Humans have such a profound and rapid impact on the Earth that it
has entered a new geological epoch which will leave the human signature for
millennia. According to experts from The International Geological Congress, we
have left the Holocene era to enter the Anthropocene, or the Age of Man (1). The 12,000 year long Holocene epoch was an interglacial age that
witnessed the growth and development of human species. The consequences of the
history of Man are now threatening the wellbeing of the planet, its ecosystem
and inhabitants. It is the first time in 4.5 billion years that a single species
– humans - are changing the Earth’s climate and geology.
Human activities are responsible for physical, chemical and
biological changes to the Earth’s System: changes in erosion and sediment
transport; changes in the chemical composition of the atmosphere oceans and
soils; changes in environmental conditions generated by anthropogenic
perturbations of the cycle of elements and changes in the biosphere (both in
the land and sea) (2). The main examples of these changes are: increased and
unsustainable level of climate-warming CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere;
loss of biodiversity exceeding natural extinction rate (half of the Earth
wildlife has been lost in the past 40 years (3); sea level rise due to the
melting of the Arctic ice; biogeochemical flows contracting unsafe level of
nitrogen and phosphorus; stratospheric ozone depletion; ocean acidification;
the presence of micro-plastic and radioactive waste and deforestation. The
global environmental changes, which humans are inducing on Earth, are so fast
and dramatic that they are threatening life itself. Many of the changes might
even be irreversible.
The starting point of the Anthropocene is subject to debate. Many
considered it to be c. 1800 CE, around the beginning of the Industrial
Revolution in Europe, with the invention of the steam engine and the use of
coal. However, the preferred date for experts is 1950 onwards, which is a
period known as The Great Acceleration. A period defined by the development of a consumer society, the massive increase in population growth and
carbon emissions. It also coincided with the start of the Earth as an
experimental laboratory, with the beginning of nuclear bomb tests.
The concept of Anthropocene is not only a scientific decision, but also
a political statement to push for a more sustainable relationship between human
and nature. Crutzen, the scientist who started the Anthropocene debate, is
hoping that the term ‘will be a warning to the world’ (4), which will make us
think about the consequences of our human actions and solutions to avoid the
worst outcome. But is Anthropocene really the adequate term? If one plans to
think about relevant solutions to a problem, it helps to think about the real
origins of the issue. Then, we can wonder: are all humans responsible for those
profound and dramatic global environmental changes? The term Anthropocene, with
its greek root anthropos (man),
suggests that all men, or humanity as a whole, are responsible for those
changes. We should all be to blame, equally implicated and equally effected by
the degradation of the Earth. It could also be associated with neo-malthusian arguments,
which state that the real issue is overpopulation and needs to be controlled in
order to ensure resources for future generations.
However, it seems to me that
the Anthropocene concept is too universalist and western-centric and is not the
right term when one wants to think about adequate solutions. It is clear that
there are great inequalities among the world’s population and that the wealthy
western countries are historically, and remain, responsible for the main global
environmental changes, including climate change. If we have a look at
ecological footprints, it appears that the western world, or Global North, is
consuming natural resources way above sustainable levels and contrasts sharply
with the impact of the Global South. The ecological footprint measures human
impact and pressure on the Earth’s ecosystems by comparing the biocapacity of
the planet to the humanity’s demand on nature to support
specific lifestyles. Ecological footprint per capita shows that all western
countries are demanding way more resources than the Earth can sustainably
produce. US and Australian citizens are
demanding more than four times what the planet can regenerate and absorb,
countries of western Europe are using at least double, whilst the majority of
Global South countries equal or underuse the available biocapacity (5). It
appears that the western way of living and consuming is most to blame for the
Earth’s degradation. A Friend of the Earth
study shows that inhabitants of rich countries consume up to 10 times more than
people in the poorest countries (6). This discrepancy between richest and poorest
countries can also be seen in the concept of common, but differentiated
responsibilities, one of the main principles from the Rio declaration at the
1992 Rio Earth Summit. This principle of international environmental law states
that, even if all states need to address global environmental destruction, they
are not all equally responsible. It recognises that there is a historical
correlation between higher level of wealth (or development) and a greater
contribution to the deterioration of the planet.
So, what is the common denominator amongst the richest countries which
is the main source of environmental degradation? It seems that if our western
way of life is unsustainable, the reasons for environmental changes have to be
found in our consumption and production model, and these are based on economic
growth an capitalist ideology. In addition, it is interesting to note that
between the 18th century and 2008, the world’s population ‘only’
increased tenfold, whilst the capital has increased by a factor of 134. This
pushes forward the argument that the significant growth of capital, and
capitalist system based on the accumulation of capital, is the one responsible
for environmental degradation, not population growth (7).
Some authors have therefore suggested the term Capitalocene is a
more holistic and relevant concept to explain the causes of environmental degradation. Capitalocene, the Age of capital, means that it is not the collective human species that is
responsible for the current crisis, but it is a specific economic and political
system; the one of capitalism. This concept is a more comprehensive one because
it is not apolitical, it rejects neo-malthusian thesis and it takes into account
historical context. Capitalism is a system in which the means of production,
distribution and exchange of wealth are based on private and corporate
ownership and where there is competition to maximize profits. This system is
based on endless growth and always requires greater quantities of resources.
Capitalism relies on accumulation through appropriation of nature and exploitation of human labour to provide food, energy, labour power and raw materials.
The sociologist Jason Moore (8), who coined the term Capitalocene, picks
the 16th century as its start date, because even though it is earlier
than the geological evidence, it can be historically significant when thinking
about the origins of capitalism. The 16th century marked the start
of capitalism, with the colonisation of America and the development of power
relationships, resource wars, and financialisation. The 19th century and the industrial revolution then
brought about industrial and capitalist societies. It was also a turning point
for the acceleration of environmental degradation with the increasing burning
of fossil fuels and the CO2 emissions it produced. The post 1950 period of The Great Acceleration can be well
understood within the Capitalocene concept because it coincides with the
explosion of consumer society, advertisement, planned obsolescence,
urbanisation and the race for growth in the context of the Cold War. Consumer
culture ensures that people keep consuming to stimulate the economy and sustain
the capitalist system, but it consequently increases resource depletion and pollution.
The endless accumulation of capital is the producer of externalities, negative
social and ecological side effects (increasing inequalities and increasing
environmental degradation), that the capitalist system does not pay for. At the same time that this model of development based on fossil
resources was degrading the Earth, it also increased inequalities. In 1820, 20%
of the world’s poorest citizens held 4,7% of the global wealth however, it fell
to 2,2% in 1992 (9). Global environmental degradation
and rising inequalities seem to go hand in hand as consequences of our
capitalist development. To make matters worse, the regions and
populations that are currently the most affected by climate change are among
the poorest ones. In other words, the people who suffer the most from the
ecological crisis are the ones the least responsible for it.
The concept of Capitalocene brings to light the limits of
capitalism: endless growth is not sustainable in a planet with finite resources
and endless accumulation leads to exploitation and degradation of humans and
nature. Thus, the concept of Capitalocene allows us look at the real origins
and roots of the issue which then enables us to look for adequate solutions. If
capitalism, and not humanity as a whole, is responsible for the dramatic environmental
changes, then the answer to the current crisis cannot be found in capitalism
and this production model is outdated.
In addition, it forces us to challenge ideas of growth, material
wellbeing, technological progress and our relationship to nature. Thanks to the Capitalocene concept, we can assume that the solution to the planet’s crisis
won’t lie within green capitalism or quick technological fixes. It helps us
think about real alternatives to our current system. It opens the way for a
post-capitalist, alternative model centred on climate justice, to put an end to
both human and nature exploitation. It can be an opportunity to find more democratic, fairer models
of wellbeing, one not based on material consumption, that allow every human to meet its basic needs while living within the planet
limits.