The liberal take on the ecosystem is that the carbon footprint of individuals is too high, and therefore we must as INDIVIDUALS all choose to use less carbon of our own free will. And as liberals see that the individual will not choose to do that, instead of changing our entire system to something better that would improve the environmental impact en mass, they’d prefer that we keep capitalism, even if that means large parts of the global population must suffer and die. Thats what hes talking about here.
I feel like there’s also a similar kind of perspective that is widely normalized in these kinds of discussions that boils down to simultaneously blaming everyone on an individual level and being defeatist about ever solving it. Specifically, I’m talking about when people say things like:
Oh, we destroyed the rain forests / polluted the environment / strip mined 3rd world countries / ruined space with our junk / killed the coral reefs / etc
No, we the working class didn’t do that. Humanity as a whole didn’t do that. The owner class did all of that to feed their addictions to wealth and power under capitalism. We the working class by and large criticized all of those things whenever we happened to have enough agency to consider it.
we the working class by and large criticized all of those things whenever they happened
I don’t recall working class at large protesting car centric infrastructure and factory farming. Some niche groups did but by and large a functioning highway system with free parking everywhere and cheap meat have been very popular with the working class.
I agree we need to liquidate the capitalist class but not everything can be blamed on them. If we had socialism tomorrow we’d still need to deal with the fundamental issue of the unsustainability of the consumption based lifestyles that most people in the first world of become accustomed to and will not give up easily.
The very fact that you’re getting downvoted here proves your point. Most working people love their cars and cheap meat and it offends them to suggest it’s a net negative on society.
Allowing private corporate interests to guide the health of the planet to ruin for individual profit, and controlling world governments to do so at the behest of the people would be a very fascist thing to do, regardless of what the definition of fascism you personally think is.
See and that feels like baby steps towards some flavor of eco authoritarianism (which I suppose I may be conflating with eco-fascism; to me, those both seem bad and in comparable measures).
You seem to be proposing that there is a system (ecologic + economic) that allows for humans to live sustainably at our current-ish population while being mostly free to live their lives with their communities as they see fit and at (at least) a modest level of prosperity.
If there is such a system that doesn’t lean into authoritarianism, I’m unfamiliar with it.
I think it will be difficult to ensure all three of those points (current population + non-authoritarian government + modest living conditions). While I agree Capitalism and Liberalism aren’t doing good on maintaining those three point (gods, are they doing so bad on those three points), I’m unclear what the Leftist suggestions are to fix them.
If you/others here have points that could fill in my gaps of understanding, be interested to hear them. (I worry I’m going to be taken as a Liberal infiltrator, but I feel I know little of the more concrete aspects of Leftist politics and am trying to learn).
For example, the government makes a top down decision to heavily invest in cheap or entirely free public transport, invest heavily in cycling infrastructure, ensures urban planning means that (where possible) you’re never more than a short bicycle ride away from a supermarket (so called 5 minute cities), does its best to ensure it’s affordable to live near your work, bans cars from city centres (with obvious exceptions), increases taxation on fuel, and increases taxation on new vehicles.
Perfectly feasible, because it’s been done in plenty of countries and cities. Vastly better for the environment and much more efficient too, because the population isn’t wasting so much time and money driving from point A to B. People are invariably much happier, because they get more exercise, waste less of their lives in traffic, aren’t wasting money on car ownership, and suffer less from the effects of air and noise pollution. Unsurprisingly, once instituted this kind of thing invariably enjoys majority democratic support.
The polar opposite of the US, where the car industry had and still has a disproportionate influence on politics, and very unpopular there in large part because of propaganda, which has given Americans the illusion of choice; they have been invariably been robbed of the choice to live near their work or spend less time in traffic, but instead get to choose which overpriced car they are forced to buy due to corporate influenced government rule.
I’m tired, but you get the idea.
It’s also important to realise, that a lot of these kinds of policies, aren’t actually unpopular when they’re done well. People like walking, cycling, breathing fresh air, loads of trees, nature, etc. It’s a bit of a joke that Americans return home from their holiday in Europe, feeling healthier and having lost weight. Not being stuck in your car all day is good for you.
Largely agree with what you’re saying. I do strongly wish US mass transit didn’t make me feel like I needed a shower the moment I stepped off it (which has been my experience with state run rail systems).
But I’d don’t see the policy changes you lay out as inherently opposed to a liberal state. Yeah, its less capitalist than the current (US) system, but it seems those are talking points and policies often pushed by the American left/Democratic Party (and if I understand correctly that’s typically what’s referred to as the Liberals by communities like this).
But in practice supposedly liberal states’ governments often become captured by corporate interests or the idea that everything has to make a profit, so much so that it’s impossible to make sensible (and once realised popular) decisions on public transport and the like.
Just look at relatively progressive Germany, where the car industry’s influence on governments on both sides of the aisle has hindered investment in public transport and cycle infrastructure.
Or look at a map of UK railways before and after the Beeching cuts. Crucial train lines were destroyed, often those connecting mayor cities, because railway profits were deemed more important than the public good. The remaining lines and infrastructure are to this day overstretched and over capacity, because a government in the 60s believed a little too much in the free market, and this has caused lasting damage to the economy and housing affordability.
There was a lot wrong with the USSR and eastern bloc, and their environmental record was often deplorable, but it’s no coincidence that the one of the things they did often do right is cheap and good public transport.
US mass transit didn’t make me feel like I needed a shower the moment I stepped off it (which has been my experience with state run rail systems).
They’re often dirty, because they’re invariably too beholden to the profit motive, so don’t hire enough cleaners or pay them enough given their crucial role in preventing disease.
Bit of a tangent, but America’s obsession with airconditioning is also a huge problem.
Bed bugs and their eggs die at temperatures higher than 45°C (110F?) and don’t do well at anything other than room temperature. If you don’t have AC on public transport or in your house, bed bugs aren’t nearly as big an issue. Just let it get hot/cold. Or as regular maintenance pop on the heating for a few hours during the hottest day of the year, while you spend the day at the beach.
Another reason why as someone who worked in the industry, I’m opposed to over insulating homes, but that’s another discussion.
An extremely narrow cohort of society controls the corporations that determine our fate. It plunders the earth for profit, regardless of the consequences.
A sustainable system is one in which those who make a decision are the same as those affected.
Such is the complete opposite of authoritarianism. The planet will be saved when no one any longer benefits from its ongoing destruction.
You do sound like a liberal infiltrator. It in the off chance you aren’t and actually want to understand these things, unfortunately you generally have to do the hard work of actually reading books about them. On this topic specifically I would highly recommend Climate Change as a Class War by Matt Huber. There was a good Ted Talk that summarized the ideas behind this I saw years ago but I can’t find it.
Also baby steps to ecofascism? I cannot begin to imagine what this means. The ecosystem and how we deal with it has been highjacked by weapons manufacturers and energy companies and we are all told that you’d have to give up money and comforts and all kinds of austerity has been forced down our throats which is just simply not true. I cant remember if it was 70 percent or so of climate change variables were from military ventures alone, I know it was over 50 though. And a significant portion of the rest of it is just from non-military airplane fuel. I don’t know about you but MOST people could cut those things out of their lives almost entirely and not notice. Almost every climate change agitator can be fixed WHILE INCREASING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR WORKING CLASS PEOPLE. But under a capitalist society that is not the goal. The goal is infinite growth through profit maximization and concentration of capital. That goal is literally antithetical to environmental protection AND improvement in proletariat quality of life. They literally cannot coexist on their own.
Thanks for the reading suggestion. I’ve a feeling I’m not going to agree with the conclusion of the book, but I’ll take a look at it and see what I see.
If you turn up the source on the military ventures = worsening climate change variables, I’d love to read about that.
Also #BigAgree with aviation being a major contributor to climate change. Like, of all the things, that is the one I hear about ad consistently contributing a surprising amount. I would like to see domestic air travel largely replaced by rail (from US, for context).
The liberal take on the ecosystem is that the carbon footprint of individuals is too high, and therefore we must as INDIVIDUALS all choose to use less carbon of our own free will. And as liberals see that the individual will not choose to do that, instead of changing our entire system to something better that would improve the environmental impact en mass, they’d prefer that we keep capitalism, even if that means large parts of the global population must suffer and die. Thats what hes talking about here.
I feel like there’s also a similar kind of perspective that is widely normalized in these kinds of discussions that boils down to simultaneously blaming everyone on an individual level and being defeatist about ever solving it. Specifically, I’m talking about when people say things like:
No, we the working class didn’t do that. Humanity as a whole didn’t do that. The owner class did all of that to feed their addictions to wealth and power under capitalism. We the working class by and large criticized all of those things whenever we happened to have enough agency to consider it.
Yes, exactly.
I don’t recall working class at large protesting car centric infrastructure and factory farming. Some niche groups did but by and large a functioning highway system with free parking everywhere and cheap meat have been very popular with the working class.
I agree we need to liquidate the capitalist class but not everything can be blamed on them. If we had socialism tomorrow we’d still need to deal with the fundamental issue of the unsustainability of the consumption based lifestyles that most people in the first world of become accustomed to and will not give up easily.
The very fact that you’re getting downvoted here proves your point. Most working people love their cars and cheap meat and it offends them to suggest it’s a net negative on society.
So we’re just using the word fascism to mean whatever the fuck we want this day, huh?
Allowing private corporate interests to guide the health of the planet to ruin for individual profit, and controlling world governments to do so at the behest of the people would be a very fascist thing to do, regardless of what the definition of fascism you personally think is.
See and that feels like baby steps towards some flavor of eco authoritarianism (which I suppose I may be conflating with eco-fascism; to me, those both seem bad and in comparable measures).
You seem to be proposing that there is a system (ecologic + economic) that allows for humans to live sustainably at our current-ish population while being mostly free to live their lives with their communities as they see fit and at (at least) a modest level of prosperity.
If there is such a system that doesn’t lean into authoritarianism, I’m unfamiliar with it.
I think it will be difficult to ensure all three of those points (current population + non-authoritarian government + modest living conditions). While I agree Capitalism and Liberalism aren’t doing good on maintaining those three point (gods, are they doing so bad on those three points), I’m unclear what the Leftist suggestions are to fix them.
If you/others here have points that could fill in my gaps of understanding, be interested to hear them. (I worry I’m going to be taken as a Liberal infiltrator, but I feel I know little of the more concrete aspects of Leftist politics and am trying to learn).
For example, the government makes a top down decision to heavily invest in cheap or entirely free public transport, invest heavily in cycling infrastructure, ensures urban planning means that (where possible) you’re never more than a short bicycle ride away from a supermarket (so called 5 minute cities), does its best to ensure it’s affordable to live near your work, bans cars from city centres (with obvious exceptions), increases taxation on fuel, and increases taxation on new vehicles.
Perfectly feasible, because it’s been done in plenty of countries and cities. Vastly better for the environment and much more efficient too, because the population isn’t wasting so much time and money driving from point A to B. People are invariably much happier, because they get more exercise, waste less of their lives in traffic, aren’t wasting money on car ownership, and suffer less from the effects of air and noise pollution. Unsurprisingly, once instituted this kind of thing invariably enjoys majority democratic support.
The polar opposite of the US, where the car industry had and still has a disproportionate influence on politics, and very unpopular there in large part because of propaganda, which has given Americans the illusion of choice; they have been invariably been robbed of the choice to live near their work or spend less time in traffic, but instead get to choose which overpriced car they are forced to buy due to corporate influenced government rule. I’m tired, but you get the idea.
It’s also important to realise, that a lot of these kinds of policies, aren’t actually unpopular when they’re done well. People like walking, cycling, breathing fresh air, loads of trees, nature, etc. It’s a bit of a joke that Americans return home from their holiday in Europe, feeling healthier and having lost weight. Not being stuck in your car all day is good for you.
Largely agree with what you’re saying. I do strongly wish US mass transit didn’t make me feel like I needed a shower the moment I stepped off it (which has been my experience with state run rail systems).
But I’d don’t see the policy changes you lay out as inherently opposed to a liberal state. Yeah, its less capitalist than the current (US) system, but it seems those are talking points and policies often pushed by the American left/Democratic Party (and if I understand correctly that’s typically what’s referred to as the Liberals by communities like this).
Am.i kissing something in that?
In theory they aren’t.
But in practice supposedly liberal states’ governments often become captured by corporate interests or the idea that everything has to make a profit, so much so that it’s impossible to make sensible (and once realised popular) decisions on public transport and the like.
Just look at relatively progressive Germany, where the car industry’s influence on governments on both sides of the aisle has hindered investment in public transport and cycle infrastructure.
Or look at a map of UK railways before and after the Beeching cuts. Crucial train lines were destroyed, often those connecting mayor cities, because railway profits were deemed more important than the public good. The remaining lines and infrastructure are to this day overstretched and over capacity, because a government in the 60s believed a little too much in the free market, and this has caused lasting damage to the economy and housing affordability.
There was a lot wrong with the USSR and eastern bloc, and their environmental record was often deplorable, but it’s no coincidence that the one of the things they did often do right is cheap and good public transport.
They’re often dirty, because they’re invariably too beholden to the profit motive, so don’t hire enough cleaners or pay them enough given their crucial role in preventing disease.
Bit of a tangent, but America’s obsession with airconditioning is also a huge problem.
Bed bugs and their eggs die at temperatures higher than 45°C (110F?) and don’t do well at anything other than room temperature. If you don’t have AC on public transport or in your house, bed bugs aren’t nearly as big an issue. Just let it get hot/cold. Or as regular maintenance pop on the heating for a few hours during the hottest day of the year, while you spend the day at the beach.
Another reason why as someone who worked in the industry, I’m opposed to over insulating homes, but that’s another discussion.
The current system is authoritarian.
An extremely narrow cohort of society controls the corporations that determine our fate. It plunders the earth for profit, regardless of the consequences.
A sustainable system is one in which those who make a decision are the same as those affected.
Such is the complete opposite of authoritarianism. The planet will be saved when no one any longer benefits from its ongoing destruction.
You do sound like a liberal infiltrator. It in the off chance you aren’t and actually want to understand these things, unfortunately you generally have to do the hard work of actually reading books about them. On this topic specifically I would highly recommend Climate Change as a Class War by Matt Huber. There was a good Ted Talk that summarized the ideas behind this I saw years ago but I can’t find it.
Also baby steps to ecofascism? I cannot begin to imagine what this means. The ecosystem and how we deal with it has been highjacked by weapons manufacturers and energy companies and we are all told that you’d have to give up money and comforts and all kinds of austerity has been forced down our throats which is just simply not true. I cant remember if it was 70 percent or so of climate change variables were from military ventures alone, I know it was over 50 though. And a significant portion of the rest of it is just from non-military airplane fuel. I don’t know about you but MOST people could cut those things out of their lives almost entirely and not notice. Almost every climate change agitator can be fixed WHILE INCREASING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR WORKING CLASS PEOPLE. But under a capitalist society that is not the goal. The goal is infinite growth through profit maximization and concentration of capital. That goal is literally antithetical to environmental protection AND improvement in proletariat quality of life. They literally cannot coexist on their own.
Thanks for the reading suggestion. I’ve a feeling I’m not going to agree with the conclusion of the book, but I’ll take a look at it and see what I see.
If you turn up the source on the military ventures = worsening climate change variables, I’d love to read about that.
Also #BigAgree with aviation being a major contributor to climate change. Like, of all the things, that is the one I hear about ad consistently contributing a surprising amount. I would like to see domestic air travel largely replaced by rail (from US, for context).
Military is worse. Huber talks about it in his book.
What exactly from what you know about this book makes you think you wont agree with the conclusion already?