9-minute read
keywords: climate change, economics

In an attempt to address climate change and other environmental problems, governments are increasingly turning to economic solutions. The underlying message is clear: capitalism might have created the problem, but capitalism can solve it. Adrienne Buller, a Senior Fellow with progressive think tank Common Wealth, is, to put it mildly, sceptical of this. From carbon credits to biodiversity offsets, she unmasks these policies for the greenwashing that they are. The Value of a Whale is a necessary corrective that is as eye-opening as it is shocking.

As Buller defines it here, green capitalism sees governments and corporations pursue ideas and policies that use the logic and force of economic markets to address environmental problems. It has two defining characteristics that she returns to throughout the book (and I am paraphrasing here): whatever you do, do not disrupt the existing economy, and while we are at it, let us turn crises into new opportunities to get filthy rich. The book roughly breaks down into two halves: the odd chapters provide background information on how the global economy works while the even chapters critically evaluate several green capitalist solutions. Before I discuss some notable examples, it is useful to mention what is not in the book. This is not an account of the people undermining the scientific consensus. As she points out, those merchants of doubt have been covered at length elsewhere. Nor is this a manifesto of solutions, though in the process of exposing our failures, she outlines some of the necessary changes.

Let me first highlight the background chapters as they give a useful indication of the kinds of people and ideas that are coming to the table when it comes to formulating “solutions”. There were various things here that I found eye-opening and even shocking, though I will gladly concede my ignorance of economics and the inner workings of the global financial system. Readers more familiar with these topics might not be as surprised as I was.

For example, you would think that the idea of limiting global warming to 2°C above pre-industrial levels is based on the best available science. Instead, Buller traces it back to a 1975 thought experiment by the influential economist William Nordhaus. Despite some very questionable assumptions, the idea has become a central pillar of climate change policy. Nordhaus is representative of a large group of well-meaning economists who look at climate change strictly through the lens of economics. Their flawed models “that collapse the complexity of our globalised economy, climate and biosphere into improbably simple predictions” (p. 43) are legitimising inaction by politicians. We should call them out for what they are: false prophets. Similarly, why do we seem powerless to hold companies accountable? Because we are. Buller explains how neoliberal reforms from the 1970s onwards were explicitly framed in terms of reigning in democracy and insulating the financial world from popular demands. After all, such interference only stifles economic progress. She discusses other facets of the global financial system, but this should give you a taste of the background against which climate change policy is being formulated. Let us take a look at some of these green capitalist solutions in more detail.

“a large group of well-meaning economists who look at climate change strictly through the lens of economics […] are legitimising inaction by politicians. We should call them out for what they are: false prophets.”

The first revolves around putting a price on carbon emissions, whether through a tax or a carbon market where companies can buy credits to continue emissions. Superficially it sounds fair (the polluter pays) and prominent economists, including again Nordhaus, adamantly assert that it is the only way to combat climate change. But does it work? Shockingly, despite over a decade of policies, very few studies have assessed the results and those that did found almost no emission reductions. Why can it not work? For one, our society is completely built around fossil fuels and cannot be changed overnight (something Smil also pointed out in How the World Really Works), thus, she insightfully suggests, carbon pricing should come not at the start, but at the end of this process when we have alternative infrastructure to switch to. Another reason is that pricing mechanisms do not care whether results stem from the fundamental changes we need or are just easy efficiency gains (such as burning gas instead of coal and calling it a win for the environment). Furthermore, attempts to offset continued emissions by, say, tree planting initiatives come with their own suite of problems. Examples she highlights are land grabs that interfere with food production and displace indigenous people (as happened with the establishment of national parks), logging of old-growth forests to create mono-crop plantations, and the constant threat of logging and forest fires sending all that captured carbon back into the atmosphere sooner rather than later. At its most obscene, continued emissions are accompanied by promises of unproven technofixes that will mop up all this excess carbon in the near future. Why is this still being promoted? It is wonderful PR for companies, while for politicians it is a solution that avoids difficult confrontations with the industry. Also, when market approaches do fail, “the sheer volume of actors involved distributes accountability by design” (p. 75), so nobody needs to take any blame.

The second example of a green capitalist solution concerns the asset management industry that oversees how financial assets such as private capital, endowments, and pension funds are invested. This is a complex and technical chapter but if I understand Buller correctly this industry is all about growing that pot of money by means fair (e.g. profitable speculation on novel financial products) or foul (e.g. investing in fossil fuel companies). The problem is that a significant chunk of global assets (worth trillions of dollars) is concentrated in just a handful of firms, giving them considerable power in political circles. This is where this industry intersects with policymaking, as they oppose climate policies that threaten the financial interests of their asset owners. Simultaneously, the emergence of new industries producing e.g. renewable energy or electric vehicles is creating new business opportunities. Of course, finance will be finance, so asset managers focus on inventing new financial products to speculate on, one example being ESG funds (short for Environmental, Social, and Governance). Without going into the technical details, in theory this gives investors the power to steer companies in wholesome directions. In practice there is no external oversight or regulation, leaving the door wide open to profiteering, greenwashing, and token demands that do nothing to steer businesses away from environmentally destructive practices. For all the hype about “sustainable” and “ethical” investing, all this does is “creating the veneer of industry-wide action where there is none” (p. 170). I think Buller summarises the problem with ethical investing very well when she writes that it “is much more an opportunity for those with assets to invest to place their bets on the winners of the future economy than to help bring that world into being” (p. 172).

“Buller’s overarching conclusion is not just that green capitalist solutions do not work, but that they cannot work. Why? Because they perpetuate the fallacies of mainstream economics.”

Despite The Value of a Whale being an exposé that skewers green capitalism, it is refreshing to see that Buller remains reasonable. She will happily concede where mainstream economists have a point and she admits that, in principle, there is nothing wrong with using economic insights to inform our response to climate change. However, upon closer inspection, almost all ideas are “thwarted by the messiness of reality [and] the physical constraints of nature” (p. 58).

Buller’s overarching conclusion is not just that green capitalist solutions do not work, but that they cannot work. Why? Because they perpetuate the fallacies of mainstream economics; that we behave as rational economic actors (we do not) who come to the market with equal power (we do not, companies constantly overrule whole segments of the population). Because capitalism proceeds by externalising costs; internalising the cost of climate change while making a profit from it necessarily generates new externalities. Because financial markets optimize for efficient rather than effective solutions; as long as it makes money it does not matter to financiers that it does not work. Because public utilities such as energy generation are not always profitable and should never have been privatised in the first place. Because economic models usually consider climate and ecological changes as gradual and predictable processes; climate scientists instead warn of unpredictable interactions, positive feedback loops, and tipping points. The only sensible approach here is the precautionary principle. Because the narrow focus on carbon and climate change makes us lose sight of other, equally urgent environmental crises that are not independent of it. Finally, the neoliberal approach to environmental issues is spilling over into other domains such as wildlife conservation, with equally appalling results.

Should we nevertheless accept green capitalist solutions? Is something better than nothing? Reflecting on her firm conclusion, Buller writes that acceptable solutions should have an actual material impact, i.e. slow or reverse emissions or biodiversity loss. But they should also redistribute wealth and power more fairly. In her view, unequal affluence stimulates more consumption across the board. The green capitalist solutions discussed here fail on both accounts. We are wasting time on solutions that are a distraction at best and a fatal deception at worst. The economic lens has given us such collective tunnel vision that we struggle to imagine alternatives. To paraphrase Fredric Jameson, it has indeed become easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism.

Though I found it technical in a few places, The Value of a Whale is an eye-opening critique that I expect to be recommending frequently in the future.

---

Disclosure: The publisher provided a review copy of this book. The opinion expressed here is my own, however.

The Value of a Whale

Other recommended books mentioned in this review:

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________