Waves of Eco-State Restructuring: Critical Response #3.

In response to the While et al. article on eco-state restructuring and the rhythmic wave-like trend of climate change mitigation strategies, I would like to propose an alternative view of the overall process. In this paper I will summarize the concept of waves of eco-state restructuring as it is presented by While et al., then develop the concept as I see it to be which focuses on the cause behind the “waves”, and finally I will propose two possible outcomes based on this rationale.

According to While et al, “waves of eco-state restructuring” refers to the succession of movements that aim to organize the economic and environmental relations within capitalist states (eco-state restructuring). Some practises dominate a time period, but eventually a new system of governance is created and, without replacing the former, it is layered on top of its predecessors. There have been three major waves of restructuring, beginning in the late 1960’s through to the present. The first wave of governance can be traced back to the late 1960’s and early 1970’s, an era dominated by “prevention and control” measures aimed at internalizing the externalities of large scale industrialism. The next wave occurred during the mid-1980’s through to the mid-2000’s which focused on “sustainable development”. This form of governance was encouraged through developments like the Brundtland report of 1972, and the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. From the late 1990’s to present there has been a third wave of eco-state restructuring, dominated by market-based approaches to neoliberal environmental management, which emphasizes carbon control. This wave has gained momentum through the development and implementation of the Kyoto Protocol of 1997, and the Stern Review of 2006 (While et al. 2009).

In my opinion, these waves of eco-state restructuring are a product of the global expansion of neoliberalism, and the wake of externalities that follow behind it. The waves of environmental governance (eco-state restructuring), are therefore in response to the waves of externalities generated by neoliberal capitalism. This succession of strategies works to modify neoliberalism to reduce the affect of the system on the environment, but in so doing, the original problem is not adequately addressed.

My view of the overall process is best visualised through the analogy of a tanker-ship making its way around the world. Her name is Neoliberalism, and as she pushes on through the water (powered by fossil-fuels), she creates her own large wake that affects much more area than that immediately beneath the hull. The waves produced from this wake can be thought of as the negative externalities of production, and as these waves ripple out the distance between them increases. As each successive wave crashes onto the shore a new urgency is realized, and beginning in the late 60’s the people standing on the shore began considering ways to combat and eliminate the effects of the waves created by the wake of Neoliberalism. They tried to rework the shape of the vessel to streamline it and reduce the wake it generates, but each successive attempt to re-engineer the ship has been time-intensive and (so far), ineffective.

The first few waves that hit shore during the 1970’s generated concern and spawned the “prevention and control” era. But as the externalities of neoliberalism continued to roll onto shore (and with increasing magnitude), it was clear that the current mitigation strategies were not enough. The waves that hit shore during the 80’s and 90’s were larger and became more global in scope, so the urgency and effort to combat these effects was expanded and new movements were created to coordinate the restructuring process. But the ship continued on. In recent times the externalities of neoliberal production continue to reach our shores, and again we have developed new methods to streamline the ship. This time we have opted to drastically reconfigure the nature of the vessel to incorporate the wake into its production function, relying heavily on the development of technology and market-based policy tools.

This rationale allows for a cause and effect to be calculated, and helps display the root of the problem. It seems that the reason these waves of environmental governance continually fail is not that the concepts themselves won’t work, but that they can’t work because they are in opposition to capitalism. Going back to my analogy, it’s like trying to build a boat that creates no wake, and as I see it there are only two ways of doing this.

The first way is to completely redesign the vessel so it leaves the surface undisturbed, for example we could ride above the surface on a hovercraft or even an airplane. This, however, means throwing out capitalism and starting fresh, it would require a complete overhaul of the economic and social system as we know it and to my knowledge there is no such approach that exists today that could offer any of the required economic, social or environmental objectives. The second way to modify a ship to eliminate the wake is to simply throw out an anchor and kill the engines, otherwise known as a steady-state economy. Tim Jackson defines a steady-state economy as a system in which “stability no longer relies on ever-increasing consumption growth… One in which our capabilities to flourish – within ecological limits – become the guiding principle for design and the key criterion for success” (Jackson 2009: 43). The concept of a steady-state economy rests on the assumption that consumerism/ consumption can be reduced and conservation instilled within both individuals and nations globally (Daly 2009; Jackson 2009). It may be a stretch of the imagination to assume we can learn restraint and cooperation, but right now it may be the best strategy we have given the nature of our situation, and our long history of ineffective management.

Literature Cited:

Daly, Herman. “From a Failed Growth Economy to a Steady-State Economy”. American University, Washington D.C. June 1, 2009.

Jackson, Tim. “Prosperity without Growth? Economics for a Finite Planet”. Earthscan Publishing. (2009) Sterling, VA, USA. Print.

While, Aiden;  Andrew Jonas; David Gibbs. From sustainable development to carbon control: eco-state restructuring and the politics of urban and regional development. (2009) Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull, UK. Print.