Human Nature vs. Capitalism

In the chapter titled, "Capitalism Killed Our Climate Momentum, not 'Human Nature,'" Klein makes her position on the question perfectly clear.  Klein discusses her eye-opening experience with an article featured in the New York Times composed Nathaniel Rich back in the 1980's.  The article was an expose on how despite the scientific and technological advances, diverging capitalist interests turned their back on the climate issue in favor satiating the consumerist drives of Americans.  Klein points out that the late 80's were a zenith of post-Cold War neoliberalism.  The Berlin Wall had been torn down, and it seemed as though the West had emerged victorious lead by the like of Regan and Thatcher.  

Lower Long Lake , Brainerd, MN

A friendly reminder that the world is still beautiful

However, Klein specifically takes issue with Rich's concluding remarks:

"Human beings, whether in global organization, democracies, industries, political parties or as individuals, are incapable of sacrificing present convenience to forestall a penalty imposed on future generations." (Klein 247)

She argues that Rich is misguided when he blames the "human nature" for the failure to address climate change.  In contrast, Klein suggests that the main perpetrator is the fundamental idea of deregulation embedded in capitalism.  That underlying premise paired with the swelling support for conservative values meant that the 80's were a terrible time for climate activism.   Regarding her response to Rich's argument blaming human nature, I agree with Klein.  Even though humans have shown themselves to be capable of great atrocities, time and time again we have seen individuals rise up and take the initiative.  We see grassroot and political leaders like Greta slowly shift public opinion to a more favorable position on climate change.  

However, I disagree with her argument for the following reason: economic and political policies are inherently amoral.  Political strategies and policies are tools in the hands of the government used to create a certain status quo.  Used wisely, free markets can be used to great effect.   For example, in the article hyperlinked previously (right there ^^^), the author discusses how the UK gave fishers property rights over streams.  In doing so, they created economic incentives for the fisher to address polluters.  Private conservation groups have been used to protect near-extinct elephant tribes in Chad.  Closer to home, Alabama has used a system that  allows fishers to build reefs and have exclusive fishing rights; the result, Alabama accounts for roughly 40% of the Red Snapper caught in the U.S. (which is impressive considering they only have about 1.5% of the coastline).

Klein does acknowledge the spurious variables by pointing out that while capitalism is one of the major drivers behind environmental damages, autocratic socialism in Russia and Venezuela are equally problematic (Klein 251). I would counter and argue that the specific form of government does not matter, rather it is the quality and the execution of the law that matters. 

I recognize that capitalism has been the dominant economic theory for the last few centuries, but I do not think that there is a direct casual relationship between capitalism and environmentally destructive polices.  A better better explanation would unrestrained industrialization.  Rather than trying to distinguish between which form of government creates bad environmentalism policy, we ought to look at a given country's location on the spectrum of industrialization.  As countries move rapidly into a industrialized state, production is prioritized over environmental preservation.  One would just need to look at the working conditions of mid19th century working conditions in Chicago or London (use Upton Sinclair's The Jungle as an example) and compare them to modern working conditions of recently industrialized countries--there similarities are quite striking.  

Additionally, if one looks at the ranking that Newly Industrialized Countries (NIC) have on the Environmental Performance Index, one can see that they generally have a lower ranking compared to the United State's rank of 24th (out of 180 countries).  

• South Africa, industrialized boom starting the in the mid-1990's, ranked 95th
• Mexico, industrialized post NAFTA in the mid-1990's, ranked 51st
• Brazil, industrialized in the early 1930's, ranked 55th
• China, industrialized in the 1950 under Mao's "Five Year Plan," ranked 120th
• India, industrialized in the mid-1990's, ranked 168th

Destructive environmental practices originate from bad policies that fail to retrain the damaging tendencies of Newly Industrialized countries.  The capitalist framework just happened to the dominant political ideology at the time when the countries industrialized.