User:Celinanguyen/sandbox

History
The roots of eco-capitalism can be traced back to the late 1960's. The "Tragedy of the Commons" an essay published in 1968 in Science by Garrett Hardin claimed the inevitability of malthusian catastrophe largely because of the policy of liberal or democratic governments to leave family size matters to the family, and enabling the welfare state to willingly care for potential overpopulation. Hardin argued that if families were given freedom of choice in the matter but were removed from a welfare state, that parents choosing to overbear would not have the resources to provide for their "litter", thus solving the problem of overpopulation. This represents an early argument made from an eco-capitalist standpoint; overpopulation would technically be solved by a free market. A collaborator with Garrett Hardin on other works including Managing the Commons, John Baden founded the Political Economy Research Center, now called the Property and Environment Research Center, in 1982. One of the first eco-capitalist organizations created, PERC's mission is "improving environmental quality through property rights and markets." The most popular eco-capitalist idea was emissions trading emissions trading, or more commonly, cap and trade. Emissions trading, a market-based approach that allows polluting entities to purchase or be allocated permits, began being researched in the late 1960's. International emissions trading was significantly popularized in the 1990's with the Kyoto Protocol being adopted by the United Nations in 1997.

Theorists
Paul Hawken

Paul Hawken decided at a young age to dedicate his life to making business eco-friendlier. Hawken's is the architect of the United States first natural foods company, Erewhon Trading Company where all products were organically composed. Hawken’s continued to make an impact on the business world by founding the research organization, Natural Capital Institute, and developed, Wiser Earth, a program focused on providing a platform for all to communicate about the environment. Not only has Paul Hawken set a good example for how to transform economy into eco-capitalism, but also has authored hundreds of publications, including four best selling books. In his writings, Hawken stresses that many smart ecological options are out there for businesses that will help save the environment, while also continuing to bring profit. One idea discussed in his book, Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution, is the possibility of developing lightweight, electricity-powered cars as an alternative to our current transportation issue. Hawken attributes the hesitancy of adopting these options to lack of knowledge of these alternatives and high initial costs. Paul Hawken is now the head of OneSun, Inc., an energy corporation concentrated on low-cost solar.

Lester Brown

Lester Brown began his career as a tomato farmer in New Jersey, until earning his degree at Rutgers University and traveling to a rural India for a six-month study of the country’s food and population crisis. From this point on, Brown’s focus was mostly on finding alternatives that would solve the world’s population and resources problem. With financial support from Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Brown created the Worldwatch Institute, the first dedicated to researching global environmental problems. In 2001, Brown found the Earth Policy Institute, an organization that outlined a vision for creating an environmentally sustainable economy. Over the course of his career, Lester Brown has authored over 50 books and received 25 honorary degrees. In his publications, Brown discusses how the key to an eco-friendly economy is an honest market and replacing harmful aspects of the environment, like fossil fuels with renewable energy. On June 2015, Lester Brown retired from Earth Policy and closed the institute.

Transition to eco-capitalism
The ideology of eco-capitalism was adopted to satisfy two competing needs: 1) the desire for generating profit by businesses in a capitalist society and 2) the urgency for proper actions to address the struggling environment in the face of human activity. Under the doctrine of eco-capitalism, businesses commodify the act of addressing environmental issues. ,

The following are common principles in the transition to eco-capitalism.

Green consumption
At the conception of the ideology, major theorists of eco-capitalism, Paul Hawken, Lester Brown, and Francis Cairncross, saw an opportunity to establish a different approach to environmentalism in a capitalist society. These theorists thought that not only producers but also consumers could shoulder the social responsibility of environmental restoration if "green technology, green taxes, green labeling, and eco-conscious shopping" existed. The resulting "shopping our way to sustainability" mentality encouraged the development of organic farming, renewable energy, green certifications as well as other eco-friendly practices.

Carbon trading
Creating perhaps the first major eco-capitalist endorsement, many political and economic institutions support a system of pollution credits. Such a system, which assigns property rights to emissions, is considered to be the most "efficient and effective" way for regulating greenhouse gas emissions in the current neoliberal global economy. Especially in the case of tradable pollution credits, the resulting market-based system of emissions regulation is believed to motivate businesses to invest in technology that reduce greenhouse gas emissions using positive reinforcement (i.e. ability to trade unused credits) and punishment (i.e. the need to buy more credits).

Full Cost Accounting
Environmental full cost accounting summarizes corporate actions on the basis of the triple bottom line, which is best summarized as "people, planet, and profit". As a concept of corporate social responsibility, full cost accounting not only considers social and economic costs and benefits but also the environmental implications of specific corporate actions.

Genuine Progress Indicator
The current standard of using the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) as an indicator of welfare is criticized for being inaccurate. An alternative to GDP, the Genuine Progress Indicator compensates for the shortcomings of the GDP as a welfare indicator by accounting for environmental harms as well as other factors that affect consumption, such as crime and income inequality.

Criticisms of Eco-Capitalism
There has been much speculation over green capitalism due to the Capitalist monetary system in recent years. While most people feel the need to push for a more transformative and progressive system, the reasons for capitalism have remained the same. Ultimately, capitalism has allowed the means of production, which are mainly owned by individuals; economic activity takes place in free markets, and individuals are free to choose to greater or lesser degree what they do, where they work, and how they allocate their income and wealth. Supporters of capitalism, such as Milton Friedman argue it offers growth and freedom, while skeptics argue inherent negative consequences.

In terms of capitalism, Antonio Gramsci's theory of common sense proves that we thrive on markets and therefore, cannot move away from them. Nonetheless, the push to get rid of capitalism is a slow and ever-changing process that requires both critical thinking and assessment of green capitalism theory.

Backlash began as environmental agencies and laws became established, noting many natural resource constraints due to higher taxes on environmental companies. This included free market environmentalism which emphasized the positive incentives associated with prices, profits and entrepreneurship, as opposed to political environmentalism, which emphasizes negative incentives associated with regulation and taxes.

A common criticism of Eco-capitalism is that capitalism can never be sustainable because it is a "greed driven system" and that capitalism is inherently expansionist in tendency.

Another counter argument from Daniel Tanuro's "Green Capitalism: Why it Can't" explains that green capitalism cannot work without replacing capitalism with ecosocialist methods and breaking down the wealthy and powerful corporations of the world. In addition, he argues that instead we need social and economical change as technology will end up causing more emissions with the manufacturing process and distribution them. This implies that the new "green" technology cannot protect the environment and that ecosocialists must change consumer behavior which would then go against capitalism. The changes needed would be: Other conflicting oppositions come from differences in political parties. With both the left and right not agreeing with or acknowledging climate as a future threat to capitalism and the environment, criticism will continue to rise.
 * “If by ‘green capitalism’ we understand a system in which the qualitative, social and ecological parameters are taken in account by the numerous competing capitals, that is to say even within economic activity as an endogenous mechanism, then we are completely deluded. In fact, we would be talking about a form of capitalism in which the law of value was no longer in operation, which is a contradiction in terms”(112)
 * 1) use of transportation methods
 * 2) Agriculture and dietary changes
 * 3) Overall consumer lifestyle and market spending
 * "Left is going to have to learn from the right. Denialists gained traction by making climate about economics: action will destroy capitalism, they have claimed, killing jobs and sending prices soaring."

Despite this argument, critics still claim that green consumption, sustainable behavior on the part of the consumer, is not enough to be instituted as a socio-environmental solution. In accordance with hegemony, capitalism agrees that the government has little control over market and buyers, sellers, and consumers ultimately drive the market. In contrast, in green capitalism, the government would have more control therefore; consumers do not have direct power over the market, and should not be held accountable.

Criticisms of Eco-Capitalism (Celina edit)
Opponents to eco-capitalism, especially those favoring traditional conservative ideologies, have criticized eco-capitalism for encouraging greater regulation of the market. For example, accountability in carbon trading requires corporations to accede to the public sector (i.e. the State, a supernational institution).

Moreover, in his book "Green Capitalism: Why it Can't Work", Daniel Tanuro explains that green capitalism is impossible because of the conflict between corporate interests and environmentalism: Tanuro believes that fundamental social and economical change to the current capitalist system is necessary, because technology will invariably increase emissions as manufacturing processes and distribution systems progress. He emphasizes the need for change in three areas:
 * “If by ‘green capitalism’ we understand a system in which the qualitative, social and ecological parameters are taken in account by the numerous competing capitals, that is to say even within economic activity as an endogenous mechanism, then we are completely deluded. In fact, we would be talking about a form of capitalism in which the law of value was no longer in operation, which is a contradiction in terms”(112)
 * 1) transportation
 * 2) agriculture and diet
 * 3) overall consumer lifestyle and market spending

Despite this argument, critics still claim that green consumption, sustainable behavior on the part of the consumer, is not enough to be instituted as a socio-environmental solution. In accordance with hegemony, capitalism agrees that the government has little control over market and buyers, sellers, and consumers ultimately drive the market. In contrast, in green capitalism, the government would have more control therefore; consumers do not have direct power over the market, and should not be held accountable.

Supporting an eco-capitalist plan, environmental scholar Bill McKibben proposes "full scale climate mobilization" to address environmental decay. During World War II, vehicle manufacturers and general goods manufacturers shifted to producing weapons, military vehicles and war time goods. McKibben argues that, in order to combat environmental degradation from past production endeavors, the American military-industrial complex and other national arms producers should shift to producing solar panels, wind turbines and other environmental products in an eco-capitalist system. Scholar Elliot Sperber counters McKibben's argument by citing that industrial environmental mobilization favoring eco-capitalism would exacerbate socioeconomic stratification. Sperber essentially argues that eco-capitalism is still capitalism, meaning that it relies on the production of goods. He therefore calls for the production of fewer goods (i.e. fewer plastics, fewer vehicles) to minimize society's ecological footprints.