Slovakian president-elect to fight coal subsidies

Zuzana Čaputová – ‘‘Slovakia’s Erin Brockovich’ – will promote a green jobs agenda against the country’s traditional backing of heavy industry.

In a second-round run-off vote, lawyer Zuzana Čaputová saw off European commissioner for the energy union Maroš Šefčovič, beating him 58 percent to 42 percent to take on the largely ceremonial role.

Čaputová has a long-record of championing environmental health, after she led a case against an illegal landfill site for 14 years.

Key issues

Spokesperson Martin Burgr told Climate Home News that climate policy was “one of the key issues”, for the new president.

Burgr said: “The need is clear: to keep global warming at 1.5 degrees. And to do that we need to start green and just [transition] of not only our economy but society” 

Burgr said the president-elect wanted Slovakia to grasp “the opportunities presented by low carbon development and eco-innovation in terms of sustainable and quality jobs, not ‘just’ protection of the climate”.

Slovakia is one of the most energy intensive economies in Europe, with its automotive, metal, steel and chemical manufacturers having been favoured over emissions cuts by Slovak governments, according to think tank E3G.

Current subsidies prop up the otherwise uneconomical production of lignite, while a 2023 deadline to phase-out coal has drawn criticism for loopholes.

Coal subsidies 

Burgr said Čaputová was an “outspoken critic of subsidies for coal mining” who backed an initiative calling for the swift phase out of coal mining and support for affected workers and regions.

Slovakia is part of the Visegrád group, a bloc including Hungary, Czech Republic and Poland, which has fought to quell EU climate ambitions. Čaputová’s spokesperson said she would “use her influence with the group to advocate for more pro-climate stance”.

Ada Ámon, a Hungarian analyst for the think tank E3G, said the win was “hope for the region”.

Ámon said: “For a Visegrad country, it is a very interesting development that a woman with a liberal, Erin Brockovitch background comes into the picture.”

In 1999, a wealthy developer expanded a landfill in the small vineyard town of Pezinok in Western Slovakia. Cancer, respiratory illnesses, and allergy rates shot up, with one particular type of leukaemia being reported eight times more than the national average.

Local support

Čaputová rallied local support against the landfill through petitions, protests and cultural events. She also took the case to the European Court of Justice, prompting the EU judiciary to affirm the public’s right to participate in decisions that impact their environment.

In her 2016 acceptance speech for the Goldman Prize, Čaputová said: “In Slovakia we are still learning lessons about democracy after the fall of communism … We cannot let it run without our involvement. The same goes for the protection of our planet. It needs engagement.”

However, her win will not immediately impact the country’s direction. In Slovakia’s parliamentary democracy, the office of president does not have executive power.

Asked whether Čaputová would act against the country’s coal subsidies, Burgr said that “it is not in the competence of the president to change this directly”.

But Ámon was confident that the future president could use her role to pressure the government of prime minister Peter Pellegrini and “encourage as much public consultation and debate on [climate] as is possible”.

This Author

Natalie Sauer reports for Climate Home News. She has contributed to a variety of international outlets, including Politico Europe, AFP and The Ecologist. This article first appeared on Climate Home.   

Injunction against climate protest ‘unlawful’

The environment charity Friends of the Earth (FOE) today claimed a “huge legal victory” over oil and gas giant INEOS at the Court of Appeal with the company’s anti-protest injunction being declared unlawful.

The judgement has far-reaching implications for members of the public peacefully protesting against oil and gas extraction who have been increasingly faced by injunctions. There are similar court orders currently granted to five fossil fuel companies in force at sites spread across ten counties.

FOE intervened in support of the appeal brought by activists Joe Corré and Joe Boyd, against a “draconian” injunction which severely restricted protest against INEOS’ fracking activities.

Humiliating

The Court of Appeal today ruled that INEOS’ injunction had been granted unlawfully by the High Court. It has ordered extensive changes to the injunction to protect civil liberties and free speech.

These include the complete removal of two key elements with significant and wide-ranging effects: persons unknown unlawfully causing loss to INEOS by “combining together” and protesting against INEOS’ suppliers, and persons unknown protesting on the public highway, using tactics such as slow walking.

While the prohibitions against persons unknown trespassing on INEOS’ land and interfering with private rights of way have been maintained for now, the Court of Appeal has held that the High Court did not apply the correct test under the Human Rights Act when it granted the injunction.

INEOS must now return to Court so that these two remaining elements can be assessed against the correct test to see if they still stand or if they should change.

Dave Timms, head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, said: “This is a humiliating defeat for INEOS and a victory for campaigners and human rights.

Intervene

“We believe that these injunctions are a sinister attempt to use the law to stop peaceful protest against the fracking industry. The ruling today confirms our view that INEOS’ injunction was wrongly granted and unlawfully stifled protest.

“Wherever fracking is attempted it meets fierce resistance by local communities. The Court of Appeal today stood up for their right to peaceful protest and free speech.”

Stephanie Harrison QC, of Garden Court Chambers, said: ​”Today’s judgement recognises the serious chilling effect of the INEOS injunction on civil liberties, particularly the broad, sweeping terms of the injunction against wide categories of persons unknown.

​“The outcome of this case serves to underline the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a safeguard for fundamental freedoms like free speech and the right to protest. These rights are the life blood of our democracy.

“This judgement makes clear that the Court will intervene to prevent powerful companies like INEOS using draconian injunctions to intimidate and deter people from participating in lawful protest against fracking, which is widely seen by campaigners and local people affected to be dangerous and damaging to the environment and their communities.”

Implications

FOE has objected to, or taken legal action to oppose, a number of similar injunctions granted to Cuadrilla, UK Oil and Gas and other firms and today signalled that these could now be under threat following the INEOS judgement.

Timms concluded: “Following this judgement we will be writing to other firms granted similar anti-protest injunctions informing them that they should withdraw or substantially amend them or face possible legal action. This attempt by oil and gas companies to use the law to silence protest and free speech is now doomed.”

FOE asked the Court of Appeal for permission to intervene in the public interest, in light of the significant implications of the INEOS injunction for civil liberties and human rights.

Despite INEOS seeking to argue that FOE should be locked out, it was granted permission and its contribution to the legal proceedings was expressly recognised by the Court of Appeal in its judgement.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth.

‘Put people in power who see the truth’

Humans are “critically dependent” on the health of the natural world for everything including oxygen and food, Sir David Attenborough has warned.

In an interview with BBC Science Focus Magazine, he said he felt the world was now more aware of environmental issues – though the problems have got bigger too.

But the naturalist said there were some people who would “never change their opinions”, suggesting US President Donald Trump could be one of them, and said it was important to try to put people in power who see the truth.

Opinion

Speaking ahead of his new Netflix series, Our Planet, made with conservation charity WWF and Silverback Films, he said: “You, me and the rest of the human species are critically dependent on the health of the natural world.

“If the seas stop producing oxygen, we would be unable to breathe, and there is no food that we can digest that doesn’t originate from the natural world.

“If we damage the natural world, we damage ourselves.”

Asked what he would say to those who are not working for the good of the environment, he said: “I would do the same as I do to anybody else – I would say: these are the facts.

“But there are some people who are never going to change their opinion, and it could well be that Mr Trump is one of them.

Natural wonder

“If you’re in a democratic society, you convince the electorate that you’re right, and try to put people in power who see the truth.”

Earlier this year, the naturalist urged politicians and business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to protect the natural world.

While he told BBC Science Focus Magazine it would be naive to think powerful people were going to change overnight after he spoke at the event, “great sea changes” do happen and “it’s up to us to bring that about”.

He also said he would love to just highlight the wonders of wildlife, but natural history film-makers “have a responsibility for pointing out that, unless we change our ways, they’re not going to be here for ever”.

Sir David named Australia’s Great Barrier Reef as the natural wonder he most wanted his great-grandchildren to be able to see.

The full interview appears in BBC Science Focus March issue, which is on sale on April 3.

This Author

Emily Beament is environment correspondent for the Press Association. 

Injunction against climate protest ‘unlawful’

The environment charity Friends of the Earth (FOE) today claimed a “huge legal victory” over oil and gas giant INEOS at the Court of Appeal with the company’s anti-protest injunction being declared unlawful.

The judgement has far-reaching implications for members of the public peacefully protesting against oil and gas extraction who have been increasingly faced by injunctions. There are similar court orders currently granted to five fossil fuel companies in force at sites spread across ten counties.

FOE intervened in support of the appeal brought by activists Joe Corré and Joe Boyd, against a “draconian” injunction which severely restricted protest against INEOS’ fracking activities.

Humiliating

The Court of Appeal today ruled that INEOS’ injunction had been granted unlawfully by the High Court. It has ordered extensive changes to the injunction to protect civil liberties and free speech.

These include the complete removal of two key elements with significant and wide-ranging effects: persons unknown unlawfully causing loss to INEOS by “combining together” and protesting against INEOS’ suppliers, and persons unknown protesting on the public highway, using tactics such as slow walking.

While the prohibitions against persons unknown trespassing on INEOS’ land and interfering with private rights of way have been maintained for now, the Court of Appeal has held that the High Court did not apply the correct test under the Human Rights Act when it granted the injunction.

INEOS must now return to Court so that these two remaining elements can be assessed against the correct test to see if they still stand or if they should change.

Dave Timms, head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, said: “This is a humiliating defeat for INEOS and a victory for campaigners and human rights.

Intervene

“We believe that these injunctions are a sinister attempt to use the law to stop peaceful protest against the fracking industry. The ruling today confirms our view that INEOS’ injunction was wrongly granted and unlawfully stifled protest.

“Wherever fracking is attempted it meets fierce resistance by local communities. The Court of Appeal today stood up for their right to peaceful protest and free speech.”

Stephanie Harrison QC, of Garden Court Chambers, said: ​”Today’s judgement recognises the serious chilling effect of the INEOS injunction on civil liberties, particularly the broad, sweeping terms of the injunction against wide categories of persons unknown.

​“The outcome of this case serves to underline the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a safeguard for fundamental freedoms like free speech and the right to protest. These rights are the life blood of our democracy.

“This judgement makes clear that the Court will intervene to prevent powerful companies like INEOS using draconian injunctions to intimidate and deter people from participating in lawful protest against fracking, which is widely seen by campaigners and local people affected to be dangerous and damaging to the environment and their communities.”

Implications

FOE has objected to, or taken legal action to oppose, a number of similar injunctions granted to Cuadrilla, UK Oil and Gas and other firms and today signalled that these could now be under threat following the INEOS judgement.

Timms concluded: “Following this judgement we will be writing to other firms granted similar anti-protest injunctions informing them that they should withdraw or substantially amend them or face possible legal action. This attempt by oil and gas companies to use the law to silence protest and free speech is now doomed.”

FOE asked the Court of Appeal for permission to intervene in the public interest, in light of the significant implications of the INEOS injunction for civil liberties and human rights.

Despite INEOS seeking to argue that FOE should be locked out, it was granted permission and its contribution to the legal proceedings was expressly recognised by the Court of Appeal in its judgement.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth.

‘Put people in power who see the truth’

Humans are “critically dependent” on the health of the natural world for everything including oxygen and food, Sir David Attenborough has warned.

In an interview with BBC Science Focus Magazine, he said he felt the world was now more aware of environmental issues – though the problems have got bigger too.

But the naturalist said there were some people who would “never change their opinions”, suggesting US President Donald Trump could be one of them, and said it was important to try to put people in power who see the truth.

Opinion

Speaking ahead of his new Netflix series, Our Planet, made with conservation charity WWF and Silverback Films, he said: “You, me and the rest of the human species are critically dependent on the health of the natural world.

“If the seas stop producing oxygen, we would be unable to breathe, and there is no food that we can digest that doesn’t originate from the natural world.

“If we damage the natural world, we damage ourselves.”

Asked what he would say to those who are not working for the good of the environment, he said: “I would do the same as I do to anybody else – I would say: these are the facts.

“But there are some people who are never going to change their opinion, and it could well be that Mr Trump is one of them.

Natural wonder

“If you’re in a democratic society, you convince the electorate that you’re right, and try to put people in power who see the truth.”

Earlier this year, the naturalist urged politicians and business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to protect the natural world.

While he told BBC Science Focus Magazine it would be naive to think powerful people were going to change overnight after he spoke at the event, “great sea changes” do happen and “it’s up to us to bring that about”.

He also said he would love to just highlight the wonders of wildlife, but natural history film-makers “have a responsibility for pointing out that, unless we change our ways, they’re not going to be here for ever”.

Sir David named Australia’s Great Barrier Reef as the natural wonder he most wanted his great-grandchildren to be able to see.

The full interview appears in BBC Science Focus March issue, which is on sale on April 3.

This Author

Emily Beament is environment correspondent for the Press Association. 

Injunction against climate protest ‘unlawful’

The environment charity Friends of the Earth (FOE) today claimed a “huge legal victory” over oil and gas giant INEOS at the Court of Appeal with the company’s anti-protest injunction being declared unlawful.

The judgement has far-reaching implications for members of the public peacefully protesting against oil and gas extraction who have been increasingly faced by injunctions. There are similar court orders currently granted to five fossil fuel companies in force at sites spread across ten counties.

FOE intervened in support of the appeal brought by activists Joe Corré and Joe Boyd, against a “draconian” injunction which severely restricted protest against INEOS’ fracking activities.

Humiliating

The Court of Appeal today ruled that INEOS’ injunction had been granted unlawfully by the High Court. It has ordered extensive changes to the injunction to protect civil liberties and free speech.

These include the complete removal of two key elements with significant and wide-ranging effects: persons unknown unlawfully causing loss to INEOS by “combining together” and protesting against INEOS’ suppliers, and persons unknown protesting on the public highway, using tactics such as slow walking.

While the prohibitions against persons unknown trespassing on INEOS’ land and interfering with private rights of way have been maintained for now, the Court of Appeal has held that the High Court did not apply the correct test under the Human Rights Act when it granted the injunction.

INEOS must now return to Court so that these two remaining elements can be assessed against the correct test to see if they still stand or if they should change.

Dave Timms, head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, said: “This is a humiliating defeat for INEOS and a victory for campaigners and human rights.

Intervene

“We believe that these injunctions are a sinister attempt to use the law to stop peaceful protest against the fracking industry. The ruling today confirms our view that INEOS’ injunction was wrongly granted and unlawfully stifled protest.

“Wherever fracking is attempted it meets fierce resistance by local communities. The Court of Appeal today stood up for their right to peaceful protest and free speech.”

Stephanie Harrison QC, of Garden Court Chambers, said: ​”Today’s judgement recognises the serious chilling effect of the INEOS injunction on civil liberties, particularly the broad, sweeping terms of the injunction against wide categories of persons unknown.

​“The outcome of this case serves to underline the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a safeguard for fundamental freedoms like free speech and the right to protest. These rights are the life blood of our democracy.

“This judgement makes clear that the Court will intervene to prevent powerful companies like INEOS using draconian injunctions to intimidate and deter people from participating in lawful protest against fracking, which is widely seen by campaigners and local people affected to be dangerous and damaging to the environment and their communities.”

Implications

FOE has objected to, or taken legal action to oppose, a number of similar injunctions granted to Cuadrilla, UK Oil and Gas and other firms and today signalled that these could now be under threat following the INEOS judgement.

Timms concluded: “Following this judgement we will be writing to other firms granted similar anti-protest injunctions informing them that they should withdraw or substantially amend them or face possible legal action. This attempt by oil and gas companies to use the law to silence protest and free speech is now doomed.”

FOE asked the Court of Appeal for permission to intervene in the public interest, in light of the significant implications of the INEOS injunction for civil liberties and human rights.

Despite INEOS seeking to argue that FOE should be locked out, it was granted permission and its contribution to the legal proceedings was expressly recognised by the Court of Appeal in its judgement.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth.

‘Put people in power who see the truth’

Humans are “critically dependent” on the health of the natural world for everything including oxygen and food, Sir David Attenborough has warned.

In an interview with BBC Science Focus Magazine, he said he felt the world was now more aware of environmental issues – though the problems have got bigger too.

But the naturalist said there were some people who would “never change their opinions”, suggesting US President Donald Trump could be one of them, and said it was important to try to put people in power who see the truth.

Opinion

Speaking ahead of his new Netflix series, Our Planet, made with conservation charity WWF and Silverback Films, he said: “You, me and the rest of the human species are critically dependent on the health of the natural world.

“If the seas stop producing oxygen, we would be unable to breathe, and there is no food that we can digest that doesn’t originate from the natural world.

“If we damage the natural world, we damage ourselves.”

Asked what he would say to those who are not working for the good of the environment, he said: “I would do the same as I do to anybody else – I would say: these are the facts.

“But there are some people who are never going to change their opinion, and it could well be that Mr Trump is one of them.

Natural wonder

“If you’re in a democratic society, you convince the electorate that you’re right, and try to put people in power who see the truth.”

Earlier this year, the naturalist urged politicians and business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to protect the natural world.

While he told BBC Science Focus Magazine it would be naive to think powerful people were going to change overnight after he spoke at the event, “great sea changes” do happen and “it’s up to us to bring that about”.

He also said he would love to just highlight the wonders of wildlife, but natural history film-makers “have a responsibility for pointing out that, unless we change our ways, they’re not going to be here for ever”.

Sir David named Australia’s Great Barrier Reef as the natural wonder he most wanted his great-grandchildren to be able to see.

The full interview appears in BBC Science Focus March issue, which is on sale on April 3.

This Author

Emily Beament is environment correspondent for the Press Association. 

Injunction against climate protest ‘unlawful’

The environment charity Friends of the Earth (FOE) today claimed a “huge legal victory” over oil and gas giant INEOS at the Court of Appeal with the company’s anti-protest injunction being declared unlawful.

The judgement has far-reaching implications for members of the public peacefully protesting against oil and gas extraction who have been increasingly faced by injunctions. There are similar court orders currently granted to five fossil fuel companies in force at sites spread across ten counties.

FOE intervened in support of the appeal brought by activists Joe Corré and Joe Boyd, against a “draconian” injunction which severely restricted protest against INEOS’ fracking activities.

Humiliating

The Court of Appeal today ruled that INEOS’ injunction had been granted unlawfully by the High Court. It has ordered extensive changes to the injunction to protect civil liberties and free speech.

These include the complete removal of two key elements with significant and wide-ranging effects: persons unknown unlawfully causing loss to INEOS by “combining together” and protesting against INEOS’ suppliers, and persons unknown protesting on the public highway, using tactics such as slow walking.

While the prohibitions against persons unknown trespassing on INEOS’ land and interfering with private rights of way have been maintained for now, the Court of Appeal has held that the High Court did not apply the correct test under the Human Rights Act when it granted the injunction.

INEOS must now return to Court so that these two remaining elements can be assessed against the correct test to see if they still stand or if they should change.

Dave Timms, head of political affairs at Friends of the Earth, said: “This is a humiliating defeat for INEOS and a victory for campaigners and human rights.

Intervene

“We believe that these injunctions are a sinister attempt to use the law to stop peaceful protest against the fracking industry. The ruling today confirms our view that INEOS’ injunction was wrongly granted and unlawfully stifled protest.

“Wherever fracking is attempted it meets fierce resistance by local communities. The Court of Appeal today stood up for their right to peaceful protest and free speech.”

Stephanie Harrison QC, of Garden Court Chambers, said: ​”Today’s judgement recognises the serious chilling effect of the INEOS injunction on civil liberties, particularly the broad, sweeping terms of the injunction against wide categories of persons unknown.

​“The outcome of this case serves to underline the importance of the Human Rights Act 1998 as a safeguard for fundamental freedoms like free speech and the right to protest. These rights are the life blood of our democracy.

“This judgement makes clear that the Court will intervene to prevent powerful companies like INEOS using draconian injunctions to intimidate and deter people from participating in lawful protest against fracking, which is widely seen by campaigners and local people affected to be dangerous and damaging to the environment and their communities.”

Implications

FOE has objected to, or taken legal action to oppose, a number of similar injunctions granted to Cuadrilla, UK Oil and Gas and other firms and today signalled that these could now be under threat following the INEOS judgement.

Timms concluded: “Following this judgement we will be writing to other firms granted similar anti-protest injunctions informing them that they should withdraw or substantially amend them or face possible legal action. This attempt by oil and gas companies to use the law to silence protest and free speech is now doomed.”

FOE asked the Court of Appeal for permission to intervene in the public interest, in light of the significant implications of the INEOS injunction for civil liberties and human rights.

Despite INEOS seeking to argue that FOE should be locked out, it was granted permission and its contribution to the legal proceedings was expressly recognised by the Court of Appeal in its judgement.

This Article

This article is based on a press release from Friends of the Earth.

‘Put people in power who see the truth’

Humans are “critically dependent” on the health of the natural world for everything including oxygen and food, Sir David Attenborough has warned.

In an interview with BBC Science Focus Magazine, he said he felt the world was now more aware of environmental issues – though the problems have got bigger too.

But the naturalist said there were some people who would “never change their opinions”, suggesting US President Donald Trump could be one of them, and said it was important to try to put people in power who see the truth.

Opinion

Speaking ahead of his new Netflix series, Our Planet, made with conservation charity WWF and Silverback Films, he said: “You, me and the rest of the human species are critically dependent on the health of the natural world.

“If the seas stop producing oxygen, we would be unable to breathe, and there is no food that we can digest that doesn’t originate from the natural world.

“If we damage the natural world, we damage ourselves.”

Asked what he would say to those who are not working for the good of the environment, he said: “I would do the same as I do to anybody else – I would say: these are the facts.

“But there are some people who are never going to change their opinion, and it could well be that Mr Trump is one of them.

Natural wonder

“If you’re in a democratic society, you convince the electorate that you’re right, and try to put people in power who see the truth.”

Earlier this year, the naturalist urged politicians and business leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, to protect the natural world.

While he told BBC Science Focus Magazine it would be naive to think powerful people were going to change overnight after he spoke at the event, “great sea changes” do happen and “it’s up to us to bring that about”.

He also said he would love to just highlight the wonders of wildlife, but natural history film-makers “have a responsibility for pointing out that, unless we change our ways, they’re not going to be here for ever”.

Sir David named Australia’s Great Barrier Reef as the natural wonder he most wanted his great-grandchildren to be able to see.

The full interview appears in BBC Science Focus March issue, which is on sale on April 3.

This Author

Emily Beament is environment correspondent for the Press Association. 

Needing change, changing needs

We need a whole world of change. But how do we even begin to make that change? What will a changed world look like? A dialectical systems analysis can begin to guide us towards some answers. 

Individual human beings have needs that are met through social interaction and interdependence. The need of the individual is met only by becoming the need of the group, the institution, and of society.

The only needs that can exist are those that can be met. If an absolute need is not met, the individual dies, the society collapses. Therefore the needs of the individual are dependent on, are defined by, the needs that can be met by the society of that individual. The possibilities open to the individual are limited or prescribed by the society in which they live.

Growth of capital

Today, almost all individuals in the world live within the capitalist economic system, either within the exploiting ‘centres’, or the appropriated ‘margins’. Needs are limited to those that are or can be met by capitalism. 

There are absolute human needs which capitalism does has to satisfy. There is the need for sustenance, for shelter, and for at least limited social interaction. There are areas where these needs are not met – where capitalism as scorched the earth and the population – but this cannot be the norm.

However, there is a contradiction between human needs and capitalist needs. Capital has reached a maturity where its needs exhaust, suffocate and surround the needs of the very humans who create and activate it.

The primary need of capital is to valourise capital. The single investor only proffers money when that same money will return, with interest. The investment is in human labour and natural resources, and therefore the human performing the labour must produce more in value than they themselves retain in wages (or there would be no profit, or interest).

In aggregate, this means capital has to grow, and has to accumulate. The growth of capital is in direct conflict with human needs, given the intensity of exploitation and appropriation. 

Labour relations

The need of the investor to gain profit or interest necessitates their position in the relations of capital as exploiters. If the need is not met, the investor will lose their money and their position and role as an exploiter, pressing them down into the position of exploited.

The exploited have no capital to invest; and indeed no money to feed themselves or their families. In order to meet the basic, necessary human needs they are compelled into the marketplace to sell their labour; to create more value than they earn in wages, and to reproduce the capitalist system in which they remain entrapped.

The exploiter chases the opportunities that have the highest returns on investment, irrespective of the experience of the exploited. Those who work are forced to work harder, longer. Labour appears and is repulsive.

There is a contradiction between the needs of the individual and the needs of the system. Those who work witness the exploiters in their development and satisfaction of higher needs: the need for free time, for new experiences, for time with family. These needs evolve and develop.

We need to be free the moment we see others are free, and that therefore we have the potential to be free.

Ecological crisis

Capital seeks out and exhausts all opportunities for profit, intensified by competition. We enter an economy suffering from a crisis of overproduction. For those with money, all conceivable material needs are met, even where earning money crowds out the human need for leisure and free time.

The creative industries – film, television – tantalise with images of human beings replete in the satisfaction of their needs. Advertising identifies needs, and through the ransacking of our cultural industries, convinces us their products will meet these needs. The products that truly meet needs sell well, those that don’t sell even more well.

Even while ensnared in capitalism, we develop vital needs, those needs that become necessary to us but that cannot be satisfied by capital and its institutions. Prime among them is the need for leisure time, the need for individuation, the need to be free.

Ecological crisis – climate change, biodiversity loss, soil erosion – require that we develop a new economic system that reduces (to zero) the rapid exploitation and ruination of the natural environment. This need is utterly at odds with capitalism.

But the evolution to a post capitalist society will not come through a reduction in our ability to meet human needs (or indeed a reduction in the number of humans), but instead through an increased ability to identify and meet human needs. We can only protect that natural environment through improving the lives of those who will deliver on this project.

New economy

This is a cause of celebration, rather than abdication. The project of developing a society that shares the purpose of meeting human needs is one and the same as the project to save and enhance the natural environment, not least because a primary human need is to feel and to be a part of and not apart from the natural environment.

From the vantage point of capitalism we can see the contours of a post-capitalist society, and this vision has further definition through the use of dialectical systems thinking. This thinking posits that history is an iterative process, that a society evolves through daily change rather than simply rebooting with an entirely new operating system.

We can begin to sketch the first two major iterations of a post-capitalist economy, where the needs of human beings rather than the needs of capitalist accumulation are paramount.

The new economy will be radically different. The purpose will have changed, and the objects and the methods will in due course change to meet this purpose.

Some aspects, some individuals and institutions, will change more radically than others, and the complexity of the change will render the scene chaotic. We can time the tides, we cannot predict the waves.

Defining production

A society based on human need presumes conscious planning and production. Those humans engaged in the economy will have to identify though some method which needs are necessary, which are artificial, and where along that spectrum the collective efforts of society should be engaged.

The participants in the future economy will need to decide whether we need nuclear power, whether we need to visit other planets. Will we need to cure all disease, everywhere at all times, whatever the resources this demands. They will need to balance the need for major infrastructure with the need for idleness and leisure.

This future economy will compel its participants to seek not lower or reduced levels of production, but higher. The material needs advanced and prioritised by capitalism can be satisfied, saturated. But in any case they will begin to recede into the background. Few will decide to spend time in a mouth wash factory, rather than collecting pebbles on the beach with their daughter.

The core of the discussion would be the separation of the category of necessity and the category of freedom. It will be nature – our own nature, our natural needs – that will define the category of necessity. We will produce food, keep ourselves warm, satisfy our need for contact with others. Human needs will move well beyond material goods, or the status they infer, because this satisfaction is always a proxy.

The increased rate of production will very likely not result in an increase in production in the absolute. Instead, it will result in a rapid and defining reduction in the time and resources spent in production. Today, right now, just seven workers in Britain can produce a million potato waffles in a single day.

Fully automated

A decision for the participants within the future economy will be how much time they dedicate to production to make things of higher quality at a lower cost to the environment.

They will choose whether not only to create zero emissions and zero waste production processes but whether to invest time and resources into improving and enhancing nature, by whatever measure can be devised.

Indeed, a future economy will be fully automated. We already have machines that can make machines. We also have ‘machine learning’, and are on the cusp of an era of ‘artificial intelligence’. The possibility – and therefore following, the desire and the need – for free time is already expanding beyond the ability of capitalism to contain it.

Automation means that humans can and will likely occupy their time as instigator, designer and regulator of natural processes. Indeed, humans will themselves fall away as the primary force in mechanical or industrial production having created, discovered or understood the forces inherent in nature. We can step back in awe as nature itself recovers from the tyranny of capitalist production.

This iteration of a new society will retain some of the conditions of today. It seems likely that people will still have their contributions counted, and the amount they draw from the general stock will relate to these contributions.

Negotiating needs

Those living in the earliest stages of a post capitalist society are likely to be concerned with fairness, and to see this best realised by counting and comparing hours worked, and benefits gained. Those who work harder (longer, or more intensively) may expect to get a little more.

However, those who work will be the primary decision makers tasked with understanding human need, calculating what needs to be produced to meet these needs, and how this production should be organised and distributed.

This process should immediately see a fundamental reduction of the impact of human production on the natural world, not least because there is a fundamental and absolute human need to sustain that environment.

A further dividend will come from avoiding the madness of the capitalist market system: major corporations will no longer compete against each other in increasing unnecessary needs and simultaneously engaging in a race to the bottom in terms of cheap – and therefore almost always more harmful – production methods.

The needs met through production will also fundamentally change. People will discuss consciously and collectively what needs to be produced. The absolute needs of food, warmth, medicines will naturally come first, but the exact line between necessary and unnecessary needs will be understood to be socially contingent and also negotiable.

Coming together

People will no longer work because of the compulsion and coerciveness of the wage labour system. They will not be driven to starvation or abject poverty if they refuse to do harmful, painful and environmentally harmful work.

Another motive would have to take its place. In the earlier iterations of this new society the desire to work will derive from the human as a social animal. Pleasure will be gained from taking an active and positive role in meeting the social and individual needs of themselves, their families and their communities.

Work itself will become a source of pride and pleasure as useless industries (legal, fashion, politics, road building) will be abandoned across the board.

People will also experience a social duty to work. This can take a positive form in being celebrated, but may also manifest in other ways. It may become socially unacceptable for those who are able to contribute to be seen not to. Those people may find themselves excluded from events or moments in the social calendar designed to celebrate the wealth created by those who contribute.

Even at the earliest stages of a post-capitalist, needs-centered society, there will be enormous benefits in terms of wellbeing and increased productivity, to be gained from the simple fact that society will be organised through people coming together to work for the common good (where the common can be extended beyond the human) rather in competition, alienated from each other and from nature.

Social systems

The second stage, or later iterations, of a post-capitalist society will witness even greater benefits. This will be the society defined by the fact that all production is based on human needs, where the needs of each individual is met irrespective of any contribution they may make in terms of work.

This society will be made possible because of increases in productivity, rather than production, where the abundance and faculty of nature is at last experienced in human societies.

The ability of human beings to meet their own needs, individually and as a social animal, will be fully realised, and the need for any kind of rationing (including that based on wages or salary, or money even) will simply fall away.

In this society there will be no distinction between work and play. Today, even childcare has been commodified, professionalised, alienated and removed from the everyday activities of being alive. Playing with a child should always be a source of joy, rather than a stressful and degrading job. This is true of all human activity, where feeding, taking care of, building, making, writing should be – and should always have been – vital pleasures rather than paid work.

This future society will be made possible by the collective efforts of human beings, who will come together through different forums on a global, regional, local stage in order to make conscious decisions. This will likely evolve into an integrated social plan, where social systems are designed to work as an aspect of natural systems (respecting rather than ignoring seasons, the capacity of nature to recover).

Mutual dependence 

But life in this society will not be characterised by constant committee meetings, or centralised political bodies, or blueprints for massive factories. Each human being will contain within her the ‘interests’ of the human species, and of nature, en totum.

Society will be the mediation of humans and nature, where each is dependent on and beneficial to the other.

In this society the needs of the whole society can be understood and can be met. In the same moment the individual is given the most freedom, the most free time, possible to explore her own interests, her own curiosity, her own abilities to make and fashion and feel.

These are the contours of a society based on meeting human needs. This is the society we need if we are going to escape climate breakdown and ecological collapse.

These claims are specific and, for some, seductive. But is this utopian delusion? Simple wishful thinking.

In the rest of this series I will be looking at dialectics and systems theories as methods for identifying and understanding human needs, how these manifest for individuals, groups and societies and finally how a better understanding of these needs can help us as activists both imagine and begin to build a future society with the purpose of meeting human needs.

This Author 

Brendan Montague is editor of The Ecologist, founder of Request Initiative and co-author of Impact of Market Forces on Addictive Substances and Behaviours: The web of influence of addictive industries (Oxford University Press)He tweets at @EcoMontague. 

Read, Why we need ‘ecolocracy’

Read, An introduction to ‘ecolocracy’ – pt.2

Read the On The Nature of Change (OTNOCseries.