of resource use. Regardless of the economics of pursuing ever-higher rates of resource efficiency, there are absolute limits, depending on the product or service, to further reductions in resource consumption that will be reached sooner or later. Building a house, making a car, computer or mobile phone, and tourism, for instance, will require at least a minimum of resources that cannot be reduced to zero. However, by their very nature, capitalist industrial production systems, which involve large-scale production for mass markets, require continuous and infinite growth in production and sales (consumption), even when the competitive struggle has ended and only monopoly companies remain. Inevitably, resource consumption will increase again even if (and as soon as) companies have maximised resource efficiency and exhausted the potential gains. In brief, improving resource efficiency cannot be a solution to the inherent imperative of infinite growth in industrial capitalism.
Perhaps the decisive blow against the argument that decoupling can be the saviour of capitalism by enabling continuous economic growth is that even absolute decoupling does not necessarily imply an overall decline in resource pressures, pollution and/or waste. For instance, even if emissions are lower in a given year than in the previous year, they still go up on a cumulative basis. In many cases, pollution, waste and emissions do not simply disappear within a year but persist and accumulate. Similarly, if resources (both renewable and non-renewable) have already been depleted or run down, continuing to exploit and use them at less unsustainable levels does not mean that they will not decline further. If pollution or resource use has already reached harmful or dangerous levels, what is required is a complete halt to emissions or use and efforts to address the harm that has already been done (if reversible) and/or to deal with (looming) absolute or critical scarcity. So, even absolute decoupling does not necessarily reduce or resolve pollution problems, or the risk of further running down remaining resources. Although the advocates of decoupling have created this impression or expectation, it is dangerously misleading.
Perversely, the defence of economic growth in low-income countries has been built on the argument that it is good for the environment. Commonly referred to as the Kuznets curve theory, the argument posits that countries and governments must reach a specific income level before they become sufficiently concerned about environmental degradation and acquire the means to address it. Colloquially, this can be referred to as the “pollute first, clean up later” philosophy, which provides an excuse for low-income countries not to worry too much about environmental degradation (often caused by foreign companies). Again, the problem with this theory is that it is poorly, if at all, supported by the facts. Support for the Kuznets curve hypothesis is based on a few (selected) indicators[23] that ignore the broad range and interrelatedness of environmental problems and their sources.[24] Moreover, even if some environmental improvements in high-income countries have been achieved at least in part by compositional changes in their economies, due to the shifting of energy-intensive and polluting industries to low-income countries, this option is unlikely to be open to the latter.[25] But even though it is not evident that most people in low-income countries accept the “pollute first, clean up later” philosophy [26], their governments may indeed be lenient or corrupt enough to allow this to happen, notwithstanding their rhetorical commitment to sustainable development.[27]
As environmental advocates have pointed out since the 1960s, infinite economic growth is incompatible with long-term environmental protection, as growth almost always implies increased resource use and adverse environmental impacts. With economic growth, people and societies may increase their consumption of services, but there is no evidence whatsoever that this substitutes for the consumption of material goods. On the contrary, when income levels rise, people spend more on everything, including electronics, cars, international travel (a service that adds considerably to material consumption and pollution), and perhaps solar panels, electric vehicles, and organic produce. With the rest of the world following rapidly in the footsteps of high-income countries, the idea that industrial capitalism is making room for a “post-industrialist” system that consumes fewer resources is just a myth. For instance, in 2018, the world produced more than 70 million cars and 25 million commercial vehicles, compared to 41 million and 17 million, respectively, in 2000 [28]. In 2021, 1.53 billion smartphones were sold, compared to 122 million in 2007.[29] Many more figures showing such staggering increases in production, consumption, and material consumption could be presented to make the point that (mainly capitalist) industrial production keeps expanding. Given the increasingly global competition among industries, they must continually develop new products and models to remain competitive. This trend only slows down or reverses (temporarily) during economic crises or conflicts that cause large-scale destruction of production capacity. But this is not what believers in (the greening of) capitalism are keen to see.
Capitalism’s symbiotic relations with states
This brings us to a third reason why capitalism is fundamentally incompatible with environmental protection and meaningful environmental integration. This is because, wherever capitalism takes hold, it can only do so with the support of states and governments, given the political-economic institutional framework that capitalism requires for its functioning (including the creation and protection of property rights, corporate and commercial law, market rules and the reduction or elimination of trade barriers, the building and maintenance of vital infrastructure, among other). As noted above, the idea that a free market can exist and function without the support of governments is just a myth. Historically, the introduction of capitalism as the dominant political-economic system has only been possible where and when governments, influenced or dominated by increasingly economically powerful capitalists and their supporters (including political philosophers) have been captured by these interests and ideologues. In the process, the state’s political and legal institutions have been shaped to serve the imperatives and needs of capitalism. At the same time, states and governments have become dependent on the capitalist system to fulfil their core functions, foremost the economic function (which is defined in terms of capitalist imperatives), as well as other functions (the security function being interpreted in terms of the protection of the country’s vital national- capitalist economic interests; the conflict management function as accommodating the demands of workers insofar this is compatible with the economic – meaning capitalist – imperatives and interests), as well on a “healthy” and growing economy for the taxes arguably needed to fund its functions.
The symbiotic relationship between capitalism and states means that the political elite is strongly interwoven with the economic elite, as reflected in the revolving door phenomenon, giving credence to the public perception that members of the (power) elite “are all the same” and are in politics primarily to serve their own interests. This view is supported by a substantial body of research on elites and the oligarchic nature of capitalist political-economic systems, which has become even more pronounced with the rise of neoliberalism.[30] Thus, once capitalism has been entrenched as the dominant economic system by the state, the relative autonomy of the state vis-à-vis the economic system becomes compromised. States have an economic function that, in principle, can be interpreted and defined differently, subject to the relative power and influence of groups in society. However, once capitalism has been firmly entrenched by the state, the state itself becomes a significant obstacle to the greening of capitalism.
The strong interdependence between capitalism, states, and governments makes it understandable why governments in liberal-democratic systems, which originated from the development of capitalism, only go so far in advancing social and environmental interests. No liberal-democratic government has been able or willing to advance environmental protection and integration to the point where the fundamental sources or causes of environmental problems and pressures are addressed, let alone reduced or eliminated. The overwhelming response of these governments has been to address and mitigate the effects and symptoms of the fundamentally unsustainable practices of capitalist systems. Economic growth remains the top priority, and everything that may jeopardise it is usually dismissed as unacceptable. Rather than recognising and accepting that furthering economic growth is not compatible with reducing environmental pressures and problems, governments, along with businesses and most economists, have adopted the oxymoronic notion of “green growth” to argue that the required transition towards sustainability, in particular to sustainable energy systems, offers new opportunities for economic growth.[31]
Similar arguments underlie proposals for Green New Deals. These programmes involve significantly boosting government expenditure, with a primary focus on creating “green” infrastructure in energy and transport, as well as housing and social spending, presented as an alternative to prevailing austerity policies that have had an adverse effect on effective demand and economic growth.[32] Apart from the fact that such programmes bring with them a massive increase in new material throughput (among others, to produce solar panels, wind turbines, electric cars and other transport vehicles, batteries, and hydro dams) with the associated environmental costs (including pollution and adverse effects on biodiversity), it is not at all clear that they will result in a reduction of GHG emissions anytime soon. On the contrary, such a transition will significantly increase energy requirements, most of which can only be met by fossil fuels. While this boost in production will be good for “green” businesses and the economy (economic growth), it is unlikely to lead to a significant reduction of emissions in the short- and medium-term, let alone a decrease in other environmental pressures.[33]
Not surprisingly, enlightened capitalists are entirely behind this move towards saving the world, or rather, capitalism. The problem is that this new wave of production and consumption will not save the world but will bring about environmental collapse more rapidly. Many people (especially environmentalists) find such views hard to swallow. When Jeff Gibbs and Michael Moore released a documentary critiquing the idea that the large-scale adoption of renewable energy was the solution to climate change, environmental critics accused them of spreading misinformation. They called for the film to be banned from the internet. [34] Yet, although some of the facts and information presented in the documentary may have been outdated or incorrect, the gist of the message is spot on. Like most governments and businesses, many environmentalists want to believe that the environmental challenge can be solved by technological means and that societies (and the whole world, including the billions of people who are still living below or just above the poverty line) will be able to continue to live in a world of infinite mass consumption. Arguably, they react so strongly to questioning this approach because they genuinely think there is no realistic alternative; it is our only hope. But it may also be that, like so many people, they are also addicted to growth and endless consumption.
Finally, although it can be argued that economic growth is a legitimate priority for governments in low- and middle-income countries, it will significantly add to the already mounting environmental pressures. As the main development paths open to these countries for achieving this are those of industrialisation and/or more intensive natural resource extraction and exploitation, it is not surprising that their material footprint is rapidly getting bigger, as illustrated most obviously by China, which now has, in absolute values, the highest material footprint in the world (twice that of the United States).[35] Based on the trends in material resource consumption, it is expected that between 2011 and 2060, global materials use will double in absolute terms, even though the annual rate of increase will be less than that of GDP, which officially amounts to “relative decoupling”.[36]
That the global material footprints of countries, and that of the world as a whole, are (rapidly) growing and unlikely to be reduced in the foreseeable future is not just because economic growth is and remains an imperative of capitalism and capitalist states. It is also because the development of capitalism has been closely intertwined with the rise and development of industrialism, which has its own inherent logic of expansion. Even the most highly developed (high-income) countries depend on industrial production for most of their consumption (and economic functioning), even if many industries have been relocated to low- and middle-income countries. The idea that the world is on the way to developing a post-industrial production system is a fiction, and this will remain so as long as large-scale mass production (whether concentrated or dispersed in chains) continues. Whatever new products TNCs come up with will not be produced in relatively small artisanal workshops relying foremost on labour and crafts to make durable items for mainly local, regional, or even national markets. Capitalist competition and concentration will likely lead to even larger (giga-) factories or factory chains producing for global mass markets. While such factories may be increasingly equipped with robots and guided by artificial intelligence (AI), this will not necessarily reduce overall exploitation and resource use, nor alleviate environmental pressures. Instead, such (highly labour-efficient) industries will need to be used to produce ever more “improved” or newly invented goods for which new consumer needs and markets must be created, at the penalty of economic collapse if this fails. The treadmill of production, which is both an imperative of industrialism and capitalism, can only be broken by a fundamental transformation of this production system into a predominantly de-industrialised mode of production and replacing capitalism with a commensurate economic system. This may seem impossible, all the more so given the extent to which industrial production and capitalism have become globalised.
Conclusion
Thus, one may conclude that, once capitalism and industrialism have been firmly entrenched in a state, changing the economic system becomes politically virtually impossible. Not surprisingly, whenever capitalism has been abolished in the past, it has required a political revolution and/or exceptional conditions and leadership, as seen in Russia, China, and Cuba. It is sometimes argued that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism, a view that seems to have become even more plausible after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the adoption of capitalism by China, and the rapid increase of economic globalisation with the rise of neoliberalism around the world. Yet, if humanity is to have a future, abolishing capitalism will be necessary and may not be impossible, either through new revolutions or political transitions of state power to the people.
References
[1] Suzuki, David and Holly Dressel (2002), Good News for a Change. Hope for a Troubled Planet. St Leonards, N.S.W.: Allen & Unwin; Hawken, Paul, et al., Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution; Lovins, L. Hunter and Amory B. Lovins (2000), “Pathway to Sustainability”, Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, Vol.15, No.4, 13-22.
[2] For a good discussion of the limitations of the often heralded greening efforts of some industrial leaders, see Smith, Richard A., Green Capitalism: The God That Failed.
[3] Giridharadas, who was an insider of the capitalist “doing good crowd”, frankly recognises the misguidedness (or is it hypocrisy?) of the efforts of the global elite to ease their conscience by spending billions of dollars on good causes while ignoring the systems that lie at the root of the problems but from which they have made their fortunes in the first place. Giridharadas, Anand (2018), Winners Take All. The Elite Charade of Changing the World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. The hypocrisy can also be read from the billionaires’ vanity, lifestyles, and business priorities.
[4] An example is the large amounts of resource consumption (water, electricity, and materials, including critical raw materials) associated with data centres, linked to, among others, the growth of AI and cryptocurrency.
[5] Huber, Joseph (2000), “Towards Industrial Ecology: Sustainable Development as a Concept of Ecological Modernization”, Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, Vol.2, No.4, 269-285; Huber, Joseph (2003), “Environmental Policy Shift through Technological Innovation”, Paper presented at the Berlin conference on the human dimensions of global environmental change: governance for industrial transformation, Berlin, 5-6 December. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/199412983.pdf
[6] Hawken, Paul, et al., Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution.
[7] Angrick, Michael, et al. (2014), Factor X Policy, Strategies and Instruments for a Sustainable Resource Use. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands; Weizsäcker, Ernst von, et al., Factor Four. Doubling Wealth – Halving Resource Use.
[8] Simonis, Udo E. (1987), Ecological Modernisation: New Perspectives for Industrial Societies ZBW – Leibniz Information Centre for Economics; Simonis, Udo E. (1989), “Ecological Modernization of Industrial Society: Three Strategic Elements”, International Social Science Journal, Vol. 121, 347-361.
[9] Huber, Joseph (2000), “Towards Industrial Ecology: Sustainable Development as a Concept of Ecological Modernisation”; World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future; Giljum, Stefan (2006), Global Appropriation of Environmental Space. Past Trends and Future Scenarios of Natural Resource Use in Different World Regions. Vienna, Austria: Sustainable Europe Research Institute (SERI).
[10] Hawken, Paul, et al., Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution; Lovins, L. Hunter and Amory B. Lovins (2000), “Pathway to Sustainability”, Forum for Applied Research and Public Policy, Vol.15, No.4, pp.13-22; Porritt, Jonathon (2005), Capitalism as If the World Matters. London: Earthscan; Mathews, John A. (2014), Greening of Capitalism: How Asia Is Driving the Next Great Transformation. Palo Alto, United States: Stanford University Press.
[11] It is important to note that even absolute decoupling does not necessarily imply an overall decline in resource pressures, pollution and/or waste. I will elaborate on this point below.
[12] Flavin, Christopher (2010), “Preface”, in L. Starke and L. Mastny (eds.), State of the World 2010 – Transforming Cultures. From Consumerism to Sustainability, xvii-xix.
[13] Wiedmann, Thomas O., et al. (2015), “The Material Footprint of Nations”. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America, Vol . 112, No.20, pp.6271-6276.
[14] Shapiro, Judith, China’s Environmental Challenges; Economy, Elizabeth, The River Runs Black: The Environmental Challenge to China’s Future.
[15] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2018), Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060 – Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences. Paris: OECD.
[16] Baldé, C. P., Forti V., Gray, V., Kuehr, R., Stegmann, P. (2017), The Global E-Waste Monitor – 2017. Bonn, Geneva, Vienna: United Nations University (UNU), International Telecommunication Union (ITU) & International Solid Waste Association (ISWA).
[17] Geyer, Roland, et al. (2017), “Production, Use, and Fate of All Plastics Ever Made”, Science Advances. Vol . 3, No.7, e1700782.
[18] Brooks, Amy L., et al. (2018), “The Chinese Import Ban and Its Impact on Global Plastic Waste Trade”, Science Advances, Vol . 4, No.6, eaat0131.
[19] Taylor, Peter G., et al. (2010), “Final Energy Use in IEA Countries: The Role of Energy Efficiency”, Energy Policy, Vol . 38, No.11, 6463-6474.
[20] International Energy Agency (IEA) (2018), Energy Efficiency 2018 – Analysis and Outlooks to 2040. Paris: OECD/International Energy Agency, 17, 23.
[21] Ibid., 30.
[22] Victor, Peter A. and Tim Jackson (2015), “The Trouble with Growth”, in L. Mastney (ed.) State of the World 2015. Confronting Hidden Threats to Sustainability, 1064-1334; Jackson, Tim, Prosperity without Growth: Economics for a Finite Planet, 67-71. See also Trainer, Ted (2016), “Another Reason Why a Steady-State Economy Will Not Be a Capitalist Economy”, real-world economics review, No.76, 55-64; Hickel, Jason and Giorgos Kallis (2019), “Is Green Growth Possible?”, New Political Economy, 1-18.
[23] Bo, Sun (2011), “A Literature Survey on Environmental Kuznets Curve”; Stern, David I. (2004), “The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, World Development, Vol.32, No.8, pp.1419-1439; Stern, David I. and Michael S. Common (2001), “Is There an Environmental Kuznets Curve for Sulfur?”, Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Vol.41, No.2, 162-178; Dinda, Soumyananda (2004), “Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey”, Ecological Economics, Vol.49, No.4, 431-455; Arrow, Kenneth, et al. (1996), “Economic Growth, Carrying Capacity, and the Environment”, Ecological Applications, Vol.6, No.1, 13-15.
[24] Dietz, S. and W. N. Adger (2003), “Economic Growth, Biodiversity Loss and Conservation Effort”, Journal of Environmental Management, Vol . 68, No.1, 23-35.
[25] Cole, Matthew A. (2004), “Trade, the Pollution Haven Hypothesis and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Examining the Linkages”, Ecological Economics, Vol.48, No.1, 71-81; Cole, Matthew A. and Eric Neumayer (2005), “Environmental Policy and the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Can Developing Countries Escape the Detrimental Consequences of Economic Growth?”, in P. Dauvergne (ed.) Handbook of Global Environmental Politics, 298-318; Suri, Vivek and Duane Chapman (1998), “Economic Growth, Trade and Energy: Implications for the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Ecological Economics, Vol.25, No.2, 195-208.
[26] Dunlap, Riley E., “International Opinion at the Century’s End: Public Attitudes toward Environmental Issues”.
[27] Munasinghe, Mohan (1999), “Is Environmental Degradation an Inevitable Consequence of Economic Growth: Tunneling through the Environmental Kuznets Curve”, Ecological Economics, Vol. 29, No.1, 89-109.
[28] OICA International Organization of Motor Vehicle Manufacturers (2022), 2018 Production Statistics.
[29] Statista (2022), Number of Smartphones Sold to End Users Worldwide from 2007 to 2021.
[30] Gilens, Martin and Benjamin I. Page (2014), “Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens”, Perspectives on Politics Vol.12, No.3, 564-581; Domhoff, G. William (2007), “C. Wright Mills, Power Structure Research, and the Failures of Mainstream Political Science”, New Political Science, Vol.29, No.1, 97-114; Winters, Jeffrey A., Oligarchy; Domhoff, G. William (2014, 7th ed.), Who Rules America? The Triumph of the Corporate Rich. New York: McGraw-Hill.
[31] Jacobs, Michael (2013), “Green Growth”, in The Handbook of Global Climate and Environment Policy, 197-214; Borel-Saladin, Jacqueline Madeleine and Ivan Nicholas Turok (2013), “The Green Economy: Incremental Change or Transformation?”, Environmental Policy and Governance, Vol.23, No.4, 209-220.
[32] Blackwater, Bill (2012), “Two Cheers for Environmental Keynesianism”, Capitalism Nature Socialism, Vol.23, No.2, 51-74; Aşıcı, Ahmet Atıl and Zeynep Bünül (2012), “Green New Deal: A Green Way out of the Crisis?”, Environmental Policy and Governance, Vol.22, No.5, 295-306; Willis, Rebecca (2019), Green New Deal: The UK Edition, New Economics Foundation; Statistics Netherlands (2015), Green Growth in the Netherlands 2015. The Hague: CBS.
[33] Heinberg, Richard and David Fridley, Our Renewable Future: Laying the Path for 100% Clean Energy.
[34] See Planet of the Humans. Gibbs, Jeff (2020) Planet of the Humans. See also Wikipedia and Planet of the Humans.
[35] Wiedmann, Thomas O., et al. (2015), “The Material Footprint of Nations”.
[36] Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Global Material Resources Outlook to 2060 – Economic Drivers and Environmental Consequences.