Posts Tagged ‘environment’
Tags: Bernie Sanders, Bush, capitalism, cartoon, environment, greed, pope, poverty, Wall Street
Tags: cartoon, environment, poverty, profits, Scalia, Supreme Court
Tags: Catholic Church, climate change, cooperatives, corporations, environment, markets, poor, pope, preferential option, private property, profits
The Wall Street Journal is absolutely right: Pope Francis acknowledges the scientific consensus concerning the human/social origins of climate change and argues there is “an urgent need” for policies designed to cut carbon emissions and switch to renewable sources of energy.
But the pope goes further by weaving his signature theme of economic justice and his vehement criticism of capitalism throughout the encyclical.
What the pope does is build on the central economic themes of the apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, and then extend them to the issue of the natural environment, especially the causes and consequences of climate change. The result is a radical critique of contemporary capitalism.
There are many aspects of the 183-page Laudato Si’ I simply cannot discuss here.* What I want to do in this post is highlight some of the specifically economic themes of the papal encyclical that was officially released yesterday.
Many news stories have already highlighted the pope’s rejection of carbon emission trading as a solution to the problem of climate change:
The strategy of buying and selling “carbon credits” can lead to a new form of speculation which would not help reduce the emission of polluting gases worldwide. This system seems to provide a quick and easy solution under the guise of a certain commitment to the environment, but in no way does it allow for the radical change which present circumstances require. Rather, it may simply become a ploy which permits maintaining the excessive consumption of some countries and sectors. (126)
But there is a great deal more in the economics of Laudato Si’.
Throughout the encyclical, the pope highlights the relationship between climate change and the “economy of exclusion,” particularly the way the continued deterioration in the natural (and, he doesn’t overlook, social) environment affects the poorest, most vulnerable people on the planet.** Here are two examples:
Many of the poor live in areas particularly affected by phenomena related to warming, and their means of subsistence are largely dependent on natural reserves and eco-systemic services such as agriculture, fishing and forestry. They have no other financial activities or resources which can enable them to adapt to climate change or to face natural disasters, and their access to social services and protection is very limited. (20)
One particularly serious problem is the quality of water available to the poor. Every day, unsafe water results in many deaths and the spread of water-related diseases, including those caused by microorganisms and chemical substances. Dysentery and cholera, linked to inadequate hygiene and water supplies, are a significant cause of suffering and of infant mortality. (23)
Not surprisingly, this leads to his reiteration of the preferential option for the poor:
In the present condition of global society, where injustices abound and growing numbers of people are deprived of basic human rights and considered expendable, the principle of the common good immediately becomes, logically and inevitably, a summons to solidarity and a preferential option for the poorest of our brothers and sisters. . .We need only look around us to see that, today, this option is in fact an ethical imperative essential for effectively attaining the common good. (117)
And that’s the other side of the focus on the poor: the idea that the natural environment is part of the common good.
Human ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good, a central and unifying principle of social ethics. The common good is “the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment [sic]” (116).
So, if it is clear that climate change is a pressing issue, especially for the poor and most vulnerable, what stands in the way of effectively dealing with the problem? Here the pope extends his economic analysis to identify the interests and ideas that represent obstacles to both thinking about and finding appropriate solutions to climate change.
The pope, for example, cites those who stand in the way of making real change:
Many of those who possess more resources and economic or political power seem mostly to be concerned with masking the problems or concealing their symptoms, simply making efforts to reduce some of the negative impacts of climate change. (21)
In the meantime, economic powers continue to justify the current global system where priority tends to be given to speculation and the pursuit of financial gain, which fail to take the context into account, let alone the effects on human dignity and the natural environment. (41)
He also challenges responses that benefit only a tiny minority:
Even as the quality of available water is constantly diminishing, in some places there is a growing tendency, despite its scarcity, to privatize this resource, turning it into a commodity subject to the laws of the market. (23)
In some places, rural and urban alike, the privatization of certain spaces has restricted people’s access to places of particular beauty. . .Frequently, we find beautiful and carefully manicured green spaces in so-called “safer” areas of cities, but not in the more hidden areas where the disposable of society live. (31-32)
In the end, of course, the pope has to confront the problems of profits, markets, and private property.
This is what he writes about profits:
The economy accepts every advance in technology with a view to profit, without concern for its potentially negative impact on human beings. Finance overwhelms the real economy. The lessons of the global financial crisis have not been assimilated, and we are learning all too slowly the lessons of environmental deterioration. (81)
Here he is on markets:
Once more, we need to reject a magical conception of the market, which would suggest that problems can be solved simply by an increase in the profits of companies or individuals. Is it realistic to hope that those who are obsessed with maximizing profits will stop to reflect on the environmental damage which they will leave behind for future generations? Where profits alone count, there can be no thinking about the rhythms of na- ture, its phases of decay and regeneration, or the complexity of ecosystems which may be gravely upset by human intervention. Moreover, biodiversity is considered at most a deposit of economic resources available for exploitation, with no serious thought for the real value of things, their significance for persons and cultures, or the concerns and needs of the poor. (139)
And then on private property:
The principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods, and thus the right of everyone to their use, is a golden rule of social conduct and “the first principle of the whole ethical and social order”. The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property. (69)
Finally, it has been noted that the pope doesn’t offer much in the way of concrete proposals to solve the problem of climate change. But he does mention a number of times the positive effects of a particularly noncapitalist form of economic organization: cooperatives.
Liberation from the dominant technocratic paradigm does in fact happen sometimes, for example, when cooperatives of small producers adopt less polluting means of production, and opt for a non-consumerist model of life, recreation and community. (84)
In some places, cooperatives are being developed to exploit renewable sources of energy which ensure local self-sufficiency and even the sale of surplus energy. This simple example shows that, while the existing world order proves powerless to assume its responsibilities, local individuals and groups can make a real difference. (131)
Throughout the encyclical, the pope could not have stated things more clearly: the “maximization of profits” is destroying the natural environment, the “poor, the weak, and the vulnerable” are most at risk of pollution and climate change, and “halfway measures” simply won’t work.
No wonder the Wall Street Journal is concerned about the pope’s “vehement criticism of capitalism throughout the encyclical.” Many more people might actually come to believe him.
*What I found particularly interesting, in addition to the themes I write about here, are the pope’s criticisms of modern (scientistic) epistemology and the hyper-individualist (neoliberal) subject.
**To be clear, the pope is not just referring to the people in rich and poor countries: “There are not just winners and losers among countries, but within poorer countries themselves” (129). And, he might have added, within rich countries.
Tags: cartoon, corporations, environment, fast track, fracking, labor, markets, Nike, Obama, student debt, TPP, United States
Tags: Africa, campaign, cartoon, corporations, drugs, environment, Europe, immigration, Mediterranean, money, Obama, politics, Republicans, taxes, TPP, workers
Tags: air, capitalism, environment, growth, Gustave Doré, India, pollution
Once again, we find ourselves in the midst of an orgy of worries and pronouncements about how to raise the rate of economic growth.
And yet, from the Industrial Revolution down to the present, it’s that same growth—capitalist growth—that has robbed us of the ability to breathe clean air.
Consider the report filed by Anu Anand [ht: ja] on the effects of capitalist growth on the air in Delhi:
Saharan dust, traffic fumes and smog from Europe may be clogging up London’s air at present – and causing alarm in the newspapers – but in the world’s most polluted city London’s air would be considered unusually refreshing. That city is Delhi, the Indian capital, where air quality reports now make essential reading for anxious residents.
In London last week, the most dangerous particles – PM 2.5 – hit a high of 57 – that’s nearly six times recommended limits.
Here in Delhi, we can only dream of such clean air.
Our reading for these minute, carcinogenic particles, which penetrate the lungs, entering straight into the blood stream – is a staggering 215 – 21 times recommended limits. And that’s better than it’s been all winter.
Until a few weeks ago, PM 2.5 levels rarely dipped below 300, which some here have described as an “air-pocalypse”.
Like the rest of the world, those of us in Delhi believed for years that Beijing was the world’s most polluted city.
But last May, the World Health Organization announced that our own air is nearly twice as toxic.
The result, we’re told, is permanent lung damage, and 1.3 million deaths annually. That makes air pollution, after heart disease, India’s second biggest killer.
And yet, it’s only in the past two months as India’s newspapers and television stations have begun to report the situation in detail that we’ve been gripped, like many others, with a sense of acute panic.
It’s a little bit like being told you’re living next to an active volcano that might erupt at any moment.
The residents of Gustave Doré’s London would have easily recognized that environmental volcano.