What explains the dominance of certain beliefs (religious or ideological) in societies? Why do such beliefs change over time and/or lose their dominance? Why and how do other beliefs take their place? These questions are crucial to those who think that societies need or must change how they “think” about important matters like climate change, environmental decline, social justice, collective interests and well-being, security, and the future of humanity. Although particular beliefs and ideas dominate societal “thinking” at any time, these should never be taken for granted. Beliefs are always contestable. Which beliefs gain the upper hand in the battles for the hearts and minds is foremost a question of power.
Sources of beliefs
Why particular worldviews or ideologies become or remain dominant is a question that cannot be simply answered based on tradition or what sociologists call the process of socialisation, passing on values, norms, and beliefs from one generation to the next. While such explanations may seem satisfactory for relatively stable, traditional, or indigenous societies, we must never ignore the role and importance of agency and power. Beliefs are made dominant, maintained, or challenged by people. Even in societies with rigid social structures, individuals play a crucial role in upholding the dominant beliefs and practices. Yet, worldviews and ideologies always offer some scope for interpretation by individuals (rulers, competitors, critics). Such interpretations can lead to change depending on their social position, relative power, and circumstances.[1]
Social change in the fast lane
While social change has been slow throughout history, and dominant worldviews remained stable for hundreds of years, it accelerated in Europe in the late Middle Ages with the development of science and technology, a process in which individual agency played a significant role.[2] The pace of change increased further with modernisation and industrialisation during the last few centuries. In the past fifty years, rather than showing signs of abatement, technological and social change have become so rapid and are happening on such a scale that, as Toffler argued, they threaten to overwhelm people and societies.[3] On a similar note, Ulrich Beck argued in the Risk Society[4] that science and technology now develop essentially out of control, producing changes and risks that force individuals to continuously and reflexively adapt and find their way through life, as traditional social ties, values and norms are no longer able to offer guidance. Individualisation and disintegration (of social structures) create severe pressures on societies, which risk losing their cohesiveness.
In the context of the erosion of traditional worldviews and rapid social change, new worldviews and ideologies emerged, competing with the previously dominant worldview and each other. In the early 1500s, the dominance of the Catholic Church was challenged by newly established Christian (protestant) churches, leading to the European religious wars of the 16th and 17th centuries. The rise of liberal philosophy and ideology, linked with the emerging commercial class, posed a challenge to monarchs and the ideology of the divine right of kings, which legitimised their rule. Industrialisation and the emergence of the working class provided the basis for the development and rise of socialism and communism. Within these competing worldviews and ideologies, different streams or branches developed, such as anarchism, social democracy, and corporatism (the latter developed within Catholicism in response to the threat posed by the attraction of socialism to catholic workers). These worldviews and ideologies, supported by different but partially overlapping social bases, fiercely competed for political power and influence, and broadly defined the lines on the political battlefield in many countries until the 1980s.
A neoliberal victory: the end of ideology?
Neoliberalism, already on the rise from the 1970s and gaining momentum during the 1980s, as reflected in the conversion of political leaders in the United States, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand, became a globally dominant belief system during the 1990s, significantly assisted by the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 and the declared failure of socialism and communism as alternative ideologies. Political leaders and leading academics proclaimed the end of ideology, as capitalism and liberal democracy were argued to have proven their superiority and attractiveness: there were no (better) alternatives. This worldwide victory of neoliberalism arguably marked the end of the battle for the hearts and minds of people and societies. Yet, nothing can be further from the truth.
In this context, it is essential to distinguish between dominant and hegemonic belief systems. When a belief system is dominant, this does not necessarily imply that it is supported by most people and hence enjoys legitimacy. Dominance refers to the principal ideology that guides governments in their policy and decision-making, even if most people do not support it. Contesting the legitimacy of a dominant belief system and building a broad political coalition and support basis (a “historical bloc”) for an alternative hegemonic ideology was seen by Gramsci as a crucial step towards changing a political-economic regime.[5]
A significant reason the victory of neoliberalism does not mark the end of ideology is that it has never truly captured the hearts and minds of most people. As an ideology based on the promotion of self-interest and individualism as core values, it offers little, if anything, to individuals in their search for meaning in life, nor to their need for a sense of belonging. Denying the importance, or even the existence, of societies, neoliberalism disregards the fundamentally social nature of the human species. Not surprisingly, even though neoliberalism came to dominate governments, it did not stop people from searching for and supporting ideologies that offer ideas and ideals that go beyond the maximisation of self-interest, like the promotion of more harmonious, equitable and just societies in which all people get a chance to develop their talents and to contribute to the common good also in non-material (social and cultural) ways. Although the argument that people live by more than bread alone is a cliché, it stands for a truth that neoliberal ideology completely ignores.
Understandably, neoliberalism has increasingly come under criticism for its unrealistic assumptions and distorted view of the world, its economic shortcomings, and negative social and environmental impacts. Yet, despite its proclaimed demise after the financial and economic crisis of 2008, it has continued to hold most governments worldwide in its grip. This may seem surprising, but it becomes clear why this is the case when viewed from a political-economic perspective, considering the roles of agency and power. Neoliberal ideology did not become dominant based on the strengths of its ideas, despite being advanced by academics [6], but foremost because of the (notably economic) power of those whose interests it served, and still serves.[7] That power, concentrated in large corporations and a rapidly expanding class of billionaires, and firmly entrenched in political-economic institutions and the media, is not easily broken up by much less powerful dissenting voices. This is even less likely if those voices do not sing from the same script or do not even have an alternative script that can capture the hearts and minds of people. Developing an alternative belief system (or “story”) with credibility and widespread appeal is crucial for replacing a dominant paradigm.[8]
But it is not enough. Changing a hegemonic worldview or ideology requires more than putting forth a credible substitute. Fundamentally, which worldview dominates (guides governments) is a matter of agency and power. Power exists in different forms. Cognitive power involves knowledge, understanding and information that enables a person or group to determine what is needed to effect one’s choice(s), and what works or is likely to work. It includes getting under people’s skin or into their minds. However, the degree of cognitive power is interdependent with other forms of power, particularly economic, social, and institutional power. Individual power (for instance, linked to charismatic leaders), and physical power (the use of force to, for example, strike down mass protests and incarcerate opposition leaders), also play a crucial role in changing or upholding a dominant belief system, especially if this system is strongly connected with the interests of the ruling political-economic regimes.
Although neoliberalism did not capture the hearts and minds of most people, it has remained a dominant ideology because of the preponderant power of capitalist interests. As a Marxist, Gramsci did not overlook the significance of economic power, which keeps governments under the influence of capitalist interests. Moreover, there are other ways by which the hegemony of capitalism is upheld even if neoliberalism fails to win the hearts and minds of populations.
The hegemony of capitalism
The dependence, in a capitalist system, of most people on wage labour to meet their needs makes them captives of that system, materially as well as psychologically. Consequently, many have bought into the argument that a well-functioning economy, measured in economic growth, is also in their individual interest. So, although the rise to prominence of neoliberal ideology has been foremost a top-down process, imposed by governments and international institutions often against the opposition of workers and trade unions, its hegemony has been buttressed by the view that neoliberal reforms and policies were essential to safeguard the economy and the future economic well-being of citizens.
Moreover, in many Western countries, the “glorious 30 years” following World War II were marked by steadily increasing incomes, prosperity, consumerism, and materialism. Continuously promoted by ubiquitous advertising, consumerism propagates a hedonistic ideology that prioritises pleasure, primarily through the consumption of an ever-changing flow of goods and entertainment services, as the ultimate purpose of life. Although producing ephemeral states of happiness or, more accurately, superficial lifestyles and shaky social identities, consumerism holds masses of people in its grip.[9] Driven by business interests and materialist and consumerist ideologies, it is the counterpart of productivism and/or industrialism, complementing the growth imperative inherent in capitalism. Commonly depicted as carrying co- or even the primary responsibility for the ever-increasing demand for resources and environmental destruction,[10] consumerism places responsibility or blame on consumers (everyone), diverting attention from the systemic imperative of capitalism that it is.
The power of business interests to influence public opinion and government thinking on issues has also been exercised through other means, including setting up and sponsoring citizens’ groups to seed or spread public dissent, as well as utilising the public relations industry.[11] Perhaps most effectively, businesses influence the public, media, and governments not by explicitly taking an anti-environmental stance but by promoting themselves as environmentally responsible and committed “corporate citizens” who do their best to solve environmental problems and promote sustainability. While some of the efforts they undertake to bolster their green reputation, including the greening of production processes and products, can make a difference in terms of mitigating emissions, pollution, energy use, and waste generation, overall, there are good reasons for being sceptical about these commitments and their results. For instance, the growing acceptance of corporate social responsibility (CSR) by businesses in many countries is better regarded as a form of “privatisation of environmental governance” and self-regulation aimed at forestalling the adoption of more stringent regulation by governments, while also enhancing their public environmental image or gaining a competitive advantage, increasingly on a global scale.[12]
The media – a tilted playing field
The media play a crucial role in drawing attention to and interpreting environmental challenges. In this respect, the attention given to environmental issues in the media has significantly increased, to the point that such issues (notably climate change) have been firmly put on the public agenda. In part, this can be attributed to the environmental movement’s efforts. Environmental advocates have control over some media resources (their own publications and websites) and have been quite skilful in strategically using a wide range of media to get their messages across (Greenpeace has often been referred to as exemplary in this respect). They have been assisted in this by environmental incidents, accidents and seriously deteriorating environmental conditions and situations that lend themselves to being graphically depicted and sensationalised, appealing as much if not more to people’s hearts (emotions) as to their minds. Thus, access to the media has been one of the key sources of power that environmentalists have effectively utilised.
Nonetheless, for several reasons, one can question the effectiveness of this form of cognitive power in advancing a more holistic and deeper understanding of the environmental challenge among the wider public. First, the media campaigns of environmental groups, and by far most environmental reporting, are issue-focused. This is perhaps understandable or even necessary from a political perspective, as mobilising public support and demand for government action on environmental issues is possible only by focusing on specific (and arguably emotive) issues. However, it is rare for a newspaper to go beyond that and describe the broad nature of the environmental challenge, let alone delve into the underlying causes or drivers. It is even harder to find a mainstream newspaper, radio station, or television channel that systematically prioritises environmental reporting and links events and developments to an overarching framework of environmental imperatives. Thus, although growing media attention to environmental issues has contributed to a general rise in public awareness that the environment is under threat, it has done little to impress the need for a broad and integrated approach by governments.
Second, although reporting on environmental issues has increased across the media, there is no sign that it has displaced, or is displacing, the economy as a priority topic. This is reflected in the daily or continuous attention given by the mainstream media to the state of the economy, like movements in the share, commodity and capital markets, and statistics on economic growth, exports, unemployment, and fluctuations in the level of confidence or optimism about the economy held by consumers, businesses, and investors. Reporting on this front indicates that the existing (capitalist) economic system and paradigm continue to be taken for granted and go virtually unchallenged in the media. To the extent that links are being made between environmental issues and economic developments or activities, these are portrayed, at most, as new opportunities for “green economic growth” by switching investments towards “green” technologies.
Third, this portrayal (re-interpretation) of the environmental challenge by the media is perhaps not surprising, as most media are owned and run as private businesses dependent on expansion and economic growth in the competitive media market. Advertising revenue is the lifeblood of most media, and their survival depends heavily on their ability to attract advertisers by offering content that attracts potential consumers. Although some media outlets may still be government-owned, this does not automatically mean that they are free from advertising and unaffected by the ratings wars, or that they are more inclined to raise questions about capitalism, economic growth, materialism, and consumerism as the sources or roots of the environmental challenge. Publicly owned media are not inherently ideologically neutral or independent, and they can be influenced by the political power and economic interests of governments and economic elites. This is a concern that can be raised about the media in both “developed” and “developing” countries.[13]
Hence, what is reported by the media, and how is it influenced by political and economic factors or filters? As Chomsky has argued, media reporting is generally confined to issues and views considered “safe” that pose no threat to the establishment. He argues that the belief that the mainstream media play an essential role in a functioning democracy, rather than in spreading propaganda, is a “necessary illusion” to keep the public passive and controlled by the elites.[14] Chomsky’s take on the role of the media looks extreme. Still, it has been increasingly supported by developments, notably the concentration of media ownership and control, the decline in journalistic standards, investigative journalism, and the quality of reporting, as well as the emphasis on sensationalism and entertainment value (ratings) to maintain or increase market share, advertising, and profitability.[15]
The internet as a battleground
The rise of the internet and, more recently, social media (Facebook/Meta, Twitter/X, and others) was initially touted as positive for democracy, as it provided new sources of information and direct forms of interaction and debate between people, even globally.[16] However, developments in this area have also raised concerns. Media giants like Google/Alphabet, Facebook/Meta and Microsoft use algorithms and a raft of sophisticated tools to collect detailed data about individuals (with the rationale of offering “personalised services” to customers), which allows them to accurately predict their behaviour and to sell that information for commercial and political purposes.[17]
The provision of these personalised services also leads to targeted messaging and search results that are in line with an individual’s interests, creating “echo chambers” or “net bubbles”[18] that limit people’s exposure to information and views that they are not familiar with and that challenge their established opinions. They also control access to websites that are believed to threaten capitalist ideology, including those that promote socialist worldviews.[19] Similarly, “net neutrality”, which requires internet providers to not discriminate against certain content or websites, is threatened by commercial interests that want to maximise their financial returns by offering packages that split access to the internet.[20] Authoritarian governments also control (and deny) access to internet content that they consider undesirable.[21] Perhaps even more so than traditional media (newspapers, radio, and television), new media are effective means of distracting and manipulating people, eroding their ability to concentrate on essential issues and thus weakening democracy.[22] The internet and social media, even more so than the mainstream media, are prone to the spread of “fake news”, the deliberate spread of false news used by groups and governments to sow confusion and spread political cynicism.[23]
On the positive side, the internet, including social media, offers unprecedented opportunities for gathering information, networking, and political mobilisation. It has played and still plays, a significant role in mobilising political protests and actions in countries around the world, including in the Arab world (the “Arab Spring”), Hong Kong, and Belarus, and thus provides a crucial means for challenging established political orders, enhancing democracy, as well as for strengthening environmental activism. However, this potential has provoked vested political and economic interests to develop and use tools that exercise increasingly comprehensive and intrusive surveillance forms, manipulate and distract people, sow division, and control access and content. Thus, the internet is a double-edged sword that can be used to enhance democracy, but also for non-democratic and potentially totalitarian purposes, as illustrated by developments and practices in the United States and China.[24] Crucially, ownership and control of the mainstream media lie with businesses and governments, so the cognitive power of environmental advocates in this realm is circumscribed by those who wield economic and political-institutional power.
The (ab)use of science and technology
Similarly, the role of science and scientists in influencing or shaping public interpretations and views on issues is influenced by power and agency. The power of business interests in the realm of science has been revealed by various researchers, for instance, Oreskes and Conway[25] who have demonstrated how big corporations and other vested economic interests have used scientists and so-called think tanks to sow doubt among the public and governments about the damaging effects of their products and practices on people as well as the environment. By paying scientists to produce quasi-scientific reports (often on topics on which they are not experts), abusing the notion of scientific uncertainty,[26] and spreading their views among the media and politicians, these interests have been effective in getting governments to postpone introducing (stricter) regulation, with the result that they could continue their harmful practices for many more years. While the tobacco industry was an early leader in this respect, other industries, notably the fossil fuel industry, have also very effectively used this strategy to prevent governments (notably in the United States) from taking meaningful action on climate change.[27] For many years, business interests have been funding climate denial groups, sowing public confusion about the extent to which scientists agree on the issue and spreading misinformation about the costs of taking effective action.[28]
At the same time, businesses often try to discredit environmental positions or solutions that threaten their profits (“bottom line”) as irresponsible, thus marginalising environmental advocates who seek more radical and effective measures. By contrast, perhaps the most effective and influential way businesses advance their interests is by promoting the idea that technological means can solve environmental problems. This view, a central tenet in notions like ecological modernisation[29] and Natural Capitalism,[30] has become the default position of more environmentally committed governments and gained widespread acceptance among the public and the environmental movement. The popularity of this belief is not surprising, as it depoliticises environmental issues, turning them into new opportunities for development, investment, and profits, while soothing the public with the idea that there is no need to sacrifice high-consumption lifestyles —a real “win-win-win” solution for governments, businesses, and the public at large.[31] However, while science and technology play a crucial role in the transformation towards sustainable production and consumption, this role must be circumscribed by ecological, socio-cultural, ethical, and political (democratic) considerations, rather than being based on narrow and naïve technocratic optimism.[32]
The greening of hearts and minds: an uphill battle
These observations highlight the limitations of the cognitive power of environmental advocates in comparison to that of governments and businesses, which are also linked to differences in economic and political-institutional power. Arguably, this leaves social power —the ability to mobilise people (and their resources) based on social ties and/or perceived common interests —as the environmental movement’s most important source of power. Public support for environmental values has increased in many countries, and the environmental movement, in all its diversity, manifests the importance assigned to such values. The ability of environmental advocates to tap into that growing support base, comprising many millions of people, is a significant source of social power, illustrated, among other things, by large demonstrations, (consumer) boycotts, and petitions and campaigns organised at local, national, and global levels. This social base also forms a foundation for building economic power (from fundraising and other forms of financial support), even though this is unlikely to match that of business. However, as environmental pressures and problems are growing rather than diminishing, and many people worldwide are (beginning to be) affected by such issues in their daily lives, the social power base of environmental advocates is likely to become stronger. Whether and how that growing social power base can be mobilised by environmental advocates to tilt their relative power in their favour vis-à-vis anti-environmental forces remains to be seen.
As noted above, a significant hurdle in this respect is that environmental advocates rarely, if ever, form a united front on any issue. While they share many concerns, coordinated action among environmental organisations is often hindered by disagreements over strategies, specific means, and ends. For instance, despite virtually unanimous concern about climate change, common strategic action is marred by different views about targets, the use of policy instruments (emissions trading, carbon tax, other forms of regulation), the use of confrontational or cooperative strategies, and the extent to which climate change policy and action must fit in, or lead to, a process of more or less radical political, economic, social, and cultural change. Thus, the ability of environmental advocates to utilise their growing social power base to enhance their cognitive power depends to a considerable extent on whether they can overcome their internal divisions. Some have called for concerted action by a broad coalition of environmental advocates. However, getting this off the ground in the form of an agreed set of priorities and a course of strategic action to achieve these remains a big challenge.[33] A crucial question in this context is whether such broad coalitions can and should focus on bringing about meaningful changes in political-institutional and economic power. While I agree that fighting against things is not enough and that there is a need for putting forth positive, values-based, alternative views and programmes that can substitute for the prevailing neoliberal worldview and ideology, fundamental or systemic change can only be brought about if the balance of power linked to all forms and sources of power is tilted in favour of environmental advocates rather than economic actors.
Achieving such a fundamental change requires environmental advocates to move beyond focusing on specific environmental issues and towards thinking strategically about political-institutional change as a basis for transforming power structures. The battle for the hearts and minds cannot be won just by appealing for public support for good causes. It requires raising political awareness of the dominant power structures and fostering public debate about the political-institutional changes needed to prioritise public rather than private interests.
References
[1] Sewell, William H., Jr. (1992), “A Theory of Structure: Duality, Agency, and Transformation”, American Journal of Sociology, Vol . 98, No.1, pp.1-29.
[2] Koestler, Arthur (1959, Kindle 2014 ed.), The Sleepwalkers: A History of Man’s Changing Vision of the Universe. London: Penguin Classics.
[3] Toffler, Alvin (1971), Future Shock. London: Pan Books; Toffler, Alvin (1981), The Third Wave. London: Pan in association with Collins; Toffler, Alvin (1990), Powershift: Knowledge, Wealth, and Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century. New York: Bantam Books.
[4] Beck, Ulrich (1992), Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage Publications.
[5] Jones, Steve (2006), Antonio Gramsci. London and New York: Routledge, Chapter 3; Gill, Stephen (1991), “Historical Materialism, Gramsci, and International Political Economy”, in C. N. Murphy and R. Tooze (eds.), The New International Political Economy. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 51-75.
[6] MacLean, Nancy (2017, e-book ed.), Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right’s Stealth Plan for America. Scribe Publications.
[7] Mayer, Jane (2016), Dark Money. The Hidden History of the Billionaires Behind the Rise of the Radical Right. New York: Doubleday; Klein, Naomi (2007), The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New York: Picador
[8] Klein, Naomi (2017), No Is Not Enough: Defeating the New Shock Politics. Great Britain: Allen Lane; Monbiot, George (2017), Out of the Wreckage. A New Politics for an Age of Crisis. London and New York: Verso.
[9] Hamilton, Clive (2003), Growth Fetish. Crows Nest, NSW (Australia): Allen & Unwin.
[10] Dauvergne, Peter (2008), The Shadows of Consumption: Consequences for the Global Environment. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
[11] Beder, Sharon (1997; 2000), Global Spin. The Corporate Assault on Environmentalism. Melbourne: Scribe Publications; Hager, Nicky and Bob Burton (1999), Secrets and Lies. The Anatomy of an Anti-Environmental PR Campaign. Nelson (N.Z.): Craig Potton Publishing.
[12] Gallagher, Deborah Rigling and Erika Weinthal (2012), “Business-State Relations and the Environment: The Evolving Role of Corporate Social Responsibility”, in P. F. Steinberg and S. D. VanDeveer (eds.), Comparative Environmental Politics. Theory, Practice and Prospects. Cambridge, MA and London, England: The MIT Press, 143-169; Clapp, Jennifer (2005), “The Privatization of Global Governance: ISO 14000 and the Developing World”, in D. L. Levy and P. J. Newell (eds.), The Business of Global Environmental Governance. Cambridge, Mass and London: MIT Press, 223-248.
[13] For data on media ownership and some of the concerns raised by the ongoing concentration of that ownership, see Noam, Eli M. and the International Media Concentration Collaboration (2016), Who Owns the World’s Media? Media Concentration and Ownership around the World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, especially Chapter 38.
[14] Chomsky, Noam (1989), Necessary Illusions: Thought Control in Democratic Societies. Boston, MA: South End Press.
[15] Postman, Neil (1985), Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Viking; McChesney, Robert W. (2014), Blowing the Roof Off the Twenty-First Century: Media, Politics, and the Struggle for Post-Capitalist Democracy. New York: Monthly Review Press; McChesney, Robert W. (1999), Rich Media, Poor Democracy: Communication Politics in Dubious Times. Urbana: University of Illinois Press; Edwards, David and David Cromwell (2018), Propaganda Blitz. How the Corporate Media Distort Reality. London: Pluto Press.
[16] Benson, Rodney (2017), “US Media: The Bottom Line”, Le Monde Diplomatique (English edition), September.
[17] Zuboff, Shoshana (2019), The Age of Surveillance Capitalism. London: Profile Books Ltd.
[18] Clark, Jessica and Tracy Van Slyke (2010), Beyond the Echo Chamber: Reshaping Politics through Networked Progressive Media. New York: New Press.
[19] Popularresistance.org (2017), Google’s New Search Protocol Restricting Access to Leading Leftist Web Sites, https://popularresistance.org/googles-new-search-protocol-is-restricting-access-to-13-leading-leftist-web-sites/ (Accessed: 29 November 2017).
[20] Bell, Emily (2017), “Why We Should Be Wary of Ending Net Neutrality”, The Guardian, 26 November.
[21] Haas, Benjamin (2017), “China Moves to Block Internet VPNs from 2018”, The Guardian, 11 July; Browne, Ryan (2017), Russia Follows China in Tightening Internet Restrictions, Raising Fresh Censorship Concerns, CNBC, https://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/31/russia-follows-china-in-vpn-clampdown-raising-censorship-concerns.html (Accessed: 28 November 2017); Ellis-Petersen, Hannah (2020), “Indian Move to Regulate Digital Media Raises Censorship Fears”, The Guardian, 11 November. It must be noted that the practice of suppressing websites has also been used by liberal-democratic governments, for instance, as a measure to combat “misinformation” about COVID-19. Control over the internet has become the terrain of a major battle, and possibly a decisive one, in the war over the hearts and minds of people.
[22] Carr, Nicholas (2010), The Shallows. What the Internet Is Doing to Our Brains. New York, London: W.W. Norton; Lewis, Paul (2017), “Everyone Is Distracted. All of the Time”, Guardian Weekly, Vol . 197, No.21, 26-31.
[23] Wikipedia (2017), Fake News Website, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fake_news_website (Accessed: 28 November 2017).
[24] Liang, Fan, et al. (2018), “Constructing a Data-Driven Society: China’s Social Credit System as a State Surveillance Infrastructure”, Policy & Internet, Vol.10, No.4, 415-453; Haas, Benjamin (2017), “China Moves to Block Internet VPNs from 2018”; Zuboff, Shoshana (2019), The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, notably Chapters 12 and 13.
[25] Oreskes, Naomi and Erik M. Conway (2011), Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
[26] Oreskes, Naomi (2004), “Science and Public Policy: What’s Proof Got to Do with It?”, Environmental Science & Policy, Vol . 7, No.5, 369-383.
[27] Klein, Naomi (2014), This Changes Everything: Capitalism Vs. The Climate. London: Allen Lane, Penguin Books.
[28] Jacques, Peter J., et al. (2008), “The Organisation of Denial: Conservative Think Tanks and Environmental Scepticis”, Environmental Politics, Vol.17, No.3, 349-385; Frumhoff, Peter C. and Naomi Oreskes (2015), “Fossil Fuel Firms Are Still Bankrolling Climate Denial Lobby Group”, The Guardian, 25 March; Goldenberg, Suzanne (2013), “Secret Funding Helped Build Vast Network of Climate Denial Thinktank”, The Guardian, Publication date: 14 February, https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/feb/14/funding-climate-change-denial-thinktanks-network (Accessed: 16 December 2021).
[29] Milanez, Bruno and Ton Bührs (2007), “Marrying Strands of Ecological Modernisation: A Proposed Framework”, Environmental Politics, Vol. 16, No.4, 565-583.
[30] Hawken, Paul, et al. (1999), Natural Capitalism: Creating the Next Industrial Revolution. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.
[31] Revell, Andrea (2005), “Ecological Modernization in the UK: Rhetoric or Reality”, European Environment, Vol. 15, No.6, 344-361; Smith, Richard A. (2015), Green Capitalism: The God That Failed. World Economics Association, 21,31,57, 59-60.
[32] White, D. F. (2002), “A Green Industrial Revolution? – Sustainable Technological Innovation in a Global Ag”, Environmental Politics, Vol. 11, No.2, 1-26.
[33] Klein, Naomi (2017), No Is Not Enough: Defeating the New Shock Politics. Great Britain: Allen Lane; Monbiot, George (2017), Out of the Wreckage. A New Politics for an Age of Crisis. London and New York: Verso.