Climate change requires government intervention

MATT SOPROVICH

I am a little confused as to what Michael Silicz is arguing in “Capitalism: The cause of, and solution to, all of life’s problems” (March 14). Although his article seems to infer that capitalism is better at fighting climate change than any other form of government (socialism? Authoritarian dictatorships? Anarchy? Reclusive hippie communes?), what actually comes out is a poorly hypothesized diatribe that critiques any government intervention regarding climate change. Perhaps the Adam Smith fairy will wave his “invisible hand” and magically fix the gi-normity of climate change through his enchanted free market? I feel I must disagree.

Silicz immediately slags the Kyoto Protocol by toting out the argument that emissions are not being reduced far enough. People often forget that Kyoto is only the first step in a long journey. Although this round only calls for a five per cent overall reduction from 1990 levels, keep in mind that goals are set for 30 per cent and 50 per cent by 2030 and 2050, respectively.

Silicz next complains that for “governments and international institutions to solve the problem is folly.” He draws upon realist political theory to argue that the mantra of “survival of the fittest” is political fact, ergo making government intervention impossible.

I suppose these sentiments could also make a case for the eradication of the welfare state. However, if he hadn’t dropped out of international relations so early, the lecture on liberalism theory — more readily accepted than realism in most situations — would have told him that states do not operate inside a black box. They are frequently influenced by NGOs, individuals and corporations. More often than not, they also work with each other in mutual cooperation as a community rather than direct, anarchical competition.

But at the end of the day, it should be acknowledged that governments are the only actors that can vote at international institutions such as the UN, the WTO, the World Bank, or Kyoto; they ultimately do have the final say. And yes, the strong can still do what they wish to a certain extent, but with public sentiment now blaring and scientists screaming their heads off, those calling the shots now seem to cater to voter demands. It is actually the notion that there is “no compelling force” to alter nation-states’ decision-making that is folly. Let’s not forget that without the immense public outcry lambasting it, our beloved, wholesome, well-researched Conservative party would still be touting the wonders of their Clean Air Act.

It is at this point of Silicz’s article that he draws the conclusion that capitalism is the only solution to solving climate change. While I agree with this statement, what he terms “capitalism” is really a deregulated, completely free-market, non-governmental-interventionist capitalism; something to the effect of Reagan’s “voodoo economics,” if you will.

This is the same thought pattern that has driven the rise of neo-conservative economic theory over the last 20 or so years — Reagan, Thatcher, Bush I and II and Harper. Harbouring delusions of trickle-down effects dancing in their heads, this same thought pattern is that which has perpetrated the IMF’s horrid structural adjustment programs, furthered Third World debt crises and contributed heavily to the crisis we now find ourselves in concerning climate change. Leaving this one up to market forces is beneficial in the same way that telling a mother to give her baby alcohol so it can sleep at night is.

Put it this way: people are largely driven by money — that’s not very debatable; so are companies, understandably. For the most part, these two groups don’t have very long-term thinking. The primary method that will drive companies and humans to alter their ways of living is to make the change economically beneficial to them. If a person wants to drive a hybrid car, they are much more likely to do so if it is around the same price or cheaper than a similar, less fuel-efficient one. Likewise, executives at a car company may want to build hybrids, but they are not going to until it becomes clear they will make enough of a profit for the venture to be worthy. This “model,” if you will, can be applied to almost any situation concerning emissions reducing technology: lighting, solar, wind power, home retrofitting, buying local food, and so on.

Additionally, leaving the whole kit-and-caboodle to the free market would drive those making money off of poor technology (for instance, oil companies, Hummer dealerships) to continue to do so as long as possible and with whatever means possible.

Under the free market, progressive change can happen — eventually. But for humans and companies to do the right thing it often has to be the cheapest thing. The best and fastest way to do this is government intervention. It is crucial at this point for governments to make it financially beneficial to act wisely and financially detrimental to continue energy-use patterns that desperately need to be changed. Otherwise, we may end up just a bunch of drunken babies.

Matt "hippy" Soprovich is a third-year political studies student at the University of Manitoba.