September 16, 2009

killing life – while possessing

the freedom to choose

the ecological Disaster

The Earth’s ecosystems: All of the earth’s major ecosystems are collapsing. Human civilization, and even the continued existence of humanity itself, are in question [Foster 2009, p. 8 (2009), and pp. 46 and 53 (2000)].

Impacts to Date:

* In 2005, the average temperature of the earth’s near-surface air was 14.6 degrees Celsius – 0.8 degrees higher than when record-keeping first began, in 1880.

* In June 2009, the average temperature of the ocean surface was 17 degrees Celsius – 0.56 degrees higher for the month of June than when record-keeping first began, in 1880.

* In 2007, the total surface of Arctic summer sea ice was 34 percent below its average minimum during the period 1970-2000.

* During the summer 2007, the rate at which the Greenland Ice Sheet melted was 60 percent higher than the rate at which it melted in 1998, the year which until then, held the record.

* During the summer 2008, the concentration of methane in Arctic Ocean surface water was the highest ever measured. The under-water permafrost is melting, and no longer able to contain methane from the sea floor, which bubbles up to the surface as from “chimneys.”

* During the period 1870-2001, sea level rose 20 centimeters.

* In 2004, there were 150 “dead zones,” some 45,000 square miles, in the earth’s oceans. These are zones which are so polluted that no life in them is possible.

* During the period 1950-2000, 1,700 plant, animal and insect species migrated pole-ward at an average of 0.6 kilometers (0.4 miles) per year. The range of polar and mountain-top species is contracting rapidly.

* In 2006, species were becoming extinct at the rate of 3,000 per year, compared to the rate during the period 1950-2000 of 100 per year.

* Coral reef systems, which provide shelter for 33 percent of marine species, are being bleached by ocean acidity. The pH of surface ocean has decreased from 8.25 to 8.14, during the period 1880-2004.

* During the period 1975-1995, the proportion of hurricanes reaching categories 4 and 5 (wind speeds of more than 56 meters per second) rose from 20 to 35 percent.

* Southeastern Australia and southwestern North America are experiencing perennial drought conditions. In semi-arid and arid regions, a 20 percent decrease in rainfall can cause a 70 percent decrease in the replenishment of local aquifers.

* Globally, human-engendered emissions of carbon dioxide grew at the rate of 1.1 percent annually during the period 1990-1999. During 2000-2007, however, they grew at a rate of 3.5 percent annually.

* In 2006, on average, every kilometer square of ocean had 18,000 scraps of plastic floating in it.

* In 2006, in the center of the Pacific, the ratio of garbage to plankton was six to one.

Impacts now inevitable: As a result of the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, there is likely to be:

* A possible warming of the earth’s surface temperature by 2.9 (1.4-4.3) degrees Celsius [5.2 (2.5-7.7) degrees Fahrenheit] above the pre-industrial level (1880). The likely tipping point of many major components of the Earths’ climate system, such as the Arctic summer sea ice, the Himalayan glaciers, and the Greenland Ice Sheet, is probably around 2 (1-3) degrees Celsius [3.6 (1.8-5.4 degrees Fahrenheit].

* By 2100, a loss of regional climate for 29 percent (10-48 percent) of the land surface of the earth. Many of these areas coincide with biodiversity “hot spots” (areas of high biodiversity). Dry lands will spread northward and southward, away from the equator.

* A loss of tropical and temperate mountain glaciers affecting the drinking water, irrigation and/or hydropower of 20-25 percent of the global population.

Future Impacts based on present Trends:

* Should all nations successfully enact the upper-range of their present climate policy targets (such as an emissions reduction by the United States of 73 percent, 2005-2050, and by the European Union of 80 percent, 1990-2050), then, by 2100, the average global temperature would still be likely to have risen by 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above its pre-industrial level (1880).

Note that the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere would be responsible for 2.9 (1.4-4.3) degrees Celsius [5.2 (2.5-7.7) degrees Fahrenheit] of this likely rise of 3.5 degrees Celsius (6.3 degrees Fahrenheit) above the pre-industrial level (1880) (See above, under “Impacts now inevitable”).

* By 2100, ocean thermal expansion and land-ice melt are likely to cause a sea level rise of 1.4 (0.8-2.0) meters above the 1990 level.

* Arctic summer sea ice may be near or already be reaching its tipping point (the point at which melting becomes self-perpetuating), and could disappear by 2030.

* The Amazon rainforest, and the monsoons of both the Indian sub-continent and the Sahara/West Africa, may reach their tipping points (self-perpetuating changes) within years or decades.

* By 2050, sub-polar and tropical marine ecosystems are likely to experience numerous extinctions. Arctic and Southern Ocean ecosystems are likely to experience severe species invasions. As a whole, marine ecosystems may experience a species turn-over of up to 60 percent.

* Persistent water scarcity is projected for southern Africa, northern Africa, the Mediterranean, much of the Middle East, and a broad band in Central Asia and the Indian subcontinent.

(ClimateScienceWatch.org 2009, pp. 1-4. Washington Post 2009, pp. 1-4. Bloomberg.com 2009, p. 1. MSNBC.com 2004, pp. 1-2. Dumanoski 2009, p. 30. Hall 2009c, pp. 47-57; Ponting 1991/1992, summarized in Hall 2007, p. 98. International Arctic Research Center 2008, p. 1. Kempf 2007, p. 11).

the response of The Green Movement

The Greens have had a number of important victories, but they have not been able to turn the tide of this rampant ecocide. Why?

Green Theory: Dominant contemporary Green theory tends to view materialism and science as the enemies of prior, supposedly preferable conceptions of nature. Ecological degradation is attributed to the emergence of the scientific revolution (c. 1650), epitomized by English philosopher Francis Bacon (1561-1626), whom the theory depicts as the principal proponent of the “domination of nature.” This attitude toward nature is seen as characteristic of “mechanism,” and impossibly anthropocentric – and must be opposed by a Romantic, organicist, “vitalistic,” post-modern view. “Mechanists” hold that organisms are machines (material systems). “Vitalists” contend that living organisms incorporate a mysterious, self-determining principle, not explainable by physics or chemistry.

The focus on the conflict between mechanism and vitalism (the latter similar to idealism and spiritualism) gives rise to a dualistic conception which fails to recognize that these two categories are dialectically connected in their one-sidedness. Both represent the alienation of capitalist society from nature. In Scenes and actions: unpublished manuscripts (1986), British Marxist writer and poet Christopher Caudwell (1907-1937) makes the point:

“[The mechanist is] driven, by reflection upon experience, to the opposite pole, which is merely the other aspect of the same illusion – to teleology, vitalism, idealism, creative evolution, or whatever one likes to call it, but what is certainly the fashionable ideology of decaying capitalism” (Caudwell, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 11).

Within Green theory, this dualistic perspective has, at times, led to a rejection of nearly all modern science, the Enlightenment, and most revolutionary movements – a tendency which has fed into the anti-rationalism of much of contemporary post-modern thought. Most thinkers between 1650 and 1950 stand accused of having anti-ecological values and deifying progress.

In this idealist context, in which only values matter, historical material issues disappear. The transformation of the human relationship with nature so as to make it ecologically sustainable, is not thought to entail any necessary transformation of society itself. Instead, to what it sees as a utilitarian anthropocentrism, Green theory opposes its own Romantic eco-centrism. The ecological question is reduced to one of values.

The human-nature Relationship: Yet, the notion of the human “domination of nature,” though admittedly tending toward anthropocentrism, does not necessarily imply extreme disregard for nature. Pointing to the contradiction in the human-nature relationship, Bacon famously wrote, in his Novum Organum (1620):

“We can only command nature by obeying her” (Bacon, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 139).

In Illusion and Reality (1937), Christopher Caudwell turns the idea of the “domination of nature” into an unending process of dialectical interaction:

“Men, in their struggle with Nature (i.e. in their struggle for freedom) enter into certain relations with each other to win that freedom . . .”

“But men cannot change Nature without changing themselves. The full understanding of this mutual inter-penetration of reflexive movement of men and Nature, mediated by . . . society, is the recognition of necessity . . .”

“Viewed objectively, this active subject-object relation is science. Viewed subjectively, it is art. But as consciousness emerging in active union with practice, it is simply concrete living – the whole process of working, feeling, thinking and behaving like a human individual in one world of individuals and Nature” (Caudwell, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 12. Emphasis the author’s).

There is thus no necessary contradiction between the idea of the “mastery of nature” and the concept of sustainability. In fact, history shows that the two concepts arose together, in the Baconian tradition. Until 1900, the greatest developments in the evolution of ecological thought originated from the rise to prominence of materialist conceptions of nature. Modern ecology emerged around 1850, on the basis of the uncompromising materialist conception of nature held by Charles Darwin (1809-1882), complemented by the discoveries of other scientists, such as Justus von Liebig (1803-1873). Not idealism but materialism, with its anti-anthropocentric, dialectic viewpoint, is the theory which replaced the teleological viewpoint of medieval times. In the dialectic materialism of Karl Marx (1818-1883), the alienation of human labor and the alienation of humans from nature are two sides of the same issue.

In order to become more effectively incisive, Green thought must transcend its idealism, spiritualism and dualism, and recover its roots in the materialist conception of nature. It must recognize both the necessity imposed by the human need to subsist, and the capitalist social compact which alienates humans from nature.

The issue is not the arid juxtaposition of organism against environment – “humanity vs. nature.” It is the extraordinary richness of the web of life fluidly interpenetrating with the rest of reality (Foster 2000, pp. viii-ix and 1-20. See the present document under “The Evolution of dialectic, materialist Ecology,” “The twentieth Century,” “The West”).

The Failure of the Green Movement to recognize its Roots:

Herve Kempf: In How the rich are destroying the earth (2007), Herve Kempf, Environmental Editor of Le Monde, fails to recognize the roots of the dialectical conception of natural history, which he himself espouses:

“Socialism, the left’s center of gravity, is based on materialism and the nineteenth-century ideology of progress. It has been incapable of integrating the ecological critique.”

“Dressed in what remains of the rags of Marxism, the left incessantly repaints the chromos of the nineteenth century, or sinks into the ‘realism’ of ‘tempered (free-market) liberalism.’”

“Consequently, we find simple-minded ecologists – ecology with no social conscience – alongside a left stuck in the old days – a social conscience with no ecology” (Kempf 2007, pp. 24- 25).

Dianne Dumanoski: In The end of the long summer – why we must remake our civilization to survive on a volatile earth (2009, 311 pages), Dumanoski traces the history of the present global ecological crisis, referencing no less than 210 individuals, from ancient Greeks to present political and scientific leaders – but she does not mention the contribution of Marxism to our present concept of ecology.

Dumanoski does not mention Karl Marx (1818-1883). Her one reference to “Marxism,” is in passing:

“The Maoist Revolution and Marxism, a quintessentially modern faith, injected a strong dose of Western ideas and aims into the thinking of the Chinese leadership” (Dumanoski 2009, p. 118).

Dumanoski makes no mention of Friedrich Engels (1820-1895).

This neglect of the roots of “ecology,” deprives the Green movement of its own history. As the next section of the present document details (The Evolution of dialectic, materialist Ecology), 19^th century materialism was indeed able to “integrate the ecological critique,” and should not be omitted from any analysis of today’s ecological crisis.

the Evolution of dialectic, materialist ecology

Materialist ecology denotes a dialectical conception of natural history. The evolution of materialist ecology begins with the Greeks, particularly Epicurus, has a hiatus in the Middle Ages, is re-awakened during the Enlightenment, only to become tragically dormant until after World War II.

The Greeks: For both Karl Marx (1818-1883 C.E.) and Friedrich Engels (1820-1895 C.E.), the origins of materialism were to be found in ancient Greece – not in the “exclusively mechanical” materialism of French materialists in the 1700’s.

Anaxagoras (c.500-428 B.C.E.): Greek philosopher Anaxagoras posits an all-pervading mind (nous) prior to an infinity of particles.

Empedocles (c.495-c.435 B.C.E.): Greek philosopher Empedocles posits four types of material particles (fire, water, earth and air) moving under the action of two forces (harmony and discord).

Leucippus (fl. c.450 B.C.E.): Little is known about Greek philosopher Leucippus, but he probably is the source of inspiration for the atomistic theory generally attributed to Democritus.

Democritus (c.460-c.370 B.C.E.): Greek philosopher Democritus develops a theory about the nature of the physical world which is radical, in that it relies solely on mechanistic postulates. Democritus rejects both supernatural intervention, and the abstractions of his predecessors [the “mind” (nous) of Anaxagoras, and the two forces (harmony and discord) of Empedocles].

Democritus holds that all things are composed of atoms (tiny particles imperceptible to the senses) which are in constant motion and move according to determinant patterns. The system is completely mechanically determined (Foster 2000, pp. 53-54).

Plato (427?-347 B.C.E.): Greek philosopher Plato, argues for the independent reality of Ideas, as the only guarantee of ethical standards and objective scientific knowledge. Ideas are the immutable archetypes of all temporal phenomena, and only they are completely real. The physical world possesses only relative reality. Ideas assure order and intelligence in a world that is in a state of constant flux. They provide the pattern from which the world of sense derives its meaning. The supreme Idea is that of the Good.

Epicurus (341-270 B.C.E.): Greek philosopher Epicurus develops a metaphysic similar to that of Democritus, but with the addition of the proposition that the motion of atoms is not entirely determined. Some atoms “swerve” (deviate slightly), and an element of chance (indeterminacy, spontaneity, contingency) is thus created – providing room for free will. Man’s freedom of the will is thus a product of evolution.

The elements of chance and contingency, and with them, the possibility of freedom, give Epicurus the basis for concluding that blind destiny is more dangerous to one’s serenity (ataraxia) than beliefs in fables about the gods – for whereas gods might be propitiated, mechanical determinism is inexorable. But even belief in the gods render one unfree:

“Not the man who denies the gods worshipped by the multitude, but he who affirms of the gods what the multitude believes about them, is truly impious” (Impiety meaning the denial of the mortal, material basis of life, and of human self-determination and freedom) (Epicurus, quoted in Foster 2000, pp. 5 and 58-59).

Epicurus rejects the idea of gods with supernatural powers who interfere with nature or humanity. He also rejects the teleological thinking (such as divine intention) of religion, as well as all natural explanations based on final causes. In their materialism, Epicurus’ views thus provide the basis for the development of science during the Enlightenment.

For Epicurus, subsistence is a fundamental characteristic in the human relationship to nature, and presents humans with an ethical choice as to the type of social compacts they can make, in order to both adapt and enhance their freedom.

Epicurus’ perspective is dialectical without being either reductionist, mechanistic or deterministic. Opposing the determinism of mechanistic physics espoused by Democritus, and the teleology of idealist philosophy espoused by Plato, Epicurus’ dialectical materialism makes room for freedom and contingency in all of nature, including human beings, while at the same time taking into account the realm of necessity (Foster 2000, pp. 3, 15, 54, 56, 63-64 and 255-256).

The Romans:

Titus Lucretius Carus (“Lucretius”) (c.99-c.55): In his great poem, De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things), Roman poet and philosopher Lucretius outlines the philosophy of Epicurus. There need be no fear of the gods or death, since:

“Man is lord of himself” (Lucretius, quoted in Columbia Encyclopedia 2000).

In Book VI of the poem, Lucretius theorizes that the atoms of certain substances are “a cause of disease and death,” and observes:

“How easily the drowsy fume and scent of charcoal passes into the brain.” (Lucretius, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 43).

The Middle ages:

The Great Chain of Being: In medieval times, and even to a certain extent up until 1900, the dominant world view is that of the Great Chain of Being, interpreted teleologically. Everything in the universe is due to divine providence. God created the earth for “man.” All species were separately created. The earth is the center of universe, and time and space are limited. The great enemy of this world view, ancient materialism, particularly Epicurean materialism, would be resurrected only by science as it developed during Renaissance and Enlightenment (Foster 2000, p. 13).

In the 19^th century, recovering the materialist outlook, Friedrich Engels (1820-1895) would describe:

“The materialist outlook on nature means no more than simply conceiving nature just as it exists, without any foreign admixture – and as such it was understood originally among the Greek philosophers as a matter of course. But between these old Greeks and us lie more than two thousand years of an essentially idealist world outlook, and hence the return to the self-evident is more difficult than it seems at first glance” (Engels, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 231).

The “First Agricultural Revolution”: Beginning around 1150, the “enclosure” movement (the dispossession of small farmers and tenants), initiates the First Agricultural Revolution. The process continues over the course of seven centuries, until 1845, when no more land is left in common to be “enclosed.” Private property and the market are now central to the economy

The privatization of land, enabling its use as a “free gift of nature,” and the alienation of labor from land (labor’s sole means of subsistence), are central to the growth of the capitalist economy. Capitalism alienates human beings from nature [Foster 2009, pp. 169 and 171(1999), and 268 (2008)].

The Renaissance: Materialists see no need for explanations outside of nature itself. Until 1900, the materialist conception of nature would be the view which would engender the greatest strides in the evolution of ecological thought.

Britain: In Britain, materialism, although deemed compatible with religion, particularly deist accounts of religion, is nevertheless viewed as threatening by the established Church. (The word “deists” refers to those thinkers during the period 1600-1800, who held that the course of nature sufficiently demonstrates the existence of God. Formal religion is superfluous, and claims of supernatural revelation are spurious).

British materialism is represented in the works of:

Francis Bacon (1561-1626): Francis Bacon elaborates on Epicurean notions of evolution, pointing to the reality of the “transmutation” (transformation) of species (Foster 2000, p. 41).

Bacon famously says:

“We can only command nature by obeying her” (Bacon, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 139).

Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679): Thomas Hobbes claims that in nature, it is “bellum omnium contra omnes” (war of all against all) (Foster 2000, pp. 187 and 207).

John Locke (1632-1704): in his “Essay concerning human Understanding” (1690), John Locke tentatively suggests that thought might simply be a property that God chose to “super-add to matter” rather than being a pure, immaterial manifestation of the soul (Foster 2000, pp. 25 and 62-63).

John Evelyn (1620-1706): English diarist and writer John Evelyn continues the materialistic tradition of Epicurus. Evelyn translates part of Lucretius’ De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things), which expresses the views of Epicurus in poetic form.

Showing that there is not necessarily a fundamental contradiction between the idea of the “mastery of nature” and the concept of sustainability, Evelyn expresses views similar to those of Francis Bacon, and, at the same time, is one of the first and best advocates of sustainable development. Evelyn’s Fumifugium, or the inconvenience of the air and smoke of London dissipated (1661) is a materialist critique of air pollution, and his Sylva (1664) is a defense of forests and the need for re-forestation (Foster 2000, pp. 12-13 and 43).

David Hume (1711-1776): In his Enquiry concerning human understanding (1748), Scottish philosopher David Hume devotes a section to an imaginary speech of defiance by Epicurus, imagined to be on trial in Athens for his denial of “divine existence,” and thus his undermining of morality. Hume takes the opportunity to present his own response to those who have leveled similar charges against him (Foster 2000, p. 47).

France: In France, materialism takes a radical form in the works of:

Julian Offray de La Mettrie (1709-1751): In Histoire naturelle de l’ame (The natural History of the Soul, 1745), physician and philosopher Julian Offray de La Mettrie develops his theory that psychical activity is purely the result of the organic construction of the brain and nervous system. In his L’homme machine (Man as a Machine, 1748), de La Mettrie further develops his mechanical explanation of humans and the world (Foster 2000, pp. 3, 25, 48 and 51-52).

Denis Diderot (1713-1784): French encyclopedist Denis Diderot is enormously influential in shaping the rationalistic spirit of the 18^th century (Foster 2000, p. 26).

Claude Adrien Helvetius (1715-1771): Claude Adrien Helvetius is one of the encyclopedists (Foster 2000, pp. 48 and 63).

Etienne Bonnot de Condillac (1715-1780): Etienne Bonnot de Condillac develops sensationalism, the theory that all knowledge comes from the senses, that there are no innate ideas, and that all conscious experience is simply the result of passive sensations (Foster 2000, p. 247).

Paul Henri Thiery, Baron d’Holbach (1723-1789): Paul Henri Thiery, Baron d’Holbach is one of the encyclopedists. He is a vigorous opponent of Christianity and all positive forms of religion. His best known work is Systeme de la nature (The System of Nature, 1770) (Foster 2000, pp. 25-26 and 48).

Italy: In Italy, materialism is represented in the work of:

Giambattista Vico (1668-1744): Italian philosopher, rhetorician, historian and jurist Giambattista Vico, writes Scienza nuova (The new Science), in which he builds on and re-fashions many ideas derived from Lucretius.

Vico hides his work because under the Inquisition in Naples, some of his friends are imprisoned on charges which include the mere mention of Epicurus or Lucretius (Foster 2000, p. 47).

The ENLIGHTENMENT: During the 1800’s, in Europe and North America, the environmental concerns of capitalist society center around the depletion of soil fertility, the pollution of the cities, deforestation (which affects whole continents), and “overpopulation.’”

The “Second Agricultural Revolution: During 1820’s and 1830’s, the soil is depleted and crop yields are diminishing. In 1840, Justus von Liebig publishes Organic chemistry in its applications to agriculture and physiology, which provides the first scientific explanation of the role of phosphorus, nitrogen and potassium in the growth of plants. In 1842, John Bennet Lawes is able to dissolve phosphate, and in 1853, the nitrate fields in Peru are mined. The fertilizer industry grows rapidly, engendering a revolution in soil chemistry – the Second Agricultural Revolution (1843-1880) [Foster 2009, pp. 172-173 (1999)].

Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834): In 1798, British Reverend and political economist Thomas Robert Malthus publishes, anonymously, An essay on the principle of population as it effects the future improvement of society.”

Adopting the viewpoint of natural theology, Malthus writes:

“We should reason from nature to nature’s God, and not presume to reason from God to nature.”

Having recourse to “divine providence,” Malthus argues from final causes:

“[The Supreme Being, through the] gracious designs of Providence, . . . ordained that population should increase faster than food, [a general law which produces] partial evil but an over-balance of good [in that it compels further exertion of human labor to obtain the means of subsistence].”

Malthus justifies human inequality and distress on the grounds that:

“A uniform course of prosperity rather degrades than exalts the character. [Hardship thus awakens] Christian virtues.”

He sees every reason to adapt to, rather than interfere with

“the high purpose of creation.”

The impoverished head of household, who has chosen to marry without the means of supporting a family:

“should be taught to know that the laws of nature, which are the laws of God, have doomed him and his family to starve for disobeying their repeated admonitions – that he has no claim of right on society for the smallest portion of food, beyond that which his labor would fairly purchase” (Malthus, quoted in Foster 2000, pp. 30 and 88).

Malthus is the first to advance the notion that nature is a “gift” to capital. The idea would survive among orthodox economists [(Foster 2009, pp. 184 and 303 (1999)].

Georg Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831): German philosopher Georg Friedrich Hegel develops the dialectic method – within Idealism.

The dialectic method transcends contradiction in, objectification of, and alienation from the external world, by seeing the world and ourselves as in the process of transformation.

Idealism subsumes material reality (existence) under thought. Material reality exists only through thought (mind, spirit), having no existence in and of itself. In Science of Logic, Hegel writes:

“The finite is ideal . . . [It has] no veritable being . . . Religion equally does not recognize finitude as a veritable being, as something ultimate or absolute, or as something un-derived, un-created, eternal” (Hegel, quoted in Foster 2000, pp. 4-5).

David Ricardo (1772-1823): British economist David Ricardo makes the notion that nature is a “gift” to capital, a key proposition in his work [Foster 2009, p. 184 (1999)].

Justus von Liebig (1803-1873): German agricultural chemist Justus von Liebig focuses on the circulation of soil nutrients, and the implication of soil nutrients for animal metabolism. He makes the connection between the depletion of the soil and the pollution of cities with human and animal wastes.

von Liebig develops a “theory of the exhaustion of the soil,” thus initiating the concept of sustainable development.

After the invention of the first agricultural fertilizer (phosphate, by John Bennet Lawes, in 1842), British agricultural interests think they have solved the problem of decreasing crop yields. However, though initially dramatic, the benefits obtained from the application of a single nutrient diminish rapidly – as von Liebig’s “Law of the Minimum” dictates:

“Overall soil fertility is limited by the nutrient in least abundance” (von Liebig, quoted in Foster p. 150).

Around 1860, von Liebig’s work undergoes a shift toward a strong ecological critique of capitalist development (Foster 2000, pp. 14, 142, 149-150, 154, 236 and 243).

Ludwig Feuerbach (1804-1872): In The essence of Christianity (1841), German philosopher and anthropologist Ludwig Feuerbach criticizes religion, arguing that humanity has created God in its own image.

Feuerbach rejects both the Idealism of George Hegel, and the mechanical materialism of Hobbes. He centers on sensationalism, and, in his dialectic materialism, counter-poses a human essence to the abstract essence of the spirit. In contrast to the materialism of Karl Marx, which is practical, Feuerbach’s materialism is principally contemplative (Foster 2000, pp. 6, 15, 64, 68, 80, 105 and 116).

Charles Darwin (1809-1882): In 1859, English naturalist Charles Darwin publishes On the origin of species by means of natural selection; or, the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life.

Darwin’s monumental contribution is the explanation of the specific mechanism through which the transmutation of species occurs. All organisms are characterized by “super-fecundity” (the tendency to produce many more offspring than can survive). These offspring vary among themselves, and pass down their variations to future generations. Since not all offspring survive, there is a struggle for existence among them, and those best fitted to the conditions of the environment have a higher survival rate, thereby being able to pass on their variations to their offspring. The accumulation of favorable variations over the very long span of geological time, results in descent with modification – the evolution of species.

Darwin’s theory is not one of “progress.” Darwin’s view is materialistic, and in no way does adaptability to changing local environments suggest either superiority or inferiority. Darwin’s historical view points toward a dialectical understanding of nature, in terms of its emergence, and hence, toward a co-evolutionary perspective of humans and nature (Foster 2000, pp. 178, 183, 188-189, 230 and 248).

John Bennet Lawes (1814-1900): In 1842, English entrepreneur and agricultural scientist John Bennet Laws invents a means of making phosphate soluble, enabling him to develop the first agricultural fertilizer, a “superphosphate” which would mark the beginning of the chemical fertilizer industry (Foster 2000, p. 150).

Karl Marx (1818-1883): German philosopher and principal theorist of modern socialism and communism, Karl Marx was inspired by the work of Epicurus. Marx’s social thought reflects his world view, which is firmly ecological (Foster 2000, p. 20).

Materialism: Materialism posits that the origins and development of whatever exists, is dependent on nature and “matter” – a level of physical reality independent of and prior to thought.

This is in contrast to the Idealism of Georg Hegel (1770-1831), which subsumes material reality (existence) under thought. Within his Idealism, however, Hegel developed the dialectical conception of reality as a totality in the process of becoming. Marx rejects Hegel’s Idealism, but espouses his dialectic method, applying it to a practical, materialist context.

For Marx, we act. And by acting (material praxis), we transform our relation to the world, and transcend our alienation from it – creating our own distinctly human-natural relations. Marx’ approach is both dialectical (relational) and realist.

Marx viewed his critique of the material alienation of human beings from nature within the capitalist system of production, as only a further step in previous critiques of the alienation of humans from nature, as expressed in Christian theology and teleological conceptions of nature. Nature is a pre-condition of human existence, and production a pre-condition for subsistence (Foster 2000, pp. 5, 7, 113 and 115).

Ecology: The materialism of Marx, and his interest in science, lead him to an ecological way of thinking which contrasts with much of contemporary Green theory, the latter considering materialism and science as the enemies of earlier, supposedly preferable conceptions of nature.

Marx sees the transformation of society as necessary for the transformation of the relationship of humans with nature. Refusing to reduce the ecological issue to one of only values, Marx emphasizes the evolving nature of the human material relationship with nature. The alienation of humans from nature, and the alienation of labor from the means of production (the land), are two sides of the same problem.

At various points in their work, Marx and Engels address such issues as the soil nutrient cycle (the town-country relation), deforestation, climate change (speculation on temperature changes due to deforestation), the elimination of deer from the forests, desertification, the commodification of species, pollution, industrial wastes, toxic contamination, recycling, the exhaustion of coal mines, disease, overpopulation, and the co-evolution of species [Foster 2009, pp. 148 and 297(2002)].

The “metabolic Rift” under Capitalism: Despite all of its scientific and technological development in the area of agriculture, capitalism is unable to maintain those conditions necessary for the recycling of the constituent elements of the soil.

Marx attributes this to the material estrangement of human beings from the natural conditions of their existence, which is generated by the capitalist organization of society. Capitalism produces a “metabolic rift” in the relationship of humans with nature by estranging humans in general (through the separation of town and country), and labor in particular (through its alienation from the land, labor’s only means of subsistence and production) [Foster 2009, p. 180 (1999)].

The “social-ecological Metabolism”: By “socio-ecological metabolism,” Marx means the endlessly contingent, dynamic interchange and inter-dependence between humans and nature, which results from human labor. The metabolism is regulated, on the side of nature by natural laws governing the physical processes, and on the side of society, by institutionalized norms governing the structure of society, such as the division of labor and the distribution of wealth [Foster 2009, p. 178 (1999)].

In Capital (Volume 1, 1867), Marx describes the metabolic interaction of humans with nature:

“Labor is, first of all, a process between man and nature, a process by which man, through his own actions, mediates, regulates and controls the metabolism between himself and nature. He confronts the materials of nature as a force of nature. He sets in motion the natural forces which belong to his own body, his arms, legs, head, and hands, in order to appropriate the materials of nature in a form adapted to his own needs. Through this movement, he acts upon external nature and changes it, and in this way, he simultaneously changes his own nature . . . [This labor process] is the universal condition for the metabolic interaction between man and nature – the everlasting, nature-imposed condition of human existence” [Marx, quoted in Foster 2009, pp. 177 (1999) and 202 (2002)].

Just as the materials which birds use to build their nest are material flows associated with the metabolism of birds with nature, so similar material flows are part of the human metabolism with nature ([Foster 2009, pp. 179-180 (1999)].

Human beings make their own environment – though not under conditions entirely of their choosing. They are restricted by conditions handed down both from the earth and from earlier generations in the course of history – natural and human history [Foster 2009, p. 160 (2002)].

The Co-evolution of Society and Nature: Marx’s and Engels’ analysis points to co-evolution – neither a reduction of society to nature, nor a reduction of nature to society, but rather an exploration of the interactions between society and nature [Foster 2009, p. 187 (1999)].

Sustainability: Marx emphasizes the need to maintain the earth for “successive generations” – the essence of the contemporary notion of sustainability.

In Capital (Volume 3, edited by Engels, 1885-1894), Marx writes:

“From the standpoint of a higher socio-economic formation, the private property of particular individuals in the earth will appear just as absurd as the private property of one man in other men. Even an entire society, a nation, or all simultaneously existing societies taken together, are not owners of the earth. They are simply its possessors, its beneficiaries, and have to bequeath it in an improved state to succeeding generations, as boni patres familias [good heads of households] . . .”

“The conscious and rational treatment of the land as permanent communal property [is] the inalienable condition for the existence and reproduction of the chain of human generations” [Marx, quoted Foster 2009, pp. 181-182 (1999) and 225 (1998). Foster 2000, p. 164].

Under capitalism, the search for exchange value (profit), rather than the servicing of genuine, universal natural needs, constitutes the motive for production. In this system, therefore, the other side of “economic development,” is social and ecological degradation. The degradation of work is accompanied by the degradation of the earth. Only the rational organization of the human metabolism with nature can redress the rift in the human-ecological relation [Foster 2009, p. 249 (2004). Foster 2000, p. 174].

Friedrich Engels (1820-1895): Like Karl Marx, German social scientist, political theorist and philosopher Friedrich Engels, views Charles Darwin’s historical conception of nature as enabling the transcendence of the mechanism and determinism prevalent among the 18^th century French materialists. Nature must be understood in terms of its emergence, dialectically. In Engels’ dialectical naturalism, the evolution of nature is “the proof of dialectics,” because it is characterized by the interaction of both a “harmonious cooperative working of organic nature” (as in theories of metabolic exchange), and a struggle for existence within nature (Foster 2000, pp. 230, 232 and 234).

For Engels, the evolution of human beings from their primate ancestors arose from labor – that is, from the conditions of human subsistence, and from the transformation of these conditions by means of tools. It is at this level that human beings interact with nature – as real, material, active beings who must eat, breathe and struggle for survival. Human history begins at the point when humans develop tools which enable them to produce. It is at this point that human history diverges from that of animals (though there are no hard and fast distinctions).

However, the human capacity to transform nature is limited by the continuing dependence of human beings on nature, of which they form a part. This contradiction in the human relation to nature can only be addressed by relating to nature rationally through the understanding of nature’s laws – and organizing production accordingly:

“Let us not, however, flatter ourselves over-much on account of our human victories of nature. For each such victory, nature takes its revenge on us. Each victory, it is true, in the first place brings about the results we expected, but in the second and third places, it has quite different, unforeseen effects, which only too often, cancel the first . . .”

“At every step, we are reminded that we by no means rule over nature like a conqueror over a foreign people, like someone standing outside nature – but that we, with flesh, blood and brain, belong to nature, and exist in its midst, and that all our mastery of it consists in the fact that we have the advantage [over] all other creatures, of being able to learn its laws and apply them correctly” [Engels, quoted in Foster 2000, pp. 235-236. Foster 2009, pp. 185-185 (1999) and 218 (1998)].

William Morris (1834-1896): English architect, designer and artist William Morris writes Marxist utopias in which a communist organization of society ensures ecological sustainability. Production is either for use or for art, but not for profit (that is, production is for use value, not exchange value):

“[A factory of the future] must make no sordid litter, befoul no water, nor poison the air with smoke. I need say nothing more on that point, as ‘profit’ apart, it would be easy enough” (Morris, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 237).

August Bebel (1840-1913): Close associate of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, and co-founder of the German Social Democratic Party, August Bebel, writes Woman under socialism (1879/1884) in which he criticizes both the exploitation of women and the ecological crisis (principally with respect to soil fertility) in capitalist society. The emancipation of women and the rational re-organization of production are central to the future of socialism.

Bebel discusses:

“The mad sacrifice of forest, for the sake of ‘profit’” (Bebel, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 238).

the twentieth Century

The “Third Agricultural Revolution”: In the 1900’s, the Third Agricultural Revolution takes place, consisting of a switch from animal to machine traction, the concentration of animals in massive feedlots, the genetic alteration of plants (resulting in monocultures), and the intensive use of chemicals (such as fertilizers and pesticides) [Foster 2009, pp. 169 and 171(1999)].

The East: In the early Soviet era, through the 1920’s and 1930’s, Soviet ecology is enormously dynamic, dialectical and revolutionary. Its demise in the late 1930’s, under Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), and the subsequent development of an ecocidal relationship to the environment, tend to obscure these vibrant early roots. By the late 1930’s, many of the East’s best ecological thinkers have been purged, including Nikolai Bukharin, Nikolai Vavilov and Y. M. Uranovsky. The conservation movement, which had thrived under Vladimir Lenin, is completely decimated (Foster 2000, p. 243).

Karl Kautsky (1854-1938): After the death of Friedrich Engels, Polish-Austrian theoretician of Marxism, Karl Kautsky becomes the leading promulgator of Marxism. Diverging from Karl Marx’s view that the natural sciences form the basis of dialectic materialism, Kautsky subscribes to idealism, viewing Marxism as only a conception of human history, with which the science of nature has no inner connection (Uranovsky 1935, pp. 1-3 and 30-31).

Nevertheless, Kautsky is concerned with ecological issues. In The agrarian question (1899), he criticizes the fertilizer treadmill which results from the separation of town and country:

“Supplementary fertilizers . . . allow the reduction in soil fertility to be avoided, but the necessity of using them in larger and larger amounts simply adds a further burden to agriculture – not one unavoidably imposed by nature, but a direct result of current social organization” (Kautsky, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 239).

Vladimir Vernadsky (1863-1945): In his book The biosphere (1926) Russian and Soviet mineralogist and geochemist Vladimir Vernadsky develops a holistic approach to ecology, and points to the practical implications of the fact that the Earth is a self-contained sphere (Foster 2000, p. 242).

Vladimir Komarov (1869-1945): In his contribution to the book Marxism and modern thought (1935), edited by Nikolai Bukharin, Russian botanist Vladimir Komarov (soon to be president of the USSR Academy of Sciences), writes:

“The private owner or employer, however necessary it may be to make the changing of the world comply with the laws of Nature, cannot do so, since he aims at profit and only profit. By creating crisis upon crisis in industry, he lays waste natural wealth in agriculture, leaving behind a barren soil and, in mountain districts, bare rocks and stony slopes” (Komarov, quoted in Foster 2000, pp. 242-243).

Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924): The materialism of Russian lawyer, politician and revolutionary, Vladimir Lenin, is dialectical and non-reductionist (Foster 2000, p. 243).

In his writings and political pronouncements, Lenin insists that the scientific management of natural resources in accord with the principles of conservation, is essential. In 1920, he establishes, in the southern Ural Mountains, the first nature preserve in the Soviet Union.

In The agrarian question and the “critics of Marx” (1901), Lenin expresses ecological concerns:

“The possibility of substituting artificial for natural manures, and the fact that this is already being done (partly), do not in the least refute the irrationality of wasting natural fertilizers and thereby polluting the rivers and the air in suburban and factory districts” (Lenin, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 240).

Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919): Rosa Luxemburg, Polish-Jewish-German theoretician of Marxism and revolutionary, writing from prison, in 1917, draws attention to ecology:

“The warblers are disappearing from Germany. Increasingly, systematic forestry, gardening, and agriculture are, step by step, destroying all natural nesting and breeding places . . .” (Luxemburg, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 240).

Nikolai Vavilov (1887-1943): Russian and Soviet botanist and geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, first president of the Lenin Agricultural Academy, is closely connected to the proletarian revolution, and, with the support of the Soviet state, applies a materialist method to the question of the origins of agriculture.

Vavilov discovers that there are a number of centers of great plant gene diversity “in tropical and sub-tropical mountain regions.” Adopting a dialectical, co-evolutionary perspective, Vavilov determines that all the principal crops in use originated in “seven principal centers” of plant genetic diversity. These centers are the product of millennia of cultivation, and, therefore, the product of human culture. In a paper presented at the International Congress of the History of Science and Technology (1931), Vavilov states:

“The fundamental centers of origin of cultivated plants . . . very frequently play the role of accumulators of an astonishing diversity of varieties” (Vavilov, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 242).

Note: At present, an international struggle for the control of these genetic resources is raging between the center of the capitalist system (which seeks new germplasm for breeding resistance in commercial varieties), and the periphery of the capitalist system (countries such as Mexico, Peru, Ethiopia, Turkey, and Tibet, where these sources of germplasm are located) (Foster 2000, p. 242).

Y. M. Uranovsky (?dates): In Marxism and modern thought (1935), edited by Nikolai Bukharin, while discussing the close connection between dialectic materialism and natural science, Y. M. Uranovsky points to Karl Marx’s interest in Justus von Liebig’s “theory of the exhaustion of the soil” (Foster 2000, p. 243. Uranovsky 1935, pp. 1-3 and 10).

Uranovsky explains:

“Natural science is not an external factor of usefulness for man, or a chance factor of enlightenment. It is internally bound up with the most essential form of human activity – practice, industry, and the development of labor” (Uranovsky 1935, p. 8).

“The dialectic of nature is inseparable from the dialectic of history, with which it is connected by a unity of method – as two sides of a single teaching on a single, objective reality. [They are] inseparable parts of the complete world outlook of Marx. This means that a real knowledge of nature and a conception of it as a developing whole, is only possible with the knowledge of the . . . history . . . of human society which forms a specific part of nature.”

“For the dialectical materialist, science [does not have an] independent existence divorced from every aspect of social practice” (Uranovsky 1935, p. 15).

Nikolai Bukharin (1888-1938): Nikolai Bukharin is a leading theorist of the Russian Revolution. In Historical materialism (1921), he notes:

“The material process of ‘metabolism’ between society and nature [is] the fundamental relation between environment and system – between ‘external conditions’ and human society” (Bukharin, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 227).

In his wide-ranging philosophical-theoretical book, Philosophical arabesques, written in 1937-1938, while in Lubyanca Prison, Nikolai Bukharin re-assesses philosophy from the perspective of science and dialectical materialism. The aim is to construct a humanistic Marxism, based on the practical materialism of Marx, thereby both transcending mechanical materialism, and strengthening arguments against solipsism (the self is the only existent thing), mysticism and fascism.

For Bukharin, ecology, as presented in the theory of the earth’s biosphere by Vladimir Vernadsky, in his book The biosphere (1926), provides the ultimate basis of materialism.

Developing a theory of “naturalistic materialism” (“dialectical naturalism”), in Philosophical arabesques, Bukharin writes:

“The earth’s biosphere [is] full of infinitely varied life, from the smallest micro-organisms in water, on land and in the air, to human beings. Many people do not imagine the vast richness of these forms, or their direct participation in the physical and chemical processes of nature. . . Human beings are both products of nature and part of it” (Bukharin, quoted in Foster 2000, pp. 226-227).

In 1938, Bukharin is shot while in prison, and the manuscripts of Philosophical arabesques are confiscated by Joseph Stalin (1879-1953), whose over-riding goal for Soviet society is production for production’s sake.

With Bukharin would also perish his dialectic, dynamic, holistic, co-evolutionary way of thinking. Bukharin’s death is accompanied by the purge of some of the greatest Russian ecologists. Soviet Marxism would thereafter be characterized by a seeming absence of ecological thinking.

Note: The manuscripts of Philosophical arabesques would be made available only in 1992, by Mikhail Gorbachev, after his resignation, in 1991, as head of the federal government of the Soviet Union (Foster 2000, pp. 240-242).

The West: In Europe, from 1890 to 1930, and even into the 1970’s, a revolt against positivism dominates intellectual life. With few exceptions, during this period, the tradition of dialectic ecology would be continued, not in the social sciences, but in the life sciences.

The Social Sciences: After Karl Marx, Western Marxist social sciences fall prey to positivistic, mechanistic conceptions, accompanied by a simple reflective (correspondence) view of knowledge. Basing his theories on the mechanistic French materialists, for example, Georgi Plekhanov develops an approach to nature which is essentially positivistic.

By the 1920’s, the increasing positivistic (mechanist) influence within dialectical materialism (Marxism) in the social sciences, prompts such thinkers as Gyorgy Lukacs, Karl Korsch and Antonio Gramsci to reject materialism as inherently mechanical, in favor of an idealist dialectical approach. Their resistance to positivism, however, leads them to a theoretical practice, which shies away from any application of the Marxist dialectical method of analysis to nature and science.

Thus, both on the positivist and the idealist side, the fissure between nature and society – the bifurcation between the human and the natural realm – continues. From the 1930’s to the 1960’s, Marxian social theory is devoid of ecological discussions.

Thus, concurrently with the destruction of Soviet ecology in the East, there is, in the West, a rejection of any attempt to apply the dialectical method of Marxist analysis to nature and science. The idea of the co-evolution of humans and nature would be re-kindled only in 1962, with the publication by Rachel Carson (1907-1964) of Silent Spring.

The one exception to this lull is Christopher Caudwell, whose premature death is a tragedy for the West, just like the Stalin purge of ecologists is a tragedy for the East (Foster 2000, pp. vii. 228, 230-231, 244-246 and 249. [Foster 2009, p. 192 (1999)].

Georgi Plekhanov (1857-1918): Russian Marxist theoretician Georgi Plekhanov bases his approach to materialism on the mechanistic French materialists and on positivism (Foster 2000, pp. 230-231).

Frederic Clements (1874-1945): Frederic Clements is an American plant ecologist, and pioneer in the study of vegetation succession. (See the present document, under “The Evolution of dialectic, materialist Ecology,” “The twentieth Century,” “The West,” “The Life Sciences,” “Richard Levins”).

Gyorgy Lukacs (1885-1971): Hungarian Marxist philosopher and literary critic Gyorgy Lukacs, is critical of Nikolai Bukharin for allowing positivism to intrude into the study of society. Lukacs attributes the alienation of human beings from nature, to Science and the Enlightenment – thus seeing alienation only in terms of the idea of nature, without attention to the real, material alienation of nature, such as described by Karl Marx, in his theory of the metabolic rift (Foster 2000, p. 244).

Karl Korsch (1886-1961): German Marxist theorist Karl Korsch, denies the possibility of the application of dialectical modes of thinking to nature, essentially ceding that entire domain to positivism (Foster 2000, p. vii).

Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937): Italian philosopher, writer, politician and political theorist, Antonio Gramsci objects to any tendency to “make science the base of life.” Nevertheless, Gramsci is somewhat less inclined than Lukacs to exclude the dialectic from nature:

“Perhaps Lukacs, in reaction to [Bukharin’s Historical materialism] has fallen into the opposite error – into a form of idealism” (Foster 2000, pp. 244-245).

Christopher Caudwell (1907-1937): During the 1930’s, Christopher St. John Sprigg, who writes under the pen name, Christopher Caudwell, is the one figure able to transcend the positivism/idealist controversy.

Caudwell’s general viewpoint is best expressed in his Foreword to Studies and further studies in a dying culture, which includes Heredity and development (written in 1935-1936, and published in 1971, posthumously):

“Either the Devil has come amongst us having great power, or there is a causal explanation for a disease common to economics, science and art” (Caudwell, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 246).

For Caudwell, the central problem is the atomized, alienated world of bourgeois science and culture, characterized by dialectical rifts – in society: between nature and society; in philosophy: between mechanism and idealism; and, in science: between mechanism and vitalism. Not only should these dualisms be opposed, but also that form of positivism which, by adopting a “reflective” view of the subject-object relation (the “correspondence” view of knowledge) simply denies the antithesis altogether (Foster 2000, p. 246).

Instead, Caudwell emphasizes the mutual determination (conditioning) of subject-object, organism-environment – seeing dialectic as an emergence expressing itself concretely in the co-evolution of humans and nature.

Caudwell rejects the notion that the environment is simply “inimical” – one-sidedly, in terms of the natural generation of over-population and a struggle for existence within and between species. Rather, the environment is enabling as well as limiting:

“It is not possible to separate organism from environment as mutually distinct opposites. Life is the relation between opposed poles which have separated themselves out of reality, but remain in relation throughout the web of becoming” (Caudwell, quoted in Foster 2000, pp. 248-249).

Like all relations, that between organisms and environment is mutually determining:

“A material becoming is what reality is” (Caudwell, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 249).

Thus, rooting his co-evolutionary approach to human/nature relations in Charles Darwin and Karl Marx, Caudwell avoids the bifurcation of the human and natural realms. In his hands, the conception of the “mastery of nature” becomes an unending process of dialectical interaction. His materialist, dialectical, co-evolutionary perspective captures the essence of the ecological worldview (See the present document under “The Response of the Green Movement”).

The Life Sciences: In the 1920’s, while Soviet ecology is arguably the most advanced in the world, Western models of ecology still tend to rely on reductionist, linear, teleologically-oriented assumptions, geared to natural succession (Foster 2000, pp. 241-242).

During the 1930’s, in England, however, there emerges a strong tradition of Marxist-influenced scientists, particularly biologists, represented by J. B. S. Haldane, Joseph Needham and John Desmond Bernal. The tradition gains momentum between the 1970’s and the 1990’s, with the work of Richard Lewontin, Stephen Jay Gould, and Richard Levins, who provide a strong scientific basis for ecological materialism.

John Burdon Sanderson Haldane (1892-1964): British geneticist and evolutionary biologist, J. B. S. Haldane, is a leading figure in the development of the neo-Darwinian synthesis within biology. In 1929, after working independently, but along parallel lines, Haldane and Alexander Oparin (1894-1980) offer the first materialist explanation for the emergence of living organisms from the inorganic world – a hypothesis which would become known as the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis (Foster 2000, p. 251).

(Noel) Joseph Needham (1900-1995): English biochemist and sinologist Joseph Needham rejects both the mechanist and vitalistic views, adopting instead a dialectical, materialist perspective:

“Marx and Engels were bold enough to assert that [the dialectic] happens in evolving nature itself” (Needham, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 251).

The incessant accumulation of capital, in once cycle after another, each new cycle taking the last as its starting point, produces divided, alienated human beings, and an increasingly destructive metabolism between humanity and nature. In Moulds of understanding (1976), Needham observes:

“[Under capitalism,] the conquest of Nature [turned into] the conquest of man. The technological instruments utilized in the dominance of Nature [produced] a qualitative transformation in the mechanisms of social domination” [Needham, quoted in Foster 2009, pp. 269 and 316 (2008)].

John Desmond Bernal (1901-1971): Irish scientist John Desmond Bernal, pioneer in X-Ray crystallography, writes a four-volume Science in history (1954), from a materialist perspective.

In his monumental work The origins of life (1967), referring to the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis, Bernal writes:

“The great liberation of the human mind, the realization first stressed by [Italian philosopher Giambattista] Vico [(1668-1744)], and then put into practice by Marx and his followers that man makes himself, will now be enlarged with the essential philosophical content of the new knowledge of the origin of life, and the realization of its self-creative character” (Bernal, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 251. See the present document under “The Evolution of dialectic, materialist Ecology,” “The Renaissance,” “Italy,” “Giambattista Vico”).

Alexander Oparin (1894-1980): Soviet biochemist Alexander Oparin authors The origin of life (1924, translated 1938). In 1929, after having worked independently, but along parallel lines, Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane offer the first materialist explanation for the emergence of living organisms from the inorganic world – a hypothesis now known as the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis (Foster 2000, p. 251).

Richard Lewontin (1929-): American evolutionary biologist, geneticist and social commentator Richard Lewontin is a leader in the development of the mathematical basis of population genetics and evolutionary theory.

With Richard Levins, Lewontin co-authors The dialectical biologist (1985) (Foster 2000, pp. 251-252. See the present document, next paragraph, “Richard Levins”).

Richard Levins: Mathematical ecologist and political activist Richard Levins focuses on evolution in changing environments.

In The dialectical biologist (1985), adopting a co-evolutionary perspective, co-authors Levins and Lewontin outline a new dialectical naturalism:

“A commitment to the evolutionary world view is a commitment to a belief in the instability and constant motion of systems in the past, present and future; such motion is assumed to be their essential characteristic” (Levins and Lewontin, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 252).

Like Friedrich Engels and Christopher Caudwell, but on a firmer scientific basis, Levins and Lewontin show that organisms do not simply adapt to their environment. They also change it:

“The organism [is] the subject and object of evolution . . . ”

“It is often forgotten that the seedling is the ‘environment‘ of the soil, in that the soil undergoes great and lasting evolutionary changes as a direct consequence of the activity of the plants growing in it, and these changes in turn feed back on the organisms’ conditions of existence” (Levins and Lewontin, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 252).

This dialectical analysis contrasts with ecology as interpreted by Frederic Clements (1874-1945), in which ecosystems are thought to demonstrate properties of growing diversity, stability and complexity, and pass through stages of succession, as if they were “super-organisms.”

With Yrjo Haila, Levins co-authors Humanity and nature: ecology, science and society (1992) (Foster 2000, p. 252. See the present document, next paragraph, “Yrjo Haila”).

Yrjo Haila: Finnish Professor of Environmental Policy at the University of Tampere, Finland, Yrjo Haila focuses on the social significance of environmental issues.

In Humanity and nature – ecology, science and society (1992), co-authors Yrjo Haila and Richard Levins analyze “the social history of nature,” from a Marxist perspective. Introducing the concept of “eco-historical periods,” they point to the changing human co-evolutionary relation to nature. A sustainable human relation to nature must be achieved, not within a static framework, but rather within the processes of change which are inherent both in society and nature – that is, within a changing interaction between society and nature (Foster 2000, p. 252).

Haila and Levins write:

“What matters is not whether we modify nature or not, but how, and for what purpose we do so” (Haila and Levins, quoted in Foster 2000, p. 254).

Stephen Jay Gould (1941-2002): Stephen Jay Gould, American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science, has a materialist and dialectical perspective, viewing nature and human society as a process of natural history.

Gould’s theory of “punctuated equilibrium” proposes that most evolution is marked by long periods of evolutionary stability, which are punctuated by rare instances of branching evolution. The theory contrasts with phyletic gradualism, the idea that evolutionary change is smooth and continuous (Foster 2000, pp. 252-253).

Fred Magdoff: In Nutrient cycling, transformation and flows, (1997), Fred Magdoff and co-authors Less Lanyon and Bill Liebhardt, focus on successive historical breaks in nutrient cycling. They view the first break, traceable to the Second Agricultural Revolution, in generally the same terms as do Justus von Liebig and Karl Marx – that is, as arising from the physical removal of human beings from the land, with the resulting development of a fertilizer industry. They view a second break traceable to a Third Agricultural Revolution:

“A subsequent break occurred with the third agricultural revolution (the rise of agribusiness). [This break] was associated . . . with the removal of large animals from the farms, the development of centralized feedlots, and the replacement of animal traction with tractors . . . The dependence on fertilizer nitrogen increased . . . with all sorts of negative environmental effects, including the contamination of ground water, the ‘death’ of lakes, etc . . . These developments . . . are now seen as connected to the distorted pattern of development that has characterized capitalism. [The developments take] the form of an ever more extreme rift between city and country – between what is now a mechanized humanity opposed to a mechanized nature” (Magdoff, quoted in Foster 2000, pp. 252-253).

Ecology is change involving contingency and co-evolution. Only such an understanding of ecology will enable us to turn the present destructive world trends in the direction of human freedom and ecological sustainability. The relationship between the materialist conception of history [the alienation of labor from itself (other laborers) and from its means of subsistence (land)], and the materialist conception of nature (the alienation of humans from nature) must be acknowledged. In order for human freedom to thrive, and ecology offer sustainability, alienation in all its aspects must be transcended.

Is nature to be dominated one-sidedly for narrow human ends? Or is the alienation of human beings from each other and from nature to be recognized for what it is – the estrangement of all that is human? If the latter, then alienation of all types must go, and no longer, as at present, be the pre-condition for human existence (Foster 2000, pp. 254 and 256).

save the earth – but most of all, save capitalism

The following are examples of responses to the global crisis which are within the confines of capitalism. The earth must be saved – but without changing the present power relationships in society. Society must remain made up of “investors” who do not work but rather put their money to “work,” and workers who have to work in order to subsist, and hence can be exploited by being remunerated less than the value of what they produce. The portion of the wealth created by labor and extracted by the owner, is called “surplus value” [the term coined by Karl Marx (1818-1883)] or more commonly, “value added in manufacture” (Parenti 2007, pp. 230-231).

The “green industrial revolution”: The “green industrial revolution” sets its horizon for change strictly within the horizon of capitalism. Concerns are technocratic, limited to such issues as fuel cleanliness, efficiency, and amount of emissions. It is fortuitous that solutions to global warming will also stimulate the economy, provide new jobs, and develop new, large-scale technologies.

President Barack Obama, 2009: In his speech to the United Nations, Special Session on global Warming, September 22, 2009, President Barack Obama outlined his plan:

“I am proud to say that the United States has done more to promote clean energy and reduce carbon pollution in the last eight months than at any other time in our history.”

“We are making our government’s largest-ever investment in renewable energy . . . in projects that are creating new jobs and new industries . . . We’re investing billions to cut energy waste in our homes, our buildings, and appliances . . . We’ve proposed the very first [U.S.] national policy aimed at both increasing fuel economy and reducing greenhouse gas pollution for all new cars and trucks . . . We’re moving forward with our nation’s first offshore wind energy projects. We’re investing billions to capture carbon pollution so that we can clean up our coal plants. And just this week, we announced that for the first time ever, we’ll begin tracking how much greenhouse gas pollution is being emitted throughout the country . . . I will work with my colleagues at the G-20 [meeting] to phase out fossil fuel subsidies . . . The House of Representatives passed an energy and climate bill in June that would finally make clean energy the profitable kind of energy for American businesses, and dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions” (Obama 2009, quoted in the Los Angeles Times 2009, pp. 2-4).

The rhetoric contrasts with actual federal subsidies. During the period 2002-2008, subsidies for traditional fossil fuels totaled 70 billion dollars (54 billion in tax breaks, and 16 billion in direct spending), while subsidies for traditional renewable energy totaled 12 billion. Additionally, $2 billion was spent on “carbon capture and storage” technology research, and $17 billion was spent on the production of ethanol from corn (with disastrous results on the worldwide food supply) (Burton 2009, p. 6).

Such arguments as Obama’s legitimize capitalism as a system of production, and pre-empt discussions of broader, non-technocratic approaches to global warming, such as social change. Technology is viewed first and foremost as a means to amass wealth.

President Mohamed Nasheed: In October 2009, hoping to draw attention to the impending submersion of his country (the lowest on earth) as a consequence of global warming, President of the Maldives, Mohamed Nasheed, gave a message similar to Obama’s:

“We are not talking about stopping production. We are not talking about stopping consumption. We are talking about another industrial revolution where renewable technology and greener technology remain at the heart of the new transformation, the transition of our economies to greener methods of producing and consuming things. So, basically, we don’t think that this issue, necessarily, is a negative issue” (Democracy Now! 2009, p. 3).

Similar approaches are expressed in Thomas Friedman, Hot, flat and crowded: why we need a green revolution – and how it can renew America (2008); Newt Gingrich and Terry Maple, A contract with the Earth (2007), Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break through – from the death of environmentalism to the politics of possibility (2007); and Arthur Mol and David Sonnenfeld, “Ecological Modernization Theory in Debate,” in Ecological modernization around the world (2000) [Foster 2009, pp. 16, 18-19, 22, 25-26 and 280 (1998). Foster 2002, p. 41. Wikipedia 2009 “Break through,” p. 1].

The “De-materialization” of the Economy: Dematerialization refers to a decrease in natural resources consumption per unit of economic output, achieved through an increase in the efficiency with which these resources are used, enabled by new technology and continual market adjustments [Foster 2009, p. 258 (2005)].

The World Bank, in its World Development Report, 1992, and Charles Leadbeater, in The weightless society (2000), argue that, in the advanced capitalist economies, the inflow of energy and materials, and the outflow of waste are being “decoupled” from economic growth. The result is a diminished environmental impact for each additional monetary increment of gross domestic product (GDP). “De-materialization,” therefore, is a natural outgrowth of capitalism. Innovation and the market will solve our environmental problem.

In The weight of nations – material outflows from industrial economies (2000), the World Resources Institute offers data contradicting the “de-materialization” hypothesis. Referring to the “Jevons paradox,” which states that efficiency gains are not accompanied by a reduction in material use [in the case of William Stanley Jevons (1835-1882), coal, in England], but rather by an increase in use, the World Resources Institute states:

“We have learned that efficiency gains brought by technology and new management practices have been offset by [increases in] . . . economic growth” (World Resources Institute, quoted in Foster 2002, pp. 22-23 and 94-95).

“human nature”: In capitalism, labor and land are considered commodities. People are reduced to being consumers. This fragmentation of reality is often attributed to innate characteristics of human beings, who are seen as mechanical, utility-seeking, profit-maximizers (Foster 2002, p. 54).

In A theory of justice (1968), American philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002), assumes as a given that rationality is self-maximization:

“I have assumed throughout that the persons in the original position [of seeking the general principles of social justice] are rational. In choosing between principles, each tries as best he can to advance his interests . . . It is rational for the parties to suppose that they do want a larger share . . . The concept of rationality [which] is invoked here . . . is the standard one familiar in social theory” (Rawls, quoted in McMurtry 1998, pp. 129 and 156, summarized in Hall 2009b, p. 22).

In Morals by agreement (1986), Canadian-American philosopher David Gauthier also assumes that rationality is “maximizing the interests of the self,” and goes on to apply it to morality. Morality tempers self-maximization with cooperation for common goals – no matter the nature of these common goals.

People are transformed into self-maximizing calculators, seeking the most for themselves, independently of all other considerations – a homogenous mass of greedy atoms, all with the same goal, operating mechanically within a social machine (McMurtry 1998, summarized in Hall 2009b, p. 22. McMurtry 1999, summarized in Hall 2008c, p. 34).

“the Scale of the human enterprise”: In The end of the long summer – why we must remake our civilization to survive on a volatile earth (2009), Dianne Dumanoksi attributes the present climate crisis to the sheer scale of the human enterprise:

“The encounter between this awesome Earth metabolism and an increasingly gargantuan human economy that dominates the planet, has given rise to the unique challenges of the planetary era . . . With the advent of the modern industrial economy, the human enterprise over the past two centuries has been transforming the Earth on a scale and at a speed that is mind-boggling and unprecedented. This great burst of profound and still accelerating change has been altering everything, everywhere on Earth. By its sheer magnitude, human activity is transforming the oceans and the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere, and unhinging this grand global metabolism that maintains conditions necessary for life” (Dumanoski 2009, p. 17. Emphases the author’s).

Without in one instance considering the economic order under which humans are destroying the Earth, and lacking a dialectic interpretation of humans/nature evolution, Dumanoski’s solution is to prepare our children to survive:

“It is already too late to prevent global warming, to save the world we have known . . . In the new planetary era, nature will not serve merely as a backdrop for human history, but will be a significant and unpredictable player” (Dumanoski 2009, pp. 65 and 92).

“The most formidable obstacle ahead may be an imaginative one . . . We need to imagine futures that don’t much resemble the present . . . The question is not how to preserve the status quo, but rather how to make our way in a new historical landscape . . . We should not forget, through the worst that lies ahead, that a long line of resilient survivors stands behind us. Human have done this before. This is a true and honest hope, with deep roots in the story of our endurance within a volatile and capricious nature” (Dumanoski 2009, pp. 9 and 129).

For Dumanoski, the solution is in individual morality:

“The failure to rise to this crisis [is] one of courage, of political, intellectual, and moral leadership, clarity of objective, long-range vision, and commitment to tomorrow and the day after” (Dumanoski 2009, p. 200).

“Costing” the Earth:

“Natural Capitalism”: American environmentalist and green entrepreneur Paul Hawken argues in favor of “natural capitalism” – a capitalism which would fully incorporate nature into its system of value. To ensure that corporations conform to the public interest with respect to the environment, Hawken would turn environmental amenities, previously valueless from the point of view of the market, into goods with a market value – that is, from being a “gift of nature,” to being a “stock of capital”:

“An economic system is not fully capitalist, unless everything – including nature – is treated as capital. [Moreover, the potential for] radical resource productivity – the more efficient utilization of energy and materials through new technology – means that there is no incompatibility between rapid and unlimited capitalist economic growth and environmental sustainability” [Hawken, quoted in Foster 2009, p. 135 (2003)].

Hawken thus seeks environmental reform in the very institutions which he himself views as responsible for the present resistance to environmental reform. He challenges neither the corporations nor the logic of capital accumulation. Ignored is the fact that infinite expansion within a finite environment is a contradiction in terms [Foster 2009, pp. 134-135 (2003). Foster 2002, pp. 10, 34, 48 and 58].

“Cap and Trade”: The “cap and trade” is a market-based incentive to reduce pollution by distributing tradable pollution permits to high polluters. Parts of the environment are thus turned into tradable commodities.

Carbon markets have been shown to be ineffective. The support of them by orthodox economists, such as Yale economist William Nordhaus, is based more on the fact that they create new markets and new means to accumulate than on their actual efficacy at addressing global warming [Foster 2009, p. 25 (1998). Foster 2002, pp. 30 and 34].

Founding editor of the Indypendent (the newspaper of the New York City Independent Media Center), Arun Gupta points out that, in effect, this approach uses the ecological crisis as a new opportunity for profit-making. Gupta summarizes:

“A ‘cap and trade’ system [as proposed by U.S. President Obama], will almost certainly fail because it is easy to create fictitious accounting for carbon cuts, and fabricate carbon offsets. It transfers public funds to polluters because they are given tradable pollution permits for free that they can then sell. It also creates an enormous new market . . . It is estimated that by 2020, the carbon trading market could be as much as 20 trillion dollars. This is bigger than all energy markets combined. The only way you can get a market this big is to create a vast amount of derivatives” (Gupta 2009).

Note: To put the $20 trillion in perspective: the Gross World Product [the combined gross domestic product (GDP) of all countries], in 2007, was $65 trillion (Social Edge 2008, p. 2).

The Waxman-Markey Climate and Energy Bill which passed the United States House of Representatives in June 2009, is likely to be ineffective from the start. Jesse Jenkins, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, of the Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, CA, calculate that the large decline in the country’s emissions during the economic recession years 2008-2009, ensure that the emissions cap of the Bill will require no reduction in carbon emissions through 2018 (Jenkins, Nordhaus and Shellenberger 2009, p. 2).

A Carbon Tax: James Hansen is Director of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in the Earth Sciences Division of the Goddard Space Flight Center, Institute for Space Studies, New York, N.Y. Also within the capitalist system, but more radical, is his 2008 suggestion of a carbon tax at well head and point of entry, with 100 percent of the revenue from the tax being re-distributed to the public monthly, on a per person basis (with children receiving half shares). The suggestion has received no support from orthodox economists [Foster 2009, p. 25 (1998). Angus 2009, pp. 215-216].

“Personal ethics”: Many in the Green movement are calling for a moral revolution in order to incorporate ecological moral values in our culture. Behind such appeals, is the presumption that we live in a society where the morality of the individual is the key to the morality of society. If individuals could change their moral stance with respect to nature, and alter their behavior, all would be well.

Realities overlooked include:

1. The fact that capitalism is a treadmill of production. Reduction of consumption in one area of the economy, promotes investment in another area, an investment which will increase productive capacity – and thus amplify the treadmill of production which is the basis of capitalism (Foster 2002, pp. 47-48).

2. What American sociologist C. Wright Mills (1916-1962) called “the higher immorality,” imbedded in the “structural immorality” of capitalism. Mills saw American society, which is dominated by the corporate rich and the political power elite, as a society of “organized irresponsibility,” in which moral virtue is divorced from success, knowledge severed from power, and public communication largely given over to propaganda for commodities. The corrupting influence on the general public is a loss of the capacity for moral indignation (Foster 2002, p. 46. Wikipedia 2009 “C. Wright Mills,” p. 1).

John Bellamy Foster, Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, reminds us that it is not people, as individuals or in the aggregate, who are the enemies of the environment. The enemy of the environment, rather, is, the historically specific economic and social order in which we live (Foster 2002, p. 50).

Geo-engineering: All of the options which geo-engineering offers are squarely within the capitalist system. Geo-engineers propose their grandiose solutions to climate change without an analysis of the economic system in which this climate change is taking place. They do not analyze the roots of the disturbance between humanity and nature – nature, of course, including human beings themselves. They offer more of the same remedies which have caused the problem in the first place. Many are funded by industry.

The Science of Geo-engineering:

Definition: The United States National Academies (“Advisors to the Nation”) consist of four academic institutions – the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, the Institute of Medicine, and the National Research council.

In 1992, the National Academy of Sciences, Committee on Science, Engineering and Public Policy, defined geo-engineering as:

“Options that would involve large-scale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry” (United States National Academy of Sciences, quoted in Wikipedia 2009 “Geo-engineering,” p. 1).

Geo-engineering is thus the deliberate, planetary-scale manipulation of the Earth’s climate, so as to counter its human-generated changes. As the New York Times explained, in June 2006, it means:

“Rearranging the Earth’s environment on a large scale to suit human needs and promote habitability” (New York Times, quoted in Wikipedia 2009 “Geo-engineering,” pp. 3 and 16).

In the face of skepticism, resistance, and even revulsion at the idea of deliberate, planetary-scale environmental modification, advocates of geo-engineering sometimes avoid the term altogether, using instead the benign, bureaucratic-sounding euphemism, “planet management.”

At present, no large-scale geo-engineering project has reached the operation stage. Because the technologies are as yet undeveloped, and yet proposed as solutions to emissions problem, they have been called “black box technologies.”

Yet, there is a rapidly rising interest in these technologies which are seen as possibly saving us from ourselves (Dumanoski 2009, p. 162).

For example, while attending a September 2009, conference at Oxford University, UK, with more than 100 scientists (in anticipation of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) conference, scheduled for November 30-December 11, 2009, Copenhagen, Denmark) Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Change, Potsdam, Germany, and an advocate of geo-engineering research, pointed to the weakness of the proposed legislation in the United States:

“Rich countries have to cut emissions by at least 40 percent by 2020, compared to 1990 levels, [in order] to stand a chance of stopping catastrophic climate change . . . [But] President Obama is already struggling to get legislation through the Senate that will commit the U.S. to cutting emissions [just] to 1990 levels” (Schellnhuber 2009, quoted in the Telegraph 2009b, pp. 1-3).

A reductionist Approach: As the reality of tipping points in the climate system becomes inescapable, geo-engineering solutions are taunted as “insurance,” “emergency options,” “quick fixes,” “back-up plans,” “Plan B,” “a bridge until stabilization at a ‘safe’ level can be achieved,” “a means of buying time,” “giving us time to act,” “giving us breathing space,” “giving the world a chance to come to its sense” – should global warming get out of control. Some are also taunted as being less expensive than conventional mitigation and adaptation efforts.

All these technological fixes are based on the appealing suggestion that global warming can be remedied without making fundamental changes in our global economy or energy system. The thinking reduces the degradation of all the Earth’s major ecosystems, to an issue of “management” – avoiding any consideration of the fundamental flaw in the relationship between humanity and nature, with humans being themselves being part of nature (Foster 2002, p. 20. Dumanoski 2009, p. 131-133 and 139-148. Wikipedia 2009 “Radiative Forcing,” p. 1. Wikipedia 2009 “List of proposed geo-engineering Projects,” pp. 1-9).

Examples of this narrow approach include the following:

Manvendra Dubey: The Los Alamos National Laboratory is a branch of the United States Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. It is managed and operated by the Los Alamos National Security Company, LLC, Los Alamos, NM.

In 2002, during his presentation at the 223^rd annual meeting of the American Chemical Society, in Orlando, FL, researcher Manvendra Dubey, of the Los Alamos Laboratory, Earth and Environmental Sciences Division, observed:

“Fossil fuel supplies are plentiful, and what will limit the usage of fossil fuels is the potential climatic and ecosystem changes you may see as a result of rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. If you can capture atmospheric carbon dioxide, then you limit the environmental impact of fossil fuels, and you can continue to use them. We have come up with a way to capture and sequester the carbon dioxide that we are putting in the atmosphere” (Dubey 2002, quoted in United States Government, Department of Energy, Los Alamos National Laboratory 2002, pp. 1-2. Daily Californian 2002, p. 1. Wikipedia 2009 “Los Alamos National Laboratory,” p. 1).

ClimateChangeCorp: In its 2007 article, “Carbon Capture – Geology’s Answer to the Climate Conundrum,” the independent news website ClimateChangeCorp (which provides analyses on climate change to companies around the word) displays a picture of industrial chimneys belching pollution into the atmosphere, with the caption:

“Getting emissions from here [the air] to underground is the problem” (ClimateChangeCorp 2007, p. 1. ClimateChangeCorp undated, p. 1).

Ken Caldeira: Geo-chemist Ken Caldeira is a Senior Scientist in the Department of Global Ecology (located in Stanford University, Stanford, CA), of the Carnegie Institution for Science (located in Washington, D.C.). The Carnegie Institution is privately endowed.

On the website of the Department of Global Ecology, Caldeira writes:

“Carbon dioxide is the right villain, insofar as inanimate objects can be villains” (Caldeira, quoted in Stanford University 2008, p. 1).

Brian Launder: In March 2009, the United Kingdom House of Commons, Science and Skills Committee, held hearings on geo-engineering. Greenpeace argued:

“Tinkering with our entire planetary system is not a dynamic new technological and scientific frontier, but an expression of political despair.”

Asked to counter this criticism, in terms of morality and ethics, Professor Brian Launder, of the University of Manchester, a leading advocate of geo-engineering research, answered:

“I do not think I can answer that simply because I have not acquainted myself sufficiently. I just keep my head down like any eager-beaver scientist” (Greenpeace’s statement and Launder’s answer, both 2009, and both quoted in United Kingdom Government 2009, pp. 18-19).

A comprehensive Approach: On its website, the Ward W. and Priscilla B. Woods Institute for the Environment, based in Stanford University, quotes the words of Ward W. Woods, who, in 2006, committed $30 million to the Institute:

“Solving the world’s urgent environmental problems takes bold ideas from leaders and experts in many fields, and involves [the] collaboration of researchers from diverse disciplines. Most of all, it takes a conviction that these problems are largely solvable, and a tough-minded commitment to seeking the solutions that gain traction in the real world. Stanford’s pre-eminence as a research university, and [its] history of multi-disciplinary cooperation, provide the best academic combination for addressing these problems” [Woods 2006, quoted in Stanford University undated (1), p. 1, and Stanford University 2006, p. 1]

But it is not true that in order to stop killing, one has to have “bold ideas from leaders and experts in many fields.” One only has to stop killing – only has to stop one’s destructive ways. Going from the car to the bicycle is not a bold idea. It is the acknowledgment the contingency imposed by nature to human freedom. It is the recognition that humans are part of nature and may not transgress its rules, even while they have to rely on nature for their needs.

The approach feeds into the treadmill of capitalism. Capitalism must continue to produce, for without production, there are no profits. It is better for the gross national product to do and undo, than to not do at all.

Characteristics of geo-engineering Technologies: All geo-engineering technologies have the following characteristics:

No change in Life Style: All the techniques can be applied while allowing the present, carbon-based economy to continue unchanged.

Scale: In scale, the operation of most techniques would dwarf the star wars defense system.

Environmental Issues: All the techniques raise major environmental considerations of their own.

Militarization: All the techniques raise the issue of their possible use as weapons (“weaponization”). A precedent has been set. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union researched large-scale engineering of the environment for military purposes.

Fallibility: All the techniques beggar the question of whether the equipment can be serviced, perhaps for centuries, and the operation of the mechanisms kept uninterrupted, even in the face of extreme weather events and possible political unrest.

Control: All the techniques raise the question as to whose finger will be on the Earth’s thermostat.

Cost: Some studies put the price of injecting sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere (the “Pinatubo option”) at $100 billion per year. This is well within the range of some 24 countries, corporations and wealthy individuals.

(Dumanoski 2009, p. 241. Foster 2002, pp. 20-21. Wikipedia 2009 “Geo-engineering,” pp. 3-4 and 10-11. New Scientist 2009b, p. 3. PhysicsWorld.com 2009, pp. 1-2. Blogcatalog.com 2009, pp. 1-2. American Association for the Advancement of Science, 2009b, p. 2).

Two Approaches to geo-engineering the Climate: Energy from the sun descends down to earth as light (short-wave radiation), and is reflected from the surface of the earth as heat (long-wave radiation) (Wikipedia 2009 “Geo-engineering,” p. 15).

The two approaches to geo-engineering of the climate, therefore, consist of:

“Solar Radiation Management,” which focuses on incoming light.

“Greenhouse Gas Remediation,” which focuses on outgoing heat. Methods can be either direct or indirect:

Direct: The capture of carbon dioxide.

Indirect: Ocean Fertilization.

Land Use Changes.

“Solar Radiation Management”: “Solar radiation management” and its euphemism, “making a sunshade for the Earth,” refer to reducing the amount of sunlight which reaches the Earth, thereby counteracting global warming. These technologies leave the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide unchanged, and hence, do not address other problems caused by the gas, such as ocean acidification (Wikipedia 2009 “Geo-engineering,” p. 4).

In their article, “The radiative forcing Potential of different Climate geo-engineering Options” (2009), Timothy Lenton, at the University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK, and Nem (N.E.) Vaughan, at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research (a consortium of universities, funded by the UK Research Councils, and located at the University of East Anglia), find that either the injection of sulfur aerosols into the stratosphere, or the brightening of marine clouds, could reverse the warming effect of as much as a doubling in atmospheric carbon dioxide over the pre-industrial level (Hulme 2009, p. 1).

Note: Pre-industrially (1750), the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide was 278 parts per million per volume (ppmv, or ppm). A doubling of this concentration is (278 x 2) = 556 ppm. A concentration of greenhouse gases stabilized at 550 ppm, gives an 85 (70-99) percent chance of exceeding a 2-degree rise above the pre-industrial global temperature, and a 33 percent chance of exceeding a 3-degree rise (Hall 2009c, pp. 30 and 32).

Injecting Sulfur Aerosols into the Stratosphere: Large volcano eruptions result in the mass injection of sulfates (oxidized sulfur dioxide particles) and other aerosols into the stratosphere. (The stratosphere is 16-50 kilometers above the Earth). Mimicking such eruptions would cause a cooling of the troposphere (the lower atmosphere, up to 16 kilometers above the Earth). This is theoretically feasible, since space shuttles presently fly in the thermosphere (80-640 kilometers above the Earth).

The eruption of Mount Tambora, in present-day Indonesia, probably caused the “year without a summer,” in 1816. The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo, in the Philippines, which injected 17 million tons of sulfur dioxide (SO₂) into the stratosphere, produced a 10 percent decrease in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the earth, and an average global temperature decrease of 0.4 degrees Celsius (0.7 degree Fahrenheit).

The idea of mimicking volcano eruptions and block the incoming sunlight by injecting sulfate particles into the stratosphere, goes back at least to F. Hoyle (in 1957); A. B. Kahle and D. Deirmendjian, of the Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA (in 1973); and Russian climatologist Mikhail Budyko (1920-2001) (in 1977).

More recently, it has been proposed by Hungarian-American theoretical physicist Edward Teller (1908-2003) (in 1997); Brad Allenby, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Professor of Law, Arizona State University (in 2000); William Nordhaus, Professor of Economics, and Joseph Boyer, both at Yale University (in 2000); Paul Crutzen, Dutch atmospheric chemist, Nobel Prize laureate (1995), now in the Department of Atmospheric Chemistry, Max Planck Institute for Chemistry, Mainz, Germany, the Scripps Institute of Oceanography, University of California, and Seoul National University, South Korea (in 2006); Ralph Cicerone, Professor (Emeritus) of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine, and, President (2005-) of the United States National Academy of Sciences (in 2006); Thomas Wigley, climate scientist, University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO (in 2006); and Lowell Wood, physicist, at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, CA (in 2009).

The delivery of the gases and particles would be by artillery (naval guns), rockets, hot air balloons, blimps, or a fleet of high-flying aircraft (such as the F15-C). Aerosols injected into the stratosphere have a residence time of 2-5 years.

(Wikipedia 2009 “Mount Pinatubo,” p. 3. Wikipedia 2009 “Karman Line,” pp. 2-3. Wikipedia 2009 “Solar Radiation management,” pp. 1-15. Wikipedia 2009 “Stratospheric Sulfur Aerosols,” pp. 1-7. Blogcatalog.com 2009, pp. 1-2. United States National Academies undated, p. 1. Obamanati.info 2009, p. 7).

“Increasing the Albedo of marine Clouds”: “Increasing the albedo of marine stratocumulus clouds,” or “marine cloud brightening,” refers to the spraying of salt water into the troposphere, at an altitude of 8-16 kilometers above the Earth. This would stimulate the formation of reflective droplets in stratocumulus clouds (which occur mostly over the ocean). Clouds would be brighter and reflect more sunlight back into space. The proposal was first expressed by John Latham, of the National Center of Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, and Stephen Salter, Professor (Emeritus) of Engineering Design, University of Edinburgh, UK (in 1990).

As proposed by John Latham and Stephen Salter, in 2008, a fleet of unmanned, wind-powered sailing vessels, equipped with satellite navigation, would sail back and forth, dragging large propellers which would act as turbines, and generate the power needed to create the spray. Aerosols injected into the troposphere have a residence of days to weeks (Wikipedia 2009 “Solar Radiation management,” p. 6).

Mirrors in Space: The idea of mirrors which would reflect sunlight goes back to 1965, when the Science Advisory Committee to President Lyndon Johnson presented its Report, Restoring the quality of our environment. The Report proposed the spreading on the ocean surface, of buoyant, shiny particles which would reflect some of the sun’s radiation back into space. The report was the first high-level Government policy document to draw attention to the threat of carbon dioxide-driven climate change. It did not mention the option of reducing fossil fuel use, identifying geo-engineering as the only possible response:

“The possibilities of deliberately bringing about countervailing climatic changes, therefore, need to be thoroughly explored” (Presidential Science Advisory Committee 1965, quoted in United Kingdom Government 2009, pp. 2-3).

The mounting of some 55,000 mirrors, each bigger than Manhattan, which would orbit in space and reflect incoming sunlight was first proposed by astronomer Roger Angel, Director of both the Steward Observatory Mirror Laboratory, and the Center for Astronomical Adaptive Optics, University of Arizona (Dumanoski 2009, p. 147. Globe and Mail 2006, p. 1).

Sun-refracting Discs in Space: In 2006, Roger Angel, at the University of Arizona, proposed deflecting sunlight by mounting into space 16 trillion transparent, wafer-thin, sun-refracting discs, each measuring 50 centimeters in diameter and weighing one gram. The sunshade of divergent mirrors would be fired one million miles above the Earth, using a cannon with a barrel one kilometer (0.6 miles) across. The discs would stay at the Lagrange 1 point – where the Earth’s and the Sun’s gravity exactly balance each other. The cost of the enterprise would be about $350 trillion. The discs would last 50 years before needing to be replaced.

The total area of the discs would be 4.1 million square kilometers – 0.8 percent of the total area of the Earth (510 million square kilometers). From 2004 to 2009, atmospheric carbon dioxide increased at the rate of 2.2 parts per million per year (from 379 to 390 parts per million). To counteract just this increase would require an annual increase in disc area of 31,000 square kilometers – an area larger than the state of Maryland (27,000 square kilometers).

Professor Angel is developing a pilot project, funded by the National Institute for Space Studies, Goddard Space Flight Center, Earth Sciences Division, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), New York. British inventor Leo Todeschini (aka Tod Todeschini), in Sandlake, Oxfordshire, UK, has built a 4-meter version of the proposed gun (Dumanoski 2009, p. 147. Scienceblogs.com 2009, p. 2. Hall 2009c, p. 28. Telegraph 2009a, pp. 1-4. Newser 2009, pp. 1-2. Todeschini 2006, p. 1).

Angel comments:

“What we have developed is certainly effective, and a method guaranteed to work . . . We expect to be ready to launch within 20-30 years . . . What you are talking about is a project which will stop global warming for centuries to come (Angel, quoted in Telegraph 2009a, p. 3).

In 2008, Dan Lunt, at the University of Bristol, School of Geographical Sciences, used a climate simulation model to assess the impact of a space-based sunshade. The model Lunt used was the same as that used by the Ministry of Defense, Met Office, Hadley Center for Climate Change, Exeter, UK, to model tropospheric aerosol injection. Lunt found that although the deployment of a sunshade would reduce the climatic impact of carbon dioxide emissions, it would not return the climate to its pre-industrial state. The loss of Arctic sea ice, for instance, would still proceed (United Kingdom Government 2009, pp. 12 and 15-16).

“Greenhouse Gas Remediation”: “Greenhouse gases remediation,” or “greenhouse gas management,” focuses on long wave radiation (heat), which is absorbed by greenhouse gases as it rises from the earth into the atmosphere.

Since carbon dioxide accounts for 77 percent of the present global warming effect, “greenhouse gas remediation” focuses principally on this gas (Hall 2009c, pp. 16 and 22-24. Wikipedia 2009 “Greenhouse Gas Remediation,” p. 1).

“Carbon dioxide remediation,” and its benign, bureaucratic-sounding euphemism, “carbon management,” refer to the removal and “sequestration” (permanent storage) of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The removal can be direct, as in carbon dioxide capture from fossil fuel fumes or the air, or it can be indirect, as in ocean fertilization or land use changes.

“Sequestration”: The principal problem with “carbon dioxide remediation” techniques is what to do with the gas, once extracted:

Land Burial: Proposals for land burial include injecting the gas into emptied oil or gas reservoirs (aging oil fields), coal seams, or saline aquifers.

The use of carbon dioxide injections to enhance crude oil extraction from aging oil fields has been used extensively in the United States since 1972. Texas alone has more than 10,000 carbon dioxide wells reaching down to large, naturally-occurring geological carbon dioxide formations. The gas is transported to partially-depleted oil fields by means of a network of pipelines which total in length more than 5,000 kilometers (3,000 miles).

The technique not only enhances crude oil recovery, and hence enhances profits, but by “storing” carbon dioxide, it enables oil companies to sell carbon offsets through carbon “cap-and-trade” systems. The independent news website ClimateChangeCorp, which provides climate analyses for businesses around the world, observes:

“The process currently enables oil companies to make money out of storing CO₂” (ClimateChangeCorp 2007, p. 1).

Ocean Burial: For ocean burial, proposals include pumping carbon dioxide into deep ocean waters or below the ocean floor.

Carbonation of the Earth’s Minerals: Carbonation of the Earth’s minerals, also called “carbon sequestration by minerals carbonation,” and more concisely, “minerals carbonation” or “mineral sequestration,” refers to using the Earth’s minerals to capture and “store” carbon dioxide. Proposals point to the abundance of minerals which can be transformed into their carbonated form, both on land and in deep sea formations (Dumanoski 2009, pp. 132 and 159-161. Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” pp. 8-11. Carbonation of the Earth’s minerals both “captures” and “sequesters” carbon dioxide. It is developed in the next section of the present document, under “Capture”).

“Capture”: “Carbon capture” refers to the direct extraction of carbon dioxide either from the fumes of burning fossil fuels or from the air, and its “permanent storage” by land burial, ocean burial, or mineral carbonation.

The principal carbon capture and sequestration proposals include the following:

Capture from Fumes: Fume “carbon capture and sequestration” is the most widely advocated technological fix for global warming. Since globally, coal-fired power plants account for more than a third of all carbon dioxide emissions, the method is also referred to as “clean coal technology.”

The carbon dioxide which is prevented from reaching the atmosphere, is that which arises at the time the industry produces it. The technology, therefore, prevents future global warming, and is thus called “mitigation” of global warming. It does not produce an instantaneous decrease in current global temperature, such as does, for instance, “solar radiation management” (Wikipedia 2009, “Carbon Sequestration,” pp. 1 and 8-10).

In 1996, the world’s first large-scale carbon dioxide sequestration project began operation in the North Sea. “Project Sleipner” of StatoilHydro, based in Norway, extracts carbon dioxide from natural gas by means of amine solvents, and injects it into the (sandstone) Utsira Formation, a deep saline aquifer under the North Sea. By 2008, 10 million tons of carbon dioxide had been stored, in what StatoilHydro described as:

“An environmentally friendly and safe way of reducing climate gas emissions” (Rigzone 2008, p. 1).

In 2000, the Dakota Gasification Plant, a coal-fueled synthetic natural gas plant, based in North Dakota, became the first coal-using plant in the world to “capture and store” carbon dioxide. The plant transports the gas through a 320-kilometer pipeline, for injection into the partially depleted Weyburn oil field, Saskatchewan, Canada. The vaunted result is not only an increase in the amount of oil which can be extracted from the field, but also a “storing” of what would have been atmospheric carbon dioxide causing global warming. The field may have the capacity for 30 million tons of carbon dioxide (United States Government, Department of Energy, National Energy Technology Laboratory 2008, pp. 1-2).

In 2002, the cement company TecEco began producing EcoCement which absorbs rather than releases carbon dioxide during its manufacture (Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” pp. 11 and 15).

In 2005, the Dakota Gasification Plant began injecting carbon dioxide into the partially depleted Midale oil field, adjacent to the Weyburn.

In 2008, in Estonia, the oil shale ash from an oil shale-fired power station began to be used as a sorbent for mineral sequestration of some of the carbon dioxide produced by the plant. About 10 percent of the carbon dioxide produced is thus sequestered (Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” pp. 11 and 15).

In 2009, in Lacq, southwestern France, site of one of the world’s largest natural gas fields, a natural gas-fired power plant began extracting carbon dioxide at a rate of 60,000 tons a year, and burying it in a nearby depleted natural gas field (Dumanoski 2009, pp. 155-156).

Capture from the Air: “Carbon air capture” and its euphemisms, “atmospheric restitution” and “scrubbing the air,” refer to extracting carbon dioxide from the air, and burying it – “forever.”

This technology has been advocated by German scientist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany, who, in 2008, coined the phrase “atmospheric restitution” (Telegraph 2009b, pp. 1-3).

In 2007, the Global Research Technologies Company, based in Tucson, Arizona, carried out the first successful demonstration of a prototype carbon dioxide air extraction device. The scientists involved were Klaus Lackner, Professor of Earth and Environmental Engineering, Columbia University, New York, himself one of the co-founders of the Global Research Technologies Company; and Wallace (“Wally”) Broecker, Professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Columbia University (Dumanoski 2009, pp. 157-158).

Professor Lackner has designed a 30-meter tall “synthetic tree,” (“artificial tree,” “scrubber”) in which air is passed over an alkaline chemical which removes the carbon dioxide “for storage elsewhere.” Each “tree” has the potential for the removal from the air of 90,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually (equivalent to 1,000 natural trees). “Synthetic trees” could be located either on land (such as in deserts) or at sea, and their number could be adjusted to the need.

Lackner comments:

“Just like a tractor is more powerful than a horse when it comes to plowing a field, these synthetic trees are about a thousand times faster in collecting carbon dioxide from the wind passing over them than their natural counterpart” (Lackner, quoted in United Kingdom Government 2009, p. 6).

Carbonation of the Earth’s Minerals: “Minerals carbonation” refers to the chemical process of having carbon dioxide react with abundantly available metal oxides – such as calcium oxide (CaO) and magnesium oxide (MgO) – to form stable carbonate salts [magnesium carbonate (MgCo₃) and calcium carbonate (CaCO₃)]. This is the process by which rock weathers over geological time periods, producing limestone. The process can occur either on land or under the ocean floor.

On Land: Calcium oxide accounts for 5 percent of the Earth’s crust; magnesium, sodium and ferrous oxide each account for 4 percent; and potassium and ferric oxide each account for 3 percent. Thus, theoretically, 22 percent of the Earth’s crust consists of minerals which could be transformed into carbonates. The problem then would become what to do with enormous amounts of carbonate rocks (Wikipedia 2009, “Carbon Sequestration,” pp. 9-10).

Under the Ocean Floor: Geophysicist David Goldberg, at the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory, Columbia University, New York, has studied the Juan de Fuca plate, a vast basalt formation about 100 miles off the west coast of Washington and Oregon states. Goldberg advises that “ocean basalt storage” (the injection of carbon dioxide in basalt formations deep under the ocean floor) could help significantly in the solution of the global climate problem. The carbon dioxide first mixes with sea water, and then reacts with the basalt, forming stable carbonate minerals. At this depth, the carbon dioxide is in its liquid form which is denser than water, and, therefore, should a leak occur, the gas would not rise to the surface. The Juan de Fuca plate has a possible storage capacity of 763 billion tons of carbon dioxide – sufficient to contain the U.S. carbon emissions (in 2004, 6 billion tons) for 127 years.

Goldberg observes:

“While years of research are still required, there is no technical reason why this method of storage would not work” (Goldberg, quoted in Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” p. 11).

(ZoomInfo.com 2008, p. 1. Guardian 2008, pp. 1-3. Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” pp. 10-11).

“Ocean Fertilization”: Ocean fertilization is an indirect way to capture and sequester atmospheric carbon dioxide. Phytoplankton (tiny plants floating near the surface of the ocean) absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and by taking it up into their bodies, fix it as biomass. Their growth is limited by the nutrient least available, usually iron or nitrogen.

In 2000, William Nordhaus, Professor of Economics, Yale University, CT, and Joseph Boyer, also at Yale, proposed distributing iron or nitrogen on the surface of the ocean to stimulate the growth of phytoplankton (Foster 2002, p. 20).

Iron:

In January 2009, with the authorization of the German Minister of Research (but against the wishes of the Minister of the Environment), researchers from the German National Institute of Oceanography and the Alfred Wegener Institute, sailing on the LOHAFEX expedition, spread six tons of iron sulfate over 300 square kilometers of the Scotia Sea, East of Argentina. This “ocean fertilization” is one of the largest such experiments to date. It is on the “high seas,” not “within coastal waters;” it violates the 2008 moratorium on ocean fertilization of the Convention on Biological Diversity; and its timing pre-empted discussions at the next scheduled meeting (February 2009) of the Bureau of the Convention on Biological Diversity (New Scientist 2007, pp. 2-52. United Kingdom Government 2009, p. 6. Humanitarian Futures 2009, p. 2).

The California-based company Climos, presently intends to carry out a demonstration program on ocean iron fertilization as a carbon mitigation technique, with the eventual aim of selling carbon offsets in exchange for ocean iron fertilization (United Kingdom Government 2009, p. 17).

Nitrogen: Ian Jones, Adjunct Professor of Civil Engineering, and Director of the Ocean Technology Group, Sydney University, Australia, has promoted the use of (nitrogen-rich) urea.

In 2007, the Ocean Nourishment Corporation, based in Sydney, Australia, sunk one ton of nitrogen in the Sulu Sea, off the Philippines, in order to increase oceanic photosynthesis, and thereby a possible carbon sequestration – and, if so, then an opportunity to sell carbon offsets (Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” p. 3. United Kingdom Government 2009, p. 17).

In October 2009, Ian Jones and colleague Rob Wheen, also at Sydney University, were considering other injections, such as 500 tons off the coast of the Philippines, and 1000 tons off the coast of Malaysia (io9.com 2009, pp. 1-3. Australian Broadcasting Corporation 2009, pp. 1-2. New Scientist 2009b, p. 4. Wikipedia 2009 “Ocean Nourishment,” p. 1).

Phosphorus: Adding phosphorous to the ocean may have greater long-term carbon sequestration potential than adding iron or nitrogen (Physicsworld.com 2009, p. 3. Scienceblogs.com 2009, p. 2. Wikipedia 2009 “Ocean Nourishment,” p. 1).

Mixing Ocean Water: Mixing the various layers of the ocean by means of large vertical pipes pumping nutrient-rich deep water to the surface, could stimulate the growth of algae, which, upon dying, would fall to the bottom of the ocean, and thus “sequester” carbon (Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” pp. 6-7).

The company Atmocean, based in New Mexico, is presently developing a 200 meter-deep ocean pump, powered by the waves, to bring deep, cold and nutrient-rich water to the surface, with the hope of stimulating the biota and an associated carbon sequestration (United Kingdom Government 2009, p. 17).

Land Use Changes:

Genetic Engineering for greater CO₂ Absorption: Plants act as carbon sinks. The Research Institute of Innovative Technology for the Earth, Kyoto, Japan, is developing carbon dioxide fixation by plants on a large-scale, by means of selective breeding and genetic modification (United Kingdom Government 2009, p. 7).

Genetic Engineering for greater solar Reflection: Genetic engineering for greater solar reflection refers to the use of genetic engineering to increase the albedo of plants (United Kingdom Government 2009, pp. 4-5. Wikipedia 2009 “Solar Radiation management,” p. 9).

Biochar Burial: Biochar is a charcoal-type material produced by the pyrolysis (burning at a very low level of oxygen) of biomass. The resulting material can be put in a landfill, used to produce an improved soil (terra preta), or burned and its carbon “captured and stored” (bio-energy with carbon storage, BECS).

The carbon in biochar is unavailable for oxidation to carbon dioxide. In The vanishing face of Gaia – a final warning (2009), British independent scientist James Lovelock advocates the use of biochar burial as the “one last chance to save mankind.” Simon Shackley, in the School of Geo-sciences, Biochar Research Center, University of Edinburgh, UK, estimates that the amount needed would be in the range of “one to two billion tons a year” (Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” p. 6. New Scientist 2009a, p. 1).

Bio-energy with Carbon Capture and Storage: Bio-energy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS), refers to the burning of biomass in power stations and boilers, with the “capture and storage” of the released carbon. The carbon acquired by the plants during their growth is thereby removed from the atmosphere” (Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” pp. 7-8).

Reforestation: Reforestation is the planting of trees on marginal crop and pasture lands, to transfer carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to biomass.

Agricultural Practices: In practice, most farming operations which incorporate crop residues, wastes, and by-products back into the soil, provide a carbon storage benefit. Agricultural methods can also be used to increase carbon absorption by the soil. Typically, however, after 15-30 years of such “carbon sequestration,” the soil becomes saturated and ceases to absorb more carbon.

The governments of Australia and New Zealand are considering allowing farmers to sell carbon credits, upon documentation of an increase in the carbon content of their soil (Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” pp. 5-6).

Peat Production: Peat bogs store carbon, and increasing them is a “carbon sequestration” method (Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” p. 6).

Biomass Burial: Burying biomass, such as trees, sequesters the carbon in the ground rather than letting it escape (Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” p. 8).

Biomass Ocean Storage: Transporting crop waste out to sea and allowing it to sink, and hence, be “stored” in the deep ocean, has been proposed as a means to sequester carbon (Wikipedia 2009 “Carbon Sequestration,” p. 8).

The Politics of Geo-engineering: Both the United Kingdom and the United States are positioning themselves to have a federal policy which includes geo-engineering research.

United Kingdom: In the United Kingdom, recent evaluations of the geo-engineering options have included the following:

Timothy Lenton and Nem (N. E.) Vaughan: Timothy Lenton is at the School of Environmental Sciences, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK. Nem (N.E.) Vaughan is at the Tyndall Center for Climate Change Research, a consortium of universities, funded by the UK Research Councils, and located at the University of East Anglia (Hulme 2009, p. 1).

In their January 2009, review, “The radiative Forcing Potential of different Climate geo-engineering Options,” Lenton and Vaughan use net radiative forcing (watts per square meter of globally-averaged negative forcing) to compare different techniques – thus providing the first numerical comparison of the techniques in terms of scientific plausibility (rather than practical considerations, such as engineering feasibility or economic cost).

Lenton and Vaughan conclude:

“[Climate] geo-engineering is best considered as a potential complement to the mitigation of CO₂ emissions, rather than as an alternative to it” (Lenton and Vaughan 2009, quoted in Wikipedia 2009 “Geo-engineering,” pp. 14-16).

The British Parliament: In March 2009, the British Parliament, House of Commons, issued its Report, Engineering – turning ideas into reality.

Peter (the Right Honorable Lord) Mandelson, Secretary of State for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and Chair of the Section, “Geo-engineering – a new Policy Area,” summarizes:

“We heard concern that current efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions may be insufficient, both in terms of scale and speed of implementation, to enable effective climate change management” (Mandelson 2009, quoted in United Kingdom Government 2009, p. 7).

The Report quotes what Professor Brian Launder, of the University of Manchester, a leading advocate of geo-engineering, wrote in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (2009):

“There is increasingly the sense that governments are failing to come to grips with the urgency of setting measures in place that will assuredly lead to our planet reaching a safe equilibrium. Today, the developed world is struggling to meet its (arguably inadequate) carbon-reduction targets, while emissions by China and India have soared. Meanwhile, signs suggest the climate is even more sensitive to atmospheric CO₂ levels than had hitherto been thought” (Launder 2009, quoted in United Kingdom Government 2009, pp. 7-8 and 15).

The Royal Society: In its September 2009 Report, Geo-engineering the climate – science, governance and uncertainty, the British Royal Society evaluates geo-engineering schemes in terms of effectiveness, affordability, timeliness and safety. It assigns qualitative estimates to each option. (The chair of the Report was John Shepherd, earth scientist at the University of Southampton, UK).

The Report concludes:

“Parties to the United Nations Framework Conference on Climate Change (UNFCCC) should make increased efforts towards mitigating and adapting to climate change, and in particular, to agreeing to global emissions reductions . . . [Nothing] now known about geo-engineering options gives any reason to diminish these efforts.”

“[Nevertheless], research and development of geo-engineering options should be undertaken to investigate whether low risk methods can be made available, if it becomes necessary to reduce the rate of warming this century” (Wikipedia 2009 “Geo-engineering,” p. 15. Guardian 2009, pp. 1-4. New Scientist 2009b, pp. 1-3).

As of 2009, the British government is actively supporting research relevant to geo-engineering, through its Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, and its Natural Environment Research Council (United Kingdom Government 2009, p. 14).

United States: In the United States, recent evaluations of the geo-engineering options include the following:

President Barack Obama: On April 8, 2009, during an interview with the Associated Press, John Holdren, Chief Science Advisor to the President, reported that discussions in the White House on the subject of geo-engineering include Cabinet officials, and heads of sub-Cabinet level agencies, such as the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA):

“We’re talking about all these issues in the White House. There is a very vigorous process going on of discussing all the options for addressing the energy climate challenge” (Holdren 2009, quoted in MSNBC.msn.com 2009, pp 1-2. Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media 2009, p. 5).

Administration Agencies:

The National Science Foundation: The National Science Foundation is a government agency which supports fundamental research and education in the non-medical fields of science and engineering. (Its medical counterpart is the National Institutes of Health).

In 2004, the National Science Foundation helped found the “Decision Making Center” at the Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, with a five-year, $6.9 million grant. The Center is directed by Granger Morgan, an advocate of geo-engineering research (Wikipedia 2009 “National Science Foundation,” p. 1. Carnegie Mellon University 2009a, p. 1).

The Environmental Protection Agency: In 2008, the United States Environmental Protection Agency hosted geo-chemist Ken Caldeira, Senior Scientist in the Department of Global Ecology, of the Carnegie Institution for Science. Caldeira is a leading exponent of “climate emergency response research” (Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media 2009, p. 4. Stanford University 2008, p. 1).

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration: The United States National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) is responsible for the nation’s public program on space.

NASA is funding a pilot project by Professor Roger Angel, at the University of Arizona, for the deployment of sun-reflecting discs in space as a method of “solar radiation management” (See the present document under “Geo-engineering,” “The Science of Geo-engineering,” “Solar Radiation Management,” “Sun-refracting Discs in Space”).

In September 2009, as part of its “Charged Aerosol Release Experiment,” NASA created a “nocti-lucent” (shining at night) cloud by launching a rocket which emitted exhaust particles in the thermosphere, at 278 kilometers (173 miles) above the Earth. (The troposphere is up to 16 km; the stratosphere, to 50 km; the mesosphere, to 80 km; and the thermosphere, to 640 km). The United States Naval Research Laboratory, the Department of Defense (through its Space Test Program), and several universities cooperated in NASA’s experiment (Space.com 2009, pp. 1-2).

The Department of Energy:

The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: The Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is a branch of the Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration. It is managed and operated by the Lawrence Livermore National Security Company, LLC.

The Lawrence Livermore National Security Company is administered as a partnership between the University of California, Bechtel Corporation (a private engineering company), Babcock and Wilcox (a private engineering company), the URS Corporation (a private engineering design firm), and the Battelle Memorial Institute (a private, non-profit, applied science and technology development company).

In 2002, the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory showed that compensating for the warming of the planet by decreasing the amount of sunlight reaching the planet, would achieve not only a curbing of warming but also a more vigorous ecosystem. Principal researcher, physicist Bala Govindasamy, explained:

“We noticed that in a CO₂-enriched world, the terrestrial biosphere is largely unaffected by decreases in surface solar radiation, by a couple of percentage points, through various geo-engineering schemes” (Govindasamy 2002, quoted in United States Government, National Aeronautics and Space Administration 2002, p. 1).

(United States Government, Department of Energy, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 2006, pp. 1 and 4. Wikipedia 2009 “Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,” p. 1. Wikipedia 2009 “Bechtel,” p. 1. Wikipedia 2009 “Babcock and Wilcox, p. 1. Wikipedia 2009 “URS Corp.,” p. 1. Wikipedia 2009 “Battelle Memorial Institute,” p. 1).

Discussions with the National Academy of Sciences: In 2008, the Department of Energy discussed the issue of geo-engineering with Ralph Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences. Ralph Cicerone is an advocate of geo-engineering research (Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media 2009, p. 4).

The Department of Defense:

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA): The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) is the agency of the Department of Defense responsible for developing new technology for the military.

The official advisory group to DARPA is the Defense Sciences Research Council, chaired by William King, Professor of Mechanical Engineering, and Director of the Nano-scale Thermal Processing Laboratory, at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign.

In March 2009, the Council held a meeting on geo-engineering at Stanford University. One of the participants was geochemist Ken Caldeira, of the Carnegie Institution for Science, Department of Global Ecology. ScienceInsider (of the American Association for the Advancement of Science) reports that Caldeira said he would support DARPA studying the topic:

“in case an adversary were to use it” (Caldeira, quoted in Wired Magazine 2009, pp. 1-3. American Association for the Advancement of Science 2009a, p. 2).

The Defense Sciences Research Council has recommended that DARPA consider funding research in geo-engineering (Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media 2009, p. 4. American Association for the Advancement of Science 2009a, pp. 1-2. University of Illinois 2009, p. 1. Wikipedia 2009 “DARPA,” p. 1).

The official Academic Organization:

The National Academy of Sciences: The President of the National Academy of Sciences is Ralph Cicerone, Professor (Emeritus) of Earth System Science, University of California, Irvine.

The Academy has established a “Panel on Advancing the Science of Climate Change,” which met for the first time in January 2009, to consider:

“the research needed to better understand the potential efficacy, impacts, and risks of various ‘geo-engineering’ [options] (direct interventions in the climate system”) (Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media 2009, p. 10).

The Chair of the Panel is Pamela Matson, Dean of the School of Earth Sciences, Stanford University; Professor of Environmental Studies, Stanford University; Senior Fellow of the Ward W. and Priscilla B. Woods Institute for the Environment; and co-leader of the “Initiative on Environment and Sustainability,” led by Stanford University (United States National Academy of Sciences 2008, p. 1).

Note: From 1989 to 1999, Ward W. Woods was president and chief executive officer of Bessemer Securities Corporation, established in 1911 to invest proceeds from the share of Henry Phipps, after the sale of Carnegie Steel Company. In 2006, Ward and his wife Pricilla committed $30 million to the Stanford Institute for the Environment – then renamed the Ward W. and Pricilla B. Woods Institute for the Environment [Stanford University undated (1), p. 1. Stanford University undated (2), p. 1. Stanford University 2006, p. 1. Wikipedia 2009 “Bessemer Venture Partners,” p. 1].

An international Workshop: On April 20 and 21, 2009, in Lisbon, Portugal, a group of about 30 experts from science, business and government, representing 14 nations (in North America, Central America, Europe, Russia and China) held (by invitation only) the first international workshop on the political aspects of geo-engineering.

The title of the workshop was, “Understanding and governing the Risks of planetary-scale geo-engineering.” The discussion was held under “Chatham House Rule,” meaning that participants were under obligation not to disclose either the identity or the affiliation of the participants (Lenton 2009, p. 1. Wikipedia 2009 “Chatham House Rules,” p. 1).

Conveners: The workshop was convened by:

The Portuguese Ministry for Science, Technology and Higher Education, and the Science and Technology Foundation, through which the Ministry channels its funding (Wikipedia 2009 “Science and Technology in Portugal,” p. 2).

The Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation. The Foundation is full owner of the Partex Oil and Gas (Holdings) Corporation, based in Lisbon, Portugal. Partex has access to oil and gas assets based on the percentage ownership of resources which it is estimated will be produced throughout the remaining life of the concessions in which it participates. As of 2005, its oil and gas resources totaled 215 million barrels of oil equivalents (Wikipedia 2009 “Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation,” pp. 1-2. Wikipedia 2009 “Partex,” pp. 1-3).

The International Risk Governance Council. The Council, founded in 2003, at the initiative of the Swiss Government, is an independent organization with the purpose of helping the understanding and management of emerging global risks which impact human health and safety, the environment, the economy, and society at large.

The Council is a foundation funded by governments and industry. The Chair of Board is Donald Johnston, formerly Secretary General of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). The Chair of its Scientific and Technical branch is Granger Morgan, of the Carnegie Mellon University, an ardent advocate of geo-engineering research. The Foundation has a full-time Secretariat in Geneva, Switzerland (Wikipedia 2007 “International Risk Governance Council,” p. 1. International Risk Governance Council 2009a, p. 1. International Risk Governance Council 2009b, p. 1).

Cooperating Institutions: Cooperating institutions for the workshop included:

The United States National Science Foundation. The United States government cooperated through its Climate Decision Making Center, directed by Granger Morgan, at the Carnegie Mellon University. (The Center was founded in 2004, with a five-year, $6.9 million grant from the National Science Foundation) (Wikipedia 2009 “National Science Foundation, p. 1. Carnegie Mellon University 2009a, p. 1).

The Carnegie-Mellon University. The Carnegie-Mellon University cooperated through its Carnegie Mellon-Portugal Program.

The University of Calgary. The University of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, cooperated through its Energy and Environmental Systems Group, directed by geo-engineer David Keith. Keith is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Engineering and Public Policy at Carnegie Mellon University, a Department headed by Granger Morgan (Wikipedia 2009 “David Keith,” p. 1. Carnegie Mellon University 2009b, p. 1).

The Energy and Environmental Systems Group of the University of Calgary describes as its first priority to:

“ . . . reduce the environmental footprint of our fossil fuel energy system, including through carbon-efficient recovery and processing, carbon capture and storage . . .” [University of Calgary undated (1), p. 2].

Among its goals, the Institute describes:

“Enhancing value through the creation of new knowledge and innovative technologies . . .” [University of Calgary undated (2), p. 1].

Participants: Known workshop participants included Granger Morgan, Director of the Climate Decision Making Center at Carnegie Mellon University; Ken Caldeira, geo-chemist at the Carnegie Institution of Washington; Tim Lenton, of East Anglia University, UK; and John Steinbruner, Professor of Public Policy, and Director of the Center for International and Security Studies, at the University of Maryland.

While the discussions were not made public, their tenor can be surmised by an article in the March/April 2009 issue of Foreign Affairs co-authored, among others, by at least two of the workshop’s participants (Granger Morgan and John Steinbruner). The article is entitled, “The geo-engineering Option: A last Resort against global Warming?” (Obamanati.info 2009, pp. 6-7).

The authors of this article are:

David Victor, Professor of Law, and Director of the Program on Energy and Sustainable Development, Stanford University; Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

M. Granger Morgan, Director of the Carnegie Mellon University, Department of Engineering and Public Policy; and Director of the Climate Decision Making Center, which is supported by the National Science Foundation, and located in the Carnegie Mellon University.

Jay Apt, Professor of Engineering and Public Policy at the Carnegie Mellon University.

John Steinbruner, Professor of Public Policy, and Director of the Center for International and Security Studies, University of Maryland.

Katharine Ricke, doctoral student at Carnegie Mellon University.

The article describes:

“Geo-engineering is an option at the disposal of any reasonably advanced nation. A single country could deploy geo-engineering systems from its own territory, without consulting the rest of the planet.”

“At some point in the near future, it is conceivable that a nation that has not done enough to confront climate change, will conclude that global warming has become so harmful to its interests that it should unilaterally engage in geo-engineering . . . Politicians must take geo-engineering seriously because it is cheap, easy, and takes only one government with sufficient hubris or desperation to set it in motion.”

“Although governments are the most likely actors, some geo-engineering options are cheap enough to be deployed by wealthy and capable individuals or corporations . . . Private-sector geo-engineers might very well attempt to deploy affordable geo-engineering schemes on their own . . . Already, private companies are running experiments on ocean fertilization in the hope of sequestering carbon dioxide, and earning credits that they could trade in carbon markets” (Foreign Affairs 2009).

capitalism must go, if the earth is to be saved

Capitalism as a world economy, with class divisions and a driving competition, embodies a logic which accepts no boundaries either on its own expansion, or on the exploitation of its environment [Foster 2009, p. 15 (1998)].

The dialectic (historical) materialism approach is based on the concept that human beings make their own environments – though not under conditions entirely of their choosing. Their choice is based on conditions handed down from the earth and from earlier generations in the course of history – a history which is both natural and human [Foster 2009, p. 160 (2002)].

There are many ways in which a society can be organized so as to have a focus on life and life’s needs, rather than money accumulation. The first step, however, is the ability and courage to think outside the present capitalist organization of society.

The following are examples of people whose thinking about the exploitation of labor and/or nature, draws attention to the values of capitalism.

The Twentieth Century:

Hannah Arendt (1906-1975): German-American political theorist Hanna Arendt sees the alienation of humans from the land [the original (primitive) accumulation of capitalism, described by Karl Marx (1818-1883)], as a specific and crucial manifestation of a more general alienation of humans from the world. This general alienation began with the advent of science and technology which cause modern humans to apprehend the world through machines – no longer immediately through the direct evidence of their five senses.

Capitalism, Arendt says, is only possible within the context of such a generally alienated society:

“The process of wealth accumulation, as we know it [in the modern age], is possible only if the world and the very worldliness of man are sacrificed . . . [It has] enormously increased human power of destruction [so] that we are able to destroy all organic life on earth, and shall probably be able one day to destroy even the earth itself.”

“Under modern [capitalist] conditions, not destruction but conservation spells ruin because the very durability of conserved objects is the greatest impediment to the turn-over process, whose constant gain in speed is the only constancy left wherever it has taken hold” [Arendt (The Human Condition) 1958, pp. 248-273, quoted in Foster 2009, pp. 269-270 and 317].

John Ellis: In The social history of the machine gun (1975), John Ellis, author of 15 books about recent wars, points to the self-serving context in which the discovery and development of the machine gun took place at the end of the 19^th century. More generally, any technology developed by a society reflects the values of that society.

Ellis describes:

“Machine gun development, then, revealed many of the most unattractive aspects of the brash and often brutal spirit of nineteenth-century capitalism. The inventors, complacently proud of having overwhelmed the technical difficulties inherent in producing reliable automatic weapons, saw no reason why they should not sell as many as possible, and reap the rewards of their ingenuity.”

“Nor is the relationship between machine gun development and capitalist methods merely limited to the clamor of the market place. One of the very first benefits that men saw in this ability to bring massive firepower to bear from just one gun, was its possible use in the war between capital and labor . . . [The guns served] gangs of company vigilantes who all realized that here was a stunningly economical means of deterring the discontented workers, or, if the worst came to the worst, of killing a few as a warning the rest” (Ellis 1975, p. 15).

In 1877, writing to John Garrett, President of the Baltimore and Ohio (B&O) Railroad Company, during a strike, the Gatling Gun Company noted:

“the recent riotous disturbances around the country . . . Four or five men only are required to operate [a Gatling gun], and one Gatling . . . can clear a street or block, and keep it clear” (Biglabor.com 2009, p. 1).

A few of the instances where Gatling or Thompson machine guns were displayed and/or used to protect businesses from strikers and demonstrators, include The New York Times, NY (1863); Pittsburgh, PA (1877); Briceville,TN (1891); Carnegie’s Homestead steel mills, PA (1892); Cripple Creek, CO (1903); Cabin Creek, CO (1912); Ludlow, CO (1913); West Virginia (1920 and 1922); and San Francisco, CA (1923) (Ellis 1975, pp. 42-44).

Ellis observes:

“Even in the 1930’s, one harassed American entrepreneur remarked, ‘You can’t run a mining company without a few Tommy guns’” (Ellis 1975, p. 15).

John McMurtry: John McMurtry is Professor (Emeritus) of Philosophy at the University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. In The cancer stage of capitalism (1999), McMurtry offers criteria for determining the health or pathogenicity of a value system, such as the market system:

“In a value system which is still open or ‘healthy,’ there is a critical feedback loop between its principles of preference and its practice, such that, if harm or disability follows from the living out of its principles, then the two can be connected, and revision or restraint of the programme can proceed on this basis.”

“In a value program which is closed, such connections of value cause and effect are ruled out of view, and so the systemic harms or disabilities following from imposition of the value-set, continue to build to higher levels of life reduction” (McMurtry 1999, p. 35, summarized in Hall 2008c, p. 28).

The pathological core of our present condition is the lack of a healthy feedback loop in the global market system:

“At this stage of the global market system . . . , a systematic and irreversible destruction of planetary life-organization emerges for the first time in history. If we consider the defining principles of carcinogenic invasion and eventual destruction of a life-host, . . . we discern a carcinogenic pattern increasingly penetrating and spreading across civil and environmental life-organization” (McMurtry 1999, p. 113).

The twenty-first Century

Terry Townsend: Terry Townsend is Managing Editor of Links: International Journal of socialist Renewal. In a presentation entitled, “Climate Change – a Marxist Analysis,” given to the Democratic Socialist Perspective, Socialist Summer School, in Australia, in 2007, Townsend observes:

“Capitalism is a system that pursues accumulation and growth for its own sake, whatever the consequences. It is a juggernaut, driven by the single-minded need on the part of business for ever-greater accumulation of capital” (Townsend 2007, p. 112).

“A plethora of ‘blueprints’ for an ecologically sustainable world have been produced by the dozens, by Green groups here and around the world, containing logical and common sense solutions to global warming and the general environmental crisis. They fail, not because their proposals for a rapid conversion to renewable energy, and the rational re-organization of production and consumption are far-fetched. They fail because they do not accept that capitalism is incapable of bringing them into being” (Townsend 2007, p. 116).

Herve Kempf: In How the rich are destroying the earth (2007), Herve Kempf, Environmental Editor of Le Monde, decries the failure of the Green movement to recognize the dialectic between the social and the ecological:

“The social system that presently governs human society – capitalism – blindly sticks to its guns against the changes that are indispensable, if we want to preserve the dignity and promise of human existence . . . You will read an alarm here, but above all, a double appeal upon which the future success of everything depends: to ecologist, to think about social arrangements and power relationships; to those who think about social arrangements, to take the true measure of the ecological crisis and how it relates to justice.”

“We cannot understand the concomitance of the ecological and social crises, if we don’t analyze them as the two sides of the same disaster.”

“What is necessary is that ecological concerns be articulated in a radical political analysis of current relationships of domination” (Kempf 2007, pp. xii-xiv).

“Overall, poverty and the environmental crisis are inseparable. Just as there is a synergy between different ecological crises, there is a synergy between the global environmental crisis and the social crisis. They respond to one another, influence one another, and deteriorate in tandem” (Kempf 2007, p. 43).

“The left will be reborn by uniting the causes of inequality and the environment – or, unfit, it will disappear in the general disorder that will sweep it and everything else away” (Kempf 2007, p. 100).

Gregory (“Greg”) Palast: In his 2008 Introduction to the book by Herve Kempf, The rich are destroying the earth (2007), journalist Greg Palast, quips:

“Kempf gets it. Environmental devastation is class war by other means” (Palast 2008, p. viii).

Joel Kovel: In The enemy of nature – the end of capitalism or the end of the world? (2002/2007), Joel Kovel, Professor of Social Studies at Bard College, and 2000 candidate for the Green Party Presidential nomination, writes:

“The current stage of history can be characterized as structured by forces that systematically degrade, and finally exceed the buffering capacity of nature with respect to human production, thereby setting into motion an unpredictable, yet interacting and expanding set of ecosystemic breakdowns.”

“In this [ecological crisis], we observe the de-synchronization of life-cycles, and the disjointing of species and individuals, resulting in the fragmentation of ecosystems, human as well as non-human, along with vast changes in species composition (as well as the more formal environmental aspect of things). Humanity is not just the perpetrator of the crisis. It is its victim as well. And among the signs of our victimization is the incapacity to contend with the crisis, or even to become conscious of it” (Kovel 2002/2007, p. 23, summarized in Hall 2009a).

“Capital is both eco-destructive and un-reformable” (Kovel 2002/2007, p. 277, summarized in Hall 2009a).

Michael Parenti: In his essay, “Why the corporate Rich oppose Environmentalism” (2007), author and lecturer Michael Parenti describes:

“Just as corporate capitalism undermines ecology, so too is ecology profoundly subversive of capitalism. It needs planned, environmentally sustainable production rather than the rapacious, unregulated, free-market kind. It requires economical consumption rather than an artificially stimulated, ever-expanding, wasteful consumerism. It calls for natural, relatively clean and low-cost energy systems rather than high-cost, high-profit, polluting ones.”

“The present ecological crisis has been created by the few at the expense of the many. In other words, the struggle of environmentalism is part of the class struggle itself, a fact that seems to have escaped many environmentalists but is well understood by the plutocrats . . .”

“This time, the plutocratic drive to ‘accumulate, accumulate, accumulate’ may take all of us down, once and forever” (Parenti 2007, pp. 95-97).

Stan Cox: In Sick planet – corporate food and medicine (2008), Stan Cox, Senior Scientist at The Land Institute of Salina, KS, identifies the penetration of capital into all aspects of life, with deadly effects. Only a radical attack on the roots of this disease can reverse the slide of our civilization into oblivion:

“We now come to the question of what lies behind the economic system’s tolerance of alien industrial chemicals; its treatment of natural food as a luxury; its lust for outdated, fossil-fuel-based development; its rationing of vital products like natural gas, based on the ability to pay; its parallel abuses of people and the land; its tendency to ‘solve’ health problems caused by consumption with more consumption; its hard-selling of drugs to people at one end of the socio-economic scale, that results in sickness at the other; and its non-stop malignant growth” (Cox 2008, p. 153, summarized in Hall 2008d).

“The preceding chapters have illustrated how the most well-intended businesses – like those whose aim is to put wholesome food on the table, produce life-saving drugs, keep hospitals sterile, make farmland more fertile, and keep people fit – can undermine those very efforts, when their one mandatory obligation is to turn a profit for owners and shareholders” (Cox 2008, p. 156, summarized in Hall 2008d).

“I have tried to illustrate how the system destroys, even as it provides the everyday necessities of human life” (Cox 2008, p. 156, summarized in Hall 2008d).

John Bellamy Foster: John Bellamy Foster, Professor of Sociology at the University of Oregon, Eugene, OR, concludes his book The ecological revolution – making peace with the planet (2009), with an essay entitled “Ecology and the Transition from Capitalism to Socialism.”

Foster argues:

“It is crucial to understand the intimate connection between classical Marxism and ecological analysis. Far from being an anomaly for socialism, as we are often led to believe, ecology was an essential component of the socialist project from its inception – notwithstanding the numerous later shortcomings of Soviet-type societies in this respect.”

“The global ecological crisis that now confronts us, is deeply rooted in the ‘world-alienating’ logic of capital accumulation – traceable to the historical origins of capitalism as a system.”

“The transition from capitalism to socialism is a struggle for sustainable human development, in which societies on the periphery of the capitalist world system have been leading the way” (Foster 2009, p. 265).

The Eco-socialist International Network: The Belem Declaration of the Eco-socialist International Network was drafted by Danielle Follett (art critic, University of Paris, France); Joel Kovel, author of The enemy of nature – the end of capitalism or the end of the world? (2002/2007); Michael Lowy, French-Brazilian sociologist and philosopher, presently with the French National Center for Scientific Research, Paris, France; and Ian Angus [editor of Climate and Capitalism (on-line), and editor of The global fight for climate justice – anti-capitalist responses to global warming and environmental destruction (2009)]. The Declaration was distributed by the Eco-socialist International Network, at the World Social Forum, Belem, Brazil, January 2009 (Angus 2009, p. 204).

The Declaration states:

“The struggle of labor – workers, farmers, the landless, and the unemployed – for social justice, is inseparable from the struggle for environmental justice. Capitalism – socially and ecologically exploitative and polluting – is the enemy of nature and labor alike” (Eco-socialist International Network 2009, p. 235).

Evo Morales: Evo Morales is President of Bolivia – the first head of state in Latin America to be indigenous.

In a September 25, 2007, letter entitled, “Let us respect our Mother Earth,” addressed to the United Nations General Assembly, Morales states:

“The world is suffering from a fever due to climate change, and the disease is the capitalist development model” (Morales 2007, p. 139).

In a November 28, 2008, letter entitled, “Climate Change – save the Planet from Capitalism,” addressed to Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), Morales states:

“Competition and the thirst for profit without limits of the capitalist system are destroying the planet. Under capitalism, we are not human beings but consumers. Under capitalism, Mother Earth does not exist – instead, there are raw materials. Capitalism is the source of the asymmetries and imbalances in the world. It generates luxury, ostentation, and waste for a few, while millions in the world die from hunger.”

“In the hands of capitalism, everything becomes a commodity – the water, the soil, the human genome, ancestral cultures, justice, ethics, death . . . and life itself. Everything, absolutely everything can be bought and sold under capitalism. And even ‘climate change’ itself has become a business.”

“Climate change has placed all humankind before a great choice – to continue in the ways of capitalism and death, or to start down the path of harmony with nature and respect for life” (Morales 2008, p. 217).

Ian Angus: Ian Angus, eco-socialist activist, in Ontario, Canada, is editor of the on-line journal Climate and Capitalism. In his Introduction to The global fight for climate justice – anti-capitalist responses to global warming and environmental destruction (2009), of which he is the editor, Angus writes:

“The climate emergency exposes the present social order’s deepest contradictions – unstoppable thirst for wealth and material growth that can only be obtained by condemning billions of people to poverty, while simultaneously undermining the very conditions of human existence” (Angus 2009, p. 10).

Derek Wall: Derek Wall is former Principal Speaker for the Green Party of England and Wales, and author, most recently, of Babylon and beyond – the economics of anti-capitalist, anti-globalist and radical Green movements (2005).

In his Foreword to The global fight for climate justice – anti-capitalist responses to global warming and environmental destruction (2009), Wall observes:

“Climate change and other ecological problems are rooted in an economic system that needs continual growth, even though that is often dysfunctional for human beings. Yet few environmentalists have faced up to the fact that capitalism is incompatible with ecological sustainability” (Wall 2009, p. 9).

David Travis: David Travis works in rural New York state on sustainable agriculture and community economics, and in North Carolina on the development of a perennial agricultural project. In his article “Sustainable Capitalism?” Travis analyses the focus, in mainstream thought, on “personal irresponsibility” and “corporate irresponsibility,” as explanations for present destructive trends:

“Part of the appeal [which accusations of personal irresponsibility and lack of morals have], is precisely that [these accusations] are individualistic. [They] enable the criticism of vast groups of people without specificity. [They] allow for the appearance of concern, outrage and various forms of progressive posturing, [and] at the same time, [the avoidance of] change, and [the circumvention of] the tremendous ill will of interests aligned against [change].”

“‘Meaning well’ and ‘doing good’ is the other side of the personal responsibility escape hatch. Within the mainstream eco-yuppie paradigm, the most you can possibly be expected to do is the ‘right thing’ in your own life. You buy your indulgences in the form of a low-carbon lifestyle and an arsenal of ‘eco-friendly’ products, and in return, you are exempt from the uncomfortable task of looking at your class, your politics, and your job in the face” (Travis 2008, p. 97).

“The cult of ‘corporate responsibility’ . . . perceives ‘values’ in a kind of vacuum. Values have no place to go. They are not social concepts connected to specific relations of class and power. Values are privatized.”

“To think that our collective social behavior is the product of personal values, is a mistake, one that obfuscates the basic structural and historical forces at work in society” (Travis 2008, p. 98).

“[These] views, however well informed, ignore the nature of capitalism. The extraction of profit from labor and nature isn’t some accidental part of what capitalism is. It’s what makes the thing go. Similarly, growth and gross domestic product (GDP) aren’t just bells and whistles that can be removed [to uncover] some stripped-down, enviro-friendly version of the beast. Growth is why people invest. Without profit or growth, there would be no capitalists.”

“The works of the apologists attest to an essentially technocratic understanding of capitalism . . . [a view of] capitalism as nothing more than the ‘most efficient’ way of doing anything” (Travis 2008, p. 97).

Conclusions

Global Warming in Perspective: The speed at which humanity’s increasingly destructive technology is deployed, baffles the imagination.

In 1862, Richard Gatling (1818-1903) produced the first practical machine gun – a crank-operated gun, soon perfected to produce a steady stream of fire at 200 rounds per minute. Gatling boasted:

“It bears the same relation to other firearms that McCormack’s Reaper does to the sickle, or the sewing machine to the common needle. It will no doubt be the means of producing a great revolution in the art of warfare, from the fact that a few men with it, can perform the work of a regiment” (Gatling, quoted in Ellis 1975, pp. 16 and 29).

This first practical “killing machine” was a product of the Industrial Revolution – of the fundamental changes in both the economic organization of society and the manufacturing techniques which had gathered pace during the 1800’s. To the proponents of this massive technological leap, the machine was the answer for everything. Even killing could be mechanized and made more efficient (Ellis 1975, p. 16).

World War I (1914-1918) produced 15 million dead (including the Armenian genocide).

World War II (1937/1939-1945) produced 55 million dead.

War deaths during the 20^th century totaled 188 millions:

* Genocide and tyranny . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 million

* Deaths directly due to war . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 million

Military 42 million

Civilian 19 million

* Deaths due to war-related famines . . . . . . 44 million

(White 1999a, pp. 1-2. White 1999b, pp. 1-11. White 2001/2004, pp. 1-3 and 5. White 2001/2005, p. 1; all four summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 2-6).

On October 27, 1962, off the coast of Cuba, the Cold War brought the world to near nuclear disaster, averted only because Soviet submarine officer Vasili Arkhipov (1926-1999), while under attack by U.S. destroyers, blocked an order to retaliate with nuclear-armed torpedoes (Chomsky 2003, pp. 12 and 74, summarized in Hall 2004b, pp. 1 and 4-5, and Hall 2009c, p. 85. Wikipedia 2009 “Vasili Arkhipov,” p. 1).

In 1998, the world had a total of 33,496 warheads – the radiation equivalent of 604,900 Hiroshima bombs. At the turn of the century, humanity had the radiation equivalent of 3 Hiroshima bombs per 100 persons on earth, in storage, available for use (Dumas 1999, pp. 16-17, summarized in Hall 2004a, p. 1. Hall 2005a, pp. 4 an 6. Hall 2005b, pp. 2 and 7-8).

At present, dangerous technologies include radioactive weaponry, space exploration with nuclear fuel, genetic engineering, artificial intelligence, artificial life, nanotechnology, robotics, and the combination of these technologies (such as nano-bio-technology and synthetic biology).

In 2008, world military expenditures totaled $1.5 trillion (Center for Arms Control and Non-proliferation 2008, cited in Shah 2008, pp. 2, 7 ½ and 11, summarized in Hall 2008b, p. 7. McMurtry 1989, summarized in Hall 2008b, pp. 1 and 11).

In 2009, the world had 793 billionaires, together possessing $2.4 trillion – an average of $3 billion each (Googles.com 2009, p. 1).

In 2008, the United Nations and all its agencies and funds distributed $20 billion – an average of $3 per world inhabitant (Global Policy Forum and United States Bureau of the Census, summarized in Hall 2008b, p. 9).

In Fiscal 2007, the World Bank distributed $24.7 billion in loans, credits, guarantees and grants.

* Of this total, $6.3 billion (26 percent) were dedicated to development.

* Of the total dedicated to development, $3 billion (48 percent) – (or 12 percent of the total loans) – were dedicated specifically for water, sanitation and flood protection (Several sources, summarized in Hall 2008a, p. 17).

In 2000, 1.1 billion people (one person in five) had no access to safe water (United Nations, summarized in Hall 2008a, p. 6).

In 2006, half of the hospital beds in the world were occupied by people with an easily preventable water-born disease (Barlow 2007, summarized in Hall 2008a, p. 6).

Viewed from this perspective, the warming of the earth through the profligate use of fossil fuels, is the logical culmination of a mind set, an unethical view of life which, unless rectified, will continue its automatic trajectory (Hall 2009c, p. 85).

Killing Life while possessing the Freedom to choose: The catastrophe now in progress is within the power of humanity to rectify – immediately and categorically. Among many options, for instance, is world carbon rationing.

Any analysis which attributes the cause of global warming to considerations other than human decision, such as “human nature,” “the scale of the human enterprise,” “the necessity for economic development,” “the failure of capitalism to include nature within its balance sheet,” “misplaced personal ethics,” or even sometimes “overly rapid population growth,” is biased. To blame anything but ourselves directly for the catastrophe, is to deny the ability of human beings to choose their behavior – within the framework of the laws of nature.

From a similar perspective, any solution which attempts to preserve the status quo of unfair wealth relations, such as carbon “cap-and trade” schemes, “carbon offsets,” considering nature as “capital,” putting a price on the “services” nature provides, or taunting technological fixes, is also biased.

Such analyses and solutions are but ways to save the world – provided capitalism is saved. Capitalism is an a-moral, unethical economic system which must be replaced by a variety of experimental, fair, just and ethical systems which focus on life, not money, and do not have the inherent drive, which capitalism has, to destroy nature.

Before all else, global warming is an ethical problem, and must be approached as such.

The recovering of ethics as a category of life is the fulcrum upon which the fate of humanity now depends.

Global warming is the reflection of a way of life which is un-integrated with the rest of nature. We can only remedy it by looking at ourselves.

Index of Names

Allenby, Brad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Anaxagoras . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Angel, Roger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56, 57, 72

Angus, Ian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88, 90

Apt, Jay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Arendt, Hannah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

Arkhipov, Vasili . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Bacon, Francis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 11

Bebel, August . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Bernal, John Desmond . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 33

Boyer, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 64

Broecker, Wallace (“Wally”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Budyko, Mikhail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Bukharin, Nikolai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 24, 26, 27, 29

Caldeira, Ken . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 71, 74, 78

Carson, Rachel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Caudwell, Christopher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6, 28, 30, 34

Cicerone, Ralph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 74, 75

Clements, Frederic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29, 34

Commoner, Barry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Title Page

Cox, Stan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Crutzen, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Darwin, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 16, 21, 31

de Boer, Yvo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

de Condillac, Etienne Bonnot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

de La Mettrie, Julian Offray . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

d’Holbach Baron, Paul Henri Thiery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Deirmendjian, D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Democritus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 9

Diderot, Denis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Dubey, Manvendra . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Dumanoski . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 42

Ellis, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Empedocles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Engels, Friedrich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 8, 10, 21, 22, 23, 34

Epicurus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Evelyn, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Feuerbach, Ludwig . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Follett, Danielle .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

Foster, John Bellamy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Title Page, 45, 88

Friedman, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Garrett, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

Gatling, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92

Gauthier, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Gingrich, Newt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Goldberg, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Gorbachev, Mikhail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Gould, Stephen Jay . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 35

Govindasamy, Bala . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Gramsci, Antonio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 29

Gupta, Arun . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Haila, Yrjo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 35

Haldane, John Burdon Sanderson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 33

Hansen, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Hawken, Paul . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Hegel, Georg Friedrich . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15, 17

Helvetius, Claude Adrien . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Hobbes, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Holdren, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Hoyle, F. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Hume, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Jenkins, Jesse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Johnson, Lyndon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Johnston, Donald . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Jones, Ian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Jevons, William Stanley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Kahle, A. B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Kautsky, Karl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Keith, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Kempf, Herve . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 85

King, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

Komarov, Vladimir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Korsch, Karl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 29

Kovel, Joel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86, 88

Lackner, Klaus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Lanyon, Less . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Latham, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Launder, Brian . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49, 69

Lawes, John Bennet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 15, 16

Leadbeater, Charles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Lenin, Vladimir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 24

Lenton, Timothy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 68, 78

Leucippus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Levins, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 34, 35

Lewontin, Richard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 33

Liebhardt, Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Locke, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Lovelock, James . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Lowy, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

“Lucretius” (Titus Lucretius Carus) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11

Lukacs, Gyorgy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 29

Lunt, Dan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Luxemburg, Rosa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Magdoff, Fred . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Malthus, Thomas Robert . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Mandelson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Maple, Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Marx, Karl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 8, 17, 22, 26, 28, 29, 31, 36, 38, 81

Matson, Pamela . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

McMurtry, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Mills, C. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Mol, Arthur . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Morales, Evo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Morgan, Granger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71, 76, 77, 78

Morris, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Nasheed, Mohamed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Needham, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Nordhaus, Ted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 44

Nordhaus, William . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43, 54, 64

Obama, Barack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38, 71

Oparin, Alexander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32, 33

Palast, Gregory (“Greg”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

Parenti, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Plato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Plekhanov, Georgi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 29

Rawls, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Ricardo, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Ricke, Katharine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Salter, Stephen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47, 62

Shackley, Simon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Shellenberger, Michael . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39, 44

Shepherd, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Sonnenfeld, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Stalin, Joseph . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 27

Steinbruner, John . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

Teller, Edward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Todeschini, Tod . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Townsend, Terry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

Travis, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Uranovsky, Y. M. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 26

Vaughan, Nem (N.E.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 68

Vavilov, Nikolai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 25

Vernadsky, Vladimir . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24, 27

Vico, Giambattista . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Victor, David . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

von Liebig, Justus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 13, 15, 26, 36

Wall, Derek . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Wheen, Rob . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Wigley, Thomas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Wood, Lowell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Woods, Ward W. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50, 75

References

References listed only when more than very basic information was sought:

Columbia Encyclopedia. 2000. 6^th Edition. New York, N.Y.: Columbia University/Gale Group.

Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki.

Other References:

American Association for the Advancement of Science,

2009a. “DARPA to explore Geo-engineering.” Science Magazine, ScienceInsider. March 14.

http://blogs.sciencemag.org/scienceinsider/2009/03/exclusive. Accessed October 9, 2009.

2009b. “The Politics of Climate Hacking – what happens if one Country decides to start geo-engineering on its own?” ScienceInsider Blog (Eli Kintisch). April 29.

http://www.slate.com/id/2217230/pagenum/all. Accessed October 12, 2009.

Angus, Ian, 2009. “Introduction” (pp. 10-11), “Editor’s Notes” (p. 204), and “For a Society of good Ancestors!” (pp. 208-230). In Ian Angus, Editor, The global fight for climate justice – anti-capitalist responses to global warming and environmental destruction. London: Resistance Books.

Australian Broadcasting Corporation, 2009. “Red Cloud dusts off fertile Idea.” (Barney Porter) October 6.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2009/s2706049.htm. Accessed October 8, 2009.

Barlow, Maude. 2007. Blue covenant – the global water crisis and the coming battle for the right to water. New York, NY.: The New Press.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008a. “The corporate Coup for the World’s Water.” July 10 (85 pages, unpublished).

Biglabor.com. 2009. “Today in Labor History for the Week of August 24, 2009 – 1877” August 24.

http://savannahclc.org/laborhistoryarchives.htm. Accessed November 3, 2009.

BlogCatalog, 2009. “Geo-engineering can save this Planet. Do you agree? Or is it Climate Manipulation under disguise? Read this Warning from James R. Fleming, Washington, D.C., April 5.” June 12.

http://www.blogcatalog.com/discuss.entry/zdnet-news-climate. Accessed October 6, 2009.

Bloomberg.com, 2009. “World’s Ocean Temperatures reach warmest on Record for June.” June 17.

http://bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601130&sid=aWi. Accessed September 20, 2009.

Burton, Tyler, 2009. “Energy Subsidies black, not green.” September 22.

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/index.shtml?page=2. Accessed October 2, 2009.

Carnegie Mellon University,

2009a. “Climate Decision Making Center – Funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF).” Department of Engineering and Public Policy.

http://cdmc.epp.cmu.edu. Accessed October 13, 2009.

2009b. “Geo-engineering – Could it limit Climate Change?”

http://www.cmu.edu/homepage/environment/2009/summer/geo. Accessed October 13, 2009.

Chomsky, Noam. 2003. Hegemony or survival B America=s quest for global dominance. New York, N.Y.: Henry Holt/Metropolitan. (Chomsky quotes two sources: Marion Lloyd, Boston Globe, October 13, 2002; and Kevin Sullivan, Washington Post, October 13, 2002. Both sources report on the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis Commemorative Conference, held in Havana, Cuba, in October 2002, on the 40^th anniversary of the Crisis. Attendees included a number of those, such as Arthur Schlesinger, who witnessed the crisis from within, as it unfolded).

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2004b. “Convergence.” (Poem). July 3 (10 pages, unpublished).

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2009c. “Global warming – pre-Copenhagen.” June 21 (108 pages, unpublished).

ClimateChangeCorp,

2007. “Carbon Capture – Geology’s Answer to the Climate Conundrum.” (News desk). London, UK. May 6. (The Climate Change Corporation is an independent news website which provides news and analyses on climate change to companies around the world).

http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=4791. Accessed October 7, 2009.

Undated. “ClimateChangeCorp.com.” London, UK.

http://www.climatechangecorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=4790. Accessed October 14, 2009.

ClimateScienceWatch.org, 2009. “UNEP Climate Change Science Compendium 2009: Impacts of Climate Change coming faster and sooner.” September 25.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/unep. Accessed September 25, 2009.

Commoner, Barry, 1992. Making peace with the planet. Quote in John Bellamy Foster, Marx’s ecology – materialism and nature (2000). New York, N.Y.: Monthly Review, p. 1.

Cox, Stan. 2008. Sick planet – corporate food and medicine. Ann Arbor, MI: Pluto.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008d. “Capitalism – the Poverty-culprit and the Eco-culprit.” December 30 (66 pages, unpublished).

Daily Californian, 2002. “New findings may re-define renewable Energy Debate.” (Alek Bituin). May 1.

http://www.dailycalifornian. Accessed October 21, 2009.

Democracy Now! 2009. “Island Nation of Maldives holds Cabinet Meeting under-water to highlight Danger of global Warming – Interview of President Mohamed Nasheed by Mary Robinson, former United Nations High Commissioner for human Rights.” October 19.

http://www.democracynow.org/2009/10/19. Accessed October 19, 2009.

Dumanoski, Dianne. 2009. The end of the long summer – why we must remake our civilization to survive on a volatile earth. New York, N.Y.: Random House/Crown. (Dumanoski is a journalist).

Dumas, Lloyd. 1999. Lethal arrogance. New York, N.Y.: St. Martin’s.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2004a. “Nuclear Power – an infallible Technology for infallible Humans?” May 6 (16 pages, unpublished).

Eco-socialist International Network, 2009. “The Belem eco-socialist Declaration.” January. Reproduced in Ian Angus, Editor, The global fight for climate justice – anti-capitalist responses to global warming and environmental destruction. London: Resistance Books.

Ellis, John. 1975. The social history of the machine gun. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University.

Foreign Affairs, 2009. “The geo-engineering Option – A last Resort against global Warming?” March/April.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:OD5qNAokVIEJ. Accessed October 12, 2009.

Foster, John Bellamy.

2000. Marx’s ecology – materialism and nature. New York, N.Y.: Monthly Review.

2002. Ecology against capitalism. New York, N.Y.: Monthly Review.

2009. The ecological revolution – making peace with the planet. New York, N.Y.: Monthly review. (This is a book of essays. The date of the particular essay to which the text of the present document refers, appears in parenthesis after the specified page number).

Globe and Mail, 2006. “Going to Extremes to fight global Warming (55,000 Mirrors will save the Globe?) (Anne McIlroy). June 3.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1643025/posts. Accessed October 5, 2009.

Googles.com, 2009. “Billionaire Bust on Forbes’ 2009 List. Bill Gates returns to #1 Rank; 355 drop off List.” New York, N.Y., March 11.

http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=cache:jEK4UolR7gwJ:www.forbesinc.com/newsroom/releases. Accessed October 27, 2009.

Guardian,

2008. “Ocean Floor could store Century of United States Carbon Emissions.” (Alok Jha). July 14.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/14/carboncapture. Accessed October 7, 2009.

2009. “Royal Society calls for urgent Research into Geo-engineering.” (Alok Jha). September 2.

http://m.guardian.co.uk/ms/p/gmg/op/view.m?id=165624&tid. Accessed October 9, 2009.

Gupta, Arun, 2009. “Banksta Capitalism.” Speech. Baltimore, MD. April 5. Broadcast by Alternative Radio.

http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/GUPA001.shtml.

Hall, Francoise.

2004a. “Nuclear Power – an infallible Technology for infallible Humans?” May 6 (16 pages, unpublished). (See Dumas, Lloyd, 1999).

2004b. “Convergence.” (Poem). July 3 (10 pages, unpublished). (See Chomsky, Noam, 2003).

2005a. “Silent Omnicide – the Destruction of the human Gene Pool.” April 16 (13 pages, unpublished).

2005b. “Depleted Uranium (DU).” April 30 (10 pages, unpublished).

2007. “Balancing Demand and environmental Degradation.” October 14 (117 pages, unpublished). (See Ponting, Clive, 1991/1992).

2008a. “The corporate Coup for the World’s Water.” July 10 (85 pages, unpublished). (See Barlow, Maude, 2007).

2008b. “In War we trust – the military Paradigm.” August 25 (45 pages, unpublished). (See McMurtry, John, 1989; and Shah, Anup, 2008).

2008c. “The Market Paradigm and the Destruction of Life.” October 21 (96 pages, unpublished). (See McMurtry, John, 1999).

2008d. “Capitalism – the Poverty-culprit and the Eco-culprit.” December 30 (66 pages, unpublished). (See Cox, Stan, 2008).

2009a. “The Nature of Profit – Profit from Nature (from Capitalism to Eco-socialism).” February 15 (94 pages, unpublished). (See Kovel, Joel, 2002/2007).

2009b. “The Ethics of global Capitalism.” May 4 (76 pages, unpublished). (See McMurtry, John, 1998).

2009c. “Global warming – pre-Copenhagen.” June 21 (108 pages, unpublished).

Hulme, Mike. 2009. “Professor Mike Hulme’s Site.”

http://mikehulme.org. Accessed October 14, 2009.

Humanitarian Futures, 2009. “Climate: Geo-engineering – Ocean Iron Fertilization Experiment doesn’t work as planned.”

http://humanitarianfutures.wordpress.com/2009/03/29. Accessed October 18, 2009.

International Arctic Research Center, 2008. “Scientists find increased Methane Levels in Arctic Ocean.” International Siberian Shelf Study. Fairbanks, Alaska. December 15.

http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2008/ISSS-08. Accessed September 27, 2009.

International Risk Governance Council,

2009a. “Funding.”

http://www.irgc.org/Funding.html. Accessed October 14, 2009.

2009b. “Geo-engineering.”

http://www.irgc/Geoengineering.html. Accessed October 12, 2009.

Io9.com, 2009. “Sydney Dust Storm proves geo-engineering the Oceans could work.” October 8. (io9 is a science fiction blog).

http://io9.com/5377120. Accessed October 8, 2009.

Jenkins, Jesse, Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, 2009. “Climate Bill Analysis Part 20: Over-allocation of Pollution Permits would result in no Emissions Reduction Requirement during early Years of Climate Program.” The Breakthrough Institute, Oakland, CA. September 23.

http://thebreakthrough.org/blog/index.shtml?page=2. Accessed October 2, 2009.

Kempf, Herve. 2007. How the rich are destroying the earth (Comment les riches detruisent la planete). Leslie Thatcher, translator. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

Kovel, Joel. 2002/2007. The enemy of nature – the end of capitalism or the end of the world? New York, N.Y.: Zed Books.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2009a. “The Nature of Profit – Profit from Nature (from Capitalism to Eco-socialism).” February 15 (94 pages, unpublished).

Lenton, Tim. 2009. “20^th & 21^st April 2009—Geo-engineering Governance and Risk Meeting.”

http://www.gear.uea.ac.uk/book/export/html/7. Accessed October 12, 2009.

Los Angeles Times, 2009. Transcript, Speech, President Barack Obama to the United Nations, Special Session on global Warming, New York, N.Y. September 22.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washingon/2009/09. Accessed September 29, 2009.

McMurtry, John.

1989. Understanding war – a philosophical inquiry. Canadian Papers in Peace Studies, 1988, Number 2. Toronto, ON: Science for Peace/Samuel Stevens.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008b. “In War we trust – the military Paradigm.” August 25 (45 pages, unpublished).

1998. Unequal freedoms – the global market as an ethical system. Toronto, ON, Canada: Garamond.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2009b. “The Ethics of global Capitalism.” May 4 (76 pages, unpublished).

1999. The cancer stage of capitalism. Sterling, VA: Pluto.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008c. “The Market Paradigm and the Destruction of Life.” October 21 (97 pages, unpublished).

Morales, Evo,

2007. “Let us respect our Mother Earth.” Letter to the United Nations General Assembly, September 25. Reproduced in Ian Angus, Editor, The global fight for climate justice – anti-capitalist responses to global warming and environmental destruction (2009). London: Resistance Books.

2008. “Climate Change – save the Planet from Capitalism.” Letter to Yvo de Boer, Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), November 28. Reproduced in Ian Angus, Editor, The global fight for climate justice – anti-capitalist responses to global warming and environmental destruction (2009). London: Resistance Books.

MSNBC.com, 2004. “150 ‘Dead Zones’ counted in Oceans – U.N. Report warns of Nitrogen Runoff killing Fisheries.” March 29.

http:www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4624359. Accessed September 22, 2009.

MSNBC.msn.com, 2009. “Obama’s Science Chief eyes drastic Climate Steps – Geo-engineering Approaches have ‘got to be looked at,’ Holdren says. April 8.

http://www.msnbc.msm.com/id/30112396. Accessed October 12, 2009.

New Scientist,

2007. “Can ‘fertilizing’ the Ocean combat Climate Change?” September 12. Reproduced by the Southeast Asia Regional Initiatives for Community Empowerment (SEARICE).

http://www.searice.org.ph/index/ph?option=com_content. Accessed October 14, 2009.

2009a. “James Lovelock: One last Chance to save Mankind.” Interview of James Lovelock by the New Scientist, January 23. Reproduced in The Agonist.

http://agonist.org/tjgxh/20090201. Accessed October 7, 2009.

2009b. “Top Science Body calls for geo-engineering ‘Plan B.’” (Catherine Brahic). September 1.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17716. Accessed October 11, 2009.

Newser, 2009. “Scientists pitch massive Mirror Sun Shade to save Earth – Mastermind convinced $350T Project will get off Ground in some 20 Years.” (Mary Papenfuss). February 27.

http://www.newser.com/story/51952. Accessed November 4, 2009.

Obamanati.info, 2009. “Obama’s Science Advisor publicly plans Chemtrails to Geo-engineer Earth.” April 9.

http://obamanati. Accessed October 13, 2009.

Palast, Gregory (“Greg”), 2008. “Foreword.” In Herve Kempf, How the rich are destroying the earth (Comment les riches detruisent la planete) (2007). Leslie Thatcher, translator. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green.

Parenti, Michael, 2007. “Why the corporate rich oppose Environmentalism” (pp. 90-97) and “Capital and Labor, an old Story” (pp. 229-234). In Michael Parenti, Contrary notions – the Michael Parenti reader. San Francisco, CA: City Lights.

PhysicsWorld.com, 2009. “Can Geo-engineering cool the Climate?” January 28. (PhysicsWorld.com is the limited, on-line edition of the international monthly magazine Physics World, of the United States Institute of Physics).

http://physicsworld. Accessed October 10, 2009.

Ponting, Clive. 1991/1992, A green history of the world B the environment and the collapse of great civilizations. New York, N.Y.: Penguin Group.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2007. “Balancing Demand and environmental Degradation.” October 14 (117 pages, unpublished).

Rigzone, 2008. “StatoilHydro storing 10 million Tonnes of CO₂.” April 29. (Rigzone provides news and information about the oil and gas industry).

http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=61209. Accessed October 7, 2009.

http://rigzone.com/aboutus.asp. Accessed October 19, 2009.

Scienceblogs.com. 2009. “Can Geo-engineering reverse ‘irreversible’ Climate Change?” (James Hrynyshyn). January 28.

http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/01. Accessed October 10, 2009.

Shah, Anup, 2008. “World Military Spending.” Global Issues.

http://www.GlobalIssues.org/article/75. Updated March 1, 2008. Accessed September 3, 2008.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008b. “In War we trust – the military Paradigm.” August 25 (45 pages, unpublished).

Social Edge, 2008. “Gross World Product (GWP) – Whose Value?” Social Venture Technology Group. October 6.

http://www.socialedge.org/svt-on-impact/topics/Gross. Accessed September 30, 2009.

Space.com, 2009. “Eerie Cloud created by NASA Rocket Experiment. (Tariq Malik). September 20.

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches/090920-nasa. Accessed October 18, 2009.

Stanford University,

Undated (1). “Woods Institute for the Environment.”

http://woods.stanford.edu/woods/about.html. Accessed October 15, 2009.

Undated (2). “Woods Advisory Council.”

http://woods.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/advisory_council.php?page=2. Accessed October 16, 2009.

2006. “$30 million Gift jump starts Effort for Environment.” Stanford Report. February 15.

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2006/february 15. Accessed October 31, 2009.

2008. “Carnegie Department of Global Ecology.”

http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab. Accessed October 16, 2009.

Telegraph,

2009a. “Scientists to stop global Warming with 100,000 square mile Sun Shade – Scientists claim they can fight global Warming by firing trillions of Mirrors into Space to deflect the Sun’s Rays, forming a 100,000 square mile ‘Sun Shade.’” February 26.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/global warming/4839985. Accessed November 4, 2009.

2009b. “Americans are ‘illiterate’ about Climate Change, claims Expert – America’s Lack of Knowledge on Climate Change could prevent the World from reaching an Agreement to stop catastrophic global Warming, Scientists said in an Attack on the Country’s environmental Policy.” September 28.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/6240611/Americans. Accessed October 4, 2009.

Todeschini, Tod. 2006. “Resume: Leo Todeschini, aka Tod Todeschini – TV engineering, special effects, model-making, knife and sword-making, and leatherwork.”

http://docs.google.com . . . www.todsstuff.co.uk . . . resume.pdf+Tod+Todeschini. Accessed November 4, 2009.

Townsend, Terry, 2007. “Climate Change – A Marxist Analysis.” Presentation at the Democratic Socialist Perspective, Socialist Summer School. Australia. Partially reproduced as “Capitalism’s anti-ecology Treadmill,” in Ian Angus, Editor, The global fight for climate justice – anti-capitalist responses to global warming and environmental destruction (2009). London: Resistance Books.

http://www.dsp.org.au/node/194. Accessed October 24, 2009.

Travis, David. 2008. “Sustainable Capitalism?” Link: International Journal of Socialist Renewal. September 9. Reproduced in Ian Angus, Editor, The global fight for climate justice – anti-capitalist responses to global warming and environmental destruction (2009). London: Resistance Books.

United Kingdom Government, 2009. Engineering – turning ideas into reality. Chapter 4: “Geo-engineering – a new Policy Area.” House of Commons, March.

http://www.public. Accessed October 10, 2009.

http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?id=8085 (Reference given by Wikipedia 2009 “Geo-engineering,” pp. 4 and 17).

United States Government,

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), 2002. “Livermore Researchers determine Biosphere unaffected by geo-engineering Schemes.” Earth Observatory. December 29.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/view.php?id=22885. Accessed October 18, 2009.

Department of Energy,

2002. Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Imagine, no Restrictions on Fossil-fuel Usage, and no global Warming!” (James Rickman). Los Alamos, NM. April 9.

http://www.lanl.gov/news/releases/arcive/02-028.shtml. Accessed October 21, 2009.

2006. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, “Modeling global Climate.” Physical and Life Sciences Directorate. (Maurina Sherman). Livermore, CA. June 1.

https://www-pls.llnl.gov/?url=science_and_technology-earth_sciences. Accessed October 18, 2009.

2008. National Energy Technology Laboratory, “Weyburn Carbon dioxide Sequestration Project.” (Sean Plasynski). Pittsburgh, PA. April.

http://www.netl.doe.gov/publications/factsheet. Accessed October 7, 2009.

United States National Academies, undated. “National Academy of Sciences.”

http://www.nationalacademies.org/president. Accessed October 17, 2009.

United States National Academy of Sciences, 2008. “Committee Membership Information – Project ‘America’s Climate Choices, Panel on advancing the Science of Climate Change.’” Division on Earth and Life Studies. November 24.

http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?k. Accessed October 14, 2009.

University of Calgary,

Undated (1). “Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy – U. of C’s Mandate for ISEEE.”

http://www.iseee.ca. Accessed October 16, 2009.

Undated (2). “Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy – Goals and Benefits.”

http://www.iseee.ca/goalsbenefits. Accessed October 16, 2009.

University of Illinois, 2009. “Professor William P. King.” Nano-engineering Laboratory.

http://mechse.illinois.edu/sites/index.php?site_id=56. Accessed October 15, 2009.

Uranovsky, Y. M., 1935. “Marxism and natural Sciences.” In N. I. Bukharin, A. M. Deborin, Y. M. Uranovsky, S. I. Vavilov, V. L. Komarov, and A. I. Tiumeniev. Marxism and modern thought. London, UK: Routledge.

http://trotsky.org/subject/science/essays/science.htm. Accessed September 22, 2009.

Wall, Derek. 2009. “Foreword.” In Ian Angus, Editor, The global fight for climate justice – anti-capitalist responses to global warming and environmental destruction (2009). London: Resistance Books.

Washington Post, 2009. “New Analysis brings dire Forecast of 6.3 Degree Temperature Increase.” September 25.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09. Accessed September 25, 2009.

White, Matthew.

1999a. “Historical Atlas of the twentieth Century – Wars of the Twentieth Century.”

http:users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-list.htm. Updated January 1999. Accessed September 6, 2008.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008b. “In War we trust – the military Paradigm.” August 25 (45 pages, unpublished).

1999b. “Historical Atlas of the twentieth Century – Wars and Atrocities in the four Quarters of the twentieth Century.”

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/war-2000.htm. Updated September 1999. Accessed September 6, 2008.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008b. “In War we trust – the military Paradigm.” August 25 (45 pages, unpublished).

2001/2004. “Historical Atlas of the twentieth Century – The 30 worst Atrocities of the 20^th Century.”

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm. Updated December 2004. Accessed September 6, 2008.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008b. “In War we trust – the military Paradigm.” August 25 (45 pages, unpublished).

2001/2005. “Historical Atlas of the twentieth Century – Deaths by mass Unpleasantness – Estimated Totals for the entire 20^th Century.”

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm. Updated September 2005. Accessed September 4, 2008.

Summarized in Francoise Hall, 2008b. “In War we trust – the military Paradigm.” August 25 (45 pages, unpublished).

Wikipedia,

2007. “International Risk Governance Council.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 13, 2009.

2009.

“Vasili Arkhipov,”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 27, 2009.

“Babcock and Wilcox.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 18, 2009.

“Battelle Memorial Institute.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 18, 2009.

“Bechtel.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 18, 2009.

“Bessemer Venture Partners.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 16, 2009.

“Break through.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 2, 2009.

“Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 13, 2009.

“Carbon Sequestration.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 7, 2009.

“Chatham House Rule.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 13, 2009.

“DARPA.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 11, 2009.

“Geo-engineering.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 5, 2009.

“Greenhouse Gas Remediation.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 7, 2009.

“Karman Line.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 19, 2009.

“David Keith.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 13, 2009.

“Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 18, 2009.

“List of proposed geo-engineering Projects.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 6, 2009.

“Los Alamos National Laboratory.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 21, 2009.

“Mount Pinatubo.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 19, 2009.

“C. Wright Mills.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 2, 2009.

“National Science Foundation.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 13, 2009.

“Ocean Nourishment.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 7, 2009.

“Partex.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 13, 2009.

“Radiative Forcing.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 10, 2009.

“Science and Technology in Portugal.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 13, 2009.

“Solar Radiation Management.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 5, 2009.

“Stratospheric Sulfur Aerosols.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 4, 2009.

“URS Corp.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki. Accessed October 18, 2009.

Wired Magazine, 2009. “Military Scientists explore Planet-hacking.” (Noah Shachtman). March 17.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03. Accessed October 11, 2009.

Yale Forum on Climate Change and the Media, 2009. “Geo-engineering – Climate Cure? – or a Cure worse than the warming Illness?” May 6.

http://www.yaleclaimtemediaforum.org/2009/05/geoengineering. Accessed October 12, 2009.

ZoomInfo.com, 2008. Untitled. Information for Business People, August 31.

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Goldberg_David_572685123. Accessed October 7, 2009.

***