Conservatives deny climate change because they recognize the anticapitalist implications
You can't accept climate change as real without acknowledging the need for strong environmental regulations
For the last five years of my eight-and-a-half years as a Salon Magazine staff writer, I focused on covering climate change for the science vertical. I repeatedly covered the basic scientific facts behind global warming — namely, that human beings are causing it far more than natural activity. This is because we keep dumping greenhouse gases (any molecule with more than two atoms in it) into the atmosphere. The excess carbon dioxide (CO2), water vapor (H2O), methane (CH4) and various CFCs (also known as fluorocarbons) are all caused by human business enterprise.
In short, you cannot effectively address climate change without imposing strong environmental regulations on the businesses that emit these greenhouse gases. Because conservatives are dogmatically opposed to environmental regulations — in part because they embrace “free market economics” as a quasi-religion, in part because they hate the left-wing bent of the environmentalist movement — they hate the notion of regulating these businesses. For that reason, they therefore either deny that climate change is happening or downplay its effects on our planet.
To be clear, those effects are devastating. If it continues to occur unabated, climate change will raise sea levels, destabilize ocean current systems, and overheat large sections of the planet past the point of habitability. When we aren’t grappling with freakish extreme weather events like wildfires and superstorms, we will be struggling to find enough food to eat or shelter from dangerously fluctuating temperatures.
Even so-called liberals are reluctant to accept the implications of this. That is why the last Democratic president, Joe Biden, did not declare a climate emergency despite ample evidence that he should do so. As University of Massachusetts Amherst economist Dr. Richard Wolff told me for Salon in 2023, "Of course Biden should [declare a climate emergency] since it is so threatening to the whole world. There would be some real leadership to offset the fast-growing global image of a declining U.S. empire and a declining U.S. economy and politics. The emergency could spark real global efforts to reduce fossil fuel usage, pool resources for all the other projects now being started or stopped according to each nation's political economy, relocate production and distribution systems to reduce pollution. The emergency could enable collective efforts achievable probably in no other way." At the same time, Wolff correctly predicted Biden would never "do such a thing," if for no other reason than "his overdone commitment to wars around the world — all of which worsen both climate-focused problems and inflationary problems — suggests his full participation in the projects of those who do not want what [climate activist Greta] Thunberg and so many millions of others want and seek.”
Yet if mainstream liberals have a hot-and-cold relationship with climate science, mainstream conservatives are downright toxic. This is because, on an intuitive level, they appreciate that the most logical conclusion based on this science is the one arrived at by Japanese philosopher Dr. Kohei Saito in his 2024 book “Slow Down: The Degrowth Manifesto.”
He, in turn, was citing the works of Marx.
Marxism is known for socialism, and socialism is often described as the exploitation of the working class. Capitalism has a tendency to increase technologies and promote innovations because of market competition. But Marx thought that once the workers take over power and kick out the capitalists, they can utilize the development of productive forces for the sake of themselves — more wealth, more well-being.
But there is one problem: Sustainability. Because as Marx started to study natural sciences later in the 1850s and 1860s, he came to realize the development of technologies in capitalism actually don't create a condition for emancipation of the working class. Because not only do those technologies control the workers more efficiently, they destabilize the old system of jobs and make more precarious, low skilled jobs. At the same time those technologies exploit from nature more efficiently and create various problems such as exhaustion of the soil, massive deforestation, and the exhaustion of the fuels, and so on.
Marx came to realize that this kind of technology undermines material conditions for sustainable development of human beings. And the central concept for Mark at that time in the sixties is metabolism. He thinks that this metabolic interaction between humans and nature is quite essential for any kind of society, but the problem of capitalism is it really transforms and organizes this entire metabolism between humans and nature for the sake of profit-making. Technologies are also used for this purpose. So technologies are not for the purpose of creating better life, free time and sustainable production, but rather it exploits workers and nature at the same time for the sake of more growth, more profit, and so on.
My point is basically Marx was quite optimistic when he was young in terms of the development of technologies, but later he came to realize actually technologies have more damaging impact on both humans and nature. So he became more critical of that possibility of solving those problems of poverty and ecological problems using technology. That's how the issue of degrowth and eco-socialist ideas came to be central for his ideas.
I’m not pretending to know how to persuade the millions of people who reject the reality of climate change for ideological reasons. Indeed, one of my last articles for Salon Magazine was about people who cannot repair close personal relationships because of disagreements about climate change. Of this much, though, I am certain, and I say it after half-a-decade covering climate change, and receiving a distinguished Metcalf Institute fellowship for my efforts:
When conservatives refuse to recognize that climate change is real, it’s because doing so forces them to recognize that capitalism is real, too.
Back Seat Socialism
Column by Matthew Rozsa who is a professional journalist for more than 13 years. Currently he is writing a book for Beacon Press, "Neurosocialism," which argues that autistic people like the author struggle under capitalism, and explains how neurosocialism - the distinct anticapitalist perspective one develops by living as a neurodiverse individual - can be an important organizing principle for the left.
Twitter (X) @MatthewWRozsa
First, there is a strong correlation between economic freedom and a clean environment:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/cleanest-countries-in-the-world
This shouldn't be surprising. Free markets reward efficiency. Inefficiency is waste and waste is pollution.
Second, most government "solutions" have made the problem worse. Of 1,500 policies to cut emission, only 63 worked:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-02717-7
Here is a list of "no regrets" actions that can be taken to reduce our carbon footprint. Many of them simply end destructive government policies.
• End “emit more elsewhere” policies: Avoid domestic regulations, taxes, or tariffs that simply push energy-intensive production and emissions offshore to less efficient, higher-polluting countries.
• Admit that fossil fuels remain necessary in the near term, and focus on realistic, reliable energy solutions rather than premature reliance on intermittent renewables that may increase emissions or destabilize grids.
• End or reform restrictions on pipelines - the safest and most efficient method to transport oil and natural gas domestically, reducing spill risks associated with rail or truck transport.
• Repeal protectionist shipping laws such as the Merchant Marine Act of 1920, the Passenger Vessel Services Act of 1886, and the Foreign Dredge Act of 1906 to improve logistics efficiency, lower transportation emissions, and reduce costs.
• Allow and facilitate the transport of liquefied natural gas (LNG) by rail to increase supply flexibility and market responsiveness.
• End ethanol and biomass mandates and subsidies that increase food prices, divert arable land, and often lead to higher net emissions.
• Stop subsidizing and permitting construction in flood-prone or environmentally sensitive areas to reduce disaster risk and preserve natural carbon sinks.
• Reform zoning laws and land-use regulations to allow more multi-family and higher-density housing near transit and jobs, reducing urban sprawl and transportation emissions.
• Address highway bottlenecks and improve infrastructure efficiency to reduce traffic congestion, idling emissions, and fuel waste.
• Stop blocking responsible domestic mining and mineral extraction, including critical battery and renewable energy metals, to avoid offshoring environmental damage and emissions.
• Improve forest management practices to reduce wildfire risk, promote carbon sequestration, and maintain ecosystem health.
• End farm subsidies that encourage overproduction, monocultures, and environmentally harmful practices; support sustainable agriculture methods instead.
• Eliminate wasteful and ineffective recycling programs; focus instead on reducing consumption and improving product design for durability and reuse.
• Avoid policies and technologies—like corn-based ethanol, poorly managed biomass power, electric vehicle mandates without clean grid backup, or CAFE standards that incentivized larger SUVs—that have exacerbated environmental problems or economic costs.
• Invest in research and deployment of advanced nuclear power, carbon capture and storage, and grid modernization to provide scalable, reliable, and low-carbon energy options.
• Promote market-based solutions like carbon pricing or tradable emissions credits that incentivize real emission reductions without distorting economic activity.
Human-caused climate change has the air of religious dogma with many scientists, as did lockdowns and the experimental mRNA stuff they demanded we inject ourselves with. In their own way, they are every bit as dogmatic as the crowd that worships the mythical concept of free enterprise.
I no longer believe that human activity is the primary cause of the climate change we are living through. Notice I am not denying the fact that the climate is changing--that would deny the evidence of my own senses--but I am skeptical of the claimed cause of it.
That does not mean, however, I am opposed to environmental protection. Quite the opposite, in fact. One does not need to believe Al Gore was fundamentally correct when he predicted human extinction in ten years some 20 years ago if we didn't reduce greenhouse emissions, which we didn't, in order to demand clean air and water.