Capitalism and the Environment

Capitalism and the Environment

Introduction

Environmental issues, including global warming and pollution, are common topics in public discourse and the news. These matters transcend traditional problems of the division between the poor and the rich as well as class that are at the center of political divisions and discussions. The environmental issues that are experience are a consequence of the capitalist system that commonly used in global economies. The environment is critical for the survival of the human race; however, the problems faced are seen to be creations of the capitalist network. The environmental impacts that have been observed in the present times are a reflection of the capitalistic system that is focused on the exploitation of resources to maximize profits for companies and individuals.

Discussion

American capitalism points out the adverse impact of the approach on the environment. The US is one of the economies that have been hardest hit by the capitalist crisis. Influenced by the threat of international competition and the demand for higher profits, business has driven the establishment of a political movement characterized by reduced government regulation to meet their interests. The practice is known as neoliberalism, which is the flouting of the regulatory capacities and responsibilities of the state that is led by some of the most influential companies in the US (Faber). Leading corporations have come up with an intricate network of political action committees, policy institutes, nonprofit organizations, foundations, research centers, and think tanks. The system is regarded as the polluter-industrial complex that is against the environmental policies and movement. It can be argued that while all citizens are affected by the ecological crisis, the underprivileged individuals of color are disproportionately hit. The negative impacts are observed through the dumping of toxic wastes and the location of highly polluting industries in low-income and African American neighborhoods. Notably, corporations have been invading landscapes that were set aside for Native Americans. This proves that capitalism does not support environmental conservation and is aimed at benefiting corporations.

Various theorists have offered explanations on the adverse effects of capitalism on the environment. It can be argued that there is no sociological framework that is complete making it imperative to combine the positions taking by different theorists to get a comprehensive understanding of the negative link between the environment and capitalism. Thomas Robert Malthus is the first theorist whose work can be used to explain how the environment is adversely impacted by capitalism. Malthus asserts that the rate of population growth is higher than the earth’s ability to maintain the subsistence. Consequently, the massive population growth that has taken place in the past has been marked by unfavorable ecological conditions that affect the quality of human life and increase mortality. Malthus’ theory can be used to explain the relationship destructive relationship between capitalism and the environment.

Durkheim’s conservative legacy can also be used to explain the role played by culture in environmental degradation. Conservatives that support this position states that cultural values that are shared through modernization contribute to ecological degradation (Humphrey). Marx Weber’s assertion on power offers a sufficient explanation of the negative impacts of capitalism on the environment. According to the position, power is the primary driving force in society. Therefore, capitalists strive to gain control through wealth accumulation, disregarding the fact that their actions could be significantly affecting the environment. Weber explains that culture is shaped by power. It follows that corporations have come up with a way to convince the subordinates that their actions are in their best interests even though they could be destroying the environment. A popular paradigm that emerges from Weber’s position is the Weberian managerial legacy that notes that there is a need to make drastic changes in the society that is focused on addressing the existing environmental problems. The political front should be involved in coming up with policies that address the environmental challenges affecting the contemporary world.

Karl Marx gave the most appropriate explanation of the destructive relationship between capitalism and the environment. He referred to the relationship between individuals and means of production as the leading force in society. Marx identified that capitalists have control over the means of production, which means that they dictate their use. It has been observed that businesses in the US and other competitive economies prefer to operate in locations that have lenient environmental laws to increase their profits. This contributes to environmental destruction with the effects being felt mainly by the underprivileged individuals in society. Marx emphasized the fact that the profit motive is the driving force behind capitalism; hence environmental issues are disregarded. These theories point to the conclusion that the profit motive leads capitalists, and this has contributed to the negative environmental impacts. Capitalism has resulted in the establishment of complex systems that are used to go against existing environmental regulations to make higher profits.

Real-life examples can be used to demonstrate how capitalists use their power and position to grow their profits at the expense of the environment. The leading cases are the electric vehicle and the EV death by GM. The account of the electric car was featured in the film produced in 2006 titled, ‘Who Killed the Electric Car?‘. The transport industry is one of the leading contributors to environmental degradation through the emission of harmful gases and oil consumption, which is a non-renewable resource. The account of the electric car is characterized by the creation, restricted commercial production, and destruction by leading car manufacturers. Capitalists played a pivotal role in limiting the development of the technology that would have limited the level of environmental damage that has been experienced over the years. GM undertook measures to demonstrate that the consumer demand of the product was limited even though it did invest in educating the users about the electric vehicle and marketing it. Oil companies were opposed to the manufacture of the electric vehicle as its development would reduce their profits. Leading players in the oil sector made it clear that they were opposed to the development of electric cars in national publications by indicating that it went against their core business.

The second example that demonstrates that capitalism does not support environmental preservation is greenwashing plastic bottles. Poland Spring, a Maine-based business, announced that it would use recycled plastic for non-carbonated drinks in a move to curb plastic pollution. The company also stated that it would use recycled bottles of all its products. The decision to use recycled containers comes in light of the growing criticism against plastic use that ends up in dumpsites and does not decompose. Concerning this, there have been concerns concerning the water volume that the company pumps from the ground in light of the growing popularity of the business. Conservationists have pointed out that while recycling is a positive gesture towards environmental preservation, it would best for Poland Spring not to use plastic at all. This is because not all the plastic bottles are recycled, and some may end up in dumpsites. Judging from a capitalistic perspective, it can be seen that recycling is the most profitable venture that saves on packaging costs while convincing the stakeholders that the business is committed to environmental conservation.

The third example is uneven development in New Bedford, MA. The New Bedford Harbor has been identified to be the leading source of airborne polychlorinated biphenyl that are identified as PCBs. The areas that are close to the harbor are significantly affected by the natural gases, with the residents complaining that the relevant authorities should take appropriate measures to deal with the crisis. The cost of living in the area is high, and this mainly affects the poor that have been forced to move to affordable areas.

Conclusion

The above discussion confirms that capitalism does not support environmental conservation, as explained by various theories, including Karl Marx, Marx Weber, and Emile Durkheim. Capitalists support the exploitation of the available resources to increase their profitability at the expense of the environment. It is suggested that governments should come up with stringent environmental rules and regulations that should be adhered to by businesses and individuals to promote ecological conservation. This is because capitalists rely on the existing systems to have their way.

References