If there is no ethics (belief and spirit & truth and reconciliation) behind human actions each of our doing will deteriorate in what you call a “cut throat competition” irrespective of the issues targeted upon, be it the natural resources or the so-called anthropogenic climate change which is a matter of scale in essence.

HGD

P.S. My season greetings to Kathmandu, where I worked and lived for a period of time

The West and China competing in constructing mega projects in Africa which has a huge impact on the climate of the world.

As most of the esteemed researchers would agree, sustainability in the most practical sense would be the middle man that sorts this issue between man and nature.

The biggest problem to combating destruction of nature/climate change is the innate nature of human that demands him to over exploit his environment.

Deeply rooted fundamental knowledge on the intimate relationship between man and nature must be communicated with the local stakeholders i.e the people in close proximity to nature.

Under the guise of economic development corporations and states fund extractionist projects and promise economic development in low income countries, though what actually happens is the exact opposite. Firstly, economic development is not definitive by numbers, such an understanding is shallow and unhollistic.

Foreign investment:

When we compare Russian and Chinese investments in Africa its interesting to find that Russian investments are mostly extractionist (mining, oil pulling, etc) whereas most Chinese investments are around health. I wonder what the Chinese agenda is here. Development is only hollistic when 1. it is regenerative and 2. It considered the livelihoods of the communities. The trickle down mentality that economic development project sell aren’t realistic they only increase the costs of development, for example gold mining- really good for the economy yet the money doesn’t ever go back into the communities in ways that are actually sustainable. What actually happens is, the local communities never see that money- thier livelihoods aren’t improved but the gdp might go up and the government pockets money … what the local community does get it’s terrible environmental health risks. Water quality is deteriorated leading to waterborne illnesses, food scarcity, poor hygiene, malnutrition etc. Native communities are kept out of employment , or employed in hazardous conditions, underpaid, displaced, and the environmental health of the given area is completely deteriorated. So it’s interesting that Chinese investments are majorly focused around health infrastructure and services in Africa- I wonder why this is, is it so that the African population is healthier therefore more productive and generates them more money? Even if so is this bad, will it lead to extractionist operations… will this just keep Africa poor.

This is why I despise development agencies. They never actually tried/try to develop communities- development is always constrained to countries remaining poor/uncompetitive and dependent on aid. This is why our green market is lagging and stagnant, why we don’t have sustainable revolutionary technologies in all HICs that have the financial means to do so- why Africa isn’t running on solar….

Development tied to our current systems of capitalism isn’t development is just capitalism…that’s scary. A type of capitalism that relies on a poor global majority, an uhealthy global majority is ofcourse extractionist by nature.

Capitalism can only survive when natural resources are available, when climate change is not addressed all what the man is doing on this earth planet will be affected. For leaving things to survive on this planet earth, environment is very key component and when climate global warming is not taken as a priority to be addressed, the hydrology and atmospheric circle will be affected hence affecting the life.

Global warming affects the natural resources, water cycle as impacts like floods, landslides, drought will lead to destruction of properties, life, infrastructure and cause high costs of leaving.

Environmentalist, with the help of engineers, scientists and free market entrepreneurs, need to fight fire with fire by promoting the economic advantages provided through alternative/sustainable products. Legislation, International Accords, Treaties, etc., will always lag behind market trends. A close look at the dealings behind the Montreal Protocol should reveal implementation was accomplished after industry was able to guarantee production of CFC alternatives (https://tinyurl.com/2p8kr8td). Recent experience with COVID-19 deniers and conspiracy theorists should make it clear there will never be a political solution leading the way to managing climate change. The fastest route to change is to use capitalism against capitalists.

Whether or not Climate Change Skeptics like it, Climate Change is a scientific fact that it would be irresponsible to elude. And so much the better if the scientific awareness of the problem has given rise to international protocols to give this phenomenon the importance it deserves. As a result, huge resources are allocated to international cooperation, particularly in research, to support the international effort aimed at putting in place agendas enabling the phenomenon to be understood and dealt with.

The other side of the coin is that the media coverage, the financial resources injected into multinational research programs have created a form of "Scientific Lobbying" which, in certain regions of the globe, in a way of diverting researchers from real environmental problems. For « modest research teams » in developing countries, international research programs on Climate Change are becoming a vital source of funding which, in my opinion, has generated activities and programs that are totally out of step with the environmental issues that arise here and now.

Capitalism is good but we cant fight fire by fire, natural resources can exist without human being but human can not leave without natural resources. that why it is important to take into account the conservation aspect than forecasting on capitalism very much. currently the nature has turned aggressive globally to fight for its existence.A number of calamities have occurred today affecting the so called developments such as infrastructures, industries, lives etc. case in Uganda, devastating floods and drought have continued to occur in Rwenzori mountains and Mt Elgon Landscape. These has affected the life of people economically, socially, culturally and physically. Communities have abandoned their land and have been reallocated to new areas. In this kind of circumstance, capitalism will not work rather put conservation ahead to address this challenges then plan for capitalism which is environmentally friendly.

Dear Sher Gurung

I think your topic is very broad and complex because of so many factors involved. I am also not sure if I understand you correctly.

Are you saying that capitalism is responsible for high levels of resource competition? I would not only ascribe the record levels of resources demanded in today’s global economy, and competition for it, to a specific economic system such as capitalism but rather to factors such as a record-high global population, materialism, urbanisation, industrialisation and so on.

I think humanity has started to use resources at much greater levels than ever before in history during the (1st) Industrial Revolution. I think the purpose of an economic system such as capitalism or a centrally planned economic system is to solve the needs of people – in other words to supply the products and services demanded by consumers. Such systems do however contribute to externalities such as pollution and high carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere if the producers of goods do not have to pay for the externalities they produce. (For example, when the release of carbon into the atmosphere is not properly taxed.)

Certain countries and regions go through high-growth periods during which infrastructure, services and products are rapidly expanded. Currently, China consumes, for example, a relatively high percentage of the global supply of minerals (Nel, 2020: 63) and was largely responsible for the mineral (price and demand) supercycle which started in the year 2002.

I would agree with you if you are saying that the increased awareness of climate change and the will to do something about the problem has increased competition for certain resources. There are many entrepreneurs who are offering (partial) solutions to counter rapid climate change. They need resources to implement their plans and will compete for it. Much greater amounts of lithium, copper, cobalt, rare earth elements, etc. will be required to built and re-built a future low-carbon and greener global economy.

Best wishes

Nel, W.P. 2020 The evolution of thought on the availability of non-renewable natural resources in the long run. (6 Sep 2020) M Com (Economics) dissertation. Available for download at: http://uir.unisa.ac.za/handle/10500/27268

Thank you Dear Wilhelm Pieter Nel for this relevant post.

Indeed we have to consider all the issues you raised.

I recently attended restitution of research work carried out within the framework of consortia of research teams including Tunisian teams on the impacts of climate change on water resources. One of the themes is the effects of climate change on groundwater recharge. An interesting subject you might say but, in my opinion, surreal if one considers the catastrophic situation of the state of exploitation and degradation of water resources in the countries of the southern Mediterranean. I cite the Tunisian example and we can transpose: Most of the groundwater is subject to disastrous overexploitation leading to drawdowns and irreversible degradation of resources. Some aquifers are exploited at more than 250% of the average recharge rate and the oases of the South draw on very weakly renewable “fossil” aquifers to produce dates sold at prices ranging between $ 1 and $ 3 (approximately 8 m3 of water are required to produce 1 kg of dates) [1]. Coastal aquifers in the Cap-Bon region are stressed to such an extent that marine intrusion has, in some cases, resulted in the definitive degradation of the resource. These waters are used in the production of citrus fruits sold at less than $ 1 per kg. If the decision-makers and the scientific community do not put urgently all their human and material resources and all the scientific and technical means, to solve this nagging problem; well, the time needed to define and put in place measures of resilience and adaptation to the hypothetical effects of climate change on groundwater recharge will be more than enough for the squandering of these resources to be total and definitive as it is already the case of certain coastal aquifers.

[1](4) National Water Security, Case Study of an Arid Country: Tunisia | Request PDF (researchgate.net)

The paradox of wealth: Capitalism and ecological destruction

Global problems and the culture of capitalism

The ecological question: can capitalism prevail?

Climate change and capitalism

Natural resources and agriculture under capitalism: Marx's economic model