Yesterday I had a very interesting discussion with a professor at my college about sustainable development. Sustainable development, as defined by the Brundtland Commission in Our Common Future, is “meeting the needs of the present generation without compromising the abilities of future generations to meet their needs”. He asked me, “How do you convince the community to work for sustainable development, and delay gratification?”
I did not have a good answer, since that is the question on everyone’s mind. How do you tell people they need to think about tomorrow when today they are starving, or thirsty, or without energy? The root problem, as my professor believes and I agree, is the culture of entitlement. We were having this discussion the in context of post-Apartheid South Africa, when the unified government was established and Africans that had suffered under Apartheid believed that it was their turn to have unlimited access to resources. What they didn’t think about was scarcity. Yes, maldistribution was a giant problem during Apartheid, but straight up redistribution isn’t the only (or best, for that matter) solution. The infrastructure needs to be built for access to be allowed, and even then there must be a sustainable component to the access.
Lack of access to essential resources is an environmental justice issue. Justice, as my professor explained, is a delicate matter. It is here that the sense of entitlement comes into play. Justice comes with responsibility, so that those suffering do not submit to victimhood but instead are empowered and work towards a better future for themselves and their children, as opposed to becoming parasitic, dependent, and disempowered. It is this sense of responsibility to oneself and ones community that is missing, and is an obstacle to sustainable development.This is an obstacle being tackled on the global scale as well. This sense of responsibility to the community, or the public sphere, can be fostered through entrepreneurship.
The interaction of the public and private sphere has traditionally been that the private individual benefits from the resources and work of the public sphere. This is reminiscent of Hardin’s The Tragedy of the Commons. In order for true sustainable development to take place, this must be flipped. It must be the public sphere that benefits from private action, even sacrifice. This can be achieved through entrepreneurship! Energy efficiency, water efficiency, conservation measures are all possible entrepreneurship opportunities. Capitalism got us into this mess…and it’s possible that it could get us out. We don’t need to destroy the system, we just need to change it from the inside. That sounds like something we can do.
Subscribe by Email!
Subscribe by RSS!
Share on Facebook
Great post, Liz.
To expand upon your last point – people often blame outside institutions for our social and environmental problems today. The television has destroyed the American family unit, capitalism results in environmental destruction. Rather, it’s how we use these tools that can lead to either successful or destructive outcomes. Capitalism isn’t inherently good or bad; we must simply be aware of it’s potential and it’s shortcomings.
David Brooks wrote a column last week about social entrepreneurship, which I think is applicable to how I view climate positive solutions.
“The older do-gooders had a certain policy model: government identifies a problem. Really smart people design a program. A Cabinet department in a big building administers it.
But the new do-gooders have absorbed the disappointments of the past decades. They have a much more decentralized worldview. They don’t believe government on its own can be innovative. A thousand different private groups have to try new things. Then we measure to see what works.
Their problem now is scalability. How do the social entrepreneurs replicate successful programs so that they can be big enough to make a national [or international, in this case] difference?”
Our bigger problem is how we replicate successful solutions without falling into into the same patterns of multinational corporate control. A multinational, hierarchical energy efficiency corporation could theoretically control a nation as much as Shell Oil. Yet if we can recognize the true potential within everyone, we truly can flip capitalism.
Liz,
I’ve had similar discussions with my business professors (at the Carlson School of Management – University of Minnesota TC), but a lot of times they do not grasp the integration of sustainability and business. (and entrepreneurship). They are stuck in sheer profit maximization and return on investment. (especially when investing in foreign developing nations). I’ve been trying to figure out ways to get these points across to them, but I haven’t had much success.
I agree that we need to have a sense of responsibility to the community, but that is contrary to many people in the business world’s beliefs. Adam Smith/Self Interest economics is still dominant. We should have a discussion on how to shift the thinking especially in the the business world.
“Properly using the markets we have may be the greatest single step towards a sustainable humane energy future” – Amory Lovins in Soft Energy Paths
Liz, Interesting post. I think there are many dangerous inequalities that exist in the current manifestations of capitalism. It is difficult to measure externalities (Pollution, anyone) and to really evaluate the true cost of ANYTHING. But I think that capitalism is very important in the following ways:
1) In one of my classes we recently discussed how the coutnerculture in the 1960s was in fact not a cultural rebellion of capitalism, but that the individualisism, political statements through consumerism, and creativity of the counterculture were values more in line with capitalism than the homogenous Victorian values that preceded it,
2) Capitalism celebrates creativity. I think that’s really important. Devoloping environmental policies that are not inherently expensive (SuperFund, Clean Air Act, the EPA in general) but that are economically and socially smart is a really imporatant step toward a sustainable future.
So, I think that while I am going to avoid either a sweeping condemnation or celebration of capitalism, I think there is a lot of potential (you described this really well.) So I agree, let’s make capitalism more equitable and more grassroots.
This is really insightful. The entrepreneurship that we need at the local level is going to come from us (and others) who are empowered to build the world they want to see, and not be given it.
If Powershift 08 goes well, we’ll continue to develop a really strong base that lets our leaders know we’re serious, and then we’re going to start doing the building/upgrading.
Capitalism has lots of flavors, and the one most people are used to certainly isn’t the only one.
I think there are dangers to this idea that we can use the system to our advantage. Form is content, as the saying goes, and a movement that roots itself in a system that values the creation of artificial wealth and profit through the production (i.e. turning the living into the dead) and export of goods doesn’t sound like it will, ultimately, lend itself to creating a sustainable and just future. By entering into the monetary economy, we invite the-powers-that-be to co-opt the movement and turn it into something ugly. Or if not the powers that be, entering into a system with profit-motive values doesn’t help us transition towards long-term thinking, community-building, etc.
I think it’s excellent to analyze the ways that systems are set up to destroy us. Can we have a compassionate, human-scale Capitalism? No, because Capitalism up to this point has proven itself to be nothing but destructive and oppressive. Whatever we imagine to replace capitalism will need to be something radically different. This system needs to be overthrown, destroyed, smashed. Like tearing up pavement, we can take a sledgehammer to it, or we can take the dandelion approach — pushing up through the cracks. Both are valuable, but both do destroy the system, replacing it with something life-affirming and constructive.
This is not to say that trade necessarily entails evils, but if we create local barter-economies based on growing food and production of goods from our bioregions (or whatever you imagine), let’s not call it capitalism…
Stern said climate change was the biggest market failure the world had ever seen. I tend to think that if markets created the problem it’s unlikely they can fix it. I forget who said this – Einstein? – but we can’t use the kind of thinking that got us into this mess to get out of it. He also said, “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Perfect example of how markets are not providing solutions to climate change is the Clean Development Mechanism, under Kyoto, which allows ‘rich’ countries to continue polluting as long as they invest in ‘offset’ projects in the Global South – many of which have very problematic social and environmental consequences, and just delay the inevitable transition that the North will need to make anyway. It also shifts the ‘burden’ of climate mitigation to the Global South, who historically did not cause the problem, and who have much lower per-capita emissions.
So this is just one example but I honestly believe, after thinking about this a lot and examining current ‘market-based’ responses to climate change, which seem to be more about making money than addressing the probem, that we need a new type of economic system – not capitalism – to really solve climate change and all the other problems that are associated with it (poverty, health etc).
Having said that I am 110% in favour of the type of entrepreneurship around developing renewable energy (even better if it’s decentralised and community controlled) and revitalising local economies and creating green jobs etc.
Redistribution of wealth and power are necessary but not sufficient conditions for dealing with our current ecological crises. The primary problem with capitalism is it is explicitly not directed at meeting peoples needs (even Adam Smith conceded this point) but rather the relentless expansion (and concentration in fewer hands) of abstract forms of wealth. It is important to remember that “lack of access essential resources” the origin and base of capitalism that began with the enclosure movement in Europe- forcing peasants off the land that sustained them and leaving them no choice but to sell their labor the factory owners. The essence of capitalism is that a minority controls access to “essential resources” and therefore can compel others to work for them.
What we need is democratic control over economic production. Capitalist competition creates a “Jevon’s Paradox” of efficiency. As the cost of energy inputs drop, competition moves to more energy but less labor intensive forms of production in order to increase profit margins. The result is that everywhere today were we see increased efficiency we also see an increase in the ABSOLUTE amount of energy consumption far out pacing population growth. There is no way to internalize the ecological and social externalities of the current system because the values threatened are not reducible to a common demominator of money. The only solution is to decide how to manage these values through democratic discourse as communities and as a society- which is largley incompatible with market principles.
Lets dump capitalism! but whatever the future holds we have to get there from where we are now. Collective, cooperative entrepreneurship is our best hope. I am very excited about the redistribution of wealth to create Green Jobs as pathways out of poverty. In line with what you said about justice being internally related with responsibility I believe its crucial these new Green Jobs come from organizations which are worker controlled and unionized. All over the developing world, especially Latin America, grass roots democracy and socialist movements are offering a far more inspiring vision than Garrett Hardin’s Eco-fascism.