Capitalism and the Environment

Image via Wikipedia

Many of us will agree that action against global warming is now quite simply, a race against time. The private sectors role in fighting climate change has been a slow and lengthy one. As with any capitalist venture, companies are in a constant battle to provide the most competitive prices for the construction of renewable energy systems. There are fears that contracts will be given to European countries, not British ones, due to the lack of experience firms in the UK has and so in a time of economic recession the reliance on private industry is becoming increasingly problematic for British workers.  One must laugh at the irony that the businesses that thrive upon the ultimately unsustainable ideology of Capitalism are the frontrunners in the implementation of sustainable energy. Although I consider myself an environmentalist, I cannot help but disagree with leading environmental lobbies such as Friends of the Earth and Greenpeace that nuclear power isn’t a viable option. The main contributor to the phenomenon of global warming is undoubtedly the emission of green house gases and although scientists and critics may argue over the causes; no one can deny the fundamental need to act now, and fast. Many renewable sources are costly, unpopular with locals and low producers of energy but nuclear power has the capability of producing mass energy, relatively cleanly and efficiently. Inevitably, with nuclear production there will of course be nuclear waste, but at least the emission of greenhouses has been completely halted. In an idealistic world, of course we should persevere in the search for ‘clean’ fuel but immediate solutions are the only option left. State control of nuclear facilities will erase the competition and time consuming waste of private renewable firms and will create an efficient job market for workers who may have been struggling in the recession. I

welcome the government’s white paper on Nuclear Energy and I would encourage environmental lobbies to adapt their policies in order to become more relevant to the immediacy of our global energy situation. I agree that the real solution is to reduce the amount of energy consumed within every nation but we’ve already seen the impossibility of this.  Developing countries wanting a share of the so-called capitalist luxuries of the West, and voters in those already developed nations are still electing leaders who promote low taxes and big business enterprise. However, it is important to continuing lobbying for huge emission cuts and the development of a variety of renewable sources. We must continue questioning the role of Capitalism and Globalisation in relation to what is best for humanity, and the planet as a whole. Capitalism is unsustainable by its very nature and can never share the same aspirations as those who envisage stability and sustainability. Capitalism is an infinitely ambitious system and thrives on expansion and increasing consumerism. However, planet Earth only has finite resources and so we are left with a choice. Do we carry on consuming at the same rate and catalyze the ruin of Earth or do we act fast to produce what will admittedly be rapid social change? I think the immediacy of action needs to be equally divided into tackling both short term energy solutions, and long term social changes.