Let's try an ecocentric climate approach?
9 views
Skip to first unread message
Ariel Salleh
Oct 15, 2025, 8:14:24 PM (6 days ago) Oct 15
to Radcal Democracy, WSM-d...@lists.openspaceforum.net
anthropocentrism or ecocentrism?
Ariel Salleh
Pre-COP lecture, Federal University, Brazil
Across the world, we are facing the destabilisation of nation states, labour redundancies, a global epidemic of femicide, new postcolonial stresses, and not least - the breakdown of planetary ecosystems. Meanwhile, new technologies are dehumanising us, community wisdom is ignored and education systems are increasingly alienated from life. All this presents a challenge for activists, and scholars whose understanding must move from bio-physical processes, to sociology, to policy, and back. Moreover, there are two sharply contrasting approaches to the climate problem - one relies on the logic of 'anthropocentrism' and the second uses an 'ecocentric' lens.
Additionally, given the many hundreds of environmental agreements now in existence, Earth System Governance supports ‘treaty clustering' according to geographic location, type of environmental problem, human cause, type of policy instrument, and need for capacity building. Each cluster is said to require specific administrative interventions. While this typically anthropocentric management style relies on Human ordering and control of Nature, modelling under the 5-A categories is likely to reify vital metabolic exchanges and interspecies synergies while attempting to meet institutional objectives. Government policymakers tend to assume that the interaction of 'social systems' and 'natural systems' is readily measured and monitored. But reliance on information theory in data management is too simplistic to account for complex, overlapping, biophysical feedback cycles.
As India's famous ecological feminist Vandana Shiva points out: development policy reliant on linear measurement of a single variable simply fractures local exchanges between air, water, plants, and soils, killing off the livelihood habitat of human and other species.7 And how does anthropocentric logic deal with the Heisenberg 'uncertainty principle’? To quote Daniel Bromley: ‘Governance structures intended to address a particular ecological problem, necessarily set in motion a new ecological trajectory whose salient properties are unknown until it is too late …’ 8 Decades ago, Critical Marxists, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno judged the old European drive to mastery of Nature through 'instrumental reason' as a self-defeating culture.9 For contemporary Critical sociologist Tim Luke, standard notions of environmental management are nothing more than a 'bureaucratic conceit’.10 Yet anthropocentrism is alive and well in ESG when Biermann writes: 'No longer is the human species a spectator that merely needs to adapt to the natural environment. Humanity itself has become a powerful agent of Earth system evolution'.11
In his book Dwellers in the Land, North American bioregional activist Kirk Sale makes a strong case for an ecocentric economy that meets livelihood needs within its own natural water catchment. However, he says the first steps are to understand the 'The kinds of soils and rocks under our feet; the source of the waters we drink; the meaning of the different kinds of winds; the common insects, birds, mammals, plants and trees; the particular cycles and seasons, the times to plant and harvest and forage ... the carrying capacity of its lands and waters; the places where it must not be stressed’. Turning to planetary destabilisation, the Water for Climate group from Eastern Europe has a fully developed community based hands-on strategy for climate remediation through reafforestation.13
I trained as a sociologist of knowledge but tend to think of myself as an activist, having spent much of my life in workers', womens', indigenous', and ecology movements. But I soon realised the need for a 'transversal analysis', one that can join up the single-issue politics of workers, indigenous peoples, women - and all three together with ecology.1 The lecture today will look at what this integrating perspective suggests for how we might re-think the climate crisis.
Across the world, we are facing the destabilisation of nation states, labour redundancies, a global epidemic of femicide, new postcolonial stresses, and not least - the breakdown of planetary ecosystems. Meanwhile, new technologies are dehumanising us, community wisdom is ignored and education systems are increasingly alienated from life. All this presents a challenge for activists, and scholars whose understanding must move from bio-physical processes, to sociology, to policy, and back. Moreover, there are two sharply contrasting approaches to the climate problem - one relies on the logic of 'anthropocentrism' and the second uses an 'ecocentric' lens.
Anthropocentrism
It is no surprise to find ourselves in an era called the Anthropocene, since the globally dominant style of thinking has been anthropocentric for a very long time. Historically, its most deeply wired-in form is patriarchal domination. This in turn, would energise tribal invasions, and ultimately, imperial expansion opening the way into modern capital accumulation. The first premise of anthropocentrism is that Humanity is separate from Nature, which is merely Man's 'object and resource'. Thus, since the rise of great Abrahamic religious traditions - Judaism, Islam, Christianity - the daily rule has been 'Humanity over Nature, Mind over Body, Man over Woman, White over Black'.
The 17th century Scientific Enlightenment reinforced patriarchal anthropocentrism with its systematic, state authorised murder of knowledgeable women - herbalists and midwives - as 'witches'. The secular view of Francis Bacon now asserted that Nature is not an organism but should be understood as 'a machine to be perfected by Man's reason’.2 Thus, the evolution of modernity has unfolded as a blend of patriarchal, then colonial, and finally, capitalist practices and attitudes. Anthropocentric culture helps patriarchal-colonial-capitalism to function as a single global system, a conjuncture nourished by whatever and whoever it objectifies as Nature.
In this context, climate activists might take a look at the Earth System Governance model networked internationally by some enthusiastic European academics. ESG is a typical Global North response to twenty-first century problems, an approach said to be designed to fill 'a research and management gap' in the social sciences. To quote: 'there is hardly any coherent, systematic, structured system of global environmental governance ... [but] a complex web of multiple and interacting actors, networks, and institutions ... the number and type of actors in global environmental governance has multiplied in the last decades'.3
Earth System Governance was inspired by the 1970s US foreign policy vision of George Kennan for a global management plan outside of the United Nations. Growing public concern over social impacts on the ecosystem had led to the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm and establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme. The Brundtland Commission on Our Common Future followed in 1987. The 1980s and 90s were also a time of consolidating liberal market ideology.
It is no surprise to find ourselves in an era called the Anthropocene, since the globally dominant style of thinking has been anthropocentric for a very long time. Historically, its most deeply wired-in form is patriarchal domination. This in turn, would energise tribal invasions, and ultimately, imperial expansion opening the way into modern capital accumulation. The first premise of anthropocentrism is that Humanity is separate from Nature, which is merely Man's 'object and resource'. Thus, since the rise of great Abrahamic religious traditions - Judaism, Islam, Christianity - the daily rule has been 'Humanity over Nature, Mind over Body, Man over Woman, White over Black'.
The 17th century Scientific Enlightenment reinforced patriarchal anthropocentrism with its systematic, state authorised murder of knowledgeable women - herbalists and midwives - as 'witches'. The secular view of Francis Bacon now asserted that Nature is not an organism but should be understood as 'a machine to be perfected by Man's reason’.2 Thus, the evolution of modernity has unfolded as a blend of patriarchal, then colonial, and finally, capitalist practices and attitudes. Anthropocentric culture helps patriarchal-colonial-capitalism to function as a single global system, a conjuncture nourished by whatever and whoever it objectifies as Nature.
In this context, climate activists might take a look at the Earth System Governance model networked internationally by some enthusiastic European academics. ESG is a typical Global North response to twenty-first century problems, an approach said to be designed to fill 'a research and management gap' in the social sciences. To quote: 'there is hardly any coherent, systematic, structured system of global environmental governance ... [but] a complex web of multiple and interacting actors, networks, and institutions ... the number and type of actors in global environmental governance has multiplied in the last decades'.3
Earth System Governance was inspired by the 1970s US foreign policy vision of George Kennan for a global management plan outside of the United Nations. Growing public concern over social impacts on the ecosystem had led to the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm and establishment of the United Nations Environment Programme. The Brundtland Commission on Our Common Future followed in 1987. The 1980s and 90s were also a time of consolidating liberal market ideology.
A new conservative think tank, the European Management Forum became the World Economic Forum in 1987, and its meetings of global leaders from business and politics is still ongoing in Davos, Switzerland, each year. A World Business Council for Sustainable Development designed the 1992 Rio Earth Summit with its Agenda 21, Biodiversity and Climate Change Conventions – each promoting voluntary corporate social responsibility. The creation of a Global Environment Facility within the World Bank added momentum. Today, global public focus is on the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) and regular Conferences of the Parties or COP meetings - the next one is pending in Belem, November 2025.
The Earth System Governance idea originated with Frank Biermann, an international lawyer based at the Potsdam Institute and later at the Free University Amsterdam. By 2009, ESG was an extended academic network - sponsoring research centres, publications and conferences from Tokyo to Boulder and beyond. The international coordination office is based at Lund University, Sweden, and the organisation has acknowledged financial support from the Volkswagen Foundation, King of Spain, European Union, and Veolia utility corporation, among other sources. ESG policy dovetails with the 2009 research of scientist Johann Rockström on protecting the integrity of 'planetary boundaries’, since these may serve as benchmarks for decision makers.
The Earth System Governance idea originated with Frank Biermann, an international lawyer based at the Potsdam Institute and later at the Free University Amsterdam. By 2009, ESG was an extended academic network - sponsoring research centres, publications and conferences from Tokyo to Boulder and beyond. The international coordination office is based at Lund University, Sweden, and the organisation has acknowledged financial support from the Volkswagen Foundation, King of Spain, European Union, and Veolia utility corporation, among other sources. ESG policy dovetails with the 2009 research of scientist Johann Rockström on protecting the integrity of 'planetary boundaries’, since these may serve as benchmarks for decision makers.
Reductive Abstractions
However, the question for activists or students of political ecology is: How does Earth System Governance create 'a conceptual fit' between social and natural systems? As Biermann has described it: management of the global environment agenda involves a postmodern proliferation of authority forms – public and private actors and new vertical and horizontal links between transnational administrative bodies – dispersing accountability while questioning the role of the nation state. At the same time, the materiality of bio-physical Nature is fragmented in 'data bases' on climate change, biodiversity loss, nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, freshwater and land use, atmospheric aerosols, and chemical pollutants.
To provide systemic clarity, the ESG programme developed a Science and Implementation Plan organised under five heads, each operating at different scales of abstraction. These are called the 5-As - Adaptation, Agency, Architecture, Accountability, Allocation and Access.
● Adaptation – means the political capacity for flexible responses to new knowledge or to Earth system disturbances critical to governance.
● Agency – looks at drivers and actors like businesses and NGOs.
● Architecture – involves integrating overarching governance institutions – local, regional, national and international, based around shared principles for stakeholder decisions at all levels.
● Accountability – focuses on new designs for legitimacy reflecting an acknowledgement that financial requirements for participation in global governance may create unequal advantage.
● Allocation and Access – concerns principles of justice, support and compensation as well as the analysis of socio-ecological adaptability and resilience at a global level.4
However, the question for activists or students of political ecology is: How does Earth System Governance create 'a conceptual fit' between social and natural systems? As Biermann has described it: management of the global environment agenda involves a postmodern proliferation of authority forms – public and private actors and new vertical and horizontal links between transnational administrative bodies – dispersing accountability while questioning the role of the nation state. At the same time, the materiality of bio-physical Nature is fragmented in 'data bases' on climate change, biodiversity loss, nitrogen and phosphorous cycles, stratospheric ozone depletion, ocean acidification, freshwater and land use, atmospheric aerosols, and chemical pollutants.
To provide systemic clarity, the ESG programme developed a Science and Implementation Plan organised under five heads, each operating at different scales of abstraction. These are called the 5-As - Adaptation, Agency, Architecture, Accountability, Allocation and Access.
● Adaptation – means the political capacity for flexible responses to new knowledge or to Earth system disturbances critical to governance.
● Agency – looks at drivers and actors like businesses and NGOs.
● Architecture – involves integrating overarching governance institutions – local, regional, national and international, based around shared principles for stakeholder decisions at all levels.
● Accountability – focuses on new designs for legitimacy reflecting an acknowledgement that financial requirements for participation in global governance may create unequal advantage.
● Allocation and Access – concerns principles of justice, support and compensation as well as the analysis of socio-ecological adaptability and resilience at a global level.4
Additionally, given the many hundreds of environmental agreements now in existence, Earth System Governance supports ‘treaty clustering' according to geographic location, type of environmental problem, human cause, type of policy instrument, and need for capacity building. Each cluster is said to require specific administrative interventions. While this typically anthropocentric management style relies on Human ordering and control of Nature, modelling under the 5-A categories is likely to reify vital metabolic exchanges and interspecies synergies while attempting to meet institutional objectives. Government policymakers tend to assume that the interaction of 'social systems' and 'natural systems' is readily measured and monitored. But reliance on information theory in data management is too simplistic to account for complex, overlapping, biophysical feedback cycles.
Moreover, in addition to ecological short cuts, the multi-scalar architecture of the ESG 5-A grid may unwittingly reduce the lived materiality of class, ethnic, or sex/gendered experiences and needs. Anthropocentric interests typically deal with men and women as isolated individuals or sets of sex/gendered attributes negotiating interests. This liberalism stresses intention and 'choice' above all else, and tacitly projects social life as competition. Designed in the language of global winners - bankers, CEOs, hedge fund operators, and technocrat professionals, such policy bypasses the effect of power relations in both the social construction of science and the social distribution of its effects. While Earth System Governance purports to offer opportunities for innovative problem solving and consensus building, its narrative is plainly hegemonic.
Contradictions
To compound the matter: academia-as-usual is often not very different from business-as-usual. Thus in 2012, a special ESG issue of the journal Ecological Economics explored 'the fit' between governance and biosphere dynamics with tools such as international regime theory, actor network approaches, polycentric economics, and resilience thinking. Earth System Governance is intended to be future-oriented using long data runs, statistical modelling and scenario research involving new criteria of evidence, validity and reliability. It proposes that scientific monitoring of digital data may even be coordinated from outer space by the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Yet the practice of high-tech ecosystem governance generates its own environmental imposts. Its computing infrastructure is based on massive energy drawdowns, heavy metal extraction, toxic plastics manufacture, non-biodegradable waste, carbon-generating supply chains, and global warming from the proliferation of Cloud Centres used for data storage. The extractivist costs of digital ecomodernism is rarely factored-in by public or private decision makers, or even taken seriously by would- be radical climate activists. This blind-spot makes a nonsense of increasingly popular political calls to 'dematerialise' resource use with degrowth.
Contradictions
To compound the matter: academia-as-usual is often not very different from business-as-usual. Thus in 2012, a special ESG issue of the journal Ecological Economics explored 'the fit' between governance and biosphere dynamics with tools such as international regime theory, actor network approaches, polycentric economics, and resilience thinking. Earth System Governance is intended to be future-oriented using long data runs, statistical modelling and scenario research involving new criteria of evidence, validity and reliability. It proposes that scientific monitoring of digital data may even be coordinated from outer space by the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
Yet the practice of high-tech ecosystem governance generates its own environmental imposts. Its computing infrastructure is based on massive energy drawdowns, heavy metal extraction, toxic plastics manufacture, non-biodegradable waste, carbon-generating supply chains, and global warming from the proliferation of Cloud Centres used for data storage. The extractivist costs of digital ecomodernism is rarely factored-in by public or private decision makers, or even taken seriously by would- be radical climate activists. This blind-spot makes a nonsense of increasingly popular political calls to 'dematerialise' resource use with degrowth.
Again, there are socially embodied extractivisms that come with digitalisation. And these need to be acknowledged as well. This includes things like indigenous community dislocation due to lithium mining, chemically polluted drinking water near factories, and cancers induced by electromagnetic radiation in suburban living centres. Decolonising communities are right to regard such energy extravagant practices as parochial in a world where only 10 per cent of people own a car. Indeed, the unequal material exchange that digitalised methodologies rest on is a modern form of imperialism.
The North American 'natural capital' school of environmentalism advanced by Paul Hawken promotes ecosystem engineering as less unpalatable than earlier environmentalisms such as the 'limits to growth' position.5 Anthropocentric hubris is also the basis of internationally legislated 'sustainable development' approaches like the Green New Deal, Green Economy, and SDGs - all promoted by government and business.6 If the 17th century Scientific Revolution called for an inductive methodology, such stringency is only as accurate as the cultural worldview that frames its initial premises. When the logic of classical physics, foundational to science and technology is applied to economics and even to organizational sociology, the result is not science but ideological 'scientism'.
The North American 'natural capital' school of environmentalism advanced by Paul Hawken promotes ecosystem engineering as less unpalatable than earlier environmentalisms such as the 'limits to growth' position.5 Anthropocentric hubris is also the basis of internationally legislated 'sustainable development' approaches like the Green New Deal, Green Economy, and SDGs - all promoted by government and business.6 If the 17th century Scientific Revolution called for an inductive methodology, such stringency is only as accurate as the cultural worldview that frames its initial premises. When the logic of classical physics, foundational to science and technology is applied to economics and even to organizational sociology, the result is not science but ideological 'scientism'.
As India's famous ecological feminist Vandana Shiva points out: development policy reliant on linear measurement of a single variable simply fractures local exchanges between air, water, plants, and soils, killing off the livelihood habitat of human and other species.7 And how does anthropocentric logic deal with the Heisenberg 'uncertainty principle’? To quote Daniel Bromley: ‘Governance structures intended to address a particular ecological problem, necessarily set in motion a new ecological trajectory whose salient properties are unknown until it is too late …’ 8 Decades ago, Critical Marxists, Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno judged the old European drive to mastery of Nature through 'instrumental reason' as a self-defeating culture.9 For contemporary Critical sociologist Tim Luke, standard notions of environmental management are nothing more than a 'bureaucratic conceit’.10 Yet anthropocentrism is alive and well in ESG when Biermann writes: 'No longer is the human species a spectator that merely needs to adapt to the natural environment. Humanity itself has become a powerful agent of Earth system evolution'.11
Ecocentrism
The denial of human embodiment in Nature is foundational to patriarchal-colonial-capitalist thinking, including modern economics and science, ethics and law. But a new public awareness of the failing planetary environment invites us to rethink Human history inside of Nature. This 'ecocentric lens' means leaving top-down management models behind, and re-grounding grassroots movements - socialist, decolonial, feminist - with their shared 'embodied materiality' as a transversal frame. An ecocentric lens means challenging the originary premise of anthropocentric domination, the dualism of Humanity over Nature, and its corollaries Self over Other, White over Black, Man over Woman.
Differently lived experiences provide complementary vantage points on the human condition. And indeed Karl Marx himself, advanced the idea that the perceptions of each class are shaped by its habitual field of activity.12 But if socialism listens only to workers in mechanical production, it risks a politics whose sensitivity to organic rhythms is very limited. An ecosystem is a continuously circulating metabolism of energetic flows, and human bodies are an intrinsic part of these elemental exchanges. But if human senses are severed from evolved, self-balancing natural processes as happened with the rise of European science, industrialisation, and now digitalisation, then awareness of this spontaneous counterpoint of giving and taking is broken.
In his book Dwellers in the Land, North American bioregional activist Kirk Sale makes a strong case for an ecocentric economy that meets livelihood needs within its own natural water catchment. However, he says the first steps are to understand the 'The kinds of soils and rocks under our feet; the source of the waters we drink; the meaning of the different kinds of winds; the common insects, birds, mammals, plants and trees; the particular cycles and seasons, the times to plant and harvest and forage ... the carrying capacity of its lands and waters; the places where it must not be stressed’. Turning to planetary destabilisation, the Water for Climate group from Eastern Europe has a fully developed community based hands-on strategy for climate remediation through reafforestation.13
Given the worldwide structure of patriarchal-colonial-capitalism, it is mainly women - both Global North and South - whose labour manages the reproductive integrity of humanity-nature cycles. Humans spontaneously create order out of chaos by calling different internal relations into focus. Mothers do this as they mediate conflicts in family life. Peasant women pacify biological systems by catalysing life-giving flows between hens, cows, and orchard plots. First Nation peoples in Australia make the seasonal walk across Country with thoughtful harvesting to ensure renewal. Three hours work a day suffices in this nomadic economy as hunter-gatherers rarely extract more than needed. People who labour with all their senses, come to a kinaesthetic awareness of the multiple timings embedded in what is handled. They learn how to do 'holding labour', synchronising Human intention with Natural rhythms. The logic of this activity is material not abstract, horizontal not hierarchical, and relational not linear.
Holding labour is an exemplar of complexity in action because -
● The consumption footprint is small because local resources are used and monitored daily with care.
● Closed-loop production is the norm.
● Scale is intimate, maximizing responsiveness to matter- energy transfers in nature, thus avoiding entropy.
● Judgments are built up by trial and error, using a cradle-to- grave assessment of ecosystem health.
● This 'meta-industrial' labour is intrinsically precautionary, because it is situated in an intergenerational time frame.
● Lines of responsibility are transparent, unlike that in most bureaucratised economies.
● With social organization less convoluted than in urban centres, synergistic problem solving can be achieved.
● In farm settings and in wild habitat, multi-criteria decision- making is simply common sense.
● Such regenerative work reconciles time scales across species and readily adapts to disturbances in nature.
● This economic rationality distinguishes between stocks and flows.
● It is an empowering work process, with no division between workers’ mental and manual skills.
● The labour product is enjoyed or shared, whereas the industrial worker has no control over his or her creativity.
● Here economic provisioning of needs is eco-sufficient because it does not externalise its costs on to others.
● Autonomous local economies imply food, energy, and cultural sovereignty.14
My intuition is that behind the social and ecological crises of global capitalism, a new 'agent of history' is emerging made up of women carers and domestics, peasant farmers, and indigenous gatherers. Yet so far, the socio-economic identity of this transversal 'meta-industrial class' goes unrecognised, unspoken, unvalued. This labour class has politically strategic potential in that its withdrawal as support for the extractive infrastructure of globalised production can paralyse capitalism. Meanwhile, its independence of waged consumerism and capacity for self-provisioning can sustain the effort to renew an earth democracy.
On the road through the fragile Amazon to COP30 in Belem, we will recall that ecosufficiency has long been argued by South American decolonial thinkers, Ivan Illich and Gustavo Esteva among them. It has also been advanced over several decades now by materialist ecofeminists. Internationally, an ecocentric resistance to anthropocentrism is rising. It is seen in movement initiatives for a 'biocivilisation' from Via Campesina in Indonesia, Landless Peoples in Brazil, the Zapatista of Mexico, Congo and Uganda based Environmental Defenders, and the transcontinental network called Global Tapestry of Alternatives.15 —
● Closed-loop production is the norm.
● Scale is intimate, maximizing responsiveness to matter- energy transfers in nature, thus avoiding entropy.
● Judgments are built up by trial and error, using a cradle-to- grave assessment of ecosystem health.
● This 'meta-industrial' labour is intrinsically precautionary, because it is situated in an intergenerational time frame.
● Lines of responsibility are transparent, unlike that in most bureaucratised economies.
● With social organization less convoluted than in urban centres, synergistic problem solving can be achieved.
● In farm settings and in wild habitat, multi-criteria decision- making is simply common sense.
● Such regenerative work reconciles time scales across species and readily adapts to disturbances in nature.
● This economic rationality distinguishes between stocks and flows.
● It is an empowering work process, with no division between workers’ mental and manual skills.
● The labour product is enjoyed or shared, whereas the industrial worker has no control over his or her creativity.
● Here economic provisioning of needs is eco-sufficient because it does not externalise its costs on to others.
● Autonomous local economies imply food, energy, and cultural sovereignty.14
My intuition is that behind the social and ecological crises of global capitalism, a new 'agent of history' is emerging made up of women carers and domestics, peasant farmers, and indigenous gatherers. Yet so far, the socio-economic identity of this transversal 'meta-industrial class' goes unrecognised, unspoken, unvalued. This labour class has politically strategic potential in that its withdrawal as support for the extractive infrastructure of globalised production can paralyse capitalism. Meanwhile, its independence of waged consumerism and capacity for self-provisioning can sustain the effort to renew an earth democracy.
On the road through the fragile Amazon to COP30 in Belem, we will recall that ecosufficiency has long been argued by South American decolonial thinkers, Ivan Illich and Gustavo Esteva among them. It has also been advanced over several decades now by materialist ecofeminists. Internationally, an ecocentric resistance to anthropocentrism is rising. It is seen in movement initiatives for a 'biocivilisation' from Via Campesina in Indonesia, Landless Peoples in Brazil, the Zapatista of Mexico, Congo and Uganda based Environmental Defenders, and the transcontinental network called Global Tapestry of Alternatives.15 —
From an ecocentric perspective, 'a true economy' will be simultaneously 'an ecology’.
1 Ariel Salleh, Ecofeminism as Politics: nature, Marx, and the postmodern. London: Zed Books, 1997/2017; Ariel Salleh (ed.), EcoSufficiency and Global Justice: Women Write Political Ecology. London: Pluto Press, 2009; Ariel Salleh, DeColonize EcoModernism! London: Bloomsbury, 2024.
2 Carolyn Merchant, The Death of Nature: Women and the Scientific Revolution. New York: Harper, 1980.
3 Frank Biermann and Philip Pattberg (eds.), Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012, p. 265.
3 Frank Biermann and Philip Pattberg (eds.), Global Environmental Governance Reconsidered. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2012, p. 265.
4 Biermann and Pattberg (eds.), 2012, p. 274.
5 Paul Hawken, Amory Lovins and Hunter Lovins, Natural Capitalism. London: Earthscan, 1999. 6 James Goodman and Ariel Salleh, "The Green Economy", Globalizations, 10 (2013) 343-356.
7 Vandana Shiva, Staying Alive: Women, Ecology and Development. London: Zed Books, 1989.
8 Daniel Bromley, "Environmental Governance as Stochastic Belief Updating", Ecology and Society, 17 (2012) 1-14, p. 2.
9 Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Penguin, 1973.
8 Daniel Bromley, "Environmental Governance as Stochastic Belief Updating", Ecology and Society, 17 (2012) 1-14, p. 2.
9 Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment. London: Penguin, 1973.
10 Tim Luke, "Sustainable Development as a Power-Knowledge System" in F. Fisher and M. Black (eds.), Greening Environmental Policy. New York: St Martins, 1995, p. 30.
11 Frank Biermann, "Planetary Boundaries and Earth System Governance", Ecological Economics, 81 (2012) 4-9, p. 4.
11 Frank Biermann, "Planetary Boundaries and Earth System Governance", Ecological Economics, 81 (2012) 4-9, p. 4.
12 For a detailed exposition, "As Energy Labour Flows" in Salleh, Ecofeminism as Politics (1997/2017).
13 Kirkpatrick Sale. Dwellers in the Land: The Bioregional Vision. San Francisco, CA: Sierra Club, 1985/2000, p. 42; Michal Kravcik and Jan Lambert, A Global Action Plan for the Restoration of Natural Water Cycles and Climate, 2015: https://bio4climate.org/downloada/Kravcik_Global_Action Plan.pdf
14 Salleh, DeColonize EcoModernism!, 2024, pp137-138. Adapted from ‘Global Alternatives and the Meta-Industrial Class’ in Robert Albritton et al. (eds.), New Socialisms: Futures Beyond Globalization. New York: Routledge, 2004
15 Ivan Illich, Energy and Equity. London: Boyars 1972; Gustavo Esteva and Medhu Sari Pradesh, ReMaking the Soil of Cultures. London: Zed Books, 1998; Veronika Bennholdt Thomsen and Maria Mies, The Subsistence Perspective. London: Zed Books, 1999; Inge Konik,
‘Ubuntu and Ecofeminism’, Environmental Values, 27 (2018) 269-285; Ashish Kothari et al. (eds.), Pluriverse: A PostDevelopment Dictionary. New Delhi: Tulika, 2019.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages