Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Categories
In this Discussion
10. The Carbon Trade
Watch: Carbon Rush 
Moreno, Camila. 2012. “Green Economy and Development(alism) in Brazil.” Inside a Champion
Packer, Larissa. 2012. “From Nature to Natural Capital.” Inside a Champion.
Aguilar-Stoen, Mariel and Cecile Hirsch. 2015. “10. REDD+ and forest governance in Latin America: the role of science-policy networks.” in Environmental Politics in Latin America by Benedicted Bull and Mariel Aguilar-Stoen (eds).
(optional) Cushing, Lara et al. 2016. “A Preliminary Environmental Equity Assessment of California’s Cap and Trade Program”
Green economics is a wide ranging family of approaches to environmental issues that attempts to bring environmental concerns into economic rationality-- unfortunately that largely means subjugating environmental concerns to economic rationality instead of vice verse. That where we get these terms like "natural capital" in the Packer article. You also hear buzzwords like "the triple bottom line" (bringing in social and environmental bottom lines to the economic bottom line). Some of these approaches come out of the concern that "externalities" like toxic waste or the environmental impacts of deforestation or climate change aren't a part of economic decision-making, so you need give these things a dollar value so that cost-benefit analyses can be conducted. But how do you put a value on the extinction of entire species, children dying from cancer, and the destruction of entire ways of life? The results are often unsatisfactory. The two chapters from Inside a Champion do an excellent job of outlining how these green economy schemes play out on the ground.
The idea behind the carbon trade, specifically, is that instead of setting a hard limit on the carbon emissions driving climate change (a cap) you establish a system by which you can go over that limit by purchasing offsets (cap and trade). These offsets are supposed to be things that would absorb said carbon (eg. financing a protected wetland). Progressive governments around the world (Germany and California are major players) have enacted legislation creating an ENORMOUS business. It gave rise to UN's REDD and REDD+, but no all carbon schemes are REDD. In California this system was set up with AB32, authored by Fran Pavely. The mainstream environmental community got really excited about this--and at the time it was passed I thought maybe this would be a powerful way to fund new environmental activity while eventually pushing for a hard cap. That's not what happened. The optional Cushing article gives you some hard data on how this has played out, and it's not pretty.
The environmental justice community in the US and environmental organizations based in the Global South hated this system from the beginning (as you might have noticed when Cynthia mentioned it). Even if the carbon trade did work, the same refineries exceeding the carbon cap are also putting dangerous toxins in the air. From the POV of the LA EJ community they are essentially purchasing the right to poison the air of poor communities in LA above and beyond a safe limit with a donation to the redwood forest enjoyed by rich people in the SF Bay Area.
Moreover, as we saw with Barbara, the carbon-producing Chixoy hydroelectric dam-- who's financiers re-approrpiated relocation funds for death squads-- counted as an offset!!!!!!! There are lots of questionable offsets: One example is land that can't be logged b/c of topography (steep incline) is re-zoned as an offset while intensifying economic activity on what used to be protected lands prior to REDD involvement. Sometimes there just aren't direct offsets so money going to community foundations (like the Harbor Foundation) which is then re-granted by industry to community groups (that won't sue them for breaking the law as they pollute) is also considered an offset. Do we really want major polluters like the Ports deciding who gets environmental fund and who doesn't?
As well the system has virtually no enforcement, and is full of fraud. When we tried to change legislation in California to constrain offsets to California, where it could be monitored and enforced, the outcry was that "there aren't enough outsets." Instead of recognizing that THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT and if there aren't more offsets you shouldn't be producing any more carbon, legislators and mainstream environmentalists looked for ways to make this ever rising cap work.
All this said, I think it's very important that we recognize that this system has produced some good programs run by creative people doing very exciting things. There's an anthropologist using REDD funds to experiment with new forms of bottom-up community-based conservation and development. The indigenous community in South America is all about REDD b/c its one of the few ways self-governments can find money for administration. There are places where it's been very helpful, but there are also places where the funds have created new sources of corruption and a lack of accountability between city-dwelling leaders and their home communities. Is the carbon trade a bad thing? I'm not 100% sure what my opinion is on that. One thing I can say is that we desperately need a hard cap, and so far the carbon trade system has not gotten us any closer to it-- in fact it's created a new political economy, an enormous industry set on preserving itself.
Do you think the green economy efforts are at least a step in the right direction? Or do they make things worse? A lot of what you're reading is very critical but I'm honestly divided on that, myself. The bottom line is: How do we get to a place where we have a carbon cap instead of a trade? What is the political route to achieving your ideal environmental policy and enforcement scenario?
Comments
I think that the green economy efforts are a step in the right direction as the idea itself is well-intentioned. I think as the articles mentioned, there is still an elitist take over by companies who utilize the cap and trade as a loophole. I believe that the greenwashing of companies who create these harmful offsets may be making environmentalist movements seem absolute in the eyes of the public. For example, in the movie, the eucalyptus offset appears at first glance to be a win for environmental policy. Still, it is a thin veil placed over the harmful effects of monoculture and RDF production on people and the environment. In this way, I would say that more publicity on the matter is needed and more thorough examinations into the entire implications of offset operations. I do believe that hard carbon caps are ideally the end game, but I am also unsure if green economy efforts as they are carried out today are working towards that same goal. I also am skeptical as to when hard caps will be imposed because that is ambiguous as of now. There is no real '10 year plan' I have seen with these offsets, and while there continues to be no hard carbon ban, offset projects will increase. We need a strong consensus on the global level to enforce a carbon cap. The political route would be a global cap strictly imposed by governments with the enforcement of the law through litigation. I believe that the enforcement through police forces will be problematic, as is apparent in case studies we have read. I also think it is essential for there not to be fines for breaking the cap as large companies can pay those off quickly. There should be a more thorough process of review for offsets with environmental justice costs and benefits analyses.
I think the green economy efforts are a step in the right direction. This is because of the general integration between economic and environmental benefit, which I believe is a necessary combination to get big organizations/cooperation's (and most politicians) to genuinely make a difference environmentally. I believe that the creation of the concept in general is a positive thing and its starting conversation. That being said, the current green economy efforts are insufficient and need major changes. I completely agree with Josh's analysis that a hard cap is unnegotiable. In her chapter, Packer suggests some alternatives for the current situation, one being "instead of taxing externalities, when the environmental damage is already done, the activity itself is taxed in order to discourage it." This to me is beyond logical and would make lots of sense. However, I have a hard time thinking of how to realistically get to that place. I think the idea of companies getting to pass their carbon emission limits is not okay. It doesn't matter to me that somewhere else carbon emissions are being helped. It should not be an option at all in my mind. Just by having the scapegoat, there is no pressure on groups to develop and remodel their business to be more sustainable. Whether carbon emission limits need to be raised (at least to begin with) to make it happen, I believe the carbon credit trading should be eliminated fully. This will place more pressure on organizations to develop/implement new technology. How to get politicians to pass legislation like that, I really have no realistic ideas... I think social pressure can be an important tool, but if it is enough, or at-least reasonable to get enough that it makes an impact, I am skeptical. Any ideas anyone?
I agree with you that the green economy seems like the most likely of environmentalist initiatives to succeed due to the greed and interests of businesses and organizations. Packer's suggestion that you bring up also resonates with me. Why undergo damage control when you can take preventative measures! I think one of the main problems is the larger corporations who benefit the most from the cap and trade system. When you own multiple brands or companies, you can shift around your carbon credit, so all are under the cap, diverting attention from the fact that the cumulative carbon emissions are way too high. I think the elimination of carbon credit trading is unlikely, but as the Packer article points out, new technology is being created by organizations. However, this technology and patented 'solutions' like new mono-crops also serve to make them money as the environment becomes economized.
I find this topic so complex and hard to be 100% sure of an answer to your questions. Part of me agrees with the earlier comments on how it is a step into the right direction, but I also find it that it is a way to create inaction, from companies and also social movements. This false idea of "doing something" lead people in the middle of the spectrum to feel more comfortable of what they are consuming and which corporations they are supporting just because they are buying carbon offset, etc. (I also feel slighty better when I buy them myself). But as you, Joshua, said, if "there aren't enough outsets", why are we even having this discussion if it is clearly something that it is not working to compansate for the carbon emission emitted?
Also at then end, who is responsible to offset those Carbon emissions? In The Carbon Rush they showed clear examples how again the burden of climate change is given to the global south, which were also the ones that historically emitted the least. Why does the Global South always need to clean someone else's trush? Poor women in third world countries were studied by OXFAM to be the most affected by global climate change because the burden of all the networks of the international market and its effects on climate change falls on them. Many of the carbon offset projects are part of this, and many organizations are ensuring that they are sustainable and benefitial for women and not creating another burden.
I completely agree that a carbon cap is needed, and at this point we should already have it. Is it feasible in the near future? I am not sure unless more pressure starts to happen around this topic.
Here are some articles on Global Climate Change and gender in case anyone is intrested:
(The OXFAM one is in Spanish but I am sure they have an English version somehwere) file:///home/chronos/u-e0d01c7093272f5c73db32cefe16c526b2ecacb3/MyFiles/EQUIDAD/Adaptacion%20cambio%20climatico.pdf
file:///home/chronos/u-e0d01c7093272f5c73db32cefe16c526b2ecacb3/MyFiles/EQUIDAD/2018GenderJustClimateSolutionsEnglish.pdf
I agree, @a_hipp police forces, and even more so, private security forces would be very problematic. I still have a hard time grasping how in so many cases of excessive force and horrible brutalities, its private security forces doing it. How are they allowed so much power? I also agree a global consensus will be very important in this. Social pressure, globally, could be a very, very useful tool I hadn't really considered. If countries are breaking agreed upon rules with emissions or what not, the threat of exportations/importations being affected is monumental and would be very impactful. Thirdly, I additionally agree that fine's have proven to be ineffectual. We need to completely restructure our thought processes and think outside the box with green economics. There is so much potential for it.
I believe social pressure can generate big changes. Somehow I feel like in the US culture we kind of lost faith in social movements even if they have created the most meaningful changes in the workers, feminists, and black movements. I believe we need to become more aware of the realities that we are facing to unite internationally as a community and demand deeper systematic changes. Environmental movements are kind of really "soft" for the imporantance and urgency of the issue, but that is just my opinion.
I am torn on green economy efforts. I think that combining economic and environmental benefits are necessary at times to get corporations on board with environmental progress but I agree with @Julieta that it tends to create inaction. I think the fact that green economy efforts exist is a step in the right direction as it makes companies and individuals more aware of carbon trade and emissions. I do think a lot of changes should be made so that the regulations have less negative impacts.
@Julieta I couldn't find that exact article in English, but I read a little bit from other articles about gender and climate change. SO interesting to me! It's a completely new idea I have never heard about or looked into. It made me think of an initiative of Amazon Frontlines I looked into - the Women's Empowerment Program. I will admit a little bit of me wondered why the organization placed so much emphasis on the importance of it. It just felt kind of beyond the scope of what I would expect from them. This places much more context to the initiative. I have never looked into or learned anything about ecofeminism aside from just hearing the phrase. I really had no idea how important the branch of the movement is..... it's really interesting to me!
Obviously a carbon cap is ideal but I don't really see it happening any time soon for a few reasons. One large reason being the hold large corporations have over policies in the US. Another reason I don't see it happening soon is the lack of motivation and the lack of financial benefit for people to do it. We're stuck in cap and trade and it seems like offsets make people feel comfortable and socially conscious. I'm not sure what would generate the change needed to switch to a hard cap on carbon emissions but I agree that social pressure is the first step.
While it is obvious from today's sources that the current system of carbon credits is repressive, abusive, and does little to nothing to reduce overall emissions, I am not at all opposed to market solutions to combat the climate crisis. Whether we like it or not, we live in a capitalist world, so to at least some degree it is essential to change the impact of the things people consume on our way to reducing overall consumption. The issue I see with the carbon trade system is not that it attempts to solve climate change within the framework of capitalism. It is that its ultimate goal, the thing that defines its structure, is to aid the continuation of pollution. What we need is market solutions whose fundamental goal is to reduce emissions where they are produced. Any system that allows offsetting will fail to change the footprint of our economic activities because it does not directly challenge them. What is needed are mechanisms like carbon taxes which internalize the currently free externailties of pollution. When the cost of pollution is augmented to reflect all of its effects, it will drive polluters to lower costs. While this takes far more political will, it leaves far less room for bullshit and fake solutions.
I totally agree with what you propose, save entertaining the possibility of initially raising emissions (we are waaay past the point where we can consider that as part of the solution). You put it a lot better than I did in my post. We absolutely need to fully turn our attention and effort to solutions that change the way we live, not those that enable the status quo. Social pressure will the THE way that this gets accomplished, and it's a lot easier than it seems. Studies of social movements have shown that once a movement gains genuine, passionate support from just 3.5% of the population they are successful in achieving most or all of their goals. The only reason that social pressure seems like it may not be enough is because we let ourselves be discouraged. Corporations and powerful interests can exert enormous amounts of power as long as the public is ignorant and complaisant, but they cannot vote. By building a big enough movement we can remind politicians of who they actually work for and become a big enough threat to their power to the point that they start working for the people and the planet. This seems difficult, and that's because it is, but it is only impossible if we think it so and give up without ever trying.
I am with you on the prediction that we will be stuck in the cap and trade system for a while, and I also cannot offer a solution or catalyst for putting a cap in place. One argument that I think companies would use if we were to put a carbon cap on right now would be that it would hurt offset projects. I find some validity into the claim that current offsets would struggle if funding were pulled by companies trying to deal with carbon emissions at home. Yet, I think that could be a good thing. Cons would be job loss and shutting down of actually useful offset projects. Pros would be seen by the indigenous communities in which the lousy offset projects take place. I think this goes to your point of people wanting offsets because they make people feel good about themselves.
I do think green economy efforts are a step in the right direction. They start a conversations about the environment and a start on how to address them. The issues remain in the the concept of carbon credits and the idea that instead of reducing ones emissions you can buy offset or sell credits if you are polluting less. I also thought the documentary showing how many of the carbon credit/offset programs are run and the destruction they cause to local communities shows major flaws.There need to be actual caps that each country is held accountable for, there needs to be punishment for going over the caps and it can't just be a game of buying more credits. This is a complicated issue and although many of the authors were against combing environmental issues and economy I do think they could be tied in more productive ways. Like maybe you pay a major fine if you go over your carbon allotment.
I liked what you said about eliminating carbon trading and putting more pressure on organizations to implement greener technologies. I think that we need to it make more enticing for companies to stop polluting than to continue/buy offset. Until that happens I don't know how we will get big corporations to change. In terms of changing legislator and social pressure I also don't have any great ideas. All I can really hope for is that Barbara Rose Johnson was right when she said the pendulum will swing the other way. Hopefully our government will start to swing and we will see a focus on environmental issues.
Its hard for me to have a definitive opinion on the green economy one way or another. The integration of economics and environmentalism is important and necessary. However, it seems to me to not be so productive and its integration has given the public an illusion of positive envrieomntal change. Empowering more grass roots organizations to be a guiding voice could be one step, although that would not radically change much. I think we need to move away from capitalism and redesign our culture away from mass consumerism. I do think heavy taxes on pollution could be a positive start, except most big corporations which emit that pollution are able to pay them without a problem.
Yeah, i agree that social pressure is a powerful mechanism of change. I also really agree that there has been a general disillusionment in social and environmental movements. The environmental and social movements of the 60's and 70's in response to environments reaching their ecological nadirs was powerful and momentous. I think the individual needs to recognize their own potential and after doings so, a unification of those individuals will be synergetic. While big corporations do more than a fair share of the polluting, defaulting to blaming big businesses and corporations does diffuse individual responsibility. In the same vain, assuming all meaningful change can only be brought about by big organizations is disempowering the individual.
I agree with what your saying here... I think the redesign of our culture is huge. I don't think this can be solved by staying in the boxes were taught to think and those which have been used in the past. It feels like for a real solution, it would have to be a global shift in consumerism and ideology. That goes along with the idea of taxing pollution. I don't think it's a feasible solution because it has proven ineffectual up to this point. I think it's the kind of thinking we need to re-approach.
I still have no solid thoughts on how to conjure social pressure and change legislation. But I thought about it a bit more, and I have a couple thoughts on it. I think the youth are really, really powerful in our country right now. As silly as it may sound, things like tik tok influencers actually have such a big effect on the minds of young people. Utilizing things like that could be really beneficial. This issue is a marathon, not a sprint. Approaching young people and making environmental issues "cool" and "known" could have a big impact. Of course this only targets a very specific demographic, but things like that could make an impact I think.
I think obviously carbon trade and the carbon offset program is not perfect, but I honestly see it as a good step in the right direction. Something that wasn't mentioned (or I didn't pick up on) is how carbon the offset can be an incentive to pollute less. Yes companies can buy carbon offsets in order to pollute more but companies can also sell offsets when they pollute less than the allowed amount. I think a reason this isn't quite yet viable is that, at least for some companies, it is cheaper to buy carbon offsets and pollute more, rather than sell carbon offsets and pollute less. As renewable energy gets cheaper, I believe the carbon offset program will prove to be more useful and we will see companies polluting less, because it can be profitable.
I agree with you 100% in that we should more away from capitalism and mass consumerism. I do think though, because we have been at it like this for quite some time, and this is America where capitalism is king, we need to at least explore ways to fix these issues while sticking to our (broken) system. We obviously have seen problems with the carbon offset program (which I think is a program meant to insensitivise environmental change while still leaving it up to companies) but I think If we keep thinking along lines like it we can see more immediate change. Huge societal change (like shifting away from capitalism) will either take a really long time, or will come as the result of a revolution, which isn't ideal either. Something (just an idea) that I think we can build on the program is using some of the money to invest in the development of solar power. I think as soon as solar power is cheaper than using fossil fuels for energy we will see rapid change in our environment. The only way companies will really stop using fossil fuels is if it is cheaper not to do so. So I think that could be a good start.
I didn't put much thought into how it would hurt offset projects but that's a good point. I think overall it would be beneficial but there could be some system set up so it didn't hurt communities as much. And @cara I really agree with you in the redesign of our culture away from mass consumerism and I wish it were more realistic. I do think and ideological change and change in values can happen over time but I don't really see it happening anytime soon with the current global climate.
I think this idea of if we change the way the carbon offset program works, or remove it entirely, many projects and companies operating could be hurt, is interesting. While we have seen examples of carbon offset projects that take advantage of people and land, I am sure that there are examples of projects that do great jobs of being helpful and fulfill their (what should be their fundamental) goal: reduce carbon emissions. In the documentary, the eucalyptus farm really stuck out to me. This is an operation that claims to be renewable (and technically it is) but is actually still pumping more carbon into the atmosphere than taking it out. I talked to a couple friends about this, and basically we think that simply, the rules for what makes a carbon offset project legitimate, need to me more strict. I wonder if there is a way that we could change the program so that these illegitimate operations are hurt, but the just ones remain.
Yes, perhaps we must be working within the constraints of the current system and its too radical to strive for a total redesign of our economic structure. And such a shift would, like you said, take a really long time or a revolution. A revolution would have devastating effects, but would the outcome marginalize the costs? I don't claim to know the answer to this but its something to keep in mind when talking about a potential restructuring. As for solar power, I can't say I agree with you wholeheartedly although I agree its a good starting point. Yes, renewable energy can be more "sustainable" or cheaper. However, as the rate of energy demands continues to sky rocket, will solar energy or any energy source, renewable or otherwise ,suffice? At what point does renewable energy transition from "renewable" to destructive?
I think it is important to point out that companies can sell offsets and be incentivized to pollute less and it wasn't emphasized much in the readings. The issue with this remains that when they sell those offsets it gives a different company the freedom to make up for their saved carbon pollution. This results in the pollution just being spread more throughout different companies, I don't think it really helps reduce overall carbon emissions. I do agree that the carbon trade is at least somewhat of a step in the right direction but more thought needs to go into it and we need to work to reduce worldwide carbon emissions.
Yeah I also feel like the total cap on emissions makes sense. I guess I struggle with programs like the cap-and-trade because compensating countries which already are seeing the worst effects of environmental degradation in order to pollute more feels like buying out the right to subject them to displacement, natural disasters, illness, all the things we know can happen. That doesn't sit well with me. I think these types of programs are a way people can preserve the economy that works for them or their corporations. It feels like a way of performing change without really changing anything at all. Not everything about it is terrible though, there's probably more to it than being just performative and I would rather a total cap and some compensation than none at all. Also, even in these measures which aren't always the most drastic, the attention they get can help fuel a conversation about how bad the situation really is, priming people to the idea that serious policies are going to have to be in place to address environmental concerns.
Yeah I really see what you're saying in terms of who's being asked to offset carbon emissions and the burden falling on the global south. I'm also hesitant of these programs for that reason. I want to think more about what you're saying in terms of carbon offsets leading to inaction. I don't think I buy that there's a direct link between an ineffective policy and people having a sense of assuaged guilt. I feel like a lot of social movements (at least the ones I'm interested in supporting) see through the problems of cap-and-trade and carbon offsets, and still try to demand further action, I don't think anyone on that end is backing down because their demands were met. Similarly, I'm thinking that someone who's thinking about flying but feels bad because of the associated emissions. On the individual level, I think that person is buying an offset to make themselves feel better, but it's rare that someone would have chosen not to take the flight all together, even without the option of buying a carbon offset.
I totally agree though that there needs to be more accountability about where the offsets are going and who actually benefits from them. I also don't think carbon offsets are the key to solving the climate crisis, and i don't think they address any underlying issues of consumption and hyper-development. I just struggle with the line of thinking that cap-and-trade or offsets encourage inaction. Ultimately, if people are fired up, inadequate legislation can fuel the fire, rather than leading them to think their concerns are being addressed.
I think I have a similar mindset about this issue to many of my classmates, while the green economy ideals seem to be a step in the right direction they have been executed in such a way that makes me sick. As the system operates around capitalism I feel like it was bound to have these types of issues, where corporate elites continue to manipulate the system to push any burdens onto nations in the Global South. But, I do think that the system was well intentioned, as a means to make "change" or at least make a small dent in our global carbon emissions in a way that felt feasible at the time. I think that a bottom line cap should be in place to begin with, and that offsets should be reimagined to have a larger emphasis on environmental justice, ensuring that communities are not further harmed by these actions. Corporations paying offsets should be held accountable for where their money is allocated, and that communities are being uplifted as opposed to displaced, or in the worst of cases slaughtered. I also think that all of these funds should be monitored by an outside third party, potentially another branch of the UN. Where communities being affected by these offset projects will always have a space to have their voices heard. But again, all of these ideas are just small modifications to a fundamentally broken system. Unfortunately, modifying the system we have may be for the time being the best that can be done? But really I have no idea and would love to hear more thoughts.
In general, I am really curious as to how these international organizations such as the UN operate, and what power they really have? Could a third party organized through the UN really have the authority to hold these mega corporations accountable?
@Charlotte I think that I fundamentally agree with you but I also see where @Julieta is coming from. I see the issue as continuing to treat climate change as a consumer issue, by selling offsets, as opposed to a structural issue which needs to be redesigned by government organizations. For example, labelling certain palm oil products as "sustainably grown" due to them being funded as offsets, but are truly responsible for the displacement of indigenous communities. That tag of "sustainably grown" may lead to millions of people thinking that they're doing right by the environment and calling it a day with that "positive" purchase. Every purchase would continue to support that industry, and lead to further expansion of those farms, and the further displacement of indigenous peoples. It all reminds me of the movement against plastic straws. Yes, we shouldn't use them. But, in actually the difference not using a straw makes is minute, yet may lead people to think their environmental responsibility is all set and done. But, I agree with your point that the other side of this phenomenon would be igniting millions of environmentalists with the political motivation to go work and change the system. I think that's where all of the people in this class fall, but may not encompass the scale of action truly needed. However, I think continuing to make the flaws in the system clearer, and making education on what "sustainably grown" really means accessible will lead to more people's outrage, and a greater social movement.
On your point of inadequate legislation fueling the fire of social movement, I wonder if there's an inflection point as to what is deemed "inadequate" enough to spark a movement capable of altering legislation? While all of us agree that cap and trade is a fundamentally flawed system, does enough of the country agree with us to create a demanding outcry? And if built from the grassroots, how large does a network have to grow before pushing our current polarized climate to political change?
Oh wow we could have hours of discussion on the scandal of a plastic straw in 2020. There's nothing that better encompasses the really misguided ways people are taught to deal with environmental degradation than that. I totally see the point about viewing the problem as consumer choices. To your question about if legislation is deemed inadequate enough.. I think we're already at that point and I do think there's stirring of mass frustration. I don't think we've ever seen anything that feels "adequate" considering the sheer level of emissions and people getting harmed by degradation. I do think people are starting to get upset. I wonder how much of this is because of apocalyptic messaging and being at the point where people in power fear for their own lives. When marginalized people were affected inaction was still palatable but now that the future is in question for elites, more of them could be inclined towards drastic action. Really messed up but I think the reality of how this may play out.
I mostly agree with you, however, I feel like it's a little more nuanced than the system operating around capitalism. I agree that capitalism in its current form setting the rules for they system is the core of the issue, however, I think that localized, highly regulated capitalism that makes sustainable economic activity cheaper could be a really successful strategy. While very flawed, I think that the capitalist system is more nimble that a state-run economy and thus could actually be a great tool, if wielded right, given the pace of change which is currently necessary.