Ecomodernism: A Rational, Sane, Optimistic, Generally Pro-Business,
and Technological Approach to Environmental Protection
Pragmatic approaches to environmental protection are pretty
much required these days to optimize environmental protection as well as
optimizing economic activity. In April of 2015 colleagues associated with the
Break Through Institute launched the Ecomodernist Manifesto, a short
essay advocating for a new pro-technology and optimistic approach to
environmentalism. It has been described as center-left politically.
Ecomodernists are also known as ecopragmatists.
One of the main goals of the ecomodernist approach is to
decouple economic growth from environmental impact primarily through
technology. In their 2007 book, Break
Through, Nordhaus and Shellenberger note that conservatives tend to
idealize the market while liberal environmentalists tend to idealize nature
undisturbed. These are the two extreme poles and a pragmatic approach would
have to bridge the two, acknowledging the importance and value creation of
markets as well as the importance of environmental protection. One of the main
arguments of ecomodernism is that technology aided by smart and sensible
environmental protection have steadily improved lives, reduced poverty, enabled
prosperity, and protected the environment. Through these means we are now able
to do more with less, reduce waste, and optimize many processes. They advocate
that a ‘politics of limit’ and austerity be replaced by a ‘politics of
possibility’ and willingness to solve problems pragmatically rather than
ideologically. They have argued that economic prosperity leads to upward
mobility on Maslow’s ‘hierarchy of needs’ so that when basic necessities are met
people can focus more on the value of environmental protection as is happening
now in China in response to the environmental problems caused by their high
rate of economic growth.
Critiques of Ecomodernism
Since ecomodernism advocates a paradigm that essentially
replaces traditional environmentalism it is no surprise that fierce criticism
has come from the traditional far-left, more radical faction of
environmentalists, including George Monbiot. The critiques I have read were
entirely unconvincing and I think they show a bit of what is called “butthurt,”
with apologies for lack of a more accurate term. The title of Monbiot’s
critique is telling: Meet the
Ecomodernists: Ignorant of History and Paradoxically Old-Fashioned. Perhaps
there is disgruntled-ness and lashing out because they realize their long-held
dogmatic monopoly on environmental thought is beginning to fade. There are,
however, a few quasi-legitimate complaints. Even so, the data supports the fact
that technology continues to improve efficiency and environment, as well as
optimize resource use and that draconian environmental laws threaten the
continuation of those improvements. Nordhaus and Shellenberger also showed some
flair and perhaps a bit of pomp in “launching” ecomodernism. Around 2007 they
presented their essay, The Death of Environmentalism,
by handing it out at a prominent environmental conference. In 2015 they had a
media event launch of ecomodernism in the U.K. which no doubt brought on the
ire of Monbiot and others.
Monbiot mostly disputes the benefits of urbanization and agricultural
intensification, arguing that small-scale agriculture that utilizes more human
labor produces higher yields. The data are against him. He argues that
urbanization leads to greater consumption which may be true in a small sense since
poor rural people in developing nations are not known for heavy consumption due
to their poverty! They may consume less but they also suffer more with less
medical care and less ability for basic human comfort. People in urban
environments are far more energy efficient simply due to density and occupy
less land, use less energy and virtually every other resource per capita than
non-urban people – at least in developed nations. The ecomodernists acknowledge
that poor rural peoples in developing nations will continue to move to the
cities and there use more resources than they had in the past but also
acknowledge that they should have a right and a path out of poverty and lack of
opportunity. Monbiot’s arguments there are quite weak.
Environmentalists who
seek to punish the poor in developing nations by restricting their access to
modern energy and agricultural systems on the grounds that those systems
increase pollution and climate disruption are hypocritical and authoritarian.
One might call such a notion ‘regulatory authoritarianism.’ Monbiot also
invokes the issue of the income inequality exacerbated by modern capitalist
systems which is a separate issue from modernization in general. He mentions
further ecomodernist critiques by Chris Smaje which turn out to be basic
critiques against capitalism in general showing the socialistic bent of much
environmentalism, from Europe in particular. He seems to favor hunter-gatherer
primitivism and see only the negative effects of capitalism. He makes a fair
argument about relative decoupling
vs. absolute decoupling – noting that
the ecomodernists seem to focus more on relative decoupling whereby less
resources are used per unit of output rather than absolute decoupling whereby
total output reduced and corresponding total resource use and total emissions
are reduced as well. I think the ecomodernists address this problem by suggesting
that developed nations are on the cusp toward absolute decoupling (though not
there yet) while developing nations still have a long way to go and we should
be content with relative decoupling in their cases – especially as they may
benefit as “late adopters of
resource-efficient technologies.” They note rightly that reduction of
poverty in developing nations is more important than climate change mitigation
or resource depletion. Smaje again notes that modernization leads to inequality
but that can be addressed by other means like more social welfare and higher taxation
on the super wealthy. He also favors a return to a labor-intensive economy from
an energy-intensive economy, which seems rather insane since much of the poor
in the world suffer due to the lack provided by intense labor relative to
intense energy.
The ecomodernist website www.ecomdernism.org
provides responses to several critiques of the Ecomodernist Manifesto,
including critiques by Clive Hamilton, Daniel Ben-Ami, George Monbiot, and
several others.
The Break Through Institute (A Pragmatic, Non-Partisan [Probably Center-Left]
Think Tank)
Legendary Harvard experimental psychologist Steven Pinker
has embraced ecomodernism and really offers some well-presented data in
support. His balanced approach criticizes both far left pessimistic radicalism
and far right anti-environmentalism. Pinker argues that the environment has
improved in recent years and decades due in no small part to technological
advancements, in addition to regulations. Ecologist, Author, and Whole Earth
Catalog founder Stewart Brand is also a co-author of the Ecomodernist Manifesto
and advocates for more realistic rather than idealistic environmental goals. He
has advocated in favor of geoengineering, genetic engineering, and nuclear
energy. Another co-author is Mark Sagoff, an expert in environmental law and
philosophy and author of The Economy of
the Earth. Authors Mark Lynas, Martin Lewis, Rachel Pritzker, and food ag
expert and author Pamela Ronald are also ecomodernists.
The ecomodernists note that population growth rate has peaked
and slowed and is now more related to longer lifespans and lower infant
mortality rather than to fertility rates. They predict that population could
peak and begin to decline a bit by mid-century. There is now ample evidence
that modern agriculture can meet the food demands of the global population,
especially with emerging biotechnology, concentrated agriculture that uses less
land, and increasingly mechanized agriculture. These also have the potential to
free up human labor resources that in the past have been mired in inefficient,
labor-intensive, and low-paying agriculture. We can now produce more food per
unit of land, per unit of water, and per unit of nitrogen fertilizer added
(especially if nitrogen is applied in a smart manner). From the Ecomodernist
Manifesto:
“As demand for
material goods is met, developed economies see higher levels of spending
directed to materially less-intensive service and knowledge sectors, which
account for an increasing share of economic activity. This dynamic might be
even more pronounced in today’s developing economies, which may benefit from
being late adopters of resource-efficient technologies.”
“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.”
They note that agricultural intensification along with the
development of cheap, accessible, energy-dense, and scalable modern energy
systems has the potential to ‘re-wild,’ to reverse deforestation trends and
overall environmental impact. Low-yield (often organic) agriculture (high land
use per unit of produce) and renewable energy (high land use per unit of energy
production) can and often do work against these goals of rewilding and
deforestation. Again from the Ecomodernist Manifesto:
“Ecosystems around the
world are threatened today because people over-rely on them: people who depend
on firewood and charcoal for fuel cut down and degrade forests; people who eat
bush meat for food hunt mammal species to local extirpation. Whether it’s a
local indigenous community or a foreign corporation that benefits, it is the
continued dependence of humans on natural environments that is the problem for
the conservation of nature.”
“Conversely, modern
technologies, by using natural ecosystem flows and services more efficiently,
offer a real chance of reducing the totality of human impacts on the biosphere.
To embrace these technologies is to find paths to a good Anthropocene.”
Ecomodernist Focuses (according to my own observations)
1)
Climate pragmatism that prioritizes energy
access and energy modernization, particularly for developing nations, over
clean energy development. Access to the least expensive modernized energy
systems moves more people out of poverty faster and is thus better for improving
lives and the earth overall as reduced poverty, migration to cities, and lower
population growth are often the results.
2)
Generally favors nuclear energy development as a
means to abate climate change even though the current hurdles of cost,
environmental safety assurance, and safety against sabotage are daunting. If
requirements to prevent global avg. temperatures from rising 2 degrees Celsius
by 2100 and by 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2050 are to be realized then wind and
solar alone will be far inadequate and required drawdown of coal, oil, and
natural gas usage cannot happen without something to replace them.
3)
Goal of updating the predominant environmental
paradigm and philosophy away from Romantic emotional pessimistic idealism to
one of Enlightenment rational optimistic realism. Acknowledging the positive
role of technology and economic prosperity in environmental protection.
4)
Acknowledgement of the usefulness of mechanized
agriculture and biotechnology in increasing food yields so that hunger can be
abated, farmers can be more successful, land use per unit of food can be
decreased, environmental destruction can be minimized, and food can be more
available and inexpensive. This is in contrast to the anti-GMO, anti-mechanized
agriculture stance of the prevailing environmentalist paradigm. In fact, a very
good argument can be made that anti-GMO sentiment that spread from Europe to
Africa and other developing regions has slowed down the food production in
those areas needed to abate hunger.
5)
Rejection of fatalistic environmentalism where
progress and technology are seen only as destroyers of nature but not as means
to mitigate environmental problems. The ecomodernist goal is to decouple human
development from environmental impact through the wise use of technology and planning.
Especially rejected are ideas that emphasize limits to growth and degrowth.
Ecomodernists instead see smart growth – growing the economy while
simultaneously reducing impact and improving quality of life.
6)
Acknowledgement that adoption of modern energy
systems in the developing world have the potential to significantly reduce
deforestation, indoor air pollution, and poverty.
The notion of ecopragmatism from Daniel Farber’s 1999 book Ecopragmatism: Making Sensible Environmental
Decisions in An Uncertain World is that knowledge changes and sometimes
there is over-regulation as well as under-regulation and there is always a
balance between costs and benefits. The Europeans and many of the radical
environmentalists favor The Precautionary Principle which favors non-action
over action that might cause undue environmental harm regardless of the
benefits of that action. Thus, the Precautionary Principle has the potential to
do more harm than good in some circumstances. Biotech is one obvious example. European
disdain for genetically-engineered crops is rooted in the Precautionary
Principle. European-influenced anti-GMO and genetic engineering has influenced
the leaders of African countries who have a real need for such innovations even
today after decades of use among billions of people and animals has proven GMOs
safe. This should not be happening today – hungry people being denied healthy food
for ideological reasons rooted in fear-mongering overly cautious approaches to
environmental impact.
In conclusion, I think that ecomodernism as a new
environmental paradigm offers a sensible ‘reset’ from the prevailing environmental
“myths” of the past which are often rooted in anti-capitalism, anti-technology,
and fear-mongering about environmental impact. That is not to say that vigilance
against environmental impact does not need to be pursued but rather that
regulations need to be smart, sensible, and well-considered and less influenced
by the concerns of radicals.
References:
An Ecomodernist Manifesto – by multiple authors, April 2015, at www.ecomodernism.org
Break Through: Why We Can’t Leave Saving the Earth to
Environmentalists- by Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger – (Mariner Press,
2007, 2009)
Meet the Ecomodernists: Ignorant of History and Paradoxically
Old-Fashioned – by George Monbiot, in The Guardian, Sept. 24, 2015
Dark Thoughts on Ecomodernism – by Chris Smaje, August 12, 2015, in The
Dark Mountain Project, blog at dark-mountain.net
Nature Unbound: Decoupling for Conservation – by Linus Blomqvist, Ted
Nordhaus, and Michael Shellenberger, pdf available at Breakthrough Institute,
2015
Enlightenment Environmentalism: The Case for Ecomodernism – by Steven
Pinker, in The Breakthrough Journal, Jan. 17, 2018
Climate Pragmatism (Rightful Place of Science -series) – edited by edited
by Jason Lloyd, Daniel Sarewitz, Ted Nordhaus, and Alex Trembath (2017 -
Consortium for Science, Policy, and Outcomes, Arizona State University
Ecomodernism: a response to my critics – by Chris Smaje, in Small Farm
Future (blog), Sept. 7, 2015
Ecopragmatism: Making Sensible Environmental Decisions in An Uncertain
World – by Daniel A. Farber (University of Chicago Press, 1999)
No comments:
Post a Comment