By Conor Payne
The climate and ecological crisis is an existential threat that’s only becoming more severe – it will increasingly intrude into all areas of life, shaping the economy, geopolitics, and the struggles of the working class and oppressed. In the years and decades to come, we can expect to see growing numbers of refugees; more intense competition and conflict among capitalist states for access to natural resources; sections of the planet becoming virtually uninhabitable; serious disruption to food and water supplies; and more. This also means sharper and more explosive struggles on the climate crisis itself, as well as other struggles where ecological questions play an important role. Many more people, especially young people, will be searching for ideas that offer a way out of the calamity.
The debates around growth that are taking place currently among climate scientists and in the climate movement are an opportunity to do this and for socialists to deepen our understanding of the climate crisis and point a way forward.
Why capitalism can’t find a way out
The capitalist rulers of the world are increasingly openly abandoning any pretence that they will seriously act. The last COP decided essentially nothing. The new Cold War has inaugurated a new scramble for fossil fuel resources. None of the world’s major economies is meeting their already limited climate targets.1 This is not down to mere indifference on their part. Of course, there are powerful corporations whose interest lies in protecting their profits by continuing business as usual, including the fossil fuel companies and others who have huge sway over capitalist governments. However, it is also possible for capitalist states to override the immediate profit interests of the capitalists in the longer term interest of the stability of the capitalist system, and the ecological crisis is definitely now a threat to that system. We may see in the future capitalist governments that have a more serious intent to do this than those in power now.
However, nothing they do will be sufficient because it is clear that the solutions to this crisis cut so fundamentally against the capitalist mode of production as to be impossible for them to implement. To deal with the ecological catastrophe would mean more than clipping the wings of particular corporations or increased intervention by the state into the economy. Instead, a serious programme for this crisis would run contrary to the whole logic of markets, competition and profit. An integrated plan, co-ordinated internationally and transcending the rivalries between different companies and different capitalist states would be needed. But this is impossible for the system to deliver.
As a system based on profit maximisation and on competition, capitalism creates an imperative for each firm to “expand or die’’ and every successful expansion is used to attempt further expansions. There is never a time when a company can be satisfied with its size, the amount it produces etc. This process is also reflected in the competition between different capitalist nation states, especially the imperialist powers, who represent their own capitalist classes on the global stage and seek to expand their own national economies at each other’s expense.
This endless drive for growth means an ever increasing intensification of the exploitation of the earth’s resources in pursuit of the production of ever more commodities. It is clear that dealing with the ecological crisis means, at a minimum, ending this pursuit of continuous growth. But capitalism cannot do this because it’s an inevitable result of the basic mechanisms of the system.
The limits of growth
Endless economic growth – the continual, net increase in the production of goods and services – is in a basic contradiction with the biophysical limitations of the planet because all economic activity ultimately depends on resources taken from the earth and these resources are finite. Reaching the limits of growth is not some far off hypothetical scenario. Planetary boundaries are a theoretical framework used by climate scientists to describe a safe operating space for human activity. They include climate change, ocean acidification, chemical pollution and others. At least six of these nine planetary boundaries have already been crossed.2 We have to reorganise economic activity in line with these limitations. This can’t be done if the overall level of material extraction and throughput continues to increase.
Nor will it be enough to simply replace fossil fuels with renewable energy within the framework of existing production. While the rapid transition to renewable energy is essential, it won’t deal with the broader ecological crisis of which climate change is one, albeit a very significant part. There is a biodiversity crisis, deforestation and desertification, ocean acidification, and these are not simply byproducts of climate change. For example, 90% of biodiversity loss is caused by material extraction itself – habitats lost to deforestation, coral reefs destroyed by deep sea fishing, etc.3 This is a tragedy in itself, but of course, the sustainability of human life also depends on the broader ecosystem.
The ‘green’ industries which have developed are now part of the capitalist drive for ever more material extraction. To give a small example; Balsa wood is a component in wind turbines and increased demand from the West and China led to a huge increase in deforestation in Ecuador, with devastating effects on local indigenous communities, destruction of animal habitats and food sources. Of course, this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t support wind energy, but that we recognise that it can’t be produced in unlimited quantities without environmental impacts.
Unfortunately, improvements in technology won’t solve the problem, as some advocates of ‘green growth’ claim. It is absolutely true that technological advances increase the productivity of human labour and thus allow more to be produced with less material throughput. Many, including on the left, therefore see technology as a way out of the problem of the unsustainability of growth. Technologies such as geo-engineering and carbon capture are looked to as a way of resolving the crisis without having to fundamentally reorder the economy and society. John Kerry has stated that 50% of US emissions reduction targets will be met with technologies which do not currently exist.
Under capitalism, technology tends to increase rather than decrease the use of resources because of the logic of capital accumulation described earlier. More efficient use of energy is used by the capitalists to expand production, thereby increasing the overall amount of resources used. So, there is no reason to be optimistic about capitalism furnishing any technological solutions to the crisis. Under socialism, it would be possible to use the increased efficiency created by technological advances to produce more with less input of energy and materials. However, it should be noted that this only extends the problem of the limits of growth; it doesn’t overcome it.
Moreover, hypothetical technologies that may exist in the future cannot be the basis for a concrete, socialist solution to the climate crisis, which is incredibly urgent and pressing today. We have to base ourselves on an accurate analysis of the real situation and work out what this analysis means for a way forward. It’s clear that there are limits to growth and that those limits have been reached. Continued expansion of the net throughput of energy and raw materials in the world economy is not possible on a sustainable basis.
Capitalist growth and the working class
The capitalist economy does not expand as a response to some organic increased demand; rather, capitalism continuously seeks to increase the demand for commodities in order to continually increase profits. The advertising industry is used to generate artificial demand. Capitalism will seek out new profitable outlets for investment everywhere regardless of whether these result in any useful products at the end. Recently, for example, we’ve seen entirely useless, but ecologically destructive, bubbles such as cryptocurrency and NFTs.
But is growth necessary to increase living standards for working-class people? Under capitalism, growth is used as a way to temporarily suppress the class contradictions of capitalist society by offering some crumbs from the table without impeding the ability of the super-rich ruling class to make more and more profits.
Obviously, capitalism is also beset by regular economic crises, where growth goes into reverse and the cost of these crises is always laid at the feet of the working class through attacks on wages, jobs and public services.
However, much of the growth since the 1970s has been based on the reduction of the share of wealth going to the working class, through privatisation, deregulation and other attacks. This has meant that the material gains for workers, even during periods of boom, were limited, and also largely based on a massive increase in debt. It is an increasing feature that statistical growth in the economy does not relate to discernable improvements for many working-class people.
We should not make the mistake of equating living standards with growth. By breaking with the irrationality and inequality of capitalism, it will be possible to improve the lives of the vast majority while also making production sustainable.
‘Degrowth’ and a socialist programme
The concept of ‘degrowth’ has been developed by environmentalists and socialists, and it is a useful one for thinking about the problem and solution to the environmental crisis. It means a planned, net reduction in the overall level of material extraction and energy use in the economy in order to bring it in line with what is ecologically sustainable. This does not mean, however, that all growth must be rejected.4
It’s important to recognise that degrowth is not possible under capitalism as the drive for continuous growth is intrinsic to the system. That capitalism, because of its contradictions, routinely goes into recession doesn’t alter the fact that the capitalists are continually seeking to expand, and capitalist recessions have nothing to do with the concept of degrowth.
According to climate scientists, eight tonnes per person per year in material consumption is estimated to be what is in line with planetary boundaries. In the lowest income countries, consumption is currently two tonnes per person, while in high income countries it is 28 tonnes per person.5 Much of the climate emissions associated with neo-colonial countries are in fact the production of consumer goods for export to the advanced capitalist world. In the United States, 40% of carbon emissions are linked to the richest 10% of the population and the richest 1% on the planet are responsible for more than double the carbon emissions of the poorest half of humanity.
Clearly, the Global South needs major development, including vital infrastructure, electrification, guaranteeing access to safe drinking water for everyone and much more. This does not mean that what is necessary in these countries is to replicate the destructive forms of capitalist development which have taken place in the rich countries – but to leap past this stage, to grow and develop on a sustainable, socialist basis.
We also know that many people in rich countries do not have enough. They don’t have access to decent housing, healthcare or can’t afford to heat their homes. We need more building of public housing, more development of renewable energy and public transport, the expansion of health and education etc. We must oppose all attempts to scapegoat workers for the climate crisis, to claim we are ‘all’ jointly responsible, or to make the working class pay through ‘Green’ austerity programmes.
Capitalist production today is incredibly wasteful, and eliminating much of its operations can be hugely beneficial, for example planned obsolescence, advertising and unnecessary packaging, luxury goods for the super-rich, the arms industry, food waste and much more. This is what should be central for socialists; cutting out this unnecessary and damaging economic activity that exists for the benefit of the capitalist elite, while expanding where necessary to ensure the needs of workers and the poor are met.
It is still true that the levels of individual consumption in rich countries, even among many working-class people, are not sustainable. Things like mass car ownership and air travel for example, which are taken for granted by many, will have to be phased out.
While on one level this consumption reflects higher living standards than exist elsewhere, we should also recognise that much of this consumption is a result of needs that are generated by capitalist society and how it is organised. A low-paid worker who buys fast fashion that must quickly be replaced is technically ‘consuming more’ but this doesn’t enhance their life in any way. Most workers must drive due to lack of decent public transport. Individual energy use is inflated because there has not been a mass programme to retrofit homes. There are many other examples.
The task of socialist, planned economy faced with this environmental emergency would be to reorganise production to fulfil human needs but also to systematically eliminate these artificial needs created by capitalism and put production and consumption on a new, sustainable basis. Of course these changes should be carried out through democratic discussion, not fiat from above.
Ecosocialism
It is not possible for us to say exactly what changes will be needed as part of a socialist ecological transition, but it will definitely include the development of expanded and fare-free public transport, mass retrofitting of homes, conversion of environmentally destructive industries and the development of renewable energy and a just transition which guarantees that workers and poor and oppressed people do not pay the price of these changes. All this can only be achieved by taking the wealth and resources out of the hands of the big corporations and the wealthy elite and bringing them under democratic public ownership where they can be used as part of a plan for the benefit of all.
There is a trend within Marxism, including in the tradition from which Solidarity emerged, that emphasises the tremendous potential for economic expansion and increasing plenty that socialism would unleash, the idea of a future ‘superabundance’ of goods. The reality of the ecological crisis means that these ideas need to be re-examined.
There is already more than enough to guarantee a good life for everyone on the planet, but capitalism is incapable of organising production or distribution to ensure this. The work of John Bellamy Foster and others has helped to recover Marx’s own ecological analysis – which didn’t adopt a crude, productivist view of human domination over nature but saw that human society was dialectically connected with nature. Marx explained that capitalism and its pursuit of endless accumulation had introduced a ‘metabolic rift’ which would disrupt the natural processes on which humanity depends.
The basic idea of ‘degrowth’ – that a net reduction in material and energy throughput is necessary – is correct. This should be separated out from the overall politics of many degrowth advocates, which sometimes have significant weaknesses, as of course do the broader politics of many who advocate for ‘green growth’. Many degrowth advocates are clearly anti-capitalist. Often where they fall down is in concretely putting forward a programme on how to struggle against and defeat capitalism – with some reverting to reformist or parliamentary routes which cannot possibly match the entrenched and virulent nature of the system we are up against.
Capitalism cannot reverse its drive for planetary destruction; it also won’t leave the scene of history without a fight and this means a revolutionary struggle is necessary based on the global working class which has the power and interest in bringing an end to this system. We need a movement which can mobilise this force based on a concrete programme for a better future.
Notes
1. Climate Action Tracker, climateactiontracker.org
2. Lan Wang-Erlandsson et al, 26 April 2022, ‘Freshwater boundary exceeds safe limits’, Stockholm Resilience Centre, https://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/research-news/2022-04-26-freshwater-boundary-exceeds-safe-limits.html
3. ‘Global Resources Outlook’, UN International Resource Panel , https://www.resourcepanel.org/reports/global-resources-outlook
4. Some have raised the valid point that the term ‘degrowth’ would jar with many working-class people who would associate it with a reduction in their standards of living or a recession – which it is not. It’s very important that socialists speak about these issues in a way that clearly differentiates ourselves with the capitalist environmentalists who push austerity. Terms like degrowth should be used when they can be properly explained and contextualised within our broader programme, which is for a better life for all.
5. Jason Hickel, 2020, Less is More, Random House, p 106
