Skip to main content
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Erschienen in:
Kapitel lesen Erstes Kapitel lesen

2020 | OriginalPaper | Buchkapitel

Conflicting Temporalities and the Ecomodernist Vision of Rewilding

verfasst von : Rasmus Karlsson

Erschienen in: Non-Human Nature in World Politics

Verlag: Springer International Publishing

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config
loading …

Abstract

Der Ökomodernismus bietet eine progressive und humanistische Vision des Anthropozäns, in der öffentlich finanzierte Innovationen sowohl universellen Wohlstand als auch planetare Verwilderung möglich gemacht haben. Doch angesichts des gegenwärtigen primitiven Stands der Technik ist der Ökomodernismus sicherlich des Fabulismus schuldig, da seine Verwirklichung von Technologien abhängen würde, die möglicherweise für viele Jahrzehnte nicht verfügbar sein werden. Trotzdem argumentieren Ökomodernisten, dass es ein übergeordnetes moralisches Gebot ist, den Übergang zu einem voll integrierten Planeten mit hoher Energie zu beschleunigen, selbst wenn dies die kurzfristige Notwendigkeit des Sonnenstrahlungsmanagements betont. Ziel dieses Kapitels ist es, die Debatte zwischen Ökomodernisten und traditionellen Umweltschützern in Bezug auf diese widersprüchlichen Zeitlichkeiten zu überprüfen. Es wird suggeriert, dass die Wissenschaft bei der Beilegung der zugrunde liegenden makropolitischen Streitigkeiten überraschend wenig hilfreich sein könnte.
Mit KI übersetzt

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 102.000 Bücher
  • über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
  • Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 390 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Automobil + Motoren
  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
  • Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
  • Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe




 

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

  • über 67.000 Bücher
  • über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

  • Bauwesen + Immobilien
  • Business IT + Informatik
  • Finance + Banking
  • Management + Führung
  • Marketing + Vertrieb
  • Versicherung + Risiko




Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren
Vorheriges Kapitel Ecologies of Globalization: Mountain Governance and Multinatural Planetary Politics
Nächstes Kapitel Elias in the Anthropocene: Human Nature, Evolution and the Politics of the Great Acceleration
Fußnoten
1
While obviously diverse, “traditional environmentalism” is here used to denote the widely shared belief that human societies must harmonise with nature in order to avoid economic and ecological collapse. Specifically, Thomas Princen writes that “if there were a single philosophical position in environmental thought, adhered by all who are concerned about environmental destruction, it is that at the root of that destruction is human’s separation from nature” (Princen 2010, p. 82). Ecomodernism differs from traditional environmentalism in that it rejects this analysis and instead advocates further “trophic detachment” (see Quilley 2011).
 
2
For the purpose of this chapter, I have used The Ecomodernist Manifesto from 2015 as the primary source of what ecomodernism entails (Asafu-Adjaye et al. 2015). The manifesto was an effort to forge a consensus position among 18 leading ecomodernist thinkers. This means that I do not specifically engage with post-ecological perspectives but rather build on the seminal work of Martin Lewis (1992) with regards to the politics of non-human nature.
 
3
For ecomodernists, rewilding is a future-oriented process by which land is returned to nature, and the degree of human intervention and management is reduced. For a broader conceptual discussion, see Gammon (2018).
 
4
The Breakthrough Paradigm Award is an annual prize offered by the Oakland-based ecomodernist think tank The Breakthrough Institute.
 
5
For a generalised discussion on the possible implications of technological transformation and astronomical trajectories, see Baum et al. (2019).
 
6
For a recent such attempt which, if nothing else, has received considerable traction in social media, see Bastani (2019).
 
7
The surface footprint of nuclear power is around 2 km2/GWe compared to 50 km2/GWe for photovoltaics, 300 km2/GWe for wind turbines and 2500 km2/GWe for biomass (Berger et al. 2017, p. 65). Note that the footprint of wind and solar is even higher if intermittency is accounted for.
 
8
The Na’vi is a species on the planet Pandora that embodies many of the ideals of deep ecology.
 
9
These risks include the possibility of uneven side effects in terms of altered precipitation and evaporation levels. Similarly, once initiated, a SRM programme would presumably have to continue until concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere have been sufficiently reduced or there would be a sudden spike in temperature. This so-called “termination problem” (Rabitz 2018) has been much discussed in the literature but the fact that the lifetime of sulphur aerosols in the stratosphere is limited to one to two years could also be seen as beneficial as it makes a SRM programme essentially reversible.
 
Literatur
Alexander, S., & Yacoumis, P. (2018). Degrowth, energy descent, and ‘low-tech’ living: Potential pathways for increased resilience in times of crisis. Journal of Cleaner Production, 197(2:1), 1840–1848.
Alexander, S., & Gleeson, B. (2019). Degrowth in the suburbs: A radical urban imaginary. London: Palgrave MacMillan.CrossRef
Anshelm, J., & Hansson, A. (2014). Battling Promethean dreams and Trojan horses: Revealing the critical discourses of geoengineering. Energy Research & Social Science,2, 135–144.CrossRef
Arias-Maldonado, M. (2018). Towards a Good Anthropocene? In M. Arias-Maldonado, & Z. Trachtenberg (Eds.), Rethinking the environment for the Anthropocene: Political theory and socionatural relations in the New Geological Epoch (pp. 137–150). London: Routledge.
Arto, I., Capellán-Pérez, I., Lago, R., Bueno, G., & Bermejo, R. (2016). The energy requirements of a developed world. Energy for Sustainable Development,33, 1–13.CrossRef
Balmford, A., Amano, T., Bartlett, H., Chadwick, D., Collins, A., Edwards, D., et al. (2018). The environmental costs and benefits of high-yield farming. Nature Sustainability,1(9), 477.CrossRef
Barry, J. (2016). Bio-fuelling the Hummer? Transdisciplinary thoughts on techno-optimism and innovation in the transition from unsustainability. In E. Byrne, G. Mullally, & C. Sage (Eds.), Transdisciplinary perspectives on transitions to Sustainability (pp. 120–137). London: Routledge.
Bastani, A. (2019). Fully automated luxury communism. London: Verso.
Baum, S. D., Armstrong, S., Ekenstedt, T., Häggström, O., Hanson, R., Kuhlemann, K., et al. (2019). Long-term trajectories of human civilization. Foresight,21(1), 53–83.CrossRef
Bazilian, M., & Pielke, R. (2013). Making energy access meaningful. Issues in Science and Technology,29(4), 74–78.
Berger, A., Blees, T., Bréon, F. M., Brook, B. W., Hansen, P., Grover, R. B., et al. (2017). How much can nuclear energy do about global warming? International Journal of Global Energy Issues,40(1–2), 43–78.CrossRef
Blomqvist, L., Nordhaus, T., & Shellenberger, M. (2015). Nature unbound. Decoupling for conservation. Report from the Breakthrough Institute.
Bostrom, N. (2003). Astronomical waste: The opportunity cost of delayed technological development. Utilitas,15(3), 308–314.CrossRef
Bostrom, N. (2018) The vulnerable world hypothesis. Working paper (version 3.21). Oxford: The Future of Humanity Institute.
Brand, S. (Ed.). (1977). Space colonies. Whole Earth Catalogue: Sausalito.
Brook, B. W., van Erp, J. B., Meneley, D. A., & Blees, T. A. (2015). The case for a near-term commercial demonstration of the Integral Fast Reactor. Sustainable Materials and Technologies,3, 2–6.CrossRef
Brook, B. W., Blees, T., Wigley, T. M., & Hong, S. (2018). Silver Buckshot or Bullet: Is a future “Energy Mix” necessary? Sustainability,10(2), 302.CrossRef
Büscher, B., Dressler, W., & Fletcher, R. (Eds.). (2014). Nature inc.: Environmental conservation in the neoliberal age. Tuscon: University of Arizona Press.
Cao, J., Cohen, A., Hansen, J., Lester, R., Peterson, P., & Xu, H. (2016). China-US cooperation to advance nuclear power. Science,353(6299), 547–548.CrossRef
Cafaro, P., & Staples, W., III. (2009). The environmental argument for reducing immigration into the United States. Environmental Ethics,31(1), 5–30.CrossRef
Capellán-Pérez, I., de Castro, C., & González, L. J. M. (2019). Dynamic Energy Return on Energy Investment (EROI) and material requirements in scenarios of global transition to renewable energies. Energy Strategy Reviews,26, 100399.CrossRef
Clack, C. T., Qvist, S. A., Apt, J., Bazilian, M., Brandt, A. R., Caldeira, K., et al. (2017). Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,114(26), 6722–6727.CrossRef
Crist, E. (2018). Reimagining the human. Science,362(6420), 1242–1244.CrossRef
Crist, E. (2020). Forcosmopolitan bioregionalism. The EcologicalCitizen, 3 (Suppl C): 21–29.
Crutzen, P. J. (2006). Albedo enhancement by stratospheric sulfur injections: A contribution to resolve a policy dilemma? Climatic Change,77(3), 211–220.CrossRef
Curren, R., & Metzger, E. (2017). Living well now and in the future: Why sustainability matters. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRef
Dinda, S. (2004). Environmental Kuznets curve hypothesis: A survey. Ecological Economics,49(4), 431–455.CrossRef
Dorr, A. (2016). The impact pulse and restoration curves: Going beyond mitigation and stabilization. Anthropocene,16, 61–66.CrossRef
Frank, A., & Sullivan, W. (2014). Sustainability and the astrobiological perspective: Framing human futures in a planetary context. Anthropocene,5, 32–41.CrossRef
Fremaux, A., & Barry, J. (2019). The ‘Good Anthropocene’ and green political theory: Rethinking environmentalism, resisting ecomodernism. In F. Biermann, & E. Lövbrand (Eds.), Anthropocene encounters. New directions in green political thinking. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Friedrichs, J. (2013). The future is not what it used to be: Climate change and energy scarcity. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press.CrossRef
Gammon, A. R. (2018). The many meanings of rewilding: An introduction and the case for a broad conceptualisation. Environmental Values,27(4), 331–350.CrossRef
Gardiner, S. M. (2006). A perfect moral storm: Climate change, intergenerational ethics and the problem of moral corruption. Environmental Values,15(3), 397–413.CrossRef
Goldstein, J., & Qvist, S. (2019). A bright future–How some countries have solved climate change and the rest can follow. New York: Public Affairs.
Gott, J. R., III. (1993). Implications of the Copernican principle for our future prospects. Nature,363, 315–319.CrossRef
Green, C. (2017). Mitigation technology: Half full or nearly empty? Nature Climate Change,7(2), 98.CrossRef
Hamilton, C. (2013). Earthmasters: The dawn of the age of climate engineering. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Heyward, C. (2013). Situating and abandoning geoengineering: A typology of five responses to dangerous climate change. PS: Political Science & Politics,46(1), 23–27.
Horton, J., & Keith, D. (2016). Solar geoengineering and obligations to the global poor. In C. Preston (Ed.), Climate justice and geoengineering: Ethics and policy in the atmospheric Anthropocene (pp. 79–92). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Jackson, R. B., Le Quéré, C., Andrew, R. M., Canadell, J. G., Korsbakken, J. I., Liu, Z., et al. (2018). Global energy growth is outpacing decarbonization. Environmental Research Letters,13(12), 120401.CrossRef
Jenkins, J. D., Luke, M., & Thernstrom, S. (2018). Getting to zero carbon emissions in the electric power sector. Joule,2(12), 2498–2510.CrossRef
Kahan, D. M. (2013). Ideology, motivated reasoning, and cognitive reflection: An experimental study. Judgment and Decision Making,8, 407–424.
Kallis, G., Kostakis, V., Lange, S., Muraca, B., Paulson, S., & Schmelzer, M. (2018). Research ondegrowth. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 43, 291–316.
Karlsson, R. (2013). Ambivalence, irony, and democracy in the Anthropocene. Futures,46, 1–9.CrossRef
Karlsson, R. (2016). Three metaphors for sustainability in the Anthropocene. The Anthropocene Review,3(1), 23–32.CrossRef
Karlsson, R. (2017). The environmental risks of incomplete globalisation. Globalizations,14(4), 550–562.CrossRef
Karlsson, R. (2018). The high-energy planet. Global Change, Peace & Security,30(1), 77–84.CrossRef
Karlsson, R., & Symons, J. (2015). Making climate leadership meaningful: Energy research as a key to global decarbonisation. Global Policy,6(2), 107–117.CrossRef
Keith, D. W., Ha-Duong, M., & Stolaroff, J. K. (2006). Climate strategy with CO2 capture from the air. Climatic Change,74(1–3), 17–45.CrossRef
Kharecha, P. A., & Hansen, J. E. (2013). Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power. Environmental Science and Technology,47(9), 4889–4895.CrossRef
Kim, Y., Kim, M., & Kim, W. (2013). Effect of the Fukushima nuclear disaster on global public acceptance of nuclear energy. Energy Policy,61, 822–828.CrossRef
Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. London: Allen Lane.
Landrigan, P. J., Fuller, R., Acosta, N. J., Adeyi, O., Arnold, R., Baldé, A. B., et al. (2018). The Lancet Commission on pollution and health. The Lancet,391(10119), 462–512.CrossRef
Latour, B. (2011). Love your monsters. Breakthrough Journal,2(11), 21–28.
Le Quéré, C., Jackson, R. B., Jones, M. W., Smith, A. J., Abernethy, S., Andrew, R. M.,... & Friedlingstein, P. (2020). Temporary reduction in daily global CO2 emissions during the COVID-19 forced confinement. Nature Climate Change, 1–7.
Lewis, M. W. (1992). Green delusions. An environmentalist critique of radical environmentalism. Durham: Duke University Press.
Lewis, M. W. (1993). On human connectedness with nature. New Literary History,24(4), 797–809.CrossRef
Lilla, M. (2016). The shipwrecked mind: On political reaction. New York: New York Review of Books.
Loftus, P. J., Cohen, A. M., Long, J. C., & Jenkins, J. D. (2015). A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: What do they tell us about feasibility? Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,6(1), 93–112.
Long, J. (2016) Bringing geoengineering into the mix of climate change tools. In C. Preston (Ed.), Climate justice and geoengineering: Ethics and policy in the atmospheric Anthropocene (pp. 109–20). New York: Rowman & Littlefield.
Mann, C. C. (2018). The wizard and the prophet: Two groundbreaking scientists and their conflicting visions of the future of our planet. New York: Picador.
Mann, G., & Wainwright, J. (2017). Climate leviathan: A political theory of our planetary future. London: Verso Books.
Martin, J. (2007). The meaning of the 21st century: A vital blueprint for ensuring our future. London: Eden Project.
McAfee, A. (2019). More from Less. The surprising story of how we learned to prosper using fewer resources-and what happens next. New York: Simon & Schusters.
McBrian, J. (2016). Accumulating extinction: Planetary catastrophism in the necrocene. Anthropocene or capitalocene? In E. Altvater, E. Crist, D. Haraway, D. Hartley, C. Parenti, & J. McBrien (Eds.), Anthropocene or capitalocene?: Nature, history, and the crisis of capitalism (pp. 116–137). Pm Press.
McCray, W. P. (2013). The Visioneers: How a group of elite scientists pursued space colonies, nanotechnologies, and a limitless future. Princeton: Princeton University Press.CrossRef
McMahon, D. M. (2001). Enemies of the enlightenment: The French counter-enlightenment and the making of modernity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Meyer, W. B. (2016). The progressive environmental prometheans. Left-wing heralds of a ‘Good Anthropocene’. Cham: Springer International Publishing.
Moriarty, P., & Honnery, D. (2009). What energy levels can the Earth sustain? Energy Policy,37(7), 2469–2474.CrossRef
Moriarty, P., & Honnery, D. (2016). Can renewable energy power the future? Energy Policy,93, 3–7.CrossRef
Moriarty, P., & Honnery, D. (2019). Energy efficiency or conservation for mitigating climate change? Energies,12(18), 3543.CrossRef
Myers, N., & Kent, J. (2003). New consumers: The influence of affluence on the environment. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,100(8), 4963–4968.CrossRef
Nisbet, M. C. (2014). Disruptive ideas: Public intellectuals and their arguments for action on climate change. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change,5(6), 809–823.
Nordhaus, T. (2019). The empty radicalism of the climate apocalypse. Issues in Science and Technology,35(4), 69–78.
Olhoff, A. (Ed.), & Christensen, J. M. (2018). Emissions Gap Report 2018. UNEP DTU Partnership
Pereira, J. C., & Viola, E. (2018). Catastrophic climate change and forest tipping points: Blind spots in international politics and policy. Global Policy,9(4), 513–524.CrossRef
Pielke, R., Jr. (2018). Opening up the climate policy envelope. Issues in Science and Technology,34(4), 33–40.
Pierrehumbert, R. (2016). How to decarbonize? Look to Sweden. Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists,72(2), 105–111.CrossRef
Pimentel, D., Marklein, A., Toth, M. A., Karpoff, M. N., Paul, G. S., McCormack, R., et al. (2009). Food versus biofuels: environmental and economic costs. Human Ecology,37(1), 1.CrossRef
Princen, T. (2010). Treading softly: Paths to ecological order. Cambridge, M.A: MIT Press.CrossRef
Quilley, S. (2011). Entropy, the anthroposphere and the ecology of civilization: An essay on the problem of ‘liberalism in one village’ in the long view. The Sociological Review,59, 65–90.CrossRef
Qvist, S. A., & Brook, B. W. (2015). Potential for worldwide displacement of fossil-fuel electricity by nuclear energy in three decades based on extrapolation of regional deployment data. PLoS ONE,10(5), e0124074.CrossRef
Rabitz, F. (2019). Governing the termination problem in solar radiation management. Environmental Politics, 28(3),502–522.
Reynolds, J. L. (2019). The governance of solar geoengineering: Managing climate change in the Anthropocene. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef
Rodrik, D. (2016). Premature deindustrialization. Journal of Economic Growth,21(1), 1–33.CrossRef
Shellenberger, M., Nordhaus, T., Navin, J., & Norris, T. (2008). Fast, clean, and cheap: Cutting global warming’s gordian knot. Harvard Law & Policy Review,2, 93–118.
Symons, J. (2019). Ecomodernism: Technology, politics and the climate crisis. Cambridge: Polity.
Symons, J., & Karlsson, R. (2018). Ecomodernist citizenship: Rethinking political obligations in a climate-changed world. Citizenship Studies,22(7), 685–704.CrossRef
Trainer, T. (2012). De-growth: Do you realise what it means? Futures,44(6), 590–599.CrossRef
Trainor, A. M., McDonald, R. I., & Fargione, J. (2016). Energy sprawl is the largest driver of land use change in United States. PLoS ONE,11(9), e0162269.CrossRef
Umbrello, S., & Baum, S. D. (2018). Evaluating future nanotechnology: The net societal impacts of atomically precise manufacturing. Futures,100, 63–73.CrossRef
Van Vuuren, D. P., & Stehfest, E. (2013). If climate action becomes urgent: The importance of response times for various climate strategies. Climatic Change,121(3), 473–486.CrossRef
Wiedmann, T. O., Schandl, H., Lenzen, M., Moran, D., Suh, S., West, J., et al. (2015). The material footprint of nations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,112(20), 6271–6276.CrossRef
Wigley, T. M. (2006). A combined mitigation/geoengineering approach to climate stabilization. Science,314(5798), 452–454.CrossRef
York, R. (2012). Do alternative energy sources displace fossil fuels? Nature Climate Change,2(6), 441.CrossRef
York, R. (2017). Why petroleum did not save the whales. Socius, 3, 2378023117739217.
Metadaten
Titel
Conflicting Temporalities and the Ecomodernist Vision of Rewilding
verfasst von
Rasmus Karlsson
Copyright-Jahr
2020
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Buch
Non-Human Nature in World Politics

Print ISBN: 978-3-030-49495-7

Electronic ISBN: 978-3-030-49496-4

Copyright-Jahr: 2020

DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49496-4_6

Premium Partner

    Bildnachweise