Abstract
Ecomodernism offers a progressive and humanist vision of the Anthropocene, one in which publicly funded innovation has made possible both universal prosperity and planetary-scale rewilding. However, given the present primitive state of technology, ecomodernism is surely guilty of fabulism as its realisation would depend on technologies that may not be available for many decades. Despite this, ecomodernists argue that there is an overriding moral imperative to accelerate the transition to a fully integrated high-energy planet even if this accentuates the short-term need for solar radiation management. The aim of this chapter is to review the debate between ecomodernists and traditional environmentalists in relation to these conflicting temporalities. It is suggested that science may be of surprisingly little help in settling the underlying macro-political disputes.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
While obviously diverse, “traditional environmentalism” is here used to denote the widely shared belief that human societies must harmonise with nature in order to avoid economic and ecological collapse. Specifically, Thomas Princen writes that “if there were a single philosophical position in environmental thought, adhered by all who are concerned about environmental destruction, it is that at the root of that destruction is human’s separation from nature” (Princen 2010, p. 82). Ecomodernism differs from traditional environmentalism in that it rejects this analysis and instead advocates further “trophic detachment” (see Quilley 2011).
- 2.
For the purpose of this chapter, I have used The Ecomodernist Manifesto from 2015 as the primary source of what ecomodernism entails (Asafu-Adjaye et al. 2015). The manifesto was an effort to forge a consensus position among 18 leading ecomodernist thinkers. This means that I do not specifically engage with post-ecological perspectives but rather build on the seminal work of Martin Lewis (1992) with regards to the politics of non-human nature.
- 3.
For ecomodernists, rewilding is a future-oriented process by which land is returned to nature, and the degree of human intervention and management is reduced. For a broader conceptual discussion, see Gammon (2018).
- 4.
The Breakthrough Paradigm Award is an annual prize offered by the Oakland-based ecomodernist think tank The Breakthrough Institute.
- 5.
For a generalised discussion on the possible implications of technological transformation and astronomical trajectories, see Baum et al. (2019).
- 6.
For a recent such attempt which, if nothing else, has received considerable traction in social media, see Bastani (2019).
- 7.
The surface footprint of nuclear power is around 2 km2/GWe compared to 50 km2/GWe for photovoltaics, 300 km2/GWe for wind turbines and 2500 km2/GWe for biomass (Berger et al. 2017, p. 65). Note that the footprint of wind and solar is even higher if intermittency is accounted for.
- 8.
The Na’vi is a species on the planet Pandora that embodies many of the ideals of deep ecology.
- 9.
These risks include the possibility of uneven side effects in terms of altered precipitation and evaporation levels. Similarly, once initiated, a SRM programme would presumably have to continue until concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been sufficiently reduced or there would be a sudden spike in temperature. This so-called “termination problem” (Rabitz 2018) has been much discussed in the literature but the fact that the lifetime of sulphur aerosols in the stratosphere is limited to one to two years could also be seen as beneficial as it makes a SRM programme essentially reversible.
References
Alexander, S., & Yacoumis, P. (2018). Degrowth, energy descent, and ‘low-tech’ living: Potential pathways for increased resilience in times of crisis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197(2:1), 1840–1848.
Alexander, S., & Gleeson, B. (2019). Degrowth in the suburbs: A radical urban imaginary. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
Anshelm, J., & Hansson, A. (2014). Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering. Energy Research & Social Science,2, 135–144.
Arias-Maldonado, M. (2018). Towards a Good Anthropocene? In M. Arias-Maldonado, & Z. Trachtenberg (Eds.), Rethinking the environment for the Anthropocene: Political theory and socionatural relations in the New Geological Epoch (pp. 137–150). London: Routledge.
Arias-Maldonado, M. (2020). Bedrock or social construction? What anthropocene science means for political theory. The Anthropocene Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019619899536.
Arto, I., Capellán-Pérez, I., Lago, R., Bueno, G., & Bermejo, R. (2016). The energy requirements of a developed world. Energy for Sustainable Development,33, 1–13.
Asafu-Adjaye, J., Blomquist, L., Brand, S., Brook, B. W., DeFries, R., Ellis, E., et al. (2015). An ecomodernist manifesto. http://www.ecomodernism.org.
Balmford, A., Amano, T., Bartlett, H., Chadwick, D., Collins, A., Edwards, D., et al. (2018). The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nature Sustainability,1(9), 477.
Barry, J. (2016). Bio-fuelling the Hummer? Transdisciplinary thoughts on techno-optimism and innovation in the transition from unsustainability. In E. Byrne, G. Mullally, & C. Sage (Eds.), Transdisciplinary perspectives on transitions to Sustainability (pp. 120–137). London: Routledge.
Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. London: Verso.
Baum, S. D., Armstrong, S., Ekenstedt, T., Häggström, O., Hanson, R., Kuhlemann, K., et al. (2019). Long-term trajectories of human civilization. Foresight,21(1), 53–83.
Bazilian, M., & Pielke, R. (2013). Making energy access meaningful. Issues in Science and Technology,29(4), 74–78.
Berger, A., Blees, T., Bréon, F. M., Brook, B. W., Hansen, P., Grover, R. B., et al. (2017). How much can nuclear energy do about global warming? International Journal of Global Energy Issues,40(1–2), 43–78.
Blomqvist, L., Nordhaus, T., & Shellenberger, M. (2015). Nature unbound. Decoupling for conservation. Report from the Breakthrough Institute.
Bostrom, N. (2003). Astronomical waste: The opportunity cost of delayed technological development. Utilitas,15(3), 308–314.
Bostrom, N. (2018) The vulnerable world hypothesis. Working paper (version 3.21). Oxford: The Future of Humanity Institute.
Brand, S. (Ed.). (1977). Space colonies. Whole Earth Catalogue: Sausalito.
Brook, B. W., van Erp, J. B., Meneley, D. A., & Blees, T. A. (2015). The case for a near-term commercial demonstration of the Integral Fast Reactor. Sustainable Materials and Technologies,3, 2–6.
Brook, B. W., Blees, T., Wigley, T. M., & Hong, S. (2018). Silver Buckshot or Bullet: Is a future “Energy Mix” necessary? Sustainability,10(2), 302.
Büscher, B., Dressler, W., & Fletcher, R. (Eds.). (2014). Nature inc.: Environmental conservation in the neoliberal age. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
Cao, J., Cohen, A., Hansen, J., Lester, R., Peterson, P., & Xu, H. (2016). China-US cooperation to advance nuclear power. Science,353(6299), 547–548.
Cafaro, P., & Staples, W., III. (2009). The environmental argument for reducing immigration into the United States. Environmental Ethics,31(1), 5–30.
Capellán-Pérez, I., de Castro, C., & González, L. J. M. (2019). Dynamic Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) and material requirements in scenarios of global transition to renewable energies. Energy Strategy Reviews,26, 100399.
Clack, C. T., Qvist, S. A., Apt, J., Bazilian, M., Brandt, A. R., Caldeira, K., et al. (2017). Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,114(26), 6722–6727.
Crist, E. (2018). Reimagining the human. Science,362(6420), 1242–1244.
Crist, E. (2020). Forcosmopolitan bioregionalism. The EcologicalCitizen, 3 (Suppl C): 21–29.
Crutzen, P. J. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change,77(3), 211–220.
Curren, R., & Metzger, E. (2017). Living well now and in the future: Why sustainability matters. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics,49(4), 431–455.
Dorr, A. (2016). The impact pulse and restoration curves: Going beyond mitigation and stabilization. Anthropocene,16, 61–66.
Frank, A., & Sullivan, W. (2014). Sustainability and the astrobiological perspective: Framing human futures in a planetary context. Anthropocene,5, 32–41.
Fremaux, A., & Barry, J. (2019). The ‘Good Anthropocene’ and green political theory: Rethinking environmentalism, resisting ecomodernism. In F. Biermann, & E. Lövbrand (Eds.), Anthropocene encounters. New directions in green political thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedrichs, J. (2013). The future is not what it used to be: Climate change and energy scarcity. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.
Gammon, A. R. (2018). The many meanings of rewilding: An introduction and the case for a broad conceptualisation. Environmental Values,27(4), 331–350.
Gardiner, S. M. (2006). A perfect moral storm: Climate change, intergenerational ethics and the problem of moral corruption. Environmental Values,15(3), 397–413.
Goldstein, J., & Qvist, S. (2019). A bright future–How some countries have solved climate change and the rest can follow. New York: Public Affairs.
Gott, J. R., III. (1993). Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects. Nature,363, 315–319.
Green, C. (2017). Mitigation technology: Half full or nearly empty? Nature Climate Change,7(2), 98.
Hamilton, C. (2013). Earthmasters: The dawn of the age of climate engineering. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Heyward, C. (2013). Situating and abandoning geoengineering: A typology of five responses to dangerous climate change. PS: Political Science & Politics,46(1), 23–27.
Horton, J., & Keith, D. (2016). Solar geoengineering and obligations to the global poor. In C. Preston (Ed.), Climate justice and geoengineering: Ethics and policy in the atmospheric Anthropocene (pp. 79–92). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Jackson, R. B., Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Korsbakken, J. I., Liu, Z., et al. (2018). Global energy growth is outpacing decarbonization. Environmental Research Letters,13(12), 120401.
Jenkins, J. D., Luke, M., & Thernstrom, S. (2018). Getting to zero carbon emissions in the electric power sector. Joule,2(12), 2498–2510.
Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making,8, 407–424.
Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., & Schmelzer, M. (2018). Research ondegrowth. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 43, 291–316.
Karlsson, R. (2013). Ambivalence, irony, and democracy in the Anthropocene. Futures,46, 1–9.
Karlsson, R. (2016). Three metaphors for sustainability in the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review,3(1), 23–32.
Karlsson, R. (2017). The environmental risks of incomplete globalisation. Globalizations,14(4), 550–562.
Karlsson, R. (2018). The high-energy planet. Global Change, Peace & Security,30(1), 77–84.
Karlsson, R., & Symons, J. (2015). Making climate leadership meaningful: Energy research as a key to global decarbonisation. Global Policy,6(2), 107–117.
Keith, D. W., Ha-Duong, M., & Stolaroff, J. K. (2006). Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air. Climatic Change,74(1–3), 17–45.
Kharecha, P. A., & Hansen, J. E. (2013). Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environmental Science and Technology,47(9), 4889–4895.
Kim, Y., Kim, M., & Kim, W. (2013). Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy,61, 822–828.
Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. London: Allen Lane.
Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., Acosta, N. J., Adeyi, O., Arnold, R., Baldé, A. B., et al. (2018). The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet,391(10119), 462–512.
Latour, B. (2011). Love your monsters. Breakthrough Journal,2(11), 21–28.
Le Quéré, C., Jackson, R. B., Jones, M. W., Smith, A. J., Abernethy, S., Andrew, R. M.,... & Friedlingstein, P. (2020). Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nature Climate Change, 1–7.
Lewis, M. W. (1992). Green delusions. An environmentalist critique of radical environmentalism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Lewis, M. W. (1993). On human connectedness with nature. New Literary History,24(4), 797–809.
Lilla, M. (2016). The shipwrecked mind: On political reaction. New York: New York Review of Books.
Loftus, P. J., Cohen, A. M., Long, J. C., & Jenkins, J. D. (2015). A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: What do they tell us about feasibility? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,6(1), 93–112.
Long, J. (2016) Bringing geoengineering into the mix of climate change tools. In C. Preston (Ed.), Climate justice and geoengineering: Ethics and policy in the atmospheric Anthropocene (pp. 109–20). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Mann, C. C. (2018). The wizard and the prophet: Two groundbreaking scientists and their conflicting visions of the future of our planet. New York: Picador.
Mann, G., & Wainwright, J. (2017). Climate leviathan: A political theory of our planetary future. London: Verso Books.
Martin, J. (2007). The meaning of the 21st century: A vital blueprint for ensuring our future. London: Eden Project.
McAfee, A. (2019). More from Less. The surprising story of how we learned to prosper using fewer resources-and what happens next. New York: Simon & Schusters.
McBrian, J. (2016). Accumulating extinction: Planetary catastrophism in the necrocene. Anthropocene or capitalocene? In E. Altvater, E. Crist, D. Haraway, D. Hartley, C. Parenti, & J. McBrien (Eds.), Anthropocene or capitalocene?: Nature, history, and the crisis of capitalism (pp. 116–137). Pm Press.
McCray, W. P. (2013). The Visioneers: How a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
McMahon, D. M. (2001). Enemies of the enlightenment: The French counter-enlightenment and the making of modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, W. B. (2016). The progressive environmental prometheans. Left-wing heralds of a ‘Good Anthropocene’. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Moriarty, P., & Honnery, D. (2009). What energy levels can the Earth sustain? Energy Policy,37(7), 2469–2474.
Moriarty, P., & Honnery, D. (2016). Can renewable energy power the future? Energy Policy,93, 3–7.
Moriarty, P., & Honnery, D. (2019). Energy efficiency or conservation for mitigating climate change? Energies,12(18), 3543.
Myers, N., & Kent, J. (2003). New consumers: The influence of affluence on the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,100(8), 4963–4968.
Nisbet, M. C. (2014). Disruptive ideas: Public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,5(6), 809–823.
Nordhaus, T. (2019). The empty radicalism of the climate apocalypse. Issues in Science and Technology,35(4), 69–78.
Olhoff, A. (Ed.), & Christensen, J. M. (2018). Emissions Gap Report 2018. UNEP DTU Partnership
Pereira, J. C., & Viola, E. (2018). Catastrophic climate change and forest tipping points: Blind spots in international politics and policy. Global Policy,9(4), 513–524.
Pielke, R., Jr. (2018). Opening up the climate policy envelope. Issues in Science and Technology,34(4), 33–40.
Pierrehumbert, R. (2016). How to decarbonize? Look to Sweden. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,72(2), 105–111.
Pimentel, D., Marklein, A., Toth, M. A., Karpoff, M. N., Paul, G. S., McCormack, R., et al. (2009). Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs. Human Ecology,37(1), 1.
Princen, T. (2010). Treading softly: Paths to ecological order. Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press.
Quilley, S. (2011). Entropy, the anthroposphere and the ecology of civilization: An essay on the problem of ‘liberalism in one village’ in the long view. The Sociological Review,59, 65–90.
Qvist, S. A., & Brook, B. W. (2015). Potential for worldwide displacement of fossil-fuel electricity by nuclear energy in three decades based on extrapolation of regional deployment data. PLoS ONE,10(5), e0124074.
Rabitz, F. (2019). Governing the termination problem in solar radiation management. Environmental Politics, 28(3),502–522.
Reynolds, J. L. (2019). The governance of solar geoengineering: Managing climate change in the Anthropocene. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Rodrik, D. (2016). Premature deindustrialization. Journal of Economic Growth,21(1), 1–33.
Shellenberger, M., Nordhaus, T., Navin, J., & Norris, T. (2008). Fast, clean, and cheap: Cutting global warming’s gordian knot. Harvard Law & Policy Review,2, 93–118.
Symons, J. (2019). Ecomodernism: Technology, politics and the climate crisis. Cambridge: Polity.
Symons, J., & Karlsson, R. (2018). Ecomodernist citizenship: Rethinking political obligations in a climate-changed world. Citizenship Studies,22(7), 685–704.
Trainer, T. (2012). De-growth: Do you realise what it means? Futures,44(6), 590–599.
Trainor, A. M., McDonald, R. I., & Fargione, J. (2016). Energy sprawl is the largest driver of land use change in United States. PLoS ONE,11(9), e0162269.
Umbrello, S., & Baum, S. D. (2018). Evaluating future nanotechnology: The net societal impacts of atomically precise manufacturing. Futures,100, 63–73.
Van Vuuren, D. P., & Stehfest, E. (2013). If climate action becomes urgent: The importance of response times for various climate strategies. Climatic Change,121(3), 473–486.
Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., et al. (2015). The material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,112(20), 6271–6276.
Wigley, T. M. (2006). A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science,314(5798), 452–454.
York, R. (2012). Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? Nature Climate Change,2(6), 441.
York, R. (2017). Why petroleum did not save the whales. Socius, 3, 2378023117739217.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to thank Therese Bjärstig, Elias Isaksson, Marcel Wissenburg, Jonathan Symons and Andrew Scerri as well two anonymous reviewers for comments that have been most helpful in revising this chapter. In addition, thanks to the generous support of the Karl Staaff Foundation, it was possible to present a draft version of this chapter at the WPSA Annual Conference in San Diego, California, in April 2019.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Karlsson, R. (2020). Conflicting Temporalities and the Ecomodernist Vision of Rewilding. In: Pereira, J., Saramago, A. (eds) Non-Human Nature in World Politics. Frontiers in International Relations. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49496-4_6
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49496-4_6
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49495-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-49496-4
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)