Hardly a week passes without an Extinction Rebellion stunt making headline news. Members are concerned with rising global temperatures, melting arctic sea ice, plastic contamination in the ocean, and mass species extinction. They idolise Greta Thunberg and detest Donald Trump.
Many, inside and outside Extinction Rebellion, view the movement as anti-capitalist. Although capitalism has always been closely linked to environmental dangers, it is built on the premise that we can allocate scarce resources efficiently to encourage human ingenuity and improve the quality of lives. But whilst capitalism has focused on improving the quality of lives, it has in turn ignored the longer term risks presented by large-scale productions. This is why those who oppose capitalism argue that ending climate change requires the end of capitalism.
There is quite a simple counter-argument to this: capitalism is part of the problem, therefore, needs to be part of the solution. Numerous large companies have made long-term environmental commitments, even if they are somewhat vague. These often include lofty ideas about multinational firms stimulating emerging technology that will save the planet. Earlier this week, even Prince Charles urged that banks needed to play their part and recently, following a meeting with Thunberg, Angela Merkel stressed the importance of innovative technologies in meeting climate objectives.
Merkel is not alone in pushing this idea that technology can combat climate change. According to Mark Carney, the governor of the Bank of England, capitalism is “very much part of the solution” to tackling the climate crisis when challenged whether capitalism itself was fuelling the climate emergency, Carney gave a strident defence of the economic system predicated on private ownership and growth but said companies that ignored climate change would “go bankrupt without question… Capitalism is part of the solution and part of what we need to do.”
At the heart of these arguments, is the weighted idea that environmental problems can be solved through technology, not through capitalism. There is some persuasive evidence in this case. There are dubious claims that the invention of USB sticks have saved more trees than Greenpeace.
There is also certainly some exciting and innovative environmental technology on the horizon, such as MethaneSAT. MethaneSAT is a satellite mission due to launch in 2021, and designed to continuously map and measure methane emissions with exacting precision almost anywhere on the planet. MethaneSAT will make it possible to ‘see’ emissions in places where they’re difficult to track today.
Data from MethaneSAT will be available for free to anyone. It will help countries, companies and citizens spot problems, identify reduction opportunities, and measure progress over time.
The British Government is currently developing new plans to help fund carbon capture projects in the same way it has helped support the roll out of renewable power projects, but it is not expected to reveal the new investment mechanism until next year. For any charismatic politician, it would be a tough-sell to convince businesses to commit to drastic carbon emissions targets over developing ‘innovative solutions.’ Therefore, it is the safer bet for here today, gone tomorrow politicians to invest their efforts in winning over industries by toeing the ‘technology can solve the climate crisis’ line.
This is perhaps why there are also so many fruity ideas to use technology to stave off climate change, such as using giant space umbrellas and sucking carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, like a giant vacuum. It is doubtful whether these ideas can have the drastic impact that they promise. Even if the technology works and is adopted, they cannot get humanity over the line alone.
Those who claim that there is a technological issue for everything are either narrow minded, or making excuses to cover their own desire to do nothing and hide away from difficult problems. Regardless how sophisticated a piece of technology may be, if it is not accessible or easily adopted by the masses, it will not help solve the climate crisis. Therefore, if we build into climate strategies the assumption that there is a technology solution to every environmental problem, we will end up short-handed and these technologies will prove otiose.
This is not to say that technology is obsolete. Citizens do not adopt the best technology, rather, they adopt the most convenient. Therefore any real change comes from not only having the best technological solution, but having user-centred solutions and a multilayered approach. To shift collective thinking in society, there needs to be clear and convincing arguments to make simple changes – cycling instead of driving, not idling in cars, not using disposable cups, and eating local produce. Whilst we have groups at two ends of the spectrum, arguing that either we need the end of capitalism or that technology can solve all these problems, it will be difficult to push this change.
The climate emergency will define our times, but it is a common struggle and what truly defines us is how we respond to it. The polarisation of this argument helps no-one. The sooner we develop realistic and multilayered solutions, the nearer we are to solving these issues.
onsundays.tech.blog 