Having reviewed a book on the postgrowth society last week, I thought I’d mention something that comes from the other end of the spectrum this week. A number of high profile environmentalists released a statement last week called Signatories include Steward Brand, Roger Pielke, Mark Lynas, and a number of other academics and members of .
The manifesto builds on idea of the ‘anthropocene’, a new era in which humans are the chief influence on the planet. Rather than see this as something scary to back away from, they suggest we need to own this new reality. By taking responsibility for it, we can make it a ‘good anthropocene’ for ourselves and for nature. “Both human prosperity and an ecologically vibrant planet are not only possible, but also inseparable.” In short, it aims for a positive, optimistic environmentalism.
If that sounds interesting, I can recommend reading the manifesto before reading my comments.
There’s a lot to like in their vision. They rightly point out how far we’ve come, and how many of the fears of previous generations of environmentalists have not panned out in the doom and gloomed predicted – the population bomb among them. Technology, urbanisation and the peaking of population growth offer a far more optimistic possibility:
Taken together, these trends mean that the total human impact on the environment, including land-use change, overexploitation, and pollution, can peak and decline this century. By understanding and promoting these emergent processes, humans have the opportunity to re-wild and re-green the Earth — even as developing countries achieve modern living standards, and material poverty ends.
To achieve this vision, the paper argues for sustainable intensification. Through cities, intensive agriculture, aquaculture, and nuclear power, we can meet our needs with less land. The land spared can then be freed up for reforestation and rewilding.
There are lots of hopeful statements here, but many dubious ones too. The assertion that “the use of many material resource inputs such as nitrogen, timber, and land are beginning to peak” sounds premature, given how many people remain in poverty. So do the generalisations about how liberal values are becoming globally universal. The dismissal of any concept of planetary boundaries seems rather hasty. The fact that they are largely negative about renewable energy is also a problem, and puts them out of step with the trend towards decentralised power.
The ecomodernist vision also leans very heavily on one idea: decoupling. Decoupling is the disconnecting of human activity and economic growth from environmental impact, carbon emissions and resource use. They argue that there are existing trends to build upon, and that “decoupling human well-being from the destruction of nature requires the conscious acceleration of emergent decoupling processes.”
Like James Wallman’s ideas about postmaterialism, for example, that demand for goods may be peaking in developed countries. That may be true, or it may not be – it’s pretty early to call. There aren’t many examples of absolute decoupling and good news stories like Britain’s recent drop in carbon emissions are pretty rare.
It is possible to decouple economic growth and environmental impact. The key factor, and the main reason why I remain convinced by the need for postgrowth solutions, is time. It is theoretically possible to create infinite economic growth. It’s the urgency of climate change that complicates matters. Can it be done fast enough? That’s the real question, and the maths is not on the ecomodernists’ side.
Perhaps what I find most striking about the manifesto though is a kind of anthropogenic dualism that lifts humanity out of nature through technology.
In the long run, next generation solar, advanced nuclear fission, and nuclear fusion represent the most plausible pathways toward the joint goals of climate stabilization and radical decoupling of humans from nature.
Putting aside the existence of ‘nuclear fusion‘ and ‘most plausible’ in the same sentence, consider how extraordinary that goal is: ‘a radical decoupling of humans from nature’.
It isn’t an isolated statement either. “Cities both drive and symbolize the decoupling of humanity from nature” they say, favourably. They “reject” the perceived environmentalist ideal “that human societies must harmonize with nature.” They nobly claim that “humans should seek to liberate the environment from the economy” and then elsewhere praise “the modernization processes that have increasingly liberated humanity from nature.”
This is where I have to part company with the ecomodernists, however much I may hope they’re right about our optimistic future. We are not separate from the rest of creation, and it is hubris to think otherwise. Considering ourselves above it and in dominion over it is a core part of the problem, but disconnecting ourselves from nature to avoid abusing it is not the solution.
I understand the idea of the ‘anthropocene’, and the point that we are already shaping the planet whether we like or not. But I am likely to avoid the phrase after reading the ecomodernist take on it. We cannot protect nature by attempting to live alongside it in a separate synthetic world of our own making. Quite the opposite. Surely it is through a deeper appreciation of how connected we all are that we will begin to take responsibility.