If we were all like Cuba.. well, we’ll have probably have to be in a few decades
A fascinating letter in New Scientist of 10 March. Don’t think it’s online.
From Adrian Pollock, in Brisbane:
There are many C-words relating to the problem of climate change and its possible solutions: carbon trading, carbon sequestration, and now corn-based biofuels, according to George Bush (NS 3 February). The C-word missing from everyone’s lips is the one that matters: capitalism.
By its nature, capitalism needs continually to expand - to find new markets, new resources and new ways to accumulate to maintain profit for its investments. It cannot, therefore, offer a sustainable future.
The only country that has achieved a sustainable economy is Cuba (see the WWF’s Living Planet Report 2006, p19 - based on data Cuba supplies to the United Nations). Cuba would be perceived, at least in western nations, as having a relatively low standard of living; it is clear that an extraordinarily large change in our way o life is necessary to achieve a sustainable future.
Maybe that is why another C-word is missing: communism. Capitalism will have to be replaced with a system that does not depend on expansion but is based on the real needs of people and the planet. Call this what you will, but it is not capitalism or anything resembling it.
He’s absolutely right, I think. Oil runs out… can’t build nuclear power plants fast enough… can’t generate enough power.. can’t run cars and have to go on buses and trains..
It’s interesting, though: if it were to happen, do you think the US could keep up with Cuba’s low rate of child mortality? Assuming, that is, that we can trust the Cuban stats - which isn’t certain. (It’s quite hard to find any data from Cuba at Gapminder.)
Still, the music should be good. Buena Vista!
Actually, reading the letter reminded me of John Brunner’s The Sheep Look Up - his book about a polluted planet. Very like the forerunner of Children Of Men, seems to me; they could have read that and used it for the screenplay. God, I miss his writing.
- These posts might be related (the database thinks..):
- A slightly different Apple tale: of Fiona, and her unreleased third album (11 April 2005; score: 20.59%)
- The Jennifer Aniston neuron (and the Russell Brand one): never let it be said news must be "new" (29 October 2008; score: 19.94%)
- At the Guardian: nuclear power!, Phorm's bad publicity, tiny speakers and another podcast (7 March 2008; score: 19.67%)
![[Valid RSS]](wp-includes/images/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed"){kind=small}
March 30th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Interesting story. When you consider population growth predicted for the US, things will get a little sticky by 2050.
400M by 2050?As far as Brunner is concerned, I have long considered that Stand On Zanzibar a better novel, apart from the rather limp utopian ending.
April 2nd, 2007 at 4:02 pm
Is Pollack seriously saying that communism is sustainable? Correct me if I am wrong, but it was communism that destroyed the Aral sea by blanket cotton growing, polluted Lake Baikal (20% of the world’s liquid fresh water) with paper mills, polluted the Siberian taiga with rampant minerals extraction and, of course, brought us Chernobyl. These processes are all still going on today, of course, but under a ‘capitalism’ so unrestrained it is indistinguishable from gangsterism.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:32 pm
You’d have to ask equally whether capitalism, at least in its present form, is sustainable. I think you’d find the answer is no: we use more of the Earth’s resources in a year than is replenished in a year, and there’s not a lot of (real) communism doing it. (I don’t think we can call China a communist country for the purposes of this discussion.)
You can point to quite a few instances of capitalism not doing the planet any favours too. That’s not the point, though. The question is, when the price of oil hits $200 per barrel, what are you - and we - going to do? Live life like they do in Cuba, perhaps, where you don’t see a whole lot of cars on the road, because the petrol is so hard to come by.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:28 am
I think you have hit the nail on the head. The free market has a built-in regulator, the price, and the price of oil needs to go up a lot in order to enforce change. There are signs of this happening already, but the other encouraging thing is that climate change is being taken seriously by consumers, and companies are beginning to respond. Not enough, but it is a start.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 am
Oh, and the answer to ‘what do we do’ is get on our bikes, like we used to do. This would cure the obesity crisis as well!