George Baltus Senior Thesis 2024

Green Capitalism or EcoSocialism? Debating Economic Systems and Solutions for Climate Change in the Transportation Sector and Beyond

George Baltus Senior Thesis | 2024

Green Capitalism or Eco-Socialism?

Debating Economic Systems and Solutions for Climate Change in the Transportation Sector and Beyond

George Baltus March 4, 2024

Word Count: 4163

Introduction When discussing the mitigation of climate change, it is natural to look towards a mix of government policy and technological innovation for solutions. Yet, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions continue to rise globally, and innovations like the electric vehicle (EV) or policies like the European Union’s capand-trade emissions system appear to be making minimal impacts on the road to net-zero emissions. Scholars refer to this current system of environmental problem-solving as “green capitalism” (or eco-capitalism), the perspective that the climate crisis will be optimally solved in a market economy system through capitalist innovation and regulation.1 While continuing to make stricter emissions regulations and innovating more replacements to our

1

Nick J. Fox, “Green Capitalism, Climate Change and the Technological Fix: A More-than-Human Assessment,” The Sociological Review 71, no. 5 (September 23, 2022): 1115–34, https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261221121232, 1116..

GHG-emitting systems would likely provide better results, could it be the case that these green capitalist methods, constrained to the global market economy, are flawed from the start? Theorists like Robin Wall Kimmerer argue that a capitalist mindset —one that prioritizes unlimited growth and expansion— can be fundamentally harmful to the environment, and researchers like Nick J. Fox and Hans Baer contend that the current form of this growth-focused mindset in green capitalist policy and innovation may be incompatible with climate goals.

For this paper, I will more specifically apply this debate to the movement away from GHG-emitting internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles. In the United States, the transportation sector alone contributed 29% of total GHG emissions in 2021, 58% of those made by light-duty everyday vehicles.2 In this vein,

2

“Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions,” EPA, 2023, https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-facts-transportationgreenhouse-gasemissions#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Inventory%20of,U.S.% 20GHG%20emissions%20in%202021.

while a so-called “green capitalist” might prioritize the innovation and expansion of EVs, anti-green capitalist thinkers would emphasize the importance of adapting our lifestyles away from cars and our need for them in the first place. I ultimately argue that while anti-green capitalist researchers provide a valid critique of the current fight against climate change, their solutions are incomplete and raise new questions about the feasibility of socialism and reliance on government. Therefore, the best path forward should attempt to strike a balance, incorporating positive aspects of the anti-green capitalist mindset into our current market economy-driven world.

Nick J. Fox’s recent article, “Green Capitalism, Climate Change and the Technological Fix: A More-than-Human Assessment”, provides a helpful preface to anti-green capitalist arguments. As Fox explains, green capitalism generally offers two main arguments forward. Firstly, it argues that because fossil fuel companies and others release excessive greenhouse gasses into the

atmosphere, governments should create regulations (such as carbon taxing or trading) to alter the market economy, pushing companies away from fossil fuels.3 Secondly, green capitalism argues that the market economy is the best system available to spur innovations that can replace or revise current greenhouse gas emitting technologies.4 As a critic, Fox chooses to examine the “more-thanhuman” effects of capitalism, which, as the name suggests, are inevitable effects of market economies that individual actors (in good or bad faith) cannot change.5 For instance, Fox explains that as the market for EVs (or any other market) becomes more crowded, they will need to lower prices to keep up with competitors. Fox believes, somewhat radically, that this process is harmful because it will create excessive waste in the form of bankruptcies and takeovers, with tighter margins and fewer profits

3

Fox, “Green Capitalism, Climate Change,” 1117.

Fox, “Green Capitalism, Climate Change,” 1117.

5 Fox, “Green Capitalism, Climate Change,” 1118.

4

lessening investment in future innovations.6 Furthermore, despite creating zero carbon emissions for the consumer, EVs still produce waste from the metals they extract from the Earth, an important point to consider. Finally, Fox also introduces the idea that EV production inadvertently perpetuates social inequalities in the green energy space, leaving prices too high for average consumers and not considering that developing nations will be left with ICE vehicles for years to come.7 While some of Fox’s insights can come off as radically against the market economy, he comes to somewhat moderate conclusions, suggesting measures to reduce wasteful production, policies to address global inequalities, and government-funded research without patents as replacements for funding prototypical profit-driven companies.8 Nonetheless, Fox gives good initial insight into the anti-green capitalist argument

6

Fox, “Green Capitalism, Climate Change,” 1126-28.

Fox, “Green Capitalism, Climate Change,” 1127.

8 Fox, “Green Capitalism, Climate Change,” 1129-30.

7

and why some see an economic growth-focused climate fight to be ineffective.

In contrast to Fox’s work, Stephan Bosch and Matthias Schmidt’s 2019 article, “Is the post-fossil era necessarily postcapitalistic? – The robustness and capabilities of green capitalism”, argues that maintaining nearly free markets and competition are vital to the innovation needed when taking on climate change.

Bosch and Schmidt argue that innovation is a direct result of competition and a “capitalistic entrepreneurial spirit”.9 As I argue later in this paper, they assert that green innovation exceeds the technological sphere, encompassing social and institutional changes as well (think of city biking networks as a replacement to ICE vehicles, for example).10 Bosch and Schmidt acknowledge, as

9

Stephan Bosch and Matthias Schmidt, “Is the Post-Fossil Era Necessarily Post-Capitalistic? – The Robustness and Capabilities of Green Capitalism,” Ecological Economics 161 (July 2019): 270–79, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.001, 274.

10 Bosch and Schmidt, “Is the Post-Fossil Era Necessarily PostCapitalistic?,” 275.

Fox does, the waste that innovations can create, but believe that profit-driven systems can effectively transition to using more biosphere-friendly materials and methods.11 Notably, Bosch and Schmidt are explicitly against completely free market capitalism, an opinion, as explained later, that they share with the majority of thinkers on either side of this argument.12 They ultimately conclude that the market economy should move forward with more state policy and influence taken into account, citing Germany’s Renewable Energies Act as a valuable example for its role in greatly increasing green innovation.13 Bosch and Schmidt’s work is generally compelling, as they acknowledge many of the same shortcomings of green capitalism as Fox yet argue that competition and innovation are integral to the current system and are not worth

11

Bosch and Schmidt, “Is the Post-Fossil Era Necessarily PostCapitalistic?,” 275.

12 Bosch and Schmidt, “Is the Post-Fossil Era Necessarily PostCapitalistic?,” 275.

13 Bosch and Schmidt, “Is the Post-Fossil Era Necessarily PostCapitalistic?,” 277.

giving up. At first glance, this article comes to a similar conclusion that Fox’s does, encouraging greater government involvement in the market. However, as will be explained further, they are for fundamentally different reasons. Fox touts government influence as a partial replacement for the market economy, and Bosch and Schmidt encourage this influence to adapt how the market is operating. Through the case study of non-ICE vehicles, this paper will analyze the questions these articles pose: is green capitalism the best system to combat climate change, and what kind of government involvement is needed to break the tide?

The Green Capitalist Critique Many scholars (Baer 2021; Fox 2022; Dalby 2022; Moore 2015; Satgar 2018; Engel-Di Mauro 2021) find capitalism to be incompatible with fighting the climate crisis and replacing ICE vehicles, but it’s important to first understand the underlying theories that serve as the backbone to these more extreme

arguments.14 One main premise is that capitalism inherently treats the Earth’s resources as infinite (when they are finite) and does not give back to the Earth. Robin Wall Kimmerer’s 2013 book, Braiding Sweetgrass, explores relationships between humans and nature and helps to understand the lack of reciprocity a capitalist mindset gives the Earth.15 Kimmerer introduces her concept of reciprocity with a pecan harvest. Sds how, in nature, pecan trees “shower” animals with the gift of food, but only produce this harvest every couple of years.16 Therefore, the animals accept responsibility with their gift, both to make the pecans last and naturally replant the pecans for future generations. Kimmerer

14

Hans A. Baer, Global Capitalism and Climate Change: The Need for an Alternative World System (Lenham, MD: Lexington Books, 2021); Fox, “Green Capitalism, Climate Change”; Simon Dalby, Rethinking Environmental Security (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022); Jason W. Moore, Capitalism in the Web of Life (London, UK: Verso, 2015); Vishwas Satgar, The Climate Crisis (Johannesburg, South Africa: Wits University Press, 2018); Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro, Socialist States and the Environment: Lessons for Eco-Socialist Futures (London, UK: Pluto Press, 2021).

15 Robin Wall Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass (Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions, 2013).

16 Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass, 20-21.

refers to these kinds of interactions as part of a “gift economy”, different from a prototypical private property economy in that gifts are not “free”, but instead bear their own set of responsibilities (in the form of reciprocities).17 These gifts can also be thought of in a conventional sense: if a friend gives another a gift, that recipient feels an obligation to reciprocate that kindness, not taking the gift for granted. Ultimately, Kimmerer challenges the reader to apply this logic elsewhere. Instead of treating Earth’s resources as “free” gifts for humanity, humans could feel gratitude for them, giving back to the Earth and not taking these resources for granted.

Kimmerer’s work explains why many scholars feel that the unlimited growth of capitalism is incompatible with the fight against climate change.

Another fundamental critique of capitalism in fighting climate change is the inequalities it produces and perpetuates. Julie Sze’s 2020 book, Environmental Justice in a Moment of Danger, 17

Kimmerer, Braiding Sweetgrass, 28.

helps to understand these claims by examining current and past environmental injustices.18 One of Sze’s prominent examples is the Dakota Access Pipeline protests (or the #NoDAPL movement), in which Native American tribes (most prominently the Sioux tribe) gathered at Standing Rock in 2016-17 to protest the construction of an oil pipeline through Native American land.19 To Sze, resistance at Standing Rock was a pivotal example of environmental injustice, and she explains how the movement exemplifies inherent injustices of capitalism: indigenous lands being exploited to serve continued economic growth.20 The instance at Standing Rock shows the harmful effects of a capitalist mindset on others and the Earth, reflecting a lack of the same reciprocity that Kimmerer discusses. Sze also references the environmental injustice of the

18

Julie Sze, Environmental Justice in a Moment of Danger (Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2020).

19 Rebecca Hersher, “Key Moments in the Dakota Access Pipeline Fight,” NPR, February 22, 2017, https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2017/02/22/514988040/key-moments-in-the-dakota-accesspipeline-fight.

20 Sze, Environmental Justice in a Moment of Danger, 28.

lead-poisoned water in Flint Michigan. After switching water sources for the city to save money, officials realized that lead was corroding off of pipes and into their water supply and chose to deceive the public, downplaying concerns and leaving them drinking lead-poisoned water for months.21 While an example of environmental injustice, the Flint Michigan case also represents the incompetence of the government, a point relevant to the critique of eco-socialist views later in this paper. Standing Rock and Flint are two of the most high-profile stories of environmental injustice, but Sze also mentions more subtle inequalities. Asthma, for instance, is linked to exposure to air pollutants which are more prominent in poorer industrialized areas.22 This inequality, often not considered, contributes to African-Americans experiencing a significantly higher asthma death rate than white people.23 While I do not cover solutions to environmental injustices closely in the scope of this

21

Sze, Environmental Justice in a Moment of Danger, 62.

Sze, Environmental Justice in a Moment of Danger, 16.

23 Sze, Environmental Justice in a Moment of Danger, 16.

22

essay, the inequality Sze highlights is one of the key aspects that eco-socialist thinkers believe cannot be easily solved with a market economy framework.

With Kimmerer and Sze in mind, it may become more clear why some believe capitalism is not prepared to combat the climate crisis. Hans Baer, writer of Global Capitalism and Climate Change: The Need for an Alternative System. 2nd ed, shows how these ideas apply in the context of ICE vehicles and their replacements. Baer explains, in a similar manner to Kimmerer, that to maintain growth, capitalism wrongly assumes that the Earth has infinite resources, leading to the degradation and depletion of the environment in climate change.24 He describes how motor vehicles are an embodiment of this flawed idea, extracting resources for their production, emitting greenhouse gasses as they are manufactured, emitting more greenhouse gasses during use, and

24

Baer, Global Capitalism and Climate Change, chap. 2, Kindle.

creating waste when they are disposed of.25 Baer also discusses the GHG-emitting burdens that vehicles carry with them, mentioning the polluting construction of roads and consumption of oil (the United States uses up to 63% of its oil with motor vehicles).26 Furthermore, especially in the United States and surrounding countries, it is common to find cities and towns built with the automobile in mind, alienating those who chose other forms of transportation, like biking, simply because of the lack of safety. On the trend of Sze’s work, this alienation contributes to an overall inequality of transportation that even non-ICE vehicles would not fix. In addition, non-ICE vehicles, though they do not produce pollution during consumer use, still harm the Earth similarly to gas cars in their production and waste. This does not mean that nonICE vehicles cannot have a positive effect, but Baer worries that people and policymakers perceive them as the catch-all solution to

25 26

Baer, Global Capitalism and Climate Change, chap. 3.

Baer, Global Capitalism and Climate Change, chap. 3.

climate change in the transportation sector when they are simply not enough.27 From Baer’s view, a remedy to climate change requires a more extreme change to capitalist mindsets. For instance, the idea that time is money encourages people to take quicker transportation like cars and planes that harm the environment more than taking a longer, more leisurely train ride.28 Therefore, an effective approach would, in addition to replacing ICE vehicles, provide more reliable alternatives such as buses, trains, and more bike-friendly cities. These methods, in addition to abandoning the market economy in the climate sector (and further), encompass the eco-socialist approach to solving climate change.

The Argument for Green Capitalism and Market Economies In evaluating the effectiveness of market economies to combat the climate crisis, it is first important to consider ultra-free

27 28

Baer, Global Capitalism and Climate Change, chap. 8.

Baer, Global Capitalism and Climate Change, chap. 8.

market economies (with little to no government intervention) and explain why they alone are insufficient. Terry L. Anderson, speaking in 1998, and Russell Coates, writing in 2023, each describe the idea of “free market environmentalism” and center around similar points.29 Free market environmentalism states that the government, due to general incompetence, is unable to solve the climate crisis, and that privatizing industries and letting corporations operate on their own will lead to greater profits that can be spent on green innovations. The concept aims to correlate economic growth with a shift toward green technology and less GHG emissions. However, while the government can indeed be incompetent, private companies will not always be much “greener” on their own. As argued by John Mikler and Neil E. Harrison (and

29

Terry L. Anderson, “Free Market Environmentalism Explained,” interview by Candice Jackson Mayhugh, Hoover Institution, April 30, 1998; Russell Coates, “What Is Free-Market Environmentalism?,” Learn Liberty, April 28, 2023, https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/whatis-free-marketenvironmentalism/#:~:text=In%20a%20free%20market%2C%20busine sses,can%20reduce%20greenhouse%20gas%20emissions.

shown by basic economics), companies and consumers will always lean toward lower-cost solutions, which for the foreseeable future, are GHG-emitting ones.30 This argument does not criticize companies for necessarily being greedy or incompetent themselves but simply points at the economic concept of market failure, where the tendencies of the market do not align with the best overarching solutions. It is natural to strive for lower costs and greater revenue, but when climate change has little effect on these tendencies, the government ought to intervene to make the climate have an effect.

Anderson considers this type of market failure but suggests solving it on a case-by-case basis, by suing polluting companies for example, which does not effectively address the issue.31 Therefore, to meaningfully challenge inherent market failure, free markets must be regulated by the government in some manner.

30

John Mikler and Neil E. Harrison, “Climate Innovation: Australian Corporate Perspectives on the Role of Government,” Australian Journal of Politics and History 59, no. 3 (September 16, 2013): 414– 28, https://doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12024, 424.

31 Anderson, “Free Market Environmentalism Explained”.

Knowing that free markets alone are insufficient to innovate green technologies and limit emissions, it is then helpful to overview different national and global policies and methods that have been implemented on the market in the past. Two of the most popular government-led methods for lowering GHG emissions are carbon taxes and cap and trade programs. Carbon taxes attach fees to the emissions of companies, charging them for the amount of GHG they release, and cap and trade systems implement an overall cap on emissions for a country or area, forcing companies to trade limited permits with each other if they wish to emit GHGs.32 Both methods impose economic burdens on companies to encourage green innovation in the market. Carbon taxes have proven to be effective in countries like Sweden (one of the first places one was implemented), lowering emissions by 27% since 1991 while maintaining impressive economic growth, and cap and trade

32

“How Do Governments Combat Climate Change?,” Council on Foreign Relations, July 25, 2023, https://world101.cfr.org/global-eraissues/climate-change/how-do-governments-combat-climate-change.

systems have also shown effectiveness, currently in use across the European Union.33 Both types of regulations have not come without critics, though, as those like Baer mention that the systems face “serious implementation and accountability problems”, often not setting strict limits and still allowing polluting companies to profit considerably.34 In addition to local or national efforts, international agreements have also been made, such as the Kyoto Protocol (now the Paris Agreement), which attempted to limit emissions by setting individual limits for each Annex I country respectively.35 These agreements have also been met with struggles due to dropouts, including the United States and China, who prioritized their economic growth over a loosely enforced international treaty. Nonetheless, agreements like the Kyoto Protocol and national emission reduction policies have shown

33

“How Do Governments Combat Climate Change?”.

Baer, Global Capitalism and Climate Change, chap. 4.

35 Baer, Global Capitalism and Climate Change, chap. 4.

34

promise, and if expanded and enforced more stringently, could make meaningful reductions in GHG emissions.

With methods like carbon taxes and cap and trade systems showing some success, I’ll now focus on a specific carbon tax policy and the somewhat surprising reactions of corporations. In their 2013 article “Climate Innovation: Australian Corporate Perspectives on the Role of Government”, John Mikler and Neil E. Harrison, evaluate the lacking effects of the current Australian carbon tax policy and argue, contrary to thinkers like Baer, that corporations themselves are receptive to stricter and more effective government intervention.36 At the time of their work, an Australian carbon tax of A$23 per metric ton was in place.37 Mikler and Harrison spent time interviewing office-holders, who were kept anonymous, at

36

Mikler and Harrison, “Climate Innovation: Australian Corporate Perspectives,” 415.

37 “The Rise and Fall of the Australian Carbon Tax,” Smart Prosperity Institute, accessed March 3, 2024, https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/content/rise-and-fall-australiancarbon-tax.

Australian corporations in industries that contribute the most to GHG emissions.38 Surprising to popular belief, almost all interviewees supported further government intervention, often explaining that both natural market forces and minimal carbon taxes (A$23 being seen as low) would never lead to green innovation (since, as discussed before, consumers have little incentive to purchase more expensive green technologies).39 To Mikler, Harrison, and some of the interviewees, more effective government intervention comes in the form of stricter and harsher regulatory standards (some interviewees mentioning A$50, A$60, and even A$80 carbon taxes) along with substantial investment in green research, innovation, and rebates for consumers.40 Mikler and Harrison’s work confirms arguments from those like Baer that

38

Mikler and Harrison, “Climate Innovation: Australian Corporate Perspectives,” 420.

39 Mikler and Harrison, “Climate Innovation: Australian Corporate Perspectives,” 424.

40 Mikler and Harrison, “Climate Innovation: Australian Corporate Perspectives,” 422, 424, 425.

most carbon taxes and similar market regulations have minimal effect but proposes that these forms of government intervention must be pushed to their limits to garner meaningful impacts on the green innovation market. By displaying the flexibility of corporate officeholders to adopt these measures, Mikler and Harrison show that extreme government measures may be accepted. They do acknowledge that these restrictions would require tremendous political change and action to exist, but in comparison to ideas of partially or fully abandoning market-driven innovation by Fox or Baer, seem more attainable in the near future.

Seeing that a market economy method shows promise in addressing climate change, I will now apply these green capitalist principles to the transition away from ICE vehicles. On the surface level, the world’s attachment to GHG-emitting vehicles is another example of a market failure, in which ICE vehicles and their infrastructure are still widely accepted and until recently, significantly cheaper than other vehicles despite their harmful

impact. From this perspective, there are two primary places to adapt the market: the choices of the consumers and the manufacturers.

With EVs being the most popular ICE alternative, most policies to address the market failure focus here. Currently, the most popular forms of government intervention are purchase incentives for consumers, subsidies for manufacturers, and subsidies for charging stations.41 For consumers, the United States, for instance, gives up to $7,500 in rebates when purchasing new EVs.42 While some studies show correlations between such incentives and reductions in GHG emissions, research from those like Ashley Nunes criticizes the programs for primarily serving multi-car households (who usually also use ICE vehicles) and not

41

Kang Miao Tan et al., “Factors Influencing Global Transportation Electrification: Comparative Analysis of Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 184 (September 2023), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113582, 11.

42 Tan et al., “Factors Influencing Global Transportation Electrification,” 11.

second-hand buyers.43 In addition, most EVs are more expensive than ICE vehicles, making them less appealing.44 Raising incentives for buyers would help, but there are limits to how much tax-payer money should be spent. The availability of charging stations and infrastructure also plays an important role in the consumer’s decision to buy an EV. Currently, the United States offers an 80% reimbursement for charging station projects (for independent manufacturers), $5,000 in tax credit for companies installing charging stations (at their workplace’s parking lot for example), and recently passed a bipartisan infrastructure deal investing $7.5 billion in more charging infrastructure.45 Ultimately, 43

Tianye Wang, Jonathan Deason, and Ekundayo Shittu, “The Interplay of Incentives, Electricity Price and Demand on Transport Decarbonization: The Case of Electric Vehicles in the U.S.,” IEEE Engineering Management Review, December 29, 2023, 1–17, https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2023.3347147; Ashley Nunes, Lucas Woodley, and Philip Rossetti, “Re-Thinking Procurement Incentives for Electric Vehicles to Achieve Net-Zero Emissions,” Nature Sustainability 5, no. 6 (April 4, 2022): 527–32, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-022-00862-3.

44 Tan et al., “Factors Influencing Global Transportation Electrification,”.

45 Tan et al., “Factors Influencing Global Transportation Electrification,” 11; “Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal,”

although ultra-free market economies are not equipped to take on the climate crisis, using government regulation and incentives to address this market failure shows potential to address GHG emissions in the transportation sector and beyond.

Discussion More radical thinkers like Kimmerer, Fox, and Baer propose an eco-socialist future where economic growth is not a priority and the government can lead the process of necessary changes to adapt to the climate crisis. Their work provides meaningful analysis on why striving for such continued growth may be incompatible with saving our Earth. Following their advice, the world would have to either disband from the capitalist system, an unfathomable idea in the near future, or separate the climate sector from the typical market economy. As Fox mentions,

The White House, November 6, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statementsreleases/2021/11/06/fact-sheet-the-bipartisan-infrastructuredeal/#:~:text=Today%2C%20Congress%20passed%20the%20Bipartisa n,our%20nation%27s%20infrastructure%20and%20competitiveness.

this could mean funding more patent-free research or creating social programs involving green technologies (e.g. nationwide EV charging, distributing solar panels, etc.). Yet, these are very moderate solutions and would hardly step into the bounds of ecosocialism that Baer discusses. However, even if it was easy to incorporate these ideals promptly, it would be unreasonable to expect that governments —of which some representatives still do not believe in climate change— would manage the climate and green innovations successfully. More broadly and historically speaking, socialism has not boded well for countries that have tried it (the Soviet Union, North Korea, Venezuela, etc.), often resulting in authoritarian regimes and mass economic demise.46 More simply put, how can we blindly trust the government to control and fix climate change? Although I agree that climate change presents

46

“Yes, Real Socialism Has Been Tried-and It Has Failed Every Time,” The Cornell Review, February 17, 2022, https://www.thecornellreview.org/yes-real-socialism-has-been-triedand-it-has-failed-every-time/.

a contradiction to the capitalist mindset, due to a lack of realism and unanswered questions, it is necessary to acknowledge that the fight against climate change will happen with economic growth as a focus.

On the side of green capitalism, those who propose extremely free and nearly unregulated markets do not provide convincing evidence that companies and their consumers will adapt to green technologies and make significant advancements.

Since capitalism relies on the continued accumulation of wealth, it is unreasonable to expect that any company would avoid this natural tendency. However, viewing climate change as a market failure in the economy that must be corrected with policy is a compelling view. You may be quick to point out that this solution, like the eco-socialist view, also depends on the government, but there is a distinct difference between reliance on the government to regulate an existing economy and reliance on the government to essentially make and sustain their own. So, should we just settle

for the system that most developed countries have now —market economies with significant government regulations and incentives?

While the answer is partially yes, in my view, this is not a satisfactory result. Ultimately, even if not applicable in their entirety, the intricate works of Fox, Baer, and more, are still relevant. With current systems of regulated market economies making minimal impacts, these eco-socialist viewpoints should still influence the thinking and decisions made around climate change and transportation in our future.

The most important point to take away from theorists like Kimmerer and non-green capitalist thinkers is the meaning of innovation. Most people view green innovation as technological advancements like EVs, hydrogen fuel cells, solar energy, nuclear fusion, and more. These innovations are extremely useful in combating climate change, but as anti-green capitalist researchers warn, they should not act as the sole or primary solutions. For example, as mentioned before, EVs, despite some positive impact,

still introduce their own set of environmental issues in production and disposal. Instead, green innovations should also encompass lifestyle changes. One of the best alternative methods to lower ICE vehicle emissions is by providing and incentivizing other forms of transportation like buses, trains, and bikes. For example, a 2022 study found that implementing e-bikes and e-bike sharing on a large scale in England could provide a reduction in GHG usage of up to 24.4 million metric tons per year.47 E-bikes combine technological advancement with a lifestyle change (perhaps moving to a city) to reduce GHG emissions from cars. However, to see success with these kinds of methods, more people would need to move to cities and those cities would need to support more bike lanes, public transportation, and more. This is to say that, to reduce emissions significantly in the transportation (or any) sector, the

47

Ian Philips, Jillian Anable, and Tim Chatterton, “E-Bikes and Their Capability to Reduce Car CO2 Emissions,” Transport Policy 116 (February 2022): 11–23, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.11.019, 19.

government must not only work to incentivize the replacement of GHG-emitting technologies but also encourage lifestyle changes that abandon the use of them. This thinking already exists in some forms, such as incentivizing EV use with rebates, but imposing more extreme measures such as financial burdens on those who own and use vehicles regularly by applying extra taxes on gas, parking, tolls, and more could be explored.

Conclusion Although anti-green capitalist thinkers provide compelling arguments that climate change and capitalism may be incompatible, current market economies still provide the best chance for governments and their people to overcome climate change in the transportation sector and beyond. With a mindset focused on economic growth and continued accumulation of resources, capitalist, market economy solutions are not ideal for solving the climate crisis, but they should not be seen as wholly unequipped. For instance, viewing climate change as a failure of

the market economy that can be corrected with regulation and incentives shows how the two can work together effectively. Even if abandoning a market economy in the climate sector was quick and easy (which it is certainly not), eco-socialist systems as proposed by Baer would introduce new potential issues such as overreliance on government. That being said, anti-green capitalist viewpoints should still influence how innovation is thought of in the sector. In transportation, adapting lifestyles to reduce reliance on ICE vehicles in addition to providing alternatives could be vital steps. Though beyond the scope of this essay, further research on the inequality of green alternatives worldwide along with specific policy steps that governments can make will be vital to continuing these conversations and ultimately taking on climate change at the global level.

Bibliography Anderson, Terry L. “Free Market Environmentalism Explained.”

By Candice Jackson Mayhugh. Hoover Institution, April 30, 1998.

Baer, Hans A. Global Capitalism and Climate Change: The Need for an Alternative World System. Lenham, MD: Lexington Books, 2021, Kindle.

Bosch, Stephan, and Matthias Schmidt. “Is the Post-Fossil Era Necessarily Post-Capitalistic? – The Robustness and Capabilities of Green Capitalism.” Ecological Economics 161 (July 2019): 270–79. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2019.04.001.

Coates, Russell. “What Is Free-Market Environmentalism?” Learn Liberty, April 28, 2023. https://www.learnliberty.org/blog/what-is-free-marketenvironmentalism/#:~:text=In%20a%20free%20market%2C

%20businesses,can%20reduce%20greenhouse%20gas%20e missions.

Dalby, Simon. Rethinking Environmental Security. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2022.

Engel-Di Mauro, Salvatore. Socialist States and the Environment: Lessons for Eco-Socialist Futures. London, UK: Pluto Press, 2021.

“Fact Sheet: The Bipartisan Infrastructure Deal.” The White House, November 6, 2021. https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefingroom/statements-releases/2021/11/06/fact-sheet-thebipartisan-infrastructuredeal/#:~:text=Today%2C%20Congress%20passed%20the% 20Bipartisan,our%20nation%27s%20infrastructure%20and %20competitiveness.

“Fast Facts on Transportation Greenhouse Gas Emissions.” EPA, 2023. https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/fast-factstransportation-greenhouse-gas-

emissions#:~:text=According%20to%20the%20Inventory% 20of,U.S.%20GHG%20emissions%20in%202021.

Fox, Nick J. “Green Capitalism, Climate Change and the Technological Fix: A More-than-Human Assessment.” The Sociological Review 71, no. 5 (September 23, 2022): 1115– 34. https://doi.org/10.1177/00380261221121232.

Hersher, Rebecca. “Key Moments in the Dakota Access Pipeline Fight.” NPR, February 22, 2017. https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2017/02/22/514988040/key-moments-in-the-dakotaaccess-pipeline-fight.

“How Do Governments Combat Climate Change?” Council on Foreign Relations, July 25, 2023. https://world101.cfr.org/global-era-issues/climatechange/how-do-governments-combat-climate-change.

Kimmerer, Robin Wall. Braiding Sweetgrass. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Editions, 2013.

Mikler, John, and Neil E. Harrison. “Climate Innovation: Australian Corporate Perspectives on the Role of Government.”

Australian Journal of Politics and History 59, no. 3 (September 16, 2013): 414–28. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajph.12024.

Moore, Jason W. Capitalism in the Web of Life. London, UK: Verso, 2015.

Nunes, Ashley, Lucas Woodley, and Philip Rossetti. “Re-Thinking Procurement Incentives for Electric Vehicles to Achieve Net-Zero Emissions.” Nature Sustainability 5, no. 6 (April 4, 2022): 527–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-02200862-3.

Philips, Ian, Jillian Anable, and Tim Chatterton. “E-Bikes and Their Capability to Reduce Car CO2 Emissions.” Transport Policy 116 (February 2022): 11–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2021.11.019.

“The Rise and Fall of the Australian Carbon Tax.” Smart Prosperity Institute. Accessed March 3, 2024. https://institute.smartprosperity.ca/content/rise-and-fallaustralian-carbon-tax.

Satgar, Vishwas. The Climate Crisis. Johannesburg, South Africa: Wits University Press, 2018.

Sze, Julie. Environmental Justice in a Moment of Danger. Oakland, CA: University of California Press, 2020.

Tan, Kang Miao, Jia Ying Yong, Vigna K. Ramachandaramurthy, Muhamad Mansor, Jiashen Teh, and Josep M. Guerrero.

“Factors Influencing Global Transportation Electrification: Comparative Analysis of Electric and Internal Combustion Engine Vehicles.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 184 (September 2023). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2023.113582.

Wang, Tianye, Jonathan Deason, and Ekundayo Shittu. “The Interplay of Incentives, Electricity Price and Demand on

Transport Decarbonization: The Case of Electric Vehicles in the U.S.” IEEE Engineering Management Review, December 29, 2023, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2023.3347147.

“Yes, Real Socialism Has Been Tried-and It Has Failed Every Time.” The Cornell Review, February 17, 2022. https://www.thecornellreview.org/yes-real-socialism-hasbeen-tried-and-it-has-failed-every-time/.