When one thinks about billionaires, one immediately has images of a lavish lifestyle including private jets, exotic food exclusively imported from far countries, and tons of luxurious clothes. A way of living that is undoubtedly polluting: the top 10% emits 50% of CO2 emissions in the world. Lucas Chancel, an economist, adds that the “main share of the top 1% of the population comes from their investments rather than from their consumption” (p.8, All quotes are freely translated from French, unless stated otherwise). No one would mention climate actions as billionaires’ persona.
Yet, many rich entrepreneurs do invest in climate actions! Edouard Morena, Conference Lead at the University of London Institute in Paris, published this year a book “Fin du monde et petits fours: Les ultra-riches face à la crise” at La Découverte editions, where he analyses the rationale behind the billionaires’ engagement, how they invest in climate actions and influence the debate, and at what cost for all of us.
First of all, the richest among the rich are impacted by the climate crisis. They came to realise what it meant for their lifestyle, but especially for their investments. To it, they respond in two different ways: 1) survivalist mode, building luxurious bunkers, 2) influencing the climate debate to act against the climate crisis, but in a way that profits them ultimately.
As Edouard Morena puts it, a new set of people travel the world to tell leaders how to fight climate change referred to as “climate glitteri”. Their argument is to move from a fossil fuel-based capitalism to a green capitalism that mitigate climate risks and thrive economic profits. This elite often comes from the tech Silicon Valley-kind of world and imposes technocentric solutions as Al Gore expressed it: “technoscience and capitalism (…) can solve the climate crisis” (p.27) while sitting at Apple’s Board.
Another important aspect of green capitalism is financial. The richest among the rich massively invest, and climate change puts their revenue at risk. Financing low-carbon technology buys a new and positive image of finance whose image was impacted by the 2008 crisis, through the concept of sustainable finance. The discourse is pretty simple: capitalism caused the climate crisis, but it can solve it too, we just need to restore it. With it, they legitimise their existence and the system that enriched them without questioning concepts of richness accumulation or power relations.
How does this discourse spread? Billionaires use the symbol of tech ambitious entrepreneurs perceived as heroic that will address the climate audience at environmental conferences and negotiations. A good example is Jeff Bezos, who after a trip to space, said he noticed the beauty of our planet and why we should save it without questioning the carbon emissions of the rocket that brought him to space!
Green capitalism translates into, for instance, sustainable finance, and lands buying for their carbon sinks, actions that hide the less glamorous issues surrounding the elites’ lifestyle. A common speech is “I can continue polluting by making several trips with my private jet because I compensate it with the lands I bought”. And when criticised, they divert it with overpopulation. As it has been studied, compensating will never cover for excessively polluting actions, this would come to say that eating a big chocolate cake is ok from a nutritious perspective because we ate an apple!
McKinsey has been a key player in spreading the green capitalism discourse. They have advised the biggest polluters and States. They reinforce it through publications and conferences to shape the government’s decisions, which turns this consulting firm into an opinion leader. They also approached NGOs, and former employees founded or worked for their climate foundations aligned with the discourse.
“McKinsey contributed (…) to direct the debate and to promote a technocentric vision, falsely apolitical of the climate issue; a vision that shines a light on private sector actors, discredit State intervention (…) and voluntarily ignore questions of justice and reparation”
(p.100)
Another significant aspect of the green capitalism discourse spread by elites is communication to convince the media, the scientists, and climate activists. Communication experts use strategies that tobacco, and fossil fuel industries had used to counter criticisms in the 1960s. They put the responsibilities of negotiation failures on the shoulders of whoever dared to question green capitalism, climate-sceptics or climate activists. The idea is to sell simplistic solutions proposed by billionaires rather than to present facts. They close the debate with the notion of “emergency”, creating a sacred union that cannot suffer any criticism. Finally, foundations take this vision and apply it to the organisations they fund.
The elite’s discourse is not benevolent. First, the compensation discourse gives a good image of the richest and counters any attempts to change the system. Second, the State implements the solutions and gives tax reduction and favourable credits that will not then be invested in public services. Elites want the State to guarantee their investments in case of losses, and not to share it in case of benefits. As Morena stated it, it is “a hegemonic project focused on technoslutionism, market mechanisms and put the responsibility of risks and costs of the transition on collectivities; a project that gives a positive image and celebrates rich entrepreneurs (…) that put their interests of class before any other and the planet” (p.151).
How to bring democracy into the debate? Edouard Morena provides some answers during a conference at Alternatiba Léman: disobedience to break with the mainstream agenda, alternative fora, independent journalism to discuss different transition models.
Edouard Morena’s book did make me realise how the climate debate is shaped. In my other blog CSRinfluencers, I analyse concepts of CSR and sustainable businesses. I thought that shaping the climate debate through the economic prism was a way to embark the private sector which would otherwise not be interested or cared about it. Though I find the topic very interesting, I am also aware that CSR is a transitioning program to a completely sustainable business model or even a new societal organisation, and should be considered as such by CSR experts and professionals. One must have the naivety of thinking they can change companies thanks to CSR as well as the sarcasm to know it will hardly happen, but it is worth a try. Economics can be changed to something different. It is the only science that sets the rules and expects the world to function accordingly, when, for instance, biology observes nature and the human body and then explains the rules.
My last points are a criticism of Morena’s book. First is the lack of explanation on how the State bears the risks of the elites’ investments. Credits and tax reduction are mentioned, but not detailed. Finally, questioning the “emergency” as built by the elites to close the debate can be far-reaching for me, as I feel we are in a crisis, hence in an emergency state. Posing for a while to better discuss solutions may be needed, but at what cost for the Planet if, in the meantime, we continue polluting.
Ana
Book: Morena, Edouard, Fin du monde et petits fours : Les ultra-riches face à la crise climatique, éditions de La Découverte, 2023.
A Semaphore 