Against the geoengineering techno-fix

The main issue with the concept of Antropocene is that it doesn’t give specific indications about the real roots of global environmental changes. Because of that, even individuals deeply concerned by climate change and other environmental degradation might end up advocating “false good ideas” and techno fixes, such as geoengineering. Geoengineering, or climate engineering, refers to “deliberate large-scale intervention in the Earth’s natural systems to counteract climate change” (1). It consists mainly in two categories: Solar geoengineering and Carbon geoengineering. Solar Radiation Management techniques aim to decrease temperature rise caused by increased greenhouse gases emissions by reflecting or blocking a small proportion of the Sun’s energy. Regarding Carbon geoengineering, Carbon dioxide Removal techniques consist in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere in order to decrease greenhouse effect and ocean acidification (1).

Paul Crutzen, the scientist who coined the term Anthropocene, considers geoengineering as a possible “plan B” to solve climate change and proposes stratospheric aerosol injection (of sulfate aerosols) as a means to block a portion of the sun’s radiation and cool Earth (2). Such an idea is inspired by volcano Pinatubo which injected 20 megatons of sulfur dioxide gas into the stratosphere during an eruption in 1991, producing a sulfate aerosol cloud that has caused global cooling for a couple of years (3). Crutzen is not an isolated case, other respected climate scientists adopt the same position, such as Tom Wigley, who published a study advocated the same approach in combination with mitigation (reductions in greenhouse gas emissions) (4).

Even at the global level, geoengineering is starting to be considered. For instance the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the U.N-convened group has mentioned geoengineering in the final paragraph of its 2013 ‘Summary for Policymakers’. The IPPC represents the consensus position of the international scientific community, thus suggesting that geoengineering is now on the scientific agenda (5). Piers Foster, climate-change researcher and one of the authors of the summary says that we will have to consider the option of geoengineering if we do not start reducing emissions (6) Ken Caldeira, climate researcher and geoengineering proponent sees the inclusion of geoengineering in the IPCC report as “a reflection of growing governmental interest in these ideas” (5).

Thus, it is time to take geoengineering seriously. International norms should be put into place and governments should research the risks of this plan B before considering unproven technofixes as viable options. We should also be careful about research and tests on geoengineering. Indeed, as Naomi Klein demonstrates in ‘This Changes everything”, research might lead to implementation: Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed less than a month after the first successful nuclear test.

The National Academy of Sciences released a study in 2015 on albedo modification (reflecting sunlight away from the planet) and carbon sequestration. They concluded unequivocally that we cannot geoengineer our way out the climate crisis and that scientists have no clue what geoengineering would really do to the planet (7). Its authors even chose to opt for the term “climate intervention” instead of using “geoengineering” because they felt that “’engineering’ implied a level of control that is illusory”. In “20 reasons geoengineering might be a bad idea”, climatologist Alan Robock also argues that the cure of geoengineering will be worse than the disease of climate change (3). Some of the worst consequences listed that stratospheric injection of sulfate aerosols would have are (3): adverse effects on regional climate (potentially reducing precipitation and creating drought); increased ozone depletion; greater acid deposition that would harm the ecosystem, affect public health and potentially exceed biological thresholds, bringing unknown consequences. Broader worrying consequences to geoengineering include (3): potential human errors in the design and operation of such complex mechanical systems; the stress produced on ecosystems and society in case of abrupt shift in deployment that would cause rapid climate warming; incapacity to go back or stop effects caused by geoengineering; potentially high costs that could be used instead for clean energy, energy efficiency and other investments. Other issues concern the commercial control of technology and the potential military use of the technology that may aspire to control nature. In our capitalist system, if it is not governments but private companies that end up controlling geoengineering systems, there would be the risk that shareholder profits are valued over the public good (3). Geoengineering sounds like a really undemocratic idea. Even if governments end up being the ones controlling the technology, it doesn’t sound democratic to impose to the Earth’s citizens such risky human interventions on nature. The question of how multiple governments would unanimously agree to start climate intervention also arises. In a context of climate change historically caused by industrialized nations, it sounds unfair for the Global South to even consider a risky plan B to tackle climate change. Considering geoengineering is a way to refuse considerably cutting down greenhouse gases emissions and to move away from solutions that would enable global climate justice. Thinking about geoengineering as an option may actually undermine mitigation. The discussion shifts from reducing emissions to emitting as much while sucking up CO2 (5). It encourages emitters and ‘business as usual’ to carry on and it is a solution in the service of capitalism.

The concept of Capitalocene can be helpful here because it shows that if it is our model of development that is largely responsible for climate change and other environmental changes, more capitalism (with more growth and technology) cannot be the solution to solve the problem it has caused. The term of Capitalocene gives the indication that techno-fixes aren’t real solutions and that it is urgent to question our economic system, model of development and way of life that are unsustainable if we wish to cut down emissions. Pete Smith, a University of Aberdeen professor said “if we go into thinking we can continue to emit as we are at the moment, and these negative emissions technologies (geoengineering) are there and they’re going to save us in the future, I think that’s extremely risky” (8). The priority should be to find real alternatives and sustainable ways of development that would ensure global justice. In 2010, the World Peoples’ Conference on Climate Change and the Rights of Mother Earth, held in Bolivia brought together more than 25,000 citizens and produced a People’s Agreement (with the contribution of seventeen working groups) which explicitly refused geoengineering as a solution to tackle climate change (5).  

Soon, it will be time to decide which direction we choose to go.

Merry (environmentally unfriendly) Christmas!

Over the Christmas holiday’s period, I couldn’t help but notice the frenzy of consumption surrounding Christmas. I am found of Christmas for its festive, warm and giving atmosphere but it seems to me that it is nowadays more characterized by collective buying, consuming and wasting.  Christmas has become a materialistic orgy where conforming to social expectations means over-consuming. US theologians Richard Horsley and James Tracy found that Christmas is seen as demonstrating a ‘religion of consumer capitalism’ where religious authority has been given to secular behaviour (1). That time of the year and its intensified consumption can be seen as a perfect illustration of capitalism’s unsustainability. Indeed, Christmas comes at a high environmental price, that geographer Raymond Bryant even qualifies of “world’s greatest annual environmental disaster” (2). Christmas is the heart of capitalism, giving rhythm to production and consumption, boosting profit and making our economic system increasingly dependent on this festive period. In the UK for instance, one day of Christmas waste includes: more than a billion Christmas cards delivered; 52 square miles of wrapping paper; 125,000 tons of plastic packaging; almost 5 million of trees thrown away; 40% of the festive food wasted (while shops sell 16 million turkeys) (3). Christmas accounts for 5.5% of annual household carbon dioxide emissions when it amounts to less than 1% of the year (4). A study has also found that if unwanted gifts were not bought in the first place, the carbon footprint of Christmas shopping would be reduced by 80 kg CO2 emissions per person (5). The festive period can be seen as a sign of the absurdity of our capitalist system and of his threat to the environment. 

But making Christmas green might turn out to be more difficult than we think.

Before the industrial revolution, Christmas was more about handmade gifts that were indicative of the bond between the giver and the receiver. Now, Christmas gifts are often impersonal commodities that are turned into gifts through psychological marketing tricks such as gift-wrapping and Santa Claus (4). A research from academics at the Australian Centre for Cultural Environmental Research (University of Wollongong) has found that gifting is so paramount in shaping social relations and bounds in our individualistic world that even ‘green consumers’ are often driven by consumerism at that time of the year and see newly purchased commercial goods as the most suitable gifts (5).

It seems like it is time to stop associating showing love with buying stuff and Christmas with overconsumption if we wish to save the planet. Christmas should stop being about over-consumption and focus instead on its festive, joyful and loving side. Dr Gary Haq, from the Stockholm Environment Institute (SEI-Y) and coordinator of the Climate Talk project (that raises awareness of climate change issues), said that “with a bit of thought and planning, we can limit our impact and still have a good Christmas but one which is both kinder to the planet and to our pocket” (6). Haq’s research team at SEI-Y calculated that three days of Christmas festivities could result in as much as 650 kg of CO2 emissions per person but that we could reduced it by up to 60% with some changes in food, travel, lighting and shopping (6). For a low-carbon Christmas they advice: buying local and organic food, composting food (low waste), having a vegetarian Christmas; reducing distance travelled, car sharing or using environmentally friendly modes of transport; using less extravagant display of lights and turning it off at night; not sending Christmas cards or recycling them, not buying unwanted Christmas gifts, buying quality for presents not quantity and/or giving alternative gifts (such as charity or non-material gifts). 

This Christmas, I have started this slow revolution and made my first small step by making my first creative handmade Christmas gifts!

“Energy efficiency: the win-win solution to climate change?”

Advocates of green capitalism often believe that energy efficiency will be the answer (or at least one of the main answers) to solving climate change. As energy consumption is one of the main causes of greenhouse gas emissions, it is indeed paramount to decrease global energy use. Energy efficiency represents a perfect solution for many because it would preserve social and economic development of countries (growth-based development) while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. “Energy efficiency” seems to be the buzzword for corporations, nations and global organisations that want to fix climate change. For instance, the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) actively promotes energy efficiency investments for climate change mitigation and sustainable development and describes energy efficiency as “one of the priority fields in the energy economic and climate change policies of many countries globally” (1). Techno-optimists affirm that technological innovation alone can solve a large part of environmental problems (2). Thus, we could achieve material abundance globally through economic growth and solve environmental issues at the same time thanks to technological advancement.

Even though such an idea seems seductive, it seems illusory to me to believe that energy efficiency without sufficiency can represent a credible promise to solve climate change.

One main issue with energy sufficiency seems to be the effect of “rebound consumption”: when increased consumption cancels out energy savings because increase in efficiency can make demand goes up because of price reduction (3). This “rebound effect” was first introduced by William Stanley Jevons as the Jevons Paradox in 1865, in application to the coal sector. Jevons maintained that technological efficiency gains in the use of coal in engines (economical use of coal) increased the overall coal consumption instead of saving it (4). This phenomenon observed with coal works with other resources, even energy. Many countries have seen their energy consumption and carbon output increase despite huge investments in energy efficiency aiming to reduce greenhouse emissions (3). The United States, for instance, has doubled its energy efficiency since 1975 but has seen its energy consumption rise greatly (2). “Rebound effect” happens in capitalist societies because savings in energy are used to stimulate increase in goods and new capital formation, thus demanding greater resources and increasing ecological destruction (2). Dr Samuel Alexander, from the Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, argues that rebound effects and the inherent structure of growth economics make absolute decoupling (a decline in the global ecological impact of total economic output) through efficiency gains highly unlikely to occur (5).

If it is unlikely for energy efficiency to enable the promised win-win situation (of continued growth-based development and reduction of greenhouse gases emissions), perhaps we should start thinking of coupling efficiency with material sufficiency and going towards a 'post-growth’ economy.

Can capitalism ever be "green"?

The concept of Capitalocene is useful when one need to think about potential answers to the current environmental crisis. By pointing out the responsibility of capitalism in the global environmental changes, it tells us something more: capitalism dynamics destroy the environment therefore answers to environmental destruction should not be looked for within capitalism. But what about green capitalism some might wonder? It has long been believed (and still broadly is) that “green” or “sustainable capitalism” is the way to go to fix the climate and other environmental issues.

However, green capitalism sounds more like an oxymoron and it has not produce results so far. The centrality of the issue is that even a greener version of capitalism remains based on profit-maximisation, endless growth and consumerism, dynamics that destroy the environment.

Richard Smith, author of ‘Green capitalism, the god that failed us’, argues that maximizing profit and saving the planet are inherently in conflict. Under capitalism, CEOs and corporations are not responsible to society but to private shareholders and the aim is to increase profit. In order for capitalism to be truly green, the pursuit of profit should be systematically subordinated to ecological concerns. Even if at times, maximising profit and saving the planet might coincide, the two cannot always be aligned and profit is not likely to be sacrificed for environmental concerns (1).

Another issue with green capitalism is that it does not question the belief of endless growth in a finite planet. Proponents of green capitalism believe that green growth can become sustainable through innovation and technological progress to achieve eco-efficiency. They assume that a decoupling of global environmental pressure and growth is possible, enabling growth to be ever increasing without impacting the environment anymore. However, despite relative decoupling (decline in the ecological impact per unit of ecological output) observed in some countries, permanent absolute decoupling (decline in overall ecological impact of total economic output) that would guarantee the sustainability of growth remains elusive and might turn out to be impossible (2). The UK Sustainable Development Commission, a senior government advisory body, has reported that developed countries should cease growth because “there is, as yet, no credible, socially just, ecologically sustainable scenario of continually growing incomes for a world of nine billion people”. It argues that economic growth cannot be separated from over-exploitation of natural resources and environmental degradation (3). Despite technological development in the last decades, environmental impacts (carbon emissions, extraction of renewable and non-renewable resources etc) are still increasing. In a growth-orientated economy, efficiency gains tend to be negated by further growth. Indeed, efficiency gains are almost always reinvested not into reducing production and consumption but into increasing them. As a result, efficiency gains achieved through technological progress or innovation leads to an overall increase, or at least no reduction, of resource and energy consumption (4).

In addition, green capitalism does not question our high consumption lifestyle but just aims to replace goods and services by “green” products and services. Green or not, manufacturing requires use of energy and our global consumer culture is unsustainable, especially in the context of increasing population rates. Consumerism is part of the environmental issue and the idea of buying stuff to express one’s identity or to increase happiness should be challenged. Critics of green consumerism argue that in order to reduce carbon footprint, there is the need to significantly reduce one’s consumption of goods and services (5).

The answer to global environmental changes should not be limited to the ‘greening’ of capitalism, without questioning the dynamics of endless growth, consumerism and profit-maximisation. It seems more relevant to go beyond the growth model and to open up broader political and social debates in order to find real alternatives (6). But as Fredric Jameson states it, “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”.

Growthocene

In my previous article, I wrote about the dynamics of capitalism that lead to environmental destruction. I want to stress that it does not mean that capitalism is the only economic system that harms the environment. I use the notion of Capitalocene because capitalism is our current global economical system and it structures the world we live in. For these reasons, I believe it is still useful to talk about Capitalocene and the dynamics of capitalism because suggesting that it is capitalism and not all of humanity that is responsible for the current ecological and social crisis can help us find more appropriate and pertinent solutions.

However, it actually seems more accurate to talk about Growthocene because it broadens the notion of Capitalocene: Growthocene states that what needs to be challenged and criticised is the growth of biophysical throughput, continuous capital accumulation and productivism as well as the perpetual aim for quantitative expansion of economies (measured in GDP) (1). Such a concept enables us to take into account the environmental destruction made by non-capitalist systems and to understand that productivism (the growth of production) is not sustainable in a finite planet, whatever forms it takes. 

A striking example is the one of the former Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc. Even though they were communist and not capitalist systems, they still damaged the environment because industrial production (productivism) was key to their economies. For instance, the Soviet Union is responsible for the drying up of the Aral Sea, that U.N Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon described in 2010 as “one of the planet’s worst environmental disasters” (2) . 

The size of the Aral Sea has been shrinking since the 1960s (by 2007, it had shrunk to 10% of its original size) as a result of an economic plan by the Soviet Union to divert the rivers feeding the Aral Sea in order to irrigate the desert in Uzbekistan. The aim of that plan was to develop cotton production to boost economic growth. In addition, the Soviet Union also contaminated the region by using it for industrial projects, pesticides and fertilisers dumping as well as biological weapons testing. The Soviet Union that started in the 1920s led to massive environmental destruction because its aim was industrialization at all costs to compete with the western capitalist block. Many of the former Soviet countries have excessive pollution levels (air pollution, earth and groundwater contamination) due to former industrialisation (including chemical-weapons production), mining, petroleum production and radioactive activities. (3)

Thus, it is the notion of productivism and strive to growth in their broad sense, not only limited to the context of capitalism, that have to be challenged when thinking about environmental damages.

What are the dynamics of capitalism that destroy the environment?

It seems that the roots of most global environmental changes and degradation are linked to capitalism. I think it is interesting to look at the dynamics of capitalism because it helps notice how the core tenets of capitalism are inherently bad for the environment. The main traits of capitalism that makes it the biggest enemy to the environment are endless growth (driven by productivism and consumerism), accumulation of capital and profit-maximisation, and the constant need for raw materials and resource extraction.

The capitalist system, defined as an economic system based on production for profit in a competitive market, must expand and grow in order to remain stable. To do so, it relies on the production of goods and services in order to make profits and accumulate capital (through saving and investment), which drives endless growth. In such a system, consumption is key: indeed, insufficient consumption leads to decrease in demands for production; decrease in production leads to decrease in profit; economic growth slows down as a result and such a situation, in turn, increases unemployment. Thus, endless growth of production and consumption is paramount in a capitalist system to maintain stability, produce employment (1). The capitalist system actively promotes consumerism in order to maintain the system and considers individuals as consumers. 

The goal of capitalism is to maximise profits and that can be achieved not only by expanding production, but also by minimising costs (labour and resources) and maximising production (achieved by increased efficiency thanks to technological innovation) (2). In order to minimise costs, there is a constant search for cheaper sources and cheaper labour. In order to grow, capital seeks to expand markets and access to natural resources for raw materials to maintain the rate of production. Historically, capitalism has used colonisation for natural resources exploitation and industrial development was based on cheap fossil energy and cheap raw materials. Despite decolonisation, capitalism still manages to rely on exploitation of global south natural resources (3). We use today 50% more natural resources than 30years ago and use 60 billion tonnes of raw material per year. Because of unsustainable patterns of consumption and production, overall resource use is still increasing despite resource efficiency (4). 

Endless growth and minimising costs for greater profit is destroying the environment. Endless growth in a finite planet is not sustainable. Infinite growth means always greater consumption and production levels, which put a strain on the environment. Growth in industrialised countries has been associated with increased and unsustainable level of greenhouse gases emissions, depletion of natural resources and pollution of many sorts. The Earth is made of resources that are limited forever to the supply that currently exists (oil, gas and minerals) and resources that are finite but can be renewed by natural processes (such as forests and fisheries). The water, soil and air of the biosphere can carry on functioning well if pollution doesn’t exceed their limited capacity to deal with the pollutants. The problem is that capitalism exhausts irreversibly those natural resources and the pollution and overexploitation it generates is greater than what the ecosystem can assimilate. The scale of capitalism now overshoots the fundamental planetary boundaries (5). Continued endless growth in industrial output requires more and more use of resources and produce more waste and pollution. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide emissions (primarily due to the combustion of fossil fuels) have risen dramatically (6). Now that capitalism is our current global economic system and that Global South countries have also adopted growth-based development, it has brought even higher unsustainable levels of carbon dioxide emissions that are responsible for unprecedented fast climate change (7). 

In such a system, nature is also viewed as unlimited and priceless in such a system: when nature is considered invaluable, attributing a price to it is tricky and therefore it is often considered free (8). In addition, capital works on a short-term vision and in this way is not adapted to long-term vision of nature and sustainability goals.

It seems that capitalism is not sustainable by its very nature, as it is predicated on endless growth with high level of consumption, production and the constant expansion of markets (9). As Kenneth E. Boulding has said, “anyone who believes that exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist”.

Ecological unequal exchange and ecological debt

The notions of Ecological unequal exchange and ecological debt are central to understanding the Capitalocene. Indeed, those notions show the extend of the exploitation of nature by the capitalist system. They also help in explaining how the western industrialised countries hold responsibility for the profound global environmental changes.
The concept of ecological unequal exchange is built on the notion of ‘unequal exchange’, developed in the 1960s and 1970s by authors such as Samir Amin and Arghiri Emmanuel as part of underdevelopment theories. The argument of ‘unequal exchange’ is that, in the capitalist world-system, there is an exploitation of underdeveloped countries by developed countries taking place through international trade and the exchange of commodities (1). The exchange is unequal because rich countries have created an international division of labour in which they exploit the labour force of underdeveloped countries where wages are lower. Underdeveloped countries generally export commodities that contain more labour time than the goods that developed countries export, but as trade is mainly focused on monetary value such a difference is often not taken into account. This theory of ‘unequal exchange’ showed the disparity between the market price of a commodity and its hidden contained amount of labour resource. This exploitation has taken two forms: originally during colonialism and then as part of unequal exchange of free trade.

The notion of ecological unequal exchange extends this notion of unequal flows to flows of natural resources, energy and waste. It reveals how there is an unequal exchange happening in the capitalist system in which developed countries disproportionately exploit ecological systems and natural resources of poorer countries for their consumption, use those countries as sinks for the waste of their products and impose negative environmental costs to them (2). Such a use or deterioration of natural resources for the production of commodities is generally not taken into account in the market price of a good and becomes a negative externality that capitalism does not pay for. Generally, it is less developed countries that suffer from such ecological unequal exchanges and they are the ones bearing environmental burdens (such as forest loss, air pollution and water pollution). Thus, developed countries consume a high rate of natural resources and preserve their domestic environmental resources at the expense of poorer countries.

The notion of ecological unequal exchange has led to the idea of ecological debt, stating that the Global North has been accumulated a debt over centuries towards poorer and less developed nations because of the exploitation of their natural resources and ecosystems. It states that they owe an ecological debt in the form of some type of remuneration to poorer countries for the environmental degradation contained in the production of the goods they consume (3).

In the Capitalocene, not all humans are equally responsible for and affected by global environmental changes. The historical development of richer countries and the continuance of their unsustainable way of life is made possible by their exploitation of natural resources of poorer countries and the externalisation of environmental costs to the periphery. Then, the responsibility for global environmental changes should not be attributed to all humans in an undifferentiated way but should be attributed instead to the capitalist economy of the World-system that damages the planet at the expense of poorer countries.