This Changes Everything

This week, I’d like to further discuss the basic premise of Naomi Klein’s new book, This Changes Everything.  The “this” she is referring to is human-caused climate change.  Up until now, the general consensus has been that taking environmental factors more seriously in making our economic decisions is all that is required to mitigate this crisis.  In the last ten years, it has been fairly apparent that, at least on some levels, we are well aware of the seriousness of the problem and that we need to lower our carbon output to avoid the most catastrophic consequences of extreme warming.  However, when it comes to actually taking steps to lower our carbon output, we just can’t seem to get started.  Why is that?  In almost every case, the reason for inaction has been that it would unduly burden the economy. One line of thinking is that if the economy is stressed, there will be no money to invest in climate change mitigation.  We keep looking for that magic combination of climate change mitigation that also stimulates the economy.  Most of the environmental groups on the forefront like to stress that the burgeoning renewable energy industry will be that stimulus.  Klein agrees that that is part of the solution, but we would first have to convince corporations with great power to abandon huge fossil fuel assets.  That is plainly not in the cards.  

Naomi Klein posits the theory that the error in our thinking has to do with the idea that we can mitigate climate change, or environmental degradation in general, without changing the economy.  She believes that as long as the pursuit of short term profit is the primary goal of our economy, we will be incapable of doing the long term planning or making the investments and sacrifices necessary to make the transition.  She thinks that modern day corporate capitalism works because the long term costs of resource extraction and pollution have been externalized.  Externalized to whom?  Well, so far, governments (that is, the public) have been left holding the bag.  Clearly, the paltry size of the budget devoted to environmental remediation indicates how enthusiastic we are about being handed that responsibility.  What especially galls most of us is the fact that we have very little to say about preventing that damage before it occurs.  Corporate control over our decision makers insures that few steps will be taken that add to the cost of doing business.

So, in saying that the nature of modern corporate capitalism is driving the climate crisis, we need to change our economy if we intend to succeed in mitigating climate change.  While we’re at it, we might say that corporate capitalism (or socialism) also tends to concentrate wealth and power in the hands of a few.  If power does tend to corrupt, then we could lay quite a few more of the world’s woes at its door as well.  That is why Naomi Klein is saying that if, in addressing climate change, we find that we have to address problems in our economic system, then “this changes everything.”  She says it in the most joyful sense; the necessity of addressing climate change can be the catalyst that brings us a fairer and more peaceful world.

That is the basic message of the book:  climate change, in forcing our hand to make major changes in the way we treat each other and the world we live in, could turn out to make the world not only safer, but a lot better.
The rest that I have to say here is some of my own observations meant to allay the fears of what might be read in between my lines.

First, I should include a few disclaimers.  The demise of corporate capitalism does not mean the extinction of capitalism nor does it mean the institution of a socialist state.  These economic models should not be political ideologies or gods.  They are tools, and we use both liberally in our own society here in the US.  Just as we wouldn’t have a private company building our roads or running our army, we wouldn’t have the government selling us our fresh produce.  Each has it place.  Another disclaimer is that big is not necessarily better or worse.  There are some things done appropriately at a large scale, but far fewer, in my mind, than we have now.  There is a danger in doing anything at a large scale.  I’ve finally come to agree that big government is just as dangerous as big business.  The only difference is that, with big government, we still, at least theoretically, can influence it with our vote.  Unfortunately, I wouldn’t be the first to say that that influence at present is almost purely theoretical.  

In my mind, organizing and administering our needs at the local level should be the default plan.  Only when it is obvious that something is better addressed on a larger scale, should we make that choice, and then, only as large as necessary.   In the next issue, I would like to explore more of the practical and philosophical benefits of addressing our needs and responsibilities at the local level.