Profit vs planet

Climate change is a ticking time bomb, wreaking havoc globally. Rapid urbanisation, industrial development and excessive consumerism have put huge pressure on natural resources.

Under these circumstances, an important question arises: is capitalism the primary driver of the climate emergency? And if it is, is there any meaningful solution to this crisis within the capitalist system itself?

Capitalism is a cruel economic system driven by profit, competition and the pursuit of continuous growth. Within this framework, corporations exploit natural resources at a very disturbing rate just to maximise their incomes. Since the Industrial Revolution, capitalist expansion has led to a massive upsurge in carbon emissions, leading to rising global temperatures, glacier melt and recurring extreme weather events.

Many environmental philosophers, including Naomi Klein and Jason W Moore, argue that capitalism and the climate crisis are deeply linked. Capitalism’s logic is built on limitless economic growth, while the planet’s resources are very limited. In the persistent pursuit of profits, companies continue to rely on fossil fuels such as oil, coal and gas despite their devastating environmental impact.

The burden of climate change, though, is not shared equally. There is not much doubt that wealthy, industrialised nations have historically contributed the most to greenhouse gas emissions. In contrast, developing countries suffer the worst consequences, facing rising sea levels, extreme heatwaves, food and water insecurity.

Capitalism, some scholars believe, can be transformed to address the climate disaster through ‘green growth’ and ‘sustainable development’. This approach argues that investing in renewable energy sources such as solar and wind power, accompanied by implementing strict environmental regulations and carbon taxes, could inspire businesses to reduce their ecological footprint.

Governments and international organisations have also introduced policies to promote sustainability within market-driven economies. For example, China, Japan and South Korea have each declared carbon-neutral goals and are looking at regional cooperation to boost green growth. Potential areas of collaboration include cross-border electricity transmission and the promotion of circular economies.

Pakistan has also started several strategic policies and initiatives to drive sustainable development and to address the climate emergency. The updated National Climate Change Policy (2021) provides a comprehensive framework for developing climate resilience and transitioning towards a low-carbon economy.

The Alternative and Renewable Energy Policy (2019) aims to increase the share of renewable energy to 30 per cent by 2030, prioritising solar and wind power. Pakistan has also issued a $500 million green bond for accelerating green financing, and is in the process of developing a Green Taxonomy to define and support environmentally sustainable projects.

International collaborations have further strengthened these efforts. The Green Climate Fund has pledged $15 million to support climate-focused startups. The IMF has approved a $1.3 billion loan for climate and the World Bank has also committed $20 billion over a decade to invest in renewable energy, education and social development.

Critics such as Douglas Rushkoff argue that capitalism and environmental sustainability are contradictory ideas. Large corporations and groups have substantial influence over governments and policymakers internationally. So, they often weaken environmental rules and regulations to serve their vested interests.

Consumerism is intentionally encouraged to increase production and economic activity, leading to further resource manipulation. Though advancements in technology offer some solutions, they are not able to address the fundamental issue of overconsumption and economic models that prioritise profit over environmental balance.

Some environmentalists and economists support alternative systems that move beyond capitalist agendas. Kate Raworth’s ‘Doughnut Economics’ offers a model where economic activity continues within both social and environmental limits. It ensures that human needs are met without topping the planet’s ecological bounds.

Jason Hickel’s ‘Degrowth’ theory challenges the notion that economic growth is compulsory for prosperity, emphasising a shift towards reduced consumption and sustainable resource management. There is another recommended substitute – eco-socialism, which argues that a collective, government-regulated economy is essential to protect the environment and promote social equity.

The fate of the planet rests in our hands. The efforts we have made and are making to combat the climate crisis amount to nothing more than a drop in the ocean. Alarmingly, our planet is on thin ice, yet world leaders continue to do far too little to avert catastrophe. Instead of taking urgent, decisive action, they are just fiddling while Rome burns.

If capitalism has to continue, then it must be restructured in a way that aligns with strict environmental regulations and sustainable development principles. Not only this, if the crisis is intensely entrenched in capitalism’s foundation, then the world may need to explore completely new economic models. This raises a very critical question: can capitalism be reformed or restructured to solve the climate crisis, or is it time to welcome an alternative economic system?

The writer is an assistant director, Climate Change Adaptation at the Pakistan Red Crescent Society (PRCS), Islamabad.