I appreciate that the foregoing was a serious analysis. I think that what it shows is that at the macro level democracy is the key. Democratic nations have better environmental records than non-democratic nations do.

I might have missed it, but I did not see a specific definition of capitalism. I define it as mass production of goods and services for sales in geographically extended markets. Notice the absence of any reference to the ‘free market’. That can exist — has existed — some would say has a better chance of existing — without capitalism.

Capitalism funnels vast amounts of money into the hands of a relative few. Money is power. Power is the enemy of justice and rights. So capitalism is inherently anti-democratic.

In their quest for ever more, those few who benefit the most from capitalism paint concern for the environment as being anti-business. They use their power to stifle environmental initiatives. (Some of them don’t, but even so they continue to profit from the success of those who do.)

Being concerned for the environment is not being ‘anti-business’ or even ‘anti-capitalism’. It is being pro-life.