Lucy Cavendish Essay Prize

in Contemporary Issues 2020

Can the climate emergency be solved

through capitalist political and economic structures?

Nicholas Miao

Monmouth Schools Sixth Form

Can the climate emergency be solved through capitalist political and economic structures? Nicholas Miao

Australian bushfires, Welsh floods, Californian droughts; in the past decade

alone we have seen some of the most extreme climates in recorded history, and
scientists have almost undisputedly indicated human activities as the main cause of
the crisis[1]. Humans have always exploited the environment for their gain. Yet it was
not until the widespread adoption of Adam Smith’s free-market economics in the
western world, outlined in his 1776 An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the
Wealth of Nations that governments encouraged individuals to set up in business
and abandoned ‘top-down’ policies. This was seen as the route to prioritise
economic growth above all else, inadvertently leading to the thrashing of the planet
on a global and industrial scale. Yet Smith’s thesis remains a central premise of
modern economics over 240 years later, and in the face of the current climate
emergency, market capitalism seems ill-equipped to deal with this ever-increasing
existential crisis. This, however, is not necessarily the case.

Capitalism is not new, and its roots can be traced to the discovery of the
number zero[2] in the ancient civilisations of Mesopotamia and early Chinese
observations of supply and demand in Guanzi (26 BCE).[3] Despite its variations
across the epochs, the premises of capitalism remained largely similar, revolving
around notions of private ownership of the means of production and maximising
profits as the final end, often through the exploitation of human and natural
resources. Yet Smith’s addition pushed the boundaries of the doctrine onto an
international level, refuting the mercantilist fear of trade deficits by advocating free
trade and the invisible hand of the free market. This replaced the State’s role as the
regulator of the economy, ultimately bringing an unprecedented global impact which
– both positive and negative – can still be felt to this day. Further, he argued that the
proper functioning of the market required educated individuals with sufficient agency
of freedom and autonomy to innovate itself. This is certainly true with all previous
and subsequent variations of capitalism; it seems that its ability to innovate and
realign itself to the needs of its contextual era is what gave it power, and thus what
made it the dominant economic doctrine that governed human affairs for much of
recorded history.

1
Can the climate emergency be solved through capitalist political and economic structures? Nicholas Miao

For Smith, the contextual issues that he faced in the 1770s were vastly
different from those we face today. Whereas the free-market then addressed the
issues of extreme poverty and economic growth, we seek today to solve issues such
as the climate emergency and the widening wealth gap – in many ways, the
unintended consequences of Smith’s doctrine. And so it seems paradoxical for us to
continue to base our economics on what has caused these issues in the first place.
Such a dilemma is exemplified by our socio-political-economic structure’s inability to
act on the climate crisis. Whereas the IPCC has urged for ‘rapid, far-reaching and
unprecedented changes in all aspects of society’ to limit global warming to 1.5°C [4],
Smith’s ‘self-interest’ premise implies that capitalism, in its modern market
fundamentalist form, is not concerned with the well-being of the environment insofar
as it fails to generate profit. Trump’s withdrawal from the 2015 Paris Agreement is a
prime example, claiming that climate action will ‘undermine [the US] economy…
putting us at a permanent disadvantage.’ [5] Such prioritisation of the markets over the
welfare of the planet reveals a further dilemma rooted in the edifice of government. If
our political structures are intricately linked to our economic ones, how can we
expect effective government action on climate change that are, in many ways,
against the interests of the markets? Given the urgency of the climate crisis, is it time
we render capitalism unsustainable and search for a different governing doctrine?

Over the epochs, many have cast doubt on the sustainability of capitalism.
From Thomas Malthus’ 1789 An Essay on the Principle of Population, arguing that
population growth cannot be matched by the scarcity of resources, developing into
the infamous Malthusian Catastrophe in Paul R. Ehrlich’s 1968 The Population
Bomb predicting a world-wide famine in the 1970s, to Karl Marx’s belief in the
inevitable overthrow of the bourgeois ruling class as they ‘tremble at a Communistic
revolution’[6] in his 1848 The Communist Manifesto. These men all based their
prophetic revolutions and catastrophes on the belief that capitalism will remain
unchanging, headed towards a single trajectory. Perhaps if it did we may well have
experienced famines and the proletarian overthrow of the bourgeois state. Yet none
of these happened on a global scale as predicted, for these thinkers all
underestimated one of capitalism’s fundamental premises: individualism. Whereas
Marx believed in social class as an agent of change, capitalists argue that a single
person has the power to shake the world: change need not be enacted by a class-

2
Can the climate emergency be solved through capitalist political and economic structures? Nicholas Miao

led insurrection, for the individual has the power of democratic institutions, the power
of the markets, and the power of words at their disposal. So Marx was not wrong in
pointing out that capitalism serves merely the self-interest of the individual – but he
did overlook the fact that by the same token it relies on the individual for its ability to
change, to reform, and to progress.

Philosophers have long prized the value of the individual. In his 1785
Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant asserted that ‘the human
being…exists as an end in itself.’ [7] The a priori intrinsic value of the autonomous
individual thus formed a key part of his ethical theory. Still, it seems peculiar when
market capitalism relies on the exploitation of that same individual as a means to an
end, standing opposed to Kantian Ethics and echoing Marx’s criticism that capitalism
is the oppression of the many by the few, while at the same time claims to hold
individualism as an agent of change. For Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, such
a conundrum may be addressed by utilitarianism, arguing that the State has the
responsibility to promote the greater good – to maximise happiness and minimise
pain for the many, not just the wealthy few. Utilitarianism ultimately became
instrumental in government thinking and underpinned the modern welfare state,
reducing economic inequality and promoting greater social compassion. Thus social
progress does not require the uprooting of the existing order or a Marxist revolution.
Throughout history we have seen countless cases of individuals using the power of
words to defy the status quo and bring change for the better: from Bertrand Russell’s
criticism of religion, arguing that ‘a good world needs knowledge, kindliness, and
courage…[not] a regretful hankering after the past or a fettering of the free
intelligence,’[8] to Haruki Murakami’s reminder that ‘we must not let the system
control us – create who we are. It is we who created the system.’[9] It is in nature of
mankind that we strive to change for the better. We exist, not as a class, but as
unique individuals, refusing to be indifferent to injustices – as Albert Camus said, ‘I
rebel – therefore we exist.’ [10] This stands as capitalism’s greatest asset: its ability to
reform itself.

3
Can the climate emergency be solved through capitalist political and economic structures? Nicholas Miao

Given the urgency of the climate crisis and our current economic and political
structure’s apparent inability to take immediate and effective action, it is easy to
conclude that capitalism is unsustainable and adopt the Malthusian or even Marxist
line of thought, advocating for an alternative to capitalism. Yet many seem to have
forgotten that capitalism remains a fluid ideology to which the individual can bend to
fit their purposes, from solving extreme poverty to reducing socioeconomic
inequality. We must not forget that it is we who created the system, and by the same
token, we also have the power to amend it. The modern world does not need to
tremble at a communistic revolution or to retreat into a medieval subsistence
lifestyle. What we need is a reboot of capitalism, and its realignment to our
contextual values. To meet the needs and solve the problems of the modern world
we need to change how we perceive capitalism, by harnessing market power,
democratic institutions, free intelligence, and technology. We must not forget that we
the consumers dictate the market, and if we demand greater conservation of the
environment or more renewable energy, the markets – and governments – will
respond. This is the power of the free market Adam Smith saw over 240 years ago,
and it remains central to our economics because it empowers us the people, offering
a ‘bottom-up’ approach in shaping our societies. Certainly, the markets aren’t without
their flaws, and it is the responsibility of governments to ensure that they remain
competitive and fair: this means breaking up the tech giants, the big banks, the
transnationals dominating the markets, to return power to politics and away from the
financial institutions. To solve the climate emergency we must work together –
governments, markets, consumers – to recognise the need for change, but also that
it needn’t be revolutionary, for we already possess the tools for solving the climate
crisis: right now it is down to whether we want to do it or not.

4
Can the climate emergency be solved through capitalist political and economic structures? Nicholas Miao

Bibliography

1. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus

estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research
Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
2. Hood, John. “Capitalism and the Zero: John Hood.” FEE Freeman Article,
Foundation for Economic Education, 1 Dec. 2000, fee.org/articles/capitalism-
and-the-zero/.
3. Sanandaji, Nima. “Capitalism Was Born in Iraq and Syria, Not Invented by
Adam Smith.” CapX, CapX, 29 May 2018, capx.co/capitalisms-roots-are-in-
iraq-and-syria-not-the-pages-of-adam-smith/.
4. “Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of
1.5ºC Approved by Governments.” Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, 8 Oct. 2018, www.ipcc.ch/2018/10/08/summary-for-policymakers-of-
ipcc-special-report-on-global-warming-of-1-5c-approved-by-governments/.
5. Chakraborty, Barnini. “Paris Agreement on Climate Change: US Withdraws as
Trump Calls It 'Unfair'.” Fox News, FOX News Network, 1 June 2017,
www.foxnews.com/politics/paris-agreement-on-climate-change-us-withdraws-
as-trump-calls-it-unfair.
6. Jones, Gareth Stedman, editor. “Position of the Communists in Relation to the
Various Existing Opposition Parties.” The Communist Manifesto, by Karl Marx
and Friedrich Engels, Penguin, 2002.
7. “Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (1785).” Practical Philosophy, by
Immanuel Kant et al., Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 37–108.
8. “What We Must Do.” Why I Am Not a Christian, by Bertrand Russell,
Routledge, 2017.
9. Flood, Alison. “Murakami Defies Protests to Accept Jerusalem Prize.” The
Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 16 Feb. 2009,
www.theguardian.com/books/2009/feb/16/haruki-murakami-jerusalem-prize.
10. “The Rebel.” The Rebel, by Albert Camus, Penguin Books, 2013, pp. 1–10.