How Capitalism Affects the Environment: My Informed Stance
By: Matt Pierson
Tags: Environmental Impact, Climate Action, Environmental Issues, Climate Crisis, Climate Change

Climate change and global warming has always been a topic I’ve heard discussed about on the news, online, and even in my classrooms ever since I was in elementary. I would hear debates regarding whether or not climate change was actually occurring or not, and what possible solutions we as a human race could reach before it’s too late. Hearing these conversations surrounding climate change, I wasn’t educated enough on the topic to be able to form a stance on it. After doing all the research on how capitalism affects climate change, I was able to form a stance in favor of the side that says the fight can be done without getting rid of capitalism. Now that I’m older and more environmentally aware, I wanted to be able to learn more about the issue and find what I believe would be the most attainable solution to something as globally consequential as climate change. This curiosity towards this topic led me to ask this question, “With the current methods of production in a capitalistic economy, how will the different climates in the U.S. specifically be irreversibly impacted the most, and what changes in the capitalist system would help prevent further damage?”

In order to answer these two questions I had, I started by simply researching how climate change came to be. Thanks to classes I had taken previously, I already had some knowledge on it already. I unsurprisingly found that a variety of sources blamed the Industrial Revolution in the UK followed by the one here in the United States to be what really kicked off climate change. Because the Industrial Revolution in the U.S. was driven by the capitalistic economy we still use today, I could put the puzzle pieces together to figure out and answer the first part of my research question, which was the only part to not have two sides of an argument as it is scientifically factual and observable.

As I researched how climate change actually manifests on the planet, I adapted my research guidelines to be specifically about what regions of the U.S. were being negatively and irreversibly impacted the most. From reading up on just this first half of my research question, I came across what the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA — an independent agency of the U.S. federal government) said regarding the big regions in North America. Though, I must specify the original source of this information on NASA’s website is from the third and fourth climate assessments done by the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP). According to this source titled The Effects of Climate Change, the Northeast region of the U.S., which included states like Maine, New York, and Massachusetts, will have more heat waves, heavy downpours, and a rise of sea level. In the Northwest, which includes states like Oregon and Washington, will see a rise of sea level along with erosion, inundation, and an increase in wildfires. The Southeast, which includes states like Florida, Georgia, and the U.S. territories of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands, will see sea levels rise, extreme heat, as well as a decrease in water availability. The Southwest, which includes states like California, Arizona, and Nevada, will see an increase in heat levels, droughts, wildfires, as well as flooding and erosion in coastal regions. Finally, the Midwest, which includes states like Minnesota, Illinois, and Wisconsin, will face extreme heat, heavy downpours, and flooding.

In order for me to try and reach a conclusion for the second part of my research question, I researched the two sides of the argument in my last couple of blog posts regarding the fight against climate change — the one side that thought fighting climate change was only possible through capitalism, and the other side that thought fighting climate change would mean getting rid of capitalism completely. After considering the arguments from both sides of the debate, I realized how conflicted I was with taking a side. Both sides to me made compelling points in their arguments, and the bottom line is that it’s all in the effort of fighting climate change.

While pondering which side I believed to be more realistic and effective, I decided to take on the side that believes climate change can be fought through capitalism. The idea of dropping an economic system that many first-world and developed countries utilize, a system which has been around for a long time in a global sense is likely not to be replaced. Though I do believe that in the effort of reaching a unified solution to combat climate change, world leaders and governments can take points from both sides of the argument. An example of this would be on the points made in my last blog post, which dismissed the idea of carbon taxing as Stan Cox, the author of this article titled Here’s Why Capitalism Can’t Fix Climate Change, saying that carbon taxes would only “be an attempt to reduce consumption indirectly by making it more costly. The tax would have to be extremely high if it is to achieve the necessarily steep emissions reduction, and that would place an insupportable burden on the world’s poor majority.” Cox notes that if these carbon taxes are put into effect, everyone that middle and lower income citizens would suffer under shortages and inflation even if some tax revenue from the carbon taxes were redistributed. He then recommends that instead of carbon rationing should be done instead of taxing. Cox believes this to be a more effective and fair alternative to carbon tax stating that unlike taxes, it would “directly reduce emissions while ensuring sufficiency for all.”

In a BBC article I researched that further explains how carbon rationing would work titled Can Rationing Carbon Help Fight Climate Change? by author Frank Swain, he says that rationing carbon would essentially make it a sort of secondary currency. Swain believes that it would offer more freedom than carbon taxes as it is a lifestyle choice. People would need to adjust their habits in the effort of reducing their own carbon footprint, but wouldn’t have to go green on everything. Small things like simply riding bikes instead of driving to work (if it’s possible) or cutting things out of your diet like cheese could see better results. The biggest drawback with the concept of carbon rationing is that it would be hard to apply for large populations of people across states and countries would have to make personal sacrifices in the name of saving the world. Most of the populations of countries like the U.S. have been living in a world dominated by fossil fuel energy and surrounded by immense carbon usage, so it is exceptionally hard to turn over the masses to become less carbon dependent. Swain does address this in his article saying that “you don’t need a compulsory nationwide carbon rationing system to achieve big reductions in emissions. Even very small, imperfect carbon allowance schemes have surprisingly powerful results.” He mentions a study in Norfolk Island off the coast of Australia that was done where carbon rationing was tested. Over the course of the study, the participants had to reduce their usage of fossil fuels by 10%, with no rewards or penalties for succeeding/failing the goal. The result was that the average household reduced their carbon footprint by 18%, a whole 8% higher than the intended goal for the study. This study found that instead of giving people an ultimatum of reducing their carbon footprint by rationing, a choice with no rewards or punishment for reaching an intended goal could be applied for bigger groups of people.

The voices of the population deeply concerned for the future of our planet increases more people become more aware of the climate crisis we all are in. As our voices get louder and our messages demanding action get heard, it seemingly goes in one ear and out the other for our world leaders and governments. 194 countries signed the Paris Agreement back in 2016, yet nothing substantial has been done in these past four years to fight climate change. I believe that we can make things right and start to take matters into our own hands and be the change we want to see. We can’t give up with demanding action against climate change from our governments and world leaders, but we can do small things similar to what the population of Norfolk Island did with reducing their carbon footprints. If they can do it, we surely can. Change starts small and ends up becoming a revolution if more people become aware of what’s happening.