In the summer of 2024, the UK saw a Labour government enter power after over a decade of Conservative leadership. Upon arriving at Downing Street, Prime Minister Kier Starmer, promised that Britain would lead with progressive environmental policy by making Britain a ‘clean energy superpower’ and committing to net-zero targets.
These announcements presented a crossroads of opportunities. On one hand, Labour might take the road with real, progressive environmental policy to stop the climate crisis. Alternatively, the road that exploits superficial ecological protections as a grim façade for its true motivation of protecting capital.
It quickly became apparent which path Labour would go down. Starmer promoted the intertwinement of economic and ecological protections to avert the escalation climate crisis and drive economic growth. The creation of the National Wealth Fund announced a green transformation of industry. More important for Labour, however, was to “mobilise greater private capital”.
In more recent months, Labour’s credibility in upholding their promises to fight the climate crisis has plummeted. Rachel Reeves, Chancellor for Labour, recently gave the thumbs up in approving the expansion of a third Heathrow Airport runway. The reasoning? An increase in economic growth is backed by unreliable promises of sustainable planning.
It is undeniable now which path Labour has chosen to walk down; the destructive and polluted road of ‘green’ capitalism.
Green Capitalism:
Our world has become littered with governments upholding the false potential of green capitalism. The history of this flawed argument is too complex to be summarised in so short an article, but examples of it can be found everywhere. Most notable was the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Instead of regulating businesses steering the wheel of the climate crisis, the Protocol pushed for environmental policy through carbon markets and green economies.
In short, green capitalism proposes that capitalism, for all its vices, is compatible with a greener future. In other words, growth and accumulation of wealth can continue through ‘sustainable’ means.
The National Wealth Fund, recently introduced by Labour, is a clear example of this way of thought. Private investment in energy production is argued to create jobs and support ‘sustainable’ goals. Yet who, at the end of the day, will be collecting the most money? Can we really trust companies that claim they will follow ‘sustainable’ environmental policy, yet have been proven to still channel funds into fossil fuels?
An Unnatural Solution
Supporters of green capitalism fail to acknowledge the clear truth: capitalism is the core reason for the climate crisis and cannot be used to solve it. As green capitalism pursues growth and accumulation first, nature is valued only as a bankable object. As such, the developers of environmental policy, technology and industry ask one question: how much money can be made?
In this regard, nature will continuously be exploited in a way that is entirely unnatural. Therefore, industry will be permitted to continue developing in a way that exacerbates the problem. So long as capitalism – greenwashed or not – looms over society, humans will abuse nature to develop. Under green capitalism, nature is privatised, land is owned, and businesses invest in green technology to profit from it. Even ideas of conservation of land and biodiversity under green capitalism are soured by the displacement of Indigenous peoples and the promotion of ecotourism for profit.
The Heathrow Expansion
To return to the Labour Party, the dangers and contradictions of green capitalism are evident. The government believes that it can continue with dangerous airport expansion for economic growth whilst still claiming to care for the environment.
The recently announced Heathrow expansion is a clear example of this. The Chancellor Rachel Reeves has supported the expansion on the basis it will create 100,000 more jobs and increase GDP by 0.43%. Further, Reeves has promised that there will be little ecological disruption due to the use of Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF).
Everyone can take a sigh of relief that the Chancellor has thought about our environmental protections. A fact omitted from Reeves’ speech was that only 2% of fuel used would be from SAF. The remainder would be from its usual harmful sources that expose the population to harmful ultrafine particles released by jet fuel.
This should come as no surprise. Labour has failed to address London’s place as the city with the highest levels of aviation pollution in the world as well as failing to try and resolve issues of noise pollution.
Every Bat and Newt
The Heathrow expansion is not the only example of flawed green capitalism within the UK. HS2, a proposed high-speed railway, is another project that aims to expand the economy of the UK whilst committing to ecological protection. By combining private investors and Natural England, the government has said this project will be ecologically safe and committed to protecting biodiversity.
Yet the Chancellor has backtracked on this commitment. Reeves has claimed that: “there are trade-offs, and the balance has gone too far in the direction of always protecting every bat and every newt.” This is due to the £100 million ‘bat tunnel’ for HS2 that aims to protect bat species. According to Reeves, the tunnel was “far too expensive and far too slow”.
But why shouldn’t every bat and newt be protected? Why shouldn’t the government take longer to ensure the survival of the inhabitants of our countryside?
The answer is that under green capitalism, nature is seen as something to be destroyed for the betterment of wealth accumulation. This is perhaps a clear signalling of the failures of the government in the prioritisation of their policies. Instead of ensuring ecological protection first, the need for speedy development for speedy economic growth is always the highest priority.
They say the cut worm forgives the plough. If so, the dislocated bat and the dead newt surely scorn the bulldozer and digger that destroys its habitat.
A Transformation of Thought:
Economic growth and facilitating increased accumulation of wealth must be removed from its position at the centre of government policy. In its place, ecologically minded thinking must take centre stage. If not, then the climate crisis will not only continue but worsen in ways we could never have imagined. To prevent this, the development of society must be regarded as natural, with sustainable goals embedded into institutions. Technology can, and has been, created whilst respecting nature; perhaps the most important moment of human development is the creation of the wheel to advance agricultural practices. So too can environmental policy develop in a way that engages people with nature and protects ecosystems.
Humans will always seek to grow – it is in our nature to develop and change as a society. We need to keep momentum; it’s in our nature to seek out the undiscovered chances of life. Nature is valuable to us; we grow crops, use it as fuel, appreciate its beauty and take solace in it. We have, and always will, exist alongside nature and use it to grow. It is time for governments to stop taking this as an excuse to exploit natural resources for economic pursuits.
To truly fight our way out of this crisis, the use of nature for development must place humans within nature. We must not be placed outside of it where nature is to be bought, traded and capitalised on. In this context, the accumulation of wealth will be sidelined for the betterment of our ecosystems, the protection of human health, and our chance for survival. Only through overturning capitalism, even that which maintains it is green, can this be achieved. Once done, we stand a chance of coexisting with every other being on Earth, both human and non-human.
Be Curious!
- Keep up to date with any development of environmental policy through news websites, DEFRA’s website, or (and most importantly) the news section of curious.earth!
- To try and bring about some form of social change and organise with environmentalists in your area, use the activist resource hub to see what you can do to combat capitalist environmental damage.
- Try to find more things you can do to challenge your thinking or join causes – find a local environmentalist group, attend a march, or post something online!
- For more about topics of green capitalism, try works by Joe Kovel or Naomi Klein; for ecological thinking, try Robin Wall Kimmerer or Mikaela Loach (for a full review of Loach’s book, ‘It’s Not That Radical’, check out a curious.earth review here).
Features image by dmncwndrlch via Pixabay.
