The Value of a Whale: The Case for Green Capitalism and the Sustainable Future of the Global Cosmic Economy (A Tale of Two Faces)

The director of research for the London-based progressive think tank Common Wealth, Buller sees market-based corporate “green” initiatives as distracting at best—and, at worst, actively destructive. The Value of a Whale takes a bracing look at how corporate interests are using the superficial trappings of climate activism to reinforce their own power. As one might imagine, it’s not the most uplifting read in the world. But it’s a galvanizing, tough book, one that asks us to not accept a simulacrum of improvement for the real thing.

The way that I define it is intentional in the book. It addresses a phenomenon we’re seeing in the US and in the UK where the corporate sector and financial firms have realized overt climate denialism and obstruction is not a viable strategy, so they’re slowly transitioning toward trying to shape and control climate policy.

I identify with two core tenets of green capitalism. The first is that it’s an attempt to fix the climate crisis in a way which doesn’t disrupt our current way of organizing the economy and distribution of wealth. The second tenet is pursuing decarbonization in a way that makes sure that there are still opportunities for profit-making and rent extraction in that decarbonized future. The green capitalist framework is more about making sure we transition to electric vehicles when we move away from fossil fuel driven cars so that private companies can keep their profits, compared to moving away from private car ownership to mass transit.

After working in the climate and finance space for several years, I joined a company that helps financial firms align their portfolios with the goals of the Paris Agreement. The experience I just experienced left me cynical about whether that approach will actually change anything. I found crawling inside the heads of people working in finance fascinating because I was able to wrestle with how they understand this problem. That’s what the book tries to do.

By the time she spoke at Davos that January, excoriating the world — “I want you to act as if the house is on fire, because it is” — she had become the face of the global climate movement, giving it an entirely new generational life and scale. She led weekly marches around the globe that drew millions of people, and helped force them to at least pay lip service to a climate crisis.

I was struck by the cumulative impact on my understanding of the crisis through its data, cross-cultural reflections and paths for step-by-step change while reading The Climate Book at a deliberate pace over some weeks.

They explain in many short essays how steps need to be taken without delay if the world is going to have a reasonable chance of limiting global temperature rise as stated in the Paris Agreement. The document aims to keep the temperature rise to below 2 degrees Celsius (and better yet below 1.5 degrees Celsius).

You should not think the rich nations are making real progress towards limiting global warming. In one essay, Kevin Anderson, professor of energy and climate change at the Universities of Manchester, Uppsala and Bergen, puts it this way: “Wealthy nations must eliminate their use of fossils fuels by around 2030 for a likely chance of 1.5C, extending only around 2035 to 2040 for 2C… We are exactly where we are because for the last thirty years we have favored make-believe.

What is Anderson’s definition of make-believe? In her own chapter, journalist Alexandra Urisman Otto describes her investigation into Swedish climate policy, specifically its net zero target for 2045. She discovered a discrepancy between the official number of greenhouse gases emitted each year — 50 million tons — and the real figure, 150 million tons. That lower, official figure leaves out “emissions from consumption and the burning of biomass,” which means the target is way off, she writes. The world would be headed for a 2.5 to 3C increase if all nations were off by that much.

What does it mean by the emissions of consumption and the burning of wood? John Barrett, professor of energy and climate policy at the University of Leeds, and Alice Garvey, sustainability researcher at the same university, explain that “emissions from consumption” means emissions are allocated to the country of the consumer, not the producer. The burden of reducing emissions from consumption would be taken by Sweden because industrial production is often outsourcing in a world with climate justice front and center.

Alice Larkin, professor of climate science and energy policy at the University of Manchester, adds “a highly significant complication” to this disturbing picture: international aviation and shipping aren’t typically accounted for in national emission targets, policies, and carbon budgets, either.

There is an urgent goal in transparency in climate-emission figures. Distribution of climate budgets fairly across countries of the world is something that must be a priority. Policies are not likely to succeed without climate justice. An especially effective subsection of the book, “We are not all in the same boat,” brings this point to life.

Saleemul Huq, director of a Bangladesh international center for Climate Change, says the most devastated communities by climate change are mostly poor people of colour. Huq emphasizes that Bangladeshi citizens shouldn’t be seen as passive victims. The way in which communities prepare for climate disasters is not usually seen in the global north. For example, “An elderly widow living alone will have two children from the high school assigned to go and pick her up” in case of hurricane or other emergency.

What should we do around the world? If we push back on the messages that the industrial and corporate interests are trying to convey, we will allow the worst of the carbon- emissions activities to continue.

Beyond this, it’s not enough “to become vegetarian for one day a week, offset our holiday trips to Thailand or switch our diesel SUV for an electric car,” as Thunberg puts it. It is the greatest example of greenwashing on the planet today, and it is possible that participating in recycling may lead to feel-good moments. Even the 9% of plastic that does get recycled ends up (after one or two cycles) dumped or burned.

She has given up flying. Frequent flying is the most climate-destructive activity you can engage in, she writes in the book. She hopes to convey the need for urgent, collective behavioral change, though she doesn’t have a specific goal for sailing across the Atlantic. She writes “if we don’t see anyone else behaving as if we are in a crisis, then very few will know that we actually are in a crisis.”

Social norms can and do change, Thunberg emphasizes. That is the greatest source of hope, but only if climate justice is at the center of every step.

Barbara J. King and Animals’ Best Friends: Setting Compassion to Work for Animals in Captivity (with a guest article by Bj King)

Barbara J. King is a biological anthropologist emerita at William & Mary. Animals’ Best Friends: Putting Compassion to Work for Animals in Captivity is her seventh book. Find her on Twitter @bjkingape