The real cause of global warming...

...is Capitalism.

Unchecked consumption/pollution of our natural resources and an emphasis on liberty and individual 'rights' over the planet/species as a whole. The truth is, we don't have the discipline it takes to cut back, because of the size of the human population and the fact that under capitalism everyone has such a pronounced sense of entitlement. Instead of accepting the guilt and the blame for the problem, we project that guilt and blame onto others, as if the most prominent and individualistic proponents of our own ingrained ideological persuasions (ie: the politicians) are wholly responsible for the momentum of our capitalist system instead of merely perpetuating its existence due to our own continued support and indulgence of its effects.

Instead of demanding the kind of social or political changes that could effectively curtail the damage, we continue to perpetuate the ideologies and social structures that caused the problem in the first place-- eg: instead of getting together and selling our cars, then using the profits to develop or demand a more efficient and environmentally conscious public transportation system, we demand MORE cars, and we demand that they be made more environmentally friendly, thereby perpetuating and reinforcing the industries that are responsible for a large extent of the damage.

So which is the more effective method of environmental protection?

1. Manufacturing heaps of 'environmentally friendly' products which continue to allow us our privacy and social separation, marketed to us as the guilt-assuaging vehicles of a 'new and improved' era. We continue to function as the same formulaic personae under the same formulaic system in the name of our own mythological 'progress'. We continue to embody the omnipresent disruption of our interpersonal relationships through a series of technological 'enhancements'. We continue to support the manufacturing industries which are largely responsible for the damage to our environment. We do so in the name of an advanced and universally oppressive form of capitalism.

OR

2. Rethinking our sociopolitical structure and collectively determining the most efficient modes of social and economic organization. Instead of demanding new products, we reject the very notion of 'new products' and reorganize and rethink the nature of each and every product and structure currently dictating our values and identities. We attempt not to alter our current identities, products, vehicles etc. in a vain effort to address our concerns, but to rethink our entire social, economic and political structures in order to better suit our potential harmony with the environment.

In my opinion, the situation seems dire enough to merit the latter. We can no longer afford to think only of our daily routines, or our wants and desires as if they are harmless. We cannot blame our vehicles or products for what is essentially our own reinforcement of a larger and ultimately destructive pattern of behaviours.

What is needed is a large and collective sacrifice that likely will involve the dramatic and potentially painful rejection of nearly all that comprises our daily routines, and nearly all that comprises our given lifestyles.

I don't mean environmentally-obsessive fascism necessarily-- just a far less pronounced sense of individualistic entitlement and far less reliance on the powers-that-be to solve those problems which are ultimately the responsibility of the masses.

What is needed is a nurturing of concern so great that it ultimately overpowers that capitalist urge to define ourselves differently from others-- in terms of fashion, music, automobiles, career, travel, education, opportunity, etc.

We need to accept that perhaps our lifestyles-- themselves governed by the notion of 'being all that we can be' (self-empowerment) is not necessarily copascetic with our natural environments.

 

Consumption based lifestyle and capitalism are not the same thing.

 

Yes they are. Well they arn't the same, but a consumption based lifestyle is part of a strong capitalism. Buy - sell - buy more - sell more - make money roll.

And you don't need to be an economist to understand that... you just have to pay attention in economy classes in hight school.

 

First of all, it's hard to take your opinion seriously if you write one sentence and don't back it up in any way.

Second of all, that wasn't my point. My point was that consumption, entitlement and 'liberty' (all of which stem from capitalist ideology) are largely responsible for global warming.

Third, if you think you can have one without the other then please tell me how. In a market economy, the survival of your business depends on the willingness of people to buy what you're selling. If you have nothing to sell, you will go out of business. You will have to do an overhaul of your factory and it will cost you millions, people will lose their jobs, and worst of all you will lose your entire customer base for the amount of time it takes to do so. This is why it is important to keep your consumers hungry for the next product by any means necessary. The government is completely aligned with this idea, and they encourage it as well-- because they are so heavily influenced by the interests of their capitalist business partners.

If you have public ownership of the factory (yes, I mean communism), then you have no reason to keep operating it, because it is no longer of benefit to society. The workers are already taken care of so they do not need to worry if they lose their jobs, they can easily be transplanted. The CEOs are merely government employees making the same wages as everyone else, so they do not need to worry about their profits.

In the meantime, you do not need to sacrifice environmental concerns just to stay competitive. You do not need to open a factory in third world countries because of cheap labour and lower emissions standards because you do not need to compete with the other guy who is doing exactly the same thing.

You also do not have competitive businesses simultaneously consuming the same resource, offering the public multiple sources of a given product, giving the public more than they need and creating more waste.

This is my point-- we are being handed this global warming thing as an excuse to buy more cars and buy them NOW before it's too late, thereby supporting more businesses intent to capitalize on the latest trend or fashion.

Everything under capitalism is about making money and not the actual product/service, and certainly not about the environment.

 

Did capitalism cause the sun to rise in temperature or the overpopulation of the earth?

While i would agree it does not help i cant agree to a vauge statement that capitalism is the real cause of global warming when 30 years ago it was global cooling. I think we are but 1 factor in the overall issue we are facing.

 

I agree with you SpreadneckGA
The sun should be currently in its quiet period with not much sunspot activity in its 11 year cycle, instead it has a lot of sunspots, i would hate to know what will happen in 2012 when it is at its most active.

 

This thread is rather impressive, as it contains in few posts ideas ranging from cosmo-political visions to the denial of global warming itself. It would be easier debating what is the purpose of life.

I used to believe in some "sacred" principles of private property, one pillar of Capitalism. I also believed in egalitarian democracy. The combination of both sets of believing made me think any person was entitled to acquire by legal means a 4 acres land, build his or her house, and grow a garden. These rights extended to plant any species he wanted, use poisons to get rid of insects, not only those damaging for roses but regarding those nasty ones he or her may have a phobia with. Exterminate snakes, of course. Mow the lawn, etc.

It sounds nice, but if any and each of 6.6 billion people in the Earth exercised their rights of having these real states, there would be no remaining surface of emerging land to nature. All the land available would be consumed by these miserable, personal châteaux and man would conquer nature by exterminating it.

This simple "number crunching" convinced me our rights are more limited than what we are willing to admit, and someone could have his own château only if he or she prevents hundreds of people of having theirs. I'm not saying that it is unfair that some people are wealthy and dominate portions of the land, just I'm sure that we have an "economy of rights" where we saw any: our individual rights bounded by community rights, and mankind rights limited by the rest of the Planet's.

But anyway, Capitalism doesn't explain why in the States they manage to burn twice fossil fuels than in Europe to produce the same value (USA: 2200 usd-ppp NGP per ton CO2, EU: 3900 usd-ppp). Both are Capitalist.

Also, if World's population were 1 billion instead of 6.6, global warming would more manageable. Capitalism is not direct cause of overpopulation (maybe indirect, and one among several causes).

I don't think that having the dog dead (Capitalism) the rabies (GW) is over. Either way Capitalism is needing lots of retouches.

[You're welcome to correct my English]

 

The earth has been NATURALLY changing in climate for THOUSANDS of years..it is natural fluctuations and trends....this liberal global warming hysteria has got to end. the CO2 that humans put out has little to no effect on temperature. it is insignificant and we should be worried about more important things. the earth can take care of itself! as its been doing for MILLIONS of years!

 

even if a person believes this entirely, humans are definitely poisoning themselves and their environment with a wide variety of toxic substances that are part and parcel with our unsustainable lifestyle. so either way, things have got to change.

 

Well I'm glad you've got the authority to override every respectable scientific authority on earth then. But hell, what do they know?

 

Why don't you and your buddies stop spamming the forum?

That or reply with your own original opinions.

 

Buddies? It's the same guy, I'm sure.

 

Yes the world will recover. If we keep going as we are we will die. The majority of life on earth will die. But in a hundred million years or so the earth will return to normal. Not the normal we know and love, the species of animal and plants will be completely different, evolution will have started from scratch again. But there will be stable ecosystems and our damage will have been fixed. Think of it like restoring your computer to factory settings. But we'll still be dead.

 

i read this article just today and thought it was an interesting take on global warming and capitalistic pursuits:

http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html

 

I've posted this elsewhere, but I think it's relevant.
20 Theses Against Green Capitalism: http://news.infoshop.org/article.php?story=20090127155042679