Is capitalism a sustainable system?

[Jazzratt]

As most people in the world that have not been living in a sock under a fossilised badger for the last few decades will know there is a problem with the environment at the moment, we are using too many resources and causing a lot of damage to the biosphere which will eventually come back and harm us humans. On the left their are two explanations for this state of affairs - firstly that industrial technology is to blame and we should cut down on it or eradicate this altogether (i.e the utter bullshit view) and secondly that capitalism with its inefficiencies is the root cause.

This second view is what I want to discuss with the restricted members, as it has been brought up many times in the Sciences and Environment sub forum on this board. I am curious as to how liberals think that capitalism will deal with the challenge of our current environmental state, how they propose to conserve energy and reduce emissions without recourse to a planned economy.

I am also curious as to where those that sympathise with capitalism place the blame for environmental degradation if they do not lay it at the feet of the mode of production that defines efficiency not in terms of energy but in terms of profit.

[Tungsten]

This second view is what I want to discuss with the restricted members, as it has been brought up many times in the Sciences and Environment sub forum on this board. I am curious as to how liberals think that capitalism will deal with the challenge of our current environmental state, how they propose to conserve energy and reduce emissions without recourse to a planned economy.
Perhaps we ought to ask whether man-made contributions to climate change are as big as they're made out to be. I don't think they are, but then I might have a hidden agenda. Then again, so might the evironmentalists. In fact, I'm certain they have a hidden agenda.

[Hegemonicretribution]

I agree that many of them have a hidden agenda...just as the pro cannabis campaigners have an agenda: to provide enough extreme bullshit to counter the extreme bullshit suggested by others.

It is not a favourable state of affairs, but is a truly honest approach really going to stand up to strong propganda? For some people yes, but there are always the equivalent of Michael Moore fans out there who like lefty/liberally propoganda and horror stories over real information.

I, nor I doubt anyone for that matter knows exactly what is going on. If we are shooting ourselves in the foot however I would claim that the inefficiences of capitalism as an area that we as humans can prevent.

That we live in a world where a materialistic approach necessitates at least some counter propoganda rather than real information is quite sad in my opinion, and demonstrates the need for change.

[pusher robot]

I am also curious as to where those that sympathise with capitalism place the blame for environmental degradation if they do not lay it at the feet of the mode of production that defines efficiency not in terms of energy but in terms of profit.

There are two places for blame.

First, are ineffeciencies in the legal system that allow (or allowed) externalities to be imposed without compensation. If the air that I breath has been polluted, the polluter should be required to compensate me for that.

Second, are the people as a whole for deciding that some environmental degradation is fine, because it would be too expensive NOT to degrade it. For example, if you have fuel A that you know pollutes the air a little and fuel B which doesn't pollute at all but is ten times the price, most people would be willing to live with a little pollution for the less costly fuel. Likewise, if you have an environmentally damaged area, it might cost a few hundred dollars to clean or a few hundred million dollars to clean. Sometimes it is worth the cost to clean it and sometimes those resources would be better used elsewhere.

You simply can't say a priori that all environmental degradation is bad. It all depends on the benefit accrued from the activity that causes the degradation in the first place.