Surviving Capitalism (Not) : Why the Green Economy is a wrong path to restore the equilibrium with nature and what alternatives do we have?

We’ve lived so long under the spell of hierarchy—from god-kings to feudal lords to party bosses—that only recently have we awakened to see not only that “regular” citizens have the capacity for self-governance, but that without their engagement our huge global crises cannot be addressed. The changes needed for human society simply to survive, let alone thrive, are so profound that the only way we will move toward them is if we ourselves, regular citizens, feel meaningful ownership of solutions through direct engagement. Our problems are too big, interrelated, and pervasive to yield to directives from on high.
—Frances Moore Lappé, excerpt from Time for Progressives to Grow Up

Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Why the Green Economy is a wrong path to restore the equilibrium with nature and what alternatives do we have?

Click here to access article by Pablo Solon from Focus on the Global South.

Using the June meeting of the United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development (Rio + 20) that will take place in Rio de Janeiro, he frames his argument that sustainable development under the neoliberal version of a “Green Economy” is a hoax based on observable facts of the last 20 years. The hoax will soon be a deadly one for human and many other life forms if it is allowed to continue down this path of capitalism and its addiction to growth and the commodification of nature.

The unsustainable development model that gained dominance in the world resulted to grave loss of biodiversity, melting of polar ice caps and mountain glaciers, alarming increase in deforestation and desertification and the looming danger of an at least 4ºC increase in temperature, which will threaten life as we know it. Science is saying that we are approaching a point of no return that will change the way our planet has behaved over 650,000 years”.

Unfortunately, he offers a long list of "shoulds" or reforms that are needed to prevent capitalism from destroying the planet. But then he concludes with this sentence:

The collective global response that is needed to confront the crisis we face requires structural changes. [my emphasis] We must change the capitalist system, not the Earth system.

But, what does he mean by this? The implementation of his reforms to the capitalist system? That is not structural change! Is he asking that the wolves of capitalism change to a vegetarian diet? Or is he suggesting that humanity must change from a capitalist system to another system whose basic principles are based on respect for, and the promotion of, all life forms--not exploitation for the profit of a few. Capitalism is completely incompatible with sustainability. Such confusion on his part only contributes to the delay in making any significant progress toward an ecosystem that can support human and many other life forms.

Having been a member of the Bolivian government of Evo Morales, perhaps the author is mirroring their confusion: espousing policies of sustainability while pursuing mostly neo-liberal policies that promote exploitation of natural resources. It appears that they have bought into the One Percent's self-serving mantra: "there is no alternative".