A Critical Study of the Green Capitalist Trend of Thought: A Literature Review

After the mid-20th century, as global ecological and environmental problems became increasingly prominent, some scholars believed that there are currently three main theoretical models in the Western world for solving global ecological and environmental problems: “The first is the neoliberal model, which advocates appealing to the self-regulation of capital and the market, for example by creating carbon taxes and ecological taxes; the second is the ecological Marxist or ecological socialist model, which advocates thoroughly changing the capitalist mode of production and way of life; the third is various types in between, which can be roughly grouped together as the green capitalist model.” [1]1 The author refers to three theoretical models for addressing global ecological crises: neoliberal, ecological Marxist/ecological socialist, and green capitalist. Fundamentally, the focus of these three models proposed by Western academia lies in whether addressing global ecological and environmental problems requires limited improvements to capitalism or a thorough, overall transformation. Clearly, the green capitalist model hopes to achieve a reconciliation between ecological and environmental problems and the capitalist system through limited improvements to capitalism. Once proposed, the green capitalist trend of thought received high attention from academia. Academia has conducted critical analyses of the green capitalist trend of thought regarding its historical origins, essential connotations, presuppositions, developmental dilemmas, and future transcendence, producing some research results. This article will provide a literature review of research results from recent years.

20世纪中期以后，随着全球生态环境问题的日益凸显，对于如何解决全球性生态环境问题，有学者认为当今西方世界主要有3种理论模式，“第一种是新自由主义的模式，即主张诉诸资本和市场的自我调节，比如通过创制碳税和生态税等；第二种是生态马克思主义或者生态社会主义的模式，即主张彻底改变资本主义的生产方式和生活方式；第三种则是介于两者之间的诸多类型，可大致归结为绿色资本主义模式”。从根本上说，西方学界提出这3种模式的焦点在于应对全球性生态环境问题是需要资本主义进行局限性的完善还是彻底性的整体变革。显然，绿色资本主义模式寄希望通过资本主义的局限完善实现生态环境问题与资本主义制度的和解。绿色资本主义思潮一经提出，就受到学界的高度关注。学界围绕绿色资本主义思潮的历史缘起、本质内涵、假设前提、发展困境以及未来超越进行了批判性分析，形成了一些研究后成果。本文将对近年来的研究成果进行文献梳理。

I. The Origins and Background of the Green Capitalist Trend of Thought

一、绿色资本主义思潮的缘起背景

After the mid-20th century, with the rapid advancement of industrialization in Western capitalist countries, ecological and environmental problems became increasingly prominent, arousing high concern among people regarding ecological and environmental issues. The concept of sustainable development proposed by Western countries has now been around for over 30 years, but judging from the practice of Western countries, environmental problems have not diminished with the introduction of the concept of sustainable development; the concept of sustainable development within the Western context has had minimal effect. In the view of some Western scholars, this “sustainable development capitalist project is a cognitive error and was doomed to fail from the start. The reason is that maximizing profit margins is inherently contradictory to protecting the planet.” [2]2 The Global Environment Facility (GEF), established in 1991, is a multilateral financial mechanism that provides grants to developing countries for projects addressing biodiversity, climate change, and other environmental issues. In 1991, “the ‘Global Environment Facility’ launched by the World Bank to address environmental degradation within member countries and globally marked the ‘green capitalist’ global environmental plan becoming mainstream.” [3]3 Paul Hawken (b. 1946) is an American environmentalist, entrepreneur, and author. Lester Brown (b. 1934) is an American environmental analyst and founder of the Worldwatch Institute. Frances Cairncross (b. 1944) is a British economist and journalist. During this period, environmental economists represented by Paul Hawken, Lester Brown, Frances Cairncross, and others believed that “green technology, green taxes, ecologically conscious shopping, etc., could ‘combine’ the pursuit of profit with environmental goals.” [4]4 Bill McKibben (b. 1960) is an American environmentalist and author. David Orr (b. 1944) is an American environmental studies scholar. Fritjof Capra (b. 1939) is an Austrian-born American physicist and systems theorist. A green capitalist trend of thought that attempted to coordinate ecology and the environment with economic development within the framework of capitalism emerged. Among them, Paul Hawken published the book *Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution* in 1999. “This book criticized traditional industrial capitalism, arguing that it only recognizes the value of money and commodities as capital, without acknowledging the status of natural capital and human capital, thus neglecting the calculation of natural resources and biological systems, leading to pollution and social injustice. The book attributes these problems solely to the failure to correctly calculate capital, and does not consider them failures of the capitalist system itself. Western scholars have given this book high praise; Bill McKibben considered its appearance a timely rain, David Orr regarded it as a planning guide for the 21st century, and Fritjof Capra saw it as a conceptual milestone on the path to ecological sustainability. Therefore, it proposed developing green capitalism.” [5]5 The Chinese translation of Hawken’s *Natural Capitalism* as *Green Capitalism* reflects the interpretive framing of the work in the Chinese-language context. Taiwanese scholar Wu Xinru directly translated this book into Chinese in 2002 as *Green Capitalism: A Strategy for Creating Economic Win-Win Situations*. In 2007, Paul Hawken’s book *The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability* was translated into Chinese. This book argues that “the key to environmental problems is design, not management; creating a sustainable business model is our only true way out. In this model, enterprises being ‘socially responsible’ is self-driven, consistent with the market principle of profit maximization, rather than being constrained by morality or regulations.” [6]6 John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York, *The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth*, trans. Liu Rensheng and Xiao Feng (Beijing: Commercial Press, 2011), p. 15. These works are considered representative works of green capitalism. In summary, the main social background for the rise of the green capitalist trend of thought is people’s expectation of a coordinated development between the ecological environment and capitalism. It can be seen that, from the perspective of its origins and background, the green capitalist trend of thought has not gone beyond the conceptual background of sustainable development; it is the logical result of over 30 years of social practice under the concept of sustainable development.

20世纪中期以后，随着西方资本主义国家工业化的快速推进，生态环境问题的日益凸显，引起了人们对生态环境问题的高度关切。西方国家提出的可持续发展理念至今30余年，但从西方国家的实践来看，环境问题并没有随着可持续发展理念的提出而日益减少，西方语境下的可持续发展理念功效甚微。在一些西方学者看来，这种“可持续发展的资本主义计划是一种认识错误并且从一开始就注定要失败。原因是利润额最大化与保护地球天生就是矛盾的”。1991年，“世界银行发起的旨在解决成员国内部和全球范围环境退化问题的‘全球环境基金’，标志着‘绿色资本主义’式的全球性环境计划成为主流”。在此期间，以保罗·霍肯、莱斯特·布朗、弗兰西斯·凯恩克洛斯等为代表的环境经济学家认为可以通过“绿色技术、绿色税收、有生态意识的购物等能够把利润追求和环境目标‘结合’起来”。一种试图在资本主义框架内协调生态环境与经济发展的绿色资本主义思潮显现出来。其中，保罗·霍肯在1999年出版了《自然资本主义：创造下一次工业革命》一书。“这本书对于传统的工业资本主义进行了批判，认为它只是将货币和商品的价值认作资本，而没有承认自然资本和人类资本的地位，因此忽略了自然资源和生物系统的计算，导致了污染和社会不公正的产生，此书将这些问题只归结为没有正确的对资本进行计算，而并不认为这些问题是资本主义体系自身的失败。因西方学者对这本书给予高度评价，比尔·麦克基本认为这本书的出现是一场及时雨，大卫·欧尔认为这本书为21世纪提供了规划指南，福瑞桥·卡普拉认为这本书是通过生态永续道路的观念里程碑。因此，它提出要发展绿色资本主义”。台湾学者吴信如2002年直接将这本书翻译成《绿色资本主义：创造经济双赢的策略》。2007年，保罗·霍肯的《商业生态学:可持续发展的宣言》一书被翻译成中文。这本书认为“环境问题的关键是设计而非管理问题，创造一个可持续发展的商业模式才是我们唯一的真正出路。在该模式中，企业‘对社会负责’是自我推动的，与利益最大化的市场原则一致，而非道德或规章约束的”。这些著作被认为是绿色资本主义的代表作。综上所述，绿色资本主义思潮兴起的最主要社会背景是人们对生态环境与资本主义协调发展的期望。可见，从缘起背景上看，绿色资本主义思潮并没有超出可持续发展的理念背景，是可持续发展理念30多年来社会实践的逻辑结果。

II. The Essential Connotations of the Green Capitalist Trend of Thought

二、绿色资本主义思潮的本质内涵

Green capitalism, etymologically, the prefix “green” highlights the expectation of an ecologically sustainable capitalism, while the suffix “capitalism” defines the attribute of ecologically sustainable capitalism. Some scholars believe that the concept of green capitalism blends “green” and “capitalism” together, forming a contradictory term. “‘Green capitalism’ attempts to blend two opposing concepts. ‘Becoming green’ means prioritizing the health of the biosphere, which requires controlling greenhouse gas emissions and protecting biodiversity. Conversely, promoting capitalist development requires driving growth and accumulation, treating labor and the natural environment merely as necessary inputs.” [7]7 Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster, *What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism*, trans. Yang Xiancai (Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2012), p. 7. But from a practical perspective, this contradictory category has nevertheless become an important concept in the policy systems of Western capitalist countries. So what is the essence of this trend of thought? In the view of Paul Hawken and others, green capitalism is “a systematic integration of the business principles of profitability, operability, and sustainability into the theoretical foundation of green capitalism, creating a new generation of industrial development models that balance economic costs and ecological benefits.” [8]8 Pan Jiahua, “Theoretical Foundations of Environmental Economics,” in *Environmental Economics and Policy*, ed. Yao Yuhong (Shanghai: Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Press, 2011), p. 21. Other scholars believe that green capitalism is “the incorporation of green capital, composed of resources, life systems, and ecosystems, and human capital, expressed through human resources, intelligence, culture, and organizational forms, into the logical system of capitalism.” [9]9 Arthur P. J. Mol, *The Environmental State Under Pressure* (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2002), p. 23. From the above definitions of green capitalism, it can be seen that, in fact, these definitions are imbued with the implications of environmental economics, essentially hoping to provide society with an operational model for sustainable economic development within the framework of the capitalist system. So, how should we understand such an operational model for sustainable economic development? Some scholars argue that green capitalism—as a model for sustainable socio-economic development—its essential connotations include at least three aspects: “First, green capitalism believes that economic growth can provide favorable conditions for solving environmental problems. Second, green capitalism proposes that the world’s natural resources can be protected through capitalist market principles. Third, green capitalism is very confident in solving ecological and environmental problems through technological progress.” [10]10 The Jevons paradox, named after the 19th-century British economist William Stanley Jevons, refers to the phenomenon where technological improvements that increase the efficiency of resource use lead to an increase, rather than a decrease, in the total consumption of that resource. That is to say, in the view of adherents of green capitalism, economic growth can promote the resolution of environmental problems. This view ignores the natural resource base of economic growth and overlooks the fact that any resource has quantitative limits within a specific time and space. At the same time, it must be pointed out that there is no necessary relationship between economic growth and the improvement of people’s social welfare levels. This implicitly contains the political implication of the fair distribution of the fruits of social development. Furthermore, adherents of green capitalism believe that market principles can be used to protect the natural environment, essentially attributing the root cause of environmental problems to market failure. Therefore, as long as market mechanisms are perfected, environmental problems can be effectively solved through market-based means. Additionally, adherents of green capitalism believe that technology plays a prominent role in solving environmental problems, and that continuous technological innovation can achieve the resolution of environmental problems. From this, a fundamental definition of the essential connotations of green capitalism can be made: the green capitalist trend of thought is an ideological system that, within the framework of the capitalist system, hopes to achieve a coordinated development of the ecological environment and capitalism through market means and technological innovation.

绿色资本主义，从词源学上看，前缀“绿色”彰显的是对生态可持续的资本主义的期望，后缀“资本主义”界定了生态可持续的资本主义属性。有学者认为绿色资本主义的概念把“绿色”和“资本主义”糅合在一起，构成了一个矛盾性术语。“‘绿色资本主义’是试图把两个相互对立的概念糅合在一起。‘成为绿色的’意味着要优先考虑生物圈的健康，而这就需要控制温室气体的排放和保护生物多样性。相反，促进资本主义的发展，却需要推动增长和积累，仅仅把劳动力和自然环境当作必需的投入”。但从现实来看，这一充满矛盾性的范畴依然成为西方资本主义国家政策体系的重要理念。那么这一思潮的本质到底是什么？在保罗·霍肯等人看来，绿色资本主义是一种将“可获利性、可操作性和可持续性的商业原则系统整合到绿色资本主义的理论基础中，打造新一代兼顾经济成本与生态效益的工业发展模式”。也有学者认为绿色资本主义是“将由资源、生命系统和生态系统所构成的绿色资本和以人力、智力、文化与组织形式表现的人力资本纳人资本主义的逻辑体系”。从上述对绿色资本主义的界定可以看出，实际上，上述的界定充满了环境经济学的意蕴，其实质是希望在资本主义制度框架内向社会提供一种经济永续发展的运作模式。那么，该如何理解这样一种经济永续发展的运作模式呢？有学者认为绿色资本主义———作为社会经济永续发展模式，其本质内涵至少包括3个方面：“首先，绿色资本主义认为经济增长可以为解决环境问题提供有利的条件。其次，绿色资本主义提出可以通过资本主义市场原则来保护世界自然资源。最后，绿色资本主义对于通过技术进步解决生态环境问题非常自信”。也就是说，在绿色资本主义坚持者看来，经济增长能够促进环境问题的解决。这个观点忽视了经济增长的自然资源基础，忽略了特定时空内任何资源都具有量的规定性。同时，需要提出的是经济的增长与民众社会福利水平的提高不存在必然关系。这里面隐含了社会发展成果公正分配的政治意蕴。同时，绿色资本主义坚持者认为市场原则可以用来保护自然环境，其实质是将环境问题的根源归结为市场的失灵，因此，只要完善市场机制，通过市场化手段就能够有效地解决环境问题。此外，绿色资本主义坚持者认为技术在解决环境问题中具有突出功能，只要不断革新技术就能实现环境问题的解决。由此可以对绿色资本主义本质内涵作一个根本性的界定，即绿色资本主义思潮是一种在资本主义制度框架内，寄希望于通过市场手段和技术革新从而实现生态环境与资本主义协调发展的思想体系。

III. The Deep Roots of the Green Capitalist Trend of Thought

三、绿色资本主义思潮的深层根源

On what basis do the advocates of green capitalism confidently believe that, within the framework of the capitalist system, they can rely on market means and technological innovation to achieve the coordinated development of the ecological environment and capitalism? Where does this confidence of theirs come from? As is well known, the essence of philosophical thinking lies in the critique of presuppositions. Therefore, to reflect on the constructive confidence of green capitalists, we need to further inquire into the hypothetical premises on which the green capitalism trend of thought is based. The academic community has considered and studied this issue, holding that the proposal of the green capitalism trend of thought is founded on the following hypothetical premises.

绿色资本主义坚持者何以自信地认为在资本主义制度框架内，寄希望于通过市场手段和技术革新就能实现生态环境与资本主义协调发展？他们这种自信源自哪里？众所周知，哲学思维的本质在于前提批判，因此，要反思绿色资本主者的建构自信，就需要我们进一步去追问绿色资本主义思潮得以提出的假设前提。学界对该问题进行了思考和研究，认为绿色资本主义思潮的提出是建立在以下假设前提之上。

First, adherence to the iron rule of profit maximization. In capitalist society, the pursuit of profit maximization is the ultimate orientation of capitalists in expanding production. This nature of capitalism implies a fundamental contradiction between protecting the earth and capitalist development, i.e., within the capitalist perspective, the contradiction between ecological demands and profit maximization always exists. This also fundamentally demonstrates the anti-ecological nature of the capitalist system. In this context, “profit maximization is the iron rule of capitalism, and this rule overrides all other rules, thus setting the possibilities and scope for ecological reform.” [6]6 John Bellamy Foster, Brett Clark, and Richard York, *The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth*, trans. Liu Rensheng and Xiao Feng (Beijing: Commercial Press, 2011), p. 15. Therefore, with such an iron rule in place, it means that when capitalist countries address ecological and environmental problems, the innovative measures they adopt are necessarily confined within the framework of the capitalist system and cannot break through the fundamental institutions of capitalism to carry out thorough ecological reform.

第一，利润最大化铁规则的遵循。在资本主义社会里，追求利润的最大化是资本家扩大生产的终极指向。资本主义的这一本性使得保护地球与资本主义发展之间隐含了根本性矛盾，即在资本主义视域里，生态诉求与利润最大化之间矛盾始终存在。这也从根本上说明资本主义制度的反生态性。在这样的语境下，“利润最大化是资本主义的铁的规则，这个规则压倒了其他一切规则，这样就为生态改革设定了可能性和范围”。因此，有了这样一个铁的规则，就意味着资本主义国家在应对生态环境问题时，所采取的革新举措必然是限定在资本主义制度框架内，不可能突破资本主义根本性制度进行彻底生态改革。

Second, a serious underestimation of the severity of environmental problems. One important reason why advocates of green capitalism propose solving ecological and environmental problems within the capitalist framework is their belief that the contradiction between the ecological crisis and capitalism has not yet reached the point of qualitative change, and therefore there is no need to break through the overall framework of capitalism to seek solutions to ecological and environmental problems. Current global ecological and environmental problems have become severe enough to affect the healthy survival and sustainable development of humanity, yet “green capitalist theorists generally underestimate the severity, scope, and speed of the global ecological deterioration we face. They imagine that if we use a few incentives here, a few penalties there, plus green taxes and so on, the economy can continue to grow.” [7]7 Fred Magdoff and John Bellamy Foster, *What Every Environmentalist Needs to Know About Capitalism*, trans. Yang Xiancai (Beijing: China Renmin University Press, 2012), p. 7. That is to say, green capitalism holds that the ecological and environmental problems faced by capitalist society have not yet exceeded the scope and amplitude of capitalism’s self-regulation, and therefore there is no need to break through the capitalist framework to construct a completely new institutional system to address current ecological and environmental problems.

第二，严重低估环境问题严峻性。绿色资本主义坚持者之所以提出在资本主义框架内解决生态环境问题，其中一个重要的根源就是他们认为生态危机与资本主义之间的矛盾还没有达到质变的程度，因此没有必要突破资本主义的整体框架去寻求生态环境问题的解决之道。当前全球性生态环境问题已经严重到影响人类健康生存与持续发展，可是“绿色资本主义理论家们普遍低估了我们所面临的全球生态恶化的严重程度、范围和速度。他们想象的是:如果我们在这儿用点儿激励措施，在那儿用点儿惩罚措施，再加上绿色税等，经济就可以继续增长”。这就是说，绿色资本主义认为资本主义社会所面临的生态环境问题还没有超出资本主义自我调控的范围和幅度，因此没有必要突破资本主义的框架去建构一种全新的制度体系来应对当前的生态环境问题。

Third, the wanton exaltation of market-centrism. Currently, in Western countries, due to the influence of neoliberalism, people seem to place greater emphasis on the role of market-centric measures in solving environmental problems. From a market-centric perspective, all environmental problems “can be transformed into studies of utility increases or decreases. The most important issue to be resolved is how to address the market failure caused by externalities and public goods. This means that the fundamental cause of environmental problems is the market’s failure to allocate resources effectively, and to solve this problem, it is necessary to internalize externalities by defining property rights and adopting appropriate economic organizational forms, thereby using market mechanisms to improve resource allocation efficiency and achieve Pareto optimality.” [8]8 Pan Jiahua, “Theoretical Foundations of Environmental Economics,” in *Environmental Economics and Policy*, ed. Yao Yuhong (Shanghai: Shanghai University of Finance and Economics Press, 2011), p. 21. With market-centrism as support, green capitalists seem to feel that there is no problem the market cannot solve. Consequently, when green capitalism addresses environmental problems, it naturally tends to think of countermeasures from a market-centric perspective.

第三，市场中心主义的肆意高扬。当前在西方国家由于新自由主义的影响，人们似乎更加注重市场中心主义的举措在环境问题解决中的作用。从市场中心主义出发，所有的环境问题“都可以转化为对效用增减的研究。其要解决的一个最重要的问题就是如何解决外部性和公共物品导致市场失灵，这意味着环境问题产生的根本原因是市场未能有效地分配资源，而要解决这一问题则需要通过界定产权归属以及恰当的经济组织形式将外部性内部化，从而利用市场机制来提高资源配置效率，达到帕累托最优”。有了市场中心主义作为支撑，绿色资本主义者似乎觉得没有市场解决不了的问题。由此，在绿色资本主义应对环境问题时，自然而然就愿意从市场中心主义的视角进行对策思考。

Fourth, the blind worship of technological omnipotence. Since entering industrial society, the social function of technology has become increasingly prominent, and people have used technology to exert unprecedented pressure on the natural world. Green capitalists, seeing the powerful social function of technology, tend to rely on technological innovation to solve ecological and environmental problems. Supporters of “green capitalism” believe that “the emergence and development of new technologies can improve energy efficiency and resource utilization rates, and can reduce the raw materials needed for production or the amount of waste and harmful emissions produced per unit during the production process.” [9]9 Arthur P. J. Mol, *The Environmental State Under Pressure* (Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2002), p. 23. This view, to a certain extent, reduces environmental problems to technical problems, suggesting that technological change alone can achieve environmental improvement. This view is worth reflecting on. First, the negative effects of technology itself are also an important cause of environmental problems. Second, any technology has its applicable scope and field; once it exceeds that scope, the functions it produces may not necessarily be positive. Finally, there is no necessary connection between technological change and the resolution of environmental problems. In this regard, the Jevons paradox [10]10 The Jevons paradox, named after the 19th-century British economist William Stanley Jevons, refers to the phenomenon where technological improvements that increase the efficiency of resource use lead to an increase, rather than a decrease, in the total consumption of that resource. is the best illustration.

第四，技术万能主义的盲目崇拜。自进入工业社会以后，技术的社会功能日益彰显出来，人们凭借技术对自然界施加了前所未有的压力。绿色资本主义者正是看到技术强大的社会功能，倾向于借助技术革新来解决生态环境问题。“绿色资本主义”支持者认为“新技术的诞生和发展可以提高能源效率和资源利用率，能够减少生产所需的原材料或者在生产过程中每单位产生的废物和有害排放物的量”。这个观点在一定程度上将环境问题归结为技术问题，只要进行技术变革就能实现环境问题的改变。这个观点是值得反思的，首先，技术本身的负效应也是产生环境问题的重要原因。其次，任何一项技术都有其适用的范围和领域，一旦超过该技术的适用范围，其产生的功能未必就是正向积极功能。最后，技术的变革与环境问题的解决之间不存在必然联系。在这方面，杰文斯悖论就是最好的说明。

Fifth, superstition about active and strong government support. In the view of green capitalists, using market mechanisms and technological change to achieve the coordinated development of the ecological environment and capitalism, and to promote the continuous satisfaction of economic interests, aligns with the needs of government governance under the capitalist political system. Theoretically, such a plan should receive strong government support and active promotion. Within the framework of the capitalist system, no government will dig its own grave, so if a government is willing to promote the development of green capitalism, the measures it adopts will necessarily be top-down reforms, and certainly not a thorough bottom-up smashing of the old state apparatus. Therefore, green capitalism can never break through the existing institutional framework to carry out an ecological practice that transcends the existing government. From a practical perspective, this assumption is clearly untenable. In 2017, the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Agreement fully demonstrates that, in the view of capitalist governments, in order to maintain the continuity of political power and protect the interests of financial conglomerates, the ecological demands of the people are not important.

第五，迷信政府积极的强力支持。在绿色资本主义者看来，借助市场机制和技术变革，实现生态环境与资本主义的协调发展，助推经济利益的不断满足，这符合资本主义政治制度下政府执政的需要。理论上讲，这样一种方案应该得到政府的大力支持和积极推广。而在资本主义制度框架内，任何政府都不会自掘坟墓，所以如果政府愿意推进绿色资本主义的发展，那么所采取的必然是自上而下的改革举措，而绝不是自下而上的彻底的打破旧的国家机器。因此绿色资本主义绝不可能突破现有制度性框架，去进行一种超越现有政府的生态实践。从现实来看，这一假设显然不成立。2017年特朗普政府退出《巴黎协定》，充分说明在资本主义政府的视域里，为了维系政权持续性，保障金融财团的利益，民众的生态诉求并不重要。

IV. The Practical Predicament of the Green Capitalism Trend of Thought

四、绿色资本主义思潮的现实困境

With the above five assumptions in place, green capitalists believe that green capitalism will be the latest form of capitalism in the future. How can the concept of green capitalism be turned into reality? Some scholars have studied the development plans of green capitalism, holding that green capitalists have mainly adopted measures such as “green new deals, green stimulus, and green economies.” [11]11 Wang Yuchen, “A Critique of Green Capitalism,” *Journal of China University of Geosciences (Social Sciences Edition)*, no. 6 (2015), p. 78. However, these plans of green capitalism have not achieved substantial development in reality; on the contrary, they have fallen into a developmental predicament, fully exposing the limitations of green capitalism.

有了上述5种假设，绿色资本主义者相信绿色资本主义将是未来资本主义的最新形态。绿色资本主义理念如何变成现实呢？有学者对绿色资本主义的发展方案进行了研究，认为绿色资本主义者主要采取了“绿色新政、绿色刺激、绿色经济”等举措。然而，绿色资本主义的这些方案在现实并未得到长足发展，相反这些方案陷入发展困境之中，使得绿色资本主义的局限性充分暴露出来。

First, green capitalists cannot resolve the fundamental contradiction between capitalism and the ecological environment. This fundamental contradiction is prominently manifested in the contradiction between capitalists’ unlimited pursuit of profit maximization and the scarcity of natural resources. Within the capitalist system, achieving profit maximization becomes the code of conduct for capitalists. However, any resource is scarce within a specific time and space, which无形中 [invisibly] intensifies the tension and confrontation between the capitalist system and the ecological environment. With the emergence of new changes in today’s capitalist countries, capitalists consider how to maximize expanded reproduction while adapting to the requirements of the new situation. “Because the nature of capital is unlimited accumulation and constant pursuit of growth, the more growth the better, the faster the better, so the capitalist system will certainly ruthlessly crush everything that stands in the way of its expansion.” [12]12 John Bellamy Foster, *The Vulnerable Planet: A Short Economic History of the Environment*, trans. Geng Jianxin and Song Xingwu (Beijing: Commercial Press, 2006), p. 128. In this process, capitalists increasingly tend to increase investment in constant capital and reduce investment in variable capital. As the organic composition of capital rises, the capitalist class’s oppression of the natural ecosystem will only intensify day by day. Therefore, within the capitalist framework, it is undoubtedly a delusion for green capitalists to try to resolve the fundamental contradiction between capitalism and the ecological environment.

第一，绿色资本主义者无法破解资本主义与生态环境之间的根本性矛盾。资本主义与生态环境之间的根本性矛盾突出表现在资本家无限制地追求利益的最大化与自然资源的稀缺性之间的矛盾。在资本主义制度体系内，实现利润的最大化成为资本家的行为准则。然而，任何资源在特定时空内都具有稀缺性，这无形中加剧了资本主义制度与生态环境的紧张对抗。随着当今资本主义国家新变化的出现，资本家考虑的是如何在顺应新形势的要求下，能够最大限度地实现扩大再生产。“由于资本的特质是无限积累和不断地追求增长，那么增长越多越好，越快越好，因而资本主义制度肯定会无情地碾压阻碍其扩张道路上的一切东西”。那么，在这个过程中，资本家越来倾向于加大对不变资本的投入，减少对可变资本的投入。伴随着资本有机构成的提高，资本家群体对自然生态系统的压迫只会与日俱进。因此，在资本主义框架内，绿色资本主义者想破解资本主义与生态环境之间的根本性矛盾无疑是一个妄想。

Second, the failure of “market centrism.” From the outbreak of the economic crisis in 2008 to the present, the global economy has remained persistently weak, and some Western capitalist countries have not yet fully emerged from the impact of this economic crisis. In this context, attempting to address global ecological and environmental problems through market mechanisms such as “carbon taxes” and “cap-and-trade” can only be a green utopian idea. First, increasing carbon taxes will inevitably affect enterprises’ production costs and their profit maximization. Within the framework of the capitalist system, the political participation function of enterprises is extremely powerful; through personal alliances with the government, they force the government to introduce policies favorable to enterprises. Therefore, objectively speaking, enterprises certainly do not want the government to enact such regulations. In addition, the “cap-and-trade” system for carbon emission rights faces a similarly awkward practical predicament. “Many countries and enterprises try as much as possible not to participate in this plan, and even if they agree to it, they set the emission cap at a relatively high level.”

第二，“市场中心主义”的失灵。2008年爆发经济危机到现在，全球经济持续疲软，西方资本主义国家有的还没有完全走出这次经济危机的影响。在这样的语境下，想通过“碳税”和“总量控制与交易”的市场机制来应对全球性生态环境问题只能是一种绿色乌托邦的想法。首先，增加碳税势必会影响到企业生产成本，影响到企业的利润最大化。在资本主义制度框架内，企业的政治参与功能极其强大，通过与政府的个人联合，迫使政府出台与企业有利的方针政策。所以作为企业，从客观上讲绝不希望政府出台类似这样的法规。另外，对于碳排放权的“总量控制与交易”面临同样的实践尴尬境遇。“很多国家和企业尽可能地不参加这一计划，而即使同意了这一方案，也会把排放上限设定在一个较高的水平”。

Third, the loss of control of “technological omnipotence.” “Green capitalist supporters often treat technological breakthroughs as a creed. Indeed, technological progress brings us many surprises, but green technological miracles cannot save us. The current capitalist system, lacking moral guidance, has already lost control, and no amount of green patching can help.” Entering the 21st century, humanity has achieved rapid and remarkable progress in technological development, but this has not changed the severity of the world’s environmental problems. People use new technologies in an attempt to solve the negative environmental effects brought about by old technologies, but they find that while new technologies solve the negative environmental effects of old technologies, they also bring new negative environmental effects, thereby constantly exposing people to the risk of technological alienation.

第三，“技术万能主义”的失控。“绿色资本主义支持者们经常把技术突破当作一种信条。的确，技术进步会给我们带来很多惊喜，但绿色技术奇迹不能拯救我们。当前缺乏道德指引的资本主义制度已经失去控制，再多的绿色修补也无济于事”。进入21世纪，人类在技术发展方面取得了日新月异的成就，但这并没有改变当今世界环境问题的严峻程度。人们利用新技术试图解决旧技术带来的环境负效应，但是人们发现新技术在解决旧技术环境负效应的同时又给人们带来的新的环境负效应，从而使人们不断面临技术异化的风险。

Fourth, the interference of ecological imperialism in government governance. Since the beginning of the 21st century, ecological imperialism has had an increasing impact on government ecological governance. First, the imperial mode of living implicit in ecological imperialism has become deeply entrenched in Western countries, and it is unrealistic for governments to try to change people’s lifestyles of excessive and wasteful consumption in the short term. Second, the development philosophy of ecological imperialism has become deeply ingrained in some Western countries, and wantonly trampling on the development rights and interests of other countries is no longer a novelty. Third, government governance under the influence of ecological imperialism first considers seeking the greatest possible support from financial conglomerates. In the contemporary West, “as a rational political actor, the government’s primary goal must be to seek maximum political support. When the government finds that these plans and actions may have negative impacts on it, it will continue to advance along the path of lax fossil fuel policies.” It can be seen that within the framework of the capitalist political system, what the government cares about most is not ecological governance, but how to win the stability of its political power. Therefore, once ecological governance conflicts with the stability of government power, the government will abandon its concern for ecological governance.

第四，生态帝国主义对政府治理的干扰。进入21世纪以来，生态帝国主义对政府的生态治理影响越来越大。首先，生态帝国主义所隐含的帝国式生活方式已经在西方国家根深蒂固，政府试图改变人们过度消费、奢靡消费的生活方式在短期内是不现实的。其次，生态帝国主义的发展理念已经在一些西方国家深入人心，肆意践踏其他国家的发展权益已经不是新鲜之事。再次，生态帝国主义影响下的政府治理最先考虑的是寻找最大程度的金融财团的支持。在当代西方，“作为一个理性的政治行为体的政府，其首要目标必定是寻求最大化的政治支持，当政府发现这些计划和行动可能对其所产生的负面影响时，便会继续在宽松的化石燃料政策上前进”。由此可见，在资本主义政治制度框架内容，政府最关心的并不是生态治理，而是如何赢得政权的稳定性。所以当生态治理与政府政权稳定一旦发生矛盾，政府会放弃对生态治理的关切。

V. The Future Transcendence of the Green Capitalist Trend of Thought

五、绿色资本主义思潮的未来超越

The above-mentioned dilemmas of green capitalism will severely constrain the practical effectiveness of green capitalism. How can the defects of the green capitalist trend of thought be transcended? Are there any alternatives that can replace green capitalism? Scholars at home and abroad have also engaged in forward-looking thinking on this. Some scholars point out that “it will be selective, allowing some people to obtain more income and enjoy a higher standard of living, while simultaneously excluding other people and regions, and even destroying the material basis of life for the latter… This limited greening of the capitalist mode of production, mode of development, and mode of regulation is almost inevitably exclusionary — not only can it not prevent or eliminate destruction, but it will imply the reproduction of structures (relations) of deprivation and domination.” Therefore, the transcendence of green capitalism is by no means a matter of a single level; it should be a system. Some scholars point out that transcending green capitalism requires “politics of reducing energy consumption, mass movements seeking an ecological society, and breaking the deadlock on the world stage.” Other scholars point out that “transcendence under the dominance of the green capitalist order and discourse will be fraught with difficulties. Besides the power of the capitalist economy and its operational logic itself, what most deserves our deep consideration is how to create a global green left or new left unity.” In recent years, the socialist ecological transformation thought emerging in Europe, the buen vivir (good living), degrowth and other post-development thoughts emerging in Latin America, the radical ecological autonomy emerging in India, and the socialist ecological civilization thought emerging in China are all transcendences of green capitalism. As far as contemporary China’s ecological civilization construction is concerned, the socialist ecological civilization thought proposed by Xi Jinping is to “make a Beautiful China one of the core goals of the second centenary struggle, and from the four levels of green development, environmental governance, ecological protection, and institutional supervision, actively construct a new pattern of harmonious coexistence between humanity and nature,” taking the unity of social fairness and justice with ecological sustainability as an important value orientation of ecological civilization construction, effectively demonstrating the internal unity of socialist attributes and ecological attributes. This is a practical transcendence of green capitalism, which is “neither just nor ecological.”

绿色资本主义的上述困境，将会严重制约绿色资本主义的实践效果。如何超越绿色资本主义思潮的缺陷？有没有一些能替代绿色资本主义的方案呢？国内外的学者对此也进行了前瞻性思考。有学者指出“将是选择性的，允许某些人获得更多的收入和享受更高的生活水准，但同时却排斥其他人和地区，甚至破坏后者的物质生活基础……资本主义生产方式、发展方式和规制方式的这种有限绿化，几乎必然是排斥性的———不仅不可能阻止或消除破坏，而且会意味着剥夺与统治结构（关系）的再生产”。因此对绿色资本主义的超越绝不是一个层面的问题，应该是一个体系。有学者指出，超越绿色资本主义需要“减少能源消费的政治、寻求生态社会的大众运动、打破世界舞台上的僵局”。也有学者指出“绿色资本主义秩序与话语主导下的超越会是困难重重的。除了资本主义经济及其运行逻辑本身力量的强大，最值得我们深入思考的是，如何造就一种全球性的绿色左翼或新左翼团结”。近年来，在欧洲出现的社会主义生态转型思想、在拉美地区出现的好生活、去增长等超越发展思想、在印度出现的激进生态自治、在中国出现的社会主义生态文明思想都是对绿色资本主义的超越。就当代中国生态文明建设而言，习近平提出的社会主义生态文明思想就是“将美丽中国作为第二个百年奋斗的核心目标之一，并从绿色发展、环境治理、生态保护和体制监管四个层面，积极构建人与自然和谐共生的新格局”，把社会公平正义与生态可持续的统一作为生态文明建设的重要价值取向，有效彰显了社会主义属性与生态属性的内在统一，是对绿色资本主义“既不公正、又不生态”的实践超越。

VI. Conclusion

六、总 结

The green capitalist trend of thought is a development concept that vainly attempts, within the framework of the capitalist system, to achieve coordinated development between the ecological environment and capitalism by means of market mechanisms and technological innovation. The emergence of green capitalism has a profound social background. Since green capitalism was proposed, it has had a considerable impact in Western countries. However, from a practical perspective, green capitalism cannot resolve the fundamental contradiction between capitalism and the ecological environment, nor can it resolve the dilemmas of market failure, technological loss of control, and governance ineffectiveness. Therefore, green capitalism cannot save the historical destiny of capital. The transcendence of green capitalism has become a highly concerned aspect of current academic circles. Of course, in analyzing the green capitalist trend of thought, one should also recognize the positive role of market mechanisms, technological innovation, and government governance in building an ecological civilization. Thus, in the process of building a socialist ecological civilization, it is necessary both to see clearly the false essence and historical limitations of green capitalism and, at the same time, to critically draw on its reasonable elements, thereby advancing the construction of socialist ecological civilization.

绿色资本主义思潮是一种妄图在资本主义制度框架内，借助市场机制和技术革新实现生态环境与资本主义的协调发展的发展观念。绿色资本主义的出现有着深刻的社会背景，自绿色资本主义提出之后，在西方国家产生了较大影响。但是从现实来看，绿色资本主义无法破解资本主义与生态环境之间存在的根本性矛盾，无法破解市场失灵、技术失控、治理失效的困境。因此，绿色资本主义挽救不了资本的历史命运。对绿色资本主义的超越成为当前学界高度关注的方面。当然，对绿色资本主义思潮的分析，还应该看到市场机制、技术革新、政府治理在构建生态文明中的积极作用。因而，在建设社会主义生态文明的过程中，既要看清楚绿色资本主义的虚假本质与历史局限，同时也可以批判地借鉴其合理的成分，从而推进社会主义生态文明建设。

Online Editor: Zhang Jian

网络编辑：张剑