Examine the criticisms that have been made of both the deep and the shallow ecology approach to climate change
The idea of “green capitalism” supported by shallow ecologists is rejected by radical ecologists for being if anything part of the problem of an ever-warming globe. The idea that capitalism can be a force for good in mitigating climate change through the use of green taxes and pollution permits is rejected for being a mere greenwash. This is because (according to deep greens) market ecologism and the proposition of sustainable development (getting richer slower) is entirely contradictory. Capitalism has been the principal driver in the problem of climate change today, as it is a system fundamentally built on maximising growth and profits at the expense of the exploitation of resources such as the Amazon Rainforest. Consequently, allowing further growth even under the brand of sustainable development is doomed to failure in tackling the climate emergency, since humans will continue to put their lives before animals. Therefore, sustainable development is essentially criticised for being a “weak” form of sustainability coined by shallow ecologists that do not recognise the incompatibility of growth with environmental consideration. This is evident by the fact that the last decade was the warmest on record, demonstrating a more radical approach is required.
Moreover, the approach taken by radical ecologists is criticised for being over-reactionary and unrealistic to the issue at hand. Radicals, such as Sea Shepherds, propose a “stronger” form of sustainability that seeks to trigger a cultural reset, whereby there is bio equality that does not put human interest before the needs of other animals (ecocentrism not anthropocentrism). Such an approach is therefore anti-growth as seeking growth will always damage the environment and challenge this equality. This is outright rejected by moderate ecologists for being far too radical, extreme and alarmist; it is not feasible given the vast amounts of poverty remaining in the global South. And besides governments are concerned with the popularity of their economic policies and thus pursuing expensive and unattractive policies that deny economic growth will only off-put action on climate change. So instead of a revolution, moderate ecologists argue growth at a slower rate using a combination of moderate mitigation and adaptation policies is a proportionate and more realistic response to the issue.
Finally, both radical and shallow ecologists are criticised by climate change sceptics for driving up energy prices and creating fuel poverty. This is because both forms of ecologism advocate for the use of renewable energy such as wind and solar, rather than non-renewable energy such as fossil fuels. Critics of this attempt to change energy sourcing, such as Lord Lawson, argue that this will only seek to push up prices of fuel, thereby have regressive impacts hitting the poorest households hardest. Rising prices will also mean an uncompetitive Europe, as states such as the US continue using up cheaper non-renewables energy reserves improving living standards and becoming ever more economically competitive.
Adam Ouarda