In the "99 ZU EINS" podcast, the "Gruppe Widerspruch" discusses the topic of climate policy in capitalism in episode 546. The thesis: The climate crisis can hardly be effectively combated with the current form of capitalist states and economies. Instead of "yet another moral appeal", there is a well-founded and systematic criticism of the underlying mechanisms of the economy, the state and international politics. I found the lecture refreshingly clear and helpful in developing new perspectives on many familiar problems - even if I disagree on individual points, especially with regard to fiscal policy and the steering power of individual states as role models.
Economy and nature
Capitalist companies exist to generate profit - not to fulfil social needs or protect nature. It is about competitiveness and the continued existence of the company. Environmental or climate protection usually means "costs for companies". These costs are only borne, if at all, if they are directly profitable.
The fact that companies under capitalism treat natural resources ruthlessly is therefore systemically due to the logic of profit maximisation, not to the bad intentions of individual entrepreneurs. "Companies have no vested interest in environmental protection. For them, it is an additional cost."1 Episode 546: Climate policy under capitalism 🌐 https://99zueins.de/episode-546-klimapolitik-im-kapitalismus-mit-gruppe-widerspruch/
State, society and economy
The state is often seen in the popular consciousness as a neutral, regulating authority that "tames" companies. The lecture fundamentally questions this. States are not mere arbiters. They want and need successful capitalist companies for tax revenues, prosperity, job security and the ability to act internationally.
Environmental and climate policy exist because the capitalist profit logic would otherwise also destroy the foundations of its own society, but environmental protection is always weighed against economic interests - not prioritised.
Fiscal policy - contradiction to MMT
Here comes my objection: the lecture states that the state only has taxes and loans as sources of income and that it can basically only spend what it has previously taken in. At least that is how I understood it and that would not be correct and does not correspond to what we know from Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), for example.
Countries with their own currency can create new money at any time, regardless of tax revenues or borrowing. Unlike private households or companies, they are not tied to a fixed budget framework. In practice, government spending and money creation take place through bookings at the central bank. Taxes and bonds are only of secondary importance, in particular to control inflation.2 Modern Monetary Theory explained simply 🌐 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyDjIRL7OEw 3 Is the star of Modern Monetary Theory burning out? - Wirtschaftsdienst 🌐 https://www.wirtschaftsdienst.eu/inhalt/jahr/2023/heft/1/beitrag/verglueht-der-stern-der-modern-monetary-theory-7278.html 4 How Lindner REALLY takes on debt! | DIW explains national debt incorrectly! ❌ 🌐 https://youtu.be/70_R9dorxv4?list=PLh2GVMzVNiVMbhRfxYNtpY_AD9Rjf1bBU 5 National debt: Where does the money come from? | Government financing simply explained 🌐 https://youtu.be/EYQ7GyMDRPk
Capitalism, energy and the climate crisis
Energy is a key cost factor for companies. Fossil fuels were (and are) used on a massive scale because they are cheap and reliable - and thus secure the company's position in international competition.
The state intervenes in energy policy because it needs a reliable and cheap energy supply for society as a whole to function. The switch to more expensive or more volatile sources such as wind and solar is slow to materialise because the changeover involves systemic costs.
State rivalry and international climate policy
Climate policy is global (unlike environmental policy, which usually has a local/national impact) - but the costs and benefits are distributed asymmetrically internationally. Countries are not prepared to weaken their own competitiveness through ambitious climate protection if other countries continue to use fossil fuels. This results in minimal compromises, a lot of greenwashing and regular breaches of international agreements. Climate policy is always characterised by national interests, not global responsibility.
Criticism of the "appeal policy" and misconceptions
Many appeals to the state to "finally do more for the climate" will come to nothing as long as capitalist logic continues to dominate. It is often assumed that more "good will", blind spots, corruption or conflict aversion are the main hurdles. However, the lecture shows that these deficits are systemic. The state cannot and will not fundamentally oppose the success of its own economy - at least as long as the global competitive system remains intact.
Energy policy and renewable energies
The expansion of renewable energies only becomes a reason of state if it also creates economic and (energy) sovereign advantages - e.g. through export opportunities for technologies. Germany, China and the USA are trying to standardise their "green technologies" as export hits and create new markets - often under the guise of climate protection, but primarily with national economic intentions.
Imperialist competition remains central
Competition between states has shifted from classic colonialism to economic and global market competition. Climate policy is a means and a risk to secure or expand one's own position in global competition.
No recipe for a solution, but a categorisation
The Widerspruch group deliberately does not propose simple solutions, but aims to encourage criticism and reflection. The aim is to understand the causes of the climate crisis and the inadequate political responses, above all in the basic mechanism of capitalist competition and nation-state competition.
The lecture offers a very worthwhile, materialistic view of the relationship between capitalism, the state and climate policy - including the difficulties of ambitious and globally effective climate protection programmes. Some economic remarks, especially on the role of the state as a "household", can be discussed from a modern monetary perspective. However, it is precisely this friction that makes the lecture productive in terms of critically scrutinising one's own view of familiar problems and bringing new approaches such as MMT into play.
If you are looking for alternative insights into the link between the economy, politics and the climate crisis and are open to fundamental criticism of the system, take the time to listen to this podcast.
Fun fact on the side: on YouTube you can easily set the playback speed to 1.25x. 😂
Watch on YouTube: https://youtu.be/FezcM7IzXSc
By loading the video, you accept YouTube's privacy policy.
Learn more
