Sally Rooney, the acclaimed author, recently declared in a DN article that Earth is hurtling towards an ”apocalyptic civilizational collapse” due to climate change, placing the blame squarely on capitalism. She paints a grim picture of the present, arguing that private ownership legitimizes the destruction of the planet by the wealthy, while simultaneously criminalizing any attempts by the less fortunate to intervene. Rooney expresses skepticism towards democracy’s ability to address this crisis, advocating instead for direct action against corporate production, citing the Swedish eco-sabotage proponent Andreas Malm as inspiration. This aligns her with a segment of intellectual left-wing thought critical of not only capitalism but also the democratic process itself.
Rooney’s central thesis, which indicts the industrial revolution and capitalism as the root of humanity’s woes, is debatable. She claims that agricultural output remained stagnant between the 13th and 17th centuries, suggesting this was a desirable state. However, pre-industrial societies were perpetually threatened by famine and poverty. The industrial revolution, despite its flaws, ushered in an era of increased production, providing more people with access to essential resources like food, shelter, clothing, and medicine. This progress, while undeniably imperfect, is hardly a cause for lament.
While the environmental consequences of industrial growth, particularly the rise in carbon emissions, are undeniable and deeply concerning, the solution does not lie in abandoning progress. Instead, within the existing capitalist framework, significant strides are being made towards decoupling economic growth from carbon dependence. We are witnessing a shift away from fossil fuels in favor of renewable energy sources, a rise in service-based economies, and the development of more energy-efficient technologies. The wealthier, democratic nations have demonstrated, since the 1990s, that it is possible to achieve economic growth while simultaneously reducing emissions. The European Union, for instance, has successfully implemented mechanisms like emissions trading schemes, carbon taxes, and ambitious climate targets to steer market forces towards a greener future.
Rooney’s perspective, while articulately presented, misses the mark. Criticizing capitalism and democracy without offering viable alternatives is unproductive. While both systems are susceptible to critique due to their responsiveness to popular demands, they remain the most effective tools we have for addressing complex global challenges like climate change. The current political landscape, with figures like Donald Trump advocating for increased fossil fuel production and electoral victories fueled by promises of lower gas prices, underscores the complexities of navigating these issues within democratic systems. However, these challenges should be seen as opportunities for refinement and improvement, not grounds for discarding the systems altogether.
It’s true that multinational corporations, driven by profit, contribute to environmental damage. However, with the right incentives, this same profit motive can be harnessed to drive innovation and investment in sustainable practices. Rather than demonizing profit, the focus should be on addressing the harmful behaviors that damage the planet. Rooney’s argument seems to conflate the pursuit of profit with environmental destruction, ignoring the potential for aligning economic interests with ecological sustainability. Effective climate action requires leveraging the dynamism of the market to develop and implement solutions, not dismantling the entire system.
Rooney’s call for direct action against corporate production, inspired by figures like Andreas Malm, raises concerns about the efficacy and potential consequences of such tactics. While the urgency of the climate crisis demands bold action, resorting to eco-sabotage risks undermining the democratic process and alienating potential allies. Furthermore, it offers no concrete pathway towards systemic change, focusing instead on disruptive actions with limited long-term impact. A more constructive approach involves engaging with existing political and economic structures to implement effective climate policies, incentivize sustainable practices, and foster technological innovation. This requires a nuanced understanding of the complexities of both capitalism and democracy, not a wholesale rejection of these systems. The challenge lies in harnessing their strengths to address the climate crisis, not in dismantling them in favor of untested and potentially counterproductive alternatives.
