Ecomodernism
This page is outside of Ballotpedia's current coverage scope and does not receive scheduled updates. Pages covering environmental policy terms, panels, or organizations were last updated between 2015 and 2017. If you would like to help our coverage grow, please consider donating to Ballotpedia.
 |
|
Ecomodernism is a school of environmental thought centered on using technology to reduce environmental impacts while maintaining a high standard of living for human beings. Ecomodernism rejects the idea that high economic growth and environmental protection are necessarily at odds. Instead, ecomodernists argue that advanced technology, specifically in the energy and agricultural sectors, can be applied to solve environmental problems such as land overuse and human-made climate change, grow the economy, and maintain high standards of living.[1]
Background
In 2004, environmental advocates Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus published an essay entitled "The Death of Environmentalism." The authors argued that the American environmental movement had become "just another special interest." Shellenberger and Nordhaus claimed that the environmental movement was viewed unfavorably by American voters.[2]
Citing data from a Canadian polling firm, Shellenberger and Nordhaus reported that a 2004 poll of 2,500 American voters showed that 29 percent of voters said that some pollution was necessary to save jobs compared to 17 percent of voters in 1992. "We have become convinced that modern environmentalism, with all of its unexamined assumptions, outdated concepts and exhausted strategies, must die so that something new can live," the authors wrote. Shellenberger and Nordhaus argued that environmentalism had to find common ground with other groups, including labor and industry groups, and adopt a more optimistic vision to succeed politically.[2]
The paper began a debate among environmental and policy organizations about the future of environmentalism and how the movement could address issues such as human-made climate change, renewable energy, economic growth, and technology in a different way. Shellenberger and Nordhaus, along with other analysts and writers in the American environmentalist movement, became leading proponents of "ecomodernism," the idea that environmental protection can be achieved alongside economic growth, renewable energy production, and improved technology. According to Nordhaus, ecomodernism is a reaction against "the environmental movement's apocalyptic doomsaying, soft-energy utopianism, and obsessive moralizing about consumption.” Further, Nordhaus said that ecomodernism is more optimistic about people's ability to solve environmental problems than other schools of environmental thought. Shellenberger and Nordhaus co-founded the Breakthrough Institute in 2003 to promote ecomodernism as well as "energy, economic innovation, and conservation."[3]
Main ideas
_CNE-v1-p58-H.jpg)
Ecomodernists credit modernization for improved human well-being. Modernization is a process in which human societies have advanced toward "improved material well-being, public health, resource productivity, economic integration, shared infrastructure, and personal freedom" in the past two centuries. In 1900, the worldwide average life expectancy was 31 years. In 2005, worldwide average life expectancy was 65.6 years, an increase of 34.6 years over 105 years. According to ecomodernists, individuals in developed countries have higher standards of living due to technological progress in agriculture and energy production. As a result, human populations have transitioned from mostly agrarian societies to more urban environments.[1]
In an April 2015 paper entitled An Ecomodernist Manifesto, which was published by a group of 18 scholars and researchers from Harvard University, the Breakthrough Institute, Columbia University, the University of Colorado, and other think tanks and universities, ecomodernists argued that improved human well-being comes at a cost to the natural environment. Environmental advocacy groups have argued that problems such as human-made climate change, ozone depletion, and ocean acidification endanger natural ecosystems and threaten the continuing improvement of people's well-being. Meanwhile, developing countries are subject to air pollution and water-borne illnesses. To solve these problems, ecomodernists have proposed that human beings reduce their overall environmental impact primarily by improving human-made technology in the agricultural and energy sectors. According to ecomodernists, improved technology would require less land and fewer natural resources, resulting in a healthier environment and more economic growth. Ecomodernists support continuing technological improvements in farming, energy production, forestry, and other technology-based activities so that they depend less upon the natural environment, particularly land.[1][4][5]
Issues
Summary
Ecomodernists promote more efficient agricultural techniques, nuclear power, and urbanization (all defined below) to solve environmental problems such as human-made climate change, air and water pollution, and the overuse of land. They have argued that technology, correctly applied, can raise standards of living and protect the environment.[1][6][7]
Agriculture
Ecomodernism stresses the importance of agriculture to the environment and the economy. According to ecomodernists, agriculture has become more efficient and productive in the past 150 years, a process they call "agriculture intensification." As technology has improved, farmers need less land to produce more crops and raise more livestock for a larger number of people. As a result, fewer forests and grasslands are cleared for agriculture, which preserves the land's ecosystems. Moreover, fewer people are needed to work in agriculture, and their labor can be reallocated to other sectors of the economy. In 2015, less than 2 percent of the U.S. population worked in agriculture compared to about 50 percent of the U.S. population in 1880.[1]
According to An Ecomodernist Manifesto, between the mid-1960s and 2015, the amount of land used globally for growing crops and animal feed for the average person declined by 50 percent primarily due to improved technology. The average amount of land use per capita has declined significantly in the past 5,000 years while food has become more abundant for a greater number of people. More efficient agricultural techniques also permit people to leave rural areas for cities, which support more people on less land.[1][8]
In some parts of the world, greater agricultural output has led to net reforestation. In the 1890s, 50 percent of the New England region in the United States was forested; in 2015, 80 percent of the region was forested. According to ecomodernists, between 1995 and 2015 the amount of production forests, which are areas used to harvest forest products such as timber, declined by 50 million hectares, equivalent to the total land acreage of France (one hectare is equal to 2.47 acres).[1]
According to the Breakthrough Institute, around 75 percent of worldwide deforestation occurred before the Industrial Revolution in the 19th century because people had cleared large tracts of land for agriculture and had relied mostly on wood for energy. Ecomodernists argue that livestock pasturing on feedlots, which are plots of ground near a stockyard where livestock are gathered to be fattened for the market, has prevented large tracts of land from being cleared for livestock grazing.[8]
Nuclear energy
Ecomodernists support replacing traditional energy resources like oil and coal with low and zero-carbon energy sources, especially nuclear power. According to ecomodernists, nuclear power is less costly per kilowatt than oil, coal, and renewable energy resources like solar or wind and can generate energy on fewer acres of land. According to An Ecomodernist Manifesto, "nuclear fission today represents the only present-day zero-carbon technology with the demonstrated ability to meet most, if not all, of the energy demands of a modern economy." Ecomodernists, however, have argued that nuclear technology is not yet advanced enough for mass consumption and that other low-carbon sources of electricity, such as hydroelectric dams, could serve as a transitional energy source.[1]
Urbanization
Ecomodernists support greater urbanization in which more people \ move to cities. Rural areas, particularly areas with a less efficient agricultural sector, require more land and produce more negative environmental impacts. Ecomodernists argue that cities can house more people, meet their economic needs more efficiently, and reduce their environmental impacts by using less land. According to An Ecomodernist Manifesto, cities occupy between 1 percent and 3 percent of the world's surface area but house nearly 4 billion people worldwide—approximately 54 percent of the global population. Urban areas deliver food, shelter, energy, and mobility more efficiently than rural areas. Further, when fewer people work on farms due to more efficient farming techniques, more people are free to pursue other economic opportunities and jobs in cities.[1]
Major figures and groups
Major figures
- Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus are the co-founders of the Breakthrough Institute. As of October 2016, Nordhaus served as the institute’s executive director while Shellenberger served as a Senior Fellow. They co-authored "The Death of Environmentalism," an influential 2004 article that received coverage in The New York Times and The Economist. In 2002, Shellenberger and Nordhaus began the Apollo Alliance, now known as the Blue-Green Coalition, a group of labor unions and environmental organizations whose missions is to "identify ways today's environmental challenges can create and maintain quality jobs and build a stronger, fairer economy."[9][10][11]
- Linus Blomqvist is the director of conservation at the Breakthrough Institute. His research focuses on the impact of technology on the environment and economic growth and the relationship between technology and conservation. Blomqvist has previously worked for the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds in the United Kingdom. His work has been covered in The Economist and Scientific American.[12]
- Roger Pielke Jr. is a professor in the Environmental Studies Program and a Fellow of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder. His research focuses on innovation, science, and politics. He received the Eduard Brückner Prize in Munich, Germany, in 2006 for his interdisciplinary climate research. Pielke was a contributor to Climate Pragmatism, a 2011 policy report on energy innovation, human-made climate change, and pollution reduction. He is also the author of The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics (2007) and The Climate Fix: What Scientists and Politicians Won't Tell you About Global Warming (2010).[13]
Major groups
- The Breakthrough Institute is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and research institute. Its mission is "to accelerate the transition to a future where all the world's inhabitants can enjoy secure, free, prosperous, and fulfilling lives on an ecologically vibrant planet." According to the group's website, the institute’s members consider themselves "progressives who believe in the potential of human development, technology, and evolution to improve human lives and create a beautiful world." The organization supports "bringing new ideas to the table that change the debates over energy, the environment, and the economy so they better reflect the global challenges of the 21st century." It is composed of researchers, writers, policy analysts, and academics. Under "What We Believe," the organization's website states the following:[14]
| “ |
We believe that technology and modernization are at the foundation of human progress. We believe that human prosperity and an ecologically vibrant planet are not only possible, but also inseparable. We believe the market is a potent force for change, but that long-term government investment is required to accelerate technological progress, economic growth, and environmental quality. We believe that the new ideas and breakthroughs required to address the challenges of the 21st century will take time to develop, change the way people think, and reshape the world. We believe all knowledge is partial, contingent, and subjective, and thus try to bring a ruthlessly critical eye to underlying assumptions, especially our own.[15] |
” |
| —The Breakthrough Institute, [14] | ||
Criticism
George Monbiot, an environmental activist and columnist, critiqued ecomodernism in The Guardian in September 2015. Monbiot wrote that An Ecomodernist Manifesto was worth reading and that ecomodernism was "challenging, provocative and a useful part of the cut and thrust of environmental debate." However, Monbiot also wrote that ecomodernism had "an astonishing lack of depth" and made the following critiques in his column:[16]
- Monbiot argued that before people in developing countries could begin using less land and more low-carbon energy, they would likely have to consume more natural resources like land and high-carbon energy resources such as oil, coal, and natural gas in the process. According to Monbiot, "The load imposed on the planet's living systems before the expected transition [to less land and more renewable energy] occurs is likely to be horrendous."
- Monbiot disputed the ecomodernist claim that less land, less labor, and better agricultural techniques have led to greater agricultural output. According to Monbiot, recent academic studies have shown that smaller farms produce more crops per hectare than larger farms. "The most likely reason appears to be that small farmers and their families apply a lot more labour per hectare than large farmers do," Monbiot wrote.
- Monbiot rejected the idea that many people will leave rural areas and find secure employment in cities. He called the idea unworkable in practice, particularly in developing countries where cities do not always offer secure employment. Rather, according to Monbiot, when people move away from rural areas to participate in an urban economy, they continue to rely on income from family businesses and farms in the countryside. In cities, they instead face "underemployment and desperate insecurity" rather than secure and/or well-paying employment.
- Monbiot rebutted the ecomodernist view that cities are more efficient at meeting material needs and reducing environmental impacts. Monbiot reported that the 7 percent of the world's population living in large cities consume 9 percent of the world's electricity and 10 percent of its petrol as well as produce 13 percent of its waste.
The website Resilience.org, which is affiliated with the Post Carbon Institute, a nonprofit organization whose mission is "to understand and respond to the interrelated economic, energy, and ecological crises of the 21st century," published an essay entitled A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto. The essay critiqued An Ecomodernist Manifesto from the perspective of "degrowth," which is defined as "an equitable downscaling of production and consumption that increases human well-being and enhances ecological conditions:"[17]
- The authors argued that ecomodernists overestimate the utility of economic growth in solving environmental problems. The authors wrote that ecomodernists do not acknowledge the "long-term costs and environmental impacts" of greater economic growth and consumption. "What is needed is for the high-consumption countries to cease treating the present growth model as a limitless aspiration for others to follow," the essay argued.
- The authors contended that nuclear power is not a solution to the problem of finite energy resources. The essay argued that nuclear energy is non-renewable since it relies on uranium, which is a finite resource. Moreover, nuclear waste is dangerous and difficult to store safely long-term. "The reality is that nuclear power has never played a major role in meeting the world’s energy demands, despite the fact that it was touted throughout much of the middle and late twentieth century as a panacea for our energy woes," the authors wrote.
See also
External links
- An Ecomodernist Manifest (2015) - Full text
- The Breakthrough Institute
- The Guardian, "Meet the ecomodernists: ignorant of history and paradoxically old-fashioned," September 2015
- Resilience.org, "A Degrowth Response to An Ecomodernist Manifesto," May 2015
Footnotes
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 Ecomodernism.org, "An Ecomodernist Manifesto," accessed October 20, 2015
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 The Breakthrough Institute, "The Death of Environmentalism," accessed October 25, 2016
- ↑ The New York Times, "Paper Sets Off a Debate on Environmentalism's Future," February 6, 2005
- ↑ World Health Organization, "Health, history and hard choices: Funding dilemmas in a fast-changing world," August 2006
- ↑ Central Intelligence Agency, "The World Factbook: Life expectancy at birth," accessed October 22, 2015
- ↑ Slate, "Manifesto Calls for an End to “People Are Bad” Environmentalism," April 20, 2015
- ↑ The New Yorker, "Is the 'Ecomodernist Manifesto' the Future of Environmentalism?" June 2, 2015
- ↑ 8.0 8.1 The Breakthrough Institute, "The Environmental Case for Industrial Agriculture," June 8, 2015
- ↑ Blue Green Alliance, "About Us," accessed October 21, 2015
- ↑ The Breakthrough Institute, "Michael Shellenberger, President," accessed October 21, 2015
- ↑ The Breakthrough Institute, "Ted Nordhaus, Chairman," accessed October 21, 2015
- ↑ The Breakthrough Institute, "Linus Blomqvist, Director of Conservation," accessed October 21, 2015
- ↑ The Breakthrough Institute, "Roger Pielke, Jr., Professor, University of Colorado at Boulder," accessed October 21, 2015
- ↑ 14.0 14.1 The Breakthrough Institute, "Our Mission," accessed October 21, 2015
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ The Guardian, "Meet the ecomodernists: ignorant of history and paradoxically old-fashioned," September 24, 2015
- ↑ Resilience.org, "A Degrowth Response to an Ecomodernist Manifesto," May 6, 2015
