This piece was one I was preparing for The Conversation but was eventually rejected by the editor as not being fit for purpose. While this was disappointing to me, I figured I might as well post it here rather than letting it rot on my hard drive. What follows was the latest edit:

The word “Capitalocene” was coined in 2009 by Swedish professor of human ecology Andreas Malm, and is slowly becoming more widely used.

The word comes from ‘Capital’, as in capitalism, and ‘-ocene’, which refers to a measure of geological time, called an epoch.

The Anthropocene, which literally means ‘human epoch’, is the term’s better-known cousin. Geologists have proposed the Anthropocene as a new epoch in earth’s history, due to the impact human activity has had on the environment.

Geologists must follow strict rules for a new epoch to be accepted. The process is still not complete for the Anthropocene, but has moved closer to becoming official with important evidence from the sediments of Canada’s Lake Crawford. (This sinkhole lake has been affected by nuclear testing, the burning of fossil fuels, and use of chemical fertilisers, all since the 1950s, and reflects global changes since then.)

Unfortunately, many people interpret the Anthropocene well beyond what the science justifies, to mean that our environmental problems are due to ‘us’, humanity as a whole. This implies each human has equal responsibility for our environmental destruction.

Why might the Capitalocene be a better explanation of our current predicament?

Malm uses the Capitalocene in relation to climate change and the energy derived from fossil fuels that is mostly driving it. This fossil energy has risen dramatically since the 19th century to fuel economic growth. While coal supplied just 97 TWh of the global primary energy supply in 1800, it grew to almost 45,000 TWh in 2022. Similarly, oil and natural gas grew from 89 and 33 TWh in 1890 respectively, to about 53,000 and 39,000 TWh in 2022.

Economic growth is inherent in capitalist production. The aim is to end up with more money than you started with, a process called ‘capital accumulation’. Since World War II, at the time when the Anthropocene is proposed to have begun, governments began making economic growth a primary goal, which continues today.

The idea is that so long as the economy is growing there will be more for everyone. As a result, limits to environmental damage were often considered unimportant, even as they were becoming harder to ignore.

However, the Capitalocene has developed very unevenly. Humans simply do not accumulate capital equally, nor are they supposed to. Indeed, under capitalism, humans are supposed to outcompete each other for greater efficiency, productivity, and profit. As a result, the richest 1% of the global population now own more than twice the combined wealth of the other 99%.

As capitalism grows it doesn’t just take over natural environments, but social ones too: more and more people are drawn into the system and forced to work for money, i.e. capital. Ultimately, understanding the earth’s destruction through the Capitalocene is useful because it focuses on this concentration of power, which is missing in the Anthropocene.

Alternative Views?

Jason W Moore, American environmental historian and professor of sociology is the greatest expositor of the Capitalocene. Moore argues there are two Anthropocenes: one is the geological epoch based on science, the other, more popular account, is a history of humanity. He argues the Capitalocene is a better concept for understanding this second meaning, because it describes the unequal power relations that drive our global economies.

However Ian Angus, author and editor of Climate and Capitalism, has criticised Malm, and especially Moore, for their explanations of the idea of the Capitalocene. He argues they do not address the science underlying the Anthropocene, and are trying to shift the discussion toward history and politics.

However, a careful reading of all these authors reveals more commonality than difference. They are all aware of the relevant science, history, and politics. They just emphasise different points.

The implications of accepting the notion of the Capitalocene are twofold. First, it means a (hopefully non-violent) agreement to impose collective limits on humans’ use of material and energy resources.

The second and arguably more important implication is working toward more equal power relations amongst humans. Capitalist relations are inherently hierarchical (i.e. between capitalists and workers). More equal power relations in the workplace would democratise the decision-making processes about resource-use.

“The only way to get these things under control,” Malm argued, “is to try to get energy production and consumption under control.”

Capitalist Solution?

Capitalism is responding to the problems posed by climate change and environmental degradation with the rapid growth of renewable energy supplies, such as solar. Yet the growth of renewables has not been an alternative to fossil fuels. Rather, they have been their complement. As researcher of renewable energy and ecological economics at the University of NSW, Mark Diesendorf has shown, the expansion of renewable energies has only grown in proportion to the growth of fossil fuels.

In other words, the total global energy supply is increasing, and fossil fuel use has remained at about 80 percent for decades. So, while we are seeing the rapid growth of renewable energy, capitalism is responding within the logic of capitalism – i.e. growth. And while the proportion of renewable energy is predicted to rise in the coming decades, the material requirements for a growing renewable energy infrastructure, including concrete, copper, and cobalt, are formidable. Without imposing collective limits, renewables will eventually run into their own environmental constraints.

As environmental degradation continues to worsen, this makes the concept of the Capitalocene more relevant than ever.