Friday, August 19, 2016


January 23, 2016

[Apology:  I prepared this in January and forgot to send.  A note from Lolly today about Ian Angus sent me stumbling into it again.  I hope everything is still relevant, but so fast are climate developments, probably not.   Dick]
What’s at stake:  Shall we follow the path of “adaptive optimism” that misled people during the early decades of warming, or the path recommended by Thomas Hardy, 19th Century poet and novelist?   “… if way to the Better there be, it exacts a full look at the Worst.”  [Or look at the worst in order to adapt accurately and adequately?  Actually isn’t that what OMNI350 Book Forum has done?]]

Climate ANTHROPOCENE, the Great Acceleration
ANTHROPOCENE is gaining favor as the word for the new epoch succeeding the Holocene.   The central issue in the following writings is:  Why are scientists discussing changing the name of the present epoch?   What changes have occurred in the atmosphere that might make a new epoch name needed?  Shall OMNI350 begin using the term to help the public become familiar with the idea?  --Dick  [And shall we henceforth write and say for CC:  Climate Catastrophe?]

The first six items are introductory and easily read.
Miesler, Thumbnail History
Dick, AD-G and Another Tiny History, The Collapse of Western Civilization by
     Oreskes and Conway, a “Science Fiction Novel”
Robinson, Forty Signs of Rain Novel
Oreskes and Conway, Merchants of Doubt
Ian Angus, “Anthropocene,” Notes by Dick
International Commission on Stratigraphy

The next two for further research.
John Bellamy Foster, The Great Capitalist Climacteric
Ian Angus, “Anthropocene,” Google Search
Anthropocene, Google Search

 Top of Form
Bottom of Form
 NOVEMBER Cover-Humanist-Nov-Dec-2015
Concerning Our Failure to Appreciate the Weather
BY PETER MIESLER • 20 OCTOBER 2015  The Humanist Nov. Dec. 2015
© Stocktrek Images© Stocktrek Images
Twenty years ago I came across a cartoon by Mike Keefe that captured an attitude I had found all too pervasive among my fellow Americans: the attitude of entitlement and detached disregard for understanding how our global climate system operates.
It inspired me to write an essay describing my understanding of our planet’s climate system, and it was published in the November/December 1995 issue of the Humanist. Rereading it, I notice some minor errors but the basic story remains as accurate today as it was back then. Since anniversaries are a good time to reflect on history and how far we’ve come (or not), I think it’s worth recalling where our understanding of climate change was twenty years ago.
Though there were fewer media outlets back then, they were more objective and for the most part offered straightforward climate science information. After all, it’s not that tough a story to summarize, even if the details get devilishly difficult.
By ’95 we had learned that weather is the product of climate conditions and that Earth’s climate conditions fluctuated. We knew that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were a major regulator of those fluctuations.
At the same time we were also being forced to confront the reality that it was our own burning of fossil fuels and the machines behind our modern marvels and lavish lifestyles that were increasingly belching “gaseous insulation” into our atmosphere.
Back then we were thinking about the Keeling Curve, the mother of all CO2concentration graphs. Consider for a moment that before the industrial revolution our global climate system had its CO2 regulator slowly fluctuating between about 180 ppm (parts per million) to 280 ppm. And I mean slowly, taking tens of thousands of years to go from peak to trough (±100 ppm), with profound changes from ice ages to temperate periods.
Around 1850 this gaseous regulator was set at the prehistoric peak of ±280 ppm, but by 1995 this greenhouse gas regulator increased 80 clicks, up to 360 ppm. It has taken only twenty years to ratchet up another forty clicks and bust through 400 ppm, which is setting up the earth for a hothouse future.
This added atmospheric insulation warms our climate system. Simple undeniable physics! This warming then forces the troposphere to hold more moisture.
I believe cartoonist Keefe’s storm clouds were a reminder of the increasing tempo of “rogue” weather events we had been witnessing. For instance, in the United States we had the great 1980 drought and heat wave that killed thousands; the wild 1982-83 season, with its El Niño-driven storms and floods; an ugly drought in Australia; and some crazy cyclone behavior in the Pacific. 1988 brought another massive and costly drought and heat wave, 1991 saw the Oakland Hills firestorm, and in 1992 category-five Hurricane Andrew hit the Atlantic, category four Iniki struck Hawaii, and the Pacific Ocean had its most powerful cyclone season in recorded history. The year ended with the colossal Nor’easter of ’92. Since dubbed “The Perfect Storm,” it was a reminder for all who were paying attention that global weather systems interact with each other and their cumulative energy is capable of extraordinary outbursts. For the next three years an amazing four extreme weather calamities hit the United States annually.
I like to think Keefe was mocking the studied avoidance found in growing numbers of citizens. The science was becoming clearer as to our impact on climate, with headlines of these events including phrases such as “wake up call.” Indeed, we were waking up to the fact that it was our own collective behavior and expectations driving this global problem; the escalating consumption we’d fallen in love with was the cancer that would continue raising our planet’s temperature. However, this dawning realization created a profound cognitive dissonance.
Mike Keefe's cartoon reprinted with permission of the cartoonist.
Mike Keefe’s cartoon reprinted with permission of the cartoonist.
The stark historic reality was this: power down or radically alter our planet’s global climate system and the biosphere upon which we all depend. Yes, that meant consuming less and in smarter ways. It also meant burning less fossil fuels and making fewer babies.
Republican and libertarian players took advantage of the power of cognitive dissonance and created a network of right-wing think tanks and PR fronts. With hindsight it’s easy to see their long-term, two-pronged approach. First, there was the enlisting and cultivating of certain profit-focused evangelical interests to foster faith-based communities that were emotionally hostile towards evidence-based learning and rational constructive discourse. The other depended on orchestrating dirty tricks, creating scandals, and lying about the scientific evidence, along with misrepresentation of and personal attacks against scientists themselves.
Instead of promoting curiosity or interest in learning about what was happening to our planet, they created an alternate universe of faux science that conformed to their ideology and to their political and business objectives. To hell with understanding observations and facts regarding Earth. The “merchants of doubt,” to borrow a phrase from Naomi Oreskes, became masters of deception and spin. For instance, after a record-smashing hot 1998, global surface temperatures plateaued and didn’t rise as fast as some expected.
By 2006 the spin masters started crying “no global warming!” with such insistence and wily finesse that they even got the scientific community all atwitter about an imaginary “global warming hiatus.”
It seemed like everyone forgot the unavoidable basics: It’s our planet’s atmospheric insulation doing the heavy lifting on this global warming thing.
The troposphere (Earth’s lowest layer of atmosphere) is huge and complex; heat is absorbed and moved around in myriad ways so it’s no surprise that scientists don’t have a perfect inventory of where every joule of heat is going. What matters is how atmospheric greenhouse gases are retaining heat, and that process scientists do understand—thoroughly. It doesn’t turn on and off; the “global warming hiatus” was an illusion from day one.
The question everyone should have been asking was: “Where did the surface heat go?” The answer turns out to be a combination of oceans and difficulties in deducing the “average” global surface temperature in the first place.
Another PR ringer is the soothing mantra that held some rational justification in the 1960s and ’70s, perhaps even in the ’80s, but has become increasingly disconnected from reality: “No single storm is proof of global warming.” The success of this bit of tactical misdirection has been astonishing and far-reaching. Even serious scientists glommed onto it. But it ignores the basic physical reality that weather is the tool of our climate and climate is dependent on the composition of the atmosphere.
Climate is a heat and moisture distribution engine. Weather is the physical tool that does the work of distributing the sun’s heat and hot moisture-laden air masses that our equatorial belt is constantly churning out. It follows that no weather event is independent of the overarching warming of our weather-making engine. So, what’s up with the wishful avoidance?
Flash forward to 2015 and the earth is experiencing its warmest year in recorded history. Extreme weather events continue breaking records, yet business leaders, their politicians, and their faithful continue to ignore everything climate scientists and observations have to teach them about our one and only planet.
We face a make-or-break challenge: Will we grow up and get serious about our impacts upon this one and only, finite home of ours? Will our politicians and business leaders muster the courage to take the threats to civilization seriously?
There are many who see this as the people’s project. Citizens’ Climate Lobby (CCL), for example, is a nonprofit, nonpartisan advocacy group that trains and supports volunteers to engage elected officials, the media, and the public on the need to act to mitigate climate change. They are gearing up for the upcoming UN Climate Change Conference in Paris and need more support. If you care about the health of our planet, here’s your chance to step up and be a global citizen; check out CCL’s “Pathway to Paris” website and lend your support.
Peter Miesler writes from near Durango, Colorado, and maintains the blog, challenging climate science contrarians to debate.

ARKANSAS DEMOCRAT-GAZETTE JAN. 21, 2016, and The Collapse of Western Civilization by Dick Bennett  [Oh oh, Art has discussed this book with us.  –D]
     The state’s largest circulation newspaper now recognizes, at least in a news report, and only four decades late, that not only is temperature  rising, but has risen dangerously, and is breaking the annual mark for high temperature.  (Seth Borenstein (AP), “2015 Earth’s Hottest in 136 Years, Experts Say.”)   Well, the headline “experts say” dilutes the truth a little, and the report is published on p. 6A below the fold.  One could think it would be page one news in large headline as a major public service.  Still, the truth inside the report is imperative.  (Placement of news articles can make a big difference.  You recall in the film Spotlight, The Boston Globe knew a decade earlier about priests’ pederasty but reported it in an inner section, the public remained acquiescent, and nothing was done until an investigative team worked relentlessly for the whole truth and reached page one.)
     The little book The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View from the Future by Oreskes and Conway summarizes  contexts for appraising the AD-G report.  The book is written as science fiction for the tercentenary of the end of Western culture (1540-2093) to explain why “the children of the Enlightenment failed to act on robust information about climate change and knowledge of the damaging events that were about to unfold.”   The imagined historian “concludes that a second Dark Age had fallen on Western civilization, in which denial and self-deception, rooted in an ideological fixation on ‘free’ markets, disabled the world’s powerful nations in the face of tragedy,” and the scientists themselves “were hamstrung by their own cultural [specializations] practices.”  (Introduction). 
     Chapter I, “The Coming of the Penumbral Age” (anti-intellectualism of the last quarter of the 20th c. and first decades of the 21st), reminds us how very much scientists and the people knew regarding the increasing C02 and warming, and how very little they did to mitigate it, “giving rise to the Anthropocene Period of geological history” (3).   As early as 1968, John Mercer warned the world in an article (p. 89) and Paul Ehrlich in his book The Population Bomb, but they were generally dismissed.  1988 is considered the beginning of the Penumbral Period, for in that year the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).   In 1991, the Montreal Protocol to Control Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer became a model for international governance.  And in 1992, world nations signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCC) “to prevent ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference’ in the climate system” (5).  But then, beginning with the USA, a backlash occurred and “climate change denial… spread rapidly.”  Corporations, government officials, and even some scientists focused on “uncertainties.”  A massive disinformation campaign preceding the 2009 conference in Copenhagen and funded mainly by fossil fuel companies undermined key evidence.   In all, fifteen post-UNFCC conference attempts to agree on binding, international law to prevent disruptive climate change” failed.
       Chapter II (pp. 11-33), “The Frenzy of Fossil Fuels” surveys some dozen reasons why the opponents of truth about CO2, warming, and climate change were able to succeed in blocking effective action.  (It’s a sickening history of major miscreancy and malfeasance but in which just about everybody is complicit by doing nothing or too little.  –Dick].
     Chapter III, “Market Failure” examines two ideologies that trapped Western civilization—positivism and market fundamentalism--, and the “carbon combustion system” that together controlled US climate decision-making.
      An Epilogue anticipates China’s adaption to climate change catastrophes.
     Then a “Lexicon of Archaic Terms” (my italics, remember the book is written by an author in 2093; I enjoyed this double-perspective). 
     Finally, an “Interview with the Authors.”
Oreskes and Conway identify their books as at least half a novel.  Here’s another about the shift from Holocene epoch to the proposed Anthropocene:
FORTY SIGNS OF RAIN by Kim Stanley Robinson
Review in Publisher’s Weekly, 2004.
In this cerebral near-future novel, the first in a trilogy, Robinson (The Years of Rice and Salt ) explores the events leading up to a worldwide catastrophe brought on by global warming. Each of his various viewpoint characters holds a small piece of the puzzle and can see calamity coming, but is helpless before the indifference of the politicians and capitalists who run America. Anna Quibler, a National Science Foundation official in Washington, D.C., sifts through dozens of funding proposals each day, while her husband, Charlie, handles life as a stay-at-home dad and telecommutes to his job as an environmental adviser to a liberal senator. Another scientist, Frank Vanderwal, finds his sterile worldview turned upside down after attending a lecture on Buddhist attitudes toward science given by the ambassador from Khembalung, a nation virtually inundated by the rising Indian Ocean. Robinson's tale lacks the drama and excitement of such other novels dealing with global climate change as Bruce Sterling's Heavy Weather and John Barnes's Mother of Storms, but his portrayal of how actual scientists would deal with this disaster-in-the-making is utterly convincing. Robinson clearly cares deeply about our planet's future, and he makes the reader care as well. Agent, Ralph Vicinanza. 

See Naomi Oreskes, Erik M. M. Conway.  Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.    2011.  Film based on book 2015.
Merchants of Doubt was one of the most talked-about climate change books of recent years, for reasons easy to understand: It tells the controversial story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades.

The Great Capitalist Climacteric

Marxism and "System Change Not Climate Change"
This article is from a keynote address presented at Manifesta in Ostend, Belgium on September 19, 2015. This year’s Manifesta was organized around the theme of climate change in preparation for the COP21 climate negotiations (and protests) in Paris in December 2015.
Humanity today is confronted with what might be called the Great Capitalist Climacteric. In the standard definition, a climacteric (from the Greekklimaktēr or rung on the ladder) is a period of critical transition or a turning point in the life of an individual or a whole society. From a social standpoint, it raises issues of historical transformation in the face of changing conditions.1 In the 1980s environmental geographers Ian Burton and Robert Kates referred to “the Great Climacteric” to address what they saw as the developing global ecological problem of the limits to growth, stretching from 1798 (the year of publication of Thomas Malthus’s Essay on the Principle of Population) to 2048, 250 years later. “Applied to population, resources, and environment throughout the world,” the notion of a Great Climacteric, they wrote, “captures the idea of a period that is critical and where serious change for the worse may occur. It is a time of unusual danger.”2
I will use the term the Great Capitalist Climacteric here to refer to the necessary epochal social transition associated with the current planetary emergency. It refers both to the objective necessity of a shift to a sustainable society and to the threat to the existence of Homo sapiens (as well as numerous other species) if the logic of capital accumulation is allowed to continue dictating to society as a whole. The current world of business as usual is marked by rapid climate change, but also by the crossing or impending crossing of numerous other planetary boundaries that define “a safe operating space for humanity.”3 It was the recognition of this and of the unprecedented speed of Earth system change due to social-historical factors that led scientists in recent years to introduce the notion of the Anthropocene epoch, marking the emergence of humanity as a geological force on a planetary scale.4 As leading U.S. climatologist James Hansen explains, “The rapidity with which the human-caused positive [climate] forcing is being introduced has no known analog in Earth’s history. It is thus exceedingly difficult to foresee the consequences if the human-made climate forcing continues to accelerate.”5
With the present rate of carbon emission, the world will break the global carbon budget—reaching the trillionth metric ton of combusted carbon and generating a 2°C increase in global average temperature—within a generation or so.6 Once we reach a 2°C increase, it is feared, we will be entering a world of climate feedbacks and irreversibility where humanity may no longer be able to return to the conditions that defined the Holocene epoch in which civilization developed. The 2°C “guardrail” officially adopted by world governments in Copenhagen in 2009 is meant to safeguard humanity from plunging into what prominent UK climatologist Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Center for Climate Change has called “extremely dangerous” climate change. Yet, stopping carbon emissions prior to the 2°C boundary, Anderson tells us, will at this point require “revolutionary change to the political economic hegemony,” going against the accumulation of capital or economic growth characteristics that define the capitalist system. More concretely, staying within the carbon budget means that global carbon emissions must at present be cut by around 3 percent a year, and in the rich countries by approximately 10 percent per annum—moving quickly to zero net emissions (or carbon neutrality). For an “outside chance” of staying below 2°C, Anderson declared in 2012, the rich (OECD, Annex I) countries would need to cut their emissions by 70 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2030.7
Yet, despite the widespread awareness of the planetary emergency represented by global warming, carbon emissions have continued to rise throughout the world. The failure of capitalism to implement the necessary cuts in carbon dioxide can be explained by the threat that this poses to its very existence as a system of capital accumulation. As a result civilization is faced by a threat of self-extermination that over the long run is as great as that posed by a full nuclear exchange—and in a process that is more inexorable. The present reality of global capitalism makes it appear utopian to call for a revolutionary strategy of “System Change Not Climate Change.” But the objective of stopping climate change leaves the world with no other option, since avoiding climate-change disaster will be even more difficult—and may prove impossible—if the global population does not act quickly and decisively.
Some observers have been quick to conclude that 2°C will inevitably be crossed given prevailing social reality and the failure of current climate negotiations, and that we should therefore simply accept this and shift the target, choosing to stop climate change before it reaches a 3°C or a 4°C
increase. This is a view that the World Bank has subtly encouraged.
8 It is necessary, however, to take into account the likely non-linear effects of such global warming on the entire Earth system. Beyond 2°C, the level of uncertainty, and the threat of uncontrollable Earth warming due to “slow feedbacks” and the crossing of successive thresholds (tipping points), are magnified enormously.9 Human actions to cut greenhouse gas emissions might then come too late, not simply in the sense of an increase in catastrophic events such as extreme weather or the effects of sea level rise, but also in the even more ominous sense of humanity’s loss of the power to stabilize the climate (and civilization). We do not know when and where such a global tipping point will be reached, but today’s climate science tells us that it is much closer to a 2°C increase than was thought when that boundary was originally proposed. What was once believed to be “dangerous climate” change arising at 2°C is now considered to be “highly dangerous.”10 If uncontrollable global warming—driven by the reduction in the albedo effect (the reflectivity of the earth), the release of methane from the permafrost, and other slow feedbacks—were to take over, human beings would have little choice but simply to try to adapt in whatever ways they could, watching while their own future, and even more that of future generations, evaporated before their eyes.11
Indeed, even the 2°C guardrail approach, Hansen argues, is too conservative. If major sea level rise engulfing islands and threatening coastal cities throughout the world and displacing hundreds millions of people is to be avoided, society needs to aim at reaching 350 parts per million (ppm) of atmospheric carbon (down from the present 400 ppm) by 2100, which would require cutting net carbon emissions by about 6 percent per annum globally.12
As bad as all of this is, it is essential to keep in mind that climate change is only one part of the Great Capitalist Climacteric confronting the world in the twenty-first century—although related to all the others. The world economy has already crossed or is on the brink of crossing a whole set of planetary boundaries, each one of which represents a planetary emergency in its own right, including ocean acidification, loss of biological diversity, the disruption of the nitrogen and phosphorus cycles, disappearance of fresh water, land cover change (particularly deforestation), and growing pollution from synthetic chemicals (leading to biomagnification and bioaccumulation of toxins in living organisms).13 The common denominator behind all of these rifts in the biogeochemical cycles of the planet is the system of capital accumulation on a global scale. This points to the need for truly massive, accelerated social change exceeding in scale not only the great social revolutions of the past, but also the great transformations of production marked by the original Agricultural Revolution and the Industrial Revolution: namely, a twenty-first century Ecological Revolution.
Natural science can take us only so far on these issues. Since the source of the Great Capitalist Climacteric lies in the historical constitution of human society, necessitating a social revolution, we must turn to social science as a guide. Yet, the dominant social science has as its underlying premise—structuring its entire frame of analysis—the notion that the critique of capitalism is off limits. This is so much the case that even the name “capitalism,” as John Kenneth Galbraith pointed out in The Economics of Innocent Fraud, was increasingly replaced in the 1980s by the “meaningless designation” of “the market system.”14 When capitalism is referred to at all today in the mainstream it is as a mere synonym for the watered down notion of a competitive market society, viewed as the end (telos) of human history—both in the sense that all of history is seen as the unfolding of a natural tendency toward market capitalism, and that capitalism itself is “the end of history.”15
The result of such ahistorical thinking is that conventional thought, with only minor exceptions, has virtually no serious social scientific analysis on which to rely in confronting today’s Great Capitalist Climacteric. Those who swallow whole the notion that there is no future beyond capitalism are prone to conclude—in defiance of the facts—that the climate crisis can be mitigated within the present system. It is this social denialism of liberal-left approaches to the climate crisis, and of the dominant social science, that led Naomi Klein to declare in This Changes Everything that “the right is right” in viewing climate change as a threat to capitalism. The greatest obstacle before us, she insists, is not the outright denialism of the science by the far right, but rather the social denialism of the dominant liberal discourse, which, while giving lip service to the science, refuses to face reality and recognize that capitalism must go.16
If conventional social science is crippled at every point by corrupt adherence to a prevailing class reality, the postmodern turn over the last few decades has generated a left discourse that is just as ill-equipped to address the Great Capitalist Climacteric. Largely abandoning historical analysis (grand narratives) and the negation of the negation—that is, the idea of a revolutionary forward movement—the left has given way to extreme skepticism and the deconstruction of everything in existence, constituting a profound “dialectic of defeat.”17
Although some hope is to be found in the Green theory or “ecologism” that has emerged in the context of the environmental movement, such views are typically devoid of any secure moorings within social (or natural) science, relying on neo-Malthusian assumptions coupled with an abstract ethical orientation that focuses on the need for a new, ecocentric world-view aimed at protecting the earth and other species.18 The main weakness of this new ecological conscience is the absence of anything remotely resembling “the confrontation of reason with reality,” in the form of a serious ecological and social critique of capitalism as a system.19 Abstract notions like growth, industrialism, or consumption take the place of investigations into the laws of motion of capitalism as an economic and social order, and how these laws of motion have led to a collision course with the Earth system.
It is therefore the socialist tradition, building on the powerful foundations of historical materialism—and returning once more to its radical foundations to reinvent and re-revolutionize itself—to which we must necessarily turn in order to find the main critical tools with which to address the Great Capitalist Climacteric and the problem of the transition to a just and sustainable society. A period of self-criticism within Marxian theory, commencing in the 1960s and developing over decades, eventually gave rise to a revolution in its understanding of social-ecological conditions. Yet, like most intellectual revolutions the new insights arose only by standing “on the shoulders of giants”—that is, based on the rediscovery and reconstruction of prior understandings, in the face of changing conditions.
The advance of Marxian ecology was the product of a massive archaeological dig in the scientific foundations of Marx’s thought, allowing for the development of a much richer understanding of the relation of the materialist conception of history to the materialist conception of nature—and generating a deeper, wider social-ecological critique of capitalist society.
By the end of the last century this return to Marx’s ecology had resulted in three crucial scientific breakthroughs: (1) the rediscovery of what could be called Marx’s “ecological value-form analysis”; (2) the recovery and reconstruction of his theory of metabolic rift; and (3) the retrieval of the two types of ecological crisis theory embedded in his analysis. These critical breakthroughs were to generate new strategic insights into revolutionary praxis in the Anthropocene.

The Three Critical Breakthroughs of Ecological Marxism

What has often been called the Western Marxist tradition that arose in the 1920s and ’30s, was distinguished primarily by its rejection of the dialectics of nature and Soviet-style dialectical materialism.20 The interpretation of Marx’s approach to the relation of nature and society in the Western Marxist tradition found its most systematic early expression in Alfred Schmidt’s 1962 The Concept of Nature in Marx, originally written as a doctoral thesis under the supervision of Frankfurt School philosophers Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno. Schmidt recognized the central importance of Marx’s notion of social metabolism in the development of a revolutionary, new conception of nature. Yet, this was to be set aside in Schmidt’s wider criticism, which attributed to Marx the same narrow instrumentalist-productivist vision purportedly characteristic of the “dialectic of Enlightenment” as a whole.21
In the 1970s and ’80s Schmidt’s overall negative assessment of Marx on nature was adopted by what has now come to be known as “first-stage ecosocialism,” associated with figures such as Ted Benton and Andre Gorz.22 Benton argued that Marx had gone overboard in his criticism of Malthus’s population theory to the point of denying natural limits altogether.23 The mature Marx (as distinguished from the Marx of the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts) was thus seen as devoid of positive ecological values and as promoting a crude “Promethean” productivism. A common practice of first-stage ecoscialism was to graft both neo-Malthusian concepts and the primarily ethical standpoint of Green theory onto more traditional Marxian theory, creating a hybrid ecosocialism or what was referred to as “the greening of Marxism.”24 As Raymond Williams critically observed, the result was a tendency to “run together two kinds of thinking” associated with Green theory and Marxism, rather than going back to the roots of historical materialism to uncover its own ecological premises.25
It was in this context that a “second-stage ecosocialism,” challenging the first, arose in the 1990s in the work of various Marxian political economists. Socialist theorists proceeded to dig into the very foundations of classical historical materialism and its value-theoretical framework. The first critical breakthrough, dramatically altering our understanding of Marx on ecology, was provided by Marxian economist Paul Burkett, who in his 1999 Marx and Nature recovered the ecological value-form analysis underpinning Marx’s entire critique of political economy.26 It was the early Soviet economist, I.I. Rubin, who had first emphasized the double nature of Marx’s value theory as consisting of: (1) a theory of the value-form, or what Marxian economist Paul Sweezy in the United States was to call “the qualitative value problem,” and (2) a theory of the quantitative determination of value and price. It was the value-form analysis, focusing on the social form that value assumes and the larger qualitative aspects of capitalist valorization connecting it to class and production, which was to be Marx’s singular achievement—altering as well the understanding of the quantitative aspects of value.27 In Burkett’s work, Marx’s value-form theory was elaborated to explain systematically for the first time the ecological value-form analysis embedded in classical historical materialism.28
From this standpoint, Marx’s entire critique was seen as rooted in the contradictory relations between what he called “production in general,” characterizing human production in all of its forms, and the historically specific capitalist labor and production process.29 In production in general the human labor process transforms the products of nature, or natural-material use values, which constitute real material wealth. However, in capitalism, conceived as a specific mode of production, this characteristic of production in general takes a more alienated form, as the majority of workers are estranged from the means of production, and particularly the land, and are thus proletarianized—able to survive only by selling their labor power.
All value, the classical political economists argued, came from labor. But classical-liberal political economists saw this as a universal, trans-
historical reality, while 
Marx, in sharp contrast, conceived it as a historically specific one, confined to capitalism. Nature was excluded, as Marx stressed, from the direct creation of value/exchange value under capitalism.30 This is still reflected in our national income or GDP statistics, which account for economic growth entirely in terms of thevalue added of human services, measured in the form of wages or property income.31 The capitalist calculation of value or economic growth thus has as one of its underlying premises, to quote Marx, the notion of the “free gift of Nature to capital.”32 Nature’s powers are presumed by the system to be a direct gift to capital itself, for which no exchange must be made.33 This means, in truth, that nature, or real wealth, is robbed. As the socialist ecological economist, K. William Kapp, wrote in the 1960s, “capitalism must be regarded as an economy of unpaid costs.”34 (It should be noted here that the existence of rents for land and resources does not alter the essential fact that nature is excluded from the value calculation. Instead, rents ensure that part of the surplus produced by society is redistributed to those who are able to monopolize the “rights” to natural resources.)
The second critical breakthrough in Marxian ecology was the recovery of what has come to be known as Marx’s theory of metabolic rift. Marx’s adoption of the concept of metabolism to address the systemic relations of nature and society was evident beginning with his writings in the Grundrisse in the late 1850s and in all of his major political-economic writings thereafter—up through his 1879–1880 Notes on Adolph Wagner. In 1850 Marx encountered what amounted to an early ecological system perspective, in the extension of the concept of metabolism (Stoffwechsel) to the interconnected relations of plants and animals, through Mikrokosmos, written by his close friend and political associate, the socialist physician-scientist Roland Daniels.35
Marx was later to be influenced by the German chemist Justus von Liebig’s critique of British industrial agriculture, particularly the introduction to the 1862 edition of Liebig’s great work on agricultural chemistry. Liebig’s virulent critique of capitalist agriculture was concerned with the nineteenth-century soil crisis. He noted that the essential soil nutrients, such as nitrogen, potassium, and phosphorus, were shipped in the form of food and fiber to the new densely populated urban-industrial centers, where they contributed to the pollution of the cities, and were lost to the soil. Hence, Liebig and Marx both referred to industrial capitalist agriculture as a robbery system, leaching the soil of its nutrients. Britain in this period was forced to make up for its robbing the soil of its nutrients by imperialistically importing bones from the Napoleonic battlefields and the catacombs of Europe, and guano from Peru, in order to obtain the natural fertilizer to replenish English fields. The global metabolic rift, according to Marx, meant that capitalism disrupted “the eternal natural condition” of life itself. It therefore produced “an irreparable rift in the interdependent process of social metabolism, a metabolism prescribed by the natural laws of life itself.”36This rift could also be seen in the unequal ecological exchange between countries, whereby capital in the center systematically robbed the periphery of its soil and resources.37
Marx’s overall analysis in this respect is best understood in terms of a triad of concepts discussed in his Economic Manuscripts of 1861–1862 and Capital: “the universal metabolism of nature,” the “social metabolism,” and the metabolic rift.38 Human beings, he argued, exist within the “universal metabolism of nature,” from which they extract nature’s use values, and transform these in production, i.e., the “social metabolism,” in order to meet their needs for subsistence and development. Yet, capitalism, as a historically specific form of production, systematically alienates workers from the means of production (the land, nature, tools) thereby proletarianizing labor, and making possible capitalist exploitation and accumulation. In the process, both the soil and the worker, the “original sources of all wealth,” were undermined, generating a metabolic rift. The result, Marx argued, was the necessity of the “restoration” of this metabolism, which however, could only take place in a higher society, i.e. socialism.39
It was with such considerations in mind that Marx introduced the most radical conception of ecological sustainability ever developed. As he wrote in Capital:
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 the 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 the household].40
In Marx, ecological sustainability together with substantive equality defined the entire basis of socialism/communism. “Freedom, in this sphere,” he wrote, “can consist only in this, that socialized man, the associated producers, govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way…accomplishing it with the least expenditure of energy and in conditions most worthy and appropriate for their human nature.”41
The third critical breakthrough of second-stage ecosocialism was the retrieval of Marx’s dual conception of ecological crisis in capitalist society. In the first form of ecological crisis, depicted in Capital, the focus was on natural resource scarcity. Here the problem is how increasing scarcities of resources and environmental amenities in general lead to enhanced ecological costs, thereby squeezing profit margins. This can be seen in Marx’s treatment of the British cotton crisis during the U.S. Civil War, the role of resources in elevating the cost of constant capital in his theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, and in his discussions of the need of capital to conserve constant capital. Increasing resource costs with the degradation of the environment can create huge problems for capitalist accumulation. Here it is evident how imperialism, in keeping the price of internationally sourced raw material prices low, helps promote capital accumulation in the center of the system.
Yet, there is also to be found in Marx a theory of ecological crisis proper, or a crisis of sustainable human development, going beyond the value calculus of the system itself—as exemplified by the theory of metabolic rift. Simply because capitalism is a robbery system, in Liebig and Marx’s sense, it externalizes most of the costs of environmental (and social) degradation on nature and society without this directly affecting its bottom line. Thus such phenomena as desertification and deforestation—both of which were discussed by Marx—have implications for sustainable human development but do not enter directly into the value calculation of the commodity system. A metabolic rift that disrupts biogeochemical cycles may be fully compatible with continued accumulation. In its relative insulation from the environmental degradation that it systematically creates everywhere around it, capitalism is unique among modes of production.
As Burkett writes, “For Marx…capital accumulation can maintain itself through environmental crises. In fact, this is one thing that makes capitalism different from previous societies. It has the ability to continue with its competitive, profit-driven pattern of accumulation despite the damage this does to natural conditions.”42 Today we see economic growth continue while the disruptions of the biogeochemical cycles of the entire planet upon which all living beings depend for their existence do not enter into the accounting. In fact, these disruptions and rifts open new profit-making opportunities for capital such as the agrichemical (fertilizers and pesticides) industry or today’s carbon markets.
Most of the concrete research inspired by Marxian theories of ecological crisis in recent years has focused on the theory of metabolic rift, since it is the crisis of sustainable human development that defines the current planetary emergency. Moreover, the metabolic rift perspective has provided an understanding of systemic environmental changes not reducible simply to issues of scale and carrying capacity or to the economics of the system—thereby probing new dimensions of the problem. Marx’s metabolic rift analysis intersects with the treadmill of production analysis (which grew out of his theory of accumulation), and at the same time relates to developments in natural science, thus tying into the most developed ecological perspectives.43 It points to the deep contradictions associated with capital’s division of nature (alongside the division of labor).
For example, the metabolic rift allows us to understand more fully the implications—of which Marx was already critical in the nineteenth century—of the attempts of the system to accelerate the growth rates of animals in factory-style production, by removing them from their ecosystems, changing their food intake, breeding, and so on. Animals are decomposed, their various body parts manipulated, converted into mere processes of production to be commodified to the nth degree.44
The metabolic rift analysis was also seen by Marx and Engels in terms of open-system thermodynamics, in the context of which, as Engels observed in 1882, humanity was “squandering” the fossil fuels associated with “past solar energy” while failing to make good use of present solar energy.45

Marxism and the Great Capitalist Climacteric

It is on the basis of this set of critical theoretical breakthroughs—constituting a scientific revolution in Marxian theory reaching back into the very foundations of historical materialism—that it is possible to draw five broad conclusions about the ecological and social revolution that is now necessary in the face of today’s Great Capitalist Climacteric.
First, the problem threatening the global environment is the accumulation of capital under the present phase of monopoly-finance capital, and not just economic growth in the abstract. That is, issues of the qualitative nature of development as well as quantitative development are involved. This raises the question of the ecological value form associated with capitalism in its monopoly-finance phase, geared to the promotion of economic and ecological waste as a stimulus to accumulation. Today the rich economies are well developed and capable of satisfying the material needs of their populations, and of emphasizing qualitative human development. Capitalism, however, requires continual value expansion and commodity consumption, with increasing throughputs of energy and materials.46 This is promoted today by means of a massive sales effort, amounting to well over a trillion dollars a year in the United States, and through a vast outpouring of economic waste in the form of synthetic goods that are toxic to the environment.47 As the Marxian economist Paul Baran wrote in the 1960s, “people steeped in the culture of monopoly capitalism do not want what they need and do not need what they want.”48 On top of this vast waste system (including military waste), which drives accumulation, is a financialized superstructure that has enabled the system to transfer wealth and income more rapidly to the 0.01 percent at the top of society.49 In the new financial architecture that has emerged the credit-debt system dominates over the entire global economy. It is this irrational system of artificially stimulated growth, economic waste, financialized wealth, and extreme inequality that needs to be overturned if we are to create a society of ecological sustainability and substantive equality.
If economic growth in the wealthy countries continues as at present—even by the standards of our current period of relative economic stagnation—there is very little or no chance of avoiding breaking the world climate budget with disastrous global consequences. It is the growth in the scale of the economy, and the destructive tendencies of our ecologically inefficient, technologically destructive society, geared to roundabout production—whereby plastic spoons are made in China and shipped to the United States where they have a lifetime use of a few minutes before reentering the waste stream, generating all sorts of toxic chemicals in the process—that are threatening the biogeochemical processes of the entire planet. Capital’s social metabolic processes attempt to recreate the planet in its own image, treating all planetary boundaries as mere barriers to surmount, thus generating a global metabolic rift on a rapidly warming planet. All of this points to the need to place limits on economic growth, and specifically on the expansion of today’s disaster capitalism.
Second, capitalism is suffering at present from an epochal crisisboth economic and environmental. This is manifested in overaccumulation, stagnation, and financialization, on the one hand, and ecological rifts and disruptions, both within each and every ecosystem and on the level of the planet as a whole, on the other.50 These two long-term structural crises of the system are not reducible to each other, except in the sense that they are both induced by the logic of capital accumulation. What we have called ecological crisis proper is largely invisible to the value accounting of the capitalist system, and is systematically given a lower priority in relation to economic imperatives. Society is constantly told that the solution to economic stagnation is economic growth by any means: usually involving the promotion of neoliberal disaster capitalism. Yet such an economic solution—which is beyond the power of the system to effect in a long-term, stable way, but only on a temporary, ad-hoc basis—would be fatal to the planetary environment, which requires less, not more expansion of the economic treadmill. The epochal crisis of economy and ecology within the capitalist system is thus likely to continue, with both fault lines widening, as long as the logic of capital prevails. This conflict between economic and ecological objectives is not a contradiction of analysis, but of the capitalist system itself.
Third, if accumulation or economic growth is to be halted in the rich countries, even temporarily, out of sheer ecological necessity, this would require a vast new system of redistribution. As Lewis Mumford indicated in 1944 inThe Condition of Man, a stationary state or steady-state economy is only possible under conditions of “basic communism,” a term which Mumford (after Marx) used to refer to a society in which distribution is organized “according to need, not according to ability or productive contribution.”51 There must be a vast redirection of society’s social surplus to genuine human requirements and ecological sustainability as opposed to the giant treadmill of production generated by the profit system. It is by creating a society directed to use value rather than exchange value that we can find the resources to develop a world that is sustainable because it is just, and just because it is sustainable. Society will need to be reordered, as Epicurus said, and Marx concurred, according to the principle of enough—that is, through a rich development of human needs, applicable to everyone.52
Fourth, Marx provided a model of socialism as one of sustainable human development.53 In order to meet the challenge of the Great Capitalist Climacteric it will be necessary to shift power to the associated producers, who, acting in accord with science and communal values, will need to regulate the complex, interdependent metabolism between nature and society according to their own developed human needs and in conformity with the requirements of the earth metabolism. In today’s context, this will require what Marx called the “restoration” of the essential human-natural metabolism, healing the metabolic rift.54 In discussing the principle of “metabolic restoration,” Del Weston wrote in her book The Political Economy of Global Warming: “The need is for human societies to live within metabolic cycles—that is, production, consumption and waste—thereby forming part of a self-sustaining cycle in which the only new inputs are energy from the sun…. Nature, in the new economics, will be recognised as the ultimate source of wealth.”55 Moreover, given the present planetary emergency we have to move fast to create this new economics and new ecological relation to the earth, diverting resources massively to creating the new energy infrastructure that can exist within the solar budget, while at the same time promoting Mumford’s “basic communism,” or a society based on the principle of to each according to need.
Fifth, the hoped for revolutionary change can only occur through human agency. Although it is widely recognized that the world needs an ecological and social revolution, the question remains: From whence and by what agency will such a revolution arise? Ecological Marxists suggest that we may already be seeing signs of the rise of what could be called a nascent “environmental proletariat”—a broad mass of working-class humanity who recognize, as a result of the crisis of their own existence, the indissoluble bond between economic and ecological conditions.56Degraded material conditions associated with intermingled economic and ecological crises are now being encountered on a daily basis by the great majority of the world’s population and affecting all aspects of their lives. At the ground level, economic and ecological crises are becoming increasingly indistinguishable. Food crises, land grabs, electricity shutdowns, water privatization, heightened pollution, deteriorating cities, declining public health, increasing violence against oppressed populations—are all converging with growing inequality, economic stagnation, and rising unemployment and underemployment. In South Africa, for example, the class struggle is now as much an environmental as an economic struggle—already exhibiting signs of an emerging environmental working class.57 The logical result is a coming together of material revolts against the system—what David Harvey has usefully referred to as a “co-revolutionary” struggle.58 This is best exemplified by the global environmental/climate justice movement and through the radical direct action movement that Naomi Klein calls “Blockadia.”59
Traditional working-class politics are thus coevolving and combining with environmental struggles, and with the movements of people of color, of women, and all those fighting basic, reproductive battles throughout society. Such an ecological and social struggle will be revolutionary to the extent that it draws its force from those layers of society where people’s lives are most precarious: third world workers, working-class women, oppressed people of color in the imperial core, indigenous populations, peasants/landless agricultural workers, and those fighting for fundamentally new relations of sexuality, gender, family, and community—as well as highly exploited and dispossessed workers everywhere.
A revolutionary struggle in these circumstances will need to occur in two phases: an ecodemocratic phase in the immediate present, seeking to build a broad alliance—one in which the vast majority of humanity outside of the ruling interests will be compelled by their inhuman conditions to demand a world of sustainable human development. Over time this should create the conditions for a second, more decisive, ecosocialist phase of the revolutionary struggle, directed at the creation of a society of substantive equality, ecological sustainability, and collective democracy. All of this points to the translation of classical Marx’s ecological critique into contemporary revolutionary praxis.60
In the ecodemocratic phase, the goal would be to carry out those radical reforms that would arrest the current destructive logic of capital, by fighting for changes that are radical, even revolutionary, in that they go against the logic of capital, but are nonetheless conceivable as concrete, meaningful forms of struggle in the present context. These would include measures like: (1) an emergency plan of reduction in carbon emissions in the rich economies by 8–10 percent a year; (2) implementing a moratorium on economic growth coupled with radical redistribution of income and wealth, conservation of resources, rationing, and reductions in economic waste; (3) diverting military spending, now universally called “defense spending” to the defense of the planet as a place of human habitation; (4) the creation of an alternative energy infrastructure designed to stay within the solar budget; (5) closing down coal-fired plants and blocking unconventional fossil fuels such as tar sands oil; (6) a carbon fee and dividend system of the kind proposed by Hansen, that would redistribute 100 percent of the revenue to the population on a per capita basis; (7) global initiatives to aid emerging economies to move toward sustainable development; (8) implementation of principles of environmental justice throughout the society and linking this to adaptation to climate change (which cannot be stopped completely) to ensure that people of color, the poor, women, indigenous populations, and third world populations do not bear the brunt of catastrophe; and (9) adoption of climate negotiations and policies on the model proposed in the Peoples’ Agreement on Climate Change in Cochabamba, Bolivia in 2010. Such radical change proposals can be multiplied, and would need to effect all aspects of society and individual human development. The rule in the ecodemocratic phase of development would be to address the epochal crisis (ecological and economic) in which the world is now caught, and to do so in ways that go against the logic of business as usual, which is indisputably leading the world toward cumulative catastrophe.
The logic of the ecodemocratic phase of the struggle, if it were carried out fully, would create the conditions for anecosocialist phase in which the mobilization of the population on their own behalf, and the cultural and economic changes that this brings about, would give the impetus to the creation of a society of from each according to ability, to each according to need.61 The system of social metabolic reproduction would be reconstituted on a more communal basis taking into account not only present and future generations, but the Earth system itself and the diversity life within it. The necessary social and ecological planning would start from local needs and local communities and would be integrated with larger political-executive entities responsible for coordination and implementation in relation to these needs.
Such a society would be democratic in the classical sense of the word—rule of society by the people, the associated producers.62 It was this that Marx had in mind when he stressed (as quoted above) that “socialized man, the associated producers, [would] govern the human metabolism with nature in a rational way…accomplishing it with the least expenditure of energy and in conditions most worthy and appropriate for their human nature.” For Marx in the nineteenth century this was a struggle for human freedom; today, in the twenty-first century, it is a struggle for human freedom and human survival.
In 1980, the British Marxist historian E.P. Thompson wrote a cautionary essay for New Left Review entitled “Notes on Exterminism, The Last Stage of Civilization.” Although directed particularly at the growth of nuclear arsenals and the dangers of global holocaust from a nuclear exchange in the final phase of the Cold War, Thompson’s thesis was also concerned with the larger realm of ecological destruction wrought by the system. Rudolf Bahro later commented on Thompson’s ideas in his Avoiding Social and Ecological Disaster, explaining: “To express the exterminism-thesis in Marxist terms, one could say that the relationship between productive and destructive forces is turned upside down. Marx had seen the trail of blood running through it, and that ‘civilisation leaves deserts behind it.'”63 Today this ecologically ruinous trend has been extended to the entire planet with capitalism’s proverbial “creative destruction” being transformed into a destructive creativity endangering humanity and life in general.64
“The dream that man can make himself godlike by centering his energies solely on the conquest of the external world,” Mumford wrote in The Condition of Man, “has now become the emptiest of dreams: empty and sinister.”65The result is a kind of economics of exterminism. Today making war on the planet is fought as a means to the end of capital accumulation, in which the limits of the earth itself have become invisible to the narrow value calculations of the system. Turning this economics of exterminism around, and creating a more just and sustainable world at peace with the planet is our task in the Great Capitalist Climacteric. If we cannot accomplish this humanity will surely die with capitalism. The prophesy of all defenders of the current order over the last century will then be fulfilled. Capitalism will mark the end of human history by bringing to an end human civilization—and even human existence.
The Great Capitalist Climacteric presents us with a fatal choice: System Change Not Climate Change!

Misc. Notes by Dick mainly from the essay by Ian Angus, “Anthropocene.” Monthly Review (Sept. 2015).
Anthropocene has gained rapid acceptance during last 20 years and the science is developing rapidly.
The earth is now moving beyond Holocene, its present natural geological epoch, to Anthropocene.
Anthropocene is defined as
The incoming human-created geological epoch replacing the natural interglacial state called the Holocene.  Anthropocene is the term proposed for this new no-analogue planetary terra incognita bringing with it potentially catastrophic effects for all life on Earth.   --Dick
See essays in C. N. Waters, et al., eds.  A Stratigraphical Basis for the Anthropocene.  2014.
What caused this new epoch?
Multiple origins.  Many believe it derives from the dominant economic system—unregulated capitalism.  See my newsletter on Naomi Klein’s This Changes EverythingGET LINK   See Oreskes and Conway.
Alexandre Costa: “a crisis engendered by capitalism.”
Who created the label:
Paul Crutzen in his 1995 Nobel Prize speech regarding his research on the chemicals destroying the ozone he said:  “human activities” now “could compete and interfere with natural processes.”  By 2000 “he argued that human activity had driven the earth into a new geological epoch, which he proposed to call the Anthropocene,” (Angus 2).
Early warnings:
John Mercer, Paul Ehrlich 1968 (see Oreskes and Conway).
James Hansen 1988. 
Paul Sweezy, “Capitalism and the Environment,” Monthly Review (June 1989).  Actvities harmful to the environment become dangerously destructive on a global scale, which happened after WWII, producing the present “environmental crisis.”  (5, Angus 11).
 John Bellamy Foster, The Vulnerable Planet, 1994.  “Today few can doubt that the system has crossed critical thresholds of ecological sustainability, raising questions about the vulnerability of the entire planet” (109, Angus 11).
Significant early books (contact me for an annotated bibliography):
Global Change and the Earth System: A Planet Under Pressure by Will Steffen, et al.  2004.  “. . .the Earth System is now in a no-analogue situation, best referred to as a new era in the geological history of Earth, the Anthropocene” (81).
 The word Anthropocene has appeared in the titles of dozens of books (see at end).    [Oh oh, this appraisal is turning into a bibliographical essay.]
The word Anthropocene now appears in the titles of several academic journals: 
the new world of the anthropocene 1 - ‎Zalasiewicz* - Cited by 287
The Anthropocene Review: Its significance, … - ‎Oldfield - Cited by 20
The Anthropocene: a new epoch of geological time? - ‎Zalasiewicz - Cited by 198
Elsevier BV
Anthropocene is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes peer-reviewed works addressing the nature, scale, and extent of the interactions that...
Elementa is an academic journal publishing original research in the following knowledge domains: ... Wayne Clough on the Anthropocene and Engineering ...
Sage Publications
The Anthropocene Review is a trans-disciplinary journal issued 3 times per year, bringing together peer-reviewed articles on all aspects of research pertaining ...
The online version of Anthropocene at, the world's leading platform for high quality peer-reviewed full-text journals.
May 4, 2014 - Tension is building between Google and me. Google would rather I didn't use its “incognito” setting regularly. It absolutely will not allow me to ..
Additional journals publishing on Anthropocene:
Climate & Capitalism, an online journal; Climatic Change; Nature; Global Change Newsletter; Scientific American; Quarternary International; Ambio; Earth Island; probably all journals studying climate.  
Significant organizations:
International Geosphere-Biosphere Program (IGBP), a large bibliography. . . . .

Ian Angus, “Anthropocene: When Did it Begin and Why Does it Matter?”  Google Search, August 28, 2015 › 2015 › May › 19
May 19, 2015 - by Ian Angus .... Instead, when the word Anthropocene startedappearing frequently in .... Does Anthropocene science blame all humanity?
Monthly Review
May 19, 2015 - by Ian Angus. "When I use .... Instead, when the word Anthropocene started appearing frequently in academic journals and mainstream media, Nordhaus and .... 17 Jan Zalasiewicz, et al., "When Did the Anthropocene Begin?
Jun 3, 2015 - by Ian Angus, originally published by Climate and Capitalism | Jun 3, .... that the new geological epoch began in the mid-twentieth century.
Ian Angus is editor of the ecosocialist journal Climate & Capitalism, and co-author of Too Many People? ... Does Anthropocene science blame all humanity?
Common Dreams NewsCenter
Jun 2, 2015 - The charge that Anthropocene scholars blame all of humanity for the actions of ... Ian Angus ... Recently, some critics have charged that the “Anthropocene .... that the new geological epoch began in the mid-twentieth century.
Hijacking 'Anthropocene': Anti-green 'Breakthrough Institute' misrepresents science ... By Serge Mongeau, translated by Ian Angus, with assistance from Richard Fidler ... The puzzle is: where did the concept come from? .... This is only the beginning: the United Nations' 2013 Human Development Report says that without ...
Follow-up: Did early humans cause extinction of mammoths? ... Ian Angus says the charge that Anthropocene scholars blame all of humanity for the actions of a ...
Jul 2, 2015 - To judge by many accounts of climate change, the twenty-first century will gradually become a warmer, stormier, and less biodiverse version of ...
Jul 7, 2015 - In order to keep the 'bad' Anthropocene in check, scientists have proposed using ... Since Paul Crutzen first proposed the term (he suggested it startedwith the ... As Ian Angus from Climate and Capitalism argues, ecomodernists have ... Because it applies to humans as a whole, it does not indicate that our ...
Does Anthropocene Science Blame All Humanity? Ian Angus. According to Earth System scientists ... Did the Anthropocene Begin in 1950 or 50,000 Years Ago?

International Commission on Stratigraphy
Will meet in 2016 “to examine evidence for establishing the Anthropocene as a true geologic epoch marking when human activities began to have a significant impact on Earth’s geology and ecosystems.”  Some scientists point to “the 1950s as the starting point.”  Others suggest “the first test of a nuclear weapon” (July 16, 1945).   In “Worth Noting,” The Humanist (March-April 2016).

BOOKS ABOUT ANTHROPOCENE, Google Search, August 27, 2015

Top of Form
Bottom of Form › ... › Environmental Science, Inc.
Dawn of the Anthropocene - Humanity's Defining Moment - Kindle edition by George Seielstad. ... Kindle Books by Guests of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" › ... › Sustainable Development, Inc.
In The Anthropocene, environmental journalist Christian Schwägerl ... Browse BestBooks of the Month, featuring our favorite new books in more than a dozen ... › ... › Earth Sciences › Climatology, Inc.
Adventures in the Anthropocene: A Journey to the Heart of the Planet We Made [Gaia ... Adventures in the Anthropocene and over one million other books are ...
Books shelved as anthropocene: Future Evolution by Peter D. Ward, Love Your Monsters: Postenvironmentalism and the Anthropocene by Michael ...
Review by greggw - ‎Jul 31, 2015 - ‎$9.95 - ‎In stock
The Anthropocene was praised by Achim Steiner, Executive Director of the UN Environment Programme (UNEP) as an “intellectually exciting book” which ...
Wark explores the implications of Anthropocene through the story of two empires, ... The book makes the case for a kind of political vision and action we need to ...
Jun 28, 2014 - Adventures in the Anthropocene: A Journey to the Heart of the Planet We Made. ... Gaia Vince's book is an attempt to humanise the concept. › ... › Books › Book Reviews  The Daily Telegraph
 Rating: 4 - ‎Review by Caspar Henderson
Jul 5, 2014 - Until a few years ago the word Anthropocene would bring a puzzled ... This is an excellent book for anyone who wants to make a difference and ...
Books. Series · Titles · The Democracy of Objects: Levi Bryant; Ontological ... Architecture in the Anthropocene: Encounters Among Design, Deep Time, ... labeled the Anthropocene by the chemist Paul Crutzen, the consideration of the merits of ...  Los Angeles Review of Books
Jun 20, 2012 - Welcome to the Anthropocene by David Biello ... The book marks the beginning of a single life form coming to consciousness about its own ...

For research purposes, specific subjects can be located in the following alphabetized index, and searched on the blog using the search box.  The search box is located in the upper left corner of the webpage.
Newsletter Index:
(479) 442-4600
2582 Jimmie Ave.
Fayetteville, AR 72703