- cross-posted to:
- collapse@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- collapse@lemmy.ml
cross-posted from: https://lazysoci.al/post/14253829
Summary: The video is about the challenges of decarbonizing the world economy and why capitalism is not an effective solution, according to the guest speaker Brett Christophers. Christophers is interviewed by Aaron Bastani on Novara Media.
The conversation starts with the confusion around the term “Net Zero.” Christophers explains the difference between Net Zero and real zero emissions. Net Zero allows emissions as long as they are offset by carbon capture or sequestration.
Christophers argues that governments are not serious about decarbonization because they continue to grant new oil and gas exploration licenses. He also criticizes the over-reliance on future, unproven technologies for capturing carbon emissions.
The interview then covers why electrification is critical for mitigating climate change. Christophers explains that most greenhouse gas emissions come from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity. Therefore, decarbonizing the electricity sector is the most important strategy.
The conversation then dives into the challenges of transitioning to renewable energy sources. Christophers acknowledges that solar and wind are not perfect solutions because they are intermittent sources of energy. He also discusses the land-use challenges of building large-scale solar and wind farms.
Nuclear power is brought up as a potential solution, especially for large companies that need consistent baseload power. Christophers says that governments should incentivize the development of all carbon-free energy sources, including nuclear.
The video concludes with Christophers arguing that capitalism is not a solution to the climate crisis because it prioritizes the interests of capital over the well-being of the planet.
You must log in or # to comment.
The capital class can’t own public goods (e.g. an educated population, a non-toxic environment, fediverse might fall into that category as well) and thus cannot seek rent or gain advantage over others that have equal access to said public goods. This means public goods are not valued by the capital class and in some cases are actively harmed in order to make way for a capital-based solution that can give advantage or be made scarce.
Capitalism cannot solve the climate catastrophe since it’s the cause for the climate catastrophe.
Because a system/ideology whose definition is “Profit über alles” doesn’t value anything but profit.
Saved everyone a click.
The video concludes with Christophers arguing that capitalism is not a solution to the climate crisis because it prioritizes the interests of capital over the well-being of the planet.
This could be solved if we could put a number on the well being of the planet. And if we could pay with it. If this wasn’t possible we’d have to find an alternative to money/transaction based economic systems.
This could be solved if we
stopped applying economic theories to all human activities or the planet. Transparency and decentralization would be good starting points, not economics. At least, that’s how I see things.
Economics is a social science that studies the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services.
Sorry, but economic theory and even more economic practise is how we solve the climate crisis. Scientists have warned us of the problem with pretty good data and models, engineers have developed the technology to have a good life within planetary boundaries. At this point the problem we have to solve is how we distribute that technology, while limiting further emissions and provide an at least reasonable qualtiy of life for everybody on the planet. This is very much an economics problem, with an economic solution.
Capitalism is just an economic system. It is not the only one. Please do not fall for that trap, created by decades of neoliberalism.
Sorry, but economic theory and even more economic practise is how we solve the climate crisis.
I’m not denying that, this has been happening for many decades. This approach doesn’t seem to go that well so far tho, does it?
What is happening for deacades? Sorry, but the most I can see is a bit of regualation by countries with a stronger government and a lot of green growth, which fits in perfectly with capitalism. Any sort of big change like setting limits to consumption, socializing ownership of production, set up systems like UBI to limit the impacts of the transition and so forth, which in any way threaten capitalism, but are obviously economic solutions, have been called way to radical.
So please explain to me where in the world we are chaning our economic system to fight climate change in a big way, because I can not see it
What is fascinating though is that they get called too radical by most voters. (Although how they formed that opinion and who it was influenced by is another thing).
I suppose it depends on how one sees things.
Maybe among other things, we need to decolonize our solutions. Everything is not economics. And the means of productions have moved to another continent, so I can’t even participate in ceasing them.
My pet opinion is that banning publicly traded companies would be a good start. Having companies be family owned would create a natural limit on how mich growth CEOs feel they need.
banning publicly traded companies would be a good start.
I’m all in for this. Why not ban inheritance as well? And put a cap for income of 1 to 6 for instance, between the lowest and highest income. It doesn’t need to be 1 to 400 (not too sure of the actual current number). Also, we know that many people are in the same time CEOs of multiple companies, this sounds like a proof to me, it’s practically a part-time job that is way over payed.
Having companies be family owned would create a natural limit on how mich growth CEOs feel they need.
I think I see your point. My only objection is that I don’t trust the family model, due to personal experience but also in historical terms, I really don’t like royal families in the colonial world.
For solutions on how companies can be managed so that they are not growing/polluting eternally, we don’t even need to go outside the framework of capitalism to find viable solutions (btw I am not a capitalist). Keynesian economics for example have managed to lift the US from the 1929 market crash by implementing government policies to regulate the market. Some leftovers of those policies are still in place today in the US. Check out this great 2 min video for some details.
Our current problem is also related to the fact that all those in government positions work for the lobbists and big corp, not the people they are supposed to represent.
Another thing I wonder about is how to make sure this works globally. Anti-growth economic reforms might have at least a chance of passing in well-funcitoning democracies, but I don’t see how this could be made to happen in kleptocracies or a random African country.
Anti-growth economic reforms might have at least a chance of passing in well-funcitoning democracies
I don’t see how. Currently, the system running the world is not a political one, it’s an economic model. Neoliberalism (or however one calls it) runs the world, not democracy. How could an anti-growth approach appeal to people that look for eternal growth?
Personally, I am not even convinced that representative democracy can function well by design, but that’s another topic.
deleted by creator
If this wasn’t possible we’d have to find an alternative to money/transaction based economic systems.
Capitalism doesn’t have a monopoly on market economies. Although it sure as fuck pretends and tries to.
Wait, what are the other options? Btw a USSR-style planned economy falls outside the term market economy, even thoughthey had money, right?
Btw a USSR-style planned economy falls outside the term market economy, even thoughthey had money, right?
Uhm, yes. That’s the polar opposite of market economy; a planned economy.
One of the definitions of socialism is “the means of production are owned or regulated by the state”.
I know a lot of people vehemently disagree, but we Nordics are technically socialist countries. Social democracies which utilise market socialism, insofar that the markets are heavily regulated and products taxed, but taxes (and fines) are progressive, and the tax money gets spent on society. (Well, in the ideal case, obviously, we’re faaaaar from fucking perfect.)
Capitalism is essentially just to market economies what cancer is to cell growth. It’s not to wrong to call the former the latter, but the latter is a category. The former is usually also malignant.
Capitalism always strives for monopolies. That’s why even the US has socialist policies. That’s not to be taken as me saying they’re socialist in any way, just the nature of the policies are. It’s the state regulating the market to prevent monopolies from fucking it up. Antitrust laws.
So to answer your question of “what other options”, have a peek at market socialism.
I think we have the resources to give everyone a shitton more if the crazy wealth hoarders stop. That’s it. Get some control on the crazy addiction for money, we can still have market economies, private property, a faster developing economy, but also less crime, less inequality and less suffering overall.
Literally just take the ultra rich out of the picture. We will still have rich people and people can strive for wealth. Just as long as we meet people’s basic needs, have good labour laws and manage to take care of the planet.
And because that will jump start even more space exploration since we could actually fund NASA instead of having Elon play with his dildockets, we could actually get somewhere, and once there’s proper infra for some commerce up there, hey, go at it capitalists, the space is literally infinite. Just don’t mess up our solar system.
Thank you for this eye opening post. I think I can describe my positions as market socialist. I haven’t yet formed an opinion on de-growth, but one thing I think we should definitely do is ban publicly traded companies (except for a few niche exceptions), as I feel that family ownership would put a natural limit on how much growth CEOs feel they need. Alternatively, income tax could be made to approach 100% as a person’s income approached infinity (to cause diminishing returns on growth), although this might have the side effect of making the state dangerously rich.
I thank you.
It’s rare to get a good faith reply to my replies sometimes, huehue.
I’m too sleepy to respond in depth, perhaps tomorrow. Good night, fr3n.
Good night, I’m in Czechia so I should be asleep too rn lol. Also enjoy the sunrise :-)
we’d have to find an alternative to money/transaction based economic systems
This is exactly what we need.
Capitalism never aimed this
