Kongshoj says: As Nat Turner pointed out in a post of his, a theoretic method of saving the environmental problem while keeping capitalism would be to force the capitalists to think about it by commodifying even the environment and therefore making it unprofitable to pollute.SDF: Do you think "commodifying" the environment is really a solution to the problems of "unsustainable business"? Since every human being has an environmental impact upon the planet, from birth to death, what will it mean to commodify these impacts? Will every baby have to pay for breathing someone else's air and pay for the disposal of her diapers from the moment of birth? Can businesses survive if they can't externalize pollution costs? Will governments compete to attract business by offering cheap pollution rights?
Kongshoj: The problems of antibiotic abuse is not only an African problem by the way, in Denmark we had an outbreak of enterochoc bacteria that through growth hormones and antibiotic treatment of farm animals had become resistant to the effects of antibiotics. It resulted in a number of deaths because no cure could immediately be found, and indirectly it resulted in a steady rise in consumption of ecological foods, and after that a rise in votes for the Socialist Unity List and the People's Socialist Party, because those two parties had been against growth hormone use from the beginning and some people figured that socialism would be a possible way out of that problem.
SDF: This is another example of unsustainable capitalism. The cabal of big capitalists has discovered that capitalism is unsustainable. I think they are scared witless: witness the news reports about that weird meeting in Kyoto they had.
Kongshoj: The oil question does pose a problem though. Much of the industry is based on oil, but what then if we switch to nuclear-driven energy sources (yes, I do know that we will eventually run out of uranium too.)? Theories have also been formulated on how to synthesize oil, but it hasn't been found (surprise!) profitable yet.
SDF: I remember reading, during the Cold War (in Holly Sklar's TRILATERALISM, I think), that humankind was using existing reserves of uranium faster than it was using existing reserves of oil. I have no idea what the rates of consumption are now. I suspect that, somewhere down the line, there will be some great worldwide rush to get off the oil-consumption boat once the status quo geopolitics of world oil is seriously disrupted.
Kongshoj: One interesting thing about this is that it has been calculated that Denmark (no, I do not have pseudo-nationalist tendencies, I just argue from what I have sufficient information about) can in theory be converted to run on no fossil or nuclear fuels at all before the year 2030. It is possible to use hydrogen as an energy bearer ALREADY, but why don't we? Obviously, gasoline is more profitable to sell than water.
SDF: Can you publicly display the plans, the scheme for how this creation of energy self-sufficiency for Denmark, will be done? Keep in mind that petroleum exploration is not merely the source of energy, but also of plastics, roads, etc. etc.
Kongshoj: I believe that if we wish to see an end to the capitalist system and all its problems and unbalances, it would be more important to formulate the system that should succeed it and work for that end rather than making prophecies about how capitalism will kill itself. You see, if nothing is actually done about it, I don't think it will.
SDF: If these "problems and unbalances" don't seriously disrupt the capitalist system, then what's going to be "actually done" about capitalism? Seriously! On the one hand, do you think there will be no real environmental impact when the Chinese really start to achieve their version of the "American Dream", or do you think capitalism will survive that? Think of a billion people using old Freon-using refrigeration, what that will do for the ozone layer. On the other hand, do you think anyone today will go anymore for the version of socialism touted in Marx's CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAM? Somehow I don't see socialism developing out of some ideal future where resources have become so plentiful that people start to abandon capitalism.
SDF's question for socialist historians: Wasn't it true that the best opportunity for socialists in America was during the Great Depression? Somehow it seems that events in capitalism are dictating the agendas for the socialists, despite their best intentions...and I think the coming eco-crises will be promising events in this regard...
