Is Green Capitalism Resistance to Change - Essay Example

?Is 'green capitalism' resistance to change? The recent years have seen an incredible shift in the awareness of the general public. People have become more informed about their due rights and are becoming more active in the protection and conservation of the environment. In this regard, the role of corporations becomes essential. The annals of history are rife with examples of organizations engaged in activities that are debilitating to the environment. Nevertheless the recent times are showing a change in this pattern. The lack of accountability and the failure of these organizations to be socially responsible have generated increasing pressure on law-defaulting organizations to make their business activities greener. This can be exemplified by the fact that if news of organizations committing illegal and harmful activities is aired, hoards of activists and scores of NGOs and environment protecting organizations unanimously raise an outcry against the alleged misdemeanor. The roads are swamped with local residents carrying banners and signs to decry the gutless and unethical practices of the organizations. This comes to establish that the notion of ecologically sustainable development has been replaced by a much more comprehensive concept i.e. economically sustainable development (Green 1999). The damage that has been rendered to the environment as a result of unchecked business activities has driven countries towards the adoption of new concept i.e. green capitalism. This paper looks into the notion of green capitalism and evaluates how well is it faring in the capitalist market. The paper explores the parties that oppose green capitalism and the debates that have arisen out of it. So the question arises that what exactly is green capitalism? Green capitalism has seeped through both the market and the culture, and one can see organizations engaged in promoting a more socially responsible image of themselves. Some of the giants in the industry such as Wal-mart, ExxonMobil and BP can be cited to be producing eco-friendly goods and promulgating slick marketing. Green capitalism has also permeated the highest grades of political power, with President Obama encouraging relentlessly clean energy and green jobs. Green capitalism refers to an approach that buttresses the view that levers of the market can be used to fix the damage that has been caused to the environment in the past (Rogers 2010). There are different views that have arisen regarding green capitalism. Proponents of green capitalism are of the perspective that fossil fuels constitute scare resources and are not going to last forever. These natural resources are going to finish eventually and will also become more expensive as that time approaches. This follows that businesses have to adjust themselves to accomplish more through the limited amount of resources at their disposal. According to green capitalism, usage of lesser resources by both the governments and the businesses would provide benefits not only to the environment but would also have a positive effect on the profits that the companies make. This can be exemplified from the fact that if a company expends less on inputs while trying to make the production process more efficient, the organization can make better outputs and greater margins. Thus, being ‘being ecologically prudent is a surefire way to boost the bottom line’ (Rogers 2010). Governments are starting to trace a link between the progress of the country and the pursuit of green activities by businesses. Don Henry, executive director of the Australian Conservation Foundation (ACF), observes that businesses must realign their practices in accordance with the economically sustainable development to facilitate the movement towards a clean, green economy. He regards that the creation and promotion of a clean green economy would contribute towards the Australia acquiring its fair share of jobs in the future while at the same time bestowing the country with an assortment of economical benefits (Green 1999). Moreover it is emphasized repeatedly by NGOs and organizations working for the conservation of the environment that adhering to the prevention of pollution and environmental degradation policies, companies are able to gain a competitive edge over their rivals. This is because companies who do not comply with these standards are likely to be penalized for their activities if they deteriorate the environment. The business market is being molded by green activists by harnessing the power of competition for the achievement of more environment friendly output. The mind-set shift that corporations are being pressurized to adopt encompasses that corporations regard that competitive advantage and an increase in the shareholder value can be attained through sustainability (Green 1999). This has come to highlight the triple bottom line that is being adopted to promote the values of the stakeholders, which in turn enhancers shareholder value. The triple bottom line, TBL, refers to the three pillars i.e. people, planet and profit. The concept of TBL encompasses the features that make a project or organizations sustainable. Some of these features relate to the social, economic and environmental perspectives of operation. For the operations of an organization to qualify as sustainable activities, they should meet the criterion of the TBL. The environmental aspect is perhaps the most integral cog in the machinery of sustainability because all economic activities make use of the environment and hence exhaust natural resources. The social aspect of the organization’s activities is also significant since all activities must be aimed to be of advantage to the society in the long run. The economic and social dimensions of the operations of the organizations are crucial because the objective of the organizations should not merely be gaining maximum benefit from the organization, but also working for the sustainability of the environment so that the operations can yield benefits to the society for long periods of time; this can be done through the usage of natural resources in an efficient and environmental friendly way. In the absence of continuing financial viability, no sustainability is possible (Galea 2004). Therefore, there is a need to bring together and orchestrate the social, economical and environmental aspects of production in order to promote sustainability (Ratner 2004). Some of the aspects that green capitalism has encouraged are persuasive and provide a logical argument in its favor. For instance, green capitalism supports the notion of biomimcry. The concept of biomimicry relates to the reproduction and copying of the processes that are occurring in the nature into industrial processes. It is a practical term that looks into the nature for providing solutions to problems (Winston 2009). Taking the example of a spider web, one comes to appreciate that the spider derives all its input from the natural environment. Eating bugs provides them the energy and materials needed to spin a web. The web that the spider spins is very strong and durable, just like Kevlar produced in the industries for integration into body armors and providing them extra strength. Spiders spin webs without taking any chemicals or synthetic resources. On the other hand, development of Kevlar products requires large number of synthetic inputs, which contribute to toxic wastes (Kogers 2010). Biomimicry is used in various industries. In swimming, swimsuits have been created that are known as shark suits; these suits have helped to mimic the movement of the sharks in water, thus they provide swimmers faster speed when swimming. Shark suits have also been used by Airbus planes to allow the plane to cut the air more effectively. Winston (2009) asserts that biomimicry can be a vital idea in changing the way organizations conduct business. However not all environmentalists are of the perspective that green capitalism is working. Holmes (2007) observes that one of the greatest challenges that the world today faces is climate change brought about by greenhouse gas emissions. It has been established that tampering with the ecological balance set forth by the nature causes catastrophic changes. This follows that there is a limited range of climatic conditions which need to be maintained for the survival of the human race. History is witness to the fact that human beings have always affected the environment that they had been in. Imperialistic motives of the human race have often driven it to be engaged in illicit activities without taking into account the impact that they may have on the environment. In this regard, the pursuit of profits by corporations, specifically by Anglo-Saxon companies and other corporations of the West, has been pursued with great passion without paying any attention to the impact of these activities on the environment. Holmes (2007) derides the effect that the corporations have had on the environment and contends that in the absence of the dominance of these corporations, there would be greater ecological sustainability. One can appreciate that corporations are engaged in the race for maximizing their profits and beating the competitors in the market without much focus being paid to sustainable production. For instance, most of the cars are a major contributor of greenhouse gas emissions. The trends towards the ownership of private cars over travel by public transport have not developed because we are a society that prefers petrol heads. On the contrary it is the intentional policies of the capitalist governments that are promoting the interests of their shareholders and big masters (Holmes 2007). Mueller and Passadakis (2008) presented 20 theses against green capitalism. They argue that the way economics has unfolded in the recent years is indicative of a decline in the neoliberalphase of capitalism. The typical business activities such as financialisation, deregulation and privatisation are out of order. This gives rise to the need for newer spaces of accumulation and changed regulatory policies by the governments in order to sustain capitalism by corporations. The world is not merely witness to a political and economic crisis. One could appreciate another crisis, i.e. the biocrisis, wreaking havoc in the world. The biocrisis refers to the suicidal disparity and divergence between the ecological mechanisms of the world required to continue and sustain the human race and the need of the capitalistic world to further their own growth constantly. The biocrisis is a serious threat to the survival of human populations, but its repercussions one not only limited to the ecological dimension; rather the crisis extends to the social movements that can be deployed for cutting out the exposed jugular for capitalism to uproot its persistent pursuit of perpetual, devastating progress. Mueller and Passadakis (2008) observe that the only holistic solution that takes into account all these crises that are brewing in the world is the ‘Green New Deal’. This does not address the capitalism that is being used to promote organic agriculture or D.I.Y. windmills. On the contrary the Green New Deal is an initiative which constitutes the new green aspect of capitalism, which in reality is concerned with reaping profits from the gradual ecological reconstruction of some major production aspects like cars, energy etc. Mueller and Passadakis (2008) argue against the notion that green capitalism can serve to reverse the biocrisis and the ecological issues that are threatening the collective survival of the human population as well as biodiversity. In fact, green capitalism seeks to profit from the biocrisis. This follows that green capitalism does not contribute even minimally towards the juxtaposition of the market-driven economy with the humanity and other ideals of conservation of the biosphere. Green capitalism also does not address the welfare of the people. Mueller and Passadakis (2008) contend that the 1930s saw significant ecological drives being undertaken that, due to the pressure from powerful social movements, were able to redistribute power and wealth to the lower ranks of the society. The Green New Deal, as discussed by President Obama and scores of green parties from all over the world, tends to focus more on the welfare of the corporations rather than the people; thus making the initiative non-viable as a sustainable solution to address climate change. The opponents of green capitalism present the argument that it fails to challenge the power and authority of those corporations or governments who are responsible for producing a major proportion of the greenhouse gases. Mueller and Passadakis (2008) strongly rebuke the green capitalist movement for effectively countering the power of large energy companies, airlines, car makers and industrial agriculture; rather green capitalism will channel more money to these organizations and would make small ecological changes that may neither be significant nor promptly enforced. Another consequence of green capitalism is that it would cause the wages of people to stagnate and decline to balance the increasing costs of ecological modernization, since people all over the world have been deprived of their prerogative to bargain for their due rights. Green capitalism gives rise to an authoritarian system of governance and the power to thwart the social unrest that would arise as a consequence of rising costs and falling wages would be in the hands of this system. The poor are more likely not to be included in the decisions involving various matters of the state, giving rise to huge disparities between the classes, and is a serious impediment to the possibility of a good life (Abramsky 2010). All this adds up to the conclusion that green capitalism is resistant to change and will culminate in a disaster from which it would be hard to recuperate from. Green capitalism is also resisted by its opponents because it has the potential to buyout the environmental groups. This follows that the if these groups start playing the role of trade unions, they would set limits to the collective rage of the public and keep it circumvented within the boundaries set forth by capitalist authorities (Mueller and Passadakis 2008). Opponents of green capitalism negate the notion that global warming can be solved by green capitalism. This is because the capitalism part of the initiative is concerned with making profits and taking benefits from all horrible happenings like wars, pollution, human afflictions etc. Capitalism is an untenable and flawed approach to solve the climate crisis (S. T. 2009). Once in every generation one can appreciate the occurrence of a political revolution that transforms the perceptions and actions of people not on a small scale but qualitatively. The issues that are faced by the modern world require a collective response. The utopia that neoliberalism had promised to provide has fallen to pieces before it could even be substantiated. People are expecting reassurances that the demon of global warming can be tamed and climate change can be reversed (Erickson, Stephenson & Williams 2009). However, the thinking that green capitalism can solve the climate crisis will result in a ‘Fortress World Scenario’, where the elites are ‘walled in enclaves, periodically breached by the world’s poor’ (Climate and Capitalism 2009). Climate change can be regarded as a war between the classes, inherited from our ancestors and handed down as a legacy to the future generations. The capitalist economic production puts across the perspective that their assimilation of power and wealth takes precedence over the need for people to live a life free of exploitation. Contemporary climate change is the result of the capitalist interactions and operations of the past, but it has dire consequences for the future, since people are going to pay for it in perpetuity if steps are not taken to halt it. Chomsky articulates the essence of capitalism as the perseverance of the managers belonging to the ‘state-corporate sector on privileging short-term gain for the few over the hope that their grandchildren will have a decent future’ (Climate and Capitalism 2009). Another initiative that has been undertaken to avert climate change has been carbon trading. Carbon trading is the flagship measure put forward by the European Union to manage tackle climate change (Reyes & Gilbertson 2010). Carbon emissions trading is a strategy to reduce the number of emissions of greenhouse gases. The approach depends on public markets to permit producers who have high levels of emissions to trade with those producers who have relatively lower levels of emissions. This helps to keep the total level of emissions within a regulated limit. The approach deals with the reduction of pollution by offering economic incentives to organizations so that they engage in environment friendly activities. People who support carbon trading are of the perspective that it helps to internalize the economic costs levied by climate change. The significance of the process lies in the fact that it imposes a cost on the effects of climate change- an externality that can be used to encourage corporations to be greener. By putting a cost on the carbon emissions, the externality gains a place in the balance sheet of the organization. This cost can be put by two ways, either by taxation or by trading. Taking the latter option, the secret hand of the market directs finance towards the cheapest options that are available for reversing the effects of climate change (Reyes & Gilbertson 2010). However, critics argue that carbon trading has not been successful in countering climate change. One of the mainstream debates that emerge out of carbon trading relates to how its addresses the conversion of ‘unpriced’ pollution to ‘tradable, ownable commodity’ (Reyes & Gilbertson 2010). This simple conversion of pollution digresses from the issue of addressing much more important questions such as where and when the changes required to stem climate change should be made. Moreover the carbon emissions trading concept pursues the ‘cheapest short-term cuts, incentivising quick fixes to patch up outmoded power stations and factories’ instead of working for the implementation of much more important changes (Reyes & Gilbertson 2010). Moreover the initial phase of the EU carbon trading has resulted in huge amounts of profits for the power producers, who have made mammoth unearned financial gains by manipulating through the weaknesses and loopholes in the process. Critics argue that carbon markets have not yielded any advantage since they help to legitimize the escalation of carbon emissions (Bohm & Dahbi 2009). Thus in conclusion, capitalism does not address climate change and does not work for the welfare of the society as a whole. Green capitalism is resistant to change since it does not truly take into account the changes that need to be implemented for the conservation of the environment. It continues to further the interests of the capitalist parties occupying the echelons of social power. Green capitalism is being talked of as the word of the hour required to save the planet, but in fact it is the pioneer of a worldwide class struggle (McNally 2002). In order to reduce the effect of greenhouse gases and climate change, there is a dire need for countries to come together and collaborate for the alleviation of the crises (Deutch, Lauvergeon & Prawiraatmadja 2007). Abramsky and Angelis (2008) sum up the argument for green economy beautifully when they said that it is the change in the context of our individual choices that is going to save the planet. References Abramsky, K & Angelis, MD 2008, ‘Introduction: Energy Crisis (Among Others) Is In The Air’, The Commoner, Issue 13, p. 4. Abramsky, K 2010, Sparking a Worldwide Energy Revolution: Social Struggles in the Transition to a Post-Petrol World, AK Press. Bohm, S & Dahbi, S (eds) 2009, Upsetting the Offset: The Political Economy of Carbon Markets, MayFlyBooks. Climate and Capitalism 2009, Friedman Fantasizes about Green Capitalism, Climate and Capitalism, viewed on 22 January, 2011, Deutch, J, Lauvergeon, A & Prawiraatmadja, W 2007, Energy Security and Climate Change, The Triangle Papers, viewed on 22 January, 2011, Erickson, M, Stephenson, C, Bradley, H & Williams, S 2009, Business in Society, Polity. Galea, C 2004, Teaching Business Sustainability: From theory to practice, Greenleaf Publishing. Green, J 1999, The illusion of green capitalism, Green Left, viewed on 22 January, 2011, Holmes, D 2007, Change the system, not the climate!: a socialist view of global warming, Resistance Books. McNally, D 2002, Another World Is Possible: Globalization and Anti-Capitalism, Arbeiter Ring. Ratner, BD 2004, ‘Sustainability as a Dialogue of Values: Challenges to the Sociology of Development’, Sociological Inquiry, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 50–69. Reyes, O & Gilbertson, T 2010, Carbon Trading: How it Works and Why it Fails, New Left Project, viewed on 22 January, 2011, Rogers, H 2010, The greening of capitalism? International Socialist Review, viewed on 22 January, 2011, S. T. 2009, Green Capitalism Cannot Solve the Climate Crisis, Futurism Now, viewed on 22 January, 2011, Winston, A 2009, Use Biomimicry to Make Better Products (and Companies), Harvard Business Review, viewed on 22 January, 2011, Read More