Developing a 21st Century Socialist Environmental Policy
by Justin O’Hagan
“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.” —Karl Marx 1
Part One: Introduction
Since the 1960s the Workers’ Party has played an honourable role in many environmental campaigns and issues and continues to do so in relation to the preservation of public lands and most recently through our involvement with the Shell to Sea Campaign. However, it is notable that the Party has not recently debated or published material on the greater environmental crises that Ireland and the world appear to be currently facing. Perhaps this is because Green politics are treated with suspicion as the domain of various hippies, anarchists and other upholders of petty bourgeois thinking. If this is entirely the case, then all green ideology might reasonably dismissed as faddish distraction from the serious business of confronting capitalism.
In this regard, we could point to the Irish Green Party and its role in the last Dublin government as well as to its business-friendly rhetoric;
The Green Party believes that ….tax reliefs for businesses should be structured so that the establishment of strong indigenous enterprises is rewarded.2
From a left social democratic perspective green academic John Barry argues for an approach to green political and economic transition, “which does not completely reject the positive role/s of a regulated market within sustainable development ... [but which]does demand a clear shift towards making the promotion of economic security (and quality of life) central to economic policy”.3 He argues that, “an alternativ economy and society must be based in the reality that
most people (in the West) will not democratically vote for a completely different type of society and economy. That reality must also accept that a ‘green economy’ is one that is recognisable to most people and that indeed safeguards and guarantees not just their basic needs but also aspirations (within limits). The realistic character of the thinking behind this article accepts that consumption and materialistic lifestyles are here to stay (so long as they do not transgress any of the critical thresholds of the triple bottom line) and indeed there is little to be gained by proposing alternative economic systems, which start from a complete rejection of consumption and materialism.” 4
This suggests that the current economic system is based on the “consumption and materialistic lifestyles” of most people and not the endless compulsions towards accumulation and expansion which lie at the heart of the capitalist economy (when it’s not in recession). As Karl Marx put it “Accumulate, accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets!”
Or we could give the example of the Green Party in Germany which, under its then-leader and Foreign Secretary, Joschka Fischer, wholly supported the 1999 NATO bombing of Yugoslavia.
Moreover, as Greek Communist, Dimitris Karagiannis notes, “environmental protection” might be used in future as a cynical justification in future imperialist resource wars:
NATO expands to all parts of the world through various relations, with the support of the bourgeoisie and their political representatives in tens of states including states in the Middle East. It is now preparing itself to adopt a new strategy against the peoples. This new doctrine… provides amongst others the intensification of interventions against the peoples under many pretexts, including, apart from combatting terrorism, internal security, energy security, political and economic crises, even climate changes.5
We could also point out that opportunists at all points of the political spectrum have been rushing to don themselves with the greener-than-thou mantle. To take one example, the BNP has taken to linking its ugly racism to environmental concerns:
The British National Party argues that “our countryside is vanishing beneath a tidal wave of concrete” as more and more houses are built. Apparently “the biggest reason all these new houses are needed is immigration. One-third of all new homes are for immigrants and asylum-seekers.” The BNP claims that “immigration is creating an environmental disaster”, and worries that if we let in more migrants Britain will become “a tarmac desert”.6
To take another example, the Republican Party in the USA relates environmental issues to its free-market ideology:
Private property ownership key to environmental agenda
Republicans know that economic prosperity is essential to environmental progress. We link the security of private property to our environmental agenda becaus environmental stewardship has been best advanced where property is privately held. People who own the land also protect it. Republicans will safeguard private property rights by enforcing the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment and by providing just compensation whenever private property is needed to achieve a compelling public purpose.7
Beyond the area of party politics many commentators on the left and on the right argue that capitalism can be reasonably expected to come up with the “environmental fixes” (e.g. bio-fuels, electric cars, nuclear fusion, carbon capture) and policies such as carbon trading which will solve such environmental problems as global warming. Moreover, many argue that a Malthusian drive towards global population reduction is the only answer to global overproduction.
And from yet another perspective, which again has its adherents on the right and left, anthropogenic (man- made) global warming is not happening and environmental concerns are being stoked up among the general public to suit various interest groups and moral agendas.
Are the global warming cynics right?
It is clearly true that environmental rhetoric is being used in many quarters as the latest trendy guise in which to present ideology and push products. As a party of integrity, we should have nothing to do with the politics of “greenwash”, i.e., the cynical use of green language for populist purposes. However, there is an eco-socialist strand to green thinking which makes a strong scientific case for the inability of capitalism to sustain the accumulation of profit without the mass extinction of species and the cataclysmic destruction of various crucial natural cycles. From this perspective, socialism is not inevitable but it is necessary if the world is not to plunge, fairly soon, into an abyss of scarcity and environmental chaos. In short, according to the eco- socialist perspective, socialism is the alternative to growing global barbarism.
What follows is a general overview of some of the main issues. A book could be written on socialists and environmental issues (and many have) but this article has a modest aim. It hopes to stimulate a debate which will contribute to the development of an approach by the Workers’ Party to environmental issues at different levels (e.g., theoretical, local, global). It is the opinion of this writer that the Workers’ Party needs to develop scientific and radical approaches to environmental issues, not because the issue is currently “trendy” but because the issues are ones of life and death.
The radical eco-socialist approach demands that the planet and its people cannot afford the anarchic capitalist profit system and that a largely closed
system such as the biosphere (the Earth heated by the Sun) cannot sustain the limitless growth that modern globalised capitalism promises and needs. What results is environmental degradation, some examples of which follow:
According to the United Nations Environment Programme (2008) the effects of human activities on biodiversity have increased so greatly that the rate of species extinctions is rising to hundreds or thousands of times the background level. Every year, 160,000sq km of tropical rainforest are destroyed, an area almost twice the size of Ireland. These forest areas are home to tens of thousands of species of animals and plants.
The damage wrought on the world’s seas and oceans is already so acute that, in the words of Achim Steiner, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP): “The recovery from the changes we’re making will probably take a million years.”8 Climate change, overfishing and pollution are causing severe strains on fish stocks worldwide and the total collapse of commercial fish stocks is now predicted to be just four decades away.
This radical ecological approach is also critical of earlier attempts to build socialism in the Socialist countries because these countries also based their economic and environmental practices on two principles that they shared with capitalists. These were:
that Nature provides “free gifts” which human beings can use as they choose without too many consequences. Rivers can be dammed, species hunted, coal and petrol burned as and when required;
human beings dominate and exploit natural resource;.
pollution, species extinction, etc. were treated as ‘externals’ (i.e. not included in the accounts) of the socialist economies, just as they are in most capitalist accounting;
endless economic growth is an essential requirement of a planned socialist economy.
Socialists in the USSR, China and other countries said that the planned socialist economy could provide growth and use environmental resources for the benefit of the working class and peasants and this proved the superiority of Socialism. In Soviet and Chinese analyses, capitalism was seen to be what it is– a ruthless, warmongering imperialist, inhumane system, but ideas of endless growth and the domination of the world’s resources were not themselves in question. For example,
The Aral Sea: As recently as 1960, this was the world’s fourth largest inland sea, with a prospering fishing industry, and a sustainable agriculture in the surrounding region. In just thirty years, the Aral Sea ... lost two-thirds of its volume, its fisheries are totally destroyed. The land that was set aside by Soviet agricultural planners for extensive cotton cultivation has been seriously polluted by fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides, residues, and by salt and chemical residues airborne from the dry lake bed.9
Given the history and the situation of the Socialist countries, the need to build and grow as speedily as possible was perhaps not surprising but Socialists today are free to learn from the mistakes of comrades past just as we can also learn from their great achievements.10
Today also, we can learn lessons from the remaining Socialist countries. For example, in terms of its ecological approach to agriculture socialist Cuba is a shining light. After the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990 oil imports in Cuba were cut in half, and food by 80%. The island underwent a transition from an industrial system to one of urban gardens using organic methods. In 1997 Havana’s urban gardens produced 20,000 metric tonnes of vegetables and by 2005 this number had grown to 270,000 metric tonnes.
More than two hundred facilities provide needed inputs for urban agriculture—producing, providing, and/or selling seeds, organic fertilizers, biological pest control preparations, technical services, and advice. More than 7,000 Organic Material Centers produce organic fertilizers (compost and vermicompost, worm humus). Water for irrigation comes from piped municipal urban supplies, as well as from wells, rivers, and reservoirs. Water availability is maximized by improvements in the capture of rainwater, as well as by efficient irrigation techniques, especially in organoponicos and intensive gardens. To the extent some imports, e.g., pipes for irrigation systems, are still needed, the Ministry of Agriculture undertakes their purchase and allocation.11 The World Wildlife Fund has identified Cuba as the only country in the world that meets the requirements of sustain- able development.
As a party we have to ask ourselves whether we are prepared to put aside these fundamental ideas of domination of nature and endless growth, sometimes termed GOD (growth or death). This might be particularly difficult in relation to economic growth, but if the global economy returns to its ‘traditional’ growth levels of 3%, world economic output will double in the next thirty years. Can the world afford the economics of endless growth? Or can social/economic growth be decoupled from carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions growth? The issues have to be read about and discussed more widely in the party before we can develop more detailed policy and agitation.
Part Two: Global Warming Emergency
“Before, the people fought and are fighting still, with honour, for a better and more just world, but now they are also having to fight, without any alternative whatsoever, for the very survival of our species. If we ignore this, we know absolutely nothing.” —Fidel Castro, 2010 12
The greenhouse effect is a naturally occurring phenomenon, and is essential to the climate on Earth as we know it. With the natural greenhouse effect the average temperature on Earth is 15 degrees Celsius (59 degrees Fahrenheit). Without it, the average temperature would be about minus 18 degrees Celsius (or 0 degrees Fahrenheit). The greenhouse effect happens in nature by the presence of “greenhouse gases”, principally water vapour and carbon dioxide, which trap heat from the sun in the atmosphere and provide a relatively mild and stable climate. Carbon dioxide from animal respiration is cycled into the atmosphere, then taken up by plants in the process of photosynthesis. Animals take in the oxygen emitted from the plants, and the cycle continues. So, the so-called greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect are necessary for our well- being. But at certain levels greenhouse gases can lead to dangerous rises in temperature.
Studies on the long-term trend show that the CO2 level remained stable at around 280 parts per million (ppm) during the last 10,000 years until they began to rise around the time of the Industrial Revolution. Since the onset of the Industrial Revolution, around 1750, human beings have begun to make a significant impact on CO2 levels in the environment by burning substantial amounts of fossil fuels, i.e. coal, oil, and natural gas. (Other greenhouse gases are produced from human activity. Agriculture produces methane and nitrous oxide, and aerosol propellants produce Chlorofluorocarbons. However, CO2 is the principal greenhouse gas due to the sheer volume released into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels. CO2 plus these other gases is known as CO2e). The carbon dioxide produced today remains in the atmosphere for almost a century, but 20% of this will still exist for almost another 800 years. It seems clear that whatever we are doing to the atmosphere today will continue to be a problem for our children, grandchildren and many more generations to come.
Around 1750, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere was about 275 parts per million (ppm). Today, the concentration is 387 ppm, or a 30% increase, and rising. Since the last half of the twentieth century, the rate of this increase has risen sharply and is currently about 3% per year. Below we can see changes in greenhouse gas emissions in Ireland in recent years.
The 2007 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment report written by a panel of leading scientists argues that it is virtually certain that human activities have been responsible for the global warming that has taken place since the industrial revolution. This is not, as then Stormont Environment Minister, Sammy Wilson, put it in an interview with the Belfast Telegraph in 2008, a “con”.13
Data show a long-term upward trend: from 315 ppm in 1958 to 387 ppm in 2008. Levels of CO2 and related gases in the atmosphere are now 38% higher than they were in pre-industrial times. The world is warming at a rate of 0.2˚C per decade and given the greenhouse gases already in the atmosphere, there will be a further long-term warming of 0.6˚C.which cannot be prevented. According to James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and the leading U.S. climatologist:
Our home planet is dangerously near a tipping point at which human-made greenhouse gases reach a level where major climate changes can proceed mostly under their own momentum.
Warming will shift climatic zones by intensifying the hydrologic cycle, affecting freshwater availability and human health. We will see repeated coastal tragedies associated with storms and continuously rising sea levels. The implications are profound, and the only resolution is for humans to move to a fundamentally different energy pathway within a decade. Otherwise, it will be too late for one-third of the world’s animal and plant species and millions of the most vulnerable members of our own species.14
With the likely loss of Arctic summer sea ice, the Arctic Ocean will absorb rather than reflect back solar radiation, which may lead to an additional warming of 0.3˚C. The projected speed of change, with temperature increases greater than 0.3°C per decade and the consequent rapid shifting of climatic zones will result in most ecosystems failing to adapt, causing the extinction of many animal and plant species. The oceans will become more acidic, endangering much marine life.
The world may be already almost committed to a 2˚C warming relative to pre-industrial times, widely considered to be a critical threshold in climate change. A significant global warming, i.e. a 2°C or greater increase above pre-industrial temperatures, could trigger high-impact, low probability events which would cause major climate disruption. In the Irish context Laura McElwain and John Sweeny note that “even below the 2°C temperature target, significant climate change impacts are expected to occur in Ireland during the coming decades. Planning, and especially action, is required to avoid the worst effects of these climate change impacts.”15
Part Three: Mainstream Responses to the Climate Emergency
From what we have seen above, many climatologists believe that calamitous climactic change could happen with temperature increases at or under 2°C. Some go further. For example, radical expert James Hansen and his colleagues at NASA’s Goddard Institute argue that due to positive feedbacks and climatic tipping points global average temperature increases should be kept to less than 1°C below 2000 levels. This means that atmospheric CO2 need to be kept to 450 ppm or below.
However, many mainstream experts are prepared to consider considerably higher rates of growth as necessary because they are locked into the capitalist logic of endless accumulation and growth, of making profit rather than meeting needs.
The widely-respected Stern Review, for example, settles for a global average temperature increase of no more than 3°C (a threshold beyond which the environmental effects would undoubtedly be absolutely disastrous), which it estimates can likely be achieved if CO2e in the atmosphere were stabilized at 550 ppm, double pre-industrial levels. Yet, the Stern Review also acknowledges that a 3°C increase would bring the earth’s average global temperature to a height last seen in the middle Pliocene around 3 million years ago.
Some ‘deep ecologists’ would prefer to see the human race extinguished if the rest of the biosphere could survive. For example Prof Michael Boulter of the Natural History Museum in London thinks that “human beings are a failed species - we’re on the way out ... Our lives are so artificial they can’t possibly be sustained within the limits of our planet.” Looking ahead, he adds: “The planet would of course be delighted for humans to become extinct and the sooner it happens, the better.”16
Many right wing economists argue that the problem belongs to the future and by the time that the worst effects of global warming make themselves known, technology will have been created which will be able to deal with them. As Dimitris Karagiannis of the Greek Communist Party (KKE) notes:
On 18.12.2009 the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen came to an end. Despite the declarations and fanfare, the sharpening of the interimperialist contradictions in the energy field cannot be concealed. An effort for over-accumulated capital to find a profitable way-out through the so- called “green economy”, that is the commercialization of environmental protection and of climate change, is underway.17
Others argue that, rather than abandoning the market, the only way to properly deal with nature’s externalities is to put a price on them and let the market work its magic on them. Carbon trading, developed in the wake of the Kyoto summit in 1997, represents a well-known attempt to put a price on pollution. So, greenhouse gas emissions – that is, pollution – are made into an economically scarce resource, which is supposed to maximize the efficiency in which this pollution is reduced on a global basis. But turning polluting gases into a product may open pathways for profit-making which do not have the desired effect. You might, for example, create an incentive to horde and speculate with this commodity, and you hence might encourage more pollution, because with pollution one can now earn money.
Take, for example, HFC-23, one of the most potent GHG [greenhouse gases], which is equivalent to 11,700 tons of CO2. Precisely because of this extraordinarily high CO2 equivalent, and the associated high earning potential associated with it, it is now feared that new HFC-23 production facilities are being set up in places like China only to profit from the sale of CERs (Certified Emissions Reductions). That is, rather than ‘efficiently’ reducing the production of this highly potent GHG, the newly created carbon markets have introduced a perverse incentive to produce and emit even more GHG.18
It’s worth noting that in its report, Developing the Green Economy in Ireland, the modestly named High-Level Group on Green Enterprise argues that a new Green International Financial Services Centre (IFSC) could make money by “developing a ‘green IFSC’ brand and capability for Ireland.
Ireland is already an attractive location for international financial services. Potential exists to develop a green IFSC cluster and brand incorporating green investment vehicles (e.g. investment funds of energy companies, banks and VCs), the administration of funds managed under green principles, and carbon trading and associated professional services. The Group welcomes the recent establishment of a sub-group of the IFSC Banking and Treasury Group which is exploring the options for a green IFSC. We would strongly encourage the IFSC Clearing House Group to progress recommendations which emerge.19
This is what being Green means to the IFSC, an opportunity to turn a profit. For socialists, I would argue, our priority has to be reducing global warming directly through the lowering of greenhouse gas emissions. This will necessarily involve economic regime change because the current system is inimical to real sustainable development and because technological fixes are too costly, slow in coming on-stream, or too small-scale to deal with the problems.
Alternatives to Capitalist Barbarism
As noted, the limitless growth demanded by modern globalised capitalism is unsustainable. However, Marxist scholar David W. Schwarzman is optimistic that new ways of harnessing the Sun’s energy might be found, while at the same time opposing the environmental barbarism that capitalism fosters. Among the material and technological components that Schwarzman believes will be essential to an ecosocialist transition are:
A global high efficiency solar energy infrastructure, replacing fossil fuels and nuclear energy;
Progressive dematerialization of technology, global availability of state-of-the-art information technology;
Increase of human population density centred in green cities, elimination of sprawl leaving extensive biospheric reserves, managed to preserve biodiversity.20
We have to wonder if technology could ever be “dematerialised” in the utopian way that Schwarzman supposes. Chinese Marxist scholar Li Minqi has little time for this utopian dematerialised eco- future:
In the post-fossil fuel world, electricity from various renewable sources will have to play a dominant role in overall energy consumption. However, the construction of power plants and other electricity facilities requires not only financial resources, but also workers, technicians and engineers with special skills and expertise, as well as equipment and materials that have to be produced by specialized factories. One cannot simply print billions of dollar bills and expect renewable electricity to be generated. Instead, workers need to be trained in the necessary skills, and new equipment and materials need to be produced. All of these — as well as the construction process itself — will not only consume resources but also take time.21
Li Minqi outlines two of the main features that he believes are necessary for an ecologically sustainable (i.e. non- capitalist) society:
...for an ecologically sustainable society, the use and allocation of society’s surplus product must come under some form of social control through either political procedures or established social norms. Such a society may or may not be economically less efficient than the current capitalist society (with ‘efficiency’ measured by current conventional criteria). However, efficiency would, at most, be of secondary importance in the post- capitalist era. For the sake of the survival of humanity and civilization, it is absolutely essential to ensure that the human economy operates within the ecological system’s natural capacity. With an ‘inefficient’ economic system (conventionally measured) that operates with limited and stable flows of material consumption, humanity can survive. With an economic system that is highly efficient in generating economic growth, humanity will very soon be committing collective suicide.
Second, the future post-capitalist society will not emerge out of a historical vacuum. Rather, it will have to reflect the political and social developments that have taken place in the capitalist era. Most importantly, it will have to accommodate the relatively high levels of political consciousness and organizational capacity of the working classes (in comparison with what prevailed in the pre-capitalist societies) as well as manage to meet the population’s ‘basic needs’ as they have been historically defined. These two historical constraints imply that when the future post-capitalist society does emerge, it is likely to be based on some form of social control over the surplus product (i.e. the appropriation and the use of the surplus product take place through political and social processes, preferably through democratic planning, rather than through the market) and some forms of social and community ownership of the means of production.22
More practically, we could examine the following from the Belém Ecosocialist Declaration, which was distributed at the World Social Forum in Belém, Brazil, in January 2009.
Ecosocialism proposes radical transformations in: the energy system, by replacing carbon-based fuels and biofuels with clean sources of power under community control: wind, geothermal, wave, and above all, solar power the transportation system, by drastically reducing the use of private trucks and cars, replacing them with free and efficient public transportation; present patterns of production, consumption, and building, which are based on waste, inbuilt obsolescence, competition and pollution, by producing only sustainable and recyclable goods and developing green architecture: food production and distribution, by defending local food sovereignty as far as this is possible, eliminating polluting industrial agribusinesses, creating sustainable agro-ecosystems and working actively to renew soil fertility.
To theorise and to work toward realizing the goal of green socialism does not mean that we should not also fight for concrete and urgent reforms right now. Without any illusions about “clean capitalism,” we must work to impose on the powers that be
— governments, corporations, international institutions — some elementary but essential immediate changes:
drastic and enforceable reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases,
development of clean energy sources,
provision of an extensive free public transportation system,
progressive replacement of trucks by trains,
creation of pollution clean-up programs,
elimination of nuclear energy war spending.23
In conclusion, eco-socialism should not merely involve add-ons to our current policies. The kinds of eco-socialist approaches to the present and future that are outlined here would demand that the Workers’ Party develops all policies and practice with the global environmental emergency in mind.
Endnotes
1 Karl Marx, Capital, vol. 3, (London: Penguin, 1981), 911, 959
2 http://www.greenparty.ie/index.php/ en/policies/economy/business_and_ taxation last accessed 26th October 2011
3 John Barry “Towards a model of green political economy: from ecological modernisation to economic security”, International Journal of Green Economics, vol.1 (2007), p.2
4 Ibid
5 Communist Party of Greece, Collection of Articles and Contributions on Current Issues of the Communist Movement, (2010), p.163
6 Brendan O’Neill, “BNP’s green disguise”, New Statesman and Society, 23 August 2007
7 Republican Party Sep 1, 2004. 69-70 Platform http://www.ontheissues.org/ Celeb/Republican_Party_Environment. html
8 Quoted in “U.N. says world fisheries face collapse”, Reuters, February 22, 2008
9 “Russian Environmentalism: Conditions and Prospects” by Ernest Partridge in Human Ecology: Progress Through Integrative Perspectives (The Society for Human Ecology, 1995)
10 The mainstream view on left and right is that Stalin adopted a crude “productivism” in which Soviet man would conquer and tame nature like a hostile beast. Against this view American historian Stephen Brain shows that, “[e]vironmentalism survived—and even thrived—in Stalin’s Soviet Union, establishing levels of protection unparalleled anywhere in the world, although for only one component of the Soviet environment: the immense forests of the Russian heartland.” Brain argues that, “when Stalin passed from the scene, supporters of forest protection apparently lost the one political actor in Soviet history who was both willing to confront the industrial bureaus and powerful enough to tip the balance in conservation’s favor.” “Stalin’s Environmentalism”, Russian Review, Vol. 69 (2010), pp. 93-118
11 Sinan Koont, “The Urban Agriculture of Havana” in Monthly Review (January 2009)
12 Reflections of Fidel, January 3, 2010 http://monthlyreview.org/ castro/2010/01/03/the-world-half-acentury- later/
13 Belfast Telegraph, 31st December 2008
14 J. Hansen, 2008: Tipping point: “Perspective of a climatologist” in E. Fearn (ed.), State of the Wild 2008- 2009: A Global Portrait of Wildlife, Wildlands and Oceans (Washington DC: Wildlife Conservation Society/Island Press), pp.6-15
15 Environmental Research Centre, Implications of the EU Climate Protection Target for Ireland (2006)
16 Quoted in “The decline and fall of the Human Empire” by John Gibbons, Village Magazine, June 2011
17 Communist Party of Greece, Collection of Articles and Contributions on Current Issues of the Communist Movement (2010), p.174
18 “Upsetting the Offset: An Introduction” by Steffen Böhm and Siddhartha Dabhi in Steffen Böhm & Siddhartha Dabhi (eds.), Upsetting the Offset: The Political Economy of Carbon Markets (London: mayflybooks, 2009), p.15
19 Forfás, Developing the Green Economy in Ireland (Dublin, 2009) pp.9-10
20 “Ecosocialism or Ecocatastrophe?”, Capitalism Nature Socialism Journal ~ Volume 20 Issue 1 2009 pp6-33
21 Li Minqi, “Capitalism, Climate Change and the Transition to Sustainability: Alternative Scenarios for the US, China and the World” Development and Change, vol.40 (2009), pp.1039–1061
22 Ibid
23 Ian Angus, Joel Kovel, Michael Löwy, “Belem Ecosocialist Declaration”, 2007. Online at http://links.org.au/ node/803