It is becoming increasingly evident that instead of sustaining the inhabitants of this planet, our current market system is rapidly leading to our demise. Atmospheric carbon levels mirror the rate of industrialization, and few among us can claim with any level of confidence that we are not en route to an ecological Armageddon.
The Western world’s reluctant acceptance of the reality of global warming has been enthusiastically accompanied by an ever pervasive faith in green technology as a socio-environmental panacea. As more people recognize that we are indeed on the brink of ecologic catastrophe, even more are turning towards the green market in hopes of technological salvation. This notion that green technology can solve our environmental problems is fraught with error, and serves to further endanger the livelihood of this planet. Perhaps its initial emergence was surrounded by altruism and contained nothing but benevolent motivations. However, the present role of green technology in our society has been that of a social pacifier. It supports the continuation of environmentally destructive habits by glorifying the very consumer culture from which it was born.
The motivation for this post came from a New York Times article I recently read about the disastrous effects of mining rare earth elements. There are seventeen rare earth elements, and two in particular—dysprosium and terbium—have recently come into the spotlight for their use in green technology. Dysprosium can make magnets in electric motors lighter by 90%, while terbium can help cut electricity usage in lights by 80%. With the boom in green products, these elements are in high demand; which pleases China, who mines 99% of the world’s supply of these elements. According to the Times, “Dysprosium prices have climbed nearly sevenfold since 2003, to $53 a pound. Terbium prices quadrupled from 2003 to 2008, peaking at $407 a pound, before slumping in the global economic crisis to $205 a pound.” And here the problems begin to emerge. Where there’s potential for profit, corruption emerges. Half of the mines in China are operated illegally, meaning they are not held to any environmental regulations. In mining for these elements, the topsoil is violently disturbed and then exposed to acid in order to extract the rare earth elements. Because the mines are not regulated, this acid washes into streams and rivers, where it destroys rice paddies, fish farms, and taints the water supply.
Due to the nature of the system that supports this industry, the emergence of green technology has resulted in even more environmentally destructive practices. It is naively optimistic to believe that a problem can be solved by the same structure that created it. Karl Marx is rarely quoted for his ecological views, but he was quite progressive for his time. Simon Butler, an columnist for Green Left Weekly, writes about “Karl Marx the Ecologist”:
Marx considered a capitalist system to be irreconcilable with environmental sustainability. The exploitation of nature, he argued, is as fundamental to the profit system as the exploitation of working people. The market system is incapable of preserving the environment for future generations because it cannot take into account the long-term requirements of people and planet. The competition between individual enterprises and industries to make a profitable return on their investment tends to exclude rational and sustainable planning.
Engels explained this destructive dynamic: “As individual capitalists are engaged in production and exchange for the sake of the immediate profit, only the nearest, most immediate results must first be taken into account.
“As long as the individual manufacturer or merchant sells a manufactured or purchased commodity with the usual coveted profit, he is satisfied and does not concern himself with what afterwards becomes of the commodity and its purchasers.”
While this is the case with nearly all capital product, the situation with China’s rare earth elements is particularly ironic because it is creating the very situation it was intended to fix.
This post is not a plea for socialism; nor is it a criticism of green technology. Obviously our society needs more environmentally sustainable products and alternative forms of energy. The problem lies not in the technology itself, but in the belief that salvation can be found in consumer culture. Driving your Prius while drinking your $4 [fair trade] latte out of a 10% post consumer recycled paper cup does not make you a responsible citizen, it makes you trendy. Clearly we cannot rely on the State to dictate the means by which we should seek to overcome the destructive influence of a capital market. Citizen action is needed. But before we demand a social revolution, we must first undergo a personal evolution. It is imperative that we begin to take personal responsibility for our actions.
