“We cannot command nature except by obeying her”” – Francis Bacon

Excerpted from Pablo Solon:

“In the period from 1970 to 2008, the Earth System has lost 30% of its biodiversity. In tropical areas, the loss has even been as high as 60%. This is not happening by accident. This is the result of an economic system that treats nature as a thing, as just a source of resources. For capitalists, nature is mainly an object to posses, exploit, transform and most specially profit out of it.

Humanity is at the edge of a cliff. Instead of recognizing that nature is our home and that we must respect the rights of all beings of the Earth community, transnational corporations are promoting more capitalism under the ambiguous name of “green economy.”

According to them, the mistake of capitalism that led us to this current multiple crises is that the free market had not gone far enough. And so with the “green economy,” capitalism is going to fully incorporate nature as part of its capital. They are identifying the specific functions of ecosystems and biodiversity that can be priced and then brought into a global market as “Natural Capital”.

In a report of EcosystemMarketplace.com, we can read a brutally frank description of what they are after when they speak of Green Economy:

“Given their enormous impact on our daily lives, it’s astounding that we don’t pay more attention, or dollars, to ecosystem services. Ecosystems provide trillions of dollars in clean water, flood protection, fertile lands, clean air, pollination, disease control – to mention just a few. These services are essential to maintaining livable conditions and are delivered by the world’s largest utilities. Far larger in value and scale than any electric, gas, or water utility could possibly dream of. And the infrastructure, or hard assets, that generate these services are simply: healthy ecosystems.

So how do we secure this enormously valuable infrastructure and its services? The same way we would electricity, potable water, or natural gas. We pay for it.”

In simple terms, they will no longer just privatize material goods that can be taken from nature, such as wood from a forest, instead, they want to go beyond that and privatize the functions and processes of nature, label them environmental services, put a price and then bring them into the market. In the same report, they already have estimated values for these environmental services for the years 2014, 2020 and beyond.

To illustrate, take a look at the leading example of “green economy,” the program called REDD (Reduction of Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation). REDD’s purpose is to isolate one of the functions of forests, its ability to capture and store carbon, and then measure how much CO2 it can capture. Once you have the estimated value of the potential carbon storage of the forest, carbon credits are issued and sold to rich countries and big corporations who then use these to offset or buy and sell polluting permits in the carbon markets.

The new commodities of the REDD market will be financial papers or carbon credits, that will account for a certain amount of CO2 that a forest has not decreased in it’s storage. For example, if Indonesia has a deforestation rate of 1.700,000 hectares per year and then next year instead of destroying this amount, they only deforest 1.500,000 hectares, they will be able to sell in the REDD market, the carbon credits for the amount of CO2 that is stored by the 200.000 hectares that was not deforested.

In essence, REDD provides a monetary incentive for not deforesting. However, this incentive has a double perverse effect. First, the company of a country that buys those carbon credits will be able to keep polluting and releasing to the atmosphere that amount of CO2 they paid for. In other words, carbon credits are polluting permits for the rich. Second, only countries that reduce their deforestation will be able to put carbon credits in the REDD market. So if a region doesn’t have deforestation, and has always preserved its forest, they will not be able to sell any carbon credits from reduction of deforestation. So what is happening now, for example, in some parts of Brazil, is that in order to be prepared for REDD, trees are being cut with the purpose of increasing the deforestation, so that, tomorrow, the reduction of the “deforestation” will be higher and the amount of carbon credits that can go into the market will be bigger. The whole system is about cheating nature while making profit out of it.

This is just the readiness face of “green economy” for forests. Imagine what will happen when and if this same logic is applied to biodiversity, water, soil, agriculture, oceans, fishery and so on. Add to this the proposal to perform geo-engineering and other new technologies in order to further the exploitation, tampering and disruption of nature. This will open the door to the development of a new speculative market. This will allow some banks, corporations, brokers and intermediaries to make a lot of profit for a number of years until their financial bubble explodes as can be seen with past speculative markets. More importantly, though, this market also has a real deadline, as there is only a certain limit to exploiting the Earth system, beyond which means devastating our home.

In order to promote such kind of an assault on nature, the capitalists have first labeled their greed economy as “green economy.” Second, they have developed the discourse that because of the multiple global crises, cash strapped governments do not have the public money to take care of Nature and that the only way to get the billons of dollars needed for the preservation of water, forests, biodiversity, agriculture and others is through private investment. The future of Nature relies on the private sector. But the private sector will not invest these billions of dollars, that they accumulated through the exploitation of labor and material goods of nature, without an incentive. And so, governments need to offer them this new business of making profit from the processes and functions of nature.

Most promoters of “green economy” are very straightforward on this: if there is no pricing of some functions of nature, new market mechanisms and guarantees for their profit… the private sector will not invest in ecosystem services and biodiversity.

The “green economy” will be absolutely destructive because it is premised on the principle that the transfusion of the rules of market will save nature. As the philosopher Francis Bacon has said, we cannot command nature except by obeying her.”