Can capitalism ever be "green"?

The concept of Capitalocene is useful when one need to think about potential answers to the current environmental crisis. By pointing out the responsibility of capitalism in the global environmental changes, it tells us something more: capitalism dynamics destroy the environment therefore answers to environmental destruction should not be looked for within capitalism. But what about green capitalism some might wonder? It has long been believed (and still broadly is) that “green” or “sustainable capitalism” is the way to go to fix the climate and other environmental issues.

However, green capitalism sounds more like an oxymoron and it has not produce results so far. The centrality of the issue is that even a greener version of capitalism remains based on profit-maximisation, endless growth and consumerism, dynamics that destroy the environment.

Richard Smith, author of ‘Green capitalism, the god that failed us’, argues that maximizing profit and saving the planet are inherently in conflict. Under capitalism, CEOs and corporations are not responsible to society but to private shareholders and the aim is to increase profit. In order for capitalism to be truly green, the pursuit of profit should be systematically subordinated to ecological concerns. Even if at times, maximising profit and saving the planet might coincide, the two cannot always be aligned and profit is not likely to be sacrificed for environmental concerns (1).

Another issue with green capitalism is that it does not question the belief of endless growth in a finite planet. Proponents of green capitalism believe that green growth can become sustainable through innovation and technological progress to achieve eco-efficiency. They assume that a decoupling of global environmental pressure and growth is possible, enabling growth to be ever increasing without impacting the environment anymore. However, despite relative decoupling (decline in the ecological impact per unit of ecological output) observed in some countries, permanent absolute decoupling (decline in overall ecological impact of total economic output) that would guarantee the sustainability of growth remains elusive and might turn out to be impossible (2). The UK Sustainable Development Commission, a senior government advisory body, has reported that developed countries should cease growth because “there is, as yet, no credible, socially just, ecologically sustainable scenario of continually growing incomes for a world of nine billion people”. It argues that economic growth cannot be separated from over-exploitation of natural resources and environmental degradation (3). Despite technological development in the last decades, environmental impacts (carbon emissions, extraction of renewable and non-renewable resources etc) are still increasing. In a growth-orientated economy, efficiency gains tend to be negated by further growth. Indeed, efficiency gains are almost always reinvested not into reducing production and consumption but into increasing them. As a result, efficiency gains achieved through technological progress or innovation leads to an overall increase, or at least no reduction, of resource and energy consumption (4).

In addition, green capitalism does not question our high consumption lifestyle but just aims to replace goods and services by “green” products and services. Green or not, manufacturing requires use of energy and our global consumer culture is unsustainable, especially in the context of increasing population rates. Consumerism is part of the environmental issue and the idea of buying stuff to express one’s identity or to increase happiness should be challenged. Critics of green consumerism argue that in order to reduce carbon footprint, there is the need to significantly reduce one’s consumption of goods and services (5).

The answer to global environmental changes should not be limited to the ‘greening’ of capitalism, without questioning the dynamics of endless growth, consumerism and profit-maximisation. It seems more relevant to go beyond the growth model and to open up broader political and social debates in order to find real alternatives (6). But as Fredric Jameson states it, “it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism”.