An Economic Approach to Saving the Environment (and Ourselves)

Review by Aaron Cohen
The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to Sustainability byJames Gustave Speth. Yale University Press, www.yalebooks.com. 2008. 295 pages. $28.

“All we have to do to destroy the planet’s climate and biota and leave a ruined world to our children and grandchildren is to keep doing exactly what we are doing today, with no growth in the human population or the world economy.”

So states James Gustave Speth, dean of Yale University’s School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, in his new book, The Bridge at the Edge of the World. He argues that the devastation of the natural world is inextricably linked to the rampant overconsumption of resources in an increasingly successful global economy. The solution, therefore, is to transform the most destructive features of capitalism (such as unbridled corporate power and consumerism’s flawed ideology that one can gain happiness through acquiring material possessions) in order to prevent environmental disaster.

A former White House advisor and founder of the World Resources Institute, a nonprofit environmental think tank, Speth believes that the global economy is increasing at an unsustainable rate. Corporations and wealthy industrialized countries bear much of the blame for resource depletion, and they are continuing to exploit natural resources at a dangerous pace. “The planet cannot sustain capitalism as we know it,” Speth maintains. It’s time to transition into what he terms a “post-growth society.”

There are ways to reform the current capitalist model so that the market both protects and restores the environment. The solution requires multiple approaches, such as market-based incentives and stronger environmental regulations, including government regulation of large corporations. Speth argues that we must do away with market fundamentalist approaches and begin to hold large corporations accountable to society, not just to their shareholders. Calling for more environmentally friendly products is one of the first steps that consumers can take.

“Even at levels of consumption that are high and growing,” Speth writes, “consumers can at least insist on two green things. First, they can shift purchases to products and services where the making and the use of the product are carried out in a more environmentally friendly way. And second, they can insist that provisions be made for the recycling and reuse of consumer products.” Yet, instead of simply being content to follow the current trend of “green consumerism,” people must also reduce the amount that they consume. In other words, not buying paper towels is still a better alternative than switching to a “forest-friendly” brand.

Speth also takes on the mainstream environmental movement in which he has been a leading figure for the past four decades. He argues that it has failed to substantially protect the environment by working within the system, and that a new approach is necessary. In other words, if trying to create change from within the system doesn’t work, then it’s time to change the system. Speth argues that, since corporations dominate the U.S. government as well as its economy, the only possible realistic solution is for the public to take on more responsibility and demand greater corporate accountability. Throughout the book, the environmental movement’s “ultimate insider” asserts that we must mobilize people on the outside, starting at the grassroots level, if any real progress is to be made.

Are these solutions hopelessly idealistic and impossible to achieve? Speth’s passionate argument is convincing— it can be done, but it will require a great deal of effort. Speth sees two possible futures, two paths that humanity can choose to take: the one that we’re currently on, which leads straight into the abyss, and another, which bridges the divide and leads us toward a more sustainable future.