Article Link:
The Earth Versus Capitalism
Since
its inception in the 16th century, the economic system of capitalism
has become a firmly entrenched aspect of the world economy. The competition of a free market system encourages participating actors to make clever use of
whatever resources are at their disposal. These resources can be commodified
and used as either a good or asset to generate profit. A major consequence of
this mindset however is that it is susceptible to short-termism and activity that may not coincide with public interests.
The
very nature of capitalism has been criticized by some as detrimental towards
the environment. Despite growing evidence of the deleterious impacts of unfettered
industry on the world, few large-scale changes have been made to curtail
phenomena such as climate change and animal extinction. Critics of capitalism
have also claimed that the few moves that have been made to combat these
phenomena are little more than platitudes to circumvent any meaningful
change to the world economic system. These critics have been met with growing opposition
from advocates of eco-capitalism, who claim that profitability and ecological
sustainability are by no means mutually exclusive.
Questions:
1. Are capitalism and environmentalism truly contradictory
goals? If so, what form of economic system could replace the well-established
capitalist one in a way that benefits both the environment and humanity?
2. Some of the world’s influential companies advocate for
some degree of environmentalism. Companies such as Starbucks have engaged in recycling, invested in renewable energy, and donated to charities that help people
affected by climate change. Is this behavior sufficient, or is it merely a
glorified PR stunt?
This article did not hold back in its criticism of those people destroying our natural resources, which I think deviates from a lot of the environmental science discussion. This article points fingers are many people, but I think the strongest contributor that is lambasted is the department of defense. I liked how this article draws lines separating the veneer of environmental conscientiousness and actual environmental change. In a way, this article is arguing that environmental change where an ulterior motive is making more money doesn’t count. Though environmental change is oftentimes seem an a contributing factor in climate change, this article places the two in direct opposition. It is not a safe assessment to place the two in opposition, because though this article makes great points outlying the reasons why capitalism hurts the environment, it did not say which type of economic system would be better suited for the job. I do agree with the article in saying that many companies taking steps toward environmental sustainability is more of a PR stunt than it is actual change. Take Starbucks for instance. Though they were fêted for removing straws, their practices for crop production in their coffee beans has been criticized heavily for its unsustainability.
ReplyDelete