CAPITALISM, ECOLOGICAL DESTRUCTION AND MAINSTREAM ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC THEORY: A RADICAL CRITIQUE A DISSERTATION IN Economics and Social Science Consortium Presented to the Faculty of the University of Missouri-Kansas City in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY by WILLIAM VINCENT FISHER M.S., University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2013 B.S., Portland State University, 2005 Kansas City, Missouri 2014 © 2014 WILLIAM VINCENT FISHER ALL RIGHTS RESERVED CAPITALISM, ECOLOGICAL DESTRUCTION AND MAINSTREAM ENVIRONMENTAL ECONOMIC THEORY: A RADICAL CRITIQUE William Vincent Fisher, Candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree University of Missouri-Kansas City, 2014 ABSTRACT This dissertation contributes to heterodox environmental economics by providing a unique and thorough critique of mainstream environmental economic theory. This dissertation draws on insights developed by radical political economy, primarily the insights of Marx and Marxism, to highlight the flaws in mainstream environmental economic theory and their applicability for solving climate change and the biodiversity crisis in practice. The radical critiques provided in this dissertation further enhance the disciplines understanding of capitalist society and its institutions. Most importantly, these critiques attempt to alter the discourse and stimulate the development of alternative theories that might have the potential to solve environmental problems in practice. Finally, this dissertation begins the new discursive process by showing the potential iii alternative cooperative relations of production hold for environmental, economic and social sustainability. This is done by analyzing worker-owned cooperatives and common property relations as they exist in capitalist economies and their role in transitioning out of a capitalist system. iv The faculty listed below, appointed by the Dean of the School of Graduate Studies, have examined a dissertation titled “Capitalism, Ecological Destruction and Mainstream Environmental Economic Theory: A Radical Critique,” presented by William Vincent Fisher, candidate for the Doctor of Philosophy degree, and certify that in their opinion it is worthy of acceptance. Supervisory Committee Mathew Forstater, Ph.D., Committee Chair Department of Economics John F. Henry, Ph.D Department of Economics Erik K. Olsen, Ph.D. Department of Economics Doug Bowles, Ph.D. Social Science Consortium Caroline Davies, Ph.D. Department of Geosciences v CONTENTS ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .............................................................................................. vii CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................1 2. CLIMATE CHANGE AND THE BIODIVERSITY CRISIS ...............................12 3. EXTERNALITY THEORY AND THE STATE IN CAPITALISM ....................53 4. PRIVATIZATION AND THE TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS ...................104 5. TECHNOLOGICAL OPTIMISM .......................................................................133 6. TRANSITIONING TO A SUSTAINABLE SOCIETY .....................................165 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................212 VITA ................................................................................................................................238 vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation benefitted from the hard work and commitment of many people. Without their support, advice and encouragement this dissertation would not have been possible. I wish to express my enormous gratitude to Mathew Forstater who continuously encouraged and supported this dissertation and whose intellectual eclecticism has inspired my own intellectual development. I would also like to thank John F. Henry whose advice and diligence concerning this dissertation was immeasurable. In addition to the dissertation process, he was tremendously influential on me as a graduate student and is the model that any teacher should aspire to become. Erik Olsen enhanced the quality of this dissertation and without his hard work this document would certainly not have developed into the document it is. I should also like to than Erik for introducing me to the writings of Marx and his course on Marx forever altered the trajectory of my academic career. Other committee members, Doug Bowles and Caroline Davies, supported me throughout this process. I want to thank my comrades, B. J. Unti, Ryan Dodd and Andy Johnson. Finally, I would like to thank my family. To my parents, Charles and Diana Fisher, for their patience, support and motivation in all aspects of my life. Without them none of this would have been possible. The enormous gratitude I have for them cannot be articulated. To my sister, Kathryn Fisher, who has always encouraged me and has kept my spirits high throughout this process. Last but not least, to my best friend Bella who has been with me through every day, through thick an thin and who judges not my intellectual capacity. vii DEDICATION To my nephews Søren and Kormák so you can live in a world with the beauty and inspiration of nature and feel the pull of a wild steelhead. The most unpardonable sin in society is independence of thought. EMMA GOLDMAN viii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The genesis of the modern environmental movement in the United States is often credited to the publication of Rachel Carson’s book Silent Spring (1962). Since that time a growing awareness has arisen concerning the role industrialization has played in ecological destruction and its potential ramifications for environmental and social sustainability. Over the course of the last half-century the natural science literature surrounding ecological destruction has reached a crescendo and warns of dire consequences if left unaddressed. While the social and ecological ramifications of climate change have become part of the everyday lexicon, climate change is only one macro-ecological issue concerning planetary sustainability. Rockstrom et al. highlight nine planetary boundaries threatened by human activity including biodiversity destruction, ocean acidification, fresh water use, ozone depletion, chemical pollution, nitrogen and phosphorous cycling, among others (2009; see Foster et al. 2010, p. 14-15). Each of these threatens human civilization and must be reconciled with human productive activity so as to guarantee social and environmental sustainability into the future. Resulting from the rising consciousness concerning anthropogenic ecological destruction and the need to alter human interaction with the planet, the sub-discipline of environmental economics has emerged in an attempt to rectify the imbalance between capitalist production and environmental degradation. Most, though not all, neoclassical 1 environmental economists recognize that some markets have misallocated resources in such a way that the resulting production has over-polluted the environment and diminished the potential for human and environmental sustainability. As a result, an enormous amount of literature has emerged in order to address environmental economic issues. Three Mainstream Solutions to Environmental Problems There are three mechanisms with which mainstream environmental economists attempt to deal with the problem of environmental degradation. These are externality theory, privatization and technological advance. One of these theories, or some combination of each, is claimed to be both necessary and sufficient for solving environmental problems. Each attempts to reconcile market-based capitalist production with long-term environmental sustainability. While the market currently might be misallocating resources, causing the market to fail, with the proper alteration of incentives for market participants the market can achieve a correct allocation of resources, thus reducing pollution and environmental degradation. Articulating the perspective of mainstream economics and environmental destruction as a problem with the market, Nicholas Stern remarks, “climate change presents a unique challenge for economics: it is the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen” (2007, p. 1). The problem then is how to get the market to work correctly. This leads to another commonality between all mainstream environmental economists, their unwillingness to call into question the capitalist economy itself as the 2 root cause of environmental destruction. While mainstream environmental economists can differ tremendously concerning the role of government, the need to reduce income inequality, both in a country and between countries, and other social justice and environmental concerns, none are willing to question capitalism and the perpetual growth that is required by the capitalist system. As a result, mainstream economists are constrained in their ability to develop theories that attempt to deal with environmental issues. Referring to liberal and conservative mainstream thought concerning the environment, James T. Campen notes, “in spite of their differences, however, conservatives and liberals share a number of basic beliefs and assumptions—most fundamentally, their belief in the desirability and inevitability of capitalism—which justify regarding them jointly as constituting a mainstream intellectual and political framework that is accepted by the great majority of U.S.