Capitalism absorbs, commercializes and neutralizes criticism and threats.
We’ve outsourced tackling climate change to private commercial interests ( outsourced the profits, at least - while still socializing a large portion on the costs) who have taken the approach that climate change something we can spend, innovate and produce our way out of. We are urged to save the planet by buying stuff….energy efficient light bulbs and appliance, electric vehicles, solar panels, plant based fast food and dish detergent that can clean oil off baby birds. The companies that produce these items have monetized clean energy and saving the planet and incorporated them into their brand.
I’m not saying that energy efficient and green products are not good or that they haven’t had any positive environmental impact. I’m just saying they’ve become profit centers in an economic system that is based around getting people to consume and accumulate as much stuff as possible in order to fuel the engines that provide the prosperity that Cecil describes in the article. We may have more energy-efficient technologies for our cars and homes, but all too often we use those an an excuse to consume more, to buy bigger homes, to drive more in bigger cars, to make more people.
There is plenty that we as a society could do to minimize our energy consumption. As one example, work from home, for people whose jobs allow for it, is hugely energy efficient. There are major energy savings in not commuting daily and energy savings in not occupying two spaces ( home and office,both which need to be furnished and maintained). Yet the commercial sector is pushing hard for an end to work from home, and I believe that’s largely because of the negative economic impact on industries such as commercial real estate, fast food, office supplies and furnishings, and even construction and building supplies.
That makes it a non-starter, just like the idea of localizing supply chains, shifting towards larger multi-generational households and urging everyone to consume ten percent less are non-starters, because they involve a reduction in consumption.
We have an economy that is based on increasing levels of consumption and unsustainable levels of growth, it’s become a classic pyramid scheme with most of the benefits going to those who have been around the longest — the Boomer generation. I don’t blame the younger generations for being pissed off.
Credit to @Swords_to_Plowshares for this