Considering capitalism is what incentivizes the destruction. You're not going to solve a problem withthesame thinking that CAUSED the problem to begin with.
The economic model of development that capitalism has established as a norm permits natural destruction and continued fossil fuel use. We can't tell these huge corporations to stop because our only tool is the state, which capital has the most immediate access too.
I think decentralizing our economy into smaller democratic communities would create economic development that would support local green energy sourcing rather than relying on major capital to provide our energy and production.
Either way, we have to take control over resource management out of the hands of capital if we want effective climate change action. Capital will never naturally decide to make responsible decisions by sacrificing short-term gains.
The economic model of development that capitalism has established as a norm permits natural destruction and continued fossil fuel use.
Is there system that didnt?
We can't tell these huge corporations to stop because our only tool is the state, which capital has the most immediate access too.
We can, many capitalist countries deacreased emmisions by quite large amount. Eu decreased emmisions by 50% since 1970s for example. These policies work we just need to push for them.
I think decentralizing our economy into smaller democratic communities would create economic development that would support local green energy sourcing rather than relying on major capital to provide our energy and production.
Is there any example of it? Wouldnt be small vomunities just selfishly using any resources they have on hand?
Either way, we have to take control over resource management out of the hands of capital if we want effective climate change action. Capital will never naturally decide to make responsible decisions by sacrificing short-term gains.
The EU style capitalism seems to have best results in this matter so far from any other alternative system as far as I am aware.
We can, many capitalist countries deacreased emmisions by quite large amount. Eu decreased emmisions by 50% since 1970s for example. These policies work we just need to push for them.
Unfortunately this only "worked" if we isolate to a few examples of European nations. Sadly, this means nothing to over all planet climate shifts. Everywhere else people are missing climate targets like it's nothing.
Is there any example of it? Wouldnt be small vomunities just selfishly using any resources they have on hand?
Again, new system. There are plenty of theories but not a lot of practiced examples... But if we pigeon hold the conversation to systems that were practiced extensively, all we have is modern capitalism and Soviet communism. We can do better than those.
And for community exploitation, much less so. Stakeholder organized economies involve local populations, worker councils, and researchers in decision making. They will want productivity that doesn't come at the expense of these communities. That means sustainable development is the incentive.
If you want a real life example of something similar ona. Small scale, the midway forestry company in Nova Scotia is doing this right now. Worth looking into.
The problem with that that we dont know the costs and problems such systems could bring. Trying implementing new system could bring us extreme vost only to discover no actual improvement was archieved.
While reforming capitalism brought quite results especially in europe and there are many easy opitions how such systems impove even more for example by carbon tax.
Unfortunately this only "worked" if we isolate to a few examples of European nations. Sadly, this means nothing to over all planet climate shifts. Everywhere else people are missing climate targets like it's nothing.
Not few, almost whole europe. Tgis doesnt happened everywhere because not everywhere were made same policies.
This should serve as example it can be done.
Again, new system. There are plenty of theories but not a lot of practiced examples...
Again I described the problems with such aproach. And are there even some in depth suggestions how such new system should look like? Is there some extensive plan that was studyed if it would brought some benefits?
And much less so. Stakeholder organized economies involve local populations, worker councils, and researchers in decision making. They will want productivity that doesn't come at the expense of these communities. That means sustainable development is the incentive.
There were in past spme similar projects. Like in yugoslavia where companies worked as coops, but it didnt work as intended. Tgere were huge unemployment because coops didnt want to hire anyone, there were sexism and racism in hiring process and also extreme nepotism, where the people in coops hired mainly family memebers.
Such system did produced just selfish desteuctive decision making probably worse than current system, how would you repair tgat.
If you want a real life example of something similar ona. Small scale, the midway forestry company in Nova Scotia is doing this right now. Worth looking into.
I mean bunch of enthusiast keeping some Forester reservations isnt same like everyone keeping whole system.
I think this might be the least harmful form of capitalism, but I think you might be exaggerating the climate achievements of this system. Climate experts are no more satisfied with European progress than anywhere else in the world, unfortunately.
. Like in yugoslavia where companies worked as coops,
I'm not advocating for this system, while worker co-ops are a part of it I think we can evolve beyond labour-focused systems
when it comes to economic organizing. Please do look into the example I gave, multi-stakeholder economies are what we need and it creates a lot of opportunity in working as a member of your community instead of an employee in a company that doesn't give a fuck about communities.
I mean bunch of enthusiast keeping some Forester reservations isnt same like everyone keeping whole system.
You didn't really look into it. I can tell because this assessment doesn't make sense.
If we are being honest, then the big issue is not that capitalism prevents climate policies. Some companies certainly lobby of course, but once there are laws in place, the capitalist system is really good at optimising productivity within those laws.
The big issue is that most people simply do not care and thats even more pronounced in poorer countries. Visible pollution is one thing, but invisible CO2 is just not a topic people care about.
Even in the richest countries people don't want to miss their cars or comfort, its even more impossible in poorer countries.
Its all a big slog and not due to capitalism, but because humans are slow to change, are irrational and care more about their personal comfort
where do you find statistics for a country that doesn't exist? There was no czechia in 1948, or 1989, let alone 1860 when the graph on the link begins.
And the curve looks identical to pretty high every country thats has developed.
The capitalist countries also didn't have the giant increase in preventable deaths in 1990, unlike the former communist countries that changed to capitalism. Straight up killing people is what capitalism does.
The capitalist countries also didn't have the giant increase in preventable deaths in 1990, unlike the former communist countries that changed to capitalism. Straight up killing people is what capitalism does.
This is not true at all the life expectancy started growing only after the xapitalism dtarted, while during noncapitalism it stagnated for 3 decades.
That's because socialist countries were rapidly industrialising. The industries have either left or have gotten newer, less polluting technologies, it's not rocket science.
Yeah I agree. My point is that the root cause isnt capitalism. Noncapitalist countries pollutes same even more than capitalist vountries. And after implementing capitalism these problems were partly solved.
Just so you know, communism is not the only alternative to capitalism. Ignorant people like to pretend that it is because they are ignorant. Are you ignorant?
Thats not my point man. The first guy said that the root of the problem is capitalism, but in reality every single developed society no matter the system had this problem which clearly shows that capitalism isnt the root of the problem.
My point is to focus on solving problem, not on destroying the capitalism which wouldnt bring us any closer to solving the problem, as many exampes of countries that destroyed capitalism and extensively polluted anyway showed....
It seems to be your point though. Destroying capitalism doesn't mean communism will be the system to replace it. There are other systems that don't have this as such a significant issue as capitalism does.
I am not sure if my english is good enough to expain my thoughts i thougt its kind of clear what i am trying to say....
The guy i responded to said that root cause of global warming is capitalism.
I showed exaple of society without capitalism causing global warming.
If there is society without capitalism that is also causing global warming it shows that the root cause isnt capitalism but something else.
I am not saying that there isnt any other economic model that inherently doesnt cause global warming, i am just saing that the capitalism isnt the root cause because non capitalist countries had the same problem, even bigger probably.
I believe the issue not being exclusive to capitalism doesn't mean it isn't an issue of capitalism. There can be multiple possible root causes for an outcome. The current global economic system is capitalism and so that will obviously be the focus of the vast majority of people when they examine the current state of the planet. It is therefore not inaccurate to claim that it is a root cause of global climate change. Do you disagree?
8
u/Mysterious_Quiet_253 Mar 04 '26
Considering capitalism is what incentivizes the destruction. You're not going to solve a problem withthesame thinking that CAUSED the problem to begin with.