New book by Porritt argues that we need to reshape capitalism to deliver a sustainable future 5

Comments View as Threaded

1. 

   Jones Posted 8:26 pm
   24 Sep 2007

   Brit's eye viewOh what a difference an ocean makes. I don't think Grist covered this, but the UK Conservative Party recently released a report from their "Quality of Life Policy Group" which was generally described their Environment Report. It covers many of these same issues, and contains such juicy tidbits as:As well as being inadequate in itself to measure human well-being, GDP also
   
   includes many economic activities that actually decrease it.In a follow-up op-ed piece, one of the authors goes on to say:President Bush has been a disaster, but that doesn't let us off the hook...We led the world in the Industrial Revolution. We must now lead a green revolution.We relish the fullness, excitement and opportunity of modern life, but we all want to share it at a cost that the planet can bear.
   
   Now remember: this is the conservative party speaking. Of course this report was met with some snickering and skepticism, but not the howls of outrage you'd expect. The Conservatives are in opposition now, and the report has yet to be translated into policy, but it clearly does speak volumes of the way green issues are framed in the UK. The conservative leader David Cameron is a little hard to get a reading on, but he does seem to me to be trying to move his party well away from the asshole-flavoured brand of conservatism so prevalent in the US and Australia.
   IMHO, I think American environmentalists have a lot to learn from Britain. While it's no environmentalists' paradise here, you do get the sense of going in the right direction, unlike in the US. THe Big Supermarkets' voluntary "sustainability plans" announced earlier this year (and referenced in this post) were pretty remarkable, all things considered. More importantly, over here the debate is actually an exchange of ideas, rather than the bipolar ideological mud-slinging that colours, and ruins, every attempt to move forward in the US.

   Permalink

2. 

   trock Posted 12:06 am
   25 Sep 2007

   how we talk about ourselvesI really don't know if I consider myself an environmentalist.   I do think we have to do something about global warming though, not for the environment, but for the people living in the environment.
   Maybe what's needed is a change in how we talk about ourselves.
   Smog controls were put in cars after the clean air act of 1970, not for the environment as much as for the people who are breathing the air of the environment.   Does that make me a humanist?   Well, I would call myself a humanist if asked, but not because I want to breath smog free air.
   It is not for the environment that we should solve global warming, it is for us.  

   Permalink

3. 

   Delay And Deny Posted 3:51 am
   25 Sep 2007

   Capital or its Managers
   
   One has to distinguish between condemning an ideology versus it's adherents.
   Many, many business books are written to instruct the managers of capitalism how to think, manage and do things better -- obviously, they are not perfect.
   "Green" is like a new technology entering the marketplace.  At first, there is interest, but the market (people) are not sure how to "consume" it.   And business is not knowledgeable about how to "build" it.
   That doesn't mean the whole system couldn't recreate products and systems that are Green.
   In fact,the hard work is doing just that now that many have accepted the need for Enviro-Thought.
   
   John Bailo
   
   
   Sutext:

   Permalink

4. 

   amc89 Posted 6:35 am
   25 Sep 2007

   It's not only about usTrock: "It is not for the environment that we should solve global warming, it is for us. "
   That's a wierd statement. God forbid one of the reasons we want to stop globabl warming is to help all the other species on the planet as well! Can't we want to help the environment to improve the lives of both humans and the rest of the earth's inhabitants?  

   Permalink

5. 

   beelo Posted 2:35 pm
   25 Sep 2007

   The Only Game in Town?I don't understand; isn't industrial capitalism what got us here in the first place? Really, what am I missing? Doesn't this talk of capitalism as inevitable, a force of nature, "the only game in town," belong more on the Cato Institute website than on Grist?
   I agree that we need a new kind of capitalism: one that is about 75% socialism. Not having read the book, I don't know what its particular prescriptions are, but it seems inescapable to me that capitalism can be redeemed (or made "sustainable") by nothing less than a large infusion of what it is de rigeur these days to sneer at as socialism. (For an example see the historical American "New Deal.")
   Why does this kind of thing sound to me like trying to lead a small child away from oncoming traffic by enticing him with candy when what she needs is to be yanked forcefully and with all possible speed out of the way of danger? Do we have the time to make sustainable practices palatable to the corporate class? Can we really expect more from the brute machines of capital than the most predictable greenwashing and feel-good marketing?
   AMC89: What Trock is saying is pretty basic, as I understand it: if we're not here, who cares about the environment? After all, even the fact that we call it "the environment" makes us central.

   Permalink