Capitalism and the Planet

When it comes to discussing global environmental change, one question always lingered on the back of my mind: Who is responsible for this global catastrophe we are part of? In my last post, I wrote about how the blame can be pointed at both Asia and the West. This post will talk about how we could all be victims of mainstream economics ideologies: Capitalism. I'll be introducing Capitalism and how it has changed the planet.

Back in 2014, I took part in the climate march for the first time (ticked that off my bucketlist!) It was there when I was introduced to the idea that capitalism caused climate change. And just like that, I picked up Naomi Klein’s This Changes Everything. I began to understand that perhaps we can’t rectify the current impacts of climate change without addressing its root cause: capitalism. Which is interesting as I read an article by Shankleman on how the Bolivian government attributes climate change to capitalism. 

But to start off; what is capitalism?

Oxford Dictionary’s definition of capitalism is

“an economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit, rather than by the state”

Capitalism is exploitative by nature (as it tries to maximize profit), technologically dynamic (in that we see a constant flow of new inventions that are more efficient to maintain a competitive edge), and geographically expansive. David Klein explains that capitalism has ingrained the ideology that greed, exploitation, and economic competition is necessary for development – without us noticing. He argues that with capitalism’s emphasis made on maximizing profit, environmental degradation is inevitable. Capitalism's direct consumption such as energy is easier to quantify, but it also involves indirect consumption through the formation of global commmodity chains - both of which aim to maximize profits.

Stephanie McMillan's illustration summarizes this pretty well... Thoughts?

One of the key outcomes of capitalism is referred to as the crisis of overproduction, when we have a surplus of commodities – which is highly ironic in the sense of food security as despite the surplus of food generated around the world, there is still food insecurity in certain regions of the world. What's worse, however, is how this surplus of food is an economic loss as well as damaging natural resources. UN Food and Agriculture Organization found that not only are we wasting USD 750 billion every year, but the sheer carbon footprint of uneaten produced food is 3.3 GIGATONNES. And it doesn't end there. The blue water footprint (which is the 'volume of surface and groundwater consumed as a result of the production of a good or service' (Hoekstra et al. 2011)) is astonishingly high: 250 cubic km, which is the equivalent of thrice the volume of Lake Geneva. 30% of the global agricultural land area is occupied by uneaten produced food. How. Did. We. Get. To. This. Point?

Let's go back to the previous point of maximizing profits. Capitalism as a system relies on endless growth of production to be stable, which in turn theoretically improves quality of life of the population. For this growth of production to be stable, a culture of consumption is required which then slowly led to mass consumption. When the capitalist system has normalized mass consumption and production, it raises issues within our finite world. Whilst the Malthusians out there believe the world is not truly finite, and that technological advancement will come to save the world in the end, it is difficult to argue against the fact that we currently have limited resources available.

Malthusian ideologies have saved us in the past: the creation of the Haber-Bosch process in the early 20th Century has meant that we as a planet have enjoyed increased food security through the increase of global agricultural productivity.

Source: Erisman et al. 2008

The above graph shows that since the introduction of the Haber-Bosch process, the percenage of the population has grown through increased food security. Erisman et al. predicts that 27% of the world's population has been supported by this process, which fits the original ideology behind capitalism (i.e. for better human welfare) but it has also had terrible unintentional consequences for the planet.

Before the Haber process became the norm, humans were producing 15 Tg of reactive nitrogen per year - whereas now, we produce about 100Tg. It is said that since the 1970s, whilst the world population has grown 78%, the world has seen a 120% increase in reactive nitrogen creation. This has implications on the environment, in particular, the Nitrogen cycle.

With the increasing world population, the amount of anthropogenic reactive nitrogen production will likely to also increase. With only 2-10% of the nitrogen created for food production actually entering our mouths and the rest lost to the environment, reactive nitrogen accumulation in the environment can be highly problematic. What makes matters worse is the continually decreasing nitrogen-use efficiency, from 80% in 1960 to 30% in 2000.  

There is another aspect to capitalism and the nitrogen cycle in the form of energy production. In particular, combusting fossil fuels. This process results in Nitrogen emission into the atmosphere as a waste product. Although the extent of production is not as substantial as food production, the fossil fuel industry is still arguably a product of capitalism. In Galloway et al.'s paper on the anthropogenic impacts to the nitrogen cycle, it states that these two anthropogenic activities have collectively increased the creation of reactive N by 'over a factor of ten'.

Agricultural production as well as commercial development have had a huge impact on land use change. For example, loss of wetlands by drainage has a huge impact on the nitrogen cycle as it removes an important nitrogen sink which consequently increases the movement of nitrogen into waterbodies. With continual loss of these ecosystems, the nitrification/denitrification process is interrupted. Normally, wetlands allow for 70-90% of nitrogen to be removed, but with increasing wetland loss, this has big consequences.

But the question I have yet to answer is what does this mean for the planet? I'll explore this in my next post. I'll also be introducing the nitrogen cycle as well, as I seem to have not mentioned what it really is.