Disclaimer: DISCLAIMER OPINIONS: The opinions expressed in the articles are the responsibility of the authors. If any inaccuracies are found, please contact the newsdesk for corrections or the right to reply. DISCLAIMER TRANSLATIONS: All articles are published in English, and translations are done through neural translation processes. For clarity, refer to the original articles. Thank you for understanding.
(Series – Hidden from the Economy)
By Dimitar Borumov
It is rare to find someone who hasn’t heard of the growing discourse around the green transition, Green New Deal, and similar topics. Discussions on sustainability are prevalent, particularly in Europe, where initiatives like the EU’s ban on plastic straws and cups exemplify sustainable practices. This seemingly straightforward project focuses on renewable energy, reusable products, and waste reduction, aiming for a sustainable lifestyle. Addressing these intertwined economic and environmental issues requires seeing them as a nexus of constant interdependence. This nexus is the core of the discussion. A critical examination of these practices and the concept of sustainability prompts questions: What needs sustaining, and since when? Who or what is central to the green transition? Why is it termed green?
Let us momentarily reflect on the natural environment. From a human perspective, it may seem external—trees, mountains, rivers, oceans. These natural elements exist independently of human creation. From a deeper or spiritual perspective, humans are part of the natural world. This is not incorrect. Like all living beings, humans share characteristics with other species, albeit with unique natural intelligence. Whether we see ourselves as part of the environment or separate from it, we undeniably depend on it. This mutual influence is crucial, surpassing the debate over our place within the environment.
Historically, since humanity’s dawn, people have exploited the environment for sustenance. Until European colonialism and the Industrial Revolution, this exploitation remained relatively harmless. Environmental exploitation for human sustainment occurred over such durations and scales that the environment could regenerate without major harm from human activities. Thus, we can conclude that human activity for sustenance until European colonialism and the Industrial Revolution caused no significant environmental harm. However, this changed the nature of environmental exploitation.
The onset of European colonialism in the fifteenth century sparked massive environmental exploitation. New territories were ‘discovered’ and utilized, particularly for raw materials and resources. This extraction process involved relocating resources from one place to be exploited elsewhere, disrupting natural metabolic processes. Unlike previous exploitation, which sustained humanity at smaller scales and localized resource use, this marked a shift.
The Industrial Revolution introduced another shift, enabling unprecedented development but resulting in intensified extraction, especially by colonial powers, further under-developing their colonies. Resources in the Global North were extracted from the Global South, worsening metabolic issues. Despite being a historically positive event for long-term human prosperity, this rapid development increased energy production and consumption, marking a new phase of environment-related economic activity.
What distinguishes this activity is its detachment from human sustenance, focusing instead on sustaining the ever-expanding economic system of market capitalism. This system’s logic of constant growth underpins its function and benefits its participants. Historically, human activities linked to environmental exploitation have always existed but have drastically evolved over the past five centuries. They transitioned from sustaining humanity without significant environmental damage to disrupting natural metabolic cycles through resource relocation, ultimately shifting both the motivations for and consequences of environmental exploitation.
This latest development phase, where economic activities prioritize sustaining the growth-dependent economic system rather than humanity’s welfare, lies at the heart of the environment-economy nexus. A deeper understanding of its essence is necessary before addressing solution-oriented approaches, such as sustainability. I will explore this in the next article.
Note: The author of “Series – Hidden from the Economy,” Dimitar Borumov, is a political economist specializing in various political economy topics based in The Hague. He holds a BA in International Studies specializing in Politics and Economics of the Middle East and a Master’s in International Relations – Global Political Economy from Leiden University, the Netherlands. Borumov’s research focuses on transitional economies, the political economy of care and social reproduction, and critiques of modern capitalism and the environment-economy nexus. He is an educator on environmental awareness and the ecology-economy relationship, teaching Bulgarian History, Geography, and Economy at ‘St. Cyrill and Methodius’ Bulgarian School in The Hague, and serves as a youth leader with the United Religions Initiative’s ‘BRIDGES – Eastern European Forum for Dialogue.’ Dimitar states, ‘In order to address a problem effectively, we must understand its roots; only then can we devise sustainable solutions.’ Contact: borumovd@gmail.com
Leave a Reply