We all know David Harvey’s concept of ‘spatial fix” (Harvey, 2001). Globalisation is rather a reconfiguration of space, a geographical relocation of capitalist activity (i.e. deindustrialisation in Europe leads to deindustrialization in Asia Pacific) across different spaces around the world, creating a new epoch of development and income inequality and recalibrating world political power. It provides an endless “spatial fixes” for capitalism to solve its unresolvable inner contradiction, that is, any built landscape (through capital accumulation) is deemed to be destroyed at a certain point (over accumulation of capital leads to devaluation) in order to search for a new ‘spatial fix’ where the capital accumulation cycle continues (accumulation by dispossession) (Harvey, 2004).
As I have constantly repeated in many of my posts, economic growth (the supply side in particular) greatly depends on the stability of the environment, that is, its resource/raw material security to sustain further economic development. The built space may become underproduce if capitalists fail to renew or maintain the production conditions (social, ecological and environmental), whilst cost-minimisation behaviour drives capitalists to accumulate in order to reduce costs like labour welfare and environmental costs (Foster, 2002), which ultimately leads to supply-side crises. Failure of profit strategies entails in deeper crisis, which causes deterioration of previous production condition, including urban decay and irreversible ecological degradation such as air pollution and soil degradation. This is the ecological Marxist theory, or the second contradiction of capitalism according to James R. O’Connor, which destruction of production conditions is often triggered by capitalists’ response to a crisis of over-accumulation (p.158-86, O’Connor, 1998). As such, capitalists may search for another ‘spatial fix’ to start over again.
Cartoonist: Mike Adams
Source: www.NaturalNews.com
So what does it mean to climate change? Regarding the catastrophic ecological (air) condition and sluggish economic growth in China, economic restructuring to a more balanced economy (developing servicing sector) is possible under the the pressure from the market and emission cuts. Yet, world demand for manufacturing products maintains while their production in China reduces. Capitalists will start searching for new spatial fix, potentially in Southeast Asia or Africa, and repeat the accumulation processes. Air pollution problem in China may be improved, but in fact it is ‘geographically relocated’ to spaces where the new world manufacturing hub is centred. As such, world emission has never been reduced. Technological fix such as investing in greener production and energy sources would help to improve the condition, yet it depends on the accessibility of these potentially industrialised countries to these technologies.
The Clean Development Mechanism is another example of the ecological Marxism theory. The mechanism is simply a spatial fix to climate change led by the strongest economies in the world. The carbon permit trading for instance, has created ‘an external space for production of carbon sink capacity in the South and an internal space for the consumption of carbon sink capacity in the North’ (Bryant, 2009), which leads to arising ecological costs (land degradation caused by deforestation and pollution) and climate crisis (relocation of production line raises pollution issues) in the South. Additionally, such fix only transfers the ecological crisis to the South, leaving an social impression that carbon emission in the North is reduced, and thereby recirculates the problem of air pollution and intensifies future climate change.
I agree shifting to greener energy sources and production would help ease the problem of global warming. Low oil prices may push the world economy to renewable sources and foster green technology development, moving the mode of consumption and production away from unsustainable fossil fuels. The way to decarbonisation is ideal yet challenging, especially in times of global economy downturn. Although the developed nations have agreed to raise $100 billion a year from 2020 in the Paris Agreement to help development in developing countries, the latter request more of it (BBC news). How these assistance should be spent is questionable — to increase social resilience against changing climate or to invest in greener energy sources; whether the richer nations are willing to provide assistance in the times of austerity is another issue to sort out. We might have celebrated a historical climate accord at the Paris Conference 2015, but the consensus did not make the challenge of climate change mitigation more straightforward.
What a world of contradictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment