why Capitalism system and private ownership is the main cause of Global warming?

Question

some believe!
Capitalism = consumerism = global warming = destruction of planet !

what do you think ?

Answer 1

I answered another question: What is causing global warming? with the following answer - I am glad to see someone else thinks as I do!
The 'greenhouse effect' can be greatly limited by revamping the capitalistic societies that rule by economics, rather than ethics and common sense. Most of the gases that eat through the ozone are a product of consumerism. For ex. all people were driving hybrid cars would greatly reduce the amount of pollution that is eating a hole in the ozone. However, if all people started driving hybrid cars, the petrol industry would be in shock as would the automobile industry. A shock to these two systems would greatly affect the economy. Goverments like those in the US are not going to let that happen because they have no solution to repair an economy that changes. They therefore strive to lead conservative nations that do not progress with the times. This is one small example. Most production plants are releasing CO2 as well. Making them revamp their practices to cut down on the emissions would cost them a lot of money and therefore reduce their political contributions. Vicious cycle as you can see. In the end no one really wins and all the money will eventually be washed away by the melting glaciers.

There is scientific evidence that the hole in the ozone layer will start to repair itself if there is a reduction in these gases that eat through it. The best thing you can do to lessen the greenhouse effect therefore is to vote for politicians and leaders that are concerned with the problem and are working for solutions.

Answer 2

I would argue that capitalism is indifferent to the causes of global-warming; being more concerned with the machinery of the production and consumption cycle than with any possible consequences.

If there is money to be made, for good or evil, there are those who will turn the wheel and reap the financial benefits, which is how it should be. Ultimately, it doesn't matter what the actual system is.

The real problem is ignorance, and the cosequences of that ignorance, but there is no reason why capitalism could not adapt to changing global circumstances, as it always has before.

Go back a hundred years, to the age of steam and coal. Would any entrepreneur have thought then, that the machines of their enterprise would be swept away by oil, electricity, nuclear-power or wind-turbines? In fact, considering the evolution of production methods and the introduction of anti-pollution laws, capitalism has adapted extremely quickly, even when others predicted that the cost of legislation would destroy industry.

Whilst I would ackowledge that certain industries have deliberately moved to countries where there are less restrictions on pollution, the main reason has been the fractional costs of labour as compared to those in developed countries. Ironically, it is capitalism which is bringing wealth to poorer countries, whilst socialists flounder in their attempts to make the world a more just one.

I think it was Eric Greenspan who suggested that wherever capitalism has flourished, people have been better off, and that has been true by and large.

Hurrah then for capitalism!

Not a bit of it!

Unfortunately, mother nature is as indifferent to capitalism as capitalism is towards it, and beneath the veneer of success is the unexploded bomb of ecological disaster, of which global-warming is but a part.

It is very easy to isolate something like global-warming, and then press for reductions in fossil-fuel consumption, in the hope that this will provide incentive to change. The question which must be asked, is whether this is actually a very effective strategy, since the most obvious way of achieving this is the blunt and rather indiscriminate tool of taxation.

It may yet be capitalism which saves the day, once the message gets home that things have to change if there is to be a sustainable future.

What a gigantic leap ffaith that would be, because it would mean that the financial world would have to consider "long term" gain rather than "short term" gain; in other words, a move away from pure monetarism and towards a more enlightened version of capitalism.

This is not the place to write a thesis, but if the cycle of supply and demand could be slowed down, even allowing for population growth, there is a good chance that a real reduction in fossil-fuel consumption might be possible without loss of either profitability or a comfortable lifestyle.

I may be wrong , (but hopefully not naive), in stating that anything which slows down production and consumption, yet maintains profitability, is bound to be only a good thing in ecological terms, and I would suggest that the most certain way of achieving this is by a complete review of the throw-away mentality.

Let's put it this way. If I can buy a DVD player for less than £30 at Walmart Asda, and it lasts a year, it has cost me only about 60p per day. If it lasts two years, then it will cost me 30p per day.

Now if I bought a state-of-the-art broadcast quality machine, it would possibly cost me a small fortune, but it would be built to last and would be worth repairing if it went wrong. If it lasted 10 years, then it might not cost a great deal more than 10 cheap DVD players.

The big difference is ecological, because I wouldn't be consuming all that new material each year, and then having the thing disposed of.

If I were a "long term" entreprenuer, I could devise a means whereby I enter into a contractual obligation to supply, repair or refurbish a good quality machine, and I could make a good profit from it without creating waste and without excessive use of new materials.

The knock on effect is even better, because less prime production means less use of energy-intensive processes, much less in terms of packaging, transportation, re-cycling, production-capacity, distribution, storage, plant, land, machinery, advertising, retail support.....in other words, everything in the capitalist food-chain.

Now, is THAT the better approach, or do we rely on political dinosaurs, taxation, heavy handed officialdom, protocols and all the other health-hazards to our existence?

Now, if the questioner had asked, "Is monetarism the main cause of global warming? I would have simply answered yes!

When money is but a commodity, then we are all in danger of divorcing ourselves from reality, and I fear that this is what has happened in the past 30 years.

Answer 3

It's nothing to do with capitalism, and the 'formula' you stated in the question is spurious. act: people consume. It doesn't matter whether you're a capitalist or not, you will consume, it's called being alive.

In fact I think that under a communist/socialist state, pollution and global warming would increase, since time and again governments have proved they are crap at running businesses. Production would be low, quality would be poor, corruption would be rife, the finances would be a total mess and there would be no money left for adequate filtration of emissions / waste reduction policies.

The only way to clean up the world is have:
a) a heavily enforced international agreement of pollution including set limits of emissions
b) less people in the world. This planet cannot indefinitely support the number of people it currently is doing. Ultimately, either a proportion of the world's population will die soon, and the rest of the world will go on, or (and this is more likely) billions will die by the end of the century, and the world will then be in such a piss-poor state that it will not be able to support many living creatures.

Here endeth the rant (sorry).

Answer 4

No you idiot - it is the pollution that man is pushing into the atmosphere at an alarming rate, yes there has been increases in carbon in the past before man but these were natural disasters that killed the dinosaurs etc. like asteroid impact and super volcano's, something we can not do anything about, but we can reduce are carbon foot print just by changing are life styles a little. Turn heating down 1 degree Recycle Fit energy light bulbs Turn off the TV (do not leave on standby) Walk instead off use the care if you can Take public transport These are small things that everybody can do and will make a difference.

Answer 5

What a crock. The Soviet Union was just as bad if not worse about releasing CO2 and other pollutants into the environment, and that includes radioactive containants. Capitalism is going to get the rap AND the bill for it though, because thats the system thats left after the end of the cold war. The main societies that are innocent are the most fundamentalist Arab Moslems that eschew industry and embrace poverty.

Answer 6

The Cows contribute to global warming in a way that can not
be neglected.

There are now more cows than ever before and these creatures actually farth, huge volymes of METHANE.

Methane as we know add up to global warming.

Answer 7

Says who? Castro? Chavez?

Look at the living conditions in the countries of those saying so!
The pollution, hence contribution to global warming greatly comes from such countries.

IN ADDITION: Capitalist countries invest far more in researches, in finding new ways how to reduce pollution and global warming.
Communist countries don't have moneys to feed their people.

Answer 8

Agree . They promote buying too much useless stuff that is thrown away and ends in the sea or is burnt polluting the atmosphere . But most of the damage is done when the product is produced from those big dirty factories . Some people say its only natural , but who can say that our kind has taken a natural path ? Just compare our interfering with the environment to that of other species .

Answer 9

i think your right, the whole world is capatalist. money makes the world go round, if you have it your socially included, if you dont then your not, the capatalists through media create demand for their product which equals consumerism, what ever you buy has packaging which is thrown away contributing to global warming. i will say this tho, many studies by top geologists have shown that the ice caps have actually melted many times before and that it is a natural cycle that the earth goes through.

Answer 10

Freedom leads to prosperity which leads to the opportunity for more consumption. Consider the pollution in some parts of China, or in Mexico city. (Or London back when they burned coal).