A central element in the destruction of the Earth’s ecosystems is the production of massive amounts of waste. Some of this waste, like paper, is biodegradable if properly disposed of, but much — like plastics — require more complex methods of environmentally-sound disposal.
Regardless, waste material today piles up not only in landfills, but in oceans, fresh water habitats and our own communities. With no real centralized or large-scale plan to deal with the growing amount of waste, and with more and more being produced all the time, the problem worsens. Improper disposal of nondegradable waste, such as mass burning or casting into the sea, further destroys the environment.
The issue of waste management has received a lot of attention in the past several decades as global production lines have churned out commodities on a massive scale, and the environment has suffered.
One well-known response is the “Reduce-Reuse-Recycle” campaign. Its mantra is to “reduce” the amount of things you use in order to produce less trash, “reuse” what you can to avoid throwing it away, and to “recycle” through certain collection methods what you cannot reuse.
True environmentalists have promoted this campaign, encouraging people to be more conscious and actively participate in preserving the planet.
But the campaign also has been promoted by pro-corporate forces. That includes “environmental leaders” like Al Gore, whose championing of personal responsibility takes away attention from the culpability of political and corporate elites. Even corporate polluters try to improve their image with “go green” marketing campaigns and donations to politically moderate environmental groups.
Of course, anything to help curb environmental destruction is a good thing. Being conscious about the impact of our individual actions is part of building political consciousness, respect for the planet and a movement for an environmentally sustainable economic system.
But in terms of actually saving the environment from massive waste, this campaign is like putting a band-aid on a severed limb.
In the United States — let alone in much of the developing world — many communities do not have access to recycling centers or curbside collection.
But even if these were accessible to all, recycling puts the onus of responsibility on the consumer. The capitalist mode of production — based only on ever-increasing profit — ultimately creates the problem of waste, but the consumers are left to clean up the mess.
Real change comes from controlling production, not consumption habits. For instance, driving hybrid cars may “reduce” the use of pollutant-emitting fossil fuels. But if these cars are too expensive to be widely purchased, the technological breakthrough is underutilized. Moreover, big auto producers can continue to flood the market with gas-guzzling vehicles, using cheaper and antiquated technology. They use their vast economic power to stifle even modest attempts at reform.
Mass public transit systems, which could dramatically reduce the country’s reliance on personal vehicles — not to mention traffic — have been underfunded or not pursued because they would get in the way of huge private profits.
Capitalism creates completely unnecessary new forms of waste all the time.
Take, for example, the selling of water in plastic bottles, which has increased dramatically in the last 20 years. The whole industry is built around new packaging.
Millions of working people began purchasing bottled water not because they needed access to drinking water, but simply because they bought into a market and demand created by the capitalists. As a result, the volume of plastic damaging the environment exploded, and private water bottling corporations made billions.
A more rational system would instead prioritize the improvement of clean tap water and minimize distribution of goods with plastic packaging.
Most capitalists will only take up environmental measures if they can increase their profits, and the few who run “environmentally friendly” businesses out of sincere concern for the planet will lose business to ruthless competitors. Investors, who care only about the bottom line, would pull out their capital and take it elsewhere.
Under socialism, a centralized plan for production would be developed in the interests of the people and the planet, and the “Reduce-Reuse-Recycle” system could be a true mass initiative led by workers themselves.
If workers — the vast majority of people — controlled the means of production instead of the billionaires, then we could make a real difference. Society would finally be in a position to decide what products and waste will flow from factories and mines, and how to implement a real plan for reducing, reusing and recycling.
Grassroots efforts to clean up communities, beaches and parks can help build collective organization and consciousness. But the corporate giants will continue to bury us in plastic bottles and other unnecessary trash to clean up. We need more than individual initiative; we need collective political struggle.
