L2 - modernity and the environment Flashcards
modernity: problem and solution?
(eco crisis as product modernity: belief in power of human agency to know, create and control)
modernity (onset ~C17)
- market society and capitalism
- nation-state
- liberal democracy
- belief in progress through human agency and reason
- environmental degradation
progress has come with steep price - has destroyed much of the planet (physical environment)
-> need for more modernity
Ecomodernism:
- modern advent industrialization is to blame for env degradation
- green modernity by making industry more sustainable via tech
- modernity in the form of tech advancement has caused it, but can also be the solution
Green Keynesianism:
- green modernity by making capitalism more sustainable via state (intervention)
- modernity -> capitalism -> env degradation but modernity’s capitalism can also be the solution
both share: modernity is the problem + the solution to env degradation
ecomodernism (EM) : what
(manifesto)
Environmental harm is integral to modernity because of industrialization
- modernization has liberated humanity from nature = double-edged bc it has also degraded the environment, on the upside it allowed humanity to grow, but increasing demand -> CO2 increase
Green modernity by greening industry (i.e., ecological switchover powered by tech innovation that supports sustainable production and consumption or “decouples” economic growth from environmental impact)
- calls for update to industrial process
- not just take without consideration for sustainability, production would be attuned to + try to maintain env sustainability and health
- fix env degradation without leaving path of modernization
- anticipates shift towards technologies that allows for clean/green production = it can be disconnected from resource inputs and emissions
Potentially complemented by demographic trends and future decline in global population
- can complement tech trends (e.g. declining fertility rates)
Green “super-industrialization” seen as a new and higher phase of human development
- earlier stages dev focused on industrial breakthrough, EM ecological switch-over aims for green super industrialization
- hopeful: if humanity draws on “growign social economic and tech powers to make life better for people, we can build a good, even great anthropocene)
ecomodernism: when
Hayer observes the rise of ecomodernism
1970s: advent of environmental politics; grassroots environmental movements; creation of environmental ministries (legislative/bureaucratic approach) that take a legislative-bureaucratic approach to addressing environmental harm (pollution caps)
- no interconnected approach: domain-specific
1980s: rise of ecological modernization
= recognized interconnected nature env degradation
- environmental degradation calculable (e.g. cost-benefit analysis)
(env problems should be accounted for with scientific and monetary descriptors to take costs and benefits into consideration => incentivize efficient resource use) - environmental repair compatible with ongoing econ growth
onward: ecological modernization a prominent, even dominant, environmental framework
ecomodernism: why (reasons for broad appeal/agore)
Frames environmental crisis as a win-win business opportunity and avoids pitting government regulators against economic producers
- positive sum rather than zero-sum game = win-win game: sustainable business use is business opportunity
Avoids addressing potential social contradictions and doesn’t posit a need for structural change
- does not call for structural/extreme change: argues for techno-institutional shift that can be realized through already existing social order
- EM: capitalism not naturally unsustainable
- technical solution
Neutralizes more radical environmentalisms (i.e., by making environmental repair status-quo friendly and compatible with modernity)
- strategy of political accomodation: radical forms of critique can be neutralized
- status-quo friendly
- env harm did not signal need to critique modern project -> alluring possibility that humans can master/control the natural world
green Keynsianism: what
green Keynesianism focus on diff aspect of modernity: not just industry, but capitalism that is the issue
- not just tech innovation
- making capitalism more sustainable through the state
green deal / green new deal = green Keynesianism
Environmental harm is integral to modernity because of capitalism
Capitalism can be made more sustainable via state intervention
- call for stimulus (also has social-equality objective)
- state must step in to shepard the transformation to improve lives working people and physical environment
Left to its own devices, capitalism directs economic activity in ways that harm/destruct both environment and society
- capitalist eco system: tiny nr of people direct most major investments to maximize profits + shape gov action accordingly + externalizes costs on communities and ecosystems + prioritizes profit over sustainability
- state has to take lead in repairing both env and society = priortize public goals over private profit
- coordinate action towards env good production
The state can help repair both by
a) directing investment and
b) coordinating production for
c) social and environmental public good
States have historically used Keynesian economics to successfully address crises (e.g., “New Deal” response to military-economic crisis) and should do so again today (i.e., to address environmental-economic crisis)
- e.g. New Deal after great depression: USfed put millions to work in socially beneficial projects: arms building + infrastructure building
Keynes: economy driven by consumptive and investment demand which may need to be stimulated during crises through
(to keep econ going, demand needs to be propped up/stimulate)
- fiscal policy (government spending and taxation)
- monetary policy (adjusting interest rates and money supply)
(in the past: states like the US used Keynesian economics to sucessfully respond to military economic crisis )
(.. and .. argue they could do the same to respond to environmental economic crisis)
- there’s no example of effective/quick response by capitalism without state direction
green Keynesianism: multiple strands
Aronoff et al. vs. those they characterize as “faux Green New Deal boosters”
Both strands frame environmental degradation as a collective action problem (i.e., a problem it’s in everyone’s interest to fix but about which no one actor has a sufficiently self-interested incentive to act)
Both strands contend that the state must step in to resolve this problem, but propose different degrees and forms of state intervention
State intervenes directly in the economy (position Aronoff et al. endorse)
- manages resource use toward societal and environmental long-term interest
- via exercising “levers of public spending, coordination, and regulation”
- (requires democratic buy-in)
State intervenes indirectly in the economy (position Aronoff et al. reject as “faux Green New Deal”)
- creates markets and financial incentives to promote environmental repair
- via e.g., pricing natural resources, offering subsidies, levying taxes
- (not sufficiently democratic)
both draw on collective action problem: it is in everyone’s interest to fix, but no actor has sufficiently self interest to fix it, at least not without promise others also will act
2 options
- state can resolve it by directly intervening with the econ (that’s what Aronoff et al argue for): organize resource use, long-term interest in mind
- faux green new dealers: state intervenes indirectly: creating markets and financial incentives to promote env repair (e.g. commodifying/privatizing natural resources + taxes/subsidies)
either way, the state has to step in
green Keynesianism: why (appeal)
Green Keynesianism frames repairing environmental degradation as an economic opportunity
Green Keynesianism constitutes a relatively big tent accommodating of political economic diversity
- large/accommodating political tent: can incorporate wide range of responsibilities
- diff types of politicians can be (green) Keynesian
- states can intervene in more and less powerful ways -> under this broad banner you can get a whole lot of varieties of people interested in it
Insofar as capitalism is here to stay, making it greener may register as one of few available paths forward
- capitalism seems so entirely normal (depoliticized) it is diff to imagine anything else -> if it is here to stay, maybe making it greener is our only way forward
Green Keynesian Challenge One
Mann and Wainwright, Climate Leviathan
(optional material today) - a world state would be necessary to implement Green Keynesianism
Keynesianism functions through the nation-state’s ability to direct the movement of capital
But states can no longer do this as effectively as they once could (mid C20)
(political non-starter)
- neoliberalism and globalization have curtailed their economic autonomy (less influence over how capital moves bc neoliberalism has chipped away at nation-state autonomy)
- rise of international finance has decoupled capital accumulation from domestic politics
-> taming capitalism and making it greener may be beyond capacity of nation-state
A global sovereign would be needed to pull the Keynesian levers of a now global economy, but this is a politically challenging prospect
= nation states are no longer capable of directing capital in the ways they once were, only a politically infeasible global state could facilitate a green capitalist economy
Green Keynesian Challenge Two
Keynesianism, including green Keynesianism, aims to stimulate production and consumption and this may still be materially taxing and harmful to the environment
- stimulating production and consumption still harms the environment, no matter how green it is
- e.g. clean energy is to stimulate the econ, to stimulate consumption and production
- it has env consequences, even when powered by green-power
- = contradiction in terms
In response, some green Keynesians argue that an increasingly service- and experience-based economy may allow production and consumption to be less materially taxing (i.e., in as much as these goods are less resource-intensive)
- providing services less resource intensive than making material products, Aronoff et al tap into that hope by encouraging people to spent additional money on dance classes rather than ipads
- more critical perspective argues that services are also/still harmful - need for lighter form of living, with less consumption (and that kind of undermines the whole keynesian idea which is based on stimulating things with demand)
= focus on material implications
(also by Mann and Wainwright)
challenges to ecomodernism
- Efficiency gains achieved by greener tech may be funneled into increased production and consumption, thereby erasing environmental gains
- first and foremost
- can be used to expand consumption and production, thereby erasing techno driven ecological gains
- distinction absolute decoupling vs relative decoupling == we see relative decoupling (per unit eco output is improved in terms of env footprint through improved tech) BUT no absolute decoupling
*some argue that even relative decoupling is not true on global level (only on national) - rebound effect: increased efficiency through tech innovation decreases the price of a good (cheaper to make bc more efficient) -> may increase production = boomerang effect: it drives down the price, leading to increased consumption
- Where what’s economically profitable and what’s environmentally beneficial are in tension, the first is more likely to be prioritized
- pollution prevention pays acc to ecomodernism, but this may not be the case everywhere -> what’s best for the bottom line is likely to win over what is best for the environment
- Technological improvements, even when they help the environment, may have socially regressive impacts
- = social implications
- tech innovations with potential to reduce climate impact BUT may have bad social effects (e.g. lower tech -> higher tech processes -> increased social inequality)
- yes, maybe environmental win, but social cost
a shared challenge: modern ethos and ethics
Modern ethos and ethics promote a self-conceited view of human beings and a derogatory view of non-human nature
->
Modern beliefs about human mastery, supremacy, and autonomy lead people to relate to the non-human environment instrumentally (i.e., as a means to human ends, rather than as an end in itself)
->
From this perspective, trying to green modernity misses, and risks reinforcing, a root cause of environmental degradation (i.e., ethos and ethics of human self-conceit)
modern world view puts humanity on a pedestal, underscoring autonomy, supremacy
modern ethos encourages people to relate to the natural world in an instrumentalized way
nature = there to serve us, as a means to the end of our interests/wants/desires
by egotistically priortiziing the human, and seeing it as means to human ends -> authorizes us to destroy the environment
- trying to make the env greener risks missing the root cause of the problem + it risks reinforcing it
modernity and humanity’s elevation
(flashcard 12 and 13 to elaborate on 11)
(rewatch this slide 14.32-ong.)
Prior to modernity, social and political order were thought to be dictated by forces beyond human control (e.g., nature, divine)
But polity and society become objects of human design and agency in the modern era (e.g., social contract)
Prior to modernity, knowledge was thought to be a fixed inheritance
- there are fixed truths about the universe discovered in the ancient times that we need to hold onto and preserve as source of knowledge (lot of medieval thought will contend this)
- job human is to protect ancient knowledge
- is radically different than what emerges in modernity: knowledge growth knows no limit, makes it open-ended and boundless
= contributes to idea people are in control of huge amount
But knowledge becomes open-ended and amenable to boundless human accumulation in modernity (e.g., via observation-based experimental science)
Prior to modernity, time was thought to unfold according to circular sequences beyond human command (e.g., natural cycles, wheel of fortune)
- we decide how time unfolds
But history comes to be seen as linear, progressive, and human-made in modern period (i.e., consequent to our ever-increasing knowledge of and control over the material world)
modernity and environmental harm
Many environmental ethicists argue that the modern elevation of humanity, and denigration of the nonhuman, has generated environmental destruction
- it is no wonder modernization has led to env destruction: to frame people as knowers of all things is to ignore how ideas of progress are reliant on non-human things
- it is to reduce the env to matter that lacks value on its own right
- nature only valuable in so far as it is useful to us
- ethos and ethics modernity gives authorizes us to destroy it
From this perspective, adequate environmental repair would require normative transformation of the way humans think about and relate to non-human others
- we need more than modern anthropocentric (human centric) conceit
flashback last lecture
political ecology = way of looking at the env through the lense of power
power shapes the environment and the environment shapes power = bidirectional
- env is socially constructed -> env degradation needs a social solution/response
attention to relationality, political economy, marginality
depoliticization obscures power by characterizing an issue as closed to public contestation
- associated with post-politics
Swyngedouw discusses how env is depoliticized + makes suggestions to re-politicize it
- understand nature as multiple
- recognize politics is always divisive
- importance equality
- embrace the impossible, rather than ruling out from the get go
once again: how we look shapes what we see
questions
Green Keynesianism = can only despotic powers do this? -> more in terms of globalization: can make it very difficult to control within the boundaries of a nation state the econ production, consumption etc. in a way that it was not previously
- so she did not really answer the question, rather another question
lot of firms have lobbying power to intervene in politics -> how does Green Keynesianism circumvent this: make env beneficial: frame it as a win-win: eco opportunity to increase profitability (also with ecomodernism)(loans, subsidies)
- particularly in the indirect from of green Keynesianism
ecomodernism: goal is to further project of modernity, and the ecological part as a means to get there (it is a part of elevating humanity)
- increased control of environment as example/image of human superiority
ecomodernism bit more popular: focus on tech + can intercept with technological optimism (limitless new inventions to fix problems we create)
- less of a big ask + optimism appeals to peopel
recap
another theoretical persepctive says it is a product of modernity, which had advantages but at big envir cost
solution is to reinvigorate the modernization process
ecomodernists: embrace power of tech innovation to make it better for the env
green keynesianism: state intervention capitalism
but criticism: how efficient will this be
- can nation states reign in capital
- greener tech not always translates to net ecological gains (esp when incentive for profit cuts against incentive for env)
- if the env problem with modernity is the ethos/ethics it constructs (where humans matter more than anything else) -> can doubling modernity really tackle the problem
