The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPaul Craig Roberts Archive
The Social Costs of Capitalism Are Destroying Earth’s Ability to Support Life
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

I admire David Ray Griffin for his wide-ranging intelligence, his research skills, and for his courage. Dr. Griffin is not afraid to take on the controversial topics. He gave us ten books on 9/11, and anyone who has read half of one of them knows that the official story is a lie.

Now Griffin has taken on global warming and the CO2 crisis. His book has just been published by Clarity Press, a publisher that seeks out truth-telling authors. Griffin’s book is a hefty 424 pages plus 77 pages of footnotes documenting the information that he presents. Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survive The CO2 Crisis? is no screed. The book is a carefully researched document.

Readers often ask me to write about global warming, chemtrails, vaccines, and other subjects beyond my competence. However, I can see that Griffin has made a huge investment in researching climate change. His book provides a thorough account under one cover.

Griffin concludes that civilization itself is at stake. His evaluation of the evidence is that humans have about three decades to get CO2 emissions under control, and he sees hope in the agreement between Obama and Chinese president Xi Jinping that was announced on November 11, 2014.

Griffin argues that instead of rushing to their own destruction like lemmings, the human race must accept the moral challenge of abolishing the fossil-fuel economy. He makes the case that clean energy permits most of modern society’s way of life to continue without the threat posed by ever rising emissions.

Nuclear energy is not among clean energy sources–just look at the ongoing radiation pollution from Fukushima. Griffin is correct in the way he has framed the issue. It is a moral challenge.

Clearly the climate is changing, whether caused by CO2 emissions or some other cause. Every day brings more reports of perils associated with climate change. See for example:

The planet is being polluted with many forms of wastes:

Our foods are also polluted. On one hand our food is polluted with herbicides and on the other hand by antibiotics. And then we have hormones and pesticides. The World Health Organization has concluded that the glyphosate in Monsanto’s Roundup, a herbicide widely sprayed on GMO food crops, is a likely causes of cancer in humans and animals.

Glyphosate, which is also believed to be exterminating honey bees and Monarch butterflies, is now present in 75 percent of air and rain samples. Some time ago I reported on a microbiologist who wrote to the US Secretary of Agriculture about extensive findings by independent scientists that glyphosate has serious adverse effects on animal life and on animal and human fertility and on the ability of soil to produce nutrition in food crops. The scientist pointed out that the US government’s clearance of glyphosate rested entirely on the industry’s own studies of its safety and that these “studies” are not substantiated by independent scientists. He pointed out that not only are the studies done by scientists employed by Monsanto, but also many agricultural science university faculties are dependent on research funds from the chemical industry and thereby do not have an independent voice.

Martha Rosenberg writing in CounterPunch reports that 70 percent of all antibiotics are fed to livestock because it produces weight gain and saves money on feed costs. Ninety-three percent of doctors are concerned about the meat industry’s excessive use of antibiotics, and independent scientists have definite evidence that the growing resistance of bacteria to antibiotics is due to the use of antibiotics as animal feed.

Scientists at the University of Iowa found Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus in 70 percent of farmed hogs. A Consumer Reports investigation found that US meat, regardless of the meat’s source, is full of “pathogens, commensals, and antibiotic resistant bacteria.” Pork tested contained five resistant bacteria strains.

The Food and Drug Administration, severely weakened by Republicans, cannot stand up to Big Meat. Rosenberg reports that “when the FDA tried in 2008 to ban farm use of cephalosporins (antibiotics like Cefzil and Keflex) because they are needed for pneumonia, strep throat, and other serious human conditions, the egg, chicken, turkey, milk, pork, and cattle industries and the animal Health Institute stormed Capital Hill.”

Congress responded to the campaign donations, not to the health and safety of the American people. The Animal Health Institute consists of the drug companies who make profits selling 70 percent of their production to meat, egg, and milk producers. The members of the “health” institute are Abbott, Bayer Healthcare, Elanco/Lilly, Merck, Boehringer, Ingelheim Vetmedica, Novartis, etc.

In other words profits come far ahead of public health. As the drug companies have more or less stopped the development of new antibiotics, the protection antibiotics provide against infections is rapidly fading.

The horror goes on. During a time of severe drought in the western US, with California reportedly left with one year’s supply of water, the fossil-fuel fracking industry is polluting the remaining surface and ground water.

All of these activities–use of antibiotics as animal feed, use of GMO herbicides, fracking–are profitable because they impose huge external costs on the environment and on third parties who are not participants in the profits gleaned by externalizing the costs of production. And this brings us back to Griffin’s important book.


Griffin makes the point that the external cost imposed on the climate by fossil-fuel use is the source of the life-threatening crisis that humanity confronts. Capitalists make money by exploiting labor and by externalizing the costs of the wastes produced by the productive process by imposing the wastes on the environment. It is the short-term time horizon of production organized by selfish private interests focused on quarterly profits that is destroying the livability of the earth.

Almost every economist on earth will rise up in opposition to that true statement, because they are brainwashed in the neoliberal ideology that masquerades as economic science, but in fact is nothing but an apology for capitalist exploitation of labor and the earth.

I happened to be one of Ronald Coase’s graduate students the year he published his famous article on “The Problem of Social Cost” (external costs) for which, together with his article, “The Theory of the Firm,” he was awarded the Nobel Prize in Economics. In theory, externalities can be internalized into the process of production so that the producer bears all the costs if all inputs and waste products are subject to property rights. But no one owns the atmosphere, the oceans, the rivers and streams. They remain “common property” and thus are dumping grounds for waste disposal.

Governments, despite pressure from corporations, have realized that pollution is a problem, and governments have imposed some regulation. The regulation raises some costs to corporations, but the regulation is insufficient to halt very much of the externalization of the cost of production. In economic terms, this is the crisis that David Ray Griffin presents to us.

Capitalism’s pursuit of profit is destroying life on earth.

(Republished from by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Economics • Tags: Capitalism 
Hide 14 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Professor Guy McPherson at claims that Gaia has already “bought the farm”: the automatic pilot of Spaceship Earth is set for Venus, some of the passengers are getting nervous, and the mad scientist captain, though he is having trouble disengaging the autopilot, lyingly tells the passengers that “everything is under control”.

    McPherson thinks that we have “sleepwalked over the edge of extinction” a few years ago. “Only love remains” for him and his disciples, as they co-contemplate NTHE (“Near-Term Human Extinction”).

    When people finally wake up, the world will see the greatest religious revival in human history.

  2. Thomas says: • Website

    It’s time for the EPA to step in and regulate the dangerous levels of hysteria that emanate from Dr. Roberts.

  3. Guy McPherson at thinks that we have already gone over the edge of the cliff with regard to a runaway greenhouse effect, and that the coming explosion of methane gas from its hitherto-permafrost-frozen sequestration sites in Siberia will soon doom all of our too-little-too-late efforts.

    For him, “Only love remains”, as he muses upon NTHE (“Near-Term Human Extinction”).

    We must expect a situation akin to that of London in Defoe’s Journal of the Plague Year, in which he spoke of “the sinful orgies of the wicked, the quiet faith of the pius.”

  4. Ed says:

    I thought of McPherson too when reading this. McPherson’s argument essentially is that there is an average temperature for Earth where humans can not live, the human body breaks down. He thinks we will reach that when positive feedbacks to the current relatively small average global temperature increase kick in, particularly the methane bomb. I think his first argument is probably correct, but (hopefully) not the second, as we have not been in this situation before and there might be negative feedback processes that are not being put into the models.

    However, we are shaping a quite nasty future with much of the current flora and fauna gone. And a population of seven billion humans can only be fed through the industrial processes that are undermining the environment.

  5. David says:

    The thing that characterizes PCR most is self-righteous hate. As soon as he grasps an idea, he sees the evil side and the unjustly oppressed side.

    If someone said Free White Men Rape Women and Oppress Minorities they might sound like the ass who said, “Capitalists make money by exploiting labor and by externalizing the costs of the wastes…”

    To the extent capitalists actually do that, it’s facilitated by the World Citizen mentality that PCR embraces.

    PCR doesn’t know about, or doesn’t see the good in, US industrial agriculture producing 10 to 25 man-years of food per cultivated acre per year. Or perhaps he can’t forgive those cruel cruel capitalists for externalizing their efficiency.

  6. Renoman says:

    I’m afraid the only cure for the situation is to Kill 6 billion people. The trick is to do it while leaving the infrastructure intact. Perhaps Monsanto has this already solved, no doubt we will soon know.

    • Replies: @Jacobite
  7. Realist says:

    “Readers often ask me to write about global warming, chemtrails, vaccines, and other subjects beyond my competence.”

    But you did it anyway, because you’re an idiot.

    • Replies: @Sam Haysom
  8. Realist says:

    It is amazing how PCR brings all these Loony Toons over with his idiotic articles. Most of the responders are rarely on this blog.

  9. Jmaie says:

    “McPherson’s argument essentially is that there is an average temperature for Earth where humans can not live, the human body breaks down.”

    Humans somehow survive, bodies intact, in temps ranging from -20F to +115F.

    • Replies: @Stealth
  10. Stealth says:

    About Guy McPherson:

    I looked this guy (no pun) up. According to him, a temperature rise of a certain amount will end almost all life on Earth, and that temperature rise is imminent and unavoidable. Therefore, humanity will have no food and no hope of survival. He says we are past the point at which reducing greenhouse gas emissions can help because the process has taken a life of its own. There are “feedback loops” that, once started, will begin a chain reaction that cannot be stopped. No need to hope for the best; it’s a done deal. The biosphere is doomed. If you want a preview, please watch that movie The Road

    Depressing? You bet. But the good professor wants you to know all about it,… and he needs your money. You can buy his book on Amazon or make a donation at his website. He seems to spend time arguing with people on the Internet and giving lectures. To me it doesn’t make much sense that someone who believes that our extinction is so close at hand would bother with such things.

    • Replies: @Stealth
  11. Stealth says:

    He also likes to employ a lot of that “white privilege” and “patriarchy” rhetoric.

  12. Capitalism’s pursuit of profit is destroying life on earth

    That’s a bit short. Here, in six short essays, is how European cultural mentality (includes ‘merican ‘good ol boys’) is destroying life on earth:

    With one essay to come. Proud to be a looney-tune out-doing PCR 😉

  13. Jacobite says: • Website

    I actually think this would be a splendid solution. We should have started (notwithstanding American Indians and European diseases) by dropping lots of hydrogen bombs up and down China’s and India’s populous river valleys back in the 50’s and 60’s.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Paul Craig Roberts Comments via RSS