The Thing About Capitalism
Capitalism, as Marx pointed out, is an economic system that subsists on contradiction. And one of those contradictions just so happens to be one of the most damaging aspects of modern life, especially as it relates to intentional harming of the environment:
“A peculiarity of capitalism, brought out by the Lauderdale Paradox, is that it feeds on scarcity. Hence, nothing is more dangerous to capitalism as a system than abundance.”
King Midas and His Daughter
Another peculiar thing about capitalism is its tunnel-vision on the subject of short-term profits. All businesses see when it comes to environmental issues is regulatory interference in their ability to increase profits. This process of treating every opportunity as a means of turning it into gold makes it capitalism such a short-sighted approach that, like King Midas, they have already inevitably destroyed things of great intrinsic value by transforming it into something of lesser transactional value.
The Jevons Paradox
A study of the use and value of coal in the 19th century led to what is surely one of the greatest ironies in modern economics. The paradox expands to include all types of energy consumption and essentially states that successful efforts to improve fuel use efficiency inexorably results in an overall increase in the consumption of resources rather than the reduction that would be expected. The lesson derived here: “It is the very economy of its use which leads to its extensive consumption.”
The (Real) State of Walmart
A study titled "State of the World, 2010" it targeted as ironic by the authors after it went on record as asserting that Walmart is an example of business “moving from an exclusive focus on profits to a sustainable business model.” The evidence provided to counter this conclusion as unintended irony rather than well-analyzed factual truth is lengthy and convincing and highly damaging to both Walmart and the authors of "State of the World, 2010."
Paperless Office Paradox
The text also offers evidence that reveals the irony of those predictions about how the computer revolution would usher in the environmentally-friendly “paperless office.” In fact, the initial result was a sharp spike in the consumption of paper which has led to what the authors term the Paperless Office Paradox: when the development of a brand new resource intended to reduce consumption of an existing resource often has the ironic effect of actually stimulating consumption of that existing resource.
