Sunday, January 5, 2020

Detoxing Capitalism

"Capitalism is a system used by sunflowers and salamanders. But sunflowers and salamanders are not taking over the world and destroying it."


Over the past few months I have been trying to tap into a river that could save the planet. You can hear about that river in Bank of England CEO Mark Carney’s year-end interview for BBC Today that Greta Thunberg guest-edited. The river is money. And its owners have a problem.

It is the same problem we all have, really. Climate change is changing everything at a pace that is hard to get our heads around. The world has already left the comfortable Holocene epoch when weather was predicable enough that humans could grow multi-year surpluses of corn and grain and quadruple their offspring’s populations in a single lifetime (mine). We have entered the chaotic world of the Anthropocene, where 8 billion two-legged hominids could very soon be back to zero. We can watch, in real time, as extinction smokes its way through innumerable ranks and orders of beings, smoldering and sparking along like a long fuse that terminates at the powder-keg we perch upon. As go the phytoplankton, so too, go we.

Carney and the others in his world know this. Not dummies, these guys. They get it. At the Madrid COP-25 climate conference they held their own summit at a Marriott Hotel. I attended and heard the same message I’ve been hearing for the past decade: trillions of dollars invested into polluting industries have to be divested, rapidly, and re-tasked to save us. The hour is late but there are opportunities to still intervene if we can act with the urgency required. 

A senior figure from the European Investment Bank pledged to put one trillion into the kitty over the next 10 years; to divest the bank’s assets from all fossil (including fracked gas) by 2021; fifty percent of the Bank’s portfolio into climate mitigation (drawdown and emissions reductions) by 2025. They urged the entire financial community to pledge that henceforth their loans or private equity stakes would accord with the Paris Agreement. I later spoke with a gentleman who influenced the disposition of ten trillion in capital, more than 90 percent of it presently earning negative interest (i.e.: it is paying parking fees to governments that exceed the assets’ earnings). At least one year-end prediction pegs negative interest rates to top 25 percent in 2020. To Carney and the others, the risk of lending to climate mitigating projects is less than the cost of keeping his funds where they are. He would be willing to lend at zero interest if it were an improvement over where he stands.

Here in Central America, I am both heartened and discouraged. I am heartened because I know that it is just a matter of time before projects like the Cool Lab that Christopher Nesbitt and I are trying to build in Belize will receive the runway they need. I am discouraged because a lot of investment money is still framed badly, as, well… “investment,” and that framing risks implanting a fatal virus into the DNA sequence of good projects like ours. 

First, let me digress to outline our Cool Lab project, for those who have yet to read Burn: Using Fire to Cool the Earth, soon to be in paperback as Burn: Igniting a New Carbon Drawdown Economy to End the Climate Crisis (Chelsea Green Publishers, April 2020). The Cool Lab concept is to re-envision the economy of human communities so as to pull them back into line with local ecosystem regeneration and rejuvenation as raison d’être, rather than as the more typical: global resource exploitation and ruthless commerce to the temporary benefit of a single rogue species.

In practical terms, our prototype, proof-of-concept Cool Lab is planned for the small Maya village of San Pedro Columbia, in the Toledo District of Southern Belize, close to the borders with Guatemala and Honduras. San Pedro Columbia is within the indigenous reserve system established by Belize a century ago to allocate land for the native Maya population. The village lies nested in the foothills of the Maya Mountains on the Rio Grande river that flows from an underground source near the Maya Mountain Research Farm to the Caribbean Sea near Punta Gorda Town. That Southern Belize watershed is key to the health of the Mayan Reef and the coastal mangroves that protect the coast from hurricanes and produce the fish, corals, and kelp forests that are needed for ecosystem recovery in the region. 

The Cool Lab plans to convert present sources of watershed pollution such as crop and animal waste into biofertilizer and energy, extracting as many permacultural cascades from the various feedstocks and products as are practical for particular seasons of the year. So, for instance, cacao fermentations can be produced in the traditional management style of mixed-age, mixed-species, integrated agroforestry hillside production — the prevailing pattern of human occupation in that rural area since before the Columbian encounter. Cacao powders can be further refined into cascades of creams, salves, foods, and tonics rather than sold as dried bulk beans to transnational chocolatiers. Cacao pods (the outer shells of the cacao beans) can be pyrolyzed to produce biochar, bio-oils, drying heat and electricity.
 Cacao is only one yield of a healthy Belizian agroforestry terrain. Selected intercrops can include turmeric, ginger, allspice, coconut, vanilla, breadfruit, jackfruit, breadnut, banana and plantains, chiles, coffee, noni, moringa, mango, papaya, pineapple, and rotational patches of corn and grains, to name a few. Traditional small farms have always also incorporated free range poultry, swine and other farm animals that aid nutrient cycling and complete whole systems of microbiome health. Enriched biochar amendments from the Cool Lab accelerate the recovery of damaged soils, shorten growth cycles for tree crops like cacao, provide resistance to floods and droughts, ameliorate accumulated soil toxins, boost the health of the animal and pollinator communities, and increase nutrient densities.

Because of the many products that can be gleaned from the Cool Lab — all of them contributing to reversing climate change by drawing down and sequestering greenhouse gases — the Lab itself becomes a microenterprise hub. To anyone in the village — but especially young men and women confronted with the end of their schooling and the stark choice of remaining in a place with few paying jobs, an influx of Guatemalan and Honduran refugees, poor public services, and not much hope for the future versus leaving to go to the big city up North where jobs are even fewer, violent crime and exploitation are rife, and lives are short — the Cool Lab offers creative enterprise opportunity. The Lab can become for the village of San Pedro Columbia an enterprise incubator, where original products and services are limited only by the imagination. It sits at the birth of the new carbon economy that will sweep the world. This little Mayan village is the answer to Mark Carney’s prayers.

But there’s the rub.

Big bank climate investors are trapped in more ways than they know. Sure, they are stuck with negative interest that is eating away their capital. Yes, they will face higher taxes in the future as countries confront Peak Everything climate chaos with knee-jerk reflexes rather than a long-term plan. The Global Insurrection Against Banker Occupation (GIABO) is striking fear into the billionaire boomer class of 2020. Their unpopularity is rising beyond what platoons of bodyguards and private islands can protect.

What worries me is that the bankers are trapped into a mindset that the Climate Emergency is not so serious that we have to stop stealing from the poor to give to the already fantastically wealthy. Hence, my notion of small, anti-fragile, village cooperatives is coming into conflict with megabillionaire green investors’ notions that the new wave of climate mitigation “investments” must produce ROI for the one-percent. “Show us how you will generate profit,” is the currency of their “green” giving. 

While the notion of a debt jubilee has some appeal, especially when we are speaking of student-to-government debt, I think bankers should be entitled to repayment of their loans at the rate of interest that was negotiated at the outset. The expectation of sufficient profit to endow future loans and pay overhead is the way nature works when plants and animals produce numbers of offspring beyond mere replacement.

Let me be clear. I am not against capitalism. In this I separate myself from many other activists who demand system change as a predicate to reversing climate change. As one who studies nature, I actually believe in capital formation, risk, funding loss leaders, and surpluses in return. These are strategies used by sunflowers and salamanders. But sunflowers and salamanders are not taking over the world and destroying it. 
“Green” capital is simply the fetishized, phantom-like objectivity of capital’s absolute necrosis. It is not a contradictory attempt to “sustainably” square the circle of endless accumulation, or “save capitalism from itself”; rather, it is another form of accumulation that sees the destruction capital wreaks as an opportunity for further profit. Branding itself as a solution to this destruction, it further incentivizes its continuation by existing only as another option for accumulation when other avenues are closed off. It would cease to exist without the necrotic entropy to which it owes its reason for being.
— Justin McBrien, Truthout 

Capitalism as an economic proposition makes sense in the same way the bishop’s storehouse made sense for the early Mormon pioneers in Utah — hold surpluses to endow bad years, as will inevitably come. Capitalism was the method used by one of the purest forms of communism ever to appear — the Israeli kibbutz — to finance new kibbutzim and grow a movement. Capitalism as a political proposition is another matter, and we can trace its history from an emergence in opposition to theocracy and feudalism to present day domination of corrupt political processes at home and abroad, promulgation of conflict, dismantling of the rule of law, and deregulation of the commons.

The cooperative model sits in juxtaposition to this, both economically and politically. Instead of adding to the size of billionaire yachts and mansions, our Cool Lab model would build health clinics and schools. Instead of returning outsize rewards to fat cats in London and Geneva, we would fund programs for population education, soil management, restoring corals, and recovering plastic from the ocean.


Now if I can just persuade Mark Carney that further enriching the one percent is incompatible with saving the planet….


You encourage me to do more and then tell you about it. Help me get my blog posted every week. All Patreon donations and Blogger subscriptions are needed and welcomed. Those are how we make this happen. PowerUp! donors on Patreon get an autographed book off each first press run. Please help if you can.

4 comments:

brothermartin said...

I think your comments on "capitalism" suffer from a fuzzy definition of the word. Sunflowers and salamanders do not practice "capitalism." They practice "capital accumulation," the amassing of energy and resources in order for growth and renewal to take place.

What those of us who decry "capitalism" are against is not "capital accumulation," but, to paraphrase Prof. Richard Wolff, a societal organizing principle that gives priority to the protection of money and property, and to the humans who claim ownership of large quantities of money and property. There are two levels to the "socialism" we espouse in place of this enshrinement of selfishness and greed. The first level is that the organizing principle of society is that we're all in it together, and need to make sure everyone, including the sunflowers and the salamanders, is getting the opportunity to thrive.

The second level of socialism is not "sharing the wealth" as our crotchety friend Mr. Kunstler likes to assert, but "democratizing the power"--creating business and community structures in which all participants have a voice in decisions that affect them. In the case of businesses, this means that all employees with a serious commitment to the business have an ownership share and a vote on how the business is run and how its profits, if any, are distributed.

Your conclusion, in the second to last paragraph, about "the co-operative model," certainly comes down on the side of socialism, but it seems to me, as I said, that it is not "capitalism," but "capital accumulation," that you are defending in this post. As for those wealthy individuals who are acutely aware of the crisis that we are facing, I guess we're just going to have to trust that they and their consciences will come to some kind of understanding about the responsibilities involved in accumulating, or inheriting, great wealth, and we should be prepared to tell them what we think in the event that we are asked. I agree that being overly pushy is likely to be counterproductive....but I also think it's a grey area.

Enough for now!

Unknown said...

"What those of us who decry "capitalism" are against is not "capital accumulation," but, to paraphrase Prof. Richard Wolff, a societal organizing principle that gives priority to the protection of money and property, and to the humans who claim ownership of large quantities of money and property."

Yes. I think the definitions of capitalism were made fuzzy intentionally by the Capitalists who control the media and schools. If to own a business is all it takes for one to be practicing "capitalism" that to me a watered-down definition that ignores the Capitalists, which is what they want us to do. In the late 19th century progressives knew who the capitalists were and typically knew more about money thanks to the Farmer's Alliance efforts to educate citizens on how the bank's money system works.

“The most important fundamental law in any nation is that which institutes money; for money governs the distribution of property, and thus affects in a thousand ways the relations of man to man.” Edward Kellogg, 1861, A New Monetary System

Wolff, becasue he is a Marxist academic and does not understand the money system and how it distributes power, is right about what the system protects.

The definition of capitalism that addresses the power relations is this imo: Capitalism is a system of usury; the abuse of monetary authority (private control of the creation of money) for personal gain. That is the key element that empowers capitalism. Academics like Wolff, Keen, Hudson and many others are as Upton Sinclair described "...it is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!" To address the source of money, and thus power, in academia is to torpedo your career. I think one has to keep an eye out for what academia ignores.

The crisis in investment that capitalism has created is that there is too much debt becasue nearly all money is issued as debt and you cannot pay off debt with debt. We have a really stupid money system, if justice is desired. I recently looked at Stanford University's Encyclopedia of Philosophy under Philosophy of Money and Finance. There you find two theories of money, or two forms of money. One is where some believe that a 'commodity should be used for money',(like way back when) the other that 'credit should be used for money', which his the system of usury we have today. Nowhere is 'money issued as money' mentioned. Of course none of us were taught about money in school, we learned much of what we know about money from folk knowledge passed along from parents and others. There are books on money but many of them are disinformation when it comes to money, as in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations that many of the House of Lords, who owned and profited off of the Bank of England, carried around under their arm back in the day. Smith provided justification for robbing the people by owning a bank.

I don't think socialists will ever get it becasue Marx was so wrong about money. For instance, compare how the American Revolution was funded compared to the socialist 'Bolshevik' revolution. The socialists were funded and controlled by big western banks (debt-money) while the American Revolution issued its own sovereign money to fund the revolution. The Continental WAS the revolution becasue the BoE had outlawed colonial scrip,(debt-free sovereign money) which had generated great prosperity,sent the nation into a 10 year depression that precipitated the revolution, as Ben Franklin explained.

I believe capitalism, as I've defined it, must come to an end becasue otherwise we're all toast. Ending capitalism will leave us with democratic free-enterprise which can accomplish the goals of socialism without the mistakes of socialism.

Unknown said...

Guess I should have saved my piece of writing for someplace else.

Unknown said...

"democratizing the power"= democratizing the money becasue money is power. As Dr. Frederick Soddy explained; “The proper role of a monetary system is to be a public distributive mechanism for society. To allow it to become a source of revenue to private issuers is to create, first, a secret and illicit arm of the government and, last, a rival power strong enough ultimately to overthrow all other forms of government." The conditions for revolution have been met, even the stars are aligned for revolution. Will humankind embrace the opportunity or go down in mass confusion?

Friends

Friends

Dis-complainer

The Great Change is published whenever the spirit moves me. Writings on this site are purely the opinion of Albert Bates and are subject to a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 3.0 "unported" copyright. People are free to share (i.e, to copy, distribute and transmit this work) and to build upon and adapt this work – under the following conditions of attribution, n on-commercial use, and share alike: Attribution (BY): You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work). Non-Commercial (NC): You may not use this work for commercial purposes. Share Alike (SA): If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one. Nothing in this license is intended to reduce, limit, or restrict any rights arising from fair use or other limitations on the exclusive rights of the copyright owner under copyright law or other applicable laws. Therefore, the content of
this publication may be quoted or cited as per fair use rights. Any of the conditions of this license can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder (i.e., the Author). Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license. For the complete Creative Commons legal code affecting this publication, see here. Writings on this site do not constitute legal or financial advice, and do not reflect the views of any other firm, employer, or organization. Information on this site is not classified and is not otherwise subject to confidentiality or non-disclosure.