Balser, E (2008) 'Capital Accumulation, Sustainability & Hamilton Ontario'.
Sustainability is ideologically referred to as a ‘communal concept’. Ideally it is a group effort to make changes in order to keep our world as healthy as possible. Designers create ‘new and innovative ways to look at the world’ that include ‘technological innovations to delay and reinvent the ecological limitations imposed on our current lifestyles’. These innovations such as energy saving light bulbs and catalytic converters are small way in which we can make a difference. Sustainability is ‘the ideological construct of community, morality, equality and prosperity’’. Despite this fact, one finds that ideals are not always met. Sustainability claims to ‘promote social equality and economic prosperity’. However, this is unfortunately not the case in many situations. Sustainability ‘oppresses and ostracises specific populations in order to attain its goal’. The poorer classes often cannot afford to buy the new and environmentally friendly technologies. In this instance, sustainability actually produces ‘greater levels of social inequality’.
Capitalism is not a straightforward system of expansion. It is a ‘diverse web that is continuously expanding and trapping things’. Capitalism is constantly looking for growth and to commodify new things. It does this by absorbing ‘non-capital markets’ or intensifying organisations with many components. Capitalism feeds on big business consuming small business and it is never-ending. Assumingly, you can’t stop progress. However, with a world that consumes more that it can provide naturally from its resources, there must be limitations.
The crises of capitalism are when, “capital is faced with the finitude of the humanity and the earth” (p228, my emphasis). In essence, there is a limit to the demand of a product when the market is saturated which means less supply is needed and therefore less profit to make. Boom becomes bust. In regards to the earth, there is a limit to its natural resources when although can increase demand when in short supply, there comes a point that there is nothing left and therefore nothing to use and make a profit from. The supply is gone, regardless of demand. This renders the capital with no means of production. However, as the dwindling natural resources create a threat to the means of production, ‘social constructions of humanity’ highlight this as an issue and consider options of sustainability. This label of sustainability is then used as a tool for capitalism. ‘Constant new technologies, policies or ideas push it past these limitations, and deferring the apocalypse for yet another day’. The notion that one product is more sustainable than another can sway the consumer’s decision in which to consume. Consumers that could be perceived as caring about their world and its future buy sustainable products. However, in the act of consuming this product they actually perpetuate the cycle of capitalism and it doing so will continue to deplete the world’s resources and the financial stability of the individual.
In Balser's text an example of a solution to the sustainability question is that of bio-diesel. It is a more environmentally friendly alternative for diesel engines. Converting vegetable and animal fat, both waste products from the food production industry, into a fuel with lower harmful emissions. It is also considered renewable as corn plants (primary source) grow quickly and in mass. However, due to the small production scale and shipment of the product, bio-diesel is more expensive than it’s more harmful alternative, diesel. Although this price will eventually decline with more demand for bio-diesel, it out prices the lower classes unless ‘self-made’. This extra cost adds to the notion that sustainability only produces ‘greater levels of social inequality’ by the fact that poorer people cannot afford to buy such products whether they care about sustainability or not.
The need for cheaper bio-diesel means a need for more means of production and therefore more and larger production plants. The BIOX Corporation did just that in September 2004 by announcing plans to built a bio-diesel production plant in Hamilton, Ontario. Hamilton is an area of average low income and ‘tough problems’. It is an area ‘with the themes of poverty and helplessness’. Homelessness and joblessness are rife. The plant was to be built (and eventually was built) only a few hundred feet from the homes of Hamilton residents. This had a negative impact due to the site being a ‘community green space’. Damage was done to buildings from tremors and is a ‘constant source of noise, light and air pollution’.
However, idealistic the BIOX production plant is, in regards to global sustainability, the implications to the local community are not realistic and should be discouraged. If sustainability is a global ‘communal concept’, then why is it the poor that suffer? The plant aims to decrease the price of bio-diesel so that more people can afford to support sustainability, by the means of increased production. However the local residents, of low income, have their quality of life lowered. This is a ‘sacrifice of the poor’ and aids the class divide. The wealthy can afford such sustainable products but the poor have to suffer the consequences whilst not being able to afford the product themselves. The BIOX plant is successful in its aims to make sustainability more acceptable but isn't realistic when lives are effected to such an extent.
One's own example of this could be energy saving light bulbs. These light bulbs use less electricity and so save money in a domestic sense. However, they are much more expensive than regular light bulbs and so those on low income do not usually choose to buy them. Another point is that the levels of recycling for energy saving light bulbs are incredibly low and are generally disposed of with the household waste. Each light bulb contains a small amount of mercury which is a toxic element and harmful. This could actually cause damage to the environment when large quantities are left in landfill sites. The energy saving light bulb prices are getting lower, however, this means there will be more in production. More energy saving lightbulbs mean more mercury in landfill sites; the majority of which are dealt with by low income workers and in low income areas. The simple answer to this issue would be to ensure that there are more recycling organisations available for these light bulbs and have a campaign to raise awareness. This is a realistic option if this happens.
It seems now that sustainability and capitalism go hand in hand. In the act of buying a sustainable product, we are still ‘buying’ and therefore feeding the capitalist monster. However, the though is there and with careful thinking we may be able to overcome this or at least counter-act every act of depleting natural resources.
A business model by Balser could be the solution:
Radically increase the productivity of resource use
· Shift to biologically inspired production with closed loops, no waste, and no toxicity
· Shift the business model away from the making and selling of “things” to providing the service that the “thing” delivers.
· Reinvest in natural and human capital
One believes that if the motive for production is genuine and with the correct ethics, that sustainability and capitalism can exist harmoniously. If there is demand for a product that is sustainable, it should be met by suppliers. However, capitalist companies should not exploit the issue of sustainability in order to sell more products. Nor should they deplete natural resources regardless of the consequences. We need to, “meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (p9, Brundtlan).
No comments:
Post a Comment