John Clarke examines the weaknesses of individualist environmentalism, arguing that only mass organisation can stop the climate crisis 

Exhortations to adopt the ‘Three Rs’ and ‘Reduce, Reuse and Recycle’ have become emblematic of an individualised response to environmental challenges. With such an approach, it is assumed that the sensible personal lifestyles that may be adopted by consumers can take us towards sustainability, without bothering too much about how production is organised or the social and economic system under which we live. 

Without sneering at anyone’s personal efforts, it is clear that the goal of a sustainable relationship with the natural world can’t simply be addressed at that level. We have to understand and challenge the destructive and wasteful activity that distinguishes the capitalist system, if we are to address the environmental crises that are coming down on us. 

Recently, the specific question of how recycling efforts are being pursued globally has come under scrutiny. An article in the Guardian on 16 May looked at a report that had been issued by the Circle Economy think tank. This found that recycling rates have declined for eight years in a row and ‘only 6.9% of the 106bn tonnes of materials used annually by the global economy came from recycled sources, a 2.2 percentage point drop since 2015.’ 

The report also concluded that ‘although some companies are increasing the amount of recycled material they use, the majority ignore the issue with no apparent penalties.’ At the same time, however, ‘even if all recyclable goods were recycled, which is unlikely as many goods are simply too difficult or costly to recycle, global recycling rates would only reach 25%, meaning that consumption must be slashed in order to tackle a growing global waste crisis.’ 

The growth in the consumption of materials has indeed been dramatic, with the global extraction of raw materials [having] more than tripled in the past half century, recently reaching 100bn tonnes a year…The global per capita consumption grew from 8.4 tonnes in 1970 to 12.2 tonnes in 2020, but this increase has not been evenly distributed, with citizens of higher-income countries consuming six times as much as those from lower-income countries – 24 tonnes compared with 4 tonnes.’  

I would add that, even within the higher-income countries, consumption is greatly uneven. 

Circular economy 

The report ‘calls for the establishment of global circular economy targets to lower material use and energy demand alongside increasing recycling rates.’ These objectives, it suggests, could be achieved through ‘the right policy environment and government action that phases out wasteful practices and promotes and supports smarter ways of meeting people’s needs.’ 

The concept of a ‘circular economy’ is described by Circle Economy as ‘an economic system where waste is designed out, everything is used at its highest possible value for as long as possible and natural systems are regenerated. The concept of circularity closely mimics nature, where there is no waste: all materials have value and are used to sustain life in a myriad of ways. If we effectively deploy these strategies, we will ultimately require fewer materials to provide for similar societal needs.’ 

Such a proposal for a sustainable society has much validity to it but there is one vital consideration that is missing. A system based on the generation of profit and an unending round of accumulation is at odds with such an approach. Circle Economy can propose rational and necessary solutions but, for them to be put into effect, the controlling power of environmentally destructive companies and the governments that enable them has to be challenged and defeated. The above-mentioned report is but one indication of how vital and pressing this task is. 

A statement issued by Earth Day in 2023 notes that ‘plastic consumption has quadrupled in the past 30 years and is expected to triple in the next 30. Meanwhile, global plastic recycling rates have failed to reach two digits. Less than 10% of all the plastic ever produced has been recycled.’  

Earth Day stresses that there is an important role for recycling efforts in working for a sustainable society. It argues that there are other materials that can be more readily recycled that could often be used in place of plastics. However, it suggests that fossil fuel companies have simply used the promise of recycling as way of covering their tracks and avoiding efforts to control their activities.  

The statement notes that ‘Big Oil was aware that recycling was not a realistic solution back in 1974, when an industry insider revealed there was no economically viable way to recycle most plastics.’ It supports ‘the Global Plastics Treaty petition to call on the United Nations and governments around the world to commit to a 60% reduction of all fossil fuel-based plastic production by 2040.’ 

Last year, Earth Day also drew attention to the fact that ‘over two billion metric tons of unsustainable, human-generated waste are thrown away globally every year, entering our environment and polluting every ecosystem around the world. If we continue practicing waste management strategies as we do today, the total waste generation for 2050 is projected to be around 3.78 billion metric tons, representing a 1.66 billion metric ton increase in waste since 2020.’  

Both the production and the impacts of this vast production of waste material are unevenly distributed, under the imperialist global order. Sedat Gündoğdu, a plastics pollution researcher in Turkey, has argued that ‘some of the top waste producers in Europe, like the UK, France and Germany have to find ways to deal with this issue. And the way they’ve found is exporting to poorer countries without effective waste management systems or environmental legislation and regulations. This is waste colonialism.’ 

Environmental denialism 

This utterly unsustainable level of waste production is impacting the planet at the same time as the climate crisis is spinning out of control. On both fronts, major companies and governments are responding by abandoning pretences and embracing environmental denialism. In this regard, the Trump administration is leading the way. 

Writing for Counterfire in March, I looked at how the Trump administration had declared an ‘energy emergency’ and was proceeding to replace greenwashing strategies with an unabashed assault on environmental protections. This will certainly include a far more relaxed approach to the dumping of toxic waste materials.  

According to Fast Company, a number of major utility companies lobbied Trump’s soon to be administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Lee Zeldin, earlier this year. They wanted him to reverse what they described as ‘the unprecedented expansion of the federal regulation of coal combustion residuals (‘CCR’).’ This ‘is known more colloquially as coal ash—a toxic mixture of heavy metals like arsenic and mercury, which, because coal plants are usually built near bodies of water, often comes in contact with groundwater when it is buried in an unlined pit.’ 

Obligingly, Zeldin has turned over much of the authority around dealing with coal ash to individual states and greatly weakened remaining federal regulations. He grandly described this gutting of environmental protections as “the greatest day of deregulation our nation has seen.”  

Far from such a dangerous relaxing of protective measures, the need for them to be greatly increased and actually enforced is abundantly clear. On 20 May, the Guardian reported that ‘Colorado oil and gas companies have pumped at least 30m lbs of secret chemicals into the ground over the past 18 months without making legally required disclosures, according to a new analysis.’ Moreover, this has taken place ‘in spite of first-in-the-nation rules requiring operators and their suppliers to list all chemicals used in drilling and extraction, while also banning any use of Pfas ‘forever chemicals’ at oil and gas sites.’  

The state law took effect in July of 2023 but, as of 1 May of this year, 60% of the 1,114 fracking sites across the state had not filed the information the law demanded. Chevron, ’the world’s third-biggest fossil-fuel company by market cap,’ is responsible for more than half of the non-compliant wells. If that is how things stand under relatively stringent scrutiny, we can only imagine what impact the overt enabling role of the Trump administration will have. Undoubtedly, it will greatly compound the process of environmental degradation. 

With this disastrous approach in full swing, notions of lobbying or ‘educating’ those in power have become more futile than ever. Mass action is the only force that can restrain the intensifying assault on the environment and socialist alternatives to the present catastrophic course are essential.