Why capitalism can't solve the environmental crisis

Scan page 14

14 SOCIALISTACTION DECEMBER 1992 (The following article is the -Simpson 199 final installment of a three-part series on the environment based on a talk given by the author at a Sept. 25-20, 1992, Socialist Action Educational Conference in San Francisco..)

Many governments have proposed laws requiring companies to handle toxics in a way that would protect the environment. In the long run, unfortunately, most of these regulations will yield limited results. Continuing to pollute is more "cost-effective" for the large corporations.

Polluting the environment is consistent with capitalism's number-one motiveprofit taking. Furthermore, environmental regulation appears to be at odds with the fundamental need of capitalism to be free of government regulation-especially during times of economic crisis as we have today.. The capitalists want to get rid of political regulations that restrict market activity and the exploitation of workers and the environment.

This capitalist backlash against environmental regulation is epitomized by the Council on Competitiveness, which was headed by Vice President Dan Quayle. This council overrides and undermines decisions of the government's regulatory agencies, notably the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

At the same time, the U.S. government has been compelled to respond to public outcries against the environmental disasters that have already occurred. Congress passed a law that established a national priority list to clean up the most dangerously contaminated locations. This law is called the Superfund.

On paper, the Superfund calls for polluters to pay for the clean-up of their sites. But environmentalists point out that there are severe limitations to this bandaid process. Once contamination is released into the environment, its form can be changedbut it can rarely be eliminated. For example, when contaminated soils are incinerated, toxic ash is created; when contaminated water is stripped, it results in either a release of vapors into the air or into filters which must be disposed of somehow.

The only effective solution is to modify our methods of production to eliminate use of toxics that are not safely degradable, thus putting health and safety first, not profits.

With respect to the question of who will pay for the cleanup, there is a sharp contrast between the law requiring polluters to pay and reality. Recently, in the aftermath of the Rio "Earth Summit," 48 business leaders came together to declare their position on the environment, in a book called "Changing Course." Although they give lip service to the idea of making the polluting industries pay, they also declare their support of what they call "full-cost pricing." This means passing all "external" costs of a product, including the cost of adhering to environmental guidelines, along to the consumer.

Essentially, this is a case of capitalist class solidarity: "We will all agree to raise our prices simultaneously in order to not drive each other out of business. Meanwhile, we will get consumers to cover the cost of cleaning up the mess we created." Ultimately, they want the working class to pay.

International mediation International bodies like the UN have made various recommendations to compensate for the inequities between two world camps: The advanced capitalist countries and the poorer countries—-whose resources are being plundered by the first camp, with disregard for health and the environment.

But, of course, the governments that need to be pressured the most to follow better environmental policies are the ones over which the UN has the least authority -those of the advanced capitalist countries. And the plunderers will never agree to UN recommendations voluntarily.

At the much heralded United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development (UNCED) or "Earth Summit" in Rio, the U.S. government said that it would not agree to anything that would undermine the competitive advantage of the U.S. economy.

The counterposing of profit-making to health and environment was made resoundingly clear by the U.S. refusal to sign the biodiversity convention. This agreement would have required the hugely profitable U.S. and European pharmaceutical companies to share profits and technology with the countries that provide most of the raw materials, usually in the form of tropical plants.

Since many of these species are being threatened with extinction, protective measures must be taken in order to preserve them and hold open the possibility to humanity of future cures for disease.

The position of the United States on this matter was echoed on other matters by the governments of Germany and other European countries. They said they would not pursue the environmental initiative on their own, so as to remain "competitive." After all, inter-capitalist competition increases under the effects of the structural crises that now rock the system, so international cooperation becomes less likely. The world leaders were clearly saying that environmentalism and capitalism have contradictory goals.

Population control

International institutions of capital such as the World Bank subscribe to the Malthusian theory that overpopulation (in poor countries, of course) is the cause of environmental problems. This reasoning THAT'S WHY WE BEGAN A RECYCLING PROGRAM.

OUR E.P.A. AND could ensure that pollutants are not released into the environment in the first place. Through the international rule of the working class—in our own interests, on a global scale-we could accomplish what the capitalists cannot.

It is helpful to envision what needs must be met by a socialist society and how we would meet them in an environmentally sound way. What kind of housing, transportation, and workplaces would suit us and be protective of the environment at the same time?

Environmental considerations would lead to ending the production of many products. They would lead to the elimination of techniques, production methods, and even whole industries that are intrinsically dangerous, such as the nuclear industry.

Methods of agriculture must be totally rethought.

We would no longer rely on dangerous pesticides, derived from nonrenewable energy sources. Research would need to be done to

----- pull-quotes -----

THIS COMPANY IS COMMITTED TO THE ENVIRONMENT. WHAT ARE YOU RECYCLING FIRST?