Environmentalism and Class Struggle: Can climate change ever be Combated under Capitalism?

Excessive heat waves, frequent wildfires, more droughts, increased storm frequency, severity, and length, rising sea levels and pandemics are just a few of the already-observed effects of global warming that will have a significant impact on mankind. The average global yearly temperature increase since 1880 was 0.08 degrees Celsius each decade, but the average increase since 1981 (0.18 degrees Celsius) has been more than double that rate, according to NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information's 2020 Global Climate Report.

Nearly every country on earth vowed to battle global warming by "keeping the increase in global average temperature well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels" at COP 21 in Paris on December 12, 2015. Significant reductions in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions are required to reach this objective. But the Paris Agreement has only a few explicit requirements with no enforcement mechanism. While some investors are moving away from coal, new coal-fired facilities are still being built in many regions of the developing world, meaning that the majority of the nations that signed the Paris Agreement are not on course to reach their commitment.

Global warming is a result of human activity, and industrial capitalism and its dependence on fossil fuels are to blame. Carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases released by the combustion of fossil fuels trap heat in the atmosphere and cause the temperature to rise. However, we have put off the reduction in fossil fuel combustion for so long that the Earth's temperature will continue to rise over the coming decades, even if a complete elimination of excess carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is achieved at this point. One of the main reasons for this developmental delay is that we underestimated the amount of change and progress that was necessary.

When it comes to lowering greenhouse gas emissions and preventing global warming, there are four main schools of thought. The school of consumer behaviour encourages us to travel less, recycle more, consume food that is locally sourced, and have fewer children. The school of economic reform suggests taxes, trading plans, and occasionally regulations. The school of technology replacement demands new types of apparatus. And the social change school advocates a system of creating and distributing material items should be altered. But even as each school of thought is implemented to a marginal extent in today's society, it is not impactful enough to combat such a catastrophic situation we have found ourselves in.

To be able to overcome global warming and achieve ultimate welfare, we must be able to calculate the amount of welfare existing in modern society. It is crucial that governments reflect an ideological shift in how they evaluate economic achievement. Nations must reconsider how they approach development and economic growth while the corporate sector investigates sustainable investment alternatives. Indicators of economic performance are most frequently used today, and while the gross domestic product (GDP) is a good indicator of the final monetary worth of products and services, it does not take into account social and environmental costs, giving an inaccurate image of development and growth.

The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI), is a method of assessing economic progress that takes into consideration both environmental and social aspects and is based on concepts of sustainable income proposed by the economist John Hicks, as an alternative to GDP.

The current corporate and national interests are governed by the capitalist system, which has the capacity to change its emphasis from short-term profit maximization to an ecologically conscious and sustainable philosophy. Although radical action appears to activists to be very enticing, it is nevertheless expensive and frequently alienates substantial portions of the populace as well as corporate and national interest groups. As performance metrics are redefined and environmental costs are taken into account in economic growth, a strategy that incorporates the existing capitalism with climate action may prove to be more effective.  

The first to create quantitative models of the world's economic climate system that made it possible to evaluate climate changes in terms of our costs and benefits was Yale University economist William Nordhaus. According to Nordhaus' analysis, a global carbon tax plan would be the most effective way to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

And as we increase and harden our laws and regulations, we must realize that in order to tackle a global increase in temperature, we must come together from across the globe and look into the implementation of these laws. We must not only address the issues but also deal with these issues.

Bibliography 

Hayes, A. (2023, June 7). Genuine progress indicator (GPI): Definition, formula, vs. GDP. Investopedia. https://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gpi.asp

Machan, T. R. (1990, July 1). Capitalism and the environment: Tibor R. Machan. FEE Freeman Article. https://fee.org/articles/capitalism-and-the-environment/

World Economic Forum. (2016, February 15). Does capitalism have to be bad for the environment?. World Economic Forum. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/does-capitalism-have-to-be-bad-for-the-environment/