One does not have to dig deep into environmental statistics to find out that, over the last fifty years, by and large, the state of the environment has been deteriorating, both at the level of individual countries as well as globally. Looking back at the records of societies in dealing with the environmental challenge, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that, overall, they have failed, and abysmally so. This is not because humanity has not been warned. Concerns about environmental degradation and issues such as pollution, deforestation, soil erosion, and declining wildlife, had been causes of concern for people and governments earlier in history, especially so from the second half of the 19th century.[1] In 1962, Rachel Carson published Silent Spring,[2]a book that is often considered to mark the beginning of the modern environmental era. Carson rang the alarm bell about the harmful effects of pesticides on the environment and human health. Her analysis drew attention to the unforeseen impacts of technology on the environment as an intricate and interdependent whole. At the end of her book, she referred to the arrogance of the idea of controlling nature,[3] a view that is still highly relevant today. The book sold millions of copies and was translated into 30 languages.[4] It sparked much public concern and contributed, along with many subsequent publications and rising pollution problems, to a rapidly growing environmental movement that culminated in the organisation of the first Earth Day on 22 April 1970 in the United States.[5] The increased publicity and concern gave rise to the discourse of an environmental crisis, and even “eco suicide”, among scientists and environmental thinkers.[6] Other early warnings were contained in the report Limits to Growth, published in 1972, which provided a science-based projection of the serious problems that the world could expect if environmental limits were transgressed, under different scenarios.[7] Although the report provoked criticism for its (allegedly simplistic) modelling and gloomy messaging, in 2008, a study comparing the report’s projections and actual developments concluded that “analysis shows that 30 years of historical data compare favorably with key features of a business-as-usual scenario called the “standard run” scenario, which results in collapse of the global system midway through the 21st century.”[8] In 2012, Jorgen Randers, one of the contributors to the original report, argued that the collective response to the challenge of adapting humanity to the limitations of the planet was too slow and that it was “difficult to maintain a happy outlook when you know deep in your heart that the world is on a path to disaster.”[9]
There is no need here to elaborate much on the continuous stream of reports on the rapidly degrading environment around the world. Notwithstanding the views of a small number of academics who deny or downplay the seriousness of environmental problems,[10] there is strong evidence of serious environmental decline and rapid global warming.[11] Also, it is now recognised that the rate of environmental deterioration has increased significantly after WWII with a rapid rise in socio-economic indicators accompanied by sharp increases in “Earth System indicators” beyond the levels that were characteristic of the Holocene, the geological period that began some 11,700 years ago after the last ice-age, and that created the conditions for the human species to proliferate and develop. It has been suggested that this “Great Acceleration” can be regarded as an appropriate starting point for the Anthropocene, the label for a proposed new geological era characterised by changes in the structure and functioning of the Earth System as a whole that can be attributed to human activities.[12] Although, as yet, it remains unclear and debatable whether these changes mark a permanent departure from the Holocene, or whether a significant reduction of socio-economic pressures may make it possible to return (close) to the conditions that have been so favourable for the flourishing of the human species, it is certain that a continuation of the pressures at these levels (or even higher) creates a high-risk “brave new world” that humanity may not survive.[13]
Yet, despite the ever-louder calls for more effective action, it seems that governments, societies, and humanity as a whole, are unable (or perhaps unwilling) to deal effectively with the environmental challenge. The planetary tragedy continues to unfold and attributing this failure to societies rather than human nature does not offer much if any, ground for optimism. Arguably, the source of the problem is not just innate to human nature, but also societies. Collectively, humans do not and perhaps cannot learn how to interact with the environment sustainably and change our social interactions to that end.
The argument advanced here is that the sources of this inexorable process of environmental destruction lie in three clusters of factors that constitute fundamental and interconnected obstacles to addressing the environmental challenge more effectively. The first cluster relates to the way environmental problems have been predominantly interpreted, which largely ignores the deep and interconnected nature of the environmental challenge; the second relates to the systemic (socio-cultural; political-institutional; and political-economic) sources and causes of environmental problems, systems which are overwhelmingly incompatible with long-term environmental protection; the third cluster relates to the power structures in the prevailing political-economic systems that make it virtually impossible to fundamentally change those systems and to put societies on a path towards sustainability. It is the interconnectedness between these three clusters of factors that makes it so difficult for environmental advocates to bring about significant change and a meaningful and enduring reduction of environmental pressures. The key to doing so, I argue, lies in the redistribution of power and, specifically and strategically, in the creation of national-level Sovereign People’s Authorities (SPAs).
As many environmental thinkers have pointed out, the environment is an interconnected whole or system, including humans.[14] This implies that environmental problems cannot be resolved or even diminished by addressing them separately. Rather, resolving the environmental challenge requires looking at the environment as a whole (adopting a holistic view), given its interconnected or systemic nature, including the interactions with humans. Human behaviour and practices can have multiple, indirect, delayed, synergistic and cumulative environmental impacts, while solutions aimed at any one problem may simply shift the problem, make other problems worse, or create new problems.[15] To effectively address environmental problems, we need to develop a good knowledge and understanding of how the environment works and incorporate that knowledge and understanding into the social, economic, political, technological and other systems that guide human thinking, behaviour and practices.
Even more fundamentally, addressing the sources of environmental problems raises questions about the environmental place of humans, and how they should interact with their environment. Although biophysically, humans are inextricably interconnected with the rest of nature, they have tended to place themselves beyond and above nature, especially so since the Enlightenment. Hence, nature and the environment are regarded foremost as means or resources that can be used and manipulated at will to serve human needs and wants. Thus, the dominant modern view of the environment incorporates no reason for restraint on human action and behaviour because of environmental impacts other than those that (may) adversely affect humans’ own interests. However, this implies that where humans do not see any adverse effects of their actions on themselves, they also see no reason for restraint, regardless of the destructive effects on the rest of nature. Not only does this reflect a lack of environmental knowledge and awareness (of the interconnectedness), but also a lack of respect for the rest of nature and its inherent values independent from humans. Getting people and governments to move away from such anthropocentric attitudes and hubris arguably poses an even deeper challenge.
By contrast, the prevailing attitude towards environmental problems adopted by most people and governments has been very pragmatic. Predominantly, approaches to these problems have been ad hoc, reactive, fragmented, and based on the kind of anthropocentric perspective described above. Similarly, with a few exceptions, environmental advocates and the environmental movement as a whole have approached the environmental challenge in the same way. Much environmental activism focuses on specific issues after they have become (serious) problems, without linking them to a broader strategy. In part, this is because of the nature of politics and most political systems, which are biased towards an emphasis on particular, especially short-term (group) interests, and which generate competition and conflict. But it also relates to the fact that there has never been anything close to a widespread agreement, even among environmental advocates, on the main and deeper sources or causes of environmental problems, let alone on the solutions and/or the course of action that needs to be taken. Yet, if societies, and humanity as a whole, are to have any chance of addressing the environmental challenge more or less effectively, they will have to develop some kind of well-founded overarching agreement.
However, not only do the existing social, political, and economic systems make it very difficult to reach such an agreement, but they are also stacked against assigning a high degree of importance to environmental protection, let alone giving it priority. As these systems have evolved in the pre-environmental era, and serve non-environmental interests and goals that are largely incompatible with environmental values and protection, effectively addressing the environmental challenge requires fundamental systemic (socio-cultural, political and economic) change. Not surprisingly, the dominant and vested interests do everything to prevent this, including by pushing (technical and managerial) “solutions” to environmental problems that are compatible with the dominant systems and that do not involve and require systemic change. Another leg of this strategy is to shift responsibility for addressing the challenge to societies as a whole.
By far most analyses of the “environmental crisis” are followed by calls upon governments and “us” to take more effective or radical action. It is often proclaimed that “we” can resolve this crisis if “we” adopt the behaviour changes, practices, technologies, and measures that are considered to be needed. All members of society (and all people in the world) must do so, and/or governments must adopt the political will to introduce such measures and encourage, motivate, or even force their citizens to accept these. Yet, using the term “we” in this context is misplaced. While it is easy and understandable to use the terms “we” and “us” when talking about matters of collective interest, such as the environmental challenge (I do it myself), it must be recognised that the responsibility for actions and practices that destroy the environment, and for societal action and inaction, is not equally shared. “We” (humans) are facing an existential catastrophe, but our fate, in the world as it is, lies in the hands of a relatively small group of people who make decisions on which, by far, most of us have no influence.
The distribution and exercise of power lie at the heart of the environmental challenge. Societies are being led to environmental collapse. Halting, let alone reversing this process, requires systemic changes that are unlikely to be accepted and made by the dominant elites or classes. The flaws and inner compulsions that lead humanity and the planet to disaster may have roots in human nature but are mediated, mitigated or fuelled, by societies. How“we” deal with the environmental challenge depends foremost on the choices and decisions made by the most powerful, who also create, shape, or amend the systems through which those choices and decisions are made and legitimated. Fundamentally, the failure of humanity to adequately meet the environmental challenge can be attributed to the deliberately created incapacity of the prevailing systems to adequately recognise the existential importance of protecting environmental processes, systems, and boundaries. Only the creation of systems that assign primacy to “our” collective interest may stave off the presently inexorable process of destruction. Therefore, a big shift in power from the dominant elites to the people offers the last and only chance of moving societies from the highly unsustainable path that they are on.
References
[1] Markham, Adam (1994), A Brief History of Pollution. London: Earthscan Publications; Ponting, Clive (1991), A Green History of the World. London: Penguin Books; Worster, Donald (1988), The Ends of the Earth: Perspectives on Modern Environmental History. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press; Carter, Vernon Gill and Tom Dale (1955, 1974 ed.), Topsoil and Civilization. Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press; Marsh, George Perkins (1864, 1965 ed.), Man and Nature: Or, Physical Geography as Modified by Human Action. Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press.
[2] Carson, Rachel (1962), Silent Spring. Harmondsworth: Penguin.
[3] Ibid., 257.
[4] Boslaugh, Sarah E. (2020), Silent Spring – Work by Carson, Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Silent-Spring (Accessed: 13 July 2020). It is noteworthy that, just predating Silent Spring, Murray Bookchin (under the pseudonym Lewis Herber), published Our Synthetic Environment which raised concerns about the adverse effects of the widespread use of chemicals notably on human health.
[5] Which is said to have mobilised some 20 million Americans. Earth Day Network (2015), The History of Earth Day, https://www.earthday.org/history/ (Accessed: 29 September 2015).
[6] White, Lynn (1967), “The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis“, Science, Vol.155, No.3767, 1203-1207; Sprout, Harold (1971), “The Environmental Crisis in the Context of American Politics”, in L. L. Roos Jr. (ed.) The Politics of Ecosuicide. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 41-50; Commoner, Barry (1973), “The Origins of the Environmental Crisis”, New Zealand Environment, Vol.3, No.1 (Part 1), No.2 (Part 2), 8-10, 11-15; D’Amato, Anthony (1971), “The Politics of Ecosuicide”, in L. L. Roos Jr. (ed.) The Politics of Ecosuicide, 10-28.
[7] This report was followed by several updates (in 1992 and 2004). Meadows, Donella H., et al. (1992), Beyond the Limits. Confronting Global Collapse, Envisioning a Sustainable Future. Post Mills, Vt.: Chelsea Green Pub. Co; Meadows, Donella H., et al. (2004), Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing Company.
[8] Turner, Graham M. (2008), “A Comparison of the Limits to Growth with 30 Years of Reality“, Global Environmental Change, Vol.18, No.3, 397-411. See also Turner’s updated assessment of 2014 which concludes that “the early stages of collapse could occur within a decade, or might even be underway.” Turner, Graham M. (2014), Is Collapse Imminent? An Update Comparison of the Limits to Growth with Historical Data MSSI Research Papers. Melbourne: Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute, 16.
[9] Randers, Jorgen (2012, e-book ed.), 2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years. White River Junction, Vermont: Chelsea House Publishing, loc. 7118-7119.
[10] Lomborg, Bjørn (2001), The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press; Simon, Julian Lincoln and Herman Kahn (1984), The Resourceful Earth: A Response to Global 2000. Oxford: B. Blackwell. Such reports tend to emphasise improvements of the living conditions for many people in the “developing” world, but disregard ecosystem and resource degradation. For the role of industries behind such efforts, see Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway (2011, e-book ed.), Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London: Bloomsbury Publishing; Goldenberg, Suzanne (2013), “Secret Funding Helped Build Vast Network of Climate Denial Thinktanks“, The Guardian, 14 February.
[11] For just a few recent scientific assessments, see Ripple, William J., et al. (2017), “World Scientists’ Warning to Humanity: A Second Notice”, BioScience, Vol.67, No.12, 1026-1028; IPCC, Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S. L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, N. Caud, Y. Chen, L. Goldfarb, M. I. Gomis, M. Huang, K. Leitzell, E. Lonnoy, J. B. R. Matthews, T. K. Maycock, T. Waterfield, O. Yelekçi, R. Yu and B. Zhou (2021), Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: International Panel on Climate Change; Secretariat of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2020), Global Biodiversity Outlook 5. Montreal: Secretariat for the Convention on Biological Diversity; United Nations Environment Programme (2019), Global Environmental Outlook GEO-6. Healthy Planet, Healthy People Cambridge, U.K: Cambridge University Press.
[12] Steffen, Will, et al. (2007), “The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature?“, Ambio, Vol.36, No.8, 614-21; Steffen, Will, et al. (2015), “The Trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration“, The Anthropocene Review, Vol.2, No.1, 81-98.
[13] Wikipedia (2021), Guy Mcpherson (Accessed: 27 October 2021); Rees, Martin J. (2003), Our Final Hour: A Scientist’s Warning: How Terror, Error, and Environmental Disaster Threaten Humankind’s Future in This Century- on Earth and Beyond. New York: Basic Books. For a discussion of such views, see Wallace-Wells, David (2019, ebook ed.), The Uninhabitable Earth: Life after Warming. London: Penguin Books.
[14] Boulding, Kenneth E., “The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth”, in Jarrett, H. (ed.) Environmental Quality in a Growing Economy and Society. Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press, pp.3-14; Capra, Fritjof, The Turning Point. Science, Society, and the Rising Culture. London: HarperCollins (Flamingo); Commoner, Barry, The Closing Circle. New York: Alfred Knopf; Ward, Barbara and René J. Dubos (1972), Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. Harmondsworth: Penguin; Caldwell, Lynton K., Environment: A Challenge for Modern Society. Garden City, New York: Published for the American Museum of Natural History by the Natural History Press.
[15] Bartlett, Robert V., “Comprehensive Environmental Decision Making: Can It Work?”, in Vig, N. J. and M. E. Kraft (eds.), Environmental Policy in the 1990s: Toward a New Agenda. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Press, pp.235-254; Guruswamy, Lakshman (1989), “Integrating Thoughtways: Re-Opening of the Environmental Mind?” Wisconsin Law Review, Vol.3, pp.463-537.
Humanity on Trial 