The History of Eco-Capitalism and its Flawed System
Can your eco-conscious products truly save the planet?
Eco-capitalism creates more environmentally conscious consumers, but it still traps us in a capitalist mindset of overconsumption. The only difference between eco-capitalism and capitalism is that we, as consumers, have the impression that our dollars are doing good for the planet.
The Origins of Eco-Capitalism
Eco-capitalism— or green capitalism— is a concept dating back to the 60’s, when a capitalist by the name of Garret Hardin claimed that if governments didn’t control family sizes, the world would become overpopulated, causing ecological destruction. In the 80’s and 90’s, theorists argued that environmentally conscious consumerism, green taxes, and green technologies could save the planet from deteriorating while businesses still profited from natural resources. Emphasis is placed on economic value of natural resources, biodiversity, and ecosystems, and theorizes that through certain methods, markets can still thrive while reducing the human environmental footprint. In other words, businesses aim to profit from addressing climate issues through the commodification of eco-conscious consumerist values.
Pollution and loss of biodiversity are recognized as market failure (capitalism going downhill). To combat this, the green capitalists propose a few solutions: a carbon tax, green consumption and eco-labeling, and environmental full cost accounting. The latter refers to corporations considering not only socioeconomic costs and benefits, but also the effects of their actions on the planet through a concept called the Genuine Progress Indicator. It’s an alternative to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) because it includes environmental deterioration, crime, and income inequality as factors that affect consumption. This means that those factors harm the goal of maximum profit of corporations. Corporations seek maximum profit because that’s what capitalism is all about.
Millennials and gen Z make up nearly half of the consumer market, according to CompareCamp. This category of consumers is more eco-conscious than their predecessors. As a result, many companies have shifted their branding to include eco-labeling and green consumption.
A part of a green product’s price is the sustainability of it. This creates a price increase, which puts part of the environmental responsibility companies have on the consumer. But shoppers should be looking at real ways to save the planet, because this doesn’t restore resources. For example, if we want to buy an eco-friendly bra made of bamboo viscose, let’s ask ourselves this: Is it restoring Mother Nature, or taking from her? What’s important to note is not all eco-friendly fabrics, such as bamboo viscose, are biodegradable. So we’re not really doing that much good. In his essay Green Capitalism: The God That Failed, Richard Smith states:
“We can’t shop our way to sustainability because the problems we face cannot be solved by individual choices in the marketplace. They require collective democratic control over the economy to prioritize the needs of society and the environment. And they require national and international economic planning to re-organize the economy and redeploy labor and resources to these ends.”
What we should really be doing is not participate in overconsumption. We should only take what we need and leave the rest for others and the ecosystem so it can keep expanding. This is a motto many herbalists subscribe to when foraging. It’s a way to respect the land. If we follow an animistic lifestyle, we also consider the spirits of our natural resources, whom we honor and do not abuse. Before taking from them, we ask for permission, and after the taking, we give thanks. We’ve been fooled by the concept of conscious consumption long enough. Now, it’s time to protect and restore the lands we have taken for granted.
Written By: Joséphine Mwanvua