Free Market Environmentalism Is Not The Answer

The Privatisation of the Commons really was a Tragedy after all.

Yesterday I wrote a post about the complete failure of the political class to be honest with the voting public about the nature of the environmental challenge ahead, and how it is going to radically change the way we live.

Today I’m going to continue on this theme by looking at why the politicians appear to be deceiving us.

The reasoning is slightly deeper than it would appear to the normal cynical observer. It’s not merely about electoral politics. It’s also about a fundmental, but misguided, faith in the free market.

There are many degrees of environmentalist. While most of us think that the greenies are all tree-hugging, not-washing, hemp-wearing (and smoking) Swampys, there are much smarter types, infesting corporate institutions, Whitehall and academia, and you’ll most often find them wearing a tailored suit.

They are the free market environmentalists (FME). They believe that, whatever the nature of the environmental problem, the market will always provide a solution. They are the bastion of capitalists hoping that they will never truly have to change their ways. Such FMEs provide the fig leaf that capitalism craves to continue. Because that is the nature of capitalism. It is neither inherently good or bad. It simply exists, and seeks ways to perpetuate that existence. It is a state of mind as much as it is a financial system.

A FME believes that concepts like emissions trading will enable the environmental cost to be turned into a financial figure, which then will be factored into the supply/demand equations that the market operates on. They believe that privatising the Amazon Rainforest, for example, would provide the necessary incentives for it to be truly managed and protected. They believe that there is no grave need to panic over running out of oil or gas, because the free market will adapt, innovation will prevail, and someone will come up with an solution that will supply alternatives. This will happen when it becomes more economical to use the alternative than buy, say, another barrel of oil.

Most mainstream politicians fall into this category for reasons of convenience. It is extremely easy to say that there is no real problem because we will rely on the genius of future generations to rescue us from the abyss. And we will also rely on future generations to sort out that huge amount of nuclear waste sitting in Sellafield, and all over the planet. Oh, and they can work out how on Earth the Earth is going to cope with all these people.

FME is not an answer. It is a corporate shill. It is a way to buy capitalism the time and credibility to distract us from appreciating the true nature of the problem, beyond the point past which it’s worth us doing anything about it.

Too much faith is placed in the market providing an answer; but capitalism has this wonderful way of making us blind to history. We see it now: one credit crunch, followed by one deep recession. But what lessons have been learned? What has actually changed to stop it from happening again?

Nothing. Nothing at all. How many more economic crises must we be put through to realise that the short termism of capitalism cannot be squared with the long-term reality that is the existence of this planet?

I guess you can conclude that I’m not an optimist about our future prospects…

Greenwashing

Taken from the One Planet Living website - note recycling isn't even mentioned, and is only part of the "Zero Waste" strategy...

My recent experience has taught me that, as far as recycling goes, maybe we place undue prominence on it.

The problem with recycling is that by the time it’s done the product already exists. It may have been shipped halfway around the world before then, using intensive agriculture methods or drilled up from the sea bed. The manufacturing process that creates plastics, metals – or even the humble tin of paint –  is by far the biggest battle that needs to be won.

Recycling is actually a tiny part of the battle for greenness. And no, recycling actually has nothing to do with climate change either. There is this rather small and increasingly ignored fact that oil won’t last forever. Nor will gas. These are absolute, guaranteed facts, whether you think the planet really is warming up or the whole thing is a load of leftie scientists making science fit their agenda.

The green battle has to start much earlier in the chain. As the mantra goes, “reduce” and “reuse” don’t really see much attention. Sure, we hear all about buying local. But, at the same time, why is the modern age requiring us to reinvent the wheel? Did we not, even as little as 20 years ago, all get milk delivered from the local milk co-op by an electric milk float in glass bottles that were washed and reused? Didn’t all “fizzy pop” (for want of a better phrase) used to be available in glass bottles that you could take back the shop once you’d finished and get 10p deposit back?

“Make do and mend” was the old mantra. It really ought to have come back into fashion during this recession… but it’s clear that it hasn’t been deep enough to truly make us change the way we live. To usher in a new era of austerity that clearly permeated Britain – if not most of the world – during World War II and short after.

No. In a few years time we’ll all be back to buying white goods which last no more than a few years, or any other consumer electronics which are deliberately designed to fail after such a short while. After all, there’s no profit if your radio works for 30 years solid. There would be no innovation either.

This is the battle that needs to be won. Someone needs to be honest and say that we simply cannot go on like this. But who is going to be the bravest to say that, “sorry, you really can’t holiday abroad any more”. Or, “I’m afraid strawberries will no longer be available in midwinter”. Or, “No, I’m afraid private car use is no longer possible”. Why should we throw away our comfortable modern existence?

What would we really do if someone told us, for example, that short-life, refrigerated milk is to be banned? Isn’t it crazy that there is a whole industry that requires the huge amounts of energy moving the product around the country and kept at the right temperature throughout? This goes the same for any chilled food that can’t be frozen. Though for all I know the extra energy required to freeze things may actually cost just as much despite the longer-life benefits.

This is the problem with focusing on recycling.

It is a distraction which makes us feel like we’re all doing something positive, but the real issues remain unresolved. Recycling is uncontroversial, which is why politicians love it. They can be superficially green. Underneath it all, they must be intelligent enough to realise that they are fighting the wrong battle.

They just don’t have the guts to admit it.

Sadly – this is the price of democracy.

(For more on the subject, visit the One Planet Living website)