Showing posts with label Simplicity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Simplicity. Show all posts

Tuesday, July 31, 2018

2981. Natural Geo-Engineering as Solution to the Planetary Crisis

By Troy Vessete, New Left Review, May-June 2018

The idea of a ‘steady-state economy’, a signal theme in the environmentalist politics of the 1970s with understand- able appeal, has been refloated by ‘no growth’ thinkers in France and, most recently, by Herman Daly, in discussion with Benjamin Kunkel in nlr 109. If, as I shall argue here, steady-state economics is an ambiguous construction that actually offers little to egalitarian environmentalists, then on what foundations might an alter- native green political economy be built? Neither population nor gdp will be its fundamental metric, but rather land scarcity. This is the concept that emerges—or rather re-emerges—as the most precious resource in any solution that brings the benign possibilities of geo-engineering to bear on the problem of faltering biodiversity and the entailments of an adequate deployment of renewable energy systems. A brisk panorama of the ‘Little Ice Age’ will help make these airy ideas solid. 

‘Behold the liquid Thames now frozen o’er / That lately ships of mighty Burthen bore’, may seem to be the opening lines of a poet’s imagined world, but it recalls the actual freezing of London’s great waterway in 1740.1 Although there are records of the river freezing since the fifteenth century, the frequency of such cold winters increased dramatically during the seventeenth century to about once a decade, often enough for ‘Frost Fairs’ to become a municipal institution. Between London Bridge and Blackfriars Bridge city-dwellers played skittles, baited bears and feasted atop a strangely solid Thames. Other regions too experienced bizarre shifts in climate during the Little Ice Age, an era of widespread cooling from the sixteenth to nineteenth centuries. Icelanders starved when the frozen sea choked off their ports, Alpine Swiss dreaded glaciers expanding to swallow their villages and Manhattanites could walk to Staten Island. The poor harvests of the cool, wet seventeenth century have been held responsible for starving peasants and feeding instability: the Thirty Years’ War, the Fronde, the English Civil War, the decline of the Ming dynasty, and war between Russia and Poland-Lithuania.2 Hints of what caused the big chill were to be found in empty towns along the Mississippi. 

In 1541 Hernando de Soto travelled along that mighty waterway and encountered a string of densely inhabited, warring settlements: Coosa, Mabila, Pacaha, Chicaza and Cofitachequi. Little is known today about Mississippian society aside from its penchant for moats and mounds; when the next European ventured there in 1682, the region was uninhab- ited. Most likely, epidemics of Old World origin had broken out between the two expeditions, which was hardly an unusual fate for the time. In 1492, the Americas had teemed with perhaps sixty million inhabitants, a population equaling Europe’s; but the ensuing cataract of genocide, enslavement, war and epidemics reduced the indigenous population to fewer than 6 million by the mid-1600s. A slow demographic recov- ery began in South America a hundred years later, though mass deaths among First Nations have never truly ceased. But the de-peopling of the New World meant millions of hectares of maize, potato, squash and other crops lay fallow in the seventeenth century. Forest encroached on abandoned fields. Much of the verdant splendour of the New World that awed Europeans was the result of nature’s reconquest of ancient agri- cultural land. Botanical regrowth on a bi-continental scale sequestered between 17 and 38 gigatonnes of carbon, lowering the store of atmos- pheric co2 by up to 10 parts per million (ppm). This was a significant share of the total co2—then, 276 ppm; today, 411 ppm—and enough to lower temperatures in the northern hemisphere by 0.6°c.3 

The Little Ice Age not only provides insight into the far-reaching ecological repercussions of colonialism, it also hints at the possible democratiza- tion of Natural Geo-Engineering—accelerating carbon sequestration through natural processes, as a means of safely ameliorating climate change.4 A rival approach, Artificial Geo-Engineering, would put iron filings or limestone into the oceans and aerosols into the skies to reflect sunlight into space. Given the complexity of the global climate system, this tinkering is terribly risky even if increasingly likely. In a future closer than one expects, entrepreneurial scientists and their private corpora- tions will aim to fire aerosols into the atmosphere by means of artillery, high-flying airplanes or balloons. Real-life experiments, despite their illegality, have already been carried out and patents sought.5 In contrast with this, giving up territory to nature through democratic choice is a safe way to counteract carbon pollution with unambiguously beneficial environmental multiplier effects. 

However, Natural Geo-Engineering requires a lot of land. The mere thought of recreating a bloodless second Little Ice Age to avert a capi- talist climatic Armageddon restores the central role of land scarcity to economics after an absence of two centuries. For as it happens, two other goals of the environmental movement—preserving biodiversity and switching to a zero-carbon energy system—also require expanses of continental scope. There are many reasons to forsake nuclear power and fossil fuels and embrace solar- and wind-based energy; but—outside very windy and sunny countries—the latter have extremely low ‘power densi- ties’. Power density describes the relationship between energy produced or consumed relative to a system’s surface area, measurable in watts per square metre. While the richest deposits of fossil fuels can have power densities near 20,000 w/m2, even shabby ones like Alberta’s tar sands have a power density of 1,000 w/m2. This is why only half of one per cent of us territory is dedicated to the ‘business as usual’ energy sys- tem.6 In contrast, the highest power density for solar- and wind-powered infrastructure seems to be about 10 w/m2, and it is often less than half of that in sub-par locations. A fully renewable system will probably occupy one hundred times more land than a fossil-fuel-powered one. In the case of the us, between 25 and 50 per cent of its territory, and in a cloudy, densely populated country such as the uk, all of the national territory might have to be covered in wind turbines, solar panels and biofuel crops to maintain current levels of energy production. While ongoing tinkering will improve renewable energy systems, they will never have the power densities of fossil fuels.7 It is land scarcity, rather than rare natural resources, that is the ultimate limit to economic growth: energy consumption must be cut. 

In addition to averting Artificial Geo-Engineering and fossil-fuel use, perhaps the third most pressing goal of the contemporary global envi- ronmentalist movement is to forestall the ‘Sixth Extinction’.8 The current haemorrhaging of flora and fauna species is occurring at a rate one thou- sand to ten thousand times faster than normal; a speed comparable only to the last great extinction 66 million years ago, when a huge asteroid careened into the earth and set off the volcanic eruptions of the Deccan Traps.9 Even if the explosion of present-day extinctions remains a quiet catastrophe, it will ultimately prove to be no less deadly to life on Earth. The principal cause of extinction is habitat loss, as underlined by the recent work of E. O. Wilson. Though notorious in the Reagan era as the genetic-determinist author of Sociobiology, Wilson is first and foremost a naturalist and conservationist. He estimates that, with a decrease of habitat, the sustainable number of species in it drops by roughly the fourth root of the habitable area. If half the habitat is lost, approximately a tenth of species will disappear, but if 85 per cent is destroyed, then half the species would be extinguished. Humanity is closely tracking this equation’s deadly curve: half of all species are expected to disappear by 2100. The only way to prevent this is to leave enough land for other living beings to flourish, which has led Wilson to call for a utopian pro- gramme of creating a ‘half Earth’, where 50 per cent of the world would be left as nature’s domain. Even though much has been lost, he argues that thirty especially rich biomes, ranging from the Brazilian cerrado to the Polish-Belarussian Białowieża Forest, could provide the core of a bio- diverse, interconnected mosaic extending over half the globe.10 Yet, at present only 15 per cent of the world’s land-area has some measure of legal protection, while the fraction of protected areas in the oceans is even smaller—less than 4 per cent. 

Arguably, it is a virtue that these three goals—Natural Geo-Engineering, renewable-energy systems and ‘half-earth’ habitat protection—are so land-hungry: constraint clarifies thought, and there are simply very few ways to find sufficient space. Furthermore, a focus on land scarcity also reveals new connections and opportunities; after all, cuts in consump- tion are needed to provide space for both wind farms and rewilded ecosystems, and the latter require a high degree of biodiversity to func- tion effectively as carbon sinks, yet their ability to be effective carbon sinks depends on a rapid transition to renewable energy systems before climate change irreversibly undermines the integrity of ecosystems. Once land is reclaimed as an integral economic category, and goals of natural preservation and global economic equality are championed, then sud- denly a new red–green political economy emerges. What follows, then, explores what such a programme would involve, initially by way of an extended thought-experiment. Extrapolated from the three fundamen- tal aims of Natural Geo-Engineering, biodiversity and renewable-energy systems, the project might take on any number of mantles: ‘egalitarian eco-austerity’, ‘eco-socialism’ or, borrowing from Wilson, ‘half-earth economics’, to emphasize both the necessary scale of ambition and its crucial spatial aspect. First, though, a critical look at some of the most salient alternatives: the ‘steady state’ of Daly’s ecological economics and the possibilities for technological solutions. 

Cap-and-trade equilibrium? 
In contrast to a strong ‘half-earth’ programme, Herman Daly’s propos- als for an ecologically sustainable ‘steady-state’ economy appear all too modestly reformist, risking capture by neo-liberal environmentalism. Repudiating the universal capitalist goal of economic growth— ‘growthmania’, in his terms—Daly defines a steady-state economy as one that does not increase in size relative to the overall ecosphere, of which it is a sub-system: the material ‘throughput’ would remain constant in terms of resources consumed, although the output might improve in quality. The path towards it involves a three-part programme. First, ‘depletion quotas’, to limit resource use—these would be auctioned by the state, raising public revenues. Second, income redistribution, by way of a maximum-income cap and a minimum-income floor, to limit inequal- ity. Third, a one-child-per-parent cap on human reproduction, regulated through tradable vouchers—the argument being that this would com- bine aggregate population control with a measure of individual choice. ‘Environmental impact is the product of the number of people times per capita resource use’, Daly argues, so a steady-state ecological-economic strategy would require both population and resource depletion to be held constant.11 

Daly’s critique of ‘growth fetishism’ and the macro-economic pursuit of rising gdp implies that capitalists could be persuaded not to pursue economic expansion. But growth is not the result of a misguided cultural notion. Daly has missed the crucial insight that capitalism is a novel system, emerging only in the early modern era and pitting rival capitals against each other, such that profit-making is a structural imperative, not merely an option. Capital must complete its circuit through the commodity form greater than when it started or there will be a crisis. Profitability, not abstract measurements like gdp, is what matters. The latter’s late arrival in the history of capitalism hints that it is mere foam, while the struggle to maintain profitability goes on in the churning depths.12 Daly underestimates the difficulties of shackling capitalism so as to slow it down. 

Despite the egalitarian gesture of restricted income inequality, his approach essentially relies on the market to regulate ‘growthmania’— a contradiction in terms. In his steady-state world, the rich would be licensed to breed, while the poor might have to trade their right to a child for the means of subsistence—echoes of Cold War eugenicism. Though ‘depletion quotas’ would be auctioned by the state, functioning as a sort of extraction tax, their actual operation under conditions of cartelized energy giants and captive state administrations would be no different from current programmes of ‘cap and trade’, as Daly acknowledges.13 The cap-and-trade concept was devised in 1968 by John Dales, an economist at the University of Toronto and a Chicago School fellow-traveller, to deal with the environmental degradation of the Great Lakes.14 He proposed that rather than simply dictate industrial standards, it would be more efficient to impose a limit, or ‘cap’, on emissions and then have industries buy and trade pollution-permits amongst themselves. Cleaner factories, for example, could sell permits to dirtier ones, if the latter wanted to avoid upgrades. Dales’s idea has proven to be incredibly versatile, seemingly applicable to any environmental problem, including over-fishing, acid rain, climate change and biodiversity loss. 

Daly is attracted to cap-and-trade for two reasons. First, it seems to offer a means to impose a ‘steady state’represented by the ‘cap’while still relying on the market to distribute goods efficiently.15 Second, it provides a way to theoretically reconcile the economy and naturea problem which has absorbed Daly’s attention since he famously doodled the sphere of the ‘economy’ enclosed by the world’s ‘ecosystem’. However, cap-and-trade doesn’t overcome the binary of nature and the economy; it simply renders the former in market terms, deeming it ‘natural capital’. This is why neo-liberals admire Daly’s solution, just as they admired its neo-classical predecessor, Pigou’s ‘externalities’. Turning nature into ‘natural capital’ makes it easier to exploit; insisting on the non-fungibility of certain parts of nature by placing it beyond the economy’s reach is its surest defence.16

Cap-and-trade is the point where the arc of Daly’s optimism intersects with the neo-liberals’ downward-sloping cynicism, for not only does cap- and-trade rarely work, sometimes it is not even intended to. The world’s biggest cap-and-trade programme for co2 emissions, the European Emissions Trading System (ets), has largely functioned to forestall meaningful action against climate change since its creation in 2005. At its nadir, in 2013, a tonne of carbon fetched less than €3, and even at the moment of writing (early May 2018) the price is only €10 per tonne. This is a far cry from an effective price for carbon—ExxonMobil estimates that the price would need to be $2,000 per tonne for global warming to be limited to 1.6 degrees centigrade.17 Even carbon capture and seques- tration (ccs) projects need $80–150 per tonne to break even, which is why ccs has proven to be such an unimpressive technology.18 The prob- lem originated from the European Union’s decision to placate industry by setting the number of permits too high, so ensuring prices would remain low. Daly’s framework does not address the problem of the class capture of markets. 

Furthermore, markets seek markets. With cap-and-trade, money that might have been used productively to alter the energy infrastructure instead gets pumped into ‘yet another set of speculative financial instru- ments, leading to bubbles, distortions of capital flows, and all the usual symptoms of financialization.’19 A similar tactic of delay and destroy can be detected in the burgeoning market for ‘biodiversity offsets’, a cap-and-trade policy engineered by mining companies in the early 2000s.20 Potemkin technocracies of this sort are a dead end for the environmentalist movement. 

Coal and other questions 
As Daly stresses, classical political economy operated with a strong sense of the material limits of land and resources. In The Coal Question (1865), William Stanley Jevons—who used the language of Smith and Ricardo while simultaneously introducing marginalist techniques—carefully distinguished between coal’s exhaustion in a physical sense and in an economic one, where the cost of extraction would exceed the utility of the coal itself.21 For a brief period after 1945, petroleum appeared to buck both those limits. First, as Timothy Mitchell notes, oil declined continuously in price—‘although increasing quantities of energy were consumed, the cost of energy did not appear to represent a limit to growth’. Second, ‘thanks to its relative abundance and the ease of ship- ping it across oceans, oil could be treated as something inexhaustible.’22 While oil-price illusions were shattered by the 1973 opec embargo, there still remains a centuries-long total reserve of hydrocarbons, sufficient to fry the planet. Indeed, if there is any chance of capping warming at 2°c, on one authoritative estimate three-quarters of fossil-fuel reserves will have to stay in the ground.23 

Yet even if capitalism is not confronted with an absolute dearth of fossil fuels, it faces the problem predicted by Jevons 150 ago of rapidly increas- ing marginal costs. In the nineteenth century, the best reserves allowed the retrieval of a hundred barrels for every one used for extraction; an energy return on investment (eroi) of 100:1. The us, long the world’s largest producer, still had an energy return of 100:1 in the 1930s, but four decades later this had dropped to 30:1.24 Already by the 1960s, ultra- cheap Middle Eastern and us petroleum was being supplemented by more expensive production in Siberia, the North Sea, Alaska and the Gulf of Mexico. Since the 1990s, production at many of these second-tier deposits has begun to decline, leading to a new round of exploring ever more marginal reserves. Today’s best prospects for future growth, us ‘fracked’ petroleum and Alberta’s tar sands, have the measly energy- return rates of 7:1 and 3:1, respectively.25 It can’t get much lower than this. Nevertheless, ‘Peak Oil’ in terms of conventional petroleum occurred in 2005, suggesting that the future will resemble Alberta more than Al-Ghawa ̄r. Engineers in the Canadian tar sands have been busy shar- ing their expertise with us, Israeli, Venezuelan, Malagasy, Trinidadian and Chinese counterparts.26 Relative to conventional petroleum, non-conventional fuel creates more pollution when it is extracted and is much more dangerous to transport, as manifested by the fire-bombed Québécois town of Lac-Mégantic in 2013 or the desecration of the Kalamazoo River a few years earlier. The massive permanent toxic tail- ings lakes in Alberta and water-tables contaminated by secret proprietary fracking solvents will multiply globally as the industry transitions from conventional to non-conventional fossil fuels.27 

Nor will the seemingly greenest conventional substitutes suffice, for hydropower and methane (i.e. natural gas) are not nearly as ‘clean’ as advertised. When a forest is flooded to create a dam’s reservoir, car- bon dioxide is released from the decomposing trees. Algae growth is catalyzed by the silt trapped by the dam, creating massive emissions of methane. Some hydropower projects actually produce more greenhouse gas emissions than a fossil-fuel-fired plant would.28 In addition, dams entail significant destruction of habitats and loss of species. It is worth noting that Mark Jacobson and his co-authors shy from adding new dams in their model because of these costs.29 The power density of dams can be quite low—an order of magnitude lower than solar or wind-power— if placed on the middle or lower reaches of a river. Ghana’s Akosombo Dam has a power density of only 0.1 w/m2, leading its reservoir to gob- ble up 4 per cent of the country’s landmass.30 Methane too loses its lustre as a ‘bridge fuel’ upon closer examination. Fracking has been credited with reducing carbon pollution in the us, as cheaper methane-fired power plants have replaced coal-fired rivals. But this overlooks the fact that, while carbon emissions declined over the dozen years after 2002, any benefit was undone by increased methane pollution, which rose by a third. Although methane decomposes more quickly than carbon dioxide, its ‘greenhouse’ effect is a hundred times greater in the short term, thirty times greater in the medium term. This is why only a tiny percentage needs to leak before any environmental advantage is nixed. The actual leakage rate is quite high, possibly even 9 per cent.31 

If no rapid transition away from coal, methane and petroleum is on the cards, then Artificial Geo-Engineering, a dangerous and once-ostracized technology, becomes increasingly likely. It already has the blessing of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The probable conse- quences are dystopian sci-fi. ‘Solar radiation management’ will bleach the sky white, cause tens of thousands of deaths from aerosol pollution, gash the ozone layer and interrupt vital climatic systems like the mon- soon and the Gulf Stream. Some of these risks are even acknowledged by its advocates; the world’s leading geo-engineer, David Keith, admits that the closest analogue to Artificial Geo-Engineering is nuclear weapons. It is appropriate that the natural habitat of this technology is in Alberta. In the 2000s, Keith was teaching at the University of Calgary, where both the institution and city have become inextricably linked to the tar- sands industry. To commodify his dangerous expertise he founded a firm, Carbon Engineering, which counts Bill Gates and tar-sands tycoon Murray Edwards as its billionaire patrons. Keith and his fellow thinkers were ostracized as dangerous quacks only a decade ago, but have become respectable through their embrace by the likes of Harvard (where Keith now teaches) and Oxford. Like nuclear waste, or the gargantuan tailings lakes of the tar-sands industry, Artificial Geo-Engineering will require millennia-long management. Should the ‘climate shield’ ever fail, if a war or some other disaster interrupts the aerosol cannons, then the world would rapidly overheat. Such an amplified geo-engineered sum- mer could be as devastating to Earth life as a nuclear winter. 

Atomic environmentalism 
Nor is there much solace to be found in nuclear power, which is nowhere near as environmentally benign as its proponents claim. Studies of the life-cycle of co2 emissions of nuclear plants vary widely, since no one knows the total cost of decommissioning a nuclear reactor or permanently storing toxic waste.32 One can, however, estimate the greenhouse-gas emissions required to process uranium fuel. The use of low-grade ore (2), others are puny, like the Wolf Creek facility in Kansas (30 w/m2).33 Economically, of course, nuclear plants are always white elephants: every kilowatt-hour produced by Hinkley Point C will cost double the wholesale rate—and this at a time when prices for wind and solar power continue to plunge.

There have been enough accidents over the past half-century to discredit nuclear power. Without detailing all of these, in their various shades of hubris and incompetence, examination of the most recent will suf- fice. The clean-up crews at the Fukushima Daiichi plant do not even know where the fuel rods of the three destroyed reactors actually are. Six hundred tonnes of still-fissioning uranium melted through their containment vessels and continue even now to sink deep into the earth beneath the plant. Five robots sent to look for the lost fuel rods ‘died’ during their mission, when radiation destroyed their wiring. 

Cleaning up may take forty years or longer and cost $20 billion, while the total cost of the disaster is estimated at $188 billion.34 Part of the reason why the destroyed plant is so difficult to clean is that it needs to be inundated daily with 150,000 litres of ocean water. In its early days, the deluge cooled and stabilized the damaged reactors, arresting the core’s meltdown; without it, the radiation would have spread much farther, forcing the evacuation of up to 50 million people from Tokyo and its environs, a dislocation the Japanese prime minister compared to ‘losing a huge war’.35 The official stance of the government and the un is that no one has died because of the disaster at Fukushima Daiichi, but this already defies belief. Some scientists have predicted that there will be 1,000 to 3,000 excess cancer deaths, a figure commensurate with the much smaller release of radioactivity compared to that of Chernobyl in 1986. It was not until twenty years later that the un admitted there were any deaths at all as a result of the Chernobyl explosion, beyond the 50 in its early aftermath. Today, the most conservative estimates put the figure at 9,000.36 

According to the ‘largest statistical analysis of nuclear accidents ever undertaken’, another disaster on the scale of Fukushima in 2011 or Chernobyl in 1986 has a 50 per cent chance of occurring before 2050.37 Yet prominent greens, including George Monbiot, James Hansen and James Lovelock have lined up to declare their support for nuclear power. Monbiot became pro-nuclear after the meltdown at Fukushima Daiichi, reasoning that the result wasn’t so bad despite the worst possible luck.38 Writing with the geo-engineer Ken Caldeira, a collaborator of Keith’s, Hansen has called for the world to build a nuclear reactor every five days between now and 2050. These 2,135 new reactors would dwarf the current total of 440 and almost certainly inflate the peril of another meltdown.39 Yet seemingly not content with the riskiness of common nuclear power, many atomic-environmentalists, including Monbiot, Hansen and Stewart Brand, advocate the even more untested and unsta- ble variant of fast-breeder reactors, the name referring to their ability to produce more fissile material than they consume, usually turning uranium or thorium into plutonium, a bomb material par excellence.40 Liquid sodium is used as a coolant, but this has a snag: it combusts upon exposure to air. Most breeders spend nine-tenths of the time offline for repairs, since even the smallest leak causes a fire, making renewable- energy systems seem quite reliable. The only fast-breeder facility with a better track record was Russia’s bn-600 reactor in Zarechny which, uniquely and terrifyingly, continued operating during fourteen liquid- sodium conflagrations over seventeen years. Although many trumpet the advantage of breeders in producing little toxic waste from spent fuel, they ignore the fact that the sodium coolant becomes radioactive after use.41 After wasting $100 billion on decades of experimentation, governments in the us and Western Europe have mothballed their fast breeders. India is one of the few countries that currently has plans to build them, but less as unreliable power plants than as plutonium facto- ries to arm thousands of nukes.42 

Regreening the land 
How would half-earthing work? First, it would be a political economy without the crutches of nuclear power or Artificial Geo-Engineering, which could not rely on economic growth to deal with its problems. Instead, it would have the advantages of a functioning ecosystem, stable climate and egalitarian social order. A sketch of what’s envisaged must address three issues: cutting greenhouse-gas emissions as low as pos- sible; finding sufficient land for both a half-earth rewilding programme and a massive expansion of renewable energy systems; and offering the ‘good life’ to all. 

Natural Geo-Engineering can influence the global climate system quite quickly. Reforestation has had a significant effect in the last decade or two, enough to forestall the worst of climate change’s ill effects. The collapse of communist forestry and agriculture in the 1990s allowed the forests in Russia’s European half to absorb more carbon, increasing by a third.43 China, often regarded as bearing the brunt of globalization’s environmental costs, actually has an extremely effective state-directed reforestation programme. In the last quarter of the twentieth century, the carbon sequestered by its forests increased fivefold. This was partly due to more tree plantations, but it was the expansion of protected wild forests that was particularly effective. Wild ecosystems generally sequester more carbon per hectare than their managed equivalents.44 Elsewhere, forests have endured a less happy fate. Rainforests, both the temperate sort found in British Columbia and the tropical kinds strung along the Equator, are capable of sequestering 200–600 tonnes of car- bon per hectare—Californian redwood forests can contain an amazing 3,500 tonnes per hectare—and their preservation should be the centre- piece of any climate policy. Species diversity matters amongst plants, too, as more diverse ecosystems have been found to retain more carbon.45 Tropical deforestation rates are increasing again, however, after a brief deceleration in the 1990s, with land grabs to establish palm plantations in Indonesia, and soybean and cattle farms in Brazil, the main drivers. Luckily, tropical forest is capable of a fairly quick recovery if given the chance.46 Less studied but no less important are marine biomes. Sea grasses and other marine flora are especially promising means to miti- gate climate change, because their weight adds up to less than a twentieth of one per cent of all terrestrial plant biomass, but potentially captures an equal amount of carbon. Marine meadows, however, urgently need protection as they are the most endangered eco-system, facing an annual rate of depletion of 7 per cent.47 

There isn’t much time left to implement Natural Geo-Engineering, for many ecosystems are already on the brink of systemic failure. Wildfires in western North America have doubled their area in the past forty years, as the region has become drier and warmer. The glaciers in the Rocky Mountains that feed the region’s many deltas, streams, lakes and bogs have shrunk, often by half in terms of volume. Canada’s boreal forest is already close to transitioning from a carbon sink into a source of emis- sions.48 The Amazon rainforest is so damp because the trees themselves create their own regional climate; trapping water through transpiration contributes half of all rainfall in the forest. This works less well with fewer trees. As the Amazon rainforest shrinks it has endured unprec- edented droughts in 2005, 2010 and 2015. If this trend worsens, the rainforest may transition into a savannah, becoming a huge source of carbon emissions.49 

Effective Natural Geo-Engineering is inseparable from biodiversity, which itself is dependent on territoriality, and needs to be upheld in its own right. Kelp, for example, needs to be protected from herbivores by higher predators. The rebound of otter populations in the North Pacific reduced the number of sea urchins, allowing kelp forests to recover to the point where they now absorb a tenth of British Columbia’s carbon emissions. Similarly, wolves protect the boreal forest from maraud- ing caribou that would otherwise feed on bark, weakening trees. The great wildebeest herds of the Serengeti regulate the carbon cycle of that vast prairie, as their grazing prevents dead grass from accumulating as kindling for wildfires. Wildebeest herds have quadrupled since the mid-twentieth century, and the Serengeti has returned to its status as a huge carbon sink. Whales can also act as a geological force, accelerat- ing the carbon cycle, delivering plankton from the ocean’s surface to its depths through everyday acts of eating, diving and excreting. This mechanism would have a stronger effect if much-depleted whale popu- lations returned to their natural levels.50 It makes little sense to attempt to preserve biodiversity or to further Natural Geo-Engineering without linking the two. 

Natural Geo-Engineering would still be necessary even if a completely renewable energy system were to emerge tomorrow, for certain pro- cesses still require fossil fuels and thus need to be offset by carbon sequestration. Even an eco-austere society will need steel and cement, if only for hundreds of thousands of wind turbines. For both of these, fossil fuels are indispensable ingredients. Cement production requires kilns at extremely high temperatures to create ‘clinker’, for which there is as yet no green alternative to coal; it is responsible for some 5 per cent of all greenhouse-gas emissions, about as much as national emissions from Japan and Brazil combined.51 Steel furnaces may eventually be electrified, but coke is still necessary to smelt limestone and iron ore. Charcoal, a potential biomass alternative, can produce enough heat but cannot bear the weight of metal and rock in the way that coke can.52 About a third of steel currently produced every year comes from recy- cled scrap, a proportion that could be raised as overall production is reduced. Intercontinental trade and concourse will still depend to some extent on jet engines for planes and diesel for container ships, even though, with the onset of egalitarian eco-austerity, globalization would be a much reduced force. 

Dimming the lights 
Half-earthing will involve intensive eco-austerity in land and energy use. The ‘Two Thousand Watt Society’ proposed by Zürich’s Federal Institute of Technology provides a useful starting point. The plan marries environmental and global-economic justice, for it would allow the poorest to double or triple their consumption, while requiring a commensurate reduction by the rich. An average us citizen uses 12,000 watts, or 288 kwh, per day, which is twice as much as a typical western European, and a dozen times more than an Indian.53 Once convergence at 2,000 watts has been established, it becomes much easier to fulfil other half-earthing goals, such as conversion to renewable energy. At the present rate of consumption, 6,000 watts per head, the entire land surface of Japan or Germany would have to be covered in solar panels or wind turbines; if this was reduced to 2,000 watts, then less than a third of the land would need to be taken up by renewable-energy systems. Environmentalist programmes have long been criticized for aiming to ossify the inequal- ity between the global North and South. Mahathir bin Mohamad rightly scolded delegates during the 1992 Rio Earth Summit: ‘When the rich chopped down their own forests, built their poison-belching factories and scoured the world for cheap resources, the poor said nothing. Indeed they paid for the development of the rich. Now the rich claim a right to regulate the development of poor countries.’ This charge of hypocrisy has prevented greens from building coalitions across international bor- ders and between social movements, but the half-earthing adoption of the 2,000-watt framework would overcome this history of division. 

Although a binding referendum in 2008 committed Zürich to becom- ing a 2,000-watt city by 2050, even the proponents of the goal balk at the revolutionary implications of such a low global-energy quota, prefer- ring to believe it will be achievable through greater energy efficiency, electrification and continued reliance on hydropower. Yet gains from energy efficiency are unlikely to be so spectacular, and the effort will then almost certainly fail.54 A further difficulty is that of Jevons’s Paradox: greater efficiency increases total consumption, because energy becomes relatively cheaper. Effective conservation can be achieved only through state regulation capping total use. Getting down to 2,000 watts cannot happen without sacrifice by consumers and planning by governments, implications that the Swiss have skirted so far. 

A more realistic 2,000-watt Society would be eco-austere. One would live in a ‘passive’ house that required little or no energy for heating or cooling, would eat vegan and rarely fly or drive a car, depending instead on free public transport, walking and cycling.55 Many of these elements of an eco-austere life have matured in the womb of the old society itself, but they require a new political economy to realign them into a coherent whole. Alyssa Battistoni’s work on recasting the care economy of teach- ers and health workers as the nucleus of a future zero-carbon society is exemplary in this regard. ‘To put it plainly’, she writes, ‘pink-collar jobs are green.’ What would that society look like? 

In general, it will mean less work all around. But the kind of work that we’ll need more of in a climate-stable future is work that’s oriented toward sustaining and improving human life, as well as the lives of other species who share our world. That means teaching, gardening, cooking and nurs- ing: work that makes people’s lives better without consuming vast amounts of resources, generating significant carbon emissions, or producing huge amounts of stuff.56 

Battistoni’s vision would be supplemented by renewable energy, clean public transport and state action on housing—so far, only the municipality of Brussels requires all new construction to meet passive standards, as opposed to offering modest subsidies or supporting one- off experimental houses or neighbourhoods.57 

Roads and urban sprawl are leading causes of ecosystem fragmentation; a serious reduction in car use would free up huge amounts of space. In many us cities, for example, approximately 60 per cent of municipal land area is dedicated to car use in the form of roads, car parks and easements.58 Even if energy efficiency means that carbon pollution from oft-demonized cars is not as great as one might have expected, reducing their use is important for reasons of land scarcity. Air travel will need to be rationed, too. Although planes have doubled their fuel efficiency since 1978, flying is the fastest growing sector of transportation and, in the short term, the greenhouse-gas pollution emitted by planes has an effect 20 times greater than all the world’s cars, because of the sensitivity of the atmosphere’s upper reaches.59 Substitutes, such as solar-powered planes, will not be able to compete with kerosene-driven rivals for many decades. Here, there is no technological fix in sight. 

Euthanize the carnivore 
Agriculture is by far the most profligate sector of the economy in its greenhouse-gas emissions and land-use; its expansion, especially over the past half-century, has had terrible effects. Most deforestation occurs when new land is opened up for ranching and plantations, a process responsible for one-eighth of greenhouse-gas production. Industrial agriculture is heavily dependent on fossil fuels for pesticides, mechani- cal equipment, fertilizers and irrigation. Much of its prodigious waste stems from raising and slaughtering billions of animals every year. The energy losses entailed in transmuting grain into animal flesh generally result in an efficiency of only 10 per cent, as is generally the case when trophic levels are crossed. If the us alone redirected the grains currently fed to livestock to human consumption, it could feed 800 million more people. Since extreme carnivorousness is closely linked to income, it is the bourgeois slivers of humanity that devour the lion’s share of global meat production. The leading cause of the Sixth Extinction is manifest in the statistics of the world’s terrestrial vertebrate biomass: one third is human, two-thirds is livestock, and only a few percentiles remain for all the world’s wild animals.60 

Food production would have to be completely transformed to real- ize the goals of half-earth economics, but this should be predicated on less technology, not more. Organic vegan agriculture can achieve yields comparable to industrial agriculture, though it requires more labour and a different diet.61 If agriculture were to be deindustrialized and redirected towards making food for people rather than livestock, then emissions could be reduced and new swathes of land used for parks or energy facilities. Solar panels and wind turbines can largely overlap with cities and the remaining farms. Considering that about half of all terri- tory in Europe and the us is currently dedicated to agriculture—a ratio that would drastically shrink in a meatless society—this would free up enough room to achieve all the goals of half-earthing. The average omni- vore requires 1.08 hectares to grow enough food for herself, but a vegan needs only 0.13 hectares.62 Vegetarianism is a half-measure, as egg and cheese-eaters still need about 0.4 hectares per head. 

It is from pasture, necessarily, that an eco-austere world will derive the land needed for Natural Geo-Engineering. Nearly half the world’s non-mountainous land is already dedicated to agriculture. Of these 5 billion hectares, 3.5 billion are pasture, which vegans would not require at all, while of the remaining 1.5 billion dedicated to crops, 400 million are used to grow animal feed and 300 million for industrial purposes such as biofuels and bioplastics. Only 800 million hectares of land are devoted to growing food directly for people. One study estimates that if 800 million hectares of land were reforested, the billions of new trees would sequester 215 gtc over the next century. Natural Geo-Engineering at this scale would decrease atmospheric carbon pollution at the scale of 85 ppm, bringing it to a much safer range in the low 300s ppm.63 This feat would be relatively easy to accomplish in a mostly vegan world, even though a reforestation of this scale would be five times greater than the last massive rewilding during the Little Ice Age. 

A global Cuba 
There is room for some optimism, however, for a great experiment in creating a nearly fossil-fuel-free society has already taken place. Cubans had to make do with much less in the 1990s during the Período Especial, when Soviet petroleum exports evaporated along with the superpower itself. During the 1980s, known locally as the ‘years of the fat cow’, Cuba depended on a massive, industrialized, export-oriented sugar sec- tor, grew few crops for sustenance and catered to extremely carnivorous tastes; its agriculture at the time was even more reliant on fossil-fuel inputs than its us counterpart. Due to the severity of us sanctions, far harsher than Saddam Hussein’s Iraq ever faced, and the distortions introduced by two decades of Soviet ‘support’, Cuba’s transition away from fossil fuels was a painful one, accomplished during a severe reces- sion. But if this relatively poor and isolated island could refashion itself in this way, then no society has an excuse for inaction. Indeed, despite economic contraction and the tightening of the us embargo, universal healthcare and education were maintained in Cuba.64 

Getting by without petroleum or petroleum-based products (fertilisers and pesticides, for example) forced the largest and most compressed experiment in organic and urban gardening in history. The early 1990s saw the creation of 26,000 public gardens in Havana alone, turning the city into a big urban farm that supplied enough produce for about half of its nutritional needs. Although the notion will surely horrify work-shy futurists, the substitution of labour intensity for power inten- sity is in itself not a bad thing. If half-earthing were ever implemented, agriculture could usefully soak up unemployed workers from defunct industries that were dependent on high fossil-fuel consumption. During the Período Especial, Cuba bought over a million bicycles from China to replace the idle buses and cars. Eating less meat and more vegetables, combined with cycling or walking to work generally led to improved health in the general population. Plantation monocultures could not be managed without massive fossil-fuel inputs, so Cubans cultivated less land more intensively, returning about a third of farmland to wilder- ness. This has helped Cuba maintain its incredible biodiversity (indeed, it is listed amongst Wilson’s global hotspots) and led the World Wildlife Fund to recognize it as the world’s only ‘sustainable’ country.65 With its effective and low-cost social policy and post-fossil fuel economy, the experience of Cuba in the 1990s offers the outline of a feasible, eco- egalitarian half-earth society. 
The argument for half-earthing is predicated upon the clear and pre- sent danger of nuclear power, Artificial Geo-Engineering and fossil fuels. Capitalism can continue ‘business as usual’, but only at an ever greater cost to nature and the world’s poor. An effective and desirable half-Earth political economy must offer a better life for most people. If egalitarian eco-austerity is to work, resources must be rationed for the sake of fairness and efficacy; asceticism cannot be a mere ‘lifestyle choice’. An eco-austere life may mean fewer consumerist trifles and less work, but it would guarantee rights to shelter, health care, leisure and education. There is a vast literature on the uselessness of private con- sumption, beyond a certain point.66 A solution to global environmental crises requires the humbling of the global bourgeoisie, the richest sev- eral hundred million. The bourgeoisie cannot pretend that the society they have created can solve its own problems; a green veneer would signify little in a biologically impoverished world with a corporate- controlled climate. While this minority must adjust to relatively modest living standards, the very same ceiling to their consumption would imply a greatly raised floor for humanity’s majority. Most importantly, this egalitarian limit would allow the amelioration of the global climate system that everyone depends upon and the preservation of millions of other species. 

To avert a neo-liberal future that would entail the desecration of irreplace- able biomes and the climatic system, the environmentalist left needs new concepts, goals and tactics, along with a realistic reckoning of sacri- fices. This is a costly programme in terms of the land required—giving up half the world to nature—but it is a price worth paying to prevent capitalism from continuing to enrich a few million rentiers while impov- erishing billions, and irrevocably turning the planet into a factory farm or garbage dump. It is only within an eco-austere society that Londoners may perhaps one day enjoy another Frost Fair: ‘This transient scene, a Universe of Glass / Whose various forms are pictur’d as they pass / Here future Ages may with wonder view / And what they scarce could think, acknowledge true.’67 

References:
1 Unknown poet, ‘Printed on the River Thames in the month of January, 1740’, in Charles Dickens, William Harrison Ainsworth and Albert Smith, eds, Bentley’s Miscellany, vol. 7, London 1841, p. 134.
2 Geoffrey Parker, Global Crisis: War, Climate Change, and Catastrophe in the Seventeenth Century, New Haven, ct 2013. The parameters of the Little Ice Age remain hotly disputed. See, inter alia, Emmanuel Le Roy Ladurie, Les Fluctuations du climat de l’an mil à aujourd’hui, Paris 2011, and the discussion of Ladurie’s work in Mike Davis, ‘Taking the Temperature of History’, nlr 110, March–April 2018. 
3 Jed Kaplan et al., ‘Holocene Carbon Emissions as a Result of Anthropogenic Land Cover Change’, Holocene, vol. 21, no. 5, December 2010, pp. 775–91; R. J. Nevle et al., ‘Neotropical Human–Landscape Interactions, Fire, and Atmospheric co2 dur- ing European Conquest’, Holocene, vol. 21, no. 5, August 2010, p. 853. 
4 Oswald Schmitz, ‘How “Natural Geo-Engineering” Can Help Slow Global Warming’, Yale e360, 25 January 2016.
5 See Clive Hamilton, Earthmasters: The Dawn of the Age of Climate Engineering, New Haven, ct 2013, pp. 74–84; Philip Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, London and New York, pp. 325–58. 
6 See Vaclav Smil, Power Density, Cambridge, ma 2015, p. 247. A notable excep- tion to this is Appalachian mountain-top removal, which has a power density ‘well below’ 100 w/m2: p. 107.
7 Even eco-optimists, such as Mark Jacobson, assume underwhelming rates of power density for renewables, with only 9 w/m2 for wind: Mark Jacobson et al., ‘The United States Can Keep the Grid Stable at Low Cost with 100% Clean, Renewable Energy in all Sectors Despite Inaccurate Claims’, pnas, vol. 114, no. 26, June 2017. 8 Elizabeth Kolbert, The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History, New York 2014. 
9 J. M. de Vos et al., ‘Estimating the Normal Background Rate of Species Extinction’, Conservation Biology, vol. 29, no. 2, April 2015, pp. 452–62. Paul Renne et al., ‘State Shift in Deccan Volcanism at the Cretaceous-Paleogene Boundary, Possibly Induced by Impact’, Science, vol. 350, no. 6,256, October 2015, pp. 76–8. 
 0 E. O. Wilson, Half-Earth: Our Planet’s Fight for Life, New York 2016, pp. 136–51. 
11 Herman Daly and Benjamin Kunkel, ‘Ecologies of Scale’, nlr 109, pp. 88–93.
12 Adam Tooze, Statistics and the German State, 19001945: The Making of Modern Economic Knowledge, Cambridge 2001. Robert Collins, More: The Politics of Economic Growth in Postwar America, Oxford 2002. 
13 Daly, ‘Ecologies of Scale’, p. 88.
14 John Dales, Pollution, Property & Prices, Toronto 1968.
15 Daly, ‘Ecologies of Scale’, p. 90.
16 Andreas Malm makes a similar point in The Progress of this Storm, London 2018. 
17 Natasha Lamb and Bob Litterman, ‘Tell the truth, ExxonMobil: A low-carbon future is affordable—and necessary’, Guardian, 31 January 2016.
18 Sean Sweeney, Hard Facts about Coal: Why Trade Unions Should Rethink Their Support for Carbon Capture and Storage, New York 2015, p. 8. 
19 Mirowski, Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste, pp. 339–40.
20 Sarah Benabou, ‘Making Up for Lost Nature: A Critical Review of the International Development of Voluntary Biodiversity Offsets’, Environment and Society, vol. 5, 2014, pp. 103–23.
21 William Stanley Jevons, The Coal Question, London 1865, Preface, p. 2. 
22 Timothy Mitchell, ‘Carbon Democracy’, Economy and Society, vol. 38, no. 3, August 2009, p. 418.
23 Christophe McGlade and Paul Ekins, ‘The Geographical Distribution of Fossil Fuels Unused when Limiting Global Warming to 2°c’, Nature, vol. 517, pp. 187–90, January 2015. 
24 Ugo Bardi et al., ‘Modelling eroi and Net Energy in the Exploitation of Non- Renewable Resources’, Ecological Modelling, vol. 223, no. 1, December 2011, pp. 54–8. 25 Rachel Nuwer, ‘Oil Sands Mining Uses up Almost as Much Energy as It Produces’, Inside Climate News, 19 February 2013. 
26 John L. Hallock, Jr et al., ‘Forecasting the Limits to the Availability and Diversity of Global Conventional Oil Supply’, Energy, vol. 64, January 2014, p. 130; MacDonald Stainsby, ‘New Beginnings: Tar Sands Prospecting Abroad’, in Toban Black et al., eds, A Line in the Tar Sands, Toronto 2014, pp. 101–8. 
27 The train that destroyed Lac-Mégantic was carrying fracked petroleum, laced with explosive chemicals. Jacquie McNish and Grant Robertson, ‘The Deadly Secret behind the Lac-Mégantic Inferno’, Globe and Mail, 3 December 2013. Elizabeth McGowan and Lisa Song, ‘The Dilbit Disaster: Inside The Biggest Oil Spill You’ve Never Heard Of’, Inside Climate News, 26 June 2012. Gillian Steward, ‘Tailings Ponds a Toxic Legacy of Alberta’s Oilsands’, Toronto Star, 4 September 2015. 
28 Duncan Graham-Rowe, ‘Hydroelectric Power’s Dirty Secret Revealed’, New Scientist, 24 February 2005. Bridget Deemer et al., ‘Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Reservoir Water Surfaces’, BioScience, vol. 66, no. 11, 1 November 2016, pp. 949–64. 
29 Mark Jacobson, ‘100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All- Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World’, Joule, 6 September 2017, p. 93.
30 Smil, Power Density, p. 73. 
1 Bill McKibben, ‘Global Warming’s Terrifying New Chemistry’, Nation, 23 March 2016. Nathan Phillips et al., ‘Mapping Urban Pipeline Leaks’, Environmental Pollution, vol. 173, February 2013, pp. 1–4. 
32 Benjamin Sovacool, ‘Valuing the Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Nuclear Power: A Critical Survey’, Energy Policy, vol. 36, August 2008, pp. 2,940–53. oecd, Costs of Decommissioning Nuclear Power Plants, Paris 2016.
33 Keith Barnham, ‘False Solution: Nuclear Power is not “Low Carbon”’, Ecologist, 5 February 2015; Smil, Power Density, pp. 146–7. 
34 Aaron Sheldrick and Minami Funakoshi, ‘Fukushima’s Ground Zero’, Reuters, 11 March 2016; Yuka Obayashi and Kentaro Hamada, ‘Japan Nearly Doubles Fukushima Disaster-Related Cost to $188 Billion’, Reuters, 8 December 2016. 
35 Andrew Gilligan, ‘Fukushima: Tokyo Was on the Brink of Nuclear Catastrophe, Admits Former Prime Minister’, Daily Telegraph, 4 March 2016.
36 See respectively Jan Beyea et al., ‘Accounting for Long-Term Doses in Worldwide Health Effects of the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Accident’, Energy & Environmental Science, vol. 6, no. 3, 2013, pp. 1,042–5; Frank von Hippel, ‘The Radiological and Psychological Consequences of the Fukushima Daiichi Accident’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, vol. 67, no. 5, September 2011, pp. 27–36; who, ‘Chernobyl: The True Scale of the Accident’, 5 September 2005. Estimates of the number of deaths at Chernobyl vary between 9,000 and 93,000, the Greenpeace figure. Jim Green, ‘The Chernobyl Death Toll’, Nuclear Monitor, no. 785, 24 April 2014. 
37 Spencer Wheatley et al., ‘Of Disasters and Dragon Kings: A Statistical Analysis of Nuclear Power Incidents and Accidents’, Risk Analysis, 22 March 2016.
38 George Monbiot, ‘Why Fukushima Made Me Stop Worrying and Love Nuclear Power’, Guardian, 21 March 2011. See also James Lovelock, ‘We Have No Time to Experiment with Visionary Energy Sources’, Independent, 24 May 2004. 
39 James Hansen, Ken Caldeira et al., ‘Nuclear Power Paves the Only Viable Path Forward on Climate Change’, Guardian, 3 December 2015. At the 2017 un Climate Change Conference in Bonn, Hansen shared the podium with Michael Shellenberger, president of the Breakthrough Institute, an outfit that supports ‘market solutions’, nuclear power and geo-engineering as means to overcome the climatic crisis. 
40 Todd Woody, ‘Stewart Brand’s Strange Trip’, Yale360, 22 December 2009. Fred Pearce, ‘Are Fast-Breeder Reactors a Nuclear Power Panacea?’, Yale360, 30 July 2012. Jim Green, ‘Nuclear Fallacies’, CounterPunch, 5 October 2017.
41 Thomas Cochran et al., ‘It’s Time to Give up on Breeder Reactors’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, May 2010, pp. 50–6. 
42 M. V. Ramana, ‘A Fast Reactor at any Cost’, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 3 November 2016. 
43 Yude Pan et al., ‘A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink in the World’s Forests’, Science, 19 August 2011, p. 989.
44 Chunhua Zhang et al., ‘Disturbance-Induced Reduction of Biomass Carbon Sinks of China’s Forests in Recent Years’, Environmental Research Letters, vol. 10, 2015, p. 3. Jingyun Fang et al., ‘Changes in Forest Biomass Carbon Storage in China between 1949 and 1998’, Science, vol. 292, 2001, p. 2320; Vaclav Smil, Harvesting the Biosphere: What We Have Taken from Nature, Cambridge, ma 2012, p. 19. 
45 Smil, Harvesting the Biosphere, pp. 18–19; Shiping Chen et al., ‘Plant diversity enhances productivity and soil carbon storage’, pnas, 17 April 2018, vol. 115, no. 16, pp. 4027–4032. 
46 Do-Hyung Kim et al., ‘Accelerated Deforestation in the Humid Tropics from the 1990s to the 2000s’, Geophysical Research Letters, 7 May 2015, pp. 3495–501.
47 Nicola Jones, ‘How Growing Sea Plants Can Help Slow Ocean Acidification’, Yale e360, 12 July 2016. See also the report: Grid-Arendal, Blue Carbon: The Role of Healthy Oceans in Binding Carbon, Arendal 2009. 
48 Its annual intake of carbon is down by half compared to the 1990s: Pan et al., ‘A Large and Persistent Carbon Sink’, p. 989. Only 5 per cent of the boreal wetland needs to be drained to counteract any benefit of carbon sequestration by the forest as a whole. See Peter Lee and Ryan Cheng, ‘Bitumen and Biocarbon’, Global Forest Watch Canada, Edmonton 2009, p. 8. 
49 Center for International Forestry Research, ‘Amazon Forest Could Become an “Impoverished Savannah” under Climate Change’, Reuters, 18 September 2014. 
50 Schmitz, ‘How “Natural Geo-Engineering” Can Help Slow Global Warming’; Joe Roman and James McCarthy, ‘The Whale Pump: Marine Mammals Enhance Primary Productivity in a Coastal Basin’, plos one, vol. 5, no. 10, 2010, p. e13255. 51 Amazingly, concrete is the most consumed material in the world after water, usage equivalent to about three tons per person every year. See Madeline Rubenstein, ‘Emissions from the Cement Industry’, State of the Planet, 9 May 2012. There is no low-carbon alternative to making clinker according to the Pembina Institute, ‘Alternative Fuel Use in Cement Manufacturing: Implications, Opportunities and Barriers in Ontario’, Toronto 2014. 
52 Smil, Power Density, p. 233. 
53 Eberhard Jochem, ed., Steps toward a Sustainable Development, Zürich 2006. In the 1980s the Brazilian environmentalist José Goldemberg argued for a quota of 1,000 watts; he was Brazil’s Secretary of the Environment during the 1992 Earth Summit. See José Goldemberg et al., ‘Basic Needs and Much More with One Kilowatt per Capita’, Ambio, vol. 14, no. 4–5, 1985, pp. 190–200; José Goldemberg et al., Energy for a Sustainable World, New York 1988. 
54 See François Maréchal et al., ‘Energy in the Perspective of Sustainable Development: The 2,000 w Society Challenge’, Resources, Conservation and Recycling, vol. 44, no. 3, June 2005, pp. 245–62; Thorsten Frank Schulz, ‘Intermediate Steps Towards the 2,000-Watt Society in Switzerland: An Energy-Economic Scenario Analysis’, PhD dissertation, eth Zürich, 2007; Dominic Notter et al. ‘The Western Lifestyle and Its Long Way to Sustainability’, Environmental Science & Technology, vol. 47, no. 9, 2013, pp. 4,014–21. 
55 This echoes many of the recommendations in an influential synthetic review of the climate mitigation literature. Seth Synes and Kimberly Nicholas, ‘The Climate Mitigation Gap: Education and Government Recommendations Miss the Most Effective Individual Actions’, Environmental Research Letters, vol. 12, no. 7, July 2017. 56 Alyssa Battistoni, ‘Living, Not Just Surviving’, Jacobin, 15 August 2017.
57 Lenny Antonelli, ‘How Brussels Went Passive’, Passive House+, 26 October 2016. For a summary of international subsidy regimes, see Tom-Pierre Frappé- Sénéclauze et al., Accelerating Market Transformation for High-Performance Building Enclosures, Pembina Institute, Calgary 2016, pp. 119–26. 
58 Charlie Gardner, ‘We Are the 25%: Looking at Street Area Percentages and Surface Parking’, Old Urbanist, 12 December 2011.
59 Duncan Clark, ‘The Surprisingly Complex Truth about Planes and Climate Change’, Guardian, 9 September 2010. 
60 Nadia El-Hage Scialabba and Maria Müller-Lindenlauf, ‘Organic Agriculture and Climate Change’, Renewable Agriculture and Food Systems, vol. 25, no. 2, March 2010, pp. 158–69; ‘us Could Feed 800 Million People with Grain that Livestock Eat, Cornell Ecologist Advises Animal Scientists’, Cornell Chronicle, 7 August 1997; Smil, Harvesting the Biosphere, p. 299. 
61 David Pimentel et al., ‘Environmental, Energetic, and Economic Comparisons of Organic and Conventional Farming Systems’, BioScience, vol. 55, no. 7, 2005, pp. 573–82.
62 Christian Peters et al., ‘Carrying Capacity of us Agricultural Land: Ten Diet Scenarios’, Elementa, 22 July 2016. 
63 Sebastian Sonntag et al. ‘Reforestation in a High-co2 World—Higher Mitigation Potential than Expected, Lower Adaptation Potential than Hoped For’, Geophysical Research Letters, vol. 43, 2016, p. 6,548.
64 Julia Wright, ‘The Little-Studied Success Story of Post-Crisis Food Security in Cuba’, International Journal of Cuban Studies, vol. 4, no. 2, Summer 2012, p. 132; Emily Morris, ‘Unexpected Cuba’, nlr 88, July–August 2014. The major crisis of the period was the effect on eyesight caused by nutritional deficiencies, alleviated by mass distribution of vitamin supplements once diagnosed. Christina Mills, ‘In the Eye of the Cuban Epidemic Neuropathy Storm’, medicc Review, vo. 13, no. 1, January 2011, pp. 10–15. 
65 Gustav Cederlof, ‘A Farewell to Oil: Low-Carbon Ecology and Social Power in Cuban Urban Agriculture’, Master’s thesis, Lund University, 2013, p. 67; Sarah Boseley, ‘Hard Times behind Fall in Heart Disease and Diabetes in 1990s Cuba’, Guardian, 9 April 2013; Elisa Botella-Rodríguez, ‘Cuba’s Inward-Looking Development Policies: Towards Sustainable Agriculture’, Historia Agraria, no. 55, December 2011, p. 160; World Wildlife Fund, Living Planet Report 2006, Gland 2006, p. 19.
66 See Kim Humphery, Excess: Anti-Consumerism in the West, Hoboken 2013. 

Saturday, June 6, 2015

1876. On Michael Löwy’s Ecosocialism

By Kamran Nayeri, June 6, 2015

Introduction
In its most general sense ecological socialism (ecosocialism) is a political movement for the solution to the present day crisis of society and nature.  While there is an increasing number of younger people who begin their political life as ecosocialists, in terms of theory and methodology ecosocialism finds its origins in various shades of socialism, in particular, those that identify themselves as Marxist (The term is more problematic today than it was in Marx’s time, see Michael Heinrich, 2015).  Although Marx and Engels were sensitive to environmental and ecological problems of their time and a number of notable socialists have shown similar sensibilities, ecosocialism as a self-conscious movement has emerged since the 1970s in response to the rise of environmentalism. As such ecosocialism is a movement in its infancy in philosophical, methodological, theoretical, and practical senses.  A welcome addition to the ecosocialist literature, Michael Löwy’s Ecosocialism: A Radical Alternative to Capitalist Catastrophe reflects this fact about ecosocialism. 

However, the book is neither an introduction to ecosocialism in the sense of surveying the field nor a systematic discussion of it from Löwy’s own point of view. Rather it is a small book (120 pages, including 22 pages of appendices, four pages of notes and nine pages of index)  that in Löwy's own words  are “a more modest attempt to explore some of its theoretical aspects and proposals as well as some concrete experiences of struggle.” (p. xv)  

Although Löwy does not explain the logical structure of the book himself, it appears to me that it is centered on his decade-old “What Is Ecosocialism?” (Chapter One).  Chapter Two (“Ecosocialism and Democratic Planning”) and Chapter Three (“Ecology and Advertisement”) are a more detailed discussion of ideas raised in Chapter One.  These are followed by two chapters on Latin American indigenous struggles bearing on ecological and socialist concerns. The book includes four appendices that are ecosocialist statements Löwy coauthored.  Most of what follows pertain to the first and key chapter and their extensions in the next two chapters.  It is an essay in the critical understanding of Löwy ’s conception of ecosocialism and its logical development.  Also, I question Löwy silences when I feel they are important to ecosocialism.  Of course, my reading of Löwy’s book is colored by my own understanding of ecosocialism (Nayeri 2013a and 2013b). 

Ecosocialism and Marx’s theory
A key question in ecosocialism is continuity and change with respect to socialism. The history of socialism is largely one of neglect of the environmental and ecological issues and horrific destruction of the environment under “Really Existing Socialisms.” Given this, environmentalists and ecologists have criticized Marx’s theory as the root-cause. 

Some ecosocialists, notably John Bellamy Foster (2000 and 2010) and Paul Burkett (1999), have argued that not only Marx and Engels were sensitive to and provided insight into ecological and environmental problems of their time, their dialectical methodology and materialist philosophy provide the necessary and sufficient basis for overcoming the crises of society and nature; that is, for ecosocialism.  

Some other ecosocialists have broken with Marx’s and Engels’ teachings in favor of other perspectives. For example, Saral Sarkar (1999) has adopted the technocentric perspective of Limits to Growth of the Club of Rome as a new paradigm to develop his own view of ecosocialism.  

Still, others like James O’Connor (1998) and Joel Kovel  (2007) admit deficiencies and problems in Marx’s theory and have tried to develop synthesis incorporating insights from other sources to meet the intellectual and practical requirements for overcoming the ecosocial crisis. Löwy's theorizing is similar to these writers as he concedes that Marx’s writings include some support for “productivism.” (pp. 2-3)  And he challenges Marxists “to undertake a deep critical revision of their traditional conception of ‘productive forces’ and that they break radically with the ideology of linear progress and with the technological and economic paradigm of modern industrial civilization.” (p. 3)

Löwy approvingly notes Walter Benjamin’s denunciation of the idea of domination of nature and proposal for a new idea of technology as “mastery of relations between nature and humanity” (“One-Way Street”, 1928; quoted in Löwy, p. 3) and his embrace of Fourier’s vision of “labor, which, far from exploiting nature, would be capable of awakening the creations that slept in its womb.” (“On the Concept of History”, 1940; ibid)  I agree that Benjamin had a useful hunch but these formulations remain too general to be useful and as Löwy observes “Marxism is still far from having made up for its backwardness in this regard.” Moreover, regrettably, Löwy reduces Benjamin’s hunch to overcoming “productivism” or in Marxian parlance the explicit preference for continued “development of forces of production” even under socialism.  As we will see below, the quest for domination of nature has been a pillar of the human civilization and root-cause of the anthropogenic crisis of nature. 

To address the problem of “productivism,” in Marx’s theorizing Löwy’ cites two promising lines of development.  One is a recent suggestion by Italian “eco-Marxist” Tiziano Bagarollo to replace the notion of contradiction between forces of production and relations of production with “transformation of potentially productive forces into effectively destructive ones.” (p. 4)  This is a rather substantial revision of Marx’s and Engels’ historical materialism.  It is also an observation made by other Marxists, including Ernest Mandel, who long ago noted that many forms of production are at the same time acts of destruction and so are the forces of production also forces of destruction.  Also, let’s take note that non-Marxists scholars have contributed towards a better understanding of this problem. For example, Ronald Wright (2007) draws attention to “progress traps” in human history and in prehistory when technological progress turns into its opposite. An example he cites is the development of explosive material beginning with the Chinese invention of gunpowder.  Wright argues that when the nuclear bomb was developed a progress trap was reached because if employed it could annihilate the world.  As in the case of Wright, non-Marxist scholars are also more open-minded in terms of searching for such problems in “prehistory” as well as history.  Marxists, on the other hand, are limited by the requirements of historical materialism to look for this problem and solutions to it in class societies. This difference in scope has relevance for the development of ecosocialist theory and policy.  By focusing on class societies, Marxists leave out  95% of the history of Homo sapiens when organized as hunter-gatherers that have to bear on understanding of our relationship with the rest of nature.

Löwy seems to favor another line of thinking, one advanced by James O’Connor’s “Marxist-Polanyist” approach in his “Second Contradiction of Capitalism” thesis. As O’Connor writes: “In 1944, Karl Polanyi published his masterpiece, The Great Transformation, which discussed the ways in which the growth of the capitalist market and economic relations generally impaired or destroyed their own social and environmental conditions.” (O’Connor, 1998, p. 159).  

O’Connor contends this line of analysis is absent from Marx’s work. Such an absence is not surprising as Marx’s focus was on the social relations of production and how they could be revolutionized through the development of class struggle prompted by the laws of motion of capitalist mode of production that he and Engels hoped would lead to socialism in not too distant future.  They could not foresee that the capitalist civilization will survive into the twenty-first century creating the planetary crisis we face today.  But now that it has we need to develop philosophical, theoretical and practical basis adequate to comprehending and overcoming this crisis.  Marx’s and Engels’ brilliant nineteen-century contributions are still necessary.  But in the spirit of Marx himself, we need to find our own way out of this crisis basing ourselves on all necessary knowledge critically appropriated.    

But here is where Löwy’s exploration face difficulties.  He defines ecosocialism as “a current of ecological thought and action that appropriates the fundamental gains of Marxism while shaking off its productivist dross.” (p. 6)  With a slight of his pen, he drops Benjamin’s concern with the problem of the drive to dominate and control nature, which I will return to below.  At the same time, Löwy accepts the need to revise the very method of “Marxism,” historical materialism, with its emphasis on forces of production. How can one “appropriate the fundamental gains of Marxism” if the methodology of reaching them is in some fundamental sense is inadequate to our present day purpose?  The advantage of O’Connor’s approach that Löwy seems to favor is precisely in its attempt to revise historical materialism in ways that allow for a synthesis with Polanyi’s thesis in consideration of the impact of capitalism on nature.  But if we revise Marx’s method would it not be necessary to rethink his theory, including his critique of political economy? Also, Löwy’s definition of ecosocialism as “a current of ecological thought and action” is itself a fundamental revision of Marx’s and Engels’ theory of socialism (Communism, as they called it to differentiate their vision from the Utopian Socialists) as a form of consciousness reached by a current within the working class movement.  Of course, in principle, there is nothing wrong per se in revising Marx’s theory and method if such revision allows us to more effectively overcome the crises of society and nature and emancipate humanity.  However, it is untrue, confusing and sectarian to insist that this is still “Marxist.”  

For a humanist ecology? 
Löwy's conception of ecosocialism includes other notable tensions. A key tension is what I think is fair to call his “humanist ecology.”  In his allusion to O’Connor’s definition of ecosocialism, Löwy argues that O’Connor’s notion of “environmental protection” is a “humanist imperative because “the very survival of the human species” is threatened by the capitalist civilization. (p. 8)  Of course, this not a mere propaganda ploy or agitational tool but part of Löwy attempt at theoretical development of ecosocialism.  Add to this Löwy's  criticism of Deep Ecology for opposing anthropocentrism: a “rejection of humanism, which leads to relativist positions that place all living species on the same plane.” (p. 6)  He rhetorically asks: “Should one really maintain that Koch’s bacillus or the Anopheles mosquito have the same right to life as a child suffering from tuberculosis or malaria?”  (ibid.)

I will get back to Löwy’s criticism of Deep Ecology and his rhetorical question in a moment.  Let’s focus on the theoretical and methodological question that Löwy raises: anthropocentrism (or its humanism variety) or ecocentrism (which Deep Ecology embraces), which is the proper worldview for understanding and addressing the ecological crisis?  By definition, ecology as a branch of biology deals with the web of relationships among organisms and with their physical environment. We call this complex set of relationships an ecosystem. Thus, by definition ecological concerns are with ecosystems and are ecocentric by definition.  By contract, anthropocentrism or its humanist variety view humans as the apex of creation. They are a human-centered approach to reality, social or ecological. 

As a philosophical and literary movement, Humanism originated in Italy in the second half of the fourteen century and has come to be a pillar of modernity, including socialism.  Humanism has been a revolutionary movement where it has dethroned supernatural beings, gods, to liberate humanity from religious dogma and tyranny.  Yet, humanism has maintained a modified version of the anthropocentrism of the Church’s doctrine which in the Book of Genesis that claims God created Man in his own image and other species for Him.

Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution challenges anthropocentric views of humans as the apex of creation with its contribution to our understanding of life on Earth and our place in it.  Of course, Darwin did not deny that human mental capacities are greater than other animals. He acknowledged that humans far outdistance all other animals in linguistic ability, thought, and reason.  He only insisted that the difference, impressive as they are, are matters of degree, not of kind. At the same time, despite the prevalent practice of comparing other species’ capabilities to humans, the Darwinian evolutionary theory makes it clear that every species has capabilities adequate to the ecosystem niche it inhabits. Thus, a chimpanzee has arms much stronger than humans and a tiny gopher can dig a complex maze of tunnels with its tiny hands and sharp claws and an ant can carry 100 times its own weight.  It is anthropocentric and anti-Darwinian to expect other species to excel in capacities acquired by our species. In the Darwinian theory, there are simpler and more complex species. There are no superior or inferior species. 

The Darwinian heritage is an intellectual and spiritual pillar for the ecological movement and a guiding light for humanity to emerge out of its thousands-year-old crisis of society and nature.  Thus, it is essential to any ecosocialist theorizing that hopes to provide a solid ethical basis for any post-capitalist naturalist social formation.  

There is a growing literature on bioethics. Let me cite one example that directly uses Darwin’s theory.  Philosopher James Rachels (1990) has used Darwin’s theory to argue for moral consideration for all animals.  Before Darwin, he recalls, the doctrine of “dignity of man” which is the central tenant of humanism, was defended by the claim that “man is made in the image of God” or by the notion that “man is a uniquely rational being.” Rachels painstakingly debunks both of these arguments in light of Darwin’s theory. To replace the “dignity of man” doctrine, he proposes “moral individualism.”  
How an individual should be treated depends on his or her own particular characteristics, rather than on whether he or she is a members of some preferred group--even the ‘group’ of human beings...This means that human life will, in a sense, be devalued, while the value granted to non-human life will be increased. (Rachels 1990, p. 5) 
By “devaluation” of human life, Rachels means the process of dethroning human beings as the apex of creation in our anthropocentric culture. It should be understood in the sense of leveling of hierarchical value systems as in the case of the fall of Apartheid in South Africa.  It was not so much “devaluing” the lives of white South African as it was for equality of rights for all regardless of their race.   

It is also notable that for 95% of our existence when humans were hunter-gatherers some of whom still survive, they held animist beliefs and ecocentric cosmologies.  Archeological evidence suggests that transition to farming by some hunter-gatherer bands that occurred at the end of the last ice age about 10,000 ago was possibly facilitated by emerging anthropocentric worldview and certainly reinforced and institutionalized it with the emergence of class societies and civilization (Barker, 2006).  I have argued (Nayeri, 2013b) that this historical transition marks the onset of our alienation from nature.  Given its foundational necessity for class societies—without domination and control of other species the Agricultural Revolution would have never happened and economic surplus was not possible. Thus, anthropocentrism also served as the basis for social stratification and subordination, oppression and exploitation of all kinds. Therefore, human emancipation, postulated in Marx as a process of de-alienation (and not simply of having more free time as Löwy contends), requires not only a revolution to transcend the fossil fuel-based industrial capitalist civilization in the direction of an Associated Producers mode of production but also a cultural revolution to overcome anthropocentrism (also known as speciesism or doctrine of human superiority). 

Now we can return to  Löwy's rhetorical question and his criticism of Deep Ecology: “Should one really maintain that Koch’s bacillus or the Anopheles mosquito have the same right to life as a child suffering from tuberculosis or malaria?”  Löwy does not ascribe this perverse position to anyone or any source in Deep Ecology.  But holding an ecocentric worldview, Darwinian or Deep Ecology, does not entail disregard for human life or opposition to saving a child from tuberculosis or malaria. Point Three of the Eight Point Platform of Deep Ecology, drafted by two of its most influential thinkers Arnes Naess and George Sessions, clearly states: “Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity [of life] except to satisfy vital needs.” (my emphasis) This statement focuses on species in ecosystems and exempts humans to reduce its “richness and diversity” for the satisfaction of their “vital needs.” Would anyone fantom Naess or Sessions object to saving a child’s life from a life threatening infections?  Löwy rhetorical question posed as an attack on Deep Ecology is bogus.  The “relativism” of Deep Ecology is really its ecocentrism that dovetails Darwin’s and that of ecology.  Neither leads humanity into neglecting our vital needs. Both require us to give up our self-appointed position as the apex of creation and to embrace nature with love and empathy as we do for humanity. Thus, from the point of view of ecosocialism, the problem is not ecocentrism but humanism that is a variety of anthropocentrism. 

In his two chapters on Latin American indigenous peoples’ fight for the environment, Löwy discusses recent development in Bolivia in support of the rights of Mother Earth. Is this not a reflection of the native cultures in the Americas that held and in some cases continue to hold today ecocentric world views similar to those Deep Ecology promotes?

Questions of policy
Of course, the anthropocentric basis of Löwy’s theorizing frames his understanding of the root cause of the ecological crisis and his approach to ecosocialist policy.  In his discussion of democratic planning which he expands on in Chapter Two Löwy appeals to E. P. Thomson’s notion a “moral economy” founded on non-monetary, extra-economic criteria. The question is: does Löwy “moral economy” include an integral ethical approach to other species and the well-being of the planet?  

The answer is that it doesn’t.  I will cite three examples. 

The problem of human overpopulation 
Take Löwy’s silence on the population question.  It is estimated that during Jesus’s time the world population was about 300 million.  It took eighteen centuries for it to reach one billion by 1804.   But in the next 123 years, it doubled to two billion in 1927.  Just 33 years later, in 1960, it reached 3 billion.  Only 14 years later in 1974, it was already 4 billion.  It took 13 years for the world population to reach 5 billion in 1987. By 1999, 12 years later, it had reached 6 billion.  Just 13 years later in 2012, it had reached 7 billion.  It is projected that the world will have around 9 to 10 billions by 2050.  

How can anyone concerned with the ecological health of the planet ignore the size and fast rate of growth of human population especially when it is combined with a rapid rise in its consumption per head as suggested by the increase in the real per capita GDP since the Industrial Revolution in England (1)?  The ratio of real GDP in 1995 to 1950 was 3.1 in the “more developed areas” with 20% of the world population and 2.9 in the “less developed areas” with 80% of the world population. (Easterlin, 2000, Table 3)  Some 20% of the world population, mostly in the industrial capitalist countries, consume 80% of the world GDP.  

Just focusing on energy used Vitousek et al (1986) note that we “are now consuming about 12,000 times more as much energy per day as was the case when farming started; 90 per cent of this is a result of industrialization, 10 per cent to our huge growth in numbers…" (cited in Washington, 2013, p. 12).  According to their calculations, humans co-opt organic material equivalent to about 40% of the present net primary product in terrestrial ecosystems each year.  The vast majority of other species must subsist on the reminder.   “‘An equivalent concentration of resources into one species and its satellites has probably not occurred since land plants first diversified.’” (ibid.) Vitousek et al. add that “humans also affect much of the other 60% of terrestrial NPP, often heavily.” (ibid) But Vitousek et al. study is over quarter of century old and uses conservative methodologies.   

Washington who quotes extensively from Vitousek et al. remarks: 
Whichever figure one uses, this remains a huge percentage of the net primary productivity of the planet that humans are appropriating.  Of course this appropriation is also increasing as population, and possibly more importantly per capita consumption, continues to increase. The high and increasing appropriation of NPP by humanity is clearly a fundamental stress on ecosystem health. NPP is the foundation of all ecosystems, so if we pull out too many blocks from the foundation to put on the ‘human pile’ eventually other structures (natural ecosystems) collapse.  And indeed they are... (Washington 2013, p. 12-13).
Unfortunately, most ecosocialists are either silent on the problem of rapidly rising and sheer size of human population and our ever-increasing consumption per capita, or worse, attack ecologists and environmentalists and the few ecosocialists who raise it as “Malthusian.” But to cast the ecological implications of human population growth as a replay of the nineteenth-century argument involving Malthus and Marx is to show a lack of understanding of both.  The Malthus-Marx “debate” (Malthus died in 1834 before Marx learned of him) was really about class conflict and income distribution (Foster, 1999). While Marx was right against Malthus in the nineteenth century "population debate" that was not a discussion of the role of human population in today’s ecological crisis and the ongoing anthropogenic Sixth Great Extinction (Nayeri, 2014a). 

Thus, Löwy’s “humanist ecology” deprives him of the ability to register much less engage the real concern with a human population that environmentalists and ecologists he says he wants to reach correctly cite as cause for concern.  While a critic of economic growth ideology, Löwy vision is not ecological despite his own insistence that ecosocialism is (or ought to be?) a contributing current in the ecological movement. 

The problem of “preservation of ecological equilibrium”
Once Löwy sets out the framework for his vision of ecosocialism he focuses on the problem of planning in forging the future ecosocialist society, mostly in Chapter Two (“Ecosocialism and Democratic Planning”).  The literature on socialist planning is extensive which Löwy does not engage (except briefly in the case of Michael Albert’s “Participatory Economy”).  Rather he stresses a number of his preferred features of planning. First, “the plan concerns the main economic options” not small businesses while he expresses support for workers management of small businesses. (p. 26)  Second, he suggests that instead of “centralized” or “decentralized” dichotomy the “real issue is democratic control of the plan at all levels: local, regional, national, continental, and, hopefully international” levels.” (p. 27) Third, he argues that democratic planning should include consumers as well as producers.   To make these effective and functional Löwy argues for libertarian ecosocialism with a multi-party system and full democratic rights to ensure meaningful choices for the population.

Also, Löwy argues democratic planning of the economy should take into account “the preservation of the ecological equilibrium.” (p. 23)  As examples, he suggests elimination of “nuclear plants, certain methods of mass/industrial fishing…, the destructive logging of tropical forests, etc.” (ibid).  

However, he leaves out a key question: How would planners on each level from local to international approach the problem of “preservation of the ecological equilibrium?” 

Löwy’s humanist approach to ecology would leave him no choice but to rely on scientism and technocentrism to achieve and maintain “ecological equilibrium” from local to the planetary level. Of course, Löwy advocates for democratic planning based on grassroots. But ordinary people are no better in judging what is the proper “ecological equilibrium” than today’s environmentalist establishment which relies on scientists and technicians to figure it out.  Any anthropocentric (or humanist) ecology ends up being ecology by human design, of humans acting as managers of nature(2). As ecosystems are extremely complex and human ingenuity invariably prone to errors the law of unintended consequences will set in and odds of failure increase. And if history is any guide failure is guaranteed!  

Another approach based on ecocentrism is more in line with ecosocialism as it would be motivated by the culture of love and respect for Mother Nature/Mother Earth; take for example,  indigenous cultures, Deep Ecology’s philosophy and simple rules (The Eight Point Platform) or ethical stance of the theory of evolution and Big History (Christian, 2004) that view humanity as part of a vast and intertwined web of life pointing to a “do no harm” environmental ethics.  The ecosocialist society can supplement this ethical approach to nature with knowledge and know-how gleaned from science and technology, remembering that these are not value free enterprises. Science has been motivated by human curiosity and the anthropocentric desire to dominate and control nature and technology is in large measure ways of human domination and control of nature.

To illustrate, while as ecosocialists we appeal to the scientific consensus that there virtually certainty (95% confidence) that global warming is chiefly caused by human-generated emissions that knowledge merely gives urgency to our call for an immediate transition to sustainable sources of energy.  However a transition to sustainable sources of energy is an environmentally ethical choice that follows from our knowledge of possible dangers from fossil fuels to nature.  As ecosocialists we would not need to wait for scientific consensus to act on this question if we had the means to do so. 

How to decide which economic/human activities to eliminate? 
From this perspective, Löwy’s suggestions for elimination of certain economic activities and industries seem timid, insufficient and arbitrary. He is silent on a host of industries and economic activities that thrive on exploitation, misery and death of untold number of species and untold billions of individuals directly or through destruction of their habitat.  For instance would the future ecosocialist society maintain “recreational” and commercial hunting and fishing, zoos and animal circuses, international trade in wildlife and the “pet” industry, uses of animals in laboratory research and “entertainments” such as horse and dog racing, bullfighting, cockfighting, dog fighting to name just a few?  Would the meat industry meet Löwy standard of the ecosocialist “moral economy?” Some statistics can help: In 2011, more than 58 billion chicken (more precisely, 58,110,000,000), nearly 3 billion ducks (2,917,000,000), more than a billion pigs (1,383,000,000) were slaughtered worldwide. Other farm animals slaughtered for food numbered in hundreds of millions each: 654,000,000 turkeys, 649,000,000 geese and guinea fowl, 517,000,000 sheep, 430,000,000 goats and 296,000,000 cattle. (Heinrich Böll Foundation, 2014, p. 15) The extreme suffering of farm animals is well documented (see for example the following links from the Farm Sanctuary for chickens, pigs, cows, and sheep). 

 Of course, consumption of non-human animals as food is not limited to farm animals. In 2011, over 156 million tons of seafood (capture and aquaculture) was consumed worldwide (FAO, “World Fisheries Production,” accessed June 2, 2014). There is also “exotic food” that in the United States includes alligator, alpaca, armadillo, bear, beaver, bobcat, caiman, crocodile, camel, coyote, capon, dove, frog, iguana, kudu, lion, llama, monkey, muskrat, opossum, otter, ostrich, pale, quail, turtle, venison and zebra meat. (see, for example, this marketplace mail order for exotic food)  Other countries and cultures have their own choice of meat. In China, Korea and the Philippines cats and dogs are eaten.  Japanese prize whales as food.  The French eat horse meat. In Africa, bushmeat is treasured.  

In “How Veganism Can Help Save the World” (Nayeri, June 2014) I have argued ecosocialists would do well to fight for a radical transformation of our carnivores diet and the food system that supports it not only because the meat industry it is an essential part of modern day capitalism, not just because a carnivores diet is bad for our health and bad for the environment, but most of all because they are among the most horrendous manifestation of anthropocentrism that stands in the way of ecosocialism. 

Degrwoth
In his discussion of democratic planning, Löwy is correct to argue that we need a revolution in values against “the prevalent type of consumption, based as it on conspicuous consumption, massive waste, mercantile alienation, obsessive accumulation of goods, and the compulsive acquisition of pseudo-novelties impose by ‘fashion.’” (p. 32).  I have just argued that one would need to radically transform this value matrix from an anthropocentric perspective to an ecocentric perspective.  In Chapter Three (“Ecology and Advertising”), Löwy focuses on the advertising industry, which expands commodity fetishism and economic growth, alas in anthropocentric terms.  First, Löwy limits his field of vision by dividing the literature into “pessimists” and “optimists” about growth.  The optimists are socialists that believe “technical progress and the use of renewable sources of energy will permit unlimited growth and abundance, so that all can receive ‘according to their needs.’” (p. 32)  Although “productivism” is the central theme in Löwy critique of “Marxism” he does not dwell on the “optimists” and their technology fetishism which is shared by a current among neoliberals who claim technology can fix or dispose of ecological problems (inclduing by colonizing other planets!) He is more worried about ecologist pessimists who believe “the only alternative to productivism is to stop growth altogether, or to replace it by negative growth…and dramatically reduce the population’s excessively high level of consumption by cutting energy expenditure by half through renouncing individual family houses, central heating, and washing machines, and so on.” Löwy points to an extremist minority he does not name who call for “ecological dictatorship” to enforce such “draconian austerity.”

In fact, spectrum of views on the problem of capitalism and growth is far more diverse and complicated and in important ways.  Let me illustrate by noting the case of Limits to Growth proponents of ecosocialism.  These include Saral Sarkar (1999) and Ted Trainer (2010; for a brief discussion of Trainer’s view see Alexander, 2012).  While neither is a Marxist, they are not the wild-eyed extremists that Löwy  warns us about.  Both Sarkar and Trainer are motivated by twin concerns of overconsumption, that they believe is largely responsible for the crisis, and with social justice. They both call for democratically decided scaling back of the economy and population to reach a steady state ecosocialist economy compatible with the “carrying capacity” of the planet.  Their idea of democratic planning is similar to Löwy’s.  Sarkar is explicitly anthropocentric and to my knowledge Trainer has not embraced ecocentrism.  While neither of these authors are acknowledged in Löwy’s discussions of ecosocialism, they share similar views with him on many issues. An exception is degrowth (shrinking of the economy and population).  

What I like to argue now is that Löwy’s own view of reorganizing the economy along the value matrix that he defines (see above) will result in negative growth and drastic reduction of the size of the economy (in individual countries where his prescription is adopted as well as the world economy), a form of unplanned degrowth (shrinking of the size and complexity of the economy).  Take for example, his critical view of advertising. If we get rid of advertising in the U.S.  economy we wipe out about 2% of the GDP in one stroke (that is more or less the share of advertising in the GDP in recent years). But if advertising has any real effect on consumption its elimination will reduce demand for goods and services of other industries causing further drop in the GDP.  Then there is the multiplier effect.  Income lost by the lay off of employees in advertising would be lost income for firms and industries that provide goods and services to these individuals. The same multiplier effect will shrink firms and industries that provide goods and services to those laid off from firms and industries affected by the disappearance of advertising capital investment.  Thus, there will be significantly less expenditure in the economy and further shrinking of the GDP.  Of course, some of those laid off in advertising and affiliated industries can be hired in industries producing goods and services to satisfy genuine unmet needs.  But capitalist wastefulness by far exceed unmet human needs and overall the economy is bound to shrink significantly  And, of course, advertising is not the only economic activity that will wither away under ecosocialism(3).

Thus degrowth—of economy—is inherent in ecosocialism in part for the reasons Löwy himself cites—there is much waste and harmful production that must be stopped as soon as possible.  Also, ecosocialist degrowth would not be “draconian” or “dictatorial.”  In fact, it can actually be a fun and liberating experience. (Alexander, 2014)  I would concur with Trainer that ecosocialism will be built on new sets of values consistent with finding joy and fulfillment in simplicity. (Trainer, 2015) 

On indigenous peoples’ struggle
Löwy's two chapters on the indigenous struggles in Latin America are fun to read and educational.  I regret he does not notice the underlaying ecocentrism of these cultures and why that matters in their attitude towards nature and ecological crisis we face.  In the section about the World People’s Conference on Climate Change in Cochabamba, Bolivia, in 2010, he writes:
One can criticize the mystical and confused aspects of the concept of ‘Mother Earth’ (Pachamama in indigenous languages Aymara and Quechua), as some leftist Latin American intellectuals have done, or point out the impossibility of giving an effective legal expression to the ‘rights of Mother earth,’ as jurists have done. Yet this would be to lose sight of the essential point: the powerful, radically anti-systemic social dynamic that has crystalized around these slogans. (p. 71)
But to call indigenous ideas of Mother earth” “mystical and confused” is entirely anthropocentric and colored by the ethos of Western civilization.  Perhaps these “leftists” and the “jurists” should have consulted an anthropologist or an archeologist who could explain to them that these expression are based on cosmologies that view humans as a part of their natural surrounding and as its children not its masters.  Would not this way of thinking about nature be more in line with the Darwinian view of life and our place in the world and perhaps aid Westerners and the rest of us to overcome our delusion of mastery over nature that has been the root-cause of the ecological crisis for thousands of years? 

Löwy’s defense of the indigenous struggle also falls short. Of course, he is correct about “the powerful, radically anti-systemic social dynamic that has crystalized around these slogans.” But as I pointed above he misses the larger point.  It is us the civilized people who can learn from the indigenous cultures their ecocentric outlook and how to incorporate it into the fabric of the ecosocialist society we like to build.

The ecosocialist documents Löwy includes as appendices are historical records. It would have been useful had he also included an assessment of the Ecosocialist International Network which he cofounded and was disbanded without a discussion in 2013 (I belonged to it from 2009 to its demise).

It is a pity that the book is poorly edited.  As I explained earlier there is a certain internal logic to it that is appealing and helpful which Löwy somehow neglects to bring to his readers attention in the Preface. There are repetitious sections, sometimes verbatim, that distract readers from consideration of the author’s reflections on important theoretical problems. The Preface seems to have been written in a rush and includes an unfortunate error.  The opening paragraph reads: “The pursuit of ‘growth’ under the aegis to capital will lead us in short range—the next decades—to catastrophe without precedence in human history: global warming.” (p. vii, my emphasis) 

Global warming is a fact already— Löwy probably meant catastrophic climate change which he refers to repeatedly elsewhere in the book.  Also, both global warming and climate change have happened in human history before—in fact, most experts believe that the Holocene which began with warming of the atmosphere 11,700 years ago that ended the last ice age helped prompt some hunter-gathers to become farmers. As such it was responsible for civilization hence the crisis we face today. 

Notes: 
1. Of course, consumption in the capitalist world economy is highly skewed. While there is overconsumption and a lot of waste in the North and by higher income groups in the South, there is a lot of unmet needs in the South any by low-income groups in the North. Meanwhile, 2.8 billion people struggle to survive on less than $2 a day, and more than one billion people lack reasonable access to safe drinking water. United Nations reports that 825 million people are still undernourished; the average person in the industrial world took in 10 percent more calories daily in 1961 than the average person in the developing world consumes today (World Watch Institute, 2014)
2. The often used term “guardians” of nature is self-serving. Who are we protecting nature from if not some group of humans? 
3. To illustrate, consider the war industry and the health care industry in the U.S. economy.  With  $14.66 trillion economy in 2010, the budget of the Department of Defense budget was $862.2 billions in 2011 (the latest available figure) and the health care system cost $2.49 trillion in 2009 (the latest available figure).  A back of the envelope calculations show that if we get rid of the Department of Defense and reform the U.S. care system to be similar to Canadian system, the second most expensive system in the word but with better outcomes than the U.S. system, there would be roughly a 9.4% drop in the GDP (I am not considering the secondary effects and the multiplier effects of these changes which will make this drop much more pronounced). If those who lose their employment are re-trained and re-employed in ecology friendly and use-value generating economic activities that will guarantee everyone a job by reducing the work week say to 30 hours we will end up with a significantly smaller economy while moving towards a culture of being from the current bourgeois culture of having. 

References:
Alexander, Samuel.“Ted Trainer and The Simpler Way,” Simplicity Institute, 2012
Alexander, Samuel. “Life in a ‘Degrowth’ Economy, and Why You Might Actually Enjoy It,” The Conversation, 2014.
Barker, Graeme.  The Agricultural Revolution in Prehistory.  Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.
Burkett, Paul.  Marx and Nature: A Red and Green Perspective, 1999 (republished in paperback by Haymarket Books, 2014).
Christian, David. Maps of Time: An Introduction to Big History. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2004.
Easterlin, Richard E. “The Worldwide Standard of Living Since 1800,”, Journal of Economic Perspective, volume 14, Number 1, Winter 2000, pp. 7–26,).
FAO. “World Fisheries Production,” accessed June 2, 2014
Foster, John Bellamy.“Malthus’ Essay on Population at Age 200: A Marxist View”, New York: Monthly Review Press, 1999
Foster, John Bellamy.  Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature, New York: Monthly Review Press, 2000 
Foster, John Bellamy; Brett Clark and Richard York. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth.  New York: Monthly Review Press, 2010. 
Heinrich, Michael. “Je ne suis pas Marxiste,” libcome.org
Löwy, Michael. Ecosocialism: A Radical Alternative to Capitalist Catastrophe. Haymarket Books, 2015. 
Nayeri, Kamran. Economics, Socialism, and Ecology: A Critical Outline—Part 1,” Philosophers for Change (republished in Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism) 2013a. 
Nayeri, Kamran. Economics, Socialism, and Ecology: A Critical Outline—Part 2,” Philosophers for Change (republished in Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism) 2013b.
Nayeri, Kamran. “On the Population Question: Malthus, Marx and Beyond”, Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism, 2014a.
Nayeri, Kamran. How Veganism Can Help Save the World,” Our Place in the World: A Journal of Ecosocialism, June 2014.
O’Connor, James. Natural Causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. The Guilford Press, 1998. 
Rachels, James. Created from Animals: The Moral Implications of Darwinism. Oxford University Press, 1990
Sarkar, Saral. Eco-Socialism or Eco-Capitalism? The Fundamental Choice for Humanity, Zed Books, 1999.
Trainer, Ted. Getting to a Sustainable and Just World, Envirobook, 2010
Trainer, Ted. “The Case for Simplicity ,” Simplicity Institute, 2015
Vitousek, P., A. Ehrlich, and P. Matson.  “Human Appropriation of the Products of Photosynthesis,” BioScience, vol. 277, pp. 494-499, 1986. 
Washington, Haydn. Human Dependence on Nature: How to Help Solve the Environmental Crisis.  Abingdon, Canada and New York: Routledge, 2013. 
World Watch Institute. “The State of World Consumption,” accessed May 13, 2014.  
Wilson. E. O. Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth.  New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2006. 
Wright, Ronald.  A Short History of Progress, Da Capo Press, 2004.