Intro:

·        3 main economic arguments

·        Malthusian greens

·        Light greens/ eco-capitalism/ free trade environmentalism – can be said to be compatible

·        Deep green utopia /eco-socialism/ eco-anarchism [Bookchin and Sale]

Body:

MALTHUSIAN ARGUMENT

·        World population is growing exponentially – 3.6 billion in 1970s and 53 billion in 1990s.

·        There are only finite natural resources, many of which are non-renewable e.g. oil.

·        Once population exceeds the available resources, nature will readjust the balance – either through war or an epidemic/pandemic.

·        To prevent this chaos, Malthusians advocate population control [e.g. one child policy] and efficiency in the use of resources.

·        More extreme Malthusians would argue for a global economic equilibrium, so that every country maintains current level.

·        This would stop developing countries from developing and progressing – and may also limit developed countries.

·        Economic progress is therefore not compatible with Malthusian environmental argument.

DEEP GREEN UTOPIA /ECO – SOCIALISM [BOOKCHIN AND SALE]

·        Bookchin – bourgeoisie exploitation and manipulation are undermining the very capacity of the earth to sustain forms of life.

·        The current capitalist and neoliberal world is environmentally unsustainable., due to emphasis on industrialism. The only solution is a complete revolution in human lifestyle.

·        Calls for the replacement of big cities with localised, rural-based communities called Bioregions.

·        A world full of miniature ecosystems working in self-sufficiently, in harmony with their environments.

·        There would be little trade or interchange between communities.

·        Emphasis on low technology production – i.e. specialized handicraft and agricultural societies.

·        In my opinion not only would this have no advantage on economic progress but would also revert the world back to how it was centuries ago, with people living in small villages and barely travelling outside own village. Would completely dismiss globalization and integration, and so would send economic progress spiralling heavily backwards. Not practical or realistic.

EXCEPTION: LIGHT GREENS/ECO-CAPITALISM [GEORGE]

·        The free market is the best means of sustaining and keeping the environment healthy.

·        The greatest way to protect the environment is through increased sovereignty to the individual and his/her property rights.

·        This is because giving ownership rights to nature, via free and open markets, will give the rational individual reason to protect it.

·        Fundamentalists argue that taxation on the income restricts the individuals right to their property and taxes people on success and creativity. Instead, taxation should be concentrated on pollution and consumption, to give the rational individual greater reason to reduced environmental degradation, and so taxes are based on ‘bads’ rather than ‘goods’. E.g. congestion charge, carbon tax.

·        The market will ensure that future generations are not left stuck. This is because if a resource such as oil begins to run out, then demand will exceed supply, which will push prices up. It will then be in consumers best interests to seek other alternatives, which will create an economic incentive to create a real alternative, which is profitable to the entrepreneur.

·        CRITICISM – however Marcuse believes that capitalism could only grow by depleting the natural resources on which it relies upon for production. Capitalism is after all, about markets and consumption; both are likely to lead to the degradation of the environment. Therefore, is this not just an excuse for big businesses to continue overconsuming and overpolluting?