With climate change humanity is facing a possibly insurmountable obstacle: the need to disentangle ourselves from the tightly knit relationship of neoliberalism, its commodification of our planet, and our need to consume. This essay will seek to define climate change and explore any causal link as it relates to society, examine several key impacts of neoliberalism globally, particularly focusing on the fetishisation of ‘being green’, and consider global inequalities by discussing the work of Edward Said and John Urry. Finally it will utilise UK policy to look at the impact of a neoliberal approach to state influence on the general public’s consumption. The essay will conclude that the social problem is not, in itself, climate change but rather a fixation with consumption due to the internalised logic of neoliberalism.
Firstly, in order to determine if climate change is a global social problem it is important to establish what is meant by the terminology ‘climate’ and if this cycle could be influenced. Burroughs (1997) defines climate as, “what we would normally expect to experience at any given time of year on the basis of statistics built up over many years.” (p.3). In their essay on ‘Man-made Climatic Changes’ Landsberg (Goudie,1997) stresses the importance of assessing man’s influence on the environment, and therefore our culpability, by laying out key illustrations including ‘heat islands’, increased rainfall, and air pollution as an impact of urbanization. For example, while citing a longitudinal study of Hempstead, Long Island ranging from 1937-1966 they notes “This covers the time when the area changed from open fields to an urban community.” (p.222). This segment of time is an example of the transition from agrarian to industrial societies, which brought about a huge increase in geographical mobility leading to the growth of cities (Mendels, 1976). By extension applying the work of Landsberg allows us to follow that this growth led to the increase of ‘heat islands’, rainfall, and air pollution. In his book ‘Heat, Greed and Human Need’ Ian Gough (2017) elaborates on what human driven climate change means stating “People, assets and ecosystems are likely to suffer the consequences of heat stress, extreme precipitation, flooding, landslides, air pollution, droughts and water scarcity.” (P.25) The observation of this environmental impact as a consequence of modernization is integral to defining it as a global social problem with responsibility placed on the human race. However the urbanization of social communities, in our current implemented economic model, is seen as the only way to access a capitalistic economy (Gough, 2017, p.146).
The growth of a more modern industrial society, and the pursuit of profit through capitalism has revolutionized the way we relate to, not only one another, but also the environment itself. In Climate Change and Society John Urry (2011) notes, “ Modernity indeed involved the belief that human progress should be measured and evaluated in terms of society’s domination and exploitation of nature, rather than through transforming the very relations between ‘humans’ and ‘nature’.” (p.7) This paradigm and approach to the environment results in the “commodification of nature” and leaves us needing to redefine our “socio-economic relations” with the planet (Nwagbara, p.198). This can be extended to the fetishisation of green energy brought about by the neoliberal approach to capitalism (Parr, 2012). Parr goes on to explain that this fetishisation stems from a false consciousness, which originates through the mediation of the free market in our lives (Parr, 2012). This collective false consciousness reinforces the, “system of domination” sustaining this paradigm, “more effectively than its own institutions, enlarging, and maximizing its’ effectiveness.” (Foucault, 1980, p.72-73). Our continued engagement with and in a “high carbon society” and the need to transition to both a low carbon society and economy, is detrimentally impacted by the habituation of social exchange in relation to carbon consumerism. (Urry, 2011, p.55). Our very space of living has expanded in turn increasing our radius of socialization. The expansion of social practice, both personal and professional, has extended outside our “neighbourhood(s)”, resulting in increased accessibility to the global market economy (Urry, 2011, p.60). Urry further elaborates on this stating, “The consumption of goods and services remains socially embedded but the embedding takes place over very much greater distances.” (Urry, 2011, p.26). Furthermore, Gough (2017) agrees with Urry by saying our very consumption needs to be “‘recomposed’ to cut emissions” (Gough, 2017, p.148). The commodification of ‘being green’ has appeased our moral feeling of inadequacy in relation to the environment but our consumerist behavior relies on the neoliberal options which Parr (2012) suggests are themselves a “double bind” (p.146) or a false choice. So even if we do recompose our consumption, the limitations of the solutions presented in a neoliberal economy are unlikely to allow for real and effective change.
The neoliberal approach to developing nations can effect socio-economic relations, create a lack of access to necessary resources, and utilise imperialistic methods to achieve sustainability. As an example the lack of available literature, due to economic inequality, on the unique environments and biomes of these regions, limits their ability to implement effective sustainability policies on local ecosystems (Dobbs et al, 2018). This North/South polarization (Kiely, 2016) can further be seen in the lack of agency given to developing nations to participate and lead environmental changes, “Africa is trapped in global negotiations on climate change, which on the whole are largely driven by global and external interests.” (C. Lopes, p.123). While the ‘North’ has recognised this as a global social problem their position in a neoliberal capitalistic market, advancement in the industrial timeline, and positioning of leadership in key institutions such as the UN, IMF and World Bank allows a monopoly on global infrastructure and the processes involved (Prashad, 2013, p2). A stark similarity of this “high handed executive attitude” combined with a “relationship of power, domination, of varying degrees of a complex hegemony” (Said, 1978, p.2-5) is a distinctly imperialistic feel that is consistent with Edward Said’s work on Orientalism (Said, 1978). With this in mind it is important to note the lack of distributive justice when allocating emissions permissions under a global cap (Meyer and Roser, 2006) and how this could impact socio-economic growth for emerging markets. This imbalance could lead developing nations to feel as if climate change solutions are an unbalanced burden utilised to stop their growth (SDG Summit, 2019). The impact of climate change on the Southern hemisphere has devastating potentiality both environmentally and through the North focused paradigm shaping current policy and implementation.
Globally neoliberalism has a clear and distinct affect on policy and implementation but nationally the same effects impact the UK’s current policy on climate change. In 2009 the UK published its initial report on climate change setting in place targets for the UK to meet by 2025 (Department of Energy and Climate Change, 2009). In 2019 a follow up report was published which detailed the governments response and performance in terms of climate change policy and implementation (Committee on Climate Change, 2019). It is worth noting that the majority of targets achieved to date are those overseen by the EU ETS (Emissions Trading Scheme) (Parr p.26; Committee on Climate Change, 2019). In their paper on Neoliberalism and the many different ETS schemes Bailey notes, “the international institutionalisation of this variant of neoliberalism has major implications for the role of the state in climate governance.” (Bailey & Maresh, 2007). As previously discussed the commodification of ‘being green’, now combined with the “diminished social welfare functions of the state, produce or exacerbate vulnerability to climate-induced changes” (Fieldman, 2011). This hampers the UK’s ability to effectively implement sweeping institutional changes necessary to make a significant impact on UK government targets. The impact of a neoliberal approach to policy essentially drives the government to develop and introduce the national population to new markets through policy (Mirowski, 2013), and is exemplified by the UKs approach to climate change through the adoption of the ETS schemes and pursuit of renewable energy and hybrid/electric car market through consumerism. Just as on a global scale, the real culprit is the inherent consumer culture in our national high carbon economy. If the UKs policy approach is to penalise based on emissions rate the inevitable consequences will fall on those with less social mobility who live inherently low carbon lifestyles due to less geographic mobility (Shah, 2020) mirroring the global socio-economic inequality on a nationalised scale.
In conclusion, is climate change itself a global social problem or is it a natural cycle that, when exacerbated by human greed and ignorance, generates social problems? In 1990 the original IPCC report stressed the impact of our interdependence when dealing with climate change stating, “Any significant climate change would affect every sector of individual and social activity. Thus a single nation or even a group of nations cannot hope to manage the issue adequately by itself.” (IPCC, 1990, p.154) The use of the word interdependence is vital to the identification of climate change as a global issue. However, while we seem to recognise our interdependence, the lack of unity and inclusion when handling global social policy leads to a dangerous cycle of re-povertisation and de-agency of developing nations. This results in disempowerment to effectively implement policy that in itself produces an inadequate response to climate change. The determination of what is and is not a priority, effective response and acceptable solution being led by neoliberal economic frameworks causes a pollution of intent. This translates to policy and the negotiation of response by conglomerates both globally and nationally in the UK. Our current framework for social and economic exchanges is a global social problem based on an internalised neoliberal approach to consumption and the essential need to continually expand and commodify new markets leading to the devastation of the planet.
References:
Bailey, I.,Maresh, S. (2009) Scales and networks of neoliberal climate governance: the regulartory and territorial logics of European Union emissions trading. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers [online]. 34(4), pp. 445-461. [Accessed 24 February 2020]. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40270730?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Burroughs, J. (1997) Does The Weather Really Matter? : the Social Implications of Climate Change. 1st ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Committee on Climate Change (2019) Reducing UK Emissions: 2019 Progress Report for Parliment [online]. London: Committee on Climate Change. Available from: https://www.theccc.org.uk/publication/reducing-uk-emissions-2019-progress-report-to-parliament/ [Accessed 24 February 2020].
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (17 August, 2018 – 21 February, 2020) Air Quality: Using cleaner fuels for domestic burning. [Online] GOV.UK
Dobbs, C., et al (2013) Urban Ecosystems Services in Latin America: Mismatch between global concepts and regional realities? Urban Ecosystems(2019) [online]. 22, pp. 173-187. [Accessed 24 February 2020]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11252-018-0805-3
Fieldman, G. (2011) Neoliberalism, the production of vulnerability and the hobbled state: Systemic barriers to climate adaptation. Climate and Development [online]. 3(2), pp. 159-174. [Accessed 24 February 2020]. https://rsa.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17565529.2011.582278#.XlPUJGacZp9
Foucault, M. (1980) Power-Knowledge. Revised ed. Hertfordshire: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Goudie, A. (1997) The Human Impact Reader : Readings and Case Studies/ edited by Andrew Goudie. 1st ed. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Gough, I. (2017) Heat, Greed and Human Need [online]. Revised ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited. [Accessed 24 February 2020].
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (1990) Climate Change: The 1990 and 1992 IPPC Assesments [online]. ISBN: 0-662-19821-2 . World Meteorological Organization. Available from: https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ipcc_90_92_assessments_far_full_report.pdf
Kiely, R. (2016) The Rise and Fall of Emerging Powers: Globalisation, US Power and the Global North-South Divide. illustrated ed. New York City: Springer International Publishing.
Lopes, C. (2018) AFRICA in TRANSFORMATION: Economic Development In The Age Of Doubt [online]. Revised ed. Switzerland: Palmgrave Macmillan. [Accessed 24 February 2020]. https://www.vlereader.com/Reader?ean=9783030012915#
Mirowski, P. (2013) Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived The Financial Meltdown [online]. London: Verso, imprint of New Left Books.
Mendels, F.F. (1976) Social Mobility and Phases of Industrialization [online]. 7(2), pp. 193-216. [Accessed 24 February 2020]. https://www.jstor.org/stable/202733?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
Meyer, L.H., Roser, D. (2006) Distributive Justice and Climate Change. The Allocation of Emission Rights Analyse & Kritik [online]. 28(2), pp. 223-249. [Accessed 24 February 2020]. https://www.degruyter.com/downloadpdf/j/auk.2006.28.issue-2/auk-2006-0207/auk-2006-0207.pdf
Nwagbara, U. (2013) Nature in Balance: The Commodification of Nature in Niyi Osundare’s ‘The Eye of The Earth’. Nordic Journal of African Studies [online]. 22 (3), pp. 196-212. [Accessed 24 February 2020]. http://www.njas.helsinki.fi/pdf-files/vol22num3/nwagbara.pdf
Parr, Adrian. (2013) The Wrath of Capital: Neoliberalism and Climate Change Politics. 1st ed. New York: Columbia University Press.
Prashad, V. (2013) Neoliberalism With Southern Characteristics: The Rise Of The BRICS [online]. New York Office: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung. Available from: http://www.rosalux-nyc.org/wp-content/files_mf/prashad_brics.pdf [Accessed 24 February 2020].
Said, E.W. (1978) Orientalism 3rd ed. London: Penguin Books.
SDG Summit. (2019) The UN High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development under the auspices of the general assembly (SDG Summit) [online]. UNHQ, New York, 24-25 September 2019. Available from: https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/content/documents/25200SDG_Summary.pdf [Accessed 21 February 2020].
Secretary of State of Energy and Climate Change, The UK Low Carbon Transition Plan (2009) Department of Energy & Climate Change 15th July 2009, National Strategy For Climate Change and Energy[online]. London: The Stationery Office. (ID 6176880 07/09). Available from: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/228752/9780108508394.pdf [Accessed 24 February 2020].
Shah, R. (2020) To Stop Climate Collape, We Must End Capitalism. Intelligence Squared [podcast]. Available from: http:/aca.st/c73131
[Accessed 24 February 2020].
Urry, J. (2011) Climate Change and Society 1st ed. Cambridge: Polity Press.
First Year Undergrad
Thought and or reflections 