A recent study (Climate Change Jan. 2014) shows that two thirds of greenhouse gasses have been emitted by just 90 corporations.
Of them, just 20 are responsible for 29.5 percent of those emissions. Of those 20, 14 privately-owned companies are responsible for 20.49 percent of all greenhouse gasses emitted since 1854. Those 14 corporations are only based out of a handful of countries: the United States, Saudi Arabia, the United Kingdom, the Russian Federation, the Netherlands, France, the United Arab Emirates, and Australia.
The study, entitled “Tracing anthropogenic carbon dioxide and methane emissions to fossil fuel and cement producers, 1854–2010,” proves conclusively that socialists have reality on their side when it comes to climate change.
Since the beginnings of the climate change movement, there have been two wings: one side blaming capitalism—monopoly capitalism in particular—and advocating for a logically-planned economy which replaces profits with
needs, human and environmental, as its motivator. Other wing proposes that small changes—buying different kinds of consumer products like light bulbs, hybrid cars, plus incremental reforms and regulation of pollution and so on—could create the kinds of changes necessary to avert climate catastrophe.
In essence, the debate has came down to whether or not the problem (and thus the solution) lie in the point of production or the point of consumption.
In other words, is the organization of production—the reliance on privately-owned, profit-seeking corporations for production and
distribution—the problem? Or is it consumer choices, a culture of greed and selfishness and conspicuous consumption?
The study—a collection of research and data on the origins of the greenhouse gasses now drastically altering the atmosphere—conclusively shows that corporations are to blame, and that private ownership over the means of production are the root of the problem—that the problem is less a product of individual consumer choices than the fundamental organization of the economy.
As it is organized now, the world economy is based around private corporations and investors racing for higher and higher rates of profit. The competition intrinsic to capitalism inevitably results in the concentration of economic power into monopolies like British Petroleum, Microsoft, etc. Even where there is some competition in a market, the choices are limited to choosing between corporate giants like Apple and Microsoft, Ford and General Motors, etc.
The degree of monopolization in the energy industry is so profound that the CEO’s of the companies which produced climate change “could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two,” according to Richard Heede, the author of the study.
Such an outsized influence by such a limited set of people not only shows the undemocratic nature of capitalism, but also the stunning cruelty of climate change. Because climate change’s impacts are so far-reaching—ranging for mass species loss in the oceans, to profound drought, to rising sea levels—all life on Earth is impacted by climate change.
The democracy that the United States and its allies claim to defend with mass surveillance and endless wars has allowed a handful of the world’s most wealthy CEOs to destroy the atmosphere, bringing about massive hardship and suffering for the vast majority of the world’s population.
Put plainly, the United States’ half-hearted allusions to its “responsibility to lead the global effort against climate” stand on feet of
clay. The most recent agreement with China over climate change is no different: the United States, while pledging to reduce its emissions by 26 percent of 2005 levels, has a historic responsibility not to reduce but to reverse its contributions to climate change.
This is not to say that the agreement represents a step backward or that efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are bad per se. Rather, the laudatory approach to the most recent agreement misses the undertones of imperialism, chauvinism and arrogance that have otherwise characterized US foreign policy. China—a developing country which experienced decades under the boot heels of
United States and other developed capitalist countries—has had little historical impact in terms of contributing to climate change. To the contrary, the lion’s share of responsibility belongs to the United States and the countries of Western Europe. It is their responsibility not just to minimize their own contributions to climate change; those countries also should assist other countries to become sustainable, rather than spreading their share of the duty.
Put plainly: US diplomats and politicians are lying through their teeth when they assert that China has as great a responsibility to develop sustainably, when it was underdeveloped thanks to imperialism in the first place, and when the United States has a greater role to play in terms of reversing it in the second.
Moreover, given the extent of the problem that developed capitalist countries have created, they should make sure their economies operate completely sustainably as soon as possible. Even if all pollution stopped today, global temperatures would still rise for decades. In a situation where sea levels are rising, biodiversity is declining, and rainfall grows scarcer, climate change is already upon us. The time for action is now, and all countries should be doing as much as possible, but those with the most—the wealthiest and most developed—should contribute the most.
Of course, there are practical limits to what can be done. Regulation cannot remedy the root of the problem which is the organization of the global economy; it can only mitigate the problem’s effects. Moreover, it misplaces the responsibility to resolve climate change in the hands of those who created it. The life-threatening consequences of climate change demand that we stop entrusting foxes to guard the hens.
A complete reorganization of society is the only solution whose reach matches the scale of the problem. The present system ignores the voices and needs of the many for the enrichment of the few. Only a socialist reorganization of the world economy can produce a meaningfully democratic system, puting the needs of the many in command.
The movement against climate change needs to “be as radical as reality
itself.” The time for modest demands and appeasement is over. The time of
climate catastrophe is now. Our future is at a crossroads: either humanity
enters the time of mass hunger and displacement, or it enters the time of
economic democracy and climate justice—the era of socialism.
