**TL;DR: With free-market interventions (taxes, subsides, incentives), the Government can redirect capitalism’s innovation and competition to take down the existential threats to the planet’s climate that we currently face. Capitalism played a role in ruining the Earth, but it may be the only system that can fix our planet.** As a system where participants’ primary goal is to maximize individual profit, capitalism aggressively drives economic competition and innovation. With climate change accelerating at unsustainable rates, the US government needs to unleash its free market on pollution, carbon emissions, overpopulation, and reliance on nonrenewable energy sources. Media outlets, scientists, and academics often spread rhetoric that capitalism is our planet’s supervillain. Indeed, they have a point. Our modern free market rewards companies that maximize profits while minimizing financial risk in a way that allows them to outcompete other companies. Relying on fossil fueled production lines is prudent because oil, gas, and coal are low risk, cheap, and reliable. If one manufacturing company switches to expensive solar power while every other manufacturing company operates on cheap energy, for example, the sustainably-powered company will shoulder a higher production cost and will thus have to hike up their goods’ prices to make the same profit as the gas-guzzling/coal-burning plants. Sticking with fossil fuel powered factories, on the other hand, standardizes the cost of production among companies so that the prices of each company’s goods are not undercut by competitors. From a business-survival standpoint, fossil fuels are the obviously sensible choice. Yet an outright fossil fuel ban immediately makes every made-in-the-USA-stamped good more expensive and simply outsources industry to overseas factories. Without changing the US’s economic fundamentals, the only way out of this feedback loop is to draw attention to sustainable solutions with federal monetary incentives. With businesses’ “almost singular focus on economic self-interest,” [1] money can lead the free market’s innovation like a carrot-on-a-stick. For instance, introducing a carbon-tax or expanding already-existing subsidies for EV auto manufacturers could help liberate the auto-industry from reliance on combustion engines by reducing the profitability of sales of fossil fueled vehicles. Businesses exist to generate profit; those companies which adapt their business models to maximize profit thrive, while those which remain rigid become obsolete. It follows that companies will redirect their innovation toward sustainable transportations systems which will maximize corporate profit. The government can expand these same coercive methods to other industries as well. Government subsidies and financial incentives (rewards, grants, etc.) can act as catalysts to spur the development of less space intensive housing, biodegradable alternatives to plastic, and chemical solutions to the atmospheric carbon imbalance. The key to creating a sustainable model of capitalism is providing economic incentives large enough to make the incentivized-course-of-action something that companies will voluntarily pick. Negative incentives (like fines) should be avoided, however, as this will drive companies to outsource production to unregulated countries. Although subsidies and incentives can only move the needle for so long, they can help refocus the innovative power of our free market on the planet-threatening issues facing our society. Kickstarting economic interest in sustainability is three-quarters of the battle; once enough brain power and capital is poured into innovative environmental solutions, the market for saving our planet will be as immense as it will be lucrative. The pollution, rising sea levels, warming temperatures, and overpopulation we face are existential threats that are not going away anytime soon. Thus, they offer stable and sustainable opportunities for innovative business ventures. As the CEO of EcoAlpha Asset Management expresses, “It’s not “sustainable” business when a company takes a long view and targets problems that aren’t going away — it’s smart business” [1]. Sources: [1] https://ensia.com/voices/only-capitalism-can-save-the-planet/

**Capitalism and environmentalism could be mutualistic partners.** → [Capitalism](https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/does-capitalism-have-to-be-bad-for-the-environment/) = Privately owned industries; usually have a mindset of ‘profits, profits, profits. → [Environmentalism](https://www.psychologicalscience.org/observer/the-social-dynamics-of-environmentalism) = An ideology that focuses on reducing anthropogenic damage to the environment. → [Mutually Exclusive](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/mutuallyexclusive.asp) = Events that cannot occur at the same time. A perfect example of something nearly [half of the global population](https://www.bank cell. com/blog/how-many-phones-are-in-the-world#:~:text=How%20Many%20People%20Have%20Smartphones%20In%20The%20World%3F&text=According%20to%20Statista%2C%20the%20current,world's%20population%20owns%20a%20smartphone.) uses daily that combines capitalism and environmentalism; [smartphones](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rainerzitelmann/2020/07/13/system-change-not-climate-change-capitalism-and-environmental-destruction/). One smartphone can act in place of a multitude of energy-depleting devices, as well as significantly cut down the use of paper. If we explore more avenues in which capitalism harnesses environmentalism instead of attacking it, we could systematically nullify one of the largest contributing threats to our planet's future.

**So long as those that partake in the capitalist system are unwilling to commit to real change, even a moderate form of capitalism seems incompatible with environmentalism.** The basis of capitalism is the need to increase private profits and beat out competition. As a result, a more pure and unregulated form of capitalism has led to severe damage to the environment. For example: • [The Guardian](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/revealed-20-firms-third-carbon-emissions) revealed that just 20 firms were responsible for _one third_ of the world’s carbon emissions; • The US, a symbol of free market capitalism, make up just 4% of the world’s population yet account for [17%](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/oct/30/us-and-uk-citizens-are-worlds-biggest-sources-of-plastic-waste-study) of the total plastic waste. It has already been acknowledged above that state can act to make capitalism more sustainable. However, the fact that most governments who practise capitalism are unwilling to commit to reforms that will [actually make a difference](https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post-the-problem-with-net-zero-emissions-targets) to the environment means that the short term and self-interested nature inherent in this economic system causes it to continually conflict with long term goals of environmentalism.

Capitalism and environmentalism are often portrayed as opposing forces, but they can coexist. Market mechanisms, like carbon pricing, green investments, and sustainable business models, harness capitalism’s innovation and efficiency to address environmental challenges. Many companies are adopting environmental, social, and governance (ESG) criteria to reduce impact and appeal to conscious consumers. While capitalism’s growth focus can drive ecological harm, integrating environmental priorities into economic systems offers a pathway toward sustainability.