Written by
Paul-Martin Fearon-Hernandez and first published at In Our Nature
Our Actions
Do Not Exist In a Vacuum
Between every
blink of an eye, a hundred
Amazon packages are shipped in a constant, ever growing barrage of internet
consumerism. The past 20 years have been dominated by Amazon’s unwavering
growth and revolution
of the world’s shopping scene in never before seen ways. Their success
thrives off capitalism's incessant gluttony for infinite growth, exploiting our
biological
hardwiring (by abusing our dopamine triggers to create a literal addiction
to shopping) to draw dollar after dollar from our pockets. Capitalism’s
reliance on continuous
growth (to power the cycle of surplus to reinvestment) creates a need for
constantly increasing consumption, even when the basic needs of a society are
already met.
As a result,
modern ad
campaigns aim to convert wants into needs by directly associating
fulfillment with material goods (like a man finding love after wearing a
certain cologne or a loving family exchanging gifts as a sign of affection) and
solidifying this culture of consumption. Nowadays, companies don’t just sell
you a product. By marketing certain aesthetics in fashion, music, lifestyles,
advertising sells
you an identity. Instead of saying what you could have with this product,
it’s what you can be with that product. It’s gotten to a point where
just watching people buy stuff
has become a market in itself. Shouldn’t that alone raise some alarms?
What most
consumers fail to realize, however, is the environmental price tag of their
consumption habits. While it’s true that the individual carbon footprint was created
to distract the public from the fact that 70% of greenhouse emissions are
caused by just 100
companies, this isn’t to say consumers can shrug off all responsibility.
The money spent on a Shein haul
(a popular website where consumers can buy a variety of items, primarily
clothing, for dirt cheap) still directly supports their unethical
business practices and the larger system of fast
fashion.
Ultimately,
these industries survive on the wallets of consumers who dump their dollars
into their unsustainable consumption habits. It’s a tricky relationship. Take
fast fashion, for example. Recent years have shown an absurd increase in
textile consumption and more importantly, textile waste. The U.S.’s textile
waste has quintupled
since 1980 despite the population only having increased 40%. To make it
worse, current data shows over 80%
of American clothing consumption ends up in landfills,
which produce methane, toxic runoffs, and take up land.
Fast fashion is
just one industry, too. In even worse business practices, like overfishing,
40% of sea creatures caught aren’t even loaded off the boat, they’re just
thrown back into the ocean after they’ve already died. After discarding 38 million tonnes of
dead sea creatures a year, the industry then goes on to dump record-breaking
levels of plastic into the ocean. Reckless, wasteful practices like these
are what lead to the
collapses of entire ecosystems at rates never before seen. Waste statistics
like these—40%, 60%, 80%—should
be a clear sign that we are producing far more than we could possibly
need, and the environment
and global proletariat are paying
the price.
Capitalism
Isn’t the Answer (again)
What’s
capitalism’s proposed solution to these problems? More consumption (but this
time it's “green”)!
The rise of greenwashing,
a new marketing trend where products are advertised as more sustainable than
they actually are, is a perfect example of capitalism proposing itself as a
solution to the problems it created. Preying on consumers’ environmental concerns,
companies advertise their products as more environmentally friendly in order to
increase sales, despite their new production practices having similar
environmental impacts as before. They tell us they can do this whole
capitalism thing sustainably, we just have to give
them enough time that we don’t have.
Though they
continue to promise green capitalism through endless,
dangerous pledges of net-zero emissions by 20XX, the current state of
things has shown that we don’t have time to
pray for capitalism to solve the problem. Some propose divorcing carbon
emissions from economic growth often known as “decoupling,”
which focuses on breaking the link between economic growth and environmental
degradation through recycling, pollution standards, and “green” investment.
While these policies may be beneficial, any attempt at decoupling is just
putting a bandage on a bullet hole. In fact, decoupling attempts often make
things worse, such as in South
Korea’s 2009 green growth initiative that tried to revitalize the economy
while reducing carbon emissions.
While the plan
did stimulate the economy, it also spiked emissions,
completely defeating the initial purpose. Needless to say, we are beyond the
days of experimenting new ways to make capitalism work for us. It’s time we
take steps to move beyond the system that destroys the environment in search of
another dollar.
Degrowth
Those next
steps are nothing other than the process of degrowth. The days are over of Amazon
reaching record
breaking profits by perpetuating mass, environmentally
destructive consumerism while neglecting
worker’s needs and wages. Degrowth may sound intimidating, especially since
we are conditioned as a society to a capitalist idea of progress. Isn’t growth
what we should strive for? No. It’s clear that the positive growth of the
modern economy is directly
related to growth of global carbon emissions and barely linked
to the average citizen’s wellbeing (caveat: economic prosperity barely touches
the working class, but recessions decimate them. Funny how that works, huh?).
In fact, the only years
in the past two decades we have noticeably reduced global carbon emissions
has been during economic recessions, such as the 2008 financial crisis. That
should tell you something. If we want to seriously reduce our global emissions,
we have to be willing to prioritize it over economic profits. The only way we
can do that without collapsing our entire society is if we deconstruct the
capitalist framework focused on eternal growth of private profits and allow for
a system that prioritizes social and ecological sustainability: ecosocialism.
First, however,
let’s talk more about degrowth
itself. Ultimately, degrowth serves as an
antithesis to the capitalist system that pursues infinite growth in spite of
its ecological and social consequences. It calls for a descaling of production
and consumption, enabling societies to live within their ecological means as
determined by strong efforts in research and organization as opposed to private
interests. Rather than organize societies efforts towards material accumulation
and deal with the repercussions later, degrowth focuses on addressing real
needs like resource equity.
As a society,
we prioritize turning resources into profits and waste. Degrowth aims to change
that, focusing on the deprivatization of industry and reprioritizing necessary
work over excessive work meant to derive a profit. It also aims to fix the fundamental
issues with privatized resources, such as scarcity and upcharging.
Oftentimes, communal resources are privatized and resold to the community with
incredible upcharges. When these resources are essential to life, such as water
or medicine,
these upcharges can ruin—or
even end—lives. However, this is amazing for business. Why? GDP
is a measure of costs,
not benefits. In our current economic structure, however, we can’t just not have
growth.
Without growth,
our economy would collapse, and the consequences
of capitalist recessions always fall on the working class and the marginalized.
Degrowth proposes a new economic structure. Rather than prioritize private profits,
degrowth embraces local ownership of resources, often managed by a well
researched agenda based on equitable distribution of resources. Not only that,
but by prioritizing local needs over profits, only as much work as is needed to
sustain
society would be necessary, theoretically freeing much more time
for the average worker.
Degrowth is not
just a Western solution. Scholars are very aware of the global disparity in
resources, and believe that by reducing consumption levels across Northern
countries, we can improve material conditions in poorer countries. In fact, a
new study models that by 2050, a global population of 10 billion could live
comfortably at the consumption levels of the 1960s. That means citizens living
in currently impoverished countries around the world who barely have enough to
eat right now could live in the well-being of a post-WWII Europe.
However, the
cost is there. Citizens of the Global North would have to accomodate
to no more second homes, no more red meat 7 nights a week, and a generally
resource-conscious lifestyle. However, the key is this would require the
adamant rollout of new technologies in a planned, non-profit driven method.
We cannot fall back into the trap of infinite growth, infinite consumption, and
definite collapse. We need an economy where we no longer strive for material
excess, but rather on the simple needs of ourselves and our neighbors. It would
require a restructuring of the entire global system of resource allocation. If
we can get used to living within our means, it can happen.
“The final
energy requirements for providing decent living standards to the global
population in 2050 could be over 60% lower than consumption today. In countries
that are today’s highest per-capita consumers, cuts of ~95% appear possible
while still providing decent living standards to all.” - Hopkins,
Steinberger, Rao & Oswald
Hope for the
future
Ultimately,
degrowth does not mean returning to the Middle Ages. It does, however, mean a
drastic reduction in the Global North’s resource consumption and a
restructuring of our entire economic system. It means a planned, equitable
economic overhaul of the world’s wealthiest nations and a constant check on our
resource consumption as a whole. Degrowth means prioritizing environmental and
social well-being over profits by producing and consuming less — permanently.
However, life within this system would
still be comfortable. Wealthy countries could slash their energy
consumption by
over 90% and still provide a comfortable living to all their citizens.
In fact, it may
be more fulfilling
because work would revolve around social needs, not alienated profits. Rather
than working to keep up with demand, we would only have to work
to upkeep a low-consumption society. Even gruelling resource collection jobs,
like coal-miners and field workers, would be drastically reduced due to lower
demand, and those workers would be properly compensated for their labor rather
than have it stripped of them and sent to the top.
Degrowth
creates an economy based on mutual care, not
material goods for fulfillment. However, it is crucial to remember degrowth
cannot exist within capitalism. Without continuous growth, capitalism fails. If
we tried, it would only resemble austerity
measures (removing money from the economy, the consequences of which often fall
on the working class). Now more than ever, we are faced with the dire evisceration
of our planet's natural ecology as well as the boundless exploitation of our
rights as workers.
Degrowth is
only a pillar of ecosocialism, a greater system that aims to protect
environmental and popular welfare beyond the capitalist agenda. In order to
install this system, it must bubble up through democratic means, first by
reclaiming control of the government and economy by the public. Now more than
ever we are faced with the impending evisceration of our natural ecology as
well as the boundless exploitation of our bodies and natural resources.
However, not all hope is lost. As a species, it is still well within our means to crawl out of this hole we’ve dug for ourselves and create a better world for those who come after us. Any moments of hesitation will be looked back upon with tremendous remorse as future generations ask why we didn’t do something while we had the chance. It’s for them that we organize, restructure, and free ourselves from the endless pursuit of profit.
This article shows the way forward to a simpler, more fulfilling ex-;capitalism way of life, summed up in the words 'enough is plenty' and 'frugal abundance' and vision of less 'stuff' and more time for satisfying creative pursuits, for sharing and caring. When will the Green Party realise that electoralism is not enough without campaigning for this ecosocialist vision to become reality through popular support for degrowth and an end to the capitalist system?
ReplyDelete(a) either when the powers in charge realise that a handful of councillors and the odd political figure here and there is ineffectual and something more visible is required
ReplyDeleteor (b) when they 'main-stream' like some European Green Parties and attract more general so-called middle-class attention.
(a) could lead to more involvement in a variety of campaigns and actions and progressive acknowledgement at the ballot box
(b) would probably entail a watering-down of anything regarded as radical or 'anti-current-system' and might attract voting patterns similar to what the LibDems have been doing.
Both versions would benefit from scrapping FPTP and are therefore currently fairy-tales for grown-ups.