Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Suzanna Jones, an off-the-grid farmer who lives in Walden. She was among those arrested protesting the Lowell wind project in 2011.
[I]n her book, “This Changes Everything; Capitalism vs. the Climate,” Naomi Klein argues that the climate crisis is being driven by the market logic of capitalism; she points out that reductions in consumption are urgently needed, and that techno-fixes and “green” consumerism are hollow responses at best. Although the book’s detailed analysis of the problem is compelling, the “solutions” she offers in the film rely on the same magical thinking and market logic the book critiques.
The film, which is currently touring Vermont, focuses on what has been called “Blockadia”– diverse communities around the world that are fighting destructive industrial projects: tar sands, fracking, mining, and coal-fired power plants. They oppose these projects not because of climate change (which is what Klein implies), but because they are destroying local people’s lives and the particular land they love and hold sacred.
But in a tremendous sleight of hand, the film tells viewers that industrial-scale renewables are the solution – not only to climate change, but to the more localized environmental destruction the film decries. The focus isn’t on reducing consumption, questioning economic growth, or rethinking the economy: instead there’s an implicit promise that by powering capitalism with renewable energy, we can have our cars, smartphones, and vacations – and feel “green” too!
And what about those “Blockadians” not featured in the film – those who oppose utility-scale renewable projects because of their impact on local people’s lives and the land they, too, love and hold sacred? Are they just NIMBYs?
The film also ignores the many consequences of a massive buildout of utility-scale renewables (the raw materials that must be mined; the fossil fuels needed for construction, transport, and maintenance; the impacts on wildlife habitat and watersheds; the health effects on neighbors, etc.). Never mind that all the other social and environmental ills linked to capitalism wouldn’t be resolved by industrial renewables either. Instead the camera flies over 500-foot wind towers on Germany and giant solar constructs in China while the triumphant music plays.
This is not a critique of capitalism. It is an infomercial for industrial renewables.
This is not a critique of capitalism. It is an infomercial for industrial renewables.
Don’t get me wrong: Coupled with major reductions in our overall use of energy, small-scale renewable projects with limited impacts and controlled by local communities – not by profit-chasing corporations – would be a step in the right direction. But keeping the climate crisis from worsening will require a radical restructuring of the way we live. Looked at broadly, a massive buildout of industrial renewables is not a solution to anything but the profit needs of the corporations involved. Driven by the same market logic Klein identifies as the problem, it’s business-as-usual disguised as concern for the planet.
This explains some of the contradictions embedded in the climate discourse, which were on display at the recent film screening in Montpelier. Among the sponsors were Sierra Club, which accepted $25 million from the fracking industry, and SunCommon, (VPIRG’s for-profit wing) which sells the RECs from their solar projects – thereby increasing not only corporate profits but carbon emissions too! Meanwhile, VPIRG, like the fossil fuel corporations condemned in the film, lobbies aggressively to keep citizens from having a say about energy development in their own towns. The post-screening panel, meanwhile, was comprised of the usual government and industry representatives, who began their sales pitch for utility-scale renewables by shaming anyone who would dare to voice opposition.
Klein struggles to define the climate crisis as a left/right political battle, ignoring the glaring inconsistencies that result. Her “villains” are the neoliberal climate-change-deniers whose commitment to free enterprise fuels their “everything is fine” stance. But while the deniers differ on the climate science with left-leaning supporters of industrial renewables, it’s what they share – compulsive loyalty to this destructive economic system – that is important. For both groups, the goal is to continue our excessively consumptive way of life. Both want to maintain the comforts levels to which they feel entitled, even if it means destroying still more of the natural world. Both are willing to sacrifice life in favor of things. And this changes nothing.
Meaningful connection to others, the love of particular places and the other-than-human world, the belonging and humility that result – these are essential to our souls. But pursuit of profit and material advancement undermines all of these. The climate crisis is a lesson about limits. We do need to make sacrifices, but those sacrifices cannot come from nature anymore. They need to come from the bloated human economy and those that profit from it. Which means all of us.
