Some argue that it can. I’m reminded of Hawken’s book, ‘Natural Capitalism,’ where he gives some innovative examples in sustainable manufacturing that produce zero waste, pay well, and still make good money for the owners. One of them is featured in the film, ‘The Corporation.’

I’m skeptical overall, though. I’d say that ‘high road’ capitalists can make a decent buck starting out on the task. Yes, if EXXON were to decide to be in the renewable energy business, and get out of the hydrocarbon business, why not? The article above shows how some fims in India and China are doing it. BP makes claims to it, but so far that’s mainly more spin than substance.

But capitalist economics–so far, anyway–is laced with the notion of ‘externalities’ that are excluded from their ledgers–things like free air, don’t worry about wastes, etc.

But a cure for the world’s environmental problems starts with the core assumption that all economies are subsets of an ecosystem, and there are no ‘externalities’ or ‘free lunch.’ Everything goes somewhere, and everything is connected to everything else.

That’s Bucky Fuller’s ‘Universe.’ He’s the grandaddy of ‘revolutionary wealth.’ He even refused to call it ‘the universe’, because that suggested there was something outside of it. A capitalism working in that way wouldn’t be one we’d recognize–but never underestimate them, I say.

So I think a ‘successor system’ like Schweickart’s Economic Democracy would have a much better shot at it, but there are still radical structural reforms now that could move us in a good direction. In the end, I think high tech and ‘high design’ will play a big role, but I don’t thing the market on its own will solve everything. It never has. The market has always been a three-sided relationship of buyer, seller and cop (the state as protector, standard setter, regulator and/or investor)–some better, many worse.

By the way, I hear there are a number of Schweickart fans in China amony the policy wonks and intellectuals–by no means most of the CCP, which I understand has about six major contending blocs in it–some you and I might favor, some not. But that’s not for us to sort out, but the Chinese people themselves.

Anyway, ‘the CP in Power’ answer you got sounds cynical, but it also has some truth to it. I once was assigned the task of going through the ML classics to get the true definition of socialism. I found there wasn’t a single one. My favorite, however, was one of Lenin’s–’soviet power plus electrification.’ I guess I would update it today to something like ‘popular & participatory economic democracy plus green cybernation.’ Whaddya think?

As much as I loved “An Inconvenient Truth” I thought this was the weakest part of the film.. Gore talked about it generally, but didn’t give examples of it.

A few questions:

Can capitalism solve the ecological crisis? (What if ExxonMobil became a renewable energy firm… or if a competitor did)?

How transformative is the example in “The Ascent of Wind Power” if it’s simply an Indian or Chinese multinational private firm that’s breaking into these new markets?

Which then brings me to a third question — and maybe this is for a new article not just a post — but I understand that China is doing a great job at attracting FDI and now encouraging Chinese entrepreneurs to compete globally… and improving standard of living, etc. But is this transformative? Or is this simply creating a Chinese enterpreneurial/capitalist class that can compete with other transnational capitalists?

What role does workplace democracy play? Where is the democratic control of investment?

I just spoke with an American who recently came back from China. He asked everyone the question: “Socialism with Chinese Characteristics” or “Capitalism with Chinese Characteristics?”

The response was always “Socialism” But when pressed for exactly what that meant, the best they could come up with was: “the Communist Party is in power.”

JR

P.S. Because this seems more like a “China post” I’ll post these comments on Schweickart’s China piece too.

Finding more oil doesn’t solve the problem of global warming, but only makes it worse.

In 10 years, this kind of equipment, or more modernized versions of it, will be in high demand everywhere.