Will the environmentalists replace the capitalists in the fight for survival of Earth.?

Question

The fight is currently weighted in favour of capitalism. There is no really powerful world wide body to manage & restrict certain hamful activities adding to greenhouse gases. There is no positive work being carried out to reverse the effect other than stop emmission levels which add to green house gases

Answer 1

Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned
and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.

Answer 2

A few things:

1) Environmentalism and capitalism are not mutually exclusive things. There is no world-wide "fight" between good and evil in this sense.

2) Deep down, everyone is a capitalist (ie, self-interested). Anyone who says otherwise is probably selling something.

3) The trick to making the world more eco-friendly is to come up with ways for eco-friendly ideas to be economicallycompetitive. In other words, don't fight capitalism. USE IT.

Example: People will willingly spend money to have cars with more fuel efficient engines. Ever hear of hybrids? Those things are selling like hotcakes. Even refrigerators are about 3 times more efficient than they were 30 years ago. That's a lot of saved energy. Insulation on most newer homes is also much more efficient than homes 30 years ago. That's more saved energy.

4) The only greenhouse gas that scientists are worried about is CO2. That's because it is getting dumped in HUGE quantities. Current projections place the year 2050 (give or take) as the year when atmospheric CO2 will be roughly double that of pre-industrial levels. Nobody knows what will happen (either good or bad), but given the unstable, nonlinear behavior of global climate, most people don't want to know.

5) There are plently of solutions to the problem, many of which are gaining some headway into the market. Go read the September 2006 issue of Scientific American for more info.

6) Crazy talk about "environmentalism VS capitalism" is why people give little credit to the environmentalists. There is plenty of legitimate science out there to support the reduction of CO2, but few eco-folks will ever take the time to study it. Instead, there is a bunch of anti-corporate fear mongering with no scientific foundation. This is why people all think environmentalism is some kind of political scam instead of a legitimate thing to be concerned about.

Answer 3

I believe that the answer to both your question is both the environmentalists and the capitalists.

Through slight or maybe even no intervention by government in the economy, environmentalist aims can be achieved with capitalism.

Having high taxes on car fuel (as we have in the UK) will discourage people from using alot of car fuel and then higher taxes for cars based on their CO2 emmissions encourage the use of less polluting cars.

Having high taxes on air travel also will reduce air flights, most significantly in the 'budget' market, which is the main cause of growth in air travel.

But as well as using the stick, you need to use the carrot. Using the revenue from the above examples, government can make being environmentally friendly easier. By subsidising or just removing taxation on public transportation; investing in recycling schemes and helping business that takes an environmentally friendly approach.

So you must not think that capitalism is the enemy of the environment, but by using and adjusting the free market you can achieve your aims.

Answer 4

there is no fight for survival of earth - earth will survive anything humans do.

There is no absolute confilct between environmentalists & capitalists; capitalists depend on a healthy environment for sustainable business; environmentalists depend on business to provide resources for an aware human culture, eg education, books ...

However the current economic industrial growth model and consumenr culture is not sustainalbe either in economic or environmental terms; and never can be on a finite planet.

There are many other positive options available for human society to live happier and healthier lives on a healthy planet, but this requires a change in attitude from all of us.

Answer 5

Not until people change from this "I want culture".
Money talks and the Capitalists have the voice.
When I was a child, the area I lived in was surrounded by old mine workings, the place was full of different birds and wildlife.
Then, the local council decided to return it to nature and destroyed all the habitats in the process.
The wildlife had allready adapted, then the environmentalists failed to account for this.
Shame.

Answer 6

The question raises some interesting thoughts. I believe that they can all exist. This also goes for all other "labels" associated with certain groups (ie political parties). The main problem is that people don't think for themselves. They rely on tradition when voting or decision making. Everyone needs to educate themselves on all issues and make a decision that is best for the overall outcome. Do not simply put the blame on a group such as a "capitalist" or label someone who cares about the environment as a "tree hugger". Labels are over rated and over simplify situations. Think for yourself and work toward what you believe is right. This especially goes for us Americans. We need to elect politicians that work for the greater good, not their lobbyist contributors.
I see many inaccurate answers to questions on this site (especially in regards to global warming). Please do research on your own to educate yourself through peer reviewed journals and not the mass media outlets. They are not always to be trusted.

John Nash (a Nobel prize winner, subject of the movie A Beautiful Mind) determined that when someone works towards a goal that is not just the optimal outcome for themselves, but also optimal for the greater good, a greater amount of gain/satisfaction is provided for all parties. Think about this when making decisions for selfish reasons. Think about everyone else and what you can do to make everything better

Answer 7

Again, another question that polarizes too much to advance an arguement one way or another.

Most people are capitalists, with environmetalist sympathies where possible.

People have to eat and environmentalists do not provide any solutions, just questions and theory.

This does not devalue the input of the environmental lobby, social conscience is vital to being human. Like with most things relating to the condition of Man, there is almost no black and white, just shades of grey.

Answer 8

How about if we re-invent capitalism, so that its cool to be an enviro-capitalist!? Make the money through greener ventures and using advertising to promote ecological and ethical business solutions. For example: allow the everlasting lightbulb design to be produced, (Philips!) to reduce the world mountain of dead lightbulbs. This could be done for so many products, that a difference would actually be made... But I dream on!

Answer 9

You assume the worst. Yet the data suggests that the environment has been getting CLEANER for centuries, especially in industrialized economies. Of course, you have to be objective. Remember, WE ALL spew out CO2. Should we end mankind to save the planet? One other thing, if global warming is such a calamity, then why don't we simply start seeding the upper atmosphere with ash to cool the earth? Problem solved.

Answer 10

The dilema that faces the movers and shakers of the world is simple:

Quick and steady profit NOW verses a decent environment for your grandkids later.

Pretty easy to guess which argument wins out almost every time.