It is not simply global warming. This is something that Magdoff and Foster make very clear throughout What every environmentalist needs to know about capitalism: the full extent of the ecological crisis has to do with the concept of “planetary boundaries”.In this view, there are nine thresholds of the Earth system as we know it (which, more or less sustain human life):1) climate change;2) ocean acidification;3) stratospheric ozone depletion;4) the bio-geochemical flow boundary (the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles);5) global freshwater use;6) change in land use;7) biodiversity loss;8) atmospheric aerosol loading; and9) chemical pollution.As Magdoff and Foster explain: “Staying within each of these boundaries is considered essential to maintaining the relatively benign climate and environmental conditions that have existed during the last 12,000 years (the Holocene epoch)” (p. 13). According to the science, reported by Magdoff and Foster, we have already crossed three of these: climate change, biodiversity and the nitrogen cycle. A number of others are in danger of being crossed in the near future: ocean acidification, global freshwater use, change in land use and the phosphorous cycle.
Read the whole review of What every environmentalist needs to know about capitalism by Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster at Energy Bulletin, A `realistic’ answer to the ecological crisis by Liam Flenady.
This is a list of negative externalities, and as such, costs that are socialized. This masks the true economic cost of many things, especially carbon-based energy. It's not only long terms effects like global warming that are building; it's also dangerous levels of environmental pollution that are affecting everyone now, especially those who are living it cities and their environs.
The basic argument is that when the negative externalities are accounted for in true cost, present day capitalism is unsustainable economically, just as the environment is unsustainable physically.
7 comments:
I believe it the height of human arrogance and ignorance to believe that we can artificially hold the evolution of the planet to the conditions of any particular epoch.
The purpose of civilization and the economy is to adapt not to trying and hold the world in a steady state.
You seems to be claiming that human must be limited to a certain mode of existence defined by the terms of the Holocene.
I disagree with that idea. Humans will as a perfectly natural force of nature themselves will create climate and no power of government or markets can or will anything to stop us.
So the question of human survival simply one of creating enough wealth (i.e. supplies) as quickly as possible to survive the change which cannot be stopped.
Creatures that survive adapt to the changing environment. The doctrine of so-called sustainability and zero climate change is a recipe for extinction because you putting all your energy into trying to prevent the environment from changing rather and putting your energy into increasing your own power of survival.
Steady State equilibrium is found only in species that are about to die.
The following video deals with how humans will actually die under the condition of austerity and declining demand/growth.
The hyper deflationary collapse theory. http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede#p/u/18/FqrZeC2ee0k
and http://www.youtube.com/user/bgaede#p/u/17/PtjgUG6jpXQ
Bill Gaede is wrong however on the issue of whether or not we can save ourselves. We can but just not Earth. We just need a higher frontier to re-establish farming and manufacturing due with reversing the condition of high density dependent production as well recreating in disease condition due to extreme changes in the environment.
Time to study basic ecology 101. Inefficiency and disease are necessary for evolution. A highly efficiency green economy will kill us all and rather quickly.
Same stuff as nuclear energy, externalities are discounted, otherwise it would be an 'impossible' energy source.
Any evolved and mature intelligent species which cared about its own survival wouldn't play with fire like we do.
"You seems to be claiming that human must be limited to a certain mode of existence defined by the terms of the Holocene."
I am no espousing a particular view, since I am not an expert in the field. I am a learner.
I posted this as an example of what an expert (someone with qualification) had to say in push back to assertions put forward as expert testimony by someone without expert credentials in the field, along with recommendation by other non-experts.
It was meant to complement the article I had posted by a mental health professional about mainstream economics as psychological deviance.
I expect people to come to their own conclusions, and I aim to assist people in coming to more informed conclusions.
I have not come to a firm conclusion about energy economics yet. I am reading a lot of things and occasionally post something that I think advanced the state of knowledge or at least corrects misconceptions or disinformation.
I personally think that eventually innovations will be developed and scaled up to meet the needs of humanity. However, I am not convinced that this will happen in a timely fashion, that is, before there is a lot of disruption.
I also think that it may be possible to avoid some of this disruption by taking steps now, like conservation.
The larger point is that this conversation has not risen to the level it needs to, given the importance of it in the global social, political, and economic system. So far, TPTB have managed it in a way that suits their interests instead of approaching it on the level its importance demands.
My basic outlook is that humans are part of nature and a unique part in that they have some control over their future and shaping their destiny through intelligent control (in the engineering sense) and conscious intent. That means that human have some control over their adaptability rate through choice, using intelligence to explore options, and coordinating resources to achieve common objectives.
This is an old school propaganda argument for socialism. If we were to put as much effort into environmental contingency plans as we do towards military ones, we would be better prepared to respond and adapt. If we wanted to restore the health of ecosystems we could create a market for it.
Democratic and institutional reform are the necessary first steps towards better environmental policies. Its not a capitalism vs socialism issue. Its about gaining control of social policy. Compel our leaders to replace military imperatives with environmental ones for a change.
Tom
A good article on Feasta -On the cusp of collapse: complexity, energy, and the globalised economy
Quote:
David Korowicz
The systems on which we rely for our financial transactions, food, fuel and livelihoods are so inter-dependent that they are better regarded as facets of a single global system. Maintaining and operating this global system requires a lot of energy and, because the fixed costs of operating it are high, it is only cost-effective if it is run at near full capacity. As a result, if its throughput falls because less energy is available, it does not contract in a gentle, controllable manner. Instead it is subject to catastrophic collapse.
Thanks, Clonal. I promoted it to a post.
11. the jet stream is going wild due to the artic ice shelf disappearing - which destroys hurricane formation which is not good since hurricanes take heat away from the equator and bring it up just shy of the northern temperates.
Post a Comment