https://ebookmass.com/product/the-politics-of-theanthropocene-john-s-dryzek/
Instant digital products (PDF, ePub, MOBI) ready for you
Download now and discover formats that fit your needs...
Anthropocene Realism: Fiction in the Age of Climate Change
John Thieme
https://ebookmass.com/product/anthropocene-realism-fiction-in-the-ageof-climate-change-john-thieme/
ebookmass.com
The People Are King: The Making of an Indigenous Andean Politics S. Elizabeth Penry
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-people-are-king-the-making-of-anindigenous-andean-politics-s-elizabeth-penry/
ebookmass.com
Encyclopedia of the Anthropocene (5 volumes) Dominick A. Dellasala
https://ebookmass.com/product/encyclopedia-of-theanthropocene-5-volumes-dominick-a-dellasala/
ebookmass.com
Culture from the Slums: Punk Rock in East and West Germany
Jeff
Hayton
https://ebookmass.com/product/culture-from-the-slums-punk-rock-ineast-and-west-germany-jeff-hayton/
ebookmass.com
Pencilvania Stephanie Watson
https://ebookmass.com/product/pencilvania-stephanie-watson/
ebookmass.com
Narratives of Migration, Relocation and Belonging: Latin Americans in London 1st ed. Edition Patria Román-Velázquez
https://ebookmass.com/product/narratives-of-migration-relocation-andbelonging-latin-americans-in-london-1st-ed-edition-patria-romanvelazquez/ ebookmass.com
Mark Me: (Duet 1) A dark college reverse harem romance (Royals of KnightsGate) Se Traynor
https://ebookmass.com/product/mark-me-duet-1-a-dark-college-reverseharem-romance-royals-of-knightsgate-se-traynor/
ebookmass.com
Marginalized, Mobilized, Incorporated. Women and Religious Nationalism in Indian Democracy Rina Verma Williams
https://ebookmass.com/product/marginalized-mobilized-incorporatedwomen-and-religious-nationalism-in-indian-democracy-rina-vermawilliams/ ebookmass.com
Mediating Xenophobia in Africa: Unpacking Discourses of Migration, Belonging and Othering Dumisani Moyo
https://ebookmass.com/product/mediating-xenophobia-in-africaunpacking-discourses-of-migration-belonging-and-othering-dumisanimoyo/ ebookmass.com
The Lady & The Unicorn: The Holidates Series, Book 17 Rina
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-lady-the-unicorn-the-holidatesseries-book-17-rina-dayne/
ebookmass.com
ThePoliticsoftheAnthropocene ThePoliticsofthe Anthropocene JohnS.Dryzek
JonathanPickering
GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom
OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries
©JohnS.DryzekandJonathanPickering2019
Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted
FirstEditionpublishedin2019
Impression:1
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove
Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer
PublishedintheUnitedStatesofAmericabyOxfordUniversityPress 198MadisonAvenue,NewYork,NY10016,UnitedStatesofAmerica
BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData
Dataavailable
LibraryofCongressControlNumber:2018950279
ISBN978–0–19–880961–6(hbk) 978–0–19–880962–3(pbk)
Printedandboundby
CPIGroup(UK)Ltd,Croydon,CR04YY
LinkstothirdpartywebsitesareprovidedbyOxfordingoodfaithand forinformationonly.Oxforddisclaimsanyresponsibilityforthematerials containedinanythirdpartywebsitereferencedinthiswork.
■ PREFACE TheAnthropoceneisanemergingepochofhuman-inducedinstabilityinthe Earthsystem.ThechallengetheAnthropocenepresentstohumanityisprofound,meaningthatinfutureallpoliticsshouldbe firstandforemostapolitics oftheAnthropocene.Weareofcoursealongwayfromthathappening,asthe worldseemsstuckwithinstitutions,practices,andmodesofthinkingthatwere appropriateintheHolocene theepochofaround12,000yearsofunusual stabilityintheEarthsystem,towardtheendofwhichmoderninstitutionssuch asstatesandcapitalistmarketsarose.Thepurposeofthisbookistomoveusa bitclosertomakingallpoliticsapoliticsoftheAnthropocene.Atissuearenot justparticularinstitutions,values,andpractices,buthowwethinkofamodern worldinwhichwearenolongerestrangedfromtheprocessesoftheEarth system,andinwhichsystemsoncecategorizedasnon-humancanbejoinedina moreproductiverelationship.
Oursisnotthe firstbookontheAnthropocene,orindeedonitsspecifically politicalimplications.However,weofferheresomethingthatwebelieve earliertreatmentsmiss.Someofthemarestillabitstuckinmodesofthought, andmenusofoptions,developedunderHoloceneconditions.Othersare quicktorushtoprescriptionswithoutreallycomingtogripswiththedepth ofthechallenge.Othersstillhaveasophisticatedunderstandingofthe Anthropocenethatisnotmatchedbyasophisticatedunderstandingofhow governancedoesandcanwork.Andyetothersdonottrulycometogripswith thedynamicconditionsoftheAnthropocenethatrenderanyinstitutional proposalunstable,nomatterhowattractiveitmightseem.Wewilltrytodo better.Wehavetriedtomakethetreatmentaccessible(andifthereareplaces wherewehavenotaltogethersucceeded,thatmaybeexplainedbythe complexityoftheissueswearedealingwith).
Preliminaryversionsofpartsofthisbookoritswholewerepresentedatthe Workshop “OntheScaleofWorlds:TechnoscienceandGlobalGovernance” intheProgramonScience,TechnologyandSociety,HarvardUniversity,2014; theDemocracyFellowsSeminarintheAshCenter,HarvardUniversity,2014; the2015and2017annualconferencesoftheEarthSystemGovernance Project,inCanberraandLundrespectively;theArneNaessSymposiumat theUniversityofOslo,2016;theInternationalEthicsResearchSeminar organizedbyToniErskineinCanberra,2017;theEcologicalDemocracy workshopheldattheUniversityofSydney,2017;theconferenceofthe EuropeanInternationalStudiesAssociationinBarcelona,2017;theconference oftheAustralianPoliticalStudiesAssociationinMelbourne,2017;the
EnvironmentalPolitics,PolicyandLearningseminarintheDepartmentof PoliticalScienceatStockholmUniversity,2017;theSydneyConferenceon EnvironmentalJusticeattheUniversityofSydney,2017;theAustralasianAid ConferenceattheAustralianNationalUniversity,2018;theconventionofthe InternationalStudiesAssociationinSanFrancisco,2018;andinseminarsof ourownCentreforDeliberativeDemocracyandGlobalGovernanceatthe UniversityofCanberra.
Foradviceandcommentsondraftchaptersorprecursorpapers,wethank KarinBäckstrand,ChristianBarry,RobertBartlett,AndrewDobson,ChristianDownie,SonyaDuus,VictorGalaz,PeterHaas,CliveHamilton,Marit Hammond,StephenHobden,SigridHohle,SheilaJasanoff,JonathanKuyper, MichaelMackenzie,JamesMeadowcroft,RichardNorgaard,OdinLysaker, ÅsaPersson,StuartPickering,DominicRoser,DavidSchlosberg,WillSteffen, HayleyStevenson,DinaTownsend,andSteveVanderheiden.AnnikaHernandezhelpedwithformatting figures.Wewouldalsoliketothankallour colleaguesintheEarthSystemGovernanceProject.Jonathanwouldliketo thankJohnforhisadvice,inspirationandpatienceinwhatprovedtobea highlyenjoyablecollaborationandanidealintroductiontothecraftofbookwriting.Jonathanwouldliketothankhisfamilyfortheirwonderfulsupport andencouragementalongtheway.Theneedtowriteclearlyaboutchangesin theEarthsystemthatwillincreasinglyaffectgenerationstocomewasnever clearerthanwhenhavingtoexplaintheideaofAnthropocenetotwoprimaryschool-agedboysoverbreakfast.Johnthankshisfamily(whichhesometimes forgetstodo),andthanksJonathanforthepleasureoftheco-authorship.
ThisresearchwassupportedbyAustralianResearchCouncilLaureate FellowshipFL140100154.MostoftheworkwasdoneintheCentrefor DeliberativeDemocracyandGlobalGovernanceintheInstituteforGovernanceandPolicyAnalysisattheUniversityofCanberra.Weareluckytohave suchanexcellentworkingenvironment,andsucha finegroupofcolleagues andPhDstudents.Chapter5benefitedconsiderablyfrombackground researchundertakenbySonyaDuusontheprocessofnegotiatingtheSustainableDevelopmentGoals.JohnDryzekdidsomeoftheearlyworkwhilehe wasaSeniorDemocracyFellowintheAshCenterforDemocraticGovernance andInnovationatHarvardUniversityin2014,andhethanksArchonFungfor beingagreathost.
WehaveusedmostofthetextfromJohnS.Dryzek, “Institutionsforthe Anthropocene:GovernanceinaChangingEarthSystem,” BritishJournalof PoliticalScience 46(4)(2016):937–56,mostlyinchapters2and3,thoughitis heavilymodified,reorganized,andoccasionallyredacted.Inchapter7wehave usedasmalleramountoftextfromJohnS.DryzekandJonathanPickering, “DeliberationasaCatalystforReflexiveEnvironmentalGovernance,” Ecological Economics 131(2017):353–60.
■ ABBREVIATIONS CBDConventiononBiologicalDiversity
CBDR&RCcommonbutdifferentiatedresponsibilitiesandrespectivecapabilities
CCScarboncaptureandstorage(orcarboncaptureandsequestration)
G20Groupof20
HFCshydrofluorocarbons
ICLEIInternationalCouncilforLocalEnvironmentalInitiatives
IPBESIntergovernmentalScience-PolicyPlatformonBiodiversityand EcosystemServices
IPCCIntergovernmentalPanelonClimateChange
IUCNInternationalUnionfortheConservationofNature
MDGsMillenniumDevelopmentGoals
NGOnon-governmentorganization
OECDOrganizationforEconomicCo-operationandDevelopment ppmpartspermillion
SDGsSustainableDevelopmentGoals
UNFCCCUnitedNationsFrameworkConventiononClimateChange
1 Anthropocene:thegood,the bad,andtheinescapable ForuptotwobillionyearsthedominantformoflifeonEarthconsistedof anaerobicbacteria microscopicorganismsthatsurvivedwithoutoxygen. Eventually(byabouttwobillionyearsago)oneparticularkindofbacteria cyanobacteriathatgettheirenergyfromphotosynthesisandreleaseoxygenas waste hadevolvedandbecomesosuccessfulthattheyhadmanagedto produceanoxygen-richenvironmentthatwasfataltomostoftheexisting anaerobiclifeontheplanet.1 Thisnewenvironmentpushedcyanobacteria themselvestotheedgeofextinction,fortheEarth’sclimateprovedmuch coolerthaninthepast.Therestishistory.Particularlifeformscan,then, transformtheEarthsysteminultimatelyself-destructiveways,andthatnow holdsforhumanlifeforms.
ComparedtothescaleofwhatcyanobacteriadidtotheEarthsystemto theirowneventualdetriment,humanimpactstodatehavebeenrelatively minor.Themaindifferenceisthatforcyanobacteria,ittookmillionsofyears tochangethecharacteroftheEarthsystemtothepointwheretheirexistence wasimperiled.Forhumans,thetransformationshavecomeinamatterof decades.Cyanobacteriaalsohadplentyoftimetoevolveintooxygen-tolerant forms,andeventuallyintowhattodaywerecognizeasplants(andformsofthe bacteriathemselvesthatcantolerateoxygenarestillwithus).Humansdon’t haveanytimeatallonageologicaltimescaletoevolvebiologically.Our responsesarelimitedtosocialchange,whichcaninvolveculture,technology, economicsystems,andgovernance(thoughtherearethosewhohavecontemplatedre-engineeringhumans;seeLiao,Sandberg,andRoache2012).The goodnewsisthatunlikecyanobacteriawehaveacapacitytoreasonthrough responsestoplanetaryrisks.Thebadnewsisthatsofarweshowfewsignsof exercisingthatcapacityatalleffectively.
Inthisbookwewillfocusonthepoliticsandgovernanceofanemerging epochofpotentiallycatastrophicimpactonthecharacteroftheEarthsystem thatiscomingtobeknownastheAnthropocene.Ourpointinstartingwith cyanobacteriaratherthanpeopleistohighlightthesheernoveltyofthinking aboutpoliticsingeologicaltime,andinEarthsystemterms.TheEarthsystem
1 Thename “cyanobacteria” comesfromtheirblue-greencolor;previouslytheywereknown colloquiallyasblue-greenalgae.
ThePoliticsoftheAnthropocene. John S. Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering, Oxford University Press (2019). © John S. Dryzek and Jonathan Pickering. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780198809616.003.0001
consistsoftheinterrelatedphysical,chemical,andbiologicalprocessesofthe planetasawhole.Itthereforeencompassesalllife,includinghumanlife,aswell asplanetarycyclesinvolvingcarbon,nitrogen,phosphorus,water,andsulfur.
Fornearlyallofhumanhistory,thepresenceoftheEarthsystemhasnot beenrecognizedbypoliticalactorsandthinkers,evenifafewofthemhave thoughtabouttheimportanceofmaintainingtheenvironmentalbasisof humansocieties.Itisstillroutinelyignoredbymostofthem.Andeven thosewhodothinksomethingisamisscanbesidetrackedbymoreimmediate concerns:thenextelection,economiccrashes,wars...
Thiswillnotdo.
TheAnthropocene ThislackofrecognitionoftheEarthsystemisperhapsunderstandablegiven theunusuallybenignconditionsunderwhichrecordedhumanhistoryhas takenplace.Dominantformsofsocialorganization(includingpoliticalinstitutions)andtheideasthatunderpin,justify,andevencriticizethemwere developedinHoloceneconditionsthatarenowfastdisappearing.TheHoloceneistherecentepochofaround12,000yearsofunusualstabilityinthe Earthsystem.ThePleistocenethatprecededitwasmuchmoreunstable, featuringoccasionalrapidglobalwarmingsandcoolings.
TheAnthropoceneisanemergingepochinwhichhumaninfluences becomedecisiveinaffectingtheparametersoftheEarthsystem,accompanied bythepotentialtogenerateinstabilityandevencatastrophicshiftsinthe characterofthewholesystem(“stateshifts”)ofthesortthatarecommonin theplanet’sdeeperhistory,butunknowninrecordedhumanhistory.CatastrophictippingpointsmightstemfrommeltingoftheGreenlandicecap,or thoroughgoingtropicaldeforestation(Lentonetal.2008).Whileclimate changeisthemostprominentharbingeroftheAnthropocene,otheraspects ofglobalenvironmentalchangemayturnouttomatterjustasmuch,suchas changesinthephosphorusandnitrogencycles.Forexample,whenwaterways becomeexcessivelyenrichedwithnutrientsthroughrun-offofphosphatebasedfertilizers(aphenomenonreferredtoaseutrophication),oceansmay losetheoxygenthatmarineorganismsneedtosurvive.TheAnthropocene entails “anunintendedexperimentofhumankindonitsownlifesupport system” (Steffen,Crutzen,andMcNeill2007:614)ashumanactivitychanges thewaytheEarthsystemworks.
TheideaoftheAnthropocenehasinthepastdecadebecomeincreasingly acceptedanddisseminatedbyenvironmentalscientists.Theideanowhastwo ofitsownjournals, Anthropocene andthe AnthropoceneReview,andhasmade itswayintothemassmedia(beginningwith TheEconomist in2011)and
globalconferences,includingtheUnitedNationsRio+20summitin2012 (forwhichagroupofprominentscientistspreparedashortvideoon Welcome totheAnthropocene).ThereissomedebateaboutwhentheAnthropocene began.Candidatesincludetheinventionofagriculture,theIndustrialRevolution(becauseitledtodiscernibleincreasesintheconcentrationofcarbon dioxideintheatmosphere),theEuropeancolonizationoftheAmericas (becausethischangedspeciesdistributiononavastscale),the firstatomic bombtest(becauseitleftanenduringradioactivesignature).Butpinningan exactdateonthecommencementoftheAnthropocenedoesnotreallymatter thatmuchwhenitcomestothinkingabouthowtorespondtoit.Thereis muchtolearnfrompastsuccessesandfailuresinrespondingtoenvironmental risks,2 butitisnotasthoughthechallengeoftheAnthropocenewasever conceptualizedpreviously,norhasitreceivedanythinglikeaneffectiveglobal response.Whatmattersmostisthatwerecognizewearenowinit,andneed torespond.
TheAnthropoceneonlybegantopressitselfoncollectivehumanattention inthe1950s,withwhatleadingclimatescientistWillSteffenandhiscoauthorscallthe “GreatAcceleration” inhumaneconomicactivityandenvironmentalimpact(Steffen,Broadgate,etal.2015;seeFigure1.1).Aspectsofthis accelerationincludethesizeoftheglobaleconomy,investment flows,water andfertilizeruse,andthenumberofmotorvehicles.In1945,thelevelof carbondioxideintheatmospherewasjust310ppm(partspermillion),or 11percenthigherthanitspre-industrialconcentrationofaround280ppm.By 2016ithadincreasedto401ppm,or43percenthigherthanthepre-industrial level(ScrippsCO2Program2018).Otherindicatorsofecologicaldamage suchaslevelsofnitrousoxideandmethaneintheatmosphere,ozonelayer depletion,landconversion,andlossofforestcoverandbiodiversityreveal similarkindsoftrends.In2016theAnthropoceneWorkingGroupofthe InternationalCommissiononStratigraphyemphasizedthemid-twentieth centuryasthekeytransitionpoint.Eventhoughhumaninfluencecanbe tracedbackasfarasthelatePleistocene(theepochthatprecededthe Holocene)whenhunterswipedoutmegafaunasuchasmammoths,the WorkingGrouparguedthat “humanactivitiesonlycametohaveaneffect thatwasbothlargeandsynchronous,andthusleaveaclear(chrono-) stratigraphicsignal,inthemid-20thcentury” (Zalasiewiczetal.2017:57).3
2 BonneuilandFressoz’s(2016)accountoftheAnthropoceneisinformativeinthisregard,although theydatethebeginningoftheAnthropocenetotheearlyindustrialera.
3 TheWorkingGroupwasunabletoreachamajorityopiniononthemostsuitableglobal stratigraphicsignaltomarkthebeginningoftheAnthropocene;themostcommonlypreferredoption wasplutoniumfalloutfromnucleartesting(whichisnotitselfanaspectoftheGreatAcceleration,even thoughitoccurredatthesametimeasitsonset),whileotheroptionsincludeplasticsandpersistent organicpollutantsfoundingeologicaldeposits.
Socio-economic trends Figure1.1. TheGreatAcceleration
Source:Steffen,Broadgate,etal.(2015:4,6,7).
Itisonlyinthepastfewyearsthatthesesortsofdevelopmentshavebeen conceptualizedinanAnthropoceneframe(startingwithCrutzenand Stoermer2000).Butevenwithinthisframemanythinkers(someofwhom wewillencounterinthisbook)viewtheAnthropoceneasjustamultiplication ofenvironmentalchallenges.Ifthatisallitis,thenitrequiressimplyan intensificationoftheexistingrepertoireofresponses,betheytightercurbson greenhousegasemissions,strengtheningofnationalandglobalinstitutionsfor environmentalprotectionandresourcemanagement,ormoreeffectiveincentivesforpeopletobehaveinenvironmentallybenignfashion.Thechallengeis
Earth system trends Figure1.1. Continued
actuallygreaterthanthat:theAnthropocenerequiresa “stateshift” intheway wethinkabouttheplaceofthepoliticaleconomyinrelationtotheEarth system.SowhileitisthemagnitudeofhumaneffectsontheEarthsystemthat drivesthetransitiontotheAnthropocene,itisnot just theirmagnitudewhich isimportant.Thetransitioniscategorical,inthesensethatwhatwenowhave isanEarthsystemwhosecoreworkingsareaffectedbyhumanactivity.The Earthsystemanditsnon-humancomponentshaveamuchgreaterclaimupon humaninstitutionsandpracticesthanbefore becausethatsystemisso thoroughlyinflectedwithhumanforcesinducingpotentiallycatastrophic instability.TheAnthropocenedoes,then,changethe content ofecological concernsbyputtinghumansattheheartofcausalprocessesintheEarth
system.Inhighlightingthefactthatthecharacterofthesystemonwhichwe dependissovulnerabletohumanaction,theideaoftheAnthropocenealso confirmsthatthissystemisnotsomethingouttheredemandinglimitedand occasionalattention.Rather,theEarthsystembecomesakeyplayerinhow planetaryhistorywillunfold.
SomescientistsuponencounteringtheAnthropoceneviewitthrough restricteddisciplinarylenses.But,asCliveHamilton(2016)pointsout,seeing theAnthropocenethroughlensessuchaslandscapeecology(whichignores oceans)orthegeographyofspeciesdistributioncanleadtounderestimation oftheprofundityofthechallengeitpresents.TheAnthropoceneoughttobe apprehendedinmorecomprehensiveEarthsystemterms;itispossibleto thinkoftheEarthsystemasmorethanjust “acollectionofecosystems” (Hamilton2016:94).Ofcourse,whathappensinparticularecosystemsas illuminatedbyparticulardisciplinarystudiesisstillimportant(Oldfield2016); itjustneedstobeseenagainstthebackdropofthelargerEarthsystem. Moreover,Earthsystemsciencemustnowinvolvesocialscienceinaserious way:thehumansocialprocessesthatsocialscientistsstudytakeoncausal primacyintheEarthsystemoftheAnthropocene,asitisthoseprocessesthat drivechangesintheparametersoftheEarthsystem.Andthisiswherewe enterinthisbook.
BadAnthropocene Dalby(2016),echoingSergioLeone’sclassicWestern,distinguishesgood,bad, anduglyframingsoftheAnthropocene.IftheAnthropocenewerenot attendedbysomeactuallyandpotentiallybadconsequencesforbothhumanityandtheEarthsystem,itsarrivalwoulddeservemuchlessattention.Itis possibletorecognizeitsarrivalbutatthesametime fightitsimplications.As JamiesonandDiPaola(2016:267)putit, “oneofthecentraltasksofpoliticsin theAnthropoceneistorestorestabilitytotheEarth’snaturalsystems.” Yetthe ideaofrestoringstabilitytonaturalsystemsisnowmisleadingasaguideto action.Toseewhythisisso,letusaddresstheprominentconceptof “planetary boundaries” thathasbeenadvancedbysomeofthesamescientistswhohave disseminatedtheAnthropoceneidea(Rockströmetal.2009).Asweshallsee, theimplicationsofthetwoconceptsmayactuallystandinsometension.
PlanetaryboundariesdefinewhatRockströmetal.calla “safeoperating space ” forhumanity(seeFigure1.2).Intheiroriginalformulation,thereare nineboundariesthatconcernclimatechange,oceanacidification,stratosphericozone,phosphorusandnitrogencycles,atmosphericaerosolloading, freshwater,landuse,biodiversity,andchemicalpollution.Thepreciselocation oftheboundaryforeachoftheseconcernsisajudgmentcall.Thusforclimate
change
diversity
Biosphere integrity
diversity
Land-system change
flows Freshwater use
Figure1.2. Planetaryboundaries
Stratospheric ozone depletion
Nitrogen
Beyond zone of uncertainty (high risk) In zone of uncertainty (increasing risk)
Source:Steffen,Richardson,etal.(2015:736).
Below boundary (safe) Boundary not yet quantified
aerosol loading
changetheoriginalplanetaryboundariesstatementspecifiedthattheboundaryvalueisaconcentrationof350ppmofcarbondioxideintheatmosphere. Forstratosphericozone,itisa5percentlossofozoneconcentrationfromthe pre-industriallevel.Forfreshwateruse,itis4,000cubickilometersperyear.As of2009,whentheconceptwas firstpublished,threeboundarieshadalready beenexceeded:thoseforclimatechange,biodiversityloss,andthenitrogen cycle.Ina2015update(Steffen,Richardson,etal.2015),biodiversitylosswas reconceptualizedasbiosphereintegrity,andalongwithclimatechangeidentifiedasoneofthetwocoreboundariesmeritingspecialattention. “Novel entities” (artificialsubstancesandmodifiedlifeforms)replaced “chemical pollution.” Theboundaryforlandsystemusenowappearedtohavebeen exceeded.
Itispossibletothinkofplanetaryboundariesinthreeways.First,theycan beseenasdramatizingthehazardsofenvironmentaldestruction:when approachedortransgressedtheyshowthatsomethingisseriouslyamissand thatthewell-beingoftheEarthsystemisthreatened.Inthislight,theycan complementtheAnthropoceneconceptanditsimplications notably,when itcomestotheneedtoanticipateandpreventcatastrophicstateshiftsinthe Earthsystem.Butinasecondsensetheysuggestthatifwestaywithinthem (or,inthecaseofthefourthathavebeenviolated,returntothesafelevel)all
willbewell oratleastreasonablywell.Assuch,theycanbeinterpretedasa guideforhowtoavoidthemoreprofoundundesirableimplicationsofthe Anthropocene(Dryzek,Norgaard,andSchlosberg2013:117).Inthislight,the Anthropocenedoesnotlooklikeathoroughlydifferentandinescapablenew epochintheEarthsystem ratheritappearsasascenariothatcanbenegated byintelligentcollectiveaction.Rockströmetal.(2009)wantplanetaryboundariestobesetatlevelsthatwouldmaintainHoloceneconditions.This understandingofplanetaryboundariesshowshowtoresisttheonsetofthe Anthropocene,butdoesnottellusmuchaboutwhattodoonceweareinthe Anthropoceneinamajorway.Indeed,asLövbrandetal.(2015)note,this understandingimplicitlytreatsnatureasthoughitweresomethingexternalto humansociety,ratherthansomethinginwhichhumansarenowthedriving force.Atonelevel,proponentsofaHolocene-basedviewofplanetaryboundariesrecognizeintegratedsocial-ecologicalsystems,andindeedinsistthattheir analysisisgroundedincomplexsystemsthinking.Butatanotherleveltheir understandingofwhatmightconstitutestabilityremainsinflectedbyunderstandingsthatpre-daterecognitionofsuchintegrationandinterconnection.
IfwearealreadyintheAnthropocene,thereisnoturningbacktostable Holoceneconditions.Sothissecondwayofthinkingaboutplanetaryboundariesispossiblymisleading.ForonehallmarkoftheAnthropoceneiscontinualchange,asexistinghumanimpactsontheEarthsystemplayout for example,evenifgreenhousegasemissionsweretoceasecompletelytoday, inertiaintheclimatesystemmeansthattheconsequencesofpastemissions wouldstilltakedecadestomakethemselvesfelt andarejoinedbynewones. Moreover,astheproponentsoftheconceptrecognize,differentboundaries interact.Soforexamplecatastrophiclossofbiosphereintegritymaysuggest thatotherboundariesneedtobetightenedaswell.
Accompanyingcontinualchangeisuncertaintyandthepossibilityofsurprise.InthedynamicandunstableEarthsystemthattheAnthropocene heralds,boundariesmaylosetheirprecision.Iftheimageryofplanetary boundariesisusedasaguidetoavoidingtheAnthropocene,itistoostatic inthe fixedguidepostsitprovides.Asweoutlineinchapter5,iftheideaof planetaryboundariesistoplayaconstructiveroleininforminghumanity’ s future,itwouldneedtoberecastinathird,dynamicwaythatisuntethered fromaHolocenebaseline,whereboundariescanberethoughtandredrawnin responsetoadvancesinscientificknowledgeandtochangesintheEarth systemandinsocietalperceptionsofrisk.Itmaybethecasethatwithtime societaltoleranceofparticularriskscanchangeindifferentdirections.Thus peoplemaybecomemoreaversetoriskingclimatechange,orlessaversewhen itcomestoriskingozonelayerdepletion.Hereitisnotunreflectivepublic opinionthatshouldmatter,butratherconsideredandinformedsocialjudgments.Thispositionstandsincontrasttothoseintheplanetaryboundaries communitywhothinkthatboundariesshouldbenon-negotiable thoughwe
recognizethatthesesortsofquestionsaredebatedwithinthatcommunity (Galaz2014),andonlysomeofitsmemberstakethe “non-negotiable” positioninwhichboundariesshouldbespecifiedbasedsolelyonthebestavailable science,ratherthaninformedbyconsideredpublicjudgment.
Theideaofavoidanceandreturntosomehistoricalbaseline(beitvalued forreasonsofsafety,aesthetics,orintrinsicworth)isembeddedinthelongstandingvocabularyofenvironmentalconcern.Thewords “preservation,” “conservation,” and “restoration,” nowrecognizableasHoloceneconcepts, allsuggestthereissomebaselineconditionofenvironmentsornatural systemsthatcanbepreserved,conserved,orrestored.IntheAnthropocene, theconditionofthesystemiscontinuallymoving.Wecannotrewindecosystemsbacktoastateuntouchedbyhumans.Therearesomeregionsofthe planet notablytheoceans,Antarctica,CentralGreenland,andthecentral Saharadesert thatremainbarelyinhabitedbyhumans(Caroetal.2012).Yet theaccumulatingimpactsofclimatechangemeanthatnocornerofEarthis sparedfromsomedegreeofhumaninfluence.Giventhelong-termeffectsof greenhousegasemissionsontheEarth’sclimate,thiswouldremaintrueeven ifhumansweretodisappearovernight.Idealizationsofunspoilednaturealso canoverlookthepossibilitythatcompletelyisolatingwildernessfromhumans maynotbebeneficialeitherforhumans,otherspecies,orforwildernessitself (Cronon1996;seealsoWapner2014).Itispossibletoreachdeepintothepreindustrialpastto findtraditionalwaysoflivingthatadoptedamoreintegrated approachtohumansandnature(Schmidtetal.2016:189).ThusforthousandsofyearsbeforeEuropeanoccupation,IndigenousAustralianpeoples activelycultivatedlandscapesthrough fireandotherstrategiesinorderto maintainabundantwildlifeandfood(Gammage2011).Someofthesetraditionalpracticeshavefoundnewlifeincontemporary firemanagementwhile sequesteringcarboninAustralianlandscapesandtherebymitigatingclimate change(Russell-Smithetal.2017).
Recognitionthatwecannotturntheclockbacktountouchedecosystems neednotimply,assomewouldhaveit,the “endofnature” (forexample,Vogel 2015).Nordoesitmeanthatsocietyshouldgiveuponsettingaspirations, goals,ortargetsforenvironmentalprotection.Instead,itrequiresacapacityto rethinkwhatnaturemeans,embodyingthatcapacityininstitutions,andusing thatcapacitytoshapeenvironmentalpoliciesthatcultivateconditionsfor flourishingintothefutureratherthanreturningtothepast.
GoodAnthropocene Theideaofa “goodAnthropocene” hasgainedsomecurrencyamongcommentatorswithsubstantialifnotunboundedfaithintheabilityofhumans
collectivelytoassertcontroloversocial-ecologicalsystemstogoodeffect.The ideaisespeciallyassociatedwiththeUS-basedBreakthroughInstitute,and encapsulatedintheir EcomodernistManifesto (BreakthroughInstitute2015). Thismanifestopositionsitselfincontrasttoanallegedenvironmentalmainstreamthat fixatesongloomandimpendingcatastrophe.Proponentsofa goodAnthropoceneadvancespecificpolicyprescriptionsinfavorofhighdensitycitylivingandefficientagriculture(inordertotakeasmanypeopleas possibleoutofecosystemsstillstyledas “natural”),geneticallymodifiedfoods, andnuclearpower.Ifnecessary,geoengineeringcanbecalledupontorectify orpreventdamagetotheEarthsystem forexample,byinjectingsulfate aerosolsintotheupperatmospheretoblocksunlightandsoreduceglobal warming.AdvocatesofagoodAnthropocenearemainlyconcernedtocelebrateandadvancetheideaofbenignhumancontroloverthenaturalworld. Theyarecertainlyalivetothepotentialofhuman-inducedenvironmental catastrophesinvolvingclimatechange,oceanacidification,ozonelayerdepletion,andthelike,buttheybelievethecatastrophescanbeavertedandabright futureassured.Therhetoricemphasizeshope,optimism,andopportunity notdirewarnings.
Someofthespecificpolicyproposalsadvancedbyadvocatesofthegood Anthropocene,suchasexpandingnuclearpowerandgeneticallymodified agriculture,mightbecontroversialinenvironmentalcircles thoughadefensiblecasecouldalsobemadeforthem.Whatsetstheideaofthegood Anthropoceneapartisperhapstherhetoric andthesenseofreassuranceit seekstoprovidethatallcanbewell,providedwecrafttheproperdevelopmentalpath.Whatthiskindofrhetoricdownplaysisthepossibilityof surprise,whichisoneofthehallmarksoftheAnthropocene crystallizedin theideaofpotentiallycatastrophicstateshifts.Wewillargueinchapter3that aprimaryrequirementofpoliticalinstitutionsintheAnthropoceneisthe capacitytoanticipateandpreventpotentiallycatastrophicshiftsintheEarth system.Inaddition,technologicaloptimismcancloudtheneedtothinkin termsofsocial,political,andeconomicstructuresthathavetheirownlogic andmomentumthatwillshape(forexample)whichtechnologiesgetadopted, andtowhatend.Forexample,geneticallymodifiedagriculturecouldmean feedingpeoplemoreefficientlyandreducingpressuretoclearforestsfor farmland oritcouldmeanconcentrationofeconomicpowerinthehands ofafewcompanies,thesubordinationoffarmersindevelopingcountries,and anenvironmentthoroughlydegradedbyagrochemicals.Aboveall,inreassertinghumandomination evenifitisintheinterestsofleavingsomeof naturealone theproponentsofagoodAnthropocenedonotrecognizethe activeroleof “nature” itself,andtheneedtothinkintermsofsocial-ecological systems,ratherthanhumansystemsandecologicalsystemsseparately.There isaneedtolistentothosesystemsmoreeffectively ratherthaneitherto engineerthemortoleavethemalone(whichisthecombinationthe
BreakthroughInstituteseemstofavor).Ifitwashumanarrogancethatcreated themanifoldproblemsaccompanyingtheAnthropocene,itisfarfromclear thatthesolutionshouldinvolvestillmorehubris.
InescapableAnthropocene TheAnthropoceneisnotjustsomethingbadtobelamentedandavoidedas faraspossible.Norisitsomethinggoodtobeembraced,mastered,and celebrated.Rather,itisinescapable,andmustbenegotiated.Thechallenge extendswellbeyondareasofgovernanceandpolicytraditionallyclassifiedas environmental.TheAnthropoceneissomethingthathumanitymustcontinuallylearnandrelearntolivewith,fortheAnthropoceneadmitsnoresponse thatispermanentlyadequate.ItshallmarkisthegenerationofnovelchallengesandcrisesintheEarthsystem,evenifandaswelearntoremake connectionswithsocial-ecologicalsystemsinmoreproductivefashion.Our understandingsofhowtonegotiatetherelationshipbetweenhumanandnonhumannatureneedtochangeaccordingly.TheAnthropoceneisnowfor betterorworsehumanity’schroniccondition,aconstantpresence.
WehavealreadyarguedthattheAnthropocene,understoodinbiophysical terms,involvesacategoricalshiftresultingfromtheimpactofthe “Great Acceleration” ofmaterialproductionandconsumptionandconsequentenvironmentaldegradationinrecentdecades.Italsoentailsacategoricalshiftinthe waywethinkabouttheplaceofhumanitywithintheEarthsystem.In subsequentchapterswewillshowhowthisshiftrequiresathoroughgoing reappraisalofconceptsofrationality,democracy,sustainability,andjustice.
ToillustratethechallengesposedbyaninescapableAnthropocene,letus contrastourpicturewiththatofNaomiKlein(2014)inherbestsellingbook aboutclimatechange, ThisChangesEverything. Kleinthinksthatthecontemporaryinternationalcapitalisteconomywillhavetobediscarded,alongwith itsinstitutions,becauseitisincapableofcontrollingitselfinthewayclimate changedemands.Suchdiscarding andreplacementbysomethingbetter is thekindofonce-and-for-allchangethattheideaofaninescapableAnthropocenerevealsasinadequate.IntheAnthropocene,noinstitutionalsolution maybestableforverylong andthatincludesKlein’sownproposedstresson democraticplanning,collectivism,andhumandevelopment.
WhileKlein’sviewisradical,itisalsoprosaic.Thatis,sheseestheworldin termsoftheoptionssetinindustrialsociety,evenifshewantstooverthrowits currentlydominantsystem(liberaldemocraticcapitalism).TheAnthropocene involvesthinkingaboutsocial-ecologicalsystemsinnoveltermsinwhichthe non-humanisanactiveparticipant,andnotjustintermsofoptionsdeveloped
inindustrialsocietywellbeforerecognitionoftheprofound,wholeEarth systemcharacterofecologicalchallenges.
Weshouldalsostressthedistinctionbetween changing everything(which Kleinstresses)and rethinking everything(whichwestress).Callsforchange arenotnecessarilyprecededbyarigorousprocessofrethinking,letalone recognitionofthenecessityforcontinualrethinking.Conversely,itispossible torethinkeverythingbutconcludethatnoteverythingneedstochange,if themaintenanceofsomeexistinginstitutionsprovesconducivetotheability tocontemplatesystemicchangethatweprize.Wewillarguethatsome(but notall)aspectsofexistingdemocraticinstitutionscanhavesuchvalue.
Inshort,theAnthropocenerequiresdeep,thoroughgoing,andimaginative responseonascalebeyondthatenvisagedbyKleininresponsetoclimate change.Theproblemofclimatechangeisenormous,butitisnotthefullstory. IfclimatechangedoesindeedchangeeverythinginthewayKleinsuggests,it wouldseemthataneffectiveresponsetotheAnthropocenerequiresmorethan justchangingeverything.Instead,itneedstoinvolveapermanentcapacityto rethinkeverything:institutions,practices,socialstructures,worldviews,principles,andsystems.Especially,giventhelackof fixedreferencepointsineverunfoldingsocial-ecologicalsystems,institutionsfortheAnthropoceneare betteranalyzednotinlightofstaticcriteria(referringperhapstotheirefficiency insolvingproblems,theircapacitytocoordinateactionsacrossdifferentfacets ofresponsestocomplexproblems,oreventhedegreetowhichtheycanrespect globalecologicallimits),butratherinthesesortsofdynamicterms.
Thebroad-rangingrequirementtobeabletorethinkeverythingmeansthat, althoughenvironmentalconcernsareprominent,theAnthropocenehas implicationswellbeyondwhathastraditionallybeenclassifiedasenvironmentalaffairs.Accordingly,thisbookisnotconfinedtoenvironmentalpolitics,butisaboutpoliticsingeneralintheAnthropocene.Whilewewill explainwhycurrentpoliticalinstitutionsstruggletodealwiththeimplications oftheAnthropocene,ourultimateaimistospecifyhowpoliticalinstitutions andpracticesshouldrespondtothechallengesposedbytheAnthropocene.
Thesocialdisciplinesrespond,questionably Aswehavealreadynoted,theAnthropoceneoughttopresageenhancedroles forthinkingabouttheplaceofhumanactionandsocialsystemsinboth causingandrespondingtoecologicalchange.Therehasrecentlybeenan explosionofsuchthinkinginacademicandpublicdebate.Todatethe contributionshavenotalwaysbeensalutary;obviouslywehopetodobetter! Atthesametime,wehavesoughttolearnfrominsightsthatthisthinkinghas producedsofar.
TheAnthropoceneforShow.Environmentalconcernshavebeenaroundfora longtime.TheAnthropoceneconceptmeansseeingtheminanewway orat leastaddinganewtitle.Soforexamplethelandmarkstatementpublishedin Science in2012bythirty-twoleadingenvironmentalsocialscientistsisentitled “NavigatingtheAnthropocene:ImprovingEarthSystemGovernance” (Biermannetal.2012).Theword “Anthropocene” does,then, figureprominentlyinthetitleofthearticle butdoesnotappearinitstext.Thearticlesets outanapproachtobetterglobalenvironmentalgovernance butitcouldhave beenwrittenwithouttheonsetoftheAnthropocenehavingbeenrecognized. InasubsequentbookbyBiermann(2014),withAnthropoceneinthesubtitle, thewordachievesgreaterprominenceinthetext,thoughmostoftheanalysis wouldstandwithoutreferencetotheidea.JedediahPurdy’s(2015)book After Nature:APoliticsfortheAnthropocene ismostlyahistoryofAmerican environmentallawandpolicyoverseveralcenturies(althoughhedoesbegin toexplorewhattheAnthropocenemightmeanforlegalandpoliticalinstitutionsinthe finalchapter).
TheAnthropoceneforshowisalsoondisplaywhenevercontemporary developmentsaretreatedasnecessarilyhelpingtodefinetheepoch.Jamieson andDiPaola(2016)dothisintheirtreatmentof “newkindsofagents”—such astransnationalcorporations,non-governmentalorganizations,international organizations,andcriminalsyndicates.Suchagentshaveofcourselongbeen recognizedandanalyzedbythosebothwithoutandwithaninterestinglobal ecologicalaffairs.WhatcanhappenhereisthattheAnthropocenejustprovidesanewheadingforestablishedanalysesofandprescriptionsforecological issues withoutchanginganythingwhenitcomestotheircontent. “Inthe Anthropocene,... ” canbeusedtoaddrhetoricalforcetoapointwithout affectingitssubstance.
It’stheEconomy,Stupid. TheAnthropocenepressesitselfonuswiththe “GreatAcceleration” thatbeginsaround1950.Centraltothataccelerationis economicgrowth moresothanhumanpopulationgrowth.Whilethe humanpopulationhastripledsince1950,thesizeoftheglobaleconomyhas increasedbyafactorof15orso.Forthisreason,Norgaard(2013)suggestswe shouldrefertothe “Econocene” ratherthanAnthropocene.Most(thoughnot all)ofthatgrowthhasinvolvedcapitalisteconomies,soJasonMooreand DonnaHarawayaremorespecificstillinreferringtoa “Capitalocene” (Moore 2016;Haraway2015).Whileitispossibletorecognizethelogic,humanswill alwaysneedeconomicorganization,butinthatcasethereisnorealdifference betweeninvokingtheEconoceneandinvokingtheAnthropocene.ForNorgaarditiseconomic growth ratherthantheeconomypersethatjustifieshis terminology,butthenwhathappensshouldgrowthceasebuthumanimpacts continue?TheCapitaloceneforitsparttiesitselftoocloselytowhatmayprove tobeanephemeralaspectofhumansocialorganization.TheSovietUnionleft behindalegacyofwidespreadenvironmentaldestruction(McNeilland
Engelke2016),anditisentirelypossiblethatcapitalismasweknowitwillbe supersededbyadifferenteconomicsystem buthumanimpactsontheEarth systemwillcontinueunabated.
ComplicatingtheDefinition.Inacommentintheleadingscientificjournal Nature,Ellis,Maslin,Boivin,andBauer(2016)arguethatsocialscientists shouldplayagreaterroleinongoingdebatesaboutwhentodatethebeginning oftheAnthropocene.Theirreasoningisinsomewaystheoppositeofthatof NorgaardandHaraway,inthattheystresstheimportanceofrecognizingthe longhistoryofhumanenvironmentalimpactsinmanydifferentsortsof societies(notjustrecentcapitalistones).Inemphasizingthegeographically variablenatureoftheseimpacts,theyalsoquestionthecentralityofthinkingin termsoftheEarthsystemasawhole.Again,itispossibletoseethelogic,given theprimacythathumansocialprocesseshaveassumedinaffectingthecharacter ofecologicalsystems includingtheEarthsystem.However,participationby socialscientistsherewouldcomeatsomecost.Itisnotjustthatthesocial sciencesarerivenbyinternaldisagreementsthatcouldbemanifestedindefinitionaldisputes.WesuspectthattheformalcharacteristicsoftheAnthropocene asageologicalepochareprimarilyamatterfornaturalscientists.Social scientistscanstillilluminatethecausesoftheAnthropocene,andofcourse theimplicationsforsocial,political,andeconomicinstitutionsandpractices.
DeconstructingtheConcept. Wordscancomewithplentyofimplicitbaggage, andtheAnthropoceneisnoexception.Instarkcontrasttoitsinitiatorsand developers,forwhomtheAnthropoceneisascientificconcept,somesocial thinkerstreatitasaprimarilypoliticalconstructthatservessomeinterestsand repressesothers.Inthissense(nottheoneweuseinthisbook), “thepoliticsof theAnthropocene” wouldmeanpoliticalcontroversyaroundwhattheword meansandthepoliticaleffectsofitsuse.Forexample,theconceptmayappear toinvokeanundifferentiatedhumanityasbeingtoblameforthedireconditionoftheEarthsystem(DiChiro2016) asopposedtowealthyconsumers andproducers,mainlyindevelopedcountries,whoshouldmorerightfullybe blamed(wewillpursuethisquestionfurtherinourchapter4onjustice).Some feministsarguethattheepochshouldmoreproperlybestyledtheManthropocene,reflectingtheresponsibilityofmaledominationinecologicallydestructive societies(DiChiro2017).Fromadifferentperspective,Crist(2013)thinksthat theconceptoftheAnthropocenenecessarilycelebratesratherthansimply describeshumandominationofwhatwasthenaturalworld.Aswehaveseen, advocatesofa “goodAnthropocene” maybecelebratingbutcertainlynotthose whoseetheemergingepochaseitherbadorinescapable.
Lövbrandetal.(2015)wantto “unsettletheAnthropocene” with “interpretivemultiplicity,” toshowhowtheconceptcanandshouldmeanso manydifferentthingstodifferentsortsofpeople.Theycelebratethevariety
ofwaysthatpeoplecananddointeractwitheachotherandwithnon-humans, andinthislighttreattheAnthropoceneasaculturalratherthanascientific object.TheycriticizeEarthsystemscience,whichtheybelieveseestheAnthropoceneaspresentingamanagerialproblemrequiringexpertadministrative solutionandconsequentlyinvolvingthoroughdepoliticization.Theywantto shedlightonthevaluesandbeliefsthatmaybetakenforgrantedbyexperts whothinkabouttheEarthsystemandtheAnthropocene.However,seekingto revokethespecialstatusofexpertknowledgehereisrisky.Wewillargue (beginninginchapter2)thatitispossibletorecognizescientificknowledge whileseeingthepoliticsinverydifferent andverydemocraticandnonmanagerial terms.
Theviewheldbysomepostmoderntheoriststhatscientificconceptscanbe assessedinpoliticaltermshasbeenappropriatedmosteffectivelybyclimate changedeniers forwhomclimatescienceissimply “warmist” ideology.Such anapproachresonateswiththekindofpost-truthpoliticsforwhichopinions aremuchmoreimportantthanfacts includingfactsasrevealedby scientists andfactsaresubordinatedtoideology.We findincontemporary populismacontemptforexpertsandscientificknowledge.ThereisanunfortunatecontinuityfromthemoreextremekindofdeconstructiontodemagoguessuchasDonaldTrump(eventhoughmostdeconstructionistsmight opposethesubstanceofTrump’spolitics).
AddressingtheAnthropocene Keepinginmindthepitfallswehaveidentified,ourownanalysiswillattempt tointerrogateexactlywhatisnovelaboutthedepthofthechallengeto institutionsandpracticespresentedbytheAnthropocene.Weshallnot venturetorenamethenewepoch,orworryaboutwhenitbegins.Weare receptivetointerpretivemultiplicity(indeed,oneofushaswrittenabookthat setsoutthevarietyofenvironmentaldiscoursesthatinterprettheworldin verydifferentways;seeDryzek2013b).However,itispossibleforsomething tobesociallyinterpreted and real.TheAnthropocenemaybeopentointerpretationindifferentways,butatthesametimeitcapturessomereal developmentsintheEarthsystem.Inthesameway,peoplecanmakevery differentthingsofclimatechange,orlossofbiologicaldiversity;yetclimate change is happening,andit is dueprimarilytogreenhousegasemissions; biologicaldiversity is beinglostworldwide.
SystemsThinkingfortheAnthropocene.Thinkingintermsofsystemsis necessaryforunderstandingtheAnthropoceneanditsimplicationsfor humaninstitutionsandpractices.Firstandforemost,theveryideaofthe
Anthropoceneturnsonrecognitionofthewayhumaninfluenceaffectshow theEarthsystemworks.TheEarthsystemnowexemplifieshowcoupledor integratedsocial-ecologicalsystems inwhichsocialinstitutionsandecosystemsoperatenotinisolationbutasinteractingwholes mayexistataglobal scale,inadditiontoregionalandlocalscales.FeedbackloopsintheEarth systemplayacriticalroleinproducingtheunstableconditionsoftheAnthropocene,forexamplewhenhuman-inducedclimatechangemeltspolarice, therebyreducingtheEarth’sabilitytoreflectsolarradiationandtriggering furtherwarming.Inchapter2wewillencounterotherkindsoffeedbackloops thatservetoentrenchHoloceneinstitutions.4
Thinkingintermsofwholesystemsis,then,essential.However,itcanbe hazardousifitobscureswhatisgoingoninparticularelementsofsystems particularlythehumanelements.InthewordsoftheBrundtlandreport (whichwewillencounteragaininchapter5), “TheEarthisonebuttheworld isnot” (WorldCommissiononEnvironmentandDevelopment1987:27).We havealreadyaddressedtheconcernthatanEarthsystemperspectivecould comeatthecostofrecognizingdifferencesinresponsibilityamongsocialand economicgroupsfordamagingtheEarthsystem,andforcorrectingthatdamage. Anotherconcern(raisedbyLövbrandetal.2015)isthatlumpingsocialand ecologicalsystemstogethercanmakeittooeasytoassumethatsocialsystems functionlikeecosystems.Thus,propertiessuchasself-organizationanddecentralizationmaybeaccordedgreatervalueinsocialsystemssimplybecausethey areobservedaspropertiesofecosystems.Thereisalonghistoryofjustifying humansocialarrangementsonthegroundsthattheyareconsistentwithnature (DryzekandSchlosberg1995;Purdy2015).Inthepastcenturyandahalf,these sortsofargumentshavebeenusedtojustifyeverythingfromfreemarket capitalismtoliberaldemocracytoanarchismtofascismtosocialism.
Thisdubioushistorysuggeststhatstraightforwardanalogiesbetweensocial andecologicalsystemsshouldbetreatedwithcaution.Yetthequesttolink socialandecologicalsystemsperspectivesisnotfutile.Rather,asounder foundationforsocial-ecologicalsystemsanalysismaybeestablishedthrough recognizing firstthatsocialandpoliticalsystemsfunctionindistinctiveways, thenidentifyingandremedyingtheecologicalblindspotsofexistingperspectivesonthosesystems.Thereareplentyofecologicalblindspotsinsocial systemsperspectives particularlythosethatignoretheEarthsystem,ortreat itas(forexample)simplyapathwayforthetransmissionofeconomic “externalities” fromsomehumanactorstoothers.Buttherearealsoblind spotsinecologicalsystemsperspectivesthatdonotrecognizethecapacityof humansystemstoreflectupontheirownstructureandprocess,andintentionallyreorganizethemselves.
4 Foranaccessibleintroductiontokeyconceptsinsystemsthinking,seeMeadows(2008).
