Josh Lanter 3/6/14 Soc 304

14: Global Environment Crisis

Throughout the course, we have tackled many subjects including marketing and automobiles and the role they have in society (fairly negative once you look at them in a different perspective.) But the most important topic we have covered in the two months of this course is the state of the environment, which is not in very good shape thanks to centuries of abuse. What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism, by Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster, is a educational piece of literature that intends to show the reader essentially a couple of things: 1) Capitalism is the root cause of the environmental crisis that we are in today, and 2) as long as we are in a capitalist society, we are never going to fix the environmental problem. Out of the entire book, the last chapter and the appendix had to be the most interesting as the authors and representatives from the Worlds People Conference on Climate Change map out very radical approaches to reverse this environmental issue. Lets take a critical look at the long and short-term goals the authors point out as solutions as well as the document from the Worlds People Conference from April 2, 2010 in Bolivia.

At the beginning of the last chapter the authors, like stated before, gives the reader around 20 different radical solutions that involve completely changing our capitalistic economy into one that is more equal and environmentally safe, which a lot of people in todays society would not agree with nor support since whenever the idea of economic equality is mentioned a majority of people believe that it is synonymous with socialism and fascism. This may be a socialist ideology, which we know Americans hate more than anything because it restricts their ability of freedom, however, many of the points that Foster and Magdoff lay out are understandable, safe, and will help save the planet. Then, on the contrary, there are some points that are a little too socialist for my taste. Lets take a look at some of the suggestions and look at the pros and cons. Institute a carbon taxwhich 100 percent of the dividends go back to the public. (126) This is a very interesting concept. It creates the meaningfulness of conservation, because if the money is distributed back to the people in equal value, then the people who spend less on energy and conserve it well will get back more money, while people who spent more on energy will receive less back. This is a very solid idea where the individuals are held responsible for what they do at their own house. There would be no one to blame when other people have more money than their neighbor. They were able to conserve energy more efficiently than their peers therefore they get more money. It goes along the lines of the capitalist ideology where you continue to make profit, but it isnt a negative way. The rich might not be extremely elated about this concept because having a bigger house would result in more energy, in turn, spending more money, but that is their opportunity cost.

Another great one that was suggested was make the United States participate with the other nations of the world to draft a world agreement for a drastic reduction in carbon emissions. (127) As the worlds society, we need to reduce our carbon emissions to 50% of what they were in the 1990s by 2017. The United States has been one of the most powerful and influential countries this planet has ever seen and yet we do not show up to the Worlds People Conference on Climate Change, when our capitalistic economy is a huge driving factor of global warming. We talked in class about the United States not ever showing up, and in order to really reverse the climate change, the U.S. has to be on board. If we were able to get our government to go to the conference and talk to the other countries government, a plan of action will be able to start, especially if we take the lead. A few others that were really appealing were promoting the use of public transportation, using wind, water, sun energy sources instead of fossil fuels, and safer drilling of oil in the deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico. These are appealing because they do not completely alter our way of living, but they do promote a healthier, cleaner way of living. Having pubic transit in cities, but also high-speed railways for long travels will help tremendously. Even if we continue with safer drilling, using oil for public transit wouldnt be as bad as every person using gas to run cars. One idea that was completely out of the question in my mind was cut back on military spending and pulling troops out of foreign bases. I understand why people want military funding reduced, it is a large sum of money going to achieve the agendas of the federal government and it takes away from other necessary spending. However, based on our history as a country, we cannot do this. We could

cut back on spending, but we cant pull our troops out of our bases. That would be catastrophic and would leave us, as well as many other countries, vulnerable. If our troops ended up leaving bases around the world, many countries could see that as a sign of weakness and could try to attack for the years of bullying that we have caused. Military is a touchy subject, but using military money to defend the environment and help social causes, is great in theory, but in actuality, might hurt us a lot more when we could possibly have other countries attacking us, then the environment would be the small issue at hand. The long-range solutions presented by Foster and Magdoff tell the reader that in order to save the environment, we must have a radical revolutionary ideology that society gets behind in order to change the economy. They believe that this new system must have four things, 1) create substantive equality; 2) meet with basic material and non-material needs of the people, now and for future generations; 3) enshrine the socialinstead of privateuse of nature in ways that enhance and preserve the environment; and 4) create a social climate in which people are actively engaged with one another and with their communities. (135) Compared to the capitalist economy we have lived in that promotes profit and growth, this new radical system promotes social equality and sustainability, which arent necessarily bad things. Foster and Magdoff explain that in order to complete this type of restructuring, there must be a movement of determined communities helping other groups and communities to reach this goal and it must be done through planning. The authors say that economic planning has gotten a bad name, which it has, because economic planning is highly bureaucratic and anti-democratic

Soviet command economy, (135) but there has been cases in America and in the world where economic planning worked, i.e, World War I & II and now with Cuba where they have planned our their economy so they will have more doctors per capita than any other nation on Earth, (136) along with having a highly developed educational system. These planned changes have given Cuba the honor of being the only country with a high level of human development and a per capita ecological footprint believe the worlds average. (136) With examples like these and various others (Bolivias revolution) we could start taking the necessary steps in order to change our economy and save the planet from irreversible destruction. Many of the principles mentioned in the Peoples Agreement are related to what Foster and Magdoff believe are the best courses of action in order to stop the climate change from reaching disastrous levels. The conference decided that the principles would be: harmony and balance among all things; solidarity and equality, collective well-being and satisfaction of the basic needs of all in harmony with Earth, respect for the rights of the Earth and human rights, recognize humans for what they are, elimination of colonialism, imperialism, and interventionism, lastly, peace among the Earths peoples. (147) These are very specific principles, but they help promote peace and love amongst everyone in the world, who can possibly dislike that idea? However, that is the idea of many people, but if we have gone this long on Earth without being in complete peace, and in a time where everything is a lot more complicated than it ever was, how it is possible that we achieve full world peace? It definitely is a great hypothetical situation, but not very feasible. Then they also want all the developed countries paying for the environmental damages in the world,

because they were the main culprits to begin with. How would these countries pay for so much damage without completely wiping out their own economy to pay for it? I dont see a way where only developed countries can pay for all the damages resulting since the beginning of time. In order to save the climate, every country must be on board with the same actions not just the most powerful. This is where I make my own suggestion. Now, when it comes to political views, Im really unsure where I stand. I like to think I am in the middle, or more of a liberal conservative. Anyway, I dont agree with the whole notion of socialism, but that might only be because throughout my schooling I have been told that socialism is interchangeable with communism. But I agree with Foster and Magdoff when they say that living in a capitalist economy that we will never fix these problems, but I would also believe that most Americans are not willing to give up all their material goods and live in a completely equal society. Part of the reason I dont believe this will work has to do with Thomas Hobbes social contract theory and egoism that I learned about in an ethics course I took with Professor Tom Bivins. This theory pretty much believes that for a society to work everyone must do their part and hold up their end of obligations, so Hobbes would love these ideas from the book. However, Bivins stated in his class that society says that there could be four possibilities from this: 1) you could be an egoist with other are benevolent, 2) Others are egoist while you are benevolent, 3) everybody is an egoist, and 4) everyone is benevolent. So in other words, if everyone were to be equal, given the same resources, same essential goods to live, there would be some people not doing their part and reaping the benefits, which is not fair to those who are working. On

the other hand, where we are as a society, the wealth is separated too much. What would be best would be a slight change to the proposed system, maybe a change to capitalism. In a new system, everyone should begin equal. Given the same land and same opportunity, but also give people the chance to make a better living for them. Some people are not going to work hard, that is the truth, give society a chance at being equal but the ones who dont work hard will remain at the bare minimum that the government agrees they get, while ones who want to work, could be lucky enough to become a wealthy individual. In a new system there must be public transit for all people and for those who work hard and get enough money for a vehicle can get one, however, it will be electric and using electricity to charge it will result in less money given back from the carbon tax. The biggest piece will be changing the consumer market. No more huge corporations running the country with advertising and marketing. Small, local business in return will provide the goods that people need and other small stores and malls where locally run business can sell material goods, but for a cheaper price, made with green energy, and no million dollar marketing campaigns. The key to fixing the environment will be changing capitalism in such a way that promotes sustainability first, while giving people the ability to feel like they are living in contemporary society.