The liberal take on the ecosystem is that the carbon footprint of individuals is too high, and therefore we must as INDIVIDUALS all choose to use less carbon of our own free will. And as liberals see that the individual will not choose to do that, instead of changing our entire system to something better that would improve the environmental impact en mass, they’d prefer that we keep capitalism, even if that means large parts of the global population must suffer and die. Thats what hes talking about here.
I feel like there’s also a similar kind of perspective that is widely normalized in these kinds of discussions that boils down to simultaneously blaming everyone on an individual level and being defeatist about ever solving it. Specifically, I’m talking about when people say things like:
Oh, we destroyed the rain forests / polluted the environment / strip mined 3rd world countries / ruined space with our junk / killed the coral reefs / etc
No, we the working class didn’t do that. Humanity as a whole didn’t do that. The owner class did all of that to feed their addictions to wealth and power under capitalism. We the working class by and large criticized all of those things whenever we happened to have enough agency to consider it.
See and that feels like baby steps towards some flavor of eco authoritarianism (which I suppose I may be conflating with eco-fascism; to me, those both seem bad and in comparable measures).
You seem to be proposing that there is a system (ecologic + economic) that allows for humans to live sustainably at our current-ish population while being mostly free to live their lives with their communities as they see fit and at (at least) a modest level of prosperity.
If there is such a system that doesn’t lean into authoritarianism, I’m unfamiliar with it.
I think it will be difficult to ensure all three of those points (current population + non-authoritarian government + modest living conditions). While I agree Capitalism and Liberalism aren’t doing good on maintaining those three point (gods, are they doing so bad on those three points), I’m unclear what the Leftist suggestions are to fix them.
If you/others here have points that could fill in my gaps of understanding, be interested to hear them. (I worry I’m going to be taken as a Liberal infiltrator, but I feel I know little of the more concrete aspects of Leftist politics and am trying to learn).
You do sound like a liberal infiltrator. It in the off chance you aren’t and actually want to understand these things, unfortunately you generally have to do the hard work of actually reading books about them. On this topic specifically I would highly recommend Climate Change as a Class War by Matt Huber. There was a good Ted Talk that summarized the ideas behind this I saw years ago but I can’t find it.
Also baby steps to ecofascism? I cannot begin to imagine what this means. The ecosystem and how we deal with it has been highjacked by weapons manufacturers and energy companies and we are all told that you’d have to give up money and comforts and all kinds of austerity has been forced down our throats which is just simply not true. I cant remember if it was 70 percent or so of climate change variables were from military ventures alone, I know it was over 50 though. And a significant portion of the rest of it is just from non-military airplane fuel. I don’t know about you but MOST people could cut those things out of their lives almost entirely and not notice. Almost every climate change agitator can be fixed WHILE INCREASING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR WORKING CLASS PEOPLE. But under a capitalist society that is not the goal. The goal is infinite growth through profit maximization and concentration of capital. That goal is literally antithetical to environmental protection AND improvement in proletariat quality of life. They literally cannot coexist on their own.
For example, the government makes a top down decision to heavily invest in cheap or entirely free public transport, invest heavily in cycling infrastructure, ensures urban planning means that (where possible) you’re never more than a short bicycle ride away from a supermarket (so called 5 minute cities), does its best to ensure it’s affordable to live near your work, bans cars from city centres (with obvious exceptions), increases taxation on fuel, and increases taxation on new vehicles.
Perfectly feasible, because it’s been done in plenty of countries and cities. Vastly better for the environment and much more efficient too, because the population isn’t wasting so much time and money driving from point A to B. People are invariably much happier, because they get more exercise, waste less of their lives in traffic, aren’t wasting money on car ownership, and suffer less from the effects of air and noise pollution. Unsurprisingly, once instituted this kind of thing invariably enjoys majority democratic support.
The polar opposite of the US, where the car industry had and still has a disproportionate influence on politics, and very unpopular there in large part because of propaganda, which has given Americans the illusion of choice; they have been invariably been robbed of the choice to live near their work or spend less time in traffic, but instead get to choose which overpriced car they are forced to buy due to corporate influenced government rule.
I’m tired, but you get the idea.
It’s also important to realise, that a lot of these kinds of policies, aren’t actually unpopular when they’re done well. People like walking, cycling, breathing fresh air, loads of trees, nature, etc. It’s a bit of a joke that Americans return home from their holiday in Europe, feeling healthier and having lost weight. Not being stuck in your car all day is good for you.
The liberal take on the ecosystem is that the carbon footprint of individuals is too high, and therefore we must as INDIVIDUALS all choose to use less carbon of our own free will. And as liberals see that the individual will not choose to do that, instead of changing our entire system to something better that would improve the environmental impact en mass, they’d prefer that we keep capitalism, even if that means large parts of the global population must suffer and die. Thats what hes talking about here.
I feel like there’s also a similar kind of perspective that is widely normalized in these kinds of discussions that boils down to simultaneously blaming everyone on an individual level and being defeatist about ever solving it. Specifically, I’m talking about when people say things like:
No, we the working class didn’t do that. Humanity as a whole didn’t do that. The owner class did all of that to feed their addictions to wealth and power under capitalism. We the working class by and large criticized all of those things whenever we happened to have enough agency to consider it.
Yes, exactly.
See and that feels like baby steps towards some flavor of eco authoritarianism (which I suppose I may be conflating with eco-fascism; to me, those both seem bad and in comparable measures).
You seem to be proposing that there is a system (ecologic + economic) that allows for humans to live sustainably at our current-ish population while being mostly free to live their lives with their communities as they see fit and at (at least) a modest level of prosperity.
If there is such a system that doesn’t lean into authoritarianism, I’m unfamiliar with it.
I think it will be difficult to ensure all three of those points (current population + non-authoritarian government + modest living conditions). While I agree Capitalism and Liberalism aren’t doing good on maintaining those three point (gods, are they doing so bad on those three points), I’m unclear what the Leftist suggestions are to fix them.
If you/others here have points that could fill in my gaps of understanding, be interested to hear them. (I worry I’m going to be taken as a Liberal infiltrator, but I feel I know little of the more concrete aspects of Leftist politics and am trying to learn).
You do sound like a liberal infiltrator. It in the off chance you aren’t and actually want to understand these things, unfortunately you generally have to do the hard work of actually reading books about them. On this topic specifically I would highly recommend Climate Change as a Class War by Matt Huber. There was a good Ted Talk that summarized the ideas behind this I saw years ago but I can’t find it.
Also baby steps to ecofascism? I cannot begin to imagine what this means. The ecosystem and how we deal with it has been highjacked by weapons manufacturers and energy companies and we are all told that you’d have to give up money and comforts and all kinds of austerity has been forced down our throats which is just simply not true. I cant remember if it was 70 percent or so of climate change variables were from military ventures alone, I know it was over 50 though. And a significant portion of the rest of it is just from non-military airplane fuel. I don’t know about you but MOST people could cut those things out of their lives almost entirely and not notice. Almost every climate change agitator can be fixed WHILE INCREASING THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR WORKING CLASS PEOPLE. But under a capitalist society that is not the goal. The goal is infinite growth through profit maximization and concentration of capital. That goal is literally antithetical to environmental protection AND improvement in proletariat quality of life. They literally cannot coexist on their own.
For example, the government makes a top down decision to heavily invest in cheap or entirely free public transport, invest heavily in cycling infrastructure, ensures urban planning means that (where possible) you’re never more than a short bicycle ride away from a supermarket (so called 5 minute cities), does its best to ensure it’s affordable to live near your work, bans cars from city centres (with obvious exceptions), increases taxation on fuel, and increases taxation on new vehicles.
Perfectly feasible, because it’s been done in plenty of countries and cities. Vastly better for the environment and much more efficient too, because the population isn’t wasting so much time and money driving from point A to B. People are invariably much happier, because they get more exercise, waste less of their lives in traffic, aren’t wasting money on car ownership, and suffer less from the effects of air and noise pollution. Unsurprisingly, once instituted this kind of thing invariably enjoys majority democratic support.
The polar opposite of the US, where the car industry had and still has a disproportionate influence on politics, and very unpopular there in large part because of propaganda, which has given Americans the illusion of choice; they have been invariably been robbed of the choice to live near their work or spend less time in traffic, but instead get to choose which overpriced car they are forced to buy due to corporate influenced government rule. I’m tired, but you get the idea.
It’s also important to realise, that a lot of these kinds of policies, aren’t actually unpopular when they’re done well. People like walking, cycling, breathing fresh air, loads of trees, nature, etc. It’s a bit of a joke that Americans return home from their holiday in Europe, feeling healthier and having lost weight. Not being stuck in your car all day is good for you.