Eco-modernism

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eco-modernism , also called eco-pragmatism, is a new concept in the field of environmental protection that sees itself in opposition to the mainstream of the environmental movement . The key points of eco-modernism are the “ decoupling from the consumption of nature” and the general view that industrialization , globalization and modernization are inseparable from climate and nature protection. The term was first used by scientists at the American Breakthrough Institute , who describe themselves in their “Ecomodernist Manifesto” as eco-modernists or pragmatists. The authors of the Manifesto include Joyashree Roy , Barry Brook , Ruth DeFries , Michael Shellenberger, and Ted Nordhaus . Among the 18 signatories are John Asafu-Adjaye , Stewart Brand , Mark Lynas , Roger A. Pielke junior , Mark Sagoff and Robert Stone .

Positions

Eco-modernists want to stand out from the common and widespread views on the environment and climate and offer an alternative to a debate that, in their view, seems frozen. Most of the time, they doubt that the cultural changes demanded by many environmentalists (less consumption, more subsistence, etc.) can be achieved. This is naive, especially with regard to the widespread poverty in large parts of the world. They assume that most environmental problems can be solved technologically.

An important document of the eco-modernists is the Ecomodernist Manifesto . Its main points include:

  1. The intensification of agriculture , aquaculture , energy production and human settlement areas should protect nature according to the principle of land-saving .
  2. Energy is essential for a more effective use of natural resources (e.g. water purification and desalination, recycling , intensive agriculture with minimal land consumption ), i. H. cheaper energy is a very important factor for the realization of such technologies. In the long term , nuclear and solar energy are considered to be the most efficient energy producers.
  3. Serious threats are climate change , the thinning of the ozone layer and acidification of the seas .
  4. General dependence on nature should be reduced in order to protect it.
  5. Global urbanization should reduce the consumption of nature and promote growth.
  6. Sustainability can be achieved through renaturalization and rewilding of the planet.
  7. Climate protection should not unconditionally be put before the interests of people, especially in poorer countries.
  8. States and societies would have to use their energies to achieve these goals. Modern living standards in the world and the promotion of developing and emerging countries should be prioritized. The funds for this are actually available. To do this, however, ideological reservations would also have to be removed.

criticism

The eco-modernist movement has already provoked criticism, which is particularly loud on the Internet. There is heated discussion within blog and comment entries. The most important counterpoints are:

  1. The vision of a nature “made” by man is not a “real” nature. It is not free, but as a person wants it to be. It is only about filtering out the positive aspects of nature without paying attention to the balance.
  2. If man detached himself from nature, there would no longer be any reason to protect and preserve it. This deprives nature of its value.
  3. The eco-modernists are too vague on many points (the triggers for discussions are: involuntary urbanization, the fundamental willingness of states and societies to campaign for these changes at all, the whereabouts and storage of nuclear waste , unpredictable changes in the world and their influences).

The book Perspectives of Sustainability: From Concept to Success Strategy , edited by Arnd Hardtke and Marco Prehn, criticizes: “ Eco-efficiency and eco-modernism were both developed out of industry. They cannot be reconciled with sustainable development because they are inextricably linked with growth , globalization and free trade (as the antithesis to fair trade ). "

The German ecologist Jörn Fischer from the Leuphana University of Lüneburg made a general criticism of land-saving approaches such as that of the eco-modernists . He argued that the debates were too focused on technological aspects and neglected socio-economic and cultural factors.

literature

  • Jan Grossarth: Faith dispute over green growth . In: FAZ . May 23, 2015, p. 24 .
  • Mark Lynas: The God Species: How Humans Really Can Save the Planet… Fourth Estate, London 2012, ISBN 978-0-00-737522-6 .
  • Aleksandar Janjic: Transhumanistic Conservation - Why today's nature conservation will fail . In: Conference Essay for Ecomodernistic Approaches in Conservation Biology and Ecology . 2017.

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Thilo Spahl : New ecological movement 2.0 . In: The European , April 27, 2015
  2. ↑ a b c Ecomodernist Manifesto
  3. ^ Eduardo Porter: A Call to Look Past Sustainable Development . In: New York Times , April 14, 2015
  4. ↑ Lynas, pp. 121 and 238.
  5. ↑ a b c Peter Heller: The counter-speech to the manifesto of the eco-modernists: Ecologism cannot be modernized! science-skeptical, May 21, 2015
  6. ↑ Arnd Hardtke, Marco Prehn (Hrsg.): Perspectives of Sustainability: From Concept to Success Strategy . Business publishing house Gabler, Wiesbaden 2012, p. 132 Google books
  7. ↑ Joern Fischer: Land sparing versus land sharing: Moving forward. Ideas for Sustainability, December 19, 2013, accessed July 12, 2015 .