By Lisa Juangbhanich
The 21st century has not been kind and we have found ourselves battling two major life-threatening crises so far. The first being issues surrounding environmental degradation and climate change; in thinking about future scenarios radical change needs to be made to instigate more self-sufficient approaches. The second is the ongoing battle with the coronavirus outbreak; a pandemic many refer to as spurring from a “once-in-a-century pathogen” that has infected over 6 million of the population across 216 countries[1].
In reflecting upon the ramifications and trauma these crises have ensued together with the goals and objectives of SUCH, there is one common issue that I see as impeding society’s response to combat climate change and the pandemic: that is the capitalist approach and the inequality it creates.
To evidence my thought process, I draw on a few selected articles that I have found inspiring and thought-provoking (and have led me to writing this post). I seek to briefly outline how capitalism as causation of unequal societies can be seen as limiting our response to climate change and handling of the pandemic. Most of the information presented in this post are amalgamated from articles – for anyone interested, I urge you to visit the sources directly for a full discussion. This is also a disclaimer to say that I also acknowledge how the wealth generated through the capitalist economy has also led to innovative and fruitful interventions that have helped to progress society; I have merely focused my arguments on addressing the “other side” of the coin in hopes of unearthing some of the perspectives that I believe are often left unaddressed.
Inequality and Climate Change
Growing inequalities means widening gaps between the rich and the poor. This can occur within countries “within-country inequalities” or scale comparatively across different nations “across-country inequalities” (terms borrowed from Islam and Winkel, 2017). It is under both of these frameworks that inequality can be seen continuing to enable unsustainable practices.
Affluent countries and households are prone to excessive consumption – unbalanced wealth distribution enables patterns of excessive consumption within and across countries. For instance, North America and China alone made up nearly half of global carbon emissions in 2018 (Alberro, 2020). Alberro remarks how “the comparatively high rates of consumption in these regions generate so much more CO₂ than their counterparts in low-income countries that an additional three billion to four billion people in the latter would hardly make a dent on global emissions”. There is also the staggering figure that one-third of all carbon emissions in the modern era can be pinned down to the operation of 20 fossil fuel firms.
Within countries, there are also differences in lifestyle across various income groups to consider. Alberro notes how,
“The consumption of the world’s wealthiest 10% produces up to 50% of the planet’s consumption-based CO₂ emissions, while the poorest half of humanity contributes only 10%. With a mere 26 billionaires now in possession of more wealth than half the world, this trend is likely to continue”.
Inequality heightens subsequent inequality – Accumulated capital and the current structure of the economy facilitates the rich to become richer and the poor, poorer. In relaying this back to climate change, a “vicious cycle” perpetuates as initial inequality causes disadvantages groups to suffer disproportionately from the effects of climate change (i.e. greater exposure to climate hazards, greater susceptibility caused by climate hazards) that results in greater subsequent inequality (Islam and Winkel, 2017). I contend that this proposition serves also to retain the abovementioned consumption pattern.
Access to resources to combat climate change are limited for the less affluent – the adverse effect of inequality also means disadvantage groups struggle more to cope and respond to climate change issues (Islam and Winkel, 2017). In their paper, Island and Winkel identified four areas of resources pertaining to climate change mitigation that is reduced for less affluent groups:
households’ own (private) resources,
community resources,
resources provided by various non-government organisations (NGOs), including religious and philanthropic organizations and philanthropic activities of private companies, foundations, etc., and
public resources provided by the government, including local governments.
Inequality and Covid-19
Much similar to what has been identified in the above sections are patterns of inequalities and their impact on the pandemic. This column by Fisher and Taub (2020) captures some of these nuances in light of the coronavirus outbreak (credit goes out to a friend of mine who emailed this article over).
Health disparities – Affluent societies are better equipped to combat the pandemic, and have better welfare systems and resources that can respond more effectively. This means less exposure to health risks but also better support for well-being during lock-down and self-isolation. This leaves certain regions behind: “Covid-19 can be about twice as deadly for those along their society’s lower rungs” as chronic health conditions can make the coronavirus “up to 10 times as deadly” (Fisher and Bubola, 2020)
If you live someplace with good governance, as well as plentiful health care and economic resources, the systemic risk to you is likely to be lower. That means that you have less chance of dying from Covid-19, yes, but it also means that any impact on you is likely to be less severe. The state will be better able to absorb any societal and economic burden.
But if you live someplace where state and society function less effectively, the consequences are likely to be greater, and more severely felt by individuals... An economic slowdown might be more painful and longer lasting (Fisher and Taub, 2020)
Some cannot afford to miss work – this means less adherence to self-isolation and lock-down measures when needed. Individuals from less affluent households may be less likely to be able to justify missing work and hence quarantine.
People with lower salaries will find themselves more vulnerable… [and] will feel more consequences from any societal turbulence. Those individuals will also feel greater pressure to keep showing up at work, even if they have a pre-existing health condition that makes Covid-19 more dangerous. (Fisher and Taub, 2020)
“Avoiding Coronavirus May Be a Luxury Some Workers Can’t Afford” is another article that develops this argument.
In times of crisis, some are seeking to capitalise on masks and hand-sanisers for profit – making these much-needed products even more inaccessible for individuals and hospitals. In this article, Jack Nicas documents the Colvin brother’s journey to secure 17,700 bottles of hand sanitisers and anti-bacterial wipes over the course of three-days.
300 bottles of hand sanitizers were posted and sold online for $8 to $70 each before Amazon pulled their items off the market (alongside thousands of other listings for sanitiser, wipes and face masks). The rest of the bottles of hand-sanitisers were since donated to a local church for redistribution, but for a period of time “while millions of people across the country search in vain for hand sanitizer to protect themselves from the spread of the coronavirus, Mr. Colvin [was] sitting on 17,700 bottles of the stuff with little idea where to sell them” (Nicas, 2020).
Nicas (2020) further reports how e-commerce companies such as Amazon and eBay have tried to prevent sellers from “making excessive profits from a public health crisis” which thousands of people were doing at the time. I argue that this culture can be seen institutionalised from the capitalist frame of mentality and at the same time, a function of inequality in today’s society.
Doyne and Gonchar (2020) in their follow-up article questions whether the rationale behind stockpiling for profit during the pandemic is an immoral action and purely logical under the capitalist framework:
The Colvin brothers saw a golden business opportunity. Demand for hand sanitizer was exceptionally high, while supply was limited and falling fast. Economics 101: If they played their cards right, they could make a huge profit by buying low and selling high.
Is that an example of capitalism at its finest? A fast path to the American dream? Or, is it immoral and selfish?
And as Nicas notes, “To him [Matt Colvin], ‘it was crazy money.’ To many others, it was profiteering from a pandemic”.
In evidencing some of the above affairs, my intention is to relay what has appeared to me as a commonality that bars our efforts to respond effectively to these global crises. I find myself reflecting on issues of capitalism, the inequality this creates that have limited aspects of society’s response in times of crisis.
We often focus on improving technology or other pragmatic approaches to better the future – which are significant contributions. What I feel is usually overlooked is the underpinnings of our social structures, cultural institutions, and systems that act as a normative framework for practices and individual decision-making that may well be equally worth questioning and changing.
The world as we have created it is a process of our thinking. It cannot be changed without changing our thinking.
― Albert Einstein