Photos: Photos: Newsroom, RNZ, Getty
Although environmentalism and socialism are often shared by the same people, many don’t understand how aligned the two are. Capitalism has directly caused the climate crisis, and only by tearing down the system can we secure true environmental sustainability.
The driving force behind modern capitalism is the accumulation of profit, and this is what leads companies to cause harm to the environment. Without sales, companies can’t make a profit, and this necessity for sales means that they must create two things: supply and demand.
First, there must be consistent demand from customers. People will only pay for something if they feel it’s worth giving up money for, and this is the cause of our society’s corporate propaganda. This goes far beyond advertising - we have been led to believe, through decades of lies, that consumption is key to happiness.
Secondly, there must be an endlessly growing supply of goods to meet this demand. If demand is unable to be met, customers will begin to question what exactly they’re giving their money for. This means that the amount of supply must always be higher than the amount of demand for it.
These three concepts - profit, supply and demand - drive each other to endlessly increase. For profits to grow, demand must also grow. To meet increasing demand, there must be more and more supply. And when more money is invested in creating extra supply, more revenue must be generated in order to make a profit.
This cycle has grown larger and larger, with two clear results. The first is the accumulation of wealth resources by a smaller and smaller number of people. The second is the inevitable destruction of the natural environment, as more and more of its resources are extracted for material gain.
An example of this cycle is the automotive industry. Since cars became popular in the early 20th century, manufacturers have pushed us to see cars as essential. In the 1920s, the idea of “jay walking” was popularised by the auto industry to shift blame for accidents onto pedestrians. As roads became more for cars than people, it became necessary to purchase a car in order to travel.
This idea that cars are a necessity has been extremely beneficial for the industry, valued at approximately $4.36 trillion in 2024. However, it has come at great environmental cost, with the auto industry using over 100 million tonnes of resources per year and contributing more than 10% of global carbon dioxide emissions. This pattern of corporate propaganda justifying environmental degradation repeats across dozens of industries, from tech to oil to food.
And it has come at a great cost to the people of the world, especially those who are least responsible. In the Amazon, indigenous communities are losing their land to corporate greed. In the Pacific, entire nations are disappearing. In Africa, hundreds of millions starve, largely due to draughts and famines.
And it isn’t as though these companies didn’t know what they were doing. All evidence suggests that corporations, especially oil companies, have known about the threat of climate change for decades and took active steps to deny its existence. Journalists have discovered documents showing that oil executives were warned about global warming as early as the 1950s. By the 1980s, their companies were writing reports dozens of pages long while actively hiding them from the public. In the 1990s, they undertook a campaign of disinformation and lobbying to discredit the idea of climate change. Oil companies such as Exxon, Shell and BP were among the first to know about the changing climate, and made the conscious choice to keep that knowledge hidden in order to continue profiting.
Even now, with climate change generally accepted as truth, even climate activists continue to unknowingly propagate apparently pro-environment ideals which are in reality propaganda spread by corporations. For example, the idea of plastic recycling was created by plastic companies to avoid regulation of plastic products.
Despite their promises of sustainability, the industry has no desire and very little means to actually recycle plastic. Of the plastic waste that we ‘recycle,’ a significant portion goes to landfills or is dumped in oceans, polluting waters relied on by communities in areas like the Philippines.
The use of this type of propaganda, commonly referred to as ‘greenwashing,’ makes it clear that corporations are not operating in our interest. Any environmental action they take is likely to be performative in nature.
However, this does not mean that solutions don’t exist. But if we are to find them, it will require a drastic revision of how our society functions. Firstly, there must be clear consequences for causing environmental damage. Fines are not enough for billion-dollar companies who can just pay them like fees. Companies which harm the environment should not be allowed to exist; similarly, executives who knowingly direct this harm should face actual, tangible punishment for their actions.
Secondly, we need to reconsider the values of our society. Socialism does not require a complete end to industry; rather, it should be organised in a way that prioritises the wellbeing of both people and the environment over profitability.
Additionally, we can restructure significant parts of our society to decentralise corporate power. Public transport and walkable cities vastly lower the need for cars, while community gardens and mutual support help remove companies’ control over our food supply. By working with our communities and government, we can shift our focus from corporations to communities. The solution has never been environmentally friendly companies; it is a shift away from companies entirely.