Ah, but I think we do agree on that point. Economics and ecology are inseparable. Same Greek route (Oikos, like the yogurt). Eco/nomos - “house rules” eco/logos - “study of (the) house.” Resource management, crop yield, air/water quality, and extreme weather are all very very “economic.” It’s all “the house.”
I’m differentiating “economics/economic activity” and individual economic “theories.” From my perspective, capitalism is a set of organizing principles (which, in practice, “capitalist economies” follow and don’t follow to varying degrees). Where we seem to disagree is that I don’t think the organizing principles of capitalism inherently cause climate change.
I think several big economies were operating under capitalist principles while they made their rapid shift to coal and oil. I see correlation; I don’t see causation. I also don’t think it’s unique to capitalism (or even, as you said, communism). Whatever hypothetical economic theory they follow, I don’t see an entire globe that discovers and passes up on fossil fuels. It kicked off significant improvements in quality of life, and I’m not sure people would be able to understand their side effects on global climate until after we got access to an energy resource like it.
More importantly, I see no reason why the principles behind the economies we call “capitalist” can’t be implemented in a way that slows global average rising temperatures and the bad things that come with it. Now, there’s a lot of variation out there, but I’m just going to assume that when we say “capitalist” we’re thinking of a model like the US. Importantly, that’s NOT laissez-fair. It’s also not static; “capitalism” doesn’t have to mean “status quo.”
For the sake of discussion, I’ll narrow the focus to the reduction of GHGs (setting aside other solutions). I can see the US economy phasing out GHGs (as a “capitalist” economy) with two important changes to the future incentive structure:
1) Developments in technology and changes in consumer/investor behavior can decrease the relative costs associated with “green” options. Importantly, all levels of government (fed, state, tribal, etc) will be notable consumers/investors within that ecosystem.
2) Legal institutions can begin increasing the relative costs associated with behaviors that increase GHG. Regulation through federal legislative or administrative action is big here, but don’t sleep on the judiciary (state or fed). Procedural innovations and statutory (or common law) recognition of certain rights could play a big role in distributing the liability of GHGs onto the producers (either with individual claims, or utilizing class action/issue class mechanisms). Think of product liability claims or other big consumer-related class actions. If a car company negligently overlooks a safety feature and it results in bodily harm, you can sue them and a judge can shift the economic burden of your harm onto the company; sometimes they don’t even need to be negligent. Enough people get harmed, you probably got yourself a class. Civil Litigation is no silver bullet, but it can make a difference.
I’m obviously painting in broad strokes, but you can see the general shape of my argument.
Do you understand how I'm defining each term? I'm happy to hear out your rebuttals to any of those points.
As for the economic points, I'll keep it short: For solar, I agree that the long term benefits outweigh the initial costs, but a cost that pays itself off is still a cost. Plus, you have to maintain solar pannels and the infrastructure that supports them. For ebooks, (even if we move to a word where no one charges for their writing) I still considere volunteered time a human "cost." It's just internalized by the author themselves; they allocated significant time and energy to the project, whether they were paid or not.
Sorry for the delayed response! I had this typed up 3 days ago, but I'm in the middle of moving, so I kept hitting snooze on proofreading. Hopefully you find the time to respond, I'm most interested in the climate change/capitalism conversation.
