• zepheriths@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    26
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The two aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive. It’s just that capital would grow slower. You can have a green capitalism. It just that no one invested in that

    • Not_Alec_Baldwin@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      The problem is externalities. Companies have to be held responsible for their damage.

      If governments held companies liable for the full cost of fixing their damage to humanity and earth I honestly don’t know how many would be left.

    • Kellamity@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Green capitalism” only exists if green energy is more profitable than climate-harming alternatives

      Given the multiple decades of oil and gas infrastructure, that’s not realistic.

      In theory, consumer demand for green energy could make this a reality, but it would have to be a massive swing. And in practice, most consumers will go for the cheapest option - in many cases, given their resources, they have to.

      The other way that green energy could become more profitable is through heavy government regulation. So… yeah you could have a green ‘capitalism’ if the State manages the market, and withstands the corporate pressure to withdraw. But that has literally happened nowhere

      I suppose hypothetically you could argue that IF a company invested heavily in green technology and IF that investment resulted in a cheaper form of energy, AND that technology also applied to the supply chain, then we could have green capitalism. But i mean that’s highly speculative and it also would be entirely a coincidence