Shut the hell UP!!!

[metalboxproducts]

The bottom line is "less consumption'. We can't maintain the level of consumption as it is now and expect everything to work it's self out. Or hope that sometime in the future there will me some miraculous fix all. It just ain't gonna happen. If governments are not willing to do something about it, it's up to individual's to do it for them selves.

[kidlogic]

^^^^^^
yeah am sure it is possible, but has anyone looked into how much energy it took to produce those solar cells- how big a hole in the ground had to be dug, how much power in processing the materials?...likewise with the electric car and all of these other technologies. I think these things are all very well, but look into the whole cycle of things and they often are not as great for the environment as it seems.

To be honest, my old flatmate looked into a lot of environmental issues and she said a similar thing with regard to solar panels - think she said it would take about 30 years of use to actually compensate for the environmental damage they caused in their creation, by which time they'll probably need replacing anyway.

Seems that the only part of minimising carbon footprints that no-one really mentions is reducing consumption. There's been more government ads recently but it always being someone else's problem (business, government, other countries, your neighbours, etc). My carbon footprints quite low in some respects as I rarely fly, don't own a car, rarely use public transport if I can walk it, and don't have my heating on all year round. Being broke constantly also helps

Thats part of the problem. Im sure there are ways to make a solar panel that isnt so environmentally unsound, but the research continually gets held back by the other big energy intrests.

Look at the microchip vs the solar panel. If the solar panel had as much research put into it as the microchip, we probably wouldnt be having this conversation. Photovoltaic cells have been around since the '70s and are just now getting anywhere worthwhile, albeit quite a ways off still.

Greed sucks.

[shonky]

I must say young Mr Logic, your knowledge on this has been very educational. Can't see solar working so well in the UK due to our generally shit weather, so that's one less option that we brits have. Do you know much about the use of methane from waste, as I heard this was an option gaining more support (especially considering how wasteful most humans are).

[kidlogic]

I must say young Mr Logic, your knowledge on this has been very educational. Can't see solar working so well in the UK due to our generally shit weather, so that's one less option that we brits have. Do you know much about the use of methane from waste, as I heard this was an option gaining more support (especially considering how wasteful most humans are).

I dont know too much about it, but I have heard of them using the methane that escapes from landfils for a form of power, both by converting the pressure as it escapes from the landfills via exhaust ducts and reusing the methane and processing it. Dont know much about using the methane from wastewater like you're saying, but I would imagine its similar... I havent heard of it being used much here though.

One option that I honestly think the UK should be looking into much more than it seems they have is Tidal power. A well thought out and environmentally sound tidal power plant is a one time cost with very minimal maintenance costs compared to the footprint it would leave, and the tide is very reliable.

There are so many other ways that have been thought up, but someone always seems to shoot them down before they can come to fruition... geothermic power could be an amazing source of abundant natural power, but again, certain intrests dont want to see it happen, so it will be a long time coming.

[shonky]

I get the feeling that if all goes to plan, Brighton might actually get the UK's first Green Party MP at the next general election, came second in the last election and only by about 5000, which isn't bad out of a quarter million population.

[kins83]

This has all been a very interesting read. Thanks gents.

[metalboxproducts]

Green Capitalism: Manufacturing Scarcity in an Age of Abundance, by James Heartfield

Philip Cunliffe
posted 4 March 2008

Everyone has gone green. Even reprobate oil corporations have stopped funding the ‘global warming sceptics’, as they retool their operations to cash in on the bonanza of carbon-trading. Bewildered by the sudden desertion of their corporate allies, a few isolated libertarians fight a rearguard action against the green tide. With the publication of Green Capitalism, James Heartfield has launched a powerful new critique of green supremacy – but from a Marxist rather than a libertarian perspective. This distinctive outlook allows Heartfield to show that the various political positions taken in this debate are not what they seem.

Green activists have always gained from portraying themselves as radical outsiders posing a fundamental challenge to a brutal and exploitative system. This posture has become increasingly difficult to maintain as elites have made the green cause their own. As Heartfield points out, ‘Some of the world’s wealthiest people are also its greenest. More and more of them make their money being green – they are the pioneers of Green Capitalism.’ (p21). Big corporations now routinely publish sustainability and social responsibility audits, while the likes of Exxon, Philip Morris, Du Pont and Monsanto all heavily subsidise environmentalist critics (p31). The appearance of confrontation between indignant greens on the one hand, and chastened capitalists on the other, is deceptive. According to Heartfield, it is more of an internal squabble than a real struggle between two rival social groups:

Green activists rubbish corporate environmentalism as ‘greenwashing’. But the truth is that most of the leading green activists – [Lord] Melchett, Tony Juniper, Jonathan Porritt, Des Wilson, Sara Parkin, the New Economics Foundation – have made a very good living writing Corporate Social Responsibility documents … Greenies get jobs as consultants and trainers, hectoring the unenlightened suits. When green activists frame their criticisms aggressively, that is often just their way of negotiating a better deal. (p31)

From the libertarian perspective, the capitalists’ eagerness to flatter the hippies is exasperating. But this is only because libertarians buy into capitalists’ mythologising of themselves as bold entrepreneurs. The reality is that capitalists make ‘a living out of the hard work of other people. They told stories about themselves that cast them as the hardworking, thrifty ones who built up the company (while the workers themselves were generally cast as too lazy to get on)’ (p14). In effect, libertarians reverse the argument made by their green and anti-globalisation opponents. Instead of rapacious corporations wrecking the planet, for libertarians it is rapacious governments that are the problem, expropriating the capitalists’ hard-earned wealth and tying them up in red tape.

But the corporate willingness to embrace green regulations and put the hippies on the payroll becomes less puzzling if one is willing to view capitalism not just as a sphere of economic activity distinct from the rest of society, but as a fully-fledged social system. After all, a society that prioritises profit over human need will always be one that is predisposed to curbing human needs. It is here that Heartfield’s argument packs a potent punch. The green call for restraining human needs in favour of nature’s imagined demands complements the requirements of capitalist society, which is always in need of new mechanisms to discipline and curb demands from below for more of the social surplus. Capitalism is also a contradictory social system, oscillating between dynamic expansion and lethargic stagnation. Heartfield argues that the greens merely express one aspect of capitalism – its tendency toward restraint – against its more dynamic side.

In other words, green capitalism is not a passing fad adopted by a few corporate bosses, too spineless to stand up to the hippies; it expresses an essential feature of the social system. As Heartfield reminds us, the origins of modern environmentalism lie in the 1970s when the elite industrialists of the Club of Rome commissioned The Limits to Growth report. As the long post-war boom ended, arguing that the world was running out of resources was another way of saying that there was nothing left to redistribute, and that trade unions must settle for lower wages (p27). (Needless to say, the Club of Rome’s predictions about the exhaustion of natural resources were all confounded [p13]).

In his artful dissection of ethical consumerism, Heartfield demonstrates what demands for economic moderation mean for today. In Heartfield’s view, ethical consumption is little more than the traditional snobbery of conspicuous consumption dressed up in green garb. Far from restraining consumption, environmentalism inflates its scale and scope, so that it expresses not only the refined taste but also the superior morals of the (rich) consumer: ‘It could be stated as an economic law: the greener you are, the more you consume. If that seems a bit hard to swallow, let’s break it down. First, the richer you are, the greener you are. Second, the richer you are, the more you consume.’ (p50). When greens disparage consumption, their real target is mass (ie ordinary folks’) consumption. Jetting off on safari and paying to offset your carbon emissions is fine, but hopping over to Prague on Easyjet for a wild weekend is morally abhorrent.

Heartfield shows that the contradiction runs deeper than the hypocrisy of rich greens like Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio telling us all to make do with less. The dilemmas of ethical consumption, that keep a whole generation of agonised newspaper columnists in employment, reflect the fact ‘that green ideals are themselves incoherent’. The problem is that there can never be any universally-accepted means of arbitrating which resource should be rationed. If the livelihoods of African farmers need to be preserved, then the answer is Fair Trade; but if carbon emissions are the problem, then domestic food is better (p55). If climate change is the problem, ‘then we ought to be willing to sacrifice England’s green and pleasant land to the march of the wind farm’ (p56). As Heartfield argues:

however systematic each of these diagnoses [of ecological degradation] is, the green sentiment is not reducible to any one of them. Each can be jettisoned or picked up in turn without damage to the core prejudice that modern life is exhausting nature’s bounty … It is not possible to generalise the green lifestyle. By definition, an ideology that sees mass consumption as the problem cannot be adopted by the masses (p57).

The rise of green capitalism is not just expressed in demands for restraining mass consumption, but also in changed attitudes towards production. A system that prioritises profit over people has little difficulty retooling its performance to engage in unproductive activities, as long as it can make money. Just as the corporate raiders of the 1980s saw that it was possible to make money by breaking industry up rather than building it up, so today’s green capitalists realise that it is possible to make big bucks without doing very much at all – by ‘manufacturing scarcity’. Here, Heartfield identifies carbon trading, ‘clean energy’, environmental land retirement and green belt housebuilding restrictions as the key examples where output is squandered in favour of (green) profits: ‘restricting output and so driving up prices is one short-term way to secure profits’ (p34). This insight gives Heartfield a distinctive account of the recent phenomenon of rising prices for agricultural commodities, which is generating inflationary pressure throughout the global economy. Heartfield attributes this to the systematic restriction of agricultural output across the last few decades, which has let millions of hectares lie fallow – the result of turning land over to nature reserves as well as heavily subsidised, lower yield organic farming. This policy was a conscious response to the downward trend in food prices, the result of improved agricultural productivity that threatened the profits of agribusiness:

According to the mainstream media, the pressure of biofuels and global warming are to blame for the shortfall in crops – as if governments had not been involved in a twenty-year programme of retiring land from production. Today’s scarcities have been engineered, in the name of saving the environment, but in fact to defend the livelihoods of big agriculture (p44).

The sheer productivity of capitalism undermines its own basis. The more the costs of production go down, the more difficult it is to sustain and justify private property relations – hence the increased rent-seeking behaviour, where profits have to be secured through essentially non-productive means. Heartfield takes his argument beyond exposing the parasitic pursuits of the green capitalists, to consider the ‘green imperialism’ that holds back development in poor countries, through to analysing how the assumptions of neo-classical economic theories break down in the face of the material plenty in which many of us in the West now live.

In all these arguments, Heartfield is elaborating on Marx’s core insight made 160 years ago: as a social system, capitalism faces historically unique problems of social control, arising from the fact that it enjoys too many resources rather than too few (1). All hitherto existing civilisation ‘was not much more than an armed stockade around the food store’ (p6), producing just enough to hover above the abyss of famine and plague. By contrast capitalism is the only social system that has a systematic incentive to increase productivity by combining and replacing labour with technology – the result of recognising the rights of workers as free agents, in the form of issuing contracts of employment. By the same token, the development of the forces of production is at least partly dependent on the willingness of labour to fight for its interests: the more powerful the workers, the more capitalists are forced to develop labour-saving technology. As Joseph Schumpeter argued, a man with enough candles and servants has no need of electric light. With the organised labour movement weak and craven, there is less countervailing power or pressure on capital – and it is in these conditions that greens have emerged to express the limits of capital as natural ones.

Even as capitalism has liberated much of humanity from the tyranny of nature’s caprice, it also pulls us back from the brink of freedom, the greens stepping up to keep us in hock with their spectres of interplanetary catastrophe and ecological doom. Like the generation of leftwing baby-boomers that came before them, doubtless some time soon today’s greens will embark on a spell of soul-searching, as they try to understand how their radical incursion was so rapidly absorbed by the establishment. But Heartfield’s book already has the answer: the greens were never that radical or rebellious to begin with.


(1) ‘In [capitalist] crises there breaks out an epidemic that, in all earlier epochs, would have seemed an absurdity – the epidemic of overproduction. Society suddenly finds itself put back into a state of momentary barbarism … and why? Because there is too much civilisation, too much means of subsistence, too much industry, too much commerce. The productive forces at the disposal of society no longer tend to further the development of the conditions of bourgeois property; on the contrary, they have became too powerful for these conditions, by which they are fettered, and so … they bring disorder into the whole of bourgeois society, endanger the existence of bourgeois property.’ Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, The Communist Manifesto

[kidlogic]

I get the feeling that if all goes to plan, Brighton might actually get the UK's first Green Party MP at the next general election, came second in the last election and only by about 5000, which isn't bad out of a quarter million population.

Nice. The US still has way to much partisan politics to get through before the Green party gains a foothold, but there are some Green party politians making it through the ranks here... always a good start, so long as they stick to their party's goals.

What's an MP? Similar to a govenor?

[ikarai]

interesting thread guys, good stuff. sorry to jump in like but thought you might like to see afew relevant things... my course deals with sustainability quite a bit and the need for imminent change in developed and devloping countries. While I agree there are many shortcomings of current renewable and sustainable energy technologies, the sort of stuff that needs to start getting implemented has been well researched and the technology is there no doubt. Such a shame big business interests are constantly blocking real progress in favour of short term profits. It won't do them much good if they're on the wrong end of a tsunami or an icecap melting in their faces. Anyway, in terms of large scale technologies check the Grimshaw Architects website, true visionaries:

http://www.grimshaw-architects.com

can't link to specific projects unfortunately cos its all flash but go to the education projects and check Eco-Rainforest: basically a all-in-one solution for landfill problems and the carbon footprint for exotic food import. It hasn't been built though unsurprisingly, but afew of these would make a serious impact to domestic carbon footprint. Also check the water theatre, an almost energy free desalination plant. They have a design for super turbines based on the form of a sycamore pod, which enmasse could (along side nuclear power) replace all fossil fuel dependency for power generation over afew decades:

http://www.firstscience.com/SITE/editor ... 082006.asp

the energy crisis and climate change... its definately a shit situation, but to the ability for those in power to continuously excaerbating the situation and excuse it through economic arguments is wearing thin, increasingly unnacceptable. There is real change happening though. Our government has just introduced a new bill that demands all new build housing to be zero-carbon by 2016. Obviously there is still all the existing housing stock to deal with but its a start. China has plans to build several new entirely sustainable conurbations, the first being Dontang Ecocity:

http://www.arup.com/eastasia/project.cfm?pageid=7047



It seems like the only government not taking it remotely seriously still is the US. Alot to be done to turn the tide, but public awareness is going up i think. I try to have some hope still!

[shonky]

Good posts MBP and Ikarai, much appreciated.

I think also that there is a great need for societal change. If we consume less, we also need less work to support this, less energy spent running factories and offices, less energy spent transporting goods round the world and this would help conserve more of our dwindling resources. Also if we amalgamated food distributers into one, we wouldn't need to waste effort on heating several enormous supermarkets when we could have one per town. Although it seems to be getting short shrift by most political parties, socialism would make way more sense than trying to keep capitalism alive in it's current wasteful form.

http://www.anxietyculture.com/bluffecon.htm

Some interesting stuff here about alternative economic systems outside the capitalism/socialism angle.

http://www.anxietyculture.com/criticalpath.htm

An introduction to Buckminster Fuller's Critical Path

[contakt]

I think Capitalism is basically part of man's true nature - it becomes unavoidable when there are networks involving more than a few thousand people.

It would take a fundamental change in mankind's genetic makeup to change this - what is to all intents and purposes an evolutionary shift.

For now, I think the best we can do is try to adapt Capitalism to be more ethical. This is beginning to happen more and more.

Work within the System to change it - but anyone engaged in this must be absolutely unflinching in their mission to do so, or they risk becoming what they despise.

[edited for gratuitous hyperbole]

[*grand*]

thumbs up.

[ikarai]

that Bluffers guide thing looks well interesting Shonky, ta... will read it later. But yeah. It constantly amazes me, that such a huge myth as the one that "the current economic structure is the only possible way of doing things... that money makes the world go round, don't you know, and you'd better suck it up cos it isn't gonna change" is constantly perpetuated across most of the planet. I'm not in favour of a "revolution" or some other such uprising cos lets face it that hasnt exactly worked in the past but there needs to be a rennaisance in the mode of thinking in global economics, surely.. cos it just isn't sustainable.

Fucking shit that the right thing only ever gets don when it happens to coincide with necessity and the best interests of those who are reaping the various profits. But like it or not we are coming to that point in a big way.

[kins83]

Are there charities that research renewable energy sources and that sort of thing?

[shonky]

I think Capitalism is basically part of man's true nature - it becomes unavoidable when there are networks involving more than a few thousand people.

I think "human nature" in itself is actually a myth, and one that's been used to justify various unpleasant political ideologies through the ages. If you look at tribal societies, there may well be a leader, but a bad leader would be one that ate plenty whilst his tribe starved, he is there to look out for their best interests, to ensure that disagreements are quelled so as to not split and weaken the tribe, etc. There may be land squabbles with neighbouring tribes when food or resources get scarce, but it would be futile to completely eradicate another tribe if it risked destroying your own people.

So in essence, I'd say that socialism was far more part of peoples' nature than capitalism, it's only due to the massive indoctrination via our heritage, marketing, media and governments (who are all run by vested interests) that makes us think otherwise. Most people brought up outside of a consumer capitalist society wouldn't see much need to create one.

Even when people have argued that it's just an extension of natural selection (mating dances replaced by flash cars) it still doesn't seem to hold much water - if anything, huge amounts of money seems to compensate for lack of good genetic traits given the fat, pallid blobs that seem to be seen as successes in the business world.

[seckle]

wind farms are the future. everyone should be following denmark and holland's example of offshore wind farming. it's great to see the UK lay out plans to light every house in england with wind by 2020.

the windmill dates back to 600ad, and is still one of the best sources of energy; over a thousand years later.

america is rich with offshore coastline, and we've not even begun to think of wind in any substantial way.

[contakt]

Fucking shit that the right thing only ever gets don when it happens to coincide with necessity and the best interests of those who are reaping the various profits. But like it or not we are coming to that point in a big way.

I'm not right wing - but I do believe that Capitalism is the natural political state of mankind.

My view comes from a philosophical position regarding man's basic nature - not a belief in the status quo for the sake of it.

Capitalism can exist in many forms - the current conception of it leaves a lot to be desired, but I believe that there is a strain of Capitalism that will serve a wider range of interests.

However, I don't believe it will ever be possible to produce a political system which does not marginalise certain portions of society. This is a sad but unavoidable truth.

[contakt]

I think Capitalism is basically part of man's true nature - it becomes unavoidable when there are networks involving more than a few thousand people.

I think "human nature" in itself is actually a myth, and one that's been used to justify various unpleasant political ideologies through the ages. If you look at tribal societies, there may well be a leader, but a bad leader would be one that ate plenty whilst his tribe starved, he is there to look out for their best interests, to ensure that disagreements are quelled so as to not split and weaken the tribe, etc. There may be land squabbles with neighbouring tribes when food or resources get scarce, but it would be futile to completely eradicate another tribe if it risked destroying your own people.

So in essence, I'd say that socialism was far more part of peoples' nature than capitalism, it's only due to the massive indoctrination via our heritage, marketing, media and governments (who are all run by vested interests) that makes us think otherwise. Most people brought up outside of a consumer capitalist society wouldn't see much need to create one.

Even when people have argued that it's just an extension of natural selection (mating dances replaced by flash cars) it still doesn't seem to hold much water - if anything, huge amounts of money seems to compensate for lack of good genetic traits given the fat, pallid blobs that seem to be seen as successes in the business world.

Ooooohh...I see a debate coming on! I love these - sadly, I have to catch a train now, but I'll pick this up with you later!

[shonky]

that Bluffers guide thing looks well interesting Shonky, ta... will read it later. But yeah. It constantly amazes me, that such a huge myth as the one that "the current economic structure is the only possible way of doing things... that money makes the world go round, don't you know, and you'd better suck it up cos it isn't gonna change" is constantly perpetuated across most of the planet. I'm not in favour of a "revolution" or some other such uprising cos lets face it that hasnt exactly worked in the past but there needs to be a rennaisance in the mode of thinking in global economics, surely.. cos it just isn't sustainable.

Yeah true. Most people just listen to the initial indoctrination and just assume that being rich is the only way forward, but then their concept of wealth is usually pretty narrow, certainly excluding having a healthy functioning society, but quite possibly working out as many ways as possible to rip off your customers and workers so that you can get that fourth house

We sure as hell shouldn't see these people as role models, they're just parasites at the top of the tank.

[pk-]

fuck me you lot've been busy

it's great to see the UK lay out plans to light every house in england with wind by 2020.

I didn't know that, when was it announced?