If socialism emphasizes an equal standard of living, is it thereby equally challenged in terms of addressing environmental issues? OTOH, would an economic system that seeks to maximize environmental health be acceptable to most people, even under duress? (It might, for example, argue for forced poverty and sterilization!)

The more we discuss this, the more I believe the solution to global climate change is not dependent upon any single economic system, as both (or indeed all) are equally challenged. Thus we need to look beyond economic structures, to new theories (like Daly’s), new ways of thinking, and new ways of relating to the world and the people in it. That puts us well outside the realm of economics!

Socialism strives for an economic system where every shares equally and a tiny class doesn’t get rich off the labor of everyone else. This implies social equality and a more equal standard of living. The state owns the means of production and the workers participate democratically in running them.

Can it get screwed up in practice, sure? But that’s what it’s aiming for.

I’ll try to answer this more fully later!

That’s exactly what I think it will take (in coordination with economic and political strategies). The adjective “religious” may be overly divisive and limiting– I prefer the term “spiritual” and/or “ethical” awakening– but yes, wee need a comprehensive “awakening” to the consequences of our actions and the fact that we are all neighbors on an increasingly small planet. That’s not just education, it’s a fundamental shift in attitude.

That socialist and communist governments of the 20th century could be as environmentally horrible as capitalist governments (remember when the Cuyahoga river in Cleveland caught on fire in 1969?) is certainly true.

In socialism however there is a refreshing lack of emphasis on this quarter’s earning and the profit margin and is, at least in theory, much more focused on the good of all. And that’s what we need now.

All societies, regardless of the ownership of the capital assets, need energy to run their economies. To the extent that Western wealth has seduced the aspirations of other peoples, energy is needed to provide the “standard of life” that is expected. Unless you change expectation, it really doesn’t matter what kind of social system you have; it seems to me you’ll have the same demand for petroleum products and the same assault on natural resources.

The only people I know who are relatively aware of these invironmental problems and who have taken action against them are the Japanese, who actually reversed deforestation several centuries ago. The Icelanders have adopted an extremely limited, non-growth mentality as well, to deal with their environmental limitations. I suspect we might find a few smallish nations like New Zealand which are relatively homogeneous (like….wow! Japan and Iceland!) who have succeeded, largely through concensus (always easier to achieve in a homogeneous society).

I don’t expect there to be significant difference in energy usage and environmental disasters between a socialist or a capitalist society, given the pressures and demands of the population. If you were trying to convince me that some kind of religious awakening might turn things around, I could buy that. But merely changing from a capitalist to a socialist government–I don’t get the mechanism, unless you’re going to propose a Leninist elite who’s going to be extremely ruthless in the use of repression in instituting its environmental policies. Surely we’ve had enough of that in the past 100 years in various forms; surely we can do better.

BTW, though these are called “barriers against capitalism achieving the goal of reducing co2 emissions,” they are in fact barriers challenging ANY system.

Lastly, part of the problem is the math. That is, the math used by conventional economists, which is flawed and fails to describe reality in the post-modern world. See Beyond Growth by Herman Daly, which I consider a must-read. He explains how economics are so complex that pnly a few variables can be considered in order to simplify enough to make calculations. The variables considered naturally affect the outcome, which in term affect what people do.

Conventional economics seeks to maximize growth, which not only leads to many of our problems, but is erroneous in the first place since it includes (and therefore encourages) waste. Yet this erroneous system of economic math us used by virtually every government on the planet, capitalist or otherwise.