Strangers in Their Own Land

June 18, 2018

Previous | Next

Arlie Russell Hochschild. Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right. New York: The New Press, 2018.

Sociologist Arlie Hochschild makes a fine contribution to our understanding of today’s political polarization. Trying to move across what she calls the “empathy divide,” she gets as close as she can to far-right conservatives in one of the reddest parts of the country, the Lake Charles area of southwestern Louisiana.

The book is based primarily on long conversations with forty Tea Party Republicans, supplemented with interviews with twenty other individuals who are knowledgeable of the area and its issues. Although her study is small-scale and exploratory, she does a good job of placing her findings in a larger context with national survey data and statistics.

The “Great Paradox”

Hochschild begins with a paradox observed by others before her. Many of the people who vote conservative could benefit from many of the liberal programs they oppose.

Across the country, red states are poorer and have more teen mothers, more divorce, worse health, more obesity, more trauma-related deaths, more low-birth-weight babies, and lower school enrollment. On average, people in red states die five years earlier than people in blue states….Red states suffer more in another highly important but little-known way, one that speaks to the very biological self-interest in health and life: industrial pollution.

This certainly holds true for Louisiana, which ranks among the worst states in the country for poverty rate, educational levels, income inequality, pollution, and many measures of health and well-being. And yet the majority of its citizens seem staunchly opposed to many government efforts to alleviate such conditions. Instead they support low-tax, low-regulation policies that seem to work to the main benefit of a wealthy minority.

Hochschild reviews some of the previous efforts to resolve the paradox and finds them unsatisfying. For example, in What’s the Matter with Kansas, Thomas Frank suggested that wealthy conservatives trick people into voting conservative by using social issues like abortion and gay marriage as bait. Hochschild thinks it is too simple to regard people as gullible and misled, without considering how their votes express their deep convictions.

For Alec MacGillis in “Who Turned May Blue State Red,” it’s more a matter of who votes. The people who most need government assistance don’t vote enough, while the people who need it less vote against it. Hochschild’s hunch is that the paradox goes deeper. People really do vote against their own self-interest–at least economic self-interest–because of their deep emotional commitments.

Hochschild believed that the way to test her hunch against MacGillis’s was to study an issue that affected everybody in a state, even the affluent, and “to show they don’t want government help for that either.” The issue she needed was all around her in Louisiana, since “Lake Charles had become ground zero for production of American petrochemicals.” Now the paradox took the form of great pollution on the one hand, and great resistance to regulating polluters on the other. Many of the author’s subjects had experienced firsthand the terrible toll that hazardous waste disposal and other environmental problems were taking on their families and communities; yet they continued to support anti-environmentalist candidates.

The paradox went well beyond Louisiana. According to Hochschild’s analysis of survey data:

If, in 2010, you lived in a county with a higher exposure to toxic pollution, we discovered, you are more likely to believe that Americans “worry too much” about the environment and to believe that the United States is doing “more than enough” about it.

Red-state logic

Part of the reason sounds like economic self-interest, although it actually goes deeper than that. It is partly a matter of creating jobs:

The logic was this. The more oil, the more jobs. The more jobs, the more prosperity, and the less need for government aid. And the less the people depend on government —local, state, or federal—the better off they will be.

Carrying this one step further, the more state government has to spend on incentives and tax breaks for industry to bring in jobs, the less it has to spend on programs to help people or protect the environment. But then again, the hope is that people with jobs can take care of themselves.

The logic makes most sense to the people who actually do get high-paying jobs in the polluting industries, although they are a small percentage of the population. But when all the costs and benefits are added up, the wisdom of relying so heavily on petrochemicals is less clear. One expert Hochschild consulted argued that “the oil industry suppressed other lines of work, drew a third of revenue out [of the state], left pollution, and did nothing to resolved the many problems saddling the state.” The oil boom left the state’s poverty rate essentially unchanged.

The strategy of attracting jobs by offering corporations low taxes, weak regulation, and a low-wage non-unionized workforce has been called a “low-road” strategy. Apparently it isn’t the only strategy, since researchers have found that states with tougher environmental regulations have an even better record of job creation. One question the book does not try to answer is how feasible it would be for Louisiana to stop welcoming the polluters. States that are poor in financial and human capital, including workforces with limited education, have fewer choices. They may be at the mercy of companies that take much and give back little.

What the book does establish is that the red-state logic has become a deeply-held belief system. As one of the author’s interviewees, General Russel Honoré, put it, the people have become “captives of a psychological program.”

Emotional allegiances

Beliefs about jobs and the environment do not exist in isolation from other deeply-held beliefs. Conservatives put more faith in private enterprise to create the good society, while liberals put more faith in democratic government. Southern conservatives see the petrochemical industry as the latest goose to lay the golden eggs, hopefully replacing good jobs lost in the declining textile industry. For them, strict environmental regulation threatens to kill the goose.

Favoring business over government also has a deeper personal meaning. Business is associated with hard work, earnings, self-reliance, personal success and the ability to provide for one’s family. Government is associated with handouts, taxes, dependency, personal failure and family breakdown. Attitudes toward environmental regulation may reflect a much broader anti-government sentiment that goes beyond the alleged trade-off between the environment and jobs.

As a sociologist who has always been interested in the social construction of feelings, Hochschild looks for the deep, emotionally meaningful story that underlies seemingly non-rational behavior. That will be the topic of the next post.


Viking Economics (part 3)

June 28, 2017

Previous | Next

Even the wealthiest, most economically developed countries in the world face serious challenges in the years ahead. An important question for the future is whether a more egalitarian social system is an advantage in dealing with these challenges. If so, that makes the Nordic model even more relevant to current policy discussions.


In much of the developed world, globalization has benefited capital more than labor, as global corporations profit by offshoring work to cheaper sources of labor. Nordic countries have a long history of global trade. Countries like Norway “lacked the extensive land, abundant resources, and large population that enabled countries like the United States and Germany to generate robust, internally driven economies.” But Nordic countries also have a strong commitment to high employment and good wages. Can they sustain that in the global economy?

One way of reconciling an openness to foreign trade with a desire to protect domestic workers is a policy of “flexicurity,” a Dutch concept that has become central to economic policy in Denmark. “The Danes changed the social contract between the state and the workforce. Instead of guaranteeing workers their existing jobs, the government would guarantee workers ongoing support and retraining so they could get new jobs.” By providing the universal services of education, training and a strong social safety net, Nordic countries help their workers cope with a world of enhanced foreign competition.

Although immigration is a controversial issue almost everywhere, Nordic countries have also had the confidence to extend economic assistance to newcomers. Both Norway and Sweden have about a 14 percent foreign-born population, even a little higher than the US’s 13 percent. Norway will support immigrants for a year while they learn the language and culture and receive job training. “Norway is ranked number one among the twenty-seven richest countries for its policies on migration: acceptance of asylum-seekers and refugees, open borders to immigrants and students from developing countries, and friendly integration practices.”

That is not to say that conflict between immigrants and natives is nonexistent. Sweden has experienced youth riots in immigrant neighborhoods, especially during the period after the mid-1980s, when it was cutting public spending and allowing inequality to grow. In general, however, Lakey believes the Nordic model goes a long way to reduce social conflict. While American-style inequality “institutionalizes scarcity,” making people of different races and ethnicities compete for too few opportunities, the Nordic model:

generously funds agencies and programs that assist people who otherwise might lack opportunity. It seeks out barriers to advancement, such as burdens of childcare and dependent elders, and tries to alleviate those to free everyone to move ahead. By universalizing such programs, as well as health care, vacations, access to public transportation, and other enhancements that otherwise can become racialized for disadvantaged populations, the model carefully avoids setting categories of people against each other.

Of course, doing all these things is costly. But who can calculate the social and personal costs of our failure to do them?

Climate change

As I have argued elsewhere, environmental issues highlight the tension between private gain and public cost. Fossil fuels provide profits for producers and cheap energy for consumers, but their market success depends on not factoring in the social and environmental costs of climate change and other environmental damage. Renewable energy will become cheaper and more profitable over time, but the government may need to put a big thumb on the scale to discourage what is publicly dangerous and encourage what is publicly good as quickly as possible.

Because Nordic countries are more receptive to market interventions for the public good, they have generally been leaders in national and international action on climate change. Sweden, Denmark and Norway were among the first to impose taxes on carbon emissions, back in 1991. Denmark has been a world leader in wind power, because of national policies like incentives to form local wind energy co-ops. In 2013, Sweden was already getting over half of its energy from renewable sources, compared to an average of 15% in the European Union and even less in the U.S.

Norway is in an awkward position on climate change, because oil accounts for almost half of its exports. How much of the Arctic oil reserves it can actually develop without unacceptable environmental damage is a vital but unresolved question. On the other hand, Norway’s large public pension fund has divested from coal, as well as from Canadian tar sands oil. Norway also doubled its carbon tax in 2012 because the government wasn’t satisfied with the country’s rate of emission reductions.


Lakey does not discuss the potential impact of automation on employment, but it is a challenge that is receiving more and more attention. I recently reviewed Martin Ford’s Rise of the Robots, which warns of a “jobless future” for millions of workers whose jobs are vulnerable to automation. Ford and others envision an expansion of public welfare programs to support the jobless multitudes.

Lakey has described Nordic countries not as welfare states, but as “universal service states.” They place a strong emphasis on helping people to become productive citizens with good jobs. Does that make them more or less prepared to cope with a more automated economy?

In Parts 2 and 3 of my discussion of Ford’s book, I described my somewhat different vision of the future, emphasizing the transformation of work rather than just the elimination of jobs. I have no doubt that robots will take over many tasks that they can do more efficiently than humans. But as in the transition from farming to manufacturing in an earlier time, I would hope to see human labor shifted to new frontiers of economic activity, especially in the area of skilled personalized services. I would also like to see the extension of the twentieth-century trend of shortening the typical work week, which would have the effect of spreading the available work to more people. As the twentieth-century experience showed, fewer hours is compatible with high pay as long as workers have the skills and the technological support to achieve high productivity. That in turn depends on the development of human capital, which requires broad access to education, health care and other human services, industries that both create jobs and equip people to get jobs. Since the development of human potential is a public good that not every family is able to pay for, a strong public role in such areas as health insurance is called for. There is also a role for non-market work–labors of love if you like–which can flourish when people have the leisure to balance their work and family responsibilities and participate in volunteer work.

Although I hadn’t read Viking Economics when I developed these ideas, the Nordic model seems relevant to everything on my list. The same “flexicurity” policies that reduce fears of globalization can also reduce fears of automation. If you lose a job, you can expect help in finding and qualifying for a new one. The Nordic work week is already shorter than ours. The universal services model is more conducive to the development of human capital, and citizens are already accustomed to paying high taxes to support it. Finally, “Thanks to an economic model that fosters work/life balance, people have abundant time to volunteer in the community.” It’s a way of life that compares favorably to the American system, where workers cling to technologically and environmentally obsolete jobs like coal mining because they expect little help to become something new. We can do better.



Trump Rejects Global Cooperation on Climate Change

June 2, 2017

Previous | Next

Yesterday, President Trump announced his attention to withdraw from the Paris Accord on Climate Change. In doing so, he carried his nationalist, “America First” thinking to a new extreme.

The Paris Accord represented a breakthrough in international cooperation to address the most pressing global issue of our time, dramatic climate change due mainly to the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Countries can continue to argue and negotiate over their relative contributions to a solution. But the important thing is that almost every country–Syria and Nicaragua were the exceptions–agreed to join in the effort, each setting targets for the reduction in fossil fuel emissions. Even if some of the targets were more ambitious than others, and some will not be met, the world will be better off because of the agreement. The United States can be proud of its leadership in bringing the nations of the world together in this cause.

Donald Trump views such agreements through the eyes of a businessman accustomed to driving hard bargains. Each deal is a zero-sum game, where each side’s gain is the other side’s loss. Trump’s speech reveals that he is narrowly focused on the costs to the American fossil fuel industry, not the benefits of controlling climate change or creating cleaner energy industries. That makes his economic analysis flawed from the start. He counts only jobs lost but not new jobs to be created. He claims that our large fossil fuel reserves are “sufficient to lift millions of America’s poorest workers out of poverty,” but fails to mention that developing those reserves would, according to scientists, send climate change out of control and produce dire economic consequences. New York’s attorney general is currently investigating the possibility that Exxon Mobil may be defrauding its investors by placing a higher public value on its reserves than it knows to be realistic.

Because he looks at the world from a narrow “America First” point of view, President Trump tries to minimize the American responsibility for the problem while placing as much blame as possible on poorer countries, especially China. True, China is currently the world biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, but that’s partly because it’s so big, and it has only recently been developing its fossil fuels. China is only sixth in per-capita emissions, and it is now making large investments in clean energy. The United States is still first in per-capita emissions, and “with just over 4% of the world’s population, is responsible for almost a third of the excess carbon dioxide that is heating the planet” (New York Times). Developed areas like North America and Europe have been filling up the atmosphere with carbon emissions for a long time, while poorer countries have only joined them recently. It’s only fair that developed countries should lead the way in energy transformation, and they are starting to do so. But one reason they have been reducing emissions is that they have been exporting their problem by offshoring a lot of their manufacturing operations to poorer countries.

Trump claims that even without the accord, “the United States…will continue to be the cleanest and most environmentally-friendly country on earth,” That is simply not true. An Environmental Performance Index developed at Yale ranks the United States 43rd in air quality, 22nd in clean water, and 44th in climate and energy policies. The Trump administration’s efforts to roll back environmental regulation certainly won’t help. But by denying we have a problem, Trump can claim that we have nothing to gain and everything to lose from the proposed solution. “The Paris Climate Accord is simply the latest example of Washington entering into an agreement that disadvantages the United States, to the exclusive benefit of other countries.” One could argue the opposite, that Trump is disadvantaging the U.S. by withdrawing from the fight for clean energy, which may allow countries like China to assume leadership in developing the industries of the future.

Trump is especially critical of the Green Climate Fund, the United Nations fund through which richer countries help poorer countries transition to cleaner energy. Without it, very poor countries like India say they cannot afford to leave their coal in the ground. Trump claims that the fund “is costing the United States a vast fortune.” In fact, we have pledged only $3 billion, about $10 for each American, which Trump now refuses to pay. But 5.5 trillion in proposed tax cuts? No problem.

Most experts believe that the world will continue to progress toward cleaner energy with or without the support of the U.S. government. But the pace of change is already too slow, and may now slow further. The world needs every country doing as much as it can to avoid a costly environmental disaster. The last thing it needs is the withdrawal of the United States from its longstanding role of international leader at this critical time.


This Changes Everything (part 3)

April 19, 2017

Previous | Next

A key question in the political debate over energy is whether governments should have a strong energy policy at all. The conservative answer is essentially no. Government should not “pick winners and losers,” but remain neutral toward different energy sources and let the market decide. It is the “invisible hand” of the market that is most rational and fair. If fossil fuels are what sell, then we should continue extracting them.

Naomi Klein, on the other hand, sees our heavy reliance on environmentally dangerous sources of energy as a massive market failure. Fossil fuels are both more profitable for producers and cheaper for consumers than they should be, because market participants are not paying the full environmental cost. The planet, not the market, will dole out the consequences, including heavy costs for poor people who never got the benefits of high consumption. In this case, the market outcomes are neither rational nor just. Klein doesn’t say it in exactly these words, but the root of the problem is capitalism’s propensity to privatize benefits while socializing costs.

That is the basic argument for strong public policies–local, national and international–to facilitate a transition to cleaner energy as soon as possible.

Democratic resistance

Since the fossil fuel industry has accumulated enormous economic and political power, the only solution Klein sees is a massive democratic resistance movement. She sees such a movement emerging as the conflict between private interests and the public interest becomes clearer.

The fossil fuel industry is on a collision course with the climate, since it is planning to extract and burn far more carbon than scientists say the atmosphere can safely absorb. The valuation of fossil fuel companies on the stock market is based on the future profits projected on the basis of those plans, so they have strong incentive to keep going.

What really encourages resistance is that extractors are “pushing relentlessly into countless new territories, regardless of the impact on the local ecology (in particular, local water systems), as well as the fact that many of the industrial activities in question have neither been adequately tested nor regulated, yet have already shown themselves to be extraordinarily accident-prone.”

Resistance is growing especially in the Pacific Northwest, led especially by “resurgent Indigenous Nations, farmers, and fishers whose livelihoods depend on clean water and soil, and a great many relative newcomers who have chosen to live in that part of the world because of its natural beauty.”  For many people, climate change is still a somewhat abstract notion, but a threat to the local water supply is not.

And what could be more democratic than a popular demand for clean water? “Having the ability to defend one’s community’s water source from danger seems to a great many people like the very essence of self-determination.”

Of course, the success of a broad environmental movement remains to be seen. Truly transformative social movements are historically rare. Klein cites the example of anti-discrimination movements that achieved only partial victories. The movement for African American rights succeeded in outlawing the most obvious forms of discrimination. But it has not achieved the “massive investment in jobs, schools, and decent homes” that would be needed to eliminate the large racial gap in wealth and income. On the other hand, the labor movement of the 1930s achieved more substantial economic gains. In that instance, the crisis of the Great Depression shifted popular opinion dramatically to the left, producing the New Deal wave of progressive legislation. The climate crisis may require a political change of that magnitude.

Global responsibility

What makes the challenge of climate change so daunting is that it requires developed countries not only to curb their own fossil fuel emissions but to help poorer countries curb theirs. Klein believes that this is a matter of both economic necessity and moral justice.

“Developed countries, which represent less than 20 percent of the world’s population, have emitted almost 70 percent of all the greenhouse gas pollution that is now destabilizing the climate.” The richer countries not only have a history of appropriating other peoples land, labor and resources (especially through slavery and colonialism), but they have also appropriated the sky, “gobbling up most of our shared atmosphere’s capacity to safely absorb carbon.”

That puts developing countries in a real bind. They are told that they must limit their fossil fuel emissions just when they are starting to industrialize. But the cheapest and easiest way for them to develop is to use the most readily available sources of energy, without bearing the costs of environmental protection or innovative technologies.

They cannot break this deadlock without help, and that help can only come from those countries and corporations that grew wealthy, in large part, as a result of those illegitimate appropriations….With many of the biggest pools of untapped carbon on lands controlled by some of the poorest people on the planet, and with emissions rising most rapidly in what were, until recently, some of the poorest parts of the world, there is simply no credible way forward that does not involve redressing the real roots of poverty.

The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992) recognized this when it asserted a principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities.” The nations of the world are all in this together, but the countries that have gotten the richest on fossil fuels have a special responsibility to switch to cleaner energy, as well as to help finance that transition in poorer countries.

One reason why emissions are falling in the United States (although not enough) but rising in poorer countries is that we have offshored so much manufacturing, especially to countries with weak environmental policies. The system is very profitable, but it complicates efforts to combat global warming.

In Klein’s view, the solution is not just for richer countries to contract their economies, while poorer countries expand theirs on the same old fossil-fuel model. That would just redistribute emissions, not reduce them. The challenge is for all countries, rich and poor alike, to agree to develop differently.

What kind of populism?

In a previous post, I mentioned Klein’s point about bad timing: Climate change became an issue just “at the peak of free market, end-of-history triumphalism.” She is hopeful, however, that other social problems such as growing inequality have helped discredit that ideology. If so, conservative politicians may be losing some of their cultural legitimacy, and a progressive counter-revolution may be in the making.

In this context, what should we make of Donald Trump’s “populism”, which arrived on the scene after Klein’s book was written? It is a little different than mainstream conservatism, since it encourages some government interventions in markets, especially restrictions on global free trade to protect US. manufacturing. (What exactly those restrictions would be is not clear.) When it comes to energy, it is worse than conservatism, since it is not so much energy neutral as pro-fossil fuel. Our new EPA Administrator is Scott Pruitt, who as Attorney General of Oklahoma consistently represented the interests of fossil-fuel companies. Our Secretary of State is Rex Tillerson, the former CEO of Exxon-Mobil. Neither Trump nor Pruitt has accepted the scientific consensus on climate change.

Trump seems obsessed with jobs in coal mining and pipeline construction. He has not shown much interest in creating new kinds of jobs or training workers to perform them.  Klein, on the other hand, points to the economic potential of clean energy. One study she summarizes is from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives:

[I]f $5 billion is spent on a pipeline, it produces mostly short-term construction jobs, big private sector profits, and heavy public costs for future environmental damage. But if $5 billion is spent on public transit, building retrofits, and renewable energy, economies can gain, at the very least, three times as many jobs in the short term, while simultaneously helping to reduce the chances of catastrophic warming in the long term.

Trump’s brand of populism is a reactionary one favoring traditional industries and jobs. But the very fact that many of his supporters are disillusioned with establishment conservatism may create some room for a more progressive populism favoring a more innovative and sustainable economy. Whether public opinion will shift in that direction in time is hard to say. If history is any guide, the old economy may have to show even more signs of failure before people will turn to something new.

This Changes Everything (part 2)

April 18, 2017

Previous | Next

Naomi Klein’s book is a plea for strong action to combat climate change. On the one hand, she argues that renewable energy technologies “have become radically more efficient and affordable, making a full transition to the power they provide both technologically and economically feasible within the next few decades.” On the other hand, she sees methods of fossil fuel extraction becoming more and more dangerous. Natural gas is a popular alternative to coal, but fracking threatens water supplies, and gas obtained by fracking emits methane at a rate 30% higher than conventional gas. Public policy should focus on curbing fossil fuels and developing cleaner alternatives, both as quickly as possible.

Much of the book is a critique of more limited solutions that require fewer changes to our way of life. They treat climate change as “a narrow technical problem with no end of profitable solutions within the market system….” Change your lightbulbs and buy a different kind of cleaning liquid, and we’ll be fine.

Wishful thinking

Klein is rather disappointed in the environmental movement, which she says has failed to live up to its initial promise. Back in the 1970s, twenty-three federal environmental laws were passed, including the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, the Wilderness Act, the Endangered Species Act and the Toxic Substances Act. But this legislative progress largely ground to a halt when the changing political climate brought Ronald Reagan to the White House. With free-market capitalism once again the reigning ideology, many of the new environmental groups tried to work within the system rather than challenging it. Many relied on donations from the same fossil-fuel companies that were also pushing environmental deregulation, and some even made their own investments in the fossil-fuel industry. Their reluctance to challenge the economic power structure forced them “to place their hopes in solutions–whether miracle products, or carbon markets, or ‘bridge fuels’–that are either so weak or so high-risk that entrusting them with our collective safety constitutes what can only be described as magical thinking.”

In the negotiations leading up to the Kyoto Protocol (1997), the United States insisted that emissions reduction be accomplished through “cap-and-trade” rather than direct emissions limits. Under cap-and-trade:

[P]rojects that were employing practices that claimed to be keeping carbon out of the atmosphere—whether by planting trees that sequester carbon, or by producing low carbon energy, or by upgrading a dirty factory to lower its emissions—could qualify for carbon credits. These credits could be purchased by polluters and used to offset their own emissions.

Ironically, even this market-based solution was too radical to be ratified by Congress, but it was adopted in other countries, notably the European Union.

In theory, the emissions in the atmosphere could come out the same whether a polluting company reduced its own emissions or paid someone else to reduce theirs. The problem was that it was too easy to game the system. The alleged reductions that qualified for credits were sometimes illusory. Companies were accused of adopting dirty methods of production so that they could then earn credits for eliminating them. “Even conservative sources estimate that between 1/3 and 2/3 of carbon credits bought into the [European Union’s Emissions Trading System] ‘do not represent real carbon reductions.'”

In the following decade, the cap-and-trade bills introduced by President Obama came out of the US Climate Action Partnership, a coalition of environmental groups and large polluting companies. The bills would have given energy companies “free allowances” covering 90 percent of their existing emissions, so the most they would have to do to keep right on polluting was to buy credits to offset the other 10 percent. But again, even that plan was too radical to pass Congress.

Fixing the earth or fixing ourselves?

Klein is especially critical of technological fixes that promise to counteract the greenhouse effect of whatever emissions industry fails to control. One that has received a lot of attention is Solar Radiation Management, which would attempt to limit the amount of sunlight that reaches the earth. We might spray large amounts of sulfate into the stratosphere, with an effect similar to major volcanic eruptions that have been known to reduce global temperatures in the past. Among the objections Klein cites:

  • It could create a permanent haze over the earth, eliminating blue skies and interfering with astronomy
  • It could impede the production of solar energy
  • It would not address the underlying causes of climate change
  • It would not deal with other effects of climate change, such as increased carbon in the oceans, with detrimental effects on marine life and the aquatic food chain
  • Once started, it would have to be continued indefinitely; otherwise, “all the warming that you had artificially suppressed by putting up that virtual sunshade would hit the planet’s surface in one single tidal wave of heat, with no time for gradual adaptation.”

Apart from the scientific details, Klein questions the conception of humanity and nature that underlies proposals of this kind. We would be tinkering with the entire planet as if it were a machine that we could fine tune. The greatest danger is that the earth would “go wild in ways we cannot imagine,” since we don’t understand the whole biosphere well enough to know in advance what it would do. In the words of MIT microbiologist Sallie Chisholm:

“Proponents of research on geoengineering simply keep ignoring the fact that the biosphere is a player (not just a responder) in whatever we do, and its trajectory cannot be predicted. It is a living breathing collection of organisms (mostly microorganisms) that are evolving every second—a ‘self-organizing, complex, adaptive system’ (the strict term). These types of systems have emergent properties that simply cannot be predicted. We all know this! Yet proponents of geoengineering research leave that out of the discussion.”

Klein’s reference to complexity theory in this context suggests to me that environmentalism is part of a paradigm shift that has been taking shape for some time. The machine metaphor for understanding natural systems is under attack, and a more creative model of reality is emerging. (See especially the writings of complex system theorist Stuart Kauffman.) Our relationship to nature is coming to be seen more as a creative partnership and less as a dominance hierarchy.  As a sociologist of gender, I notice the same theme of partnership vs. dominance running through the study of gender relationships. That connection makes sense. In Western patriarchal culture, nature has been conceived as feminine and controllable, while mankind has been conceived as masculine and controlling. Klein also develops a parallel between women’s fertility and the fertility of the earth, both of which have been objects of male regulation. It is this entire worldview that is now being challenged.

Klein sums it up well when she says, “The earth is not our prisoner, our patient, our machine, or, indeed, our monster [i.e., our Frankenstein monster to get back under control]. It is our entire world. And the solution to global warming is not to fix the world, it is to fix ourselves.”