Naomi Klein is wrong (as is Tom Switzer)

Naomi Klein is wrong (as is Tom Switzer)

On her tour around Australia, author and activist Naomi Klein is being portrayed as the pin-up idol for the climate change movement by the media. Apparently she is a powerful rallying symbol for those concerned about climate change, providing the guidebook for how we’ll address the issue.

I actually consider her a Johnny-come-lately who found climate change an interesting canvas for her to explore some broader concerns that she has with capitalism and globalisation; or to be more accurate, a concern with unregulated capitalist global markets.

But there she was on the ABC Q&A program last week apparently representing me and a range of other people who have been grappling with the challenge of how to address climate change for far longer than she has.

My concern with Naomi Klein is she very easily seems to fall for the bait laid by right-wing political commentators. They see addressing climate change not as a matter of practical, intelligent application of policy and technology, but instead some grand battle of political ideologies. Climate change is not an energy, technology and behavioural challenge, which can be overcome via a mixture of government regulation and some clever ingenuity and reframing of consumer priorities. No, it is nothing less than a battle for our civilisation – a continuation of cold war in another guise.

On the ABC Q&A program, right-wing political commentator Tom Switzer could barely hide his delight at how Klein allowed her argument to be framed as one about how climate change can only be addressed by overthrowing one economic system with another. He almost embraced her point of view telling the audience,

I think most climate change activists -- and they’re very sincere about reducing carbon emissions --but they are, if you like, watermelons. You know, they conceal their socialist agenda beneath green skins. What you’re hearing from Naomi is that she is quite frank that if we really want to decarbonise the global economy, we need to change the economic structure that has been in place for generations … my disagreement with her would be that this is a radical agenda. … I think it’s bad economics because, as unfashionable as it is to say so, history shows that capitalism, for all its flaws, is responsible for lifting so many people out of poverty and if you undermine the capitalist system, you’re going to entrench poverty, you’re going to hurt malnutrition, preventable diseases and many people would rightly say that is not just immoral but wicked.

If I interpret Switzer correctly he appears to be suggesting, partly almost in agreement with Klein, that you can’t actually address climate change without throwing out capitalism. But in doing so, while you might address climate change, you’ll throw the world into poverty.

My concern with both Tom Switzer and Naomi Klein is that both have got it wrong.  Although in part-way reading through Klein’s book, This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate, I’ve come to realise she’s not advocating communism, nor the complete dumping of capitalism – she actually doesn’t know what she wants. She just knows that what we’ve got at the moment isn’t working terribly well, and her ignorance of the incredible value of economies of scale leads her to sometimes dabble in localisation as part of the answer.

Personally, I find it kind of funny how many of those behind the localisation movement happen to really love solar PV power, and in particular community-owned solar power, using it as an example of how we’ll be able to kick-off our addiction to fossil fuels. They don’t seem to realise the incredible irony that their beloved solar panel has only become affordable thanks to a series of huge smelters and factories dotted around several countries and each designed to serve the far flung corners of the Earth.

The issue I have with Switzer and many political commentators like him is that they are usually profoundly ignorant of the technological options for decarbonisation and their economics. In addition, in spite of their championing of businesses and markets, they seem incredibly ignorant of their ability to innovate and achieve amazing things once confronted with an environmental regulatory constraint or incentive.

As just one example, it’s like the last decade of automotive advancements that have seen fuel-efficiency technologies become common place and affordable, such as direct injection, double clutch and CVT transmissions, turbocharging, and electric hybridisation, don’t exist.  The only technological advancement they seem to be aware of is our enhanced ability to pull hydrocarbons out of shale rocks.

In thinking about how we address climate change using the construct of Marx versus markets is entirely counterproductive. That Klein allows herself to be painted into such a construct diminishes her effectiveness in mobilising anyone other than the already converted.

Instead of looking to Marx, it is probably better to think of John Maynard Keynes as a guide to action.

Contrary to some characterisations in the media, Keynes was very much a supporter of the capitalist system. But he was a pragmatic one, a person who, partly thanks to dabbling in stock markets (with some success), understood not just the strengths but also the foibles of markets. His suggestion that government should play a more active role in managing the business cycle wasn’t because he wanted to overthrow the capitalist system, but rather defend it. The mass unemployment that came with the Great Depression strengthened the hand of those pushing socialism (it partly assisted Hitler’s National Socialists to power).  But Keynes felt socialism would not end well and he was right.

Naomi Klein’s book usefully highlights how many major businesses have played a cynical and Machiavellian role in the climate change policy debate. She’s certainly right that we aren’t going to solve climate change by relying on the benevolence of existing businesses. But this is blindingly obvious. 

As we have done on multiple occasions since Charles Dickens’ times, government will need to intervene to moderate some of the nasty side effects of capitalism. To keep businesses behaving in a manner that enriches society, rather than the sometimes far easier route of robbing from it, we must define regulatory boundaries. But this is very different to throwing the whole capitalist system out.