Is Socialism Environmentally possible?

I also read this article and took it as a warning that capitalist expansion will be unsustainable. Another gloomy confirmation for Private Fraser that the world is doomed.How it applies to a socialist society is moot, for the study authors' did not include such a system in their remit.

"All seven indicators are consumption-based measures that account for international trade."So it isn't actual consumption needs. As someone said…if it can't be quantified it isn't counted. They are conting import/export totals. Their figures includes all the waste built into the operation of capitalism.For instance, the US armed forces alone consumes the same energy as Nigeria. That is an easy figure to get. But what about the energy, the extraction and delivery of ores to the smelters to get the steel for the tanks and armoured vehicles etc etc and that's before their manufacturing of them.But we aren't just talking about the military but the whole buying and selling system with its duplication of products and duplication of effort.What happens if all those numbers are taken out their sums. I'd guess that sustainability is redefined at a higher level of living standard than Vietnam. Private Fraser is only an optimist if he thinks we can achieve socialism before the whole capitalist edifice takes us to the abyss…

I expect that people in the rural areas of countries like Vietnam live 'better' than the average person in the West, especially if they are distant from the mechanisms of the state.  The simpler life is always better.  Of course, this is a matter of opinion and taste.  But my expectations lead me to question why migration happens.  It is surely important to ask how the mass human migrations that happen under capitalism – not just immigration, but even popular tourism – are affecting the environment and what are the driving forces behind this.  If you accept that these phenomena are a result of capitalism, does this then demand a teological view that imposed diversity will bring about true class cohesion and the ultimate end of capitalism, or should these impositions be opposed on the basis that they harm workers and other defenceless peoples, just as you would oppose profit, wages and employment?  I had always thought that the SPGB position is that socialism can happen now, and so anything that harms the working class is not bringing us closer to capitalism's apocalypse, since there is no teleology, only the empiricism of cause and effect, and capitalism could continue forever.  Rather what is required is the education of workers as to how they are manipulated by capitalism in all its aspects, since only workers themselves can overthrow capitalism.Returning to the point in hand, while I'm sceptical about the existence and (if it does exist) causes of global warming, I broadly agree with people here that capitalism is causing us to damage our environment and is environmentally-unsustainable.  If socialism happens, I would hope that it is a system more aligned with Nature, and preferably it should position Man as part of Nature, not above it.  Personally I think socialism, if it works, would impose its own natural limitations, due to the realities of socialist production.  An analogy would be with the way that people live now in small rural villages that practice an eco-sustainable philosophy.  I believe socialism as a practical way of living would have to be inherently sustainable, as it couldn't work politically as a 'mass democracy' with large-scale central planning – but you may disagree.  This is where we come to the borderline, and synthesis, of politics, economics, sociology and ecology.