Solving the global environmental problem

[EndaKenny]

Hi guys

My friend is left wing but he does not believe in radical left wing thought because he is an environmentalist and does not believe that communism/stateless societies would be able to deal with the various problems facing the environment today such as global warming and the imminent shortage of fossil fuels. Although not a proponent of capitalism he does believe that a state is absolutely necessary because in order to solve these problems it must come from the top down.

My argument is that environmental issues can be solved from the bottom up, at a local/regional level, with education and awareness of the global scale of things in mind. The fall of capitalism would also mean the decline of countless factories and workshops producing meaningless consumerist rubbish thus a drop in emissions and pollution. The lack of drive for profit would also mean there would be no need to prioritize making money/savings materials over regard for the environment.

He has a degree in Geography, I dont. Not that someones credentials validate their argument more but he is able to bring up more complex issues and talk about it in more depth than I am able to, because honestly the environment and how we fit into it in a communist society is not something I have thought about so much. I dont think hes completely wrong, nor do I think hes completely right. Fact of the matter is Im not 100% sure and would like to hear other leftists opinions on it.

Thanks

[noble brown]

capitalism, by definition puts profits first. above the welfare of the ppl and the planet. u simply cannot be an informed environmentalist and not be an anti-capitalist. capitalism just cannot supply a solution to the environmental issues that are not internally contradictory to capitalism itself. his belief that it must come from the top down comes from a learned dependency on authority and power structures

[Palmares]

So they believe in an authoritarian... something?

Your general reformist environmentalist or similar, usually believes in a system where environmental problems are heavy regulated, infact, everything is heavily regulated. But this is only really necessary where forces, such as economic, are fundamentally working against global environmental health. So basically there would be this eternal tension, like a system continually working against itself, as long as some form of capitalism exists. It's a recipe for disaster.

I don't know precisely what your friend envisions, but what I do know is, that capitalism is the antithesis of our survival.

[Blake's Baby]

People with money don't care that places where they don't live are poisoned. It is the working class that suffers most from environmental degradation. So if the workers ran the economy, they would be in a position to change production and distribution processes to be less wasteful and less hazardous.

There would be no vested interests keeping (relatively-)green technologies like hydropower and wind-power marginalised. Aspects of modern living like 'the commute' would disappear. Private transportation would give way to public transportation in many cases. Resources currently tied up in unproductive aspects of capitalism, from finance to advertising, could instead be targeted more rationally at solving problems instead of creating them. All of this would begin to mitigate some of the grosser problems we face as a species.

It seems to me that this is much more likely than thinking that some people who derive their position from exploiting others are suddenly going to develop enough of a social conscience to decree solutions to problems they've created, they don't care about, and which actually give them the status that they enjoy.

[piet11111]

You can not control what you do not own.

As such as long as businesses are in private hands nothing will change.
Even with the very minimal regulations currently in place we already see countless violations and absolutely no consequences.

No degrees can help him talk himself out of such an obvious truth.