Capital Accumulation, Sustainability and Hamilton, Ontario: How Technology and Capitalism can Misappropriate the Idea of Sustainability

Original URL

Erin Balser

One response to the environmental crisis--to climate change, natural resource depletion, species extinction, deforestation and a myriad of other ecological problems--is the idea of ‘sustainability’. Sustainability is often defined as inter- and intra- generational equity in the social, environmental, economic, moral and political spheres of society (Meadows 7). Ideologically, sustainability is a communal concept. However, in practice, the attempt to engage in sustainable lifestyles and make environmentally conscious decisions has largely fallen to the individual and through technology. As a result, the environmental crisis isolates and ostracizes various populations who cannot afford to become sustainable. By engaging in an analysis of the environmental crisis, the intersection between sustainability and capitalization, I will demonstrate how this intersection between sustainability and capitalism is potentially causing harms to communities, by examining how the emergence of environmental technologies has further oppressed the poor. This phenomenon is occurring globally and locally. The BIOX bio-diesel production plant that was recently built in Hamilton, Ontario demonstrates and its impact on the surrounding community demonstrates this.

Karl Marx developed the idea of capital accumulation in his work Capital. Capital accumulation is the constant conversion of products into means of production (715). Originating in both trade and expropriation, it arises from the constant need to realize surplus value. According to Marx and more recently, Rosa Luxemburg, this cycle perpetuates social inequality and instability. Marx scholars David Harvey declares that “market liberalization- the credo of the liberals and the neo-liberals- will not produce a harmonious state in which everyone will be better off. It will instead produce ever greater levels of social inequality” (144) and “produce serious and growing instabilities cumulating in chronic crises of overaccumulation” (144). This process begins at the point called private accumulation. For Marx, this was the initial divorce of labourers from the means of production (716). It was not the start of capital accumulation, but an external point which mechanized it. Every new market or commodity that capital accumulation subsumes can be traced back to this point of primitive accumulation.

Capitalism is constantly looking for new things to commodify. Either by subsuming not-capital markets or by intensifying internal markets, capitalism thrives on creating, then subsuming the other. Capitalism is constantly expanding, capital accumulating is never-ending. Marx states “a precondition of production based on capital is therefore the production of a constantly widening sphere of circulation, whether the sphere is directly expanded or whether more points within it are created as points of production” (407). Capitalism is not a simplistic linear system in which subsumes singular items. Rather it’s a diverse web that is continuously expanding and trapping things. These crises can vary in size, expression and materialization.

This supposition insinuates the notion of crisis. In Empire, Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri declare that “crisis indicate[s] a passage, which is the turning point in every systematic cycle of accumulation, from a first phase of material expansion (investment in production) to a second phase of financial expansion (including speculation)” (238). With every crisis, it appears as if this cycle of capitalization reaches its limit. Yet, the reinvention of capitalization ensures that this is not the case. The environmental crisis is no different, it exists at a threshold in which constant new technologies, policies or ideas push it past these limitations, and deferring the apocalypse for yet another day. This construction of crisis only further perpetuates the cycle of capitalization. Hardt & Negri recognize this inherent contradiction when they declare “it is logical to assume that there would come a time when these two moments of the cycle of accumulation, realization and capitalization, come into direct conflict and undermine each other” (227). They do feel however, that “this contradictory tension is present throughout the development of capital, but it is revealed in full view only at the limit, at the point of crisis- when capital is faced with the finitude of the humanity and the earth” (228; my emphasis). Thus, the only crisis which might destroy this cycle is one of environmental origin, when the social constructions of humanity finally reared head against the limitations of the earth’s natural resources. While this has been the threat for decades, the environmental crisis has continually evaded this and reinvented itself along the lines of the cycle of capitalization and commodification. Instead of ending this cycle, it has only perpetuated it.

While sustainable practices existed for centuries in indigenous cultures and traditional agriculture (Hawken 22), sustainability as an environmental buzzword is relatively new. The most common definition of sustainability is from Brundtland Commission’s Our Common Future: “sustainable development is the development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs” (9). The Commission developed two key concepts: “the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential needs of the world’s poor, to which the overriding priority should be given” and “the idea of limitations imposed by the state of technology and social organization on the environment’s ability to meet present and future needs” (11). While these concepts supposedly establish sustainable practices, they remain dependant on defining these ‘limitations’, which are determined by ‘technology and social organization’. Thus, sustainability is the interrelationship between ‘human needs’ and ‘human productive capacities’ (Norton 21). Where does the environment fit into this definition? Are there any limitations on these ‘human productive capacities’? Is technological innovation the only limitation? The environment is a passive element; it seemingly imposes no limitations that cannot be overcome by ‘technology and social organization’. What the Brundtland Commission resulted in a vague, human centered definition that does not recognize the external limits on the human systems. To return to Hardt & Negri for a moment, crisis occurs at the moment such limitations are realized. Yet these crises are a natural component to the process of capitalization. They declare that “capital does not function within the confines of a fixed territory and population, but always overflows and internalizes new spaces” (Hardt & Negri 221). By reinventing sustainability as a technological issue, internalizing these new spaces becomes a simple process of technological innovation, through which human needs are met.

Donella Meadows attempts to address the Bruntland Commission’s limitations in her book, Limits to Growth: “a sustainable society is one that can persist over generations, one that is far- seeing enough, flexible enough, and wise enough not to undermine either its physical or social systems of support” (Meadows 8). This definition, too, recognizes the importance of intergenerational equity. The inherent difference between Meadows and the Bruntland Report is that one recognizes how external systems- namely the finite nature of environmental resources- influence human’s capacity to build technology, infrastructure and bolster the current economic system. However, recognizing these physical limitations has not hindered the technological reinvention of sustainability.

Paul Hawken wrote The Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability and Natural Capital in an attempt to respond to these issues. Both of these works adamantly claim that we cannot escape capitalism. Hawken declares

No ‘plan’ to reverse environmental degradation can be enacted if it requires a wholeseale change in the dynamics of the market. We have to work with who we are- which includes our strong instinct to shop the market and buy products of comparable quality at the lowest price (Hawken, Ecology xv).

Hawken’s interpretation of the environmental crisis and of sustainability can be interpreted as a practical and realistic approach. It attempts to work within the systems at hand in order to create change as opposed to constantly fighting them. However, by not recognizing the problems and limitations of capitalism for the environment, and for the human population, he is merely validating the system and all the solutions found within it. In Natural Capital, Hawken “explore[s] the lucrative opportunities for businesses in an era of approaching environmental limits” (7). This book repackages environmentalist ideals and the concept of sustainability directly into capital rhetoric. It outlines four points businesses need to follow in order to become environmentally responsible:

-Radically increase the productivity of resource use.
-Shift to biologically inspired production with closed loops, no waste, and no toxicity.
-Shift the business model away from the making and selling of "things" to providing the service that the "thing" delivers.
-Reinvest in natural and human capital (11).

This validation of capitalism by such influential environmentalist writers, only further perpetuates the cycle of capitalism and belief in it. The most recent manifestation of this discourse is Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth. He, too, finds the answers in technology, in democracy and in capitalism. These works encourage seeking answers to sustainability in technology and resource efficiency and effectiveness. Sustainability is a process about “coming to terms with sustainability in all its deeply rich ecological, social, ethical and economic dimensions” (O’Riordan & Voisey 32; my emphasis). Sustainability is no longer about the salvation of nature, but the prolonging of human life and human social and economic systems, namely capitalism. And this is done, not only through technological advancement and the capitalization of environmental solutions, but the perpetuation of the sustainability discourse that supports these processes, the individualization of sustainability.

Bio-diesel is an alternative ‘clean’ fuel that is becoming an increasing popular alternative to regular diesel fuel. It is designed to work effectively in traditional diesel engines. Bio-diesel is the conversion of vegetable and animal fat into usable fuel (Pahl 13). Bio-diesel is considered sustainable because it is reusing vegetable and animal residue often found the in food production industry. It is also considered renewable because of the short life cycle of corn plants, which is the primary source for bio-diesel. Use of bio-diesel results in lower emissions and a longer engine life, due to the lower restraint bio-diesel puts on engines. Mass production of bio-diesel must adhere to strict policies and regulations put in place by the various levels of government and the Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEM) guidelines (Pahl 32). While the creation of such regulations are designed to preserve personal health and safety, it has mechanized a big business bio-diesel industry, the building of large bio-diesel plants and the large scale sales and shipment of mass quantities of bio-diesel. What began as a small time, agricultural project, which hoped to maximize the efficiency of agricultural practices, has become a huge environmental business, designed to save the environment and help consumers feel good about the types of products they are purchasing (Pahl 47).

Mass produced bio-diesel is more expensive than traditional diesel fuel, due to the limited production and shipment of the product (Pahl 51). While the price of bio-diesel is expected to decline with time, it is currently a difficult to access product for most consumers, unless it is self-made. One of the largest proponents of bio-diesel is the multi-national company BIOX Corporation. BIOX was incorporated in Canada in 2000, and has grown rapidly ever since. BIOX was incorporated to create high quality, accessible and affordable bio-diesel for environmentally concerned consumers. In September 2004, BIOX announced that they were going to build the first commercial scale bio-diesel production plant in Canada in Hamilton, Ontario. Specifically, this project was to be built in the North End of Hamilton (BIOX).

Hamilton has one of the highest incidents of low income per household in Ontario (StatsCan), most of which is concentrated in the North End of Hamilton (Neufeld 17). The North End of Hamilton borders Lake Ontario and is where most of Hamilton’s major industries, including the steel mills of StelCo and DofasCo exist (Neufeld 19). While Hugo Neufeld paints a vibrant picture of the North End community in his book The North End Lives- he joyfully notes a Hamilton Spectator caption that read- “the North End of Hamilton is a complex mix of grit and gritty characters, tough problems, and big hearted neighbours” (Spectator as quoted in Neufeld 17), his stories are laced with the themes of poverty and helplessness. The North End is where the poor and the oppressed reside, where joblessness and homelessness are fairly common problems (Neufeld 22).

The proposed site for the BIOX plant in the North End of Hamilton was directly across from residential homes. The proposed location of this plant was only a few hundred feet from several homes in the area. The BIOX plant negatively impacted the community from the moment it was proposed. First, the site selected was community green space. Second, the constant tremors resulted in severe damage to several homes in the area, including near- collapsing chimneys, jammed doors and windows, cracked walls and ceilings, and splintered foundations. Third, making bio-diesel involves the storing of highly flammable chemicals, sulphuric acid and ‘BIOX blend’. BIOX’s storage facility for the Oliver Street site was within one hundred feet of residents’ homes, which violates many health and safety regulations, within the municipal, provincial and federal governments. Finally, with the completion of the site, it is now a constant source of noise, light and air pollution. This constant exposure has the potential to impact the health and safety of the entire community.

While the BIOX plant represents the ecological integrity and economic prosperity that is deemed so important for sustainability, it is certainly at the sacrifice of social equality. The introduction of the plant in the community has diminished the quality of life of the residents, exposed them to harsh and potentially harmful chemicals, and to a variety of constant pollutants. This exploitation was done for the sake of sustainability, in order to promote a more environmentally friendly fuel, and to appease the consumers of bio-diesel. They can rest easy because their consumer choices are more environmentally conscious and more sustainable. Yet it was done at the sacrifice of the poor. When sustainability is reinvented as technology and as individual choices, it creates a divide in the population along the lines of class. Not only is the wealthy engaging in sustainable solutions, their decisions to do so impact the lives of those who cannot afford such luxuries. The BIOX plant is large, unattractive and potentially dangerous. Even if it adheres to the most stringent governmental and industrial regulations, it has taken away some of the quality of life in the North End. Neufeld was so proud of the community and liveliness he found here, despite the rampant poverty (27). How can that dynamic remain unchanged if it is the prime development location for industry? Who is going to tell these people why?

These issues are laced with contradictions and complications. Sustainability claims to be a communal concept which requires new and innovative ways to look at the world. Yet, in practice it has the potential to become about individual decisions and technological innovations to delay and reinvent the ecological limitations imposed on our current lifestyle. Sustainability discourse simultaneously blames capitalism for the current environmental problems and looks to it for solutions. Sustainability also claims to promote social equality and economic prosperity, yet, again in practice, it oppresses and ostracizes specific populations in order to attain its goal. Sustainability can demonstrate how Marx’s idea of capital accumulation can manipulate the end result and how it subsumes even the most unlikely ideologies and practices. The situation in the North End is not, and never was, the intention of promoting sustainable practices and technologies. Rather, it became a tangential and necessary victim to ensure that bio-diesel production was efficient and the product was affordable. This phenomenon is not unique. There are several local, national and international circumstances which mirror the situation in Hamilton. However, this creates a moral conflict: is it right to save the environment, or to save the poor? How do we decide? Who gets to decide? Until we can reinvent the practice of sustainability so it mirrors its ideological construct of community, morality, equality and prosperity instead of technology-driven innovation, capitalist-oriented motives this situation will only become more and more frequent as we constantly look for the answers to the environmental problems within technology.

Works Cited
Brundtland Commission. Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. New York: Oxford University Press, 1987.
Gore, Al. An Inconvenient Truth: The Planetary Emergency of Global Warming and What We Can Do About It. New York: Rodale Press, Incorporated, 2006.
Hardt, Michael and Antonio Negri. Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2000.
Harvey, David. The New Imperialism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.
Hawken, Paul, Amory Lovins and L. Hunter Lovins. Natural Capital: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. London: EarthScan, 1999.
Hawken, Paul. Ecology of Commerce: A Declaration of Sustainability. New York: Harpers Collins Publishers, 1994.
Marx, Karl and Frederick Engels. Capital: A Critique of Political Economy. Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1981.
Meadows, Donella. Beyond the Limits. Post Mills, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 1992.
Neufeld, Hugo. The North End Lives: A Journey Through Poverty Terrain. Herald Press: Waterloo, Ontario, 2006.
Norton, Bryan G. Searching for Sustainability: Interdisciplinary Essays in the Philosophy of Conservation Biology. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.
O’Riordan, T. and Henry Voisey. The Politics of Agenda 21 in Europe. London: EarthScan, 1998
Pahl, Greg. Biodiesel: Growing a New Energy Economy. Chelsea Green Pub: White River Junction, 2005.
Rutherford, Paul. “The Entry of Life into History.” Discourses of the Enviroment. Ed. Eric Darier. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1999.
Alternative Energy. Accessed at: http://store.altenergystore.com/Solar-Electric-Panels/Roofing-Solar-Panels/c680/. Accessed on: 2006-12-06.
BIOX Corporation. Accessed at: http://www.bioxcorp.com/. Accessed on: 2006-12-06.
Saskatchewan Organic Directorate. Accessed at: http://www.saskorganic.com/about_organic_food/why_organic_food_costs_more.hml. Accessed on: 2006-12-06.
Statistics Canada. “Incidence of low income among the population living in private households, by census metropolitan area (1996 and 2001 Censuses).” Date modified: 2005-01-10. Accessed at: http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/famil60g.htm Accessed on: 2006-12-06.