Saturday, February 17, 2007
Sharing the Blame - Masking the Reality
Just wanted to flag up Jeremy Seabrook's excellent recent Guardian article. He really puts his finger on something that has been nagging away at me for a while - something I couldn't articulate.
Whenever I see reports on environmental degradation on BBC News (or, I suppose, any other channel) I'm irritated by the tone of the report, which, inevitably suggests that we are all, somehow, to blame. The reporter almost always affects a kind of downbeat presenting style which implies a kind of representative penitence - as if he or she is speaking for us all and that we all ought to be blooming well disappointed with ourselves. The guilt, it is implied, is a collective, human guilt - 'oh', the reporter, seems to sigh, 'we flawed humans had better change our ways... dear, dear, yes we had'. I always think of 'orginal sin' when I see these reports - as if the media think that environmental degradation stems from humanity's in-built tendency to be bad. Of course, the attribution of guilt to humanity collectively - the attribution of guilt to our 'human nature' - effectively lets those who may be more guilty than others off the hook. In fact, I think it's unhelpful to point the finger at individuals - it's better to point to social structures, ways of living, ways of producing and consuming. It is these things that we should identify when we look around for something to blame (and change, one hopes) - and it is the reality that these things are to blame for environmental destruction that the media's attribution of guilt to 'human nature', effectively obscures.
Seabrook writes:
"The almost universal recognition of the potential disaster of climate change... ascribes the causes to "humanity". Human activity, mankind, man - these generalised entities have been the great reshapers of the planet and its fragile atmosphere. This dispersal of blame diffuses responsibility, and permits the culprits to embed themselves in the global population to escape the consequences of their actions.
....
An inclusive first person plural is always invoked when the world faces catastrophe. It is rarely in evidence when the "fruits" of wealth-creation are being distributed. We are all in this together. Both rich and poor are threatened. There is nowhere to hide from global warming. Every country must be "on board", on the far from agreeable voyage to a future land of sustainable harmony.
The "we" - the bogus unity invoked by privilege - masks the reality, namely, that the poor are going to pay disproportionately to put right wrongs of which they have never been beneficiaries.
....
To efface the "footprint" of "mankind" upon the earth would require a contraction, or at least a different kind of economic activity, one which ensures a more modest use of, and more equitable distribution of, resources. This is the most frightening prospect the leaders of the rich world can imagine; even though it might guarantee a secure sufficiency to the hungry and wanting of earth and serve as cure for the excesses, addictions and violence of those who have more than enough.
This is indeed a pivotal moment. Decisions made now may well determine the fate of the earth and all its peoples. But to provide for the sustenance of the poor remains the most urgent priority. It is disingenuous to give way to lachrymose exaltations about the fate of humankind and our menaced habitat, while not addressing the cruelty of a world economy worth $60 trillion annually, which leaves hundreds of millions to expire in sight of global plenty, even while the rich look in vain for ever more expensive and marginal pleasures to augment their value-added discontents."
I read Seabrook's peice and thought 'Yes, that's exactly it. That's what it is'. This discourse of collective human guilt in relation to impending ecological disaster is, of course, only the latest manifestation of one of the central ideological props of liberalism/capitalism. Liberalism tends to obscure the material differences between people through the trumpeting of some abstract, formal and largely fictitious equality between 'citizens'. Class differences, actual inequalities of wealth and power, are surreptitiously removed from the political frame of reference. The attribution of guilt to humanity in terms of global warming and so on, function along the same lines. The poor, the starving, the disenfranchised are all equally as much to blame as SUV drivers, frequent flyers and etc since the ideological gendarmerie of capitalism have no desire to point the finger at the real culprits.
Whenever I see reports on environmental degradation on BBC News (or, I suppose, any other channel) I'm irritated by the tone of the report, which, inevitably suggests that we are all, somehow, to blame. The reporter almost always affects a kind of downbeat presenting style which implies a kind of representative penitence - as if he or she is speaking for us all and that we all ought to be blooming well disappointed with ourselves. The guilt, it is implied, is a collective, human guilt - 'oh', the reporter, seems to sigh, 'we flawed humans had better change our ways... dear, dear, yes we had'. I always think of 'orginal sin' when I see these reports - as if the media think that environmental degradation stems from humanity's in-built tendency to be bad. Of course, the attribution of guilt to humanity collectively - the attribution of guilt to our 'human nature' - effectively lets those who may be more guilty than others off the hook. In fact, I think it's unhelpful to point the finger at individuals - it's better to point to social structures, ways of living, ways of producing and consuming. It is these things that we should identify when we look around for something to blame (and change, one hopes) - and it is the reality that these things are to blame for environmental destruction that the media's attribution of guilt to 'human nature', effectively obscures.
Seabrook writes:
"The almost universal recognition of the potential disaster of climate change... ascribes the causes to "humanity". Human activity, mankind, man - these generalised entities have been the great reshapers of the planet and its fragile atmosphere. This dispersal of blame diffuses responsibility, and permits the culprits to embed themselves in the global population to escape the consequences of their actions.
....
An inclusive first person plural is always invoked when the world faces catastrophe. It is rarely in evidence when the "fruits" of wealth-creation are being distributed. We are all in this together. Both rich and poor are threatened. There is nowhere to hide from global warming. Every country must be "on board", on the far from agreeable voyage to a future land of sustainable harmony.
The "we" - the bogus unity invoked by privilege - masks the reality, namely, that the poor are going to pay disproportionately to put right wrongs of which they have never been beneficiaries.
....
To efface the "footprint" of "mankind" upon the earth would require a contraction, or at least a different kind of economic activity, one which ensures a more modest use of, and more equitable distribution of, resources. This is the most frightening prospect the leaders of the rich world can imagine; even though it might guarantee a secure sufficiency to the hungry and wanting of earth and serve as cure for the excesses, addictions and violence of those who have more than enough.
This is indeed a pivotal moment. Decisions made now may well determine the fate of the earth and all its peoples. But to provide for the sustenance of the poor remains the most urgent priority. It is disingenuous to give way to lachrymose exaltations about the fate of humankind and our menaced habitat, while not addressing the cruelty of a world economy worth $60 trillion annually, which leaves hundreds of millions to expire in sight of global plenty, even while the rich look in vain for ever more expensive and marginal pleasures to augment their value-added discontents."
I read Seabrook's peice and thought 'Yes, that's exactly it. That's what it is'. This discourse of collective human guilt in relation to impending ecological disaster is, of course, only the latest manifestation of one of the central ideological props of liberalism/capitalism. Liberalism tends to obscure the material differences between people through the trumpeting of some abstract, formal and largely fictitious equality between 'citizens'. Class differences, actual inequalities of wealth and power, are surreptitiously removed from the political frame of reference. The attribution of guilt to humanity in terms of global warming and so on, function along the same lines. The poor, the starving, the disenfranchised are all equally as much to blame as SUV drivers, frequent flyers and etc since the ideological gendarmerie of capitalism have no desire to point the finger at the real culprits.
Labels: Capitalism, Ecology, Jeremy Seabrook
Wednesday, January 17, 2007
Capitalism and the Ecological Crisis
When I attended the Socialist Register session on ecological crisis at the Historical Materialism conference recently I carted along with me a certain prejudice. I expected to be told that capitalism could find no solution to this crisis - but I was wrong. As I reported in a previous post at least one speaker, Daniel Buck, suggested that capitalism might well find a 'solution' to the fossil fuel pollution/global warming crisis under the pressure of looming catastrophe. As far as I remember, none of the other speakers claimed that capitalism was completely unable to dig itself out of the hole it has dug itself into. It may seem strange, but I found this deeply disappointing. The notion that capitalism is driving us to disaster and that the very logic of this system prevents us from finding a solution while we remain within its confines has become akind of anchor - the anchor in fact - which keeps me at least loosely tied to the idea that a complete alternative to capitalism is both necessary and possible. It is possible simply because it is necessary (if you see what I mean). Without this thought at the back of my head - the assumption that sooner or later humanity is going to be forced out of sheer necessity to throw off the sick (and sickening) system that we currently live under if it wants to survive - I'm afraid that capitalism must stretch on and on into the endless future.
That's why I want to get this sorted out asap. If anyone knows of any good books from a left perspective which come to a firm conclusion on this matter I'd like to know of them. Can you, dear reader, recommend one?
While I'm on the subject, the Socialist Register has put three new essays online (at least two of them are from the current edition of the journal). They are excellent. One of them at least (by Barbara Harriss-White with Elinor Harriss) comes to the firm conclusion that capitalism cannot fix the problem it has created - so let's cut to the conclusion - one that I find (perversely) pleasing and a source of hope:
Capitalism is not fixing the environment. It is not able to, either in theory or in historical practice. [ftnote*] Market-driven politics has ensured that renewable energy remains far from the point where it might start to form any kind of technological base, either for an alternative model of capitalist development (in the UK or in an engagement with large developing countries which are about to enter a highly polluting phase of industrialisation...), or for the remoralised and equitable allocations argued for by Altvater. In energy, there is no sign of the politics able to generate a new kind of social, non-market regulation of money and nature. Sustainable capitalism is a fiction and the politics of renewable energy are merely a reflection of the fiction.
* Not in theory because of the logic and thermodynamics of capitalist growth; not in practice because of its path dependence; and because of the contradiction between the pace of physical system dynamics and that of the global economy.
That's why I want to get this sorted out asap. If anyone knows of any good books from a left perspective which come to a firm conclusion on this matter I'd like to know of them. Can you, dear reader, recommend one?
While I'm on the subject, the Socialist Register has put three new essays online (at least two of them are from the current edition of the journal). They are excellent. One of them at least (by Barbara Harriss-White with Elinor Harriss) comes to the firm conclusion that capitalism cannot fix the problem it has created - so let's cut to the conclusion - one that I find (perversely) pleasing and a source of hope:
Capitalism is not fixing the environment. It is not able to, either in theory or in historical practice. [ftnote*] Market-driven politics has ensured that renewable energy remains far from the point where it might start to form any kind of technological base, either for an alternative model of capitalist development (in the UK or in an engagement with large developing countries which are about to enter a highly polluting phase of industrialisation...), or for the remoralised and equitable allocations argued for by Altvater. In energy, there is no sign of the politics able to generate a new kind of social, non-market regulation of money and nature. Sustainable capitalism is a fiction and the politics of renewable energy are merely a reflection of the fiction.
* Not in theory because of the logic and thermodynamics of capitalist growth; not in practice because of its path dependence; and because of the contradiction between the pace of physical system dynamics and that of the global economy.
Labels: Capitalism, Ecology
Thursday, December 14, 2006
Bean-Counters Will Not Save the Planet
Derek Wall has a very interesting critique of the Stern Review in this month's Red Pepper. I recommend that you read it.
"Stern’s solution to climate change will make the average economist swoon. Sir Nicholas and his team have reached for their micro economic textbooks in the way that a Midwest preacher would reach for the bible. Economists are not centrally concerned with the ‘end of civilisation’ as we know it, social justice or ecological sustainability. They are out to maximise ‘welfare’. Conventional economics is based on utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. Costs must be minimised and ‘benefits’ maximised. Costs and benefits are measured in cash terms. Where supply and demand curves meet, overall benefits are maximised.
Viewed in these terms, environmental problems come down to unpaid costs. For example, the motorist pays the private cost of the car, petrol and other expenses of keeping on the road but does not pay for the ecological and social costs of car use. Economists argue that by calculating the monetary costs to society of pollution, congestion and the other ills from car use, and then making the motorist pay, efficiency can be restored.
Stern takes this approach. Climate change costs money, the cost can be measured and added to the price of all the things we do that lead to climate change. If consumers choose to pay and continue wrecking the planet, so be it."
There was a discussion of 'ecosocialism' at the HM conference I went to a few days ago, to mark the launch of the Socialist Register 2007, which, this year, focuses on the (rather pressing!) issue of ecological crisis. One of the the questions the participants addressed was that of whether capitalism could find any solution to the looming environmental crisis. Interestingly the various speakers disagreed about this - at least one, Daniel Buck, suggested that capitalism might well find a 'solution' to the fossil fuel pollution/global warming crisis under the pressure of looming catastrophe (incentive and all that). He did suggest, however, that this solution would come at the cost of the further commodification of the environment, of the further exacerbation of international inequalities and would involve a significantly authoritarian dimension. The other participants disagreed. I'll see if I can write this up more fully in a few days. Really busy at the moment. I've got loads of notes on the Harvey/Glyn/Clarke plenary session on Chinese growth and the global economy (in which Harvey, in particular, was fantastic) which I hope to write up in some detail on this blog when I get a chance. The gist of the Harvey argument was that the rate of over-accumulation and developing over-capacity in China is of huge proportions - in his words it's absolutely 'scary'. He brought in his notion of 'spatial fix' - the idea that capital must continually expand in spatial terms and colonise new territory in order to avert crisis - in a really interesting way.
"Stern’s solution to climate change will make the average economist swoon. Sir Nicholas and his team have reached for their micro economic textbooks in the way that a Midwest preacher would reach for the bible. Economists are not centrally concerned with the ‘end of civilisation’ as we know it, social justice or ecological sustainability. They are out to maximise ‘welfare’. Conventional economics is based on utilitarianism, the greatest good for the greatest number. Costs must be minimised and ‘benefits’ maximised. Costs and benefits are measured in cash terms. Where supply and demand curves meet, overall benefits are maximised.
Viewed in these terms, environmental problems come down to unpaid costs. For example, the motorist pays the private cost of the car, petrol and other expenses of keeping on the road but does not pay for the ecological and social costs of car use. Economists argue that by calculating the monetary costs to society of pollution, congestion and the other ills from car use, and then making the motorist pay, efficiency can be restored.
Stern takes this approach. Climate change costs money, the cost can be measured and added to the price of all the things we do that lead to climate change. If consumers choose to pay and continue wrecking the planet, so be it."
There was a discussion of 'ecosocialism' at the HM conference I went to a few days ago, to mark the launch of the Socialist Register 2007, which, this year, focuses on the (rather pressing!) issue of ecological crisis. One of the the questions the participants addressed was that of whether capitalism could find any solution to the looming environmental crisis. Interestingly the various speakers disagreed about this - at least one, Daniel Buck, suggested that capitalism might well find a 'solution' to the fossil fuel pollution/global warming crisis under the pressure of looming catastrophe (incentive and all that). He did suggest, however, that this solution would come at the cost of the further commodification of the environment, of the further exacerbation of international inequalities and would involve a significantly authoritarian dimension. The other participants disagreed. I'll see if I can write this up more fully in a few days. Really busy at the moment. I've got loads of notes on the Harvey/Glyn/Clarke plenary session on Chinese growth and the global economy (in which Harvey, in particular, was fantastic) which I hope to write up in some detail on this blog when I get a chance. The gist of the Harvey argument was that the rate of over-accumulation and developing over-capacity in China is of huge proportions - in his words it's absolutely 'scary'. He brought in his notion of 'spatial fix' - the idea that capital must continually expand in spatial terms and colonise new territory in order to avert crisis - in a really interesting way.
Labels: Ecology, Historical Materialism, Red Pepper, Stern Review
