Kohei Saito: Capitalism and Democracy in the Age of Climate Crisis
Super-typhoons causing devastating disasters across various regions of Japan seem to have become an annual occurrence. Year after year of catastrophe has made it impossible for Japan to remain indifferent to the issue of climate change.
Indeed, it is not only Japan—from the Amazon in South America to Alaska in North America, and from California in the United States to Australia, the Earth itself seems to be "burning" everywhere, while Arctic glaciers continue to melt. Burning just as intensely is the passion of people committing themselves to environmental movements to protect "Mother Earth." For this reason, people are fundamentally questioning why capitalism exists and whether it can be sustained, signaling the start of a "revolution" in ecology.
I. The Impact of the IPCC Special Report
Some might find the word "revolution" to be an exaggeration. Taking Japan as an example, because of flaws in media reporting, it remains difficult for people to link the environmental movement with the word "revolution." However, some have already seen that "eternal economic growth" is nothing more than a self-deceiving illusion. Since no solution can be found within the current system, should we not change the system itself? In other words, since every climate change response people have conceived within the capitalist system has, without exception, ended in failure, the only correct path to dealing with the climate crisis is to completely abandon the profit-driven capitalist production system and create a brand-new society of sustainable development.
It must be pointed out that when discussing climate change, the key point is not whether those holding the above views are socialists, but whether their claims are based on scientific facts. This is because the more one dares to face scientific facts, the more one feels that humanity is currently in a severe crisis; simultaneously, one feels that this crisis has forced humanity into a fundamental, large-scale transformation of the social system—this point is vital and unavoidable. As a joint statement signed by 11,000 scientists proposed, "the climate crisis is closely linked to excessive consumption within wealthy lifestyles."
In 2018, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released Global Warming of 1.5 °C, a special report that became a turning point for many people’s ideological transformations. As is well known, the IPCC has long been criticized by environmental activists. They argue that because IPCC reports represent a consensus among scientists from various fields and must ultimately be approved by national governments, the IPCC tends to be restrained in its predictions of climate change processes, and its reports are often too conservative. Even so, to emphasize the severity of the climate change issue, the IPCC used the following phrasing in this special report: there must be a transformation of (social and economic) systems "on an unprecedented scale." The "1.5 °C" limit is the very "eye" [1] of this special report.
The long-term goal proposed by the Paris Agreement was to limit the increase in global average temperature to within 2.0 °C of pre-industrial levels by the year 2100. However, even if every country strictly adhered to the Paris Agreement, the maximum rise in global average temperature could still reach 3.7 °C. Furthermore, the IPCC special report pointed out that even if the 2.0 °C "red line" were maintained, climate change would still produce devastating social and economic impacts. This is because a 2.0 °C rise is sufficient to trigger global-scale disasters such as sea-level rise, drought, water scarcity, loss of biodiversity, and food shortages.
In light of this, "1.5 °C" is regarded as the upper limit for avoiding these disasters. However, the IPCC special report indicates that at current emission levels, the global average temperature increase will reach this 1.5 °C limit as early as 2030. Correspondingly, if we hope to achieve the 1.5 °C goal, carbon dioxide emissions must be reduced by 45% by 2030 and reach net-zero by 2050. Such large-scale reductions undoubtedly require comprehensive and rapid action. Relying solely on market-based mechanisms like carbon taxes and emissions trading is clearly insufficient. Humanity must achieve major transformations in power generation, transportation, and food production methods.
Although the impactful content of the IPCC special report has made more people recognize the gravity and urgency of the situation, as climatologist Kevin Anderson and others have pointed out, the report still has certain limitations. For example, to reach net-zero carbon emissions by 2050, developed countries would have to reduce emissions by 10% annually starting now. Within the existing economic system, it is impossible for developed countries to achieve such a scale of reduction. Furthermore, in the "scenarios" designed by the IPCC to achieve the 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C goals, Negative Emissions Technologies (NETs) play a major role. The most representative of these is a suite of technologies known as BECCS. Specifically, BECCS consists of Bioenergy (BE) combined with Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS). BECCS aims not only to use bioenergy to achieve zero emissions but also to use technical means to capture CO2 from the atmosphere and bury it underground or in the sea, thereby lowering atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
However, many doubts remain as to whether BECCS can be successfully developed and function as expected. This is because if continuous economic growth is taken as a prerequisite, then to accommodate an ever-expanding economy, BECCS itself would have to reach a massive scale. For example, just to produce the energy required by countries like the U.S. and Japan, vast amounts of farmland would be needed to grow bioenergy crops; estimates suggest this area would be two to three times the size of India. Providing such a large area of farmland is a massive challenge. Furthermore, it is not yet known whether power plants equipped with CCS are economically viable. Additionally, such plants must consume vast amounts of water during operation. The U.S. alone would be expected to consume 130 billion tons of water annually. The purpose of using CCS-equipped power plants is to allow them to burn fossil fuels while reducing CO2 emissions as much as possible. But as previously mentioned, if the goal of continuing to use fossil fuels results in even greater waste of other natural resources (such as water), then applying CCS technology will be more a loss than a gain.
Even so, the IPCC framework for addressing climate change is filled with future technologies like BECCS that carry high levels of uncertainty. Moreover, these future technologies play a vital role in various IPCC "scenarios." That the IPCC feels compelled to do this reflects a reality: the fundamental premise hidden within its special report is that a market-based economic growth model can solve the climate change problem; however, this premise is itself untenable. Thus, if one regards the capitalist system of production as an unalterable social production system, the hope of finding a way to achieve the 1.5 °C or 2.0 °C goals is nothing but a pipe dream.
In the past, when formulating many planning goals, consideration was always given to how to get profit-seeking enterprises to gradually accept them (such as the SDGs). However, in the current situation, the scale of measures necessary to address climate change is so vast that relying on the gradual planning goals of the past is clearly insufficient. As early as 1988, NASA researcher James Hansen warned that "there is a 99% probability that global warming is related to carbon dioxide," signaling that human activity was triggering climate change. However, with the end of the Cold War, neoliberalism took a dominant position globally. The capitalist world committed itself to integrating the globe into a single market, while pushing for total deregulation in countries worldwide to achieve free trade. Consequently, climate change measures were delayed again and again, thirty years of precious time were wasted, and the era in which climate change could be solved gradually has vanished forever.
Precisely for this reason, in order to save this planet upon which humanity depends for survival, there are rising cries across the world today for more fundamental solutions—strategies that do not rely solely on economic growth targets and purely market-based mechanisms. "System Change, Not Climate Change!" has gradually become a common slogan.
II. Climate Justice and Just Transition
Despite the strong calls from environmental activists and scientists for immediate and fundamental measures to address climate change, many adults in developed countries view these cries as hollow or illusory. In sharp contrast, there is a passionate commitment to environmental movements among youth and people in developing countries. This is no accident; for them, arguments such as "the current way of life can be sustained forever" or "climate change can only be handled 'slowly'" are what truly feel hollow and illusory. The fierce clash between these two perspectives reflects a specific structural inequality hidden behind the climate change problem.
First is inequality between classes. The richest 10% on the wealth rankings emit approximately 50% of the world's total carbon dioxide, while the bottom 50% account for only 10%. Estimates show that if the top 10% could reduce their per capita emissions to the average level of an individual in Europe, global emissions would decrease by about one-third. From this, we can see the heavy burden that the lifestyle of this small group places on the Earth's environment. Furthermore, the real culprit is this extremely irrational social system that promotes such a lifestyle and drives people into endless competition and consumption.
Second is the inequality caused by capital monopolies. It is estimated that the 100 companies with the highest emissions in the world are responsible for as much as 71% of global carbon dioxide emissions. Of course, these enterprises often shift the responsibility onto consumers, claiming that how their products are used depends entirely on the consumer. But in reality, on the one hand, these enterprises fundamentally limit the options people have regarding their lives and consumption to a very small range. On the other hand, while reaping massive profits, they use a portion of those profits to sponsor various think tanks to spread "global warming skepticism" or engage in lobbying. The ultimate goal of these enterprises is to obstruct governments from imposing environmental regulations on them.
Therefore, the "polluter pays principle" should be applied universally to these high-emitting enterprises. Furthermore, the monopoly held by multinational capital clearly demonstrates once again that if fundamental regulatory measures are not taken at the level of production, solving the climate change problem will be out of the question.
Finally, there is inequality in terms of suffering losses. As previously mentioned, from the perspective of carbon dioxide emissions, the volumes produced by different countries, classes, and enterprises can be described as worlds apart. However, the critical issue is that from the perspective of bearing the losses caused by climate change, those populations with lower carbon emissions—such as the youth, people in developing countries, and vulnerable groups within developed societies—instead suffer greater losses. This is undoubtedly a form of profound inequality.
Presently, while a minority enjoys a comfortable and affluent lifestyle, they recklessly destroy the material conditions upon which future generations depend for survival and development. Such a situation cannot be tolerated by social equity. Consequently, the trend of "climate justice" has emerged, the mission of which is to rectify this series of structural relations of power and subordination. To uphold "climate justice," developed countries must be required to transition to a low-carbon society as quickly as possible, thereby reserving the necessary "carbon budget" for the development of developing countries. At the same time, given that developed countries once achieved their own economic growth by extracting massive resources from the developing world, it's only right that they now provide economic and technical compensation to developing countries.
From the above, it is clear that in order to uphold "climate justice," driving structural transformation is an imperative. Such structural transformation includes not only measures to respond to climate change but also a thorough "major surgery" on the theoretical foundations and practical modes of neoliberalism and capitalism itself. This would include, for example, enhancing planning in the production stages, strengthening market management, creating more local employment opportunities, narrowing the gap between rich and poor, and breaking away from "extractivism."
Among these, the first priority must be to transform the laissez-faire economic model highly touted by neoliberalism and instead enhance economic planning. We can no longer maintain an attitude of non-interference toward the market; rather, we must manage and intervene in the market based on a "carbon budget." By calculating this "carbon budget," we can then work backward to determine exactly which products should be produced and how much production capacity should be maintained.
At the same time, it is necessary to carry out a significant adjustment of free trade, which people have vigorously developed over a long period. In contrast, people must place greater importance on promoting the further localization of production and consumption. Furthermore, from the height of upholding "climate justice," we must re-examine and formulate tax policies targeting international monopoly capital and the global wealthy class, ensuring that this portion of tax revenue is effectively invested in actions to address climate change. The unbridled plunder of resources from nature has been the basic mode of social metabolism [2] between humanity and nature since the Industrial Revolution. Deeply reflecting on this and taking measures to "mend the fold after the sheep are lost" [3] is the only way to survive.
III. The Green New Deal (GND) and Populism
As the tide of "climate justice" integrates increasingly closely with the critique of neoliberalism, the environmental movement has begun to continuously exert influence on the political sphere. A new vision has sprouted—the climate crisis may be a rare opportunity for left-wing forces, which have been in a slump for the past 30 years, to break through their predicament and catalyze a more equal and just society. The most representative of this is the "Green New Deal" (GND). Currently, the GND has sparked extensive discussion within major political parties such as the US Democratic Party and the UK Labour Party. As Paul Mason stated, in the vision of the GND, economic "decarbonization," social wealth redistribution, and infrastructure construction are complementary and inseparable. Thus, one could say the GND depicts a bold blueprint that not only returns the economy to humanity but will surely stand as a monumental "pyramid" in 21st-century political history.
In reality, the GND did not just emerge in the last few years. In the United States, Jill Stein of the Green Party had already proposed related ideas as early as the 2012 election. However, the event that truly made the GND famous was when US House Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Ed Markey jointly introduced the GND resolution to Congress in February 2019. In this, the important role played by the "Sunrise Movement" is particularly worth mentioning. Supporters and participants of this movement risked arrest to hold sit-in protests at the office of Democratic Representative Nancy Pelosi. California has historically held a passive attitude toward addressing climate change, yet Nancy Pelosi was elected to Congress from that very state. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez not only personally participated in the sit-ins but also took the lead in signing the Sunrise Movement's pledge, promising never to accept campaign funds from the oil industry. As this movement grew in momentum and influence, Bernie Sanders, in his presidential campaign manifesto, proposed political ideas that went even further than the GND:
- Achieve 100% renewable energy for electricity and transportation systems by 2030; achieve a fully "decarbonized society" by 2050 at the latest.
- Drive massive public investment totaling $16.3 trillion for addressing climate change and creating new jobs.
- Declare climate change a national emergency.
- Ban the use of offshore drilling, hydraulic fracturing (fracking), and other methods of energy extraction.
Unlike Ocasio-Cortez and others, Sanders adopted a posture of fighting the oil industry to the end. Sanders advocated for heavy taxes and strict penalties on oil industry enterprises and their investors—the chief culprits of environmental pollution—and the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies. On this basis, Sanders also set ambitious targets and a clear timeline for promoting the transition to renewable energy. Furthermore, Sanders’ proposals regarding the resolution of class and racial inequalities have also drawn widespread attention.
It can be said that Sanders does not simply advocate for minimizing the negative impacts of climate change; rather, he places the focus of his policy on the grander goal of how to achieve "climate justice." He is committed to driving a "just transition" of the capitalist economic production system toward a sustainable model, thereby hoping to resolve the structural inequalities inherent in capitalism, including climate change. In other words, the so-called "just transition" means ensuring that no one is left behind on the path of transformation.
Specifically, the series of policy measures proposed by Sanders include helping workers in the oil industry transfer to other sectors and providing them with various supports in terms of wages, insurance pensions, medical security, and housing. While providing people with stable employment and living environments, the plan also includes compensation for groups such as indigenous peoples who have suffered unfair treatment.
The reason Sanders dares to propose such a bold and radical plan is that right-wing populists in the United States are unscrupulously utilizing the theoretical energy of neoliberalism to unleash capitalist economic crises, resulting in extreme xenophobic movements. Facing this situation, in the view of the likes of Sanders, simply countering with a capitalist liberal solution is clearly far from enough. Therefore, Sanders chose left-wing populism to counter right-wing populism in the US. In their view, people must not only realize that a phased transition within capitalism under the dominance of neoliberalism is unrealistic, but they must also recognize that the hope of winning a consensus (on the issue of climate change) by proposing a compromise that the Republican Party could accept is fundamentally incapable of defeating the problem of climate change.
From the perspective of those like Sanders, the reason such a fierce confrontation between left-wing and right-wing populism has appeared in the United States is not because democracy itself has fatal flaws. It is not populism that has led democracy into crisis, but capital itself. Precisely for this reason, if one hopes to return democracy to its authentic and substantive essence, the spearhead of the struggle must be aimed at capitalism itself—this is the essence of the so-called "Left GND."
Essentially, in order to fully integrate genuine left-wing populism into every aspect of the GND, people cannot simply pour all their passion and energy into the single issue of how to achieve a "decarbonized society." Instead, they must commit to depicting a more proactive blueprint for the reform of capitalism. In this blueprint, not only will climate change be well-resolved within the capitalist framework, but inequalities in many areas—such as class, race, and gender—will also be thoroughly and holistically resolved. Therefore, the ultimate goal pursued by the GND is incompatible with the logical paradox of capitalism itself. If labor movements, environmental NGOs, regional community organizations, indigenous groups, and other social organizations do not unite to spark a broad social movement, the GND will become a "tree without roots" [4] and will surely end in failure under the counter-attack of the logic of capital. Only by mobilizing as many people as possible to participate and initiating more universal activities can we jointly paint a beautiful future for "climate justice." In this sense, the strategy of the GND is actually what Joachim Hirsch calls "radical reformism."
The radical nature of so-called "radical reformism" is mainly manifested in the fact that the ultimate goal of reform is to fundamentally negate capitalism’s frenzied obsession with economic growth and to completely overthrow the basic principles upon which the current capitalist social system operates. Conversely, the so-called "Green Revolution" proposed by Thomas Friedman and others is undoubtedly one-sided. If the GND loses the aforementioned radicalism, it will inevitably degenerate into a "Climate Keynesianism" that serves the "Green Revolution." Because "Climate Keynesianism" and the logic of capital are cut from the same cloth, the outcome of allowing it to evolve would be: the United States, in order to realize its own green transition, will continue to extract finite resources from the rest of the world and ultimately shatter the limits of the Earth's carrying capacity.
Naomi Klein once appealed: "The GND will create many high-quality green jobs. However, if people are not careful, they will immediately invest the wages earned from these jobs into an extreme consumerist lifestyle, ultimately increasing carbon emissions. Therefore, people must take great care to avoid this situation." These words hit the mark. In view of this, Naomi Klein proposed: "The most urgent transition is that, while formulating measures to strictly limit the extraction of natural resources, we provide people with a brand-new opportunity to improve their quality of life and escape the trap of the infinite consumption cycle, thereby gaining new and greater joys in life."
IV. Conclusion
"Socialism or barbarism"—this cry by Rosa Luxemburg has been given a brand-new realistic significance in the era of climate crisis. Naomi Klein uses the chilling concept of "eco-fascism" to alert people: we must not allow the "barbarism" spoken of by Rosa Luxemburg to resurface. In the era of climate crisis, allowing the logic of capital to run rampant will inevitably lead to the decline of democracy and the emergence of a society where a small clique monopolizes wealth and energy. In such a society, some small groups will instead hypocritically use the issue of climate change as a pretext to expel those migrants who were forced to flee their homes precisely because of climate change. The border wall built high by the Trump administration on the US-Mexico border under the banner of "America First" is the most typical symbol of such a society.
In summary, within an Earth with limited carrying capacity, the pursuit of unlimited economic growth under capital and the drive for unbridled production and consumption activities mean that the capitalist economic system has reached a crossroads where major transformation and adjustment are necessary.
The snapshot captured at the end of the "Climate Keynesian" path is, at best, a scene where a tiny minority of the wealthy drive Tesla electric vehicles. As long as the capitalist relations of production remain the prerequisite, the bottom line of the Earth's carrying capacity is destined to be ruthlessly trampled. The hope of turning the tide by relying on incremental progress in the technical details of capitalist production will ultimately be proven a mere delusion of wishful thinking.
On the other side of the coin, however, a brand-new opportunity presents itself to humanity: to treat democracy as the gold standard [5], to transcend the traps of economic inequality and the chasms between social strata, and thereby build a freer and more equal society. In doing so, we can thoroughly clear away the haze of the climate change problem.
Ultimately, this is the struggle between capitalism and democracy that will determine the future and destiny of humanity.
[Author: Kohei Saito (1987—), male, Japanese, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Economics, Osaka City University] Online Editor: Zhang Jian Source: Journal of Nanjing University of Technology (Social Science Edition), 2021, Issue 6.