In the first two chapters of her book, A Finer Future is Possible, Hunter Lovins outlines how the neoliberal economic mode of thinking came to dominate global discourse and drove our society to push the limits of what our environment can bear. I found these chapters to be a succinct and approachable explanation of the problem. However, I was primarily interested in the ideas presented in the third chapter, where Lovins attempts to create a vision for what a more sustainable future looks like.
The vision of the future that Lovins presents is a hopeful one. We move towards a Regenerative Economy, where goods and services sustain and rebuild natural ecosystems instead of destroying them. It is a future where we are stewards, not conquerors, of the environment. This vision serves the purpose of filling a gap that Lovins mentions early on: an ideal future we can all work towards. However, after reading this chapter, I was struck by the scale of some of the barriers we face.
I recently read another book for another class called The Great Derangement by Amitav Ghosh, which touched on some very similar themes to A Finer Future is Possible. Ghosh, like Lovins, argues that neoliberal economics has played a large role in landing us in our current predicament. He takes this a step further, and also examines the ways in which Imperialism has shaped the climate predicament. In his examination of Imperialism, he raises some points, which I’m not sure Lovins addresses.
Ghosh notes that for a long time, the high-carbon economy was only accessible to the global North, driven both by trade policies adopted by imperial countries and local resistance to market economies in the global South. However, as countries gained independence and began to adopt Western-style market economies, it became clear that not everyone on the planet could have the same resource footprint as the global North, without destroying our planet. Ghosh notes a calculation by geologist David Archer, that “a fair solution to the problem of emissions would ‘require cuts to the developed world of about 80%’”, closer to 90% for the US, Australia and Canada (Ghosh, 146).
While Lovins’ vision does seem to encompass the global economy, she does not offer a roadmap for resolving the current inequity between nations. She addresses the destabilizing effects of inequality, but does not discuss in detail, power imbalances between nations or how to address them. This may be something that is addressed in later chapters, but it a vital barrier to overcoming our current predicament.
Question: How do we equitably address climate change and ensure that everyone has access to the quality of life described in Lovins’ article?
Comments