Gregg Easterbrook

This is a review of Gregg Easterbrook ‘A Moment on the Earth. The Coming Age of Environmental Optimism’ Penguin Books Middlesex England 1995 pp.745. It was first published in mm15.

Living in the best of all worlds -

the Environmental Impact of Corporate Propaganda.

Post Cold-War Green Triumphalism.

Easterbrook’s book ‘A Moment on the Earth’ is a massive tome. It’s probably the lengthiest ever written on environmentalism. He calls himself an eco-realist but what he’s promoting is green cornucopianism and green optimism. Many of the ideas in this work are fairly bland, revealing a lack of any substantial understanding of the geophysiological facts of life, but the last few chapters are original and absorbing. Easterbrook attacks environmentalists, not environmentalism, for being too doom laden. The reviewer’s vested interests ought to be declared at this point because the mundi club regards itself as one of the world’s leading prophets of doom. Peculiarly easterbrook is not against doom itself, only the doom entertained by environmentalists. There are, after all, bigger doomsters than environmentalists.

Easterbrook makes some extraordinarily optimistic claims in his book. Some of his ideas/insights deserve respect but they’re swamped by blandness and corrupted by a nauseous plague of tinseltown/mcdonald’s/cola green optimism. What is so surprising about this book now, six years after it was published, is just how dated it has become. His analysis has become one of the biggest disasters ever written on environmental optimism. It’s a lot like michael fish’s famous weather forecast just before the great storm of 1987, but on a larger, more comprehensive, scale. Easterbrook is about the only person that fish could ridicule, without feeling self-conscious, for having got it so wrong. It will be interesting to see how easterbrook extracts himself from this millstone around his neck. It’s easy to conclude from this that anyone who consistently plugs environmental pessimism is likely to be on much firmer ground than environmental optimists.

One of the keys to understanding this work is that it emerged out of a definite historical constellation. In the late 1980s and early 1990s the reagan-thatcher-kohl period of extreme right wing denialism was prevalent. It was a period when the berlin wall was brought down, the russian empire was collapsing, and eastern european countries were dismantling their one party political systems. The triumph of american capitalism over russian state planning created a short period of social euphoria which swept across america and, to a lesser degree, other capitalist states. This social righteousness and optimism about the future inspired books like ‘The End of History’. The triumph of capitalism over communism also had an environmental component. Huge numbers of articles were published in the west about the diabolical environmental damage across the former russian empire, “As the political upheavals in eastern Europe reveal the frightening extent of environmental pollution, the western world is quick to document the scale of the problem. Seventy per cent of Czechoslovakia’s forests are poisoned, and years of heavy industrial emissions have led to a life expectancy seven years lower than for people in Western European countries. In Poland about half the water is heavily polluted. These same problems are emerging in ‘developing’ nations such as South Korea and Mexico, where the lure of low wages and inadequate controls are bringing multinationals often using processes banned or obsolete in Western countries.”[1] Capitalist apologists quickly seized on these revelations as proof that capitalism was not merely better than state planning at wealth creation and technological innovations but at protecting the environment. This is not the place to debunk these ideological spoils of war. Suffice it to say, easterbrook’s book, completed in june 1994, is a victim of this outbreak of capitalist triumphalism.

Easterbrook’s Concept of Nature.

Thinking like Nature.

It’s usually incumbent upon intellectuals to adopt the latest scientific advances which, in the case of environmentalism, is lovelock’s science of geophysiology. However, for some bizarre reason, easterbrook reverted to an abstract concept of nature prevalent in the 17thc i.e. a time not only long before lovelock but before the invention of the concept of evolution and the discovery of the greenhouse effect, “Recognition that natural values exist will be an intellectual breakthrough .. Once it is understood that the old presumptions of natural law and deism were right, there will be a new dawning of hope for the human prospect. Women and men will see themselves .. as offspring of a system that is rational, pacific, and in for the long haul. Of a system that cares; that wants to help; that has taken aeons preparing itself for this moment.”[2]; “Essential to natural law is the notion of self evidence: that some truths arise from nature and require no proof beyond declaration.”[3] Not surprisingly, this leads to some dippy conclusions, “Conceiving of nature as a spirit helps us to think like nature, a plateau that must be reached to place environmental claims into useful perspective.”[4] That he could then go on to demand that environmentalism should be more scientific seems a little incongruous.

Easterbrook doesn’t elaborate very deeply on his concept of nature but, critically, derives from it a theoretical technique, ‘thinking like nature’ which he uses throughout the book. He compares the damage which oomans are inflicting on the Earth to that caused by ‘nature’. From this perspective he believes it is possible to develop a more accurate appreciation of oomans’ impact on nature.

Nature causes far more Environmental Damage than Oomans.

‘Thinking like nature’ enables easterbrook to imply that oomans do not have to worry about the current damage they are inflicting on nature because nature causes far more damage: “Through glacial advances and retreats nature has made and unmade uncountable rivers, lakes and dams in what people now call quebec. Why is it strange for women and men to do the same, especially if they can learn to do it in ways calculated to minimize harm.”[5]; “From nature’s perspective the james bay project is much less than grand. It’s small potatoes.”[6]; “Human assaults on the environment, though mischievous, are pinpricks compared to forces of the magnitude nature is accustomed to resisting.”[7]; “Would nature be so impressed with the accomplishments of bulldozers and backhoes? Transplanting soil and rock is child’s play to the natural world.”[8] In the past, extensive volcanic eruptions have suffocated huge areas of land under molten magma and released vast quantities of gas into the atmosphere, “On this comparison, even the worst-case estimate for human greenhouse malfeasance seems minor by nature’s standard.”[9]; “If we could ask nature how it might rank the environmental calamities that have so far occurred, surely all leading contenders would be natural, not artificial, events.”[10]; “But if the environment routinely recovers from cyclones and tidal waves, events substantially more destructive than human action, why is it that we are in a panic mode regarding human ecological impacts?”[11]

This leads easterbrook into making a series of statements - all of which could be assessed only by using a barmyometer:-

* “North america does appear (to oomans) a great deal different compared to how it must have looked five centuries ago. But what is nature’s perspective? At the small scale level upon which most earthly creatures dwell, hardy anything has transpired.”[12];

* “Thinking like nature we might come to another heterodox conclusion: that factory-based economies may ultimately be the sustainable ones.”[13];

* .. “nature might consider the economies of the west the sustainable ones.”[14];

* nature produces more toxic chemicals than oomans .. “plants may be the principal toxin factories of the world. The discovery that plants manufacture far more toxins than once assumed has led toxicologists such as ames and lois gold .. to estimate that the typical american diet contains 10,000 times more naturally occurring carcinogens than those of the synthetic kind .. it may eventually be shown that natural chemicals are a leading cause of cancer. After all, if natural toxins outnumber the synthetic variety 10,000 to one in the typical diet, then nature is a more likely cancer cause than synthetics. In turn, if natural carcinogens in foodstuffs are an important cancer cause, the way to get rid of them would be through genetic engineering, a technology environmentalists oppose.”[15]; “The plant kingdom is .. the first great chemical manufacturing complex, busily inventing wicked potions just as do monsanto, dow, and the rest.”; .. “if natural toxins outnumber the synthetic variety 10,000 to one in the typical diet, then nature is a more likely cancer cause than synthetics.”[16] Easterbrook believes that because nature produces a greater range of deadly chemicals than the chemical industry this makes the latter less vulnerable to criticism. However, he doesn’t indicate when Trees last flew over vietnam dropping thousands of tonnes of highly concentrated, toxic poisons. Most naturally produced toxins exist in such small quantities they have little impact on oomans or they exist in specific plants that can be easily avoided. The problem with the chemicals being produced by the chemical industry is that in many cases they are dumped into the environment so oomans can’t avoid them;[17]

* Easterbrook states that there’s a Falcon living in new york and concludes that this means the city can’t be an ecological monstrosity. He believes that whilst environmentalists might look upon the city as an environmental disaster, this is just an anthropocentric illusion. Falcons see skyscrapers as cliff faces which enable them to pop down to times square for a Pidgeon snack. The Falcon is the lucky beneficiary of ecological devastation which has annihilated the bulk of the Wildlife which used to inhabit the area. One wonders what the views would be of the millions of Animals killed during the spread of this concrete jungle. It seems as if easterbrook has forgotten to ask their opinion in his cost-benefit questionnaire, “Yet such an analysis (cost-benefit analysis) could be a powerful tool of ecological protection.”[18] Ah yes, oomans don’t give Wildlife any rights to voice their opinions;

* .. somehow the popular understanding has come to hold that naturally occurring damage to the ecology does not count as an environmental problem .. Only men and women cause environmental problems.”[19]

These arguments lead to two bizarre conclusions. Firstly, in a reversal of environmentalists’ plea that people should take care not to destroy nature because they could end up destroying themselves, he argues, “People should not worry that they will destroy nature. It is more likely nature will destroy us.”[20] This is the gaian argument that oomans can’t kill the Earth but the Earth can kill oomans. The point of green arguments is that if oomans don’t worry about destroying their life support system then only one outcome is likely. If oomans commit ecocide it won’t be a case of the Earth destroying oomans so much as oomans damaging the Earth to such an extent that it leads to their extinction.

Secondly, whilst environmentalists complain the estimated 100 million species on Earth are fast disappearing, easterbrook concludes that this number of Wildlife shows how good oomans have been at preserving Biodiversity, “This does not mean we live in the best of all possible worlds. But from the standpoint of environmental resilience, we live in the best world so far.”[21] The green eco-nazis are indulging in sheer propaganda when they claim the fast disappearing species surviving still left on Earth shows the effectiveness of conservation when it is obvious these species have survived solely because oomans haven’t got around to exterminating them yet - which they will do in the near future.

The Earth has suffered a huge number of planetary catastrophes in its past. To use these catastrophes to legitimize the damage oomans are currently inflicting on the Earth is dangerous. All that such comparative thinking will do is to encourage eco-nazis around the Earth to be even more irresponsible and even more destructive. Comparing the damage oomans are currently inflicting on the Earth to that caused by an asteroid (such as the one which hit the Earth 65 million years ago) or by a massive volcanic eruption or by the last ice age, is bound to make it more difficult to persuade people to live lightly on the Earth. Whilst the damage oomans are causing is not on the same scale as that caused by the asteroid impact, it is becoming comparable to that of the last ice age. The damage that oomans have started inflicting on the Earth since the second world war is exponential and will eventually match that caused by the ice age. What makes easterbrook’s comparison so erroneous, and dangerous, is that whilst the ice age helped to stabilize the Earth’s climate, oomans’ destruction of the Earth’s life support system is boosting global burning and thereby destabilizing the climate. The ‘thinking like nature’ perspective enables easterbrook to imply it doesn’t matter what damage oomans inflicts on nature through the use of bulldozers. It doesn’t matter how much they shift soils and rocks because nature moves far more rocks and soil during ice ages. But, and this is the most critical argument against ‘thinking like nature’, it matters to the Earth’s climate. When land is flattened by glaciers this cools the Earth and helps to protect the Earth’s Photosynthetic capacity. If, on the other hand, oomans decimate vast areas of land turning them into deserts this leads to a rise in global temperatures which could eventually spiral into a runaway global burning disaster which will leave the Earth as dead as the moon. The last five major extinctions on Earth have been global cooling disasters which pose no threat to the Earth’s climate stability whereas what oomans are doing is boosting global burning which is a considerable threat to the Earth.

It might be true that the damage caused by the hudson bay project may be less than the damage caused to the area by the last ice age but if all eco-nazis around the planet use the last ice age to justify their Earth rapist projects then eventually the scale of damage they cause will be greater than that of the ice age but, more importantly it will boost global burning rather than boosting global cooling. Easterbrook simply does not understand how the Earth works - that whilst ice ages bring climate stability, oomans’ devastation to the Earth’s life support system produces global burning. Using comparisons with past planetary catastrophes to condone the damage oomans are currently inflicting on the Earth, whilst ignoring their completely different impacts on the climate, can result only in oomans triggering a global burning catastrophe which will lead to their extermination.

Nature Kills more Oomans than Oomans.

Having used comparative thinking to show that nature is more destructive than capitalism, easterbrook also uses it to show that nature kills far more people than industry, “Which would you say causes more deaths per year, industrial accidents or natural disasters? The answer is nature by a substantial margin. The authors found that on average natural badness kills 55,786 people per year worldwide, while industrial accidents kill 356 people annually.” What a humane achievement this would be if global industry killed only 356 people per year!!!

As if in admission that this is hardly a fair comparison, easterbrook broadens out the analysis by comparing deaths caused by wars to those caused by disease, “The comparison for natural versus manmade disasters does not include deaths from routine events such as traffic accidents and, more importantly, does not include wars. As many as 60 million people have died as a result of 20thc warfare, a much larger total than killed by natural disasters. But, in turn, many more people have been killed by nature through diseases than have been killed by warfare. The world health organization estimates that each year about 33 million people die prematurely owing to disease. Disease is distressingly easy to overlook as an ecological issue. Yet it is the world’s worst environmental problem by a wide margin. .. in the main blame for diseases must be laid squarely at nature’s doorstep. Malaria, smallpox, measles, plague, influenza, meningitis, dysentery, and dozens of other illnesses arose from the natural scheme and have killed millions of human beings. .. the global influenza pandemic of 1918-1919, which killed an estimated 25 million. Crowding in military barracks and refugee centres, malnutrition, and poor health care associated with world war I contributed to the virulence of the pandemic; but nature, not man, was its root cause.”[22]

As far as easterbrook is concerned, if oomans die of a disease then it’s nature’s fault not oomans’. But, isn’t this somewhat bizarre? As regards the millions who died as a result of the influenza epidemic after the first world war, many might argue that this vile war, and the vile way in which european rulers treated their subjects, was the cause of this epidemic. And yet the bigot blames this entirely on nature. In another part of the book, easterbrook blames oomans for spreading diseases. He condemns the deaths of huge numbers of poor people from diseases when these diseases could be averted by investments made by the over-industrialized world ... “according to the ‘who’, 3.2 million children died in 1991 from diarrhoea diseases. (By 1993, that figure would rise to 3.8 million). Most of the deaths could have been avoided by safe drinking water and controlled sanitation. (editor’s underlining) Total preventable childhood deaths from gross water and air pollution in the third world: 7.8 million.”[23] So in one part of his book he blames diseases on nature and in another part he blames oomans. And what about all those diseases resulting from oomans’ enslavement of Animals? Most of the major diseases afflicting oomans have derived from livestock farming because oomans have come into too close a proximity to Animals. Do these count as being nature’s fault rather than the murderers who carried out the slavery? Surely oomans have only themselves to blame for introducing these diseases into their lives as a result of their oomano-supremacist proclivities? Bse would never have emerged if it wasn’t for the rendering industry and the denialism of the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food (maffia), house of lords, and the national pharmers union. By blaming bse on nature rather than pharmers, easterbrook is engaged in the worst sort of ‘blame the victim’. It is, however, quite typical of easterbrook’s rationalization of Earth rapists’ activities.

Rather than comparing deaths caused by disease to the deaths caused by war, wouldn’t it be fairer to compare the deaths caused by oomans to those caused by nature? This would reveal that oomans are far more murderous than nature - storms, lightening, floods, and disease. But, as a result of oomans’ devastation of the Earth’s life support system, this may well begin to change. Hopefully, as the Earth’s climate destabilizes it will start removing billions of eco-nazis. Only easterbrook would have the gall to blame this on the Earth.

A theoretical difficulty of easterbrook’s comparative thinking is that it would be quite easy to adopt it to oomans. The thinking like nature argument would then lead to conclusions such as - so what if hundreds of oomans die as a result of a plane crash, far more people died during the second world war.

Nature is Sort of Violent.

It is difficult working out exactly whether easterbrook believes nature is violent. He points out, “Daily in nature living things die by the millions through violence.”[24]; .. “much of the natural order is based on violent death.”[25] And yet, “Most living things centre their existence on co-operation and coexistence ...”[26]

Nature is Chaotic.

Easterbrook suggests that nature is chaotic, “Suppose humanity decided to devote itself to preserving the correct form of the environment. The idea has certain attractions. There is also a drawback: It would be impossible to determine what the Correct environment might be.”[27]; “The Earth’s ecosphere is ever in flux, knowing no fixed or proper alignment.”[28]

Nature is Indestructible.

Just like gaians, easterbrook believes oomans cannot destroy nature, “Many of the blotches that men and women leave on the Earth, and think cause permanent devastation, would disappear so quickly that seeking evidence of them would be pointless even a short time into the future.”[29]

Nature is Resilient.

Like the gaians, easterbrook believes the Earth is extremely resilient not fragile. According to lovelock, “In the nearly four billion years of its existence as a live planet, it has survived at least 30 major impacts, each of them devastating enough to destroy more than half of the life present.”[30] According to easterbrook, it is a ‘green fortress’, “A living system able to withstand the detonation of mount saint helens is a green fortress indeed. This does not rationalize any human assault on that fortress, for ingenious as the environment’s defences are, men and women may someday find a means to breach them. Without such perspective humankind will not be able to make rational choices regarding which environmental alarms are genuine and which merely this year’s fad.”[31]

Easterbrook provides another example of the Earth’s resilience, “During the vietnam war the united states spent year carpet bombing the jungles of vietnam and also dropping on them 19 million gallons of herbicides, including 11 million gallons of the infamous agent orange. Those jungles today are as lush as before the assault began. Imagine millions of gallons of agent orange - the worst industrial alchemy could muster against nature - not only failing to wipe out the vietnamese jungle ‘forever’ but failing even to thrust it back over the short term of a military campaign. This happened because the agent orange bombers were not attacking a fragile environment. They were flying against a green fortress.”[32]

Easterbrook agrees with the gaians that if oomans were to suddenly disappear from the Earth it would not take long for nature to wipe out all evidence of their presence, “Many of the blotches that men and women leave on the Earth, and think cause permanent devastation, would disappear so quickly that seeking evidence of them would be pointless even a short time into the future.”[33]

Easterbrook accepts the gaian argument that oomans will undermine their own life support system before they could ever get around to eradicating all life on Earth. Once oomans have gone, the surviving species will repopulate the Earth and, as time goes by the planet will once again return to a green paradise. Oomans don’t have to worry about the survival of the Earth. They have to worry about their own survival by protecting the Earth’s life support system for oomans.

Easterbrook’s ‘thinking like nature’ is the blandest type of thinking which is never going to help oomans understand the Earth’s life support system or their role as planetary beings on the Earth. Comparative thinking legitimates any scale of anthropogenic devastation of the Earth by comparing such damage to the worst natural disasters the Earth has experienced during its long history. It’s all very well for someone to feel pleased there are others less fortunate than themselves, but this doesn’t make that person become a better, or healthier, person.

Nature’s Flaws

Easterbrook believes nature is flawed, “These fundamental restrictions of the environment - that nature cannot act by design, that natural accumulation of information is slow, that life is overdependent on suns, that natural selection is limited by random gene-copying accidents, and that life requires planets ...”[34] .. “a flaw of nature - flooding, which is dangerous to the biosphere as well as to people ...”[35]; “nature is limited by reliance on the sun. Reliance on the sun limits nature by restricting the amount of life in the high northern and low southern latitudes ...”[36]; “Humankind and the natural world will be seen as identical in essence: both full of promise, both plagued by flaws.”[37]

The Balance of Nature.

Easterbrook condemns the static concept of the balance of nature, “In the standard depiction of the balance of nature, ‘balance’ means inaction. For immense amounts of time ecospheres hold about the same populations of about the same creatures doing about the same things.”[38] He supports the idea of an ‘action-packed’ balance of nature.

Oomans should not act like Nature.

Easterbrook wants oomans to think like nature but not to act naturally. He believes that if oomans act naturally this will have two impacts. Firstly, they will be acting as oomano-imperialists, “Surely the worst thing that could happen to the Earth would be for humankind to continue to behave in an entirely natural manner, doing no more or less than other creatures would do if competitors did not stop them - that is, expanding to the maximum extent.”[39] Secondly, they will oomanize the Earth, “But the world that might emerge from an entirely natural human expansion would be one in which the pristine elements of nature stand little chance. Thus when we think like nature, we realize that nature would want women and men to behave artificially - to impose self restraint not from programmed instinct but because their intellects tell them it is wise.”[40] These conclusions are valid. However, it is somewhat cumbersome to argue that oomans should think like nature but not act like it. It is also somewhat odd to believe that nature wants oomans to behave unnaturally.

Easterbrook’s Worthwhile Policies.

Third World Doom: the Dark Ages.

Thankfully easterbrook’s optimism about capitalism doesn’t suffuse all of his opinions. He is appalled that third world diseases are so rampant .. “according to the ‘who’, 3.2 million children died in 1991 from diarrhoea diseases. (By 1993, that figure would rise to 3.8 million). Most of the deaths could have been avoided by safe drinking water and controlled sanitation. Total preventable childhood deaths from gross water and air pollution in the third world: 7.8 million.”[41] He is right to emphasize the threats posed by diseases, “Disease is distressingly easy to overlook as an ecological issue. Yet it is the world’s worst environmental problem by a wide margin.”[42] But disease isn’t an environmental problem - it is a product of oomans’ exploitation of the Earth’s Biodiversity.

Easterbrook is also appalled that so many children around the world are born in destitution, “Conditions for the impoverished of the current decade are sufficiently bleak that it is time to revise history books on an important score. The dark ages did not happen in europe 1,000 years ago; the dark ages are happening now.”[43]

Global Equality.

Easterbrook is a global egalitarian and hopes that in the future .. “the majority of the world’s residents will reach a standard of living equal to one-half that enjoyed by americans, as measured by per-capita income. Reaching this level alone represents an immense challenge; but anything less would leave a morally unbearable gap between the comfort of the first world and the deprivation of the third.” (p.306). However, his proposals for bringing about such a profound change are not radical enough. They include, ‘carbon trading and ‘joint implementation’ and international aid, “Such gloomy scenarios (of increasing global carbon emissions) can be averted, though this will require among other things a renewed commitment to international aid on the part of affluent countries.”[44] He goes on to argue, “Improving the lot of those two billion impoverished should represent to the world the essential moral challenge of the 21stc.”[45] This is a major challenge. However, the biggest moral challenge is abolishing the Animal exploitation industry. Oomans have got to show they deserve to be saved before efforts are made to save them and from the evidence of the Animal exploitation industry they don’t.

Land Preservation.

Quite unusually for a green, easterbrook supports the extension of natural areas, “More habitats should be exempted from development, at least against the day when it becomes possible for humankind to expand in concert with other species, rather than at their expense. As the endangered species act is revised in years to come, it ought to forsake species-by-species fixations for general habitat preservation.”[46] He even makes a very telling point about the political benefits of Wilderness areas, “If the esa were replaced by general habitat protection, it would no longer be necessary to engage in complicated legal disputes about what population levels of what species are appropriate, or which sorts of living things deserve special treatment.”[47] But, as with all greens this type of ecological protectionism is invariably followed by .. “Given that new homes and factories must be built, the compromises necessary for their construction might as well be intelligent compromises. (There is) .. the hope of permitting an expanding economy and protecting natural habitats at the same time - even allowing people to live more closely enjoined with those habitats, a pleasant clean-technology prospect that will have high public appeal, and will break the land-use planning taboo.”[48] It then becomes rather worrying when he alleges there is no conflict between the economy and ecological habitats, “From 1988 to 1992, federal officials reviewed 34,600 proposed development projects with endangered species act ramifications; they blocked just 23.”[49]

The Need for Bans.

Easterbrook shows some surprising radicalism when he argues that serious environmental problems are best dealt with by outright bans. When a ban on vinyl chloride was proposed the chemical industry erupted in anger but eventually it led to the introduction of new techniques which made the industry more profitable, “The results of vinyl chloride control epitomize the modern economics of the environment. At every stage of ecological progress, conservation initiatives have been expected to cost huge sums, to subtract from productivity and growth, to handicap industry. If there is any group more disposed to gloom than environmentalists, it is economists.”[50]

Need for Risk Assessment in Green Politics.

Easterbrook demands that all environmental problems should be properly assessed. This is another important issue which he ruins because he intends to calculate risks in terms of the damage to oomans rather than the Earth’s life support system, “Perhaps the most important failing of u.s. environmental controls is the lack of coherent scientific assessments of risks and priorities. A powerful indication of the environmental community’s distaste for science-set priorities came in 1993 when the senate voted 95 to 3 to elevate the epa to cabinet rank, but with the proviso that future regulations be based on ‘credible science’ and incorporate risk-assessment logic.”[51] He points out the bureaucratic nightmare of reducing risks, “After all, one reason the environmental protection agency (epa) doggedly pursues the last part per quadrillion of dioxin, when the funds thus expended might better be invested in wilderness preservation or dietary fat reduction or a hundred other environmental categories, is that the epa has the authority to regulate dioxin but not to expand parks or improve nutrition.”[52] Easterbrook supports cost benefit analysis but this is incapable of assessing the risks posed by environmental disasters.

Some Support for Animal Rights.

Easterbrook is an Animal rights’ sceptic, “Missing from this list of reasons to favour species preservation is .. the notion that species have a right to exist.”[53] However, he believes Animals deserve some respect, “Whatever the ultimate purpose of life may be, it must entail having something going on in your mind. The higher mammals may be venturing into this territory. Or they may not. The mere possibility should be sufficient to place them forever off-limits to human exploitation.”[54] He suggests that some forms of Animal slaughter are wrong because they demean ooman integrity, “Women and men should not harm any species needlessly, including by hunting for ‘sport’, a notion that has always seemed primeval to me.”[55]  .. “whaling out to be banned, period.”[56] He agrees that, “Today the suggestion there could be ‘higher’ a well as lower existence has become impermissibly anthropocentric.”[57] but he doesn’t bother to explore this insight. When he fantasizes about the long distant future he suggests .. “the New Nature might include an end of predation against animals by people.”[58] but this is safely tucked into the long distant future and he doesn’t seem to believe it has any role in combating global burning.

He recognizes the environmental damage caused by the beef and Chicken industries but not by the Pig industry, “Making meat using high-input animals is a questionable strategy for the third world; some western stock animals (sic) do not prosper under developing world conditions. Micro livestock is another promising area. Navajo sheep, iguana, pot-bellied pigs, and other small animals offer better grain input to meat output than the cattle and fowl favoured in affluent nations ..”[59]

It is a shame that he then goes and ruins these tentative steps towards seeing life on Earth from the perspective of those who don’t wear jack-boots, “One speculation is that species extinction in itself simply does not mean much. Present human misbehaviour may be pushing some species toward extinction at an alarming pace, but people are only speeding up what was already written on the wind, since historically nearly all species have proven expendable.”[60] Rather strangely he goes by employing a gaian-like conclusion, “The full measure of the environment’s toughness is how little it needs us, the spotted owl, the sea otter, or any particular creature.”[61]

Easterbrook tacitly admits it was Animals who created the world’s habitability and that they should be used to help terraform other planets, “And should human beings eventually move to other vacant worlds, men and women will not make the trip alone: Plants and animals will be taken, too. Surely there could be no objection, beyond dogmatic dislike of anything accomplished by technology, to introducing plants and animals of Earth to planets that are lifeless.”[62]

The Hypocrices of Green Lifestyles.

Easterbrook is pretty merciless in condemning the hypocrisies of greens’ lifestyles. For this he has to be heartily commended. The mundi club has long recognized that environmentalists are amongst the world’s worst hypocrites. Most of them continue to lead self indulgent lifestyles whilst proclaiming it’s necessary to introduce frugal living. This is applicable even to the poorer members of the green movement not only its richmond tribalists. Many radicals can’t do without a car to get them around to protests and the increasing number of commercial green festivals. Easterbrook is really savage in his criticisms about their indulgences and their denial of wealth to poorer people.

Increasing the Status of Women - Helping to Reduce Over-population.

Easterbrook supports an improvement in women’s status, “Both compelled birth control and the lack of desired birth control are equally bad: The choice must be the woman’s.”[63]

Opposition to Overpopulation.

“Human population growth is at once the most important and worst understood of ecological issues.”[64]; “Population growth is indeed the core environmental problem for most of the world.”[65] He puts himself in the middle of the population debate, “Enviros see population as bad, unviros see population as good. Both views are disjointed in time.”[66] which doesn’t exactly clarify his position at all. He believes the industrialization of the third world, and an improvement in women’s status, will reduce the population explosion.

Easterbrook’s Not-so Worthwhile Policies.

Support for Capital Intensive Construction Schemes.

Easterbrook legitimizes mega, capital intensive, construction projects by arguing they don’t damage the Earth as much as nature. Name any construction project causing large scale environmental damage, the canadian hydro-electric power schemes, the exploitation of the arctic national reserve[67] and he’ll be there comparing it with the asteroid impact 65 million years ago to rationalize such projects.

The Means of Improving the Third World.

Easterbrook wants to create a more egalitarian world not by curbing the wealth of the rich (how could anybody possibly criticize their gross, decadent, obscene, indulgences?) but by increasing the wealth of the poor, “There is a famous statistic that the u.s. has 4% of the world’s population and consumes 40% of current resources. Environmental orthodoxy says this proves the u.s. resources must go way down. What the statistic tells you is that third world resource consumption must go way up.”[68]

Easterbrook wants to decrease global inequalities through the industrialization of the third world. This would include large scale construction projects, “What the developing world need to free their populations from extreme air pollution is paved roads, catalytic converters, hydro-electric dams, modern petroleum refining, advanced high efficiency power plants - the sorts of technology green doctrine considers outrageous.”[69]

What does it matter about the damage caused by large scale construction projects? The sardar sarovar dam in india? - why it will stop people being killed by floods and air pollution from wood burning. Oilfield developments in ecuador? Coal fired plants in china? - these would replace the pollution created when the poor burn wood in their homes. Massive dam projects - these are vital for water supply and sewage disposal systems in third world countries, “The solution is ‘basic infrastructure’ - pipes, filtration plants, wastewater treatment facilities, sometimes dam and aqueducts.”[70]

Criticizing the Environmental Movement for opposing Third World Industrialization.

Easterbrook criticizes the green movement for opposing third world industrialization, “A faction of the environmental movement is burdened by a post-schumacher trance-state in which it is imagined that third world billions would rather tend to small ecological niches and live in self denial, to avoid the horrors of western consumerism. For good or ill what the overwhelming majority of the third world wants is what the first world has.”[71] He correctly points out .. “big water-diversion projects deeply offend environmental orthodoxy.” He condemns them for their hypocrisy in opposing construction projects in the third world that are common in the over-industrialized world, “I’ve actually heard western enviros who themselves take meals in air-conditioned restaurants going on about how third world farmers should not be given tractors because ox-drawn plows are more ecologically transparent.”[72]

Easterbrook criticizes environmentalists who fear industrialization will cause ecological damage, “Population growth is indeed the core environmental problem for most of the world. But better environmental health will help slow that growth, not expand it.”[73] To believe that environmental health will slow population growth is another example of easterbrook’s optimism. Easterbrook then criticizes environmentalists who fear industrialization will cause population growth. He believes industrialization will reduce the population explosion, “Ultimately the force that will do the most to break the cycles of over-population and the low status of women is industrial development in the third world.”[74]

It has to be suggested that if third world countries try and industrialize to the levels of the over-industrialized world then this will cause a geophysiological disaster. Third world countries need to industrialize but it is also imperative this is done in conjunction with the de-industrialization of large parts of the first world. It is not possible to save the planet by covering even more of it in industrial sprawl. The question of how much industrialization there should be in the third world and how much in the rich world should be determined by countries’ Carbon status.

Giving Third World Poverty greater Priority than Environmentalism.

Easterbrook gives greater priority to the alleviation of third world poverty than environmental issues in the west .. “western public consciousness continues to focus on exotic ecological threats (asbestos, dioxin, electromagnetic radiation, nuclear wastes, pcbs, pesticide residues and ultra-violet radiation) while ignoring millions of annual deaths from basic environmental problems of air and water (in the third world).”[75] Easterbrook is right to argue that third world poverty is more important than the above environmental issues.

Giving Third World Poverty greater Priority than Animal Rights.

Easterbrook also gives greater priority to the alleviation of third world poverty than Animal rights, “The environmental, human-health, human rights, and material security problems faced by the disenfranchised of the third world represent what is by far the most important 21stc challenge for ecological activism. To begin to address this challenge, the west must shift its focus from the ecological problems of the first world to the true crisis now in progress in the third. Environmentalists must come to terms with the fact that people are more important than plants and animals. Decent conditions must be provided for all of the former before there can be security for the latter.”[76] He is wrong to argue that abolishing third world poverty is more important than Animal rights. It is not possible to eradicate poverty without also dealing with the issue of Animal freedom.

Giving Third World Poverty greater Priority than Global Burning.

In easterbrook’s list of priorities he argues it is more important to tackle third world poverty than global burning, “Nearly 8 million children dead each year versus someday, maybe, one more degree fahrenheit. On the runup to the Earth summit, instant-doomsday hyperbole caused the world’s attention to focus on the hypothetical threat of global warming to the exclusion of environmental menaces that are real, palpable, and awful right now ..”[77] Eradicating disease should be a greater priority than global burning, “Disease is .. the world’s worst environmental problem by a wide margin.”[78]

It is a new experience for greens to be confronted by criticisms from the right that they are not doing enough to combat third world problems. Easterbrook is right about some environmental problems but is mistaken as regards Animal rights and global burning. His position is especially bizarre considering that he supports capitalism which is responsible for many third world problems.

Easterbrook seems to believe that abolishing global poverty, protecting Wildlife, and combating global burning, are all mutually incompatible and that priority should be given to the former. On the contrary, all of these issues are interlinked so it is essential to tackle all of them at the same time.

Global Burning.

Easterbrook condemns the Earth summit.

Easterbrook is a global burning sceptic, “Never had great nations devoted so much energy to addressing an entirely speculative problem.”[79]; “The earth summit should have been about environmental issues that are confirmed emergencies, such as drinking water purity and dung smoke. But the emotional satisfaction and fund-raising quotient of america bashing is missing from these issues, so locution honed in on the greenhouse effect. There is something fairly indecent about the world’s heads of state gathering, as they did at rio, to bestow many tens of billions of dollars on the greenhouse effect, a speculative concern, while lifting not a finger to assist 7.8 million children dead each year from drinking infected water and breathing dense smoke.”[80]; .. “the hypothetical prospect of global warming - a troubling but speculative concern that so far has harmed no one and may never harm anyone - was put above palpable, urgent loss of lives from third world water and smoke pollution.”[81] The accusation that global burning has harmed nobody is wrong and that it won’t harm anyone is dangerously wrong. At the rio Earth summit, environmentalists .. “managed to place the speculative concern of greenhouse warming above the confirmed horror of third world poverty.”[82]

The Irrelevance of Global Burning.

Easterbrook’s opinion about global burning derives from the views of whacko, corporate, anti-environmentalists such as patrick michaels, richard lindzen, and robert balling. He downgrades global burning in a number of ways.

* Firstly, he believes oomans’ contribution to global burning is minuscule in comparison to ‘nature’. Oomans release far less Carbon into the atmosphere than nature.

* Secondly, 99% of the Earth’s greenhouse effect is caused by water vapour and oomans have no impact on the concentration of water vapour in the atmosphere.

* Thirdly, there is no need to worry about the concentration of atmospheric Carbon because the levels of CO₂ have been far higher in the past than they are at present and this did not lead to a disaster, “Through that entire span (of the Carboniferous era) the carbon dioxide level of the air was dramatically higher than today, without triggering any instant doomsday.”[83]

* Fourthly, current global temperatures are not significant because it has been far warmer throughout most of the Earth’s history than it is today, “From about two billion years in the past till around 40 million years ago, Earth’s typical temperature probably ran 10-22F higher than current readings.”[84]; “Such an increase (the ipcc estimates there could be a rise in global temperatures of 4.5F) surely would be significant but would still leave the Earth starkly cooler than has been its condition for most of the span in which mammals have existed.”[85]; “Should it occur (the ipcc’s rise in global temperatures of 4.5F) this increase would surely disrupt climate patterns but still leave the land environment notably cooler than through most of the planet’s history.”[86]

* Fifthly, there is no need to worry about the threat posed by global burning because global cooling isn’t that far away, “People worry about the Earth becoming too warm. Nature worries about the Earth becoming too cold.”[87]

* Finally, Easterbrook is of the opinion that global burning would be good for oomans .. “mild warming is probably in society’s interest. No one contends that the warming of the past century has done the slightest harm.”[88]

These bland conclusions also derive from easterbrook’s comparative thinking. Just as he used destructive events in the Earth’s past to cover up the destruction that oomans are inflicting on the Earth, so he is using the warmth of the Earth’s past to cover up its current warmth. All that this does is to reveal his gross ignorance of the way the Earth works. According to lovelock, the Earth does not worry about becoming too cold. Its worry is becoming too hot - the Earth’s position in the solar system means it should be far warmer than it is. Easterbrook is erroneously worried about the possibility of a runaway global cooling disaster than the much more dire prospects of runaway global burning. Easterbrook fails to appreciate that the role of life on Earth is to keep the planet cool.

Policies for Tackling Global Burning.

Easterbrook believes the alleviation of global poverty is more important than combating global burning. He believes it is so insignificant an issue it can be combated with a few minor policy adjustments. “By several measures an artificial greenhouse effect is the most disturbing ecological prospect of our moment on the Earth. I hope to show that while the prospect is a serious one against which women and men are well advised to take immediate steps, the chances of a runaway global warming are extremely small.”[89] He therefore proposes only conventional environmental policies. The priority should be fuel efficiency, “In greenhouse matters ample opportunities exist for the most important reform: increased efficiency in the use of fossil fuels.”[90] He supports Carbon taxes. But, “An even better means of controlling greenhouse gases may be a system of marketable trading permits, modelled on the acid rain trading permits.”[91] He supports alternative energy .. “many (environmentalists) seem uninterested in the upside of (hydro-electric) projects, mainly huge amounts of zero-emission, zero-fossil fuel energy for nations where runaway air pollution is a daily threat to life.”[92] Not surprisingly, he supports lovins’s contention that it is possible to cut greenhouse gases at a profit. Like many other greens he believes, “A western energy economy based on hydrogen, solar-electric conversion, biomass from vegetation, and similar renewable power is not only not science fiction, it is odds-on to be realized in the lifetimes of some readers of this book.”[93]

Other Environmental Issues which are More important than Global Warming.

“Protection of ocean fish surely merits attention as a primary ecological concern of the 1990s: It is more pressing and palpable than such speculative concerns as the greenhouse effect.”[94]

Limited Recycling.

Easterbrook supports recycling - but only those materials which cannot be burnt in incinerators for energy .. “green orthodoxy rejects the burning of anything that might be recycled. (tyres, motor oil, toxic wastes). Any form of burning of waste chemicals or used products for energy now offends orthodoxy, even if toxics are destroyed and fossil fuels displaced.”[95]

Easterbrook’s Optimism.

Easterbrook’s optimism seems unbounded. There’s little that he doesn’t pervert into optimism.

Pollution has Peaked (in the Over-Industrialized World).

A major part of easterbrook’s book is devoted to the optimistic belief that environmental disasters in the over-industrialized world are fading. He believes pollution has peaked in the u.s. and the western world and that this will also happen around the rest of the world, “In fact, trends in environmental economics increasingly support a notion that might be called the Pollution Peak: that industrial economies transit cycles in which pollution and environmental impacts first increase, then stabilize, then decline. Early evidence suggests that the Pollution Peak has already come in the united states and many countries of western europe, is coming now in the former soviet bloc, and may arrive sometime in the next century for most of the developing world.”[96]; .. “in the western world pollution will end within our lifetimes, with society almost painlessly adapting a zero-emissions philosophy.”[97] The reason some types of pollution have declined in the over-industrialized world is simply because multi-national corporations have shifted heavy industries from the over-industrialized world to third world countries where labour is cheaper and there are fewer environmental regulations.

Toxic Waste.

.. “the u.s. toxic waste problem has not only peaked, it peaked years ago.”[98]; .. “all but a handful of toxic sites present nothing close to the looming threat depicted in doomsday ideology. Institutional environmentalism has exaggerated the toxic waste threat as much to advance its own political influence as to sound necessary alarms.”[99]; “The main finding of most epidemiological studies of toxic waste areas is that when health problems are compared to nearby communities without contamination there is no significant difference, with a few tragic exceptions ...”[100]

Water Quality.

“In the western world water quality is the most successful of first-generation environmental issues. While in many categories the age of pollution may peak much sooner than expected, in water the age of pollution has already peaked.”[101] The amount of money put into the clean up of american rivers is colossal and, from the statistics supplied by easterbrook, seems to have brought considerable results even if there is still a long way to go. The rest of the western world is a long way behind. Easterbrook says nothing about eutrophication.

Waste Disposal/Sewage Waste.

“Between 1978 and 1988, 14,000 of the 20,000 landfills in the united states shut their gates.”[102]; .. “East 106 (was) a government-sanctioned sludge disposal site 106 miles east of cape may, new jersey. Ocean dumping of sewage by the u.s. .. ended in june 1992.”[103]

Pesticides.

Easterbrook talks about a pesticide peak that hasn’t happened yet, “Market forces are an important factor in the coming pesticide peak.”[104]; .. “in the decade to come, agricultural chemical use in the developed world, today declining relative to production, will begin to decline in absolute terms.”[105]

Cfcs.

Easterbrook’s optimism over the curbing of cfcs lacks any caution  .. “most researchers now project that the depletion effects of cfcs will max out around the year 2000, much earlier than expected.”[106]; “The rapidly imposed cfc controls led to equally rapid results.”[107]; “World emissions of cfcs are declining rapidly toward zero ..”[108] He castigates environmentalists for not praising the rapid speed with which cfcs emissions have been curbed and the ozone threat reduced. He also believes that .. “cfcs may be bad for the ozone layer but now appear neutral to climate.”[109]

Chernobyl is Inconsequential.

The 1992 accident at the chernobyl nuclear power plant was .. “an inconsequential artificial environmental event harming no one ..”[110]

Global Burning.

Deforestation Halted.

“Extensive burning of amazonia ended in 1991. The actual rate of forest loss was about 3.7 million acres per year .. .”[111]

Reforestation is Happening in the Over-Industrialized World.

Intensity of Storms not Increasing.

“The prospect that a warming world will be one of disastrous storms has caught on in popular culture. So far this notion is unsupported by research. So far research suggests that warm years tend to produce more storms of low intensity, cool years fewer storms of higher intensity.”[112]

Declining Emissions’ Projections.

“Greenhouse projections are being revised downward partly on the basis of evolving knowledge about the climate.”[113] This was written in june 1994 before the ipcc’s second assessment. It ignores the fact that the ipcc refuses to produce a worst case scenario.

Sea Levels not Rising.

“Scientific support for the notion of a drastic rise in sea level has waned rapidly, however.”[114]

No Melting of Ice.

“Recent studies are also tending to hold that the largest mass of ice on earth, the antarctic ice cap, is not melting and has not melted in a long time.”[115]; “Though the science of longer-term glacial behaviour is uncertain, there are indications trends point away from the conspicuous melting asserted by greenhouse theory.”[116]

Gcms.

In typically optimistic vein, easterbrook argues that the more information is acquired on the climate, the more that global climate models (gcms) suggest that global burning will not become a significant problem, “As climate-simulating computers become more sophisticated, most worst case predictions become less worrisome.”[117]; “Greenhouse projections are being revised downward partly on the basis of evolving knowledge about the climate.”[118] He argues quite legitimately that the ipcc’s climate models have an inbuilt bias towards global warming because they cannot run models that create ice ages, “Paleoclimatologists often snicker at gcms because greenhouse computers are stumped by ice ages. When pleistocene conditions are plugged into climate models, no ice sheets appear. The precise causes of ice ages are unknown and therefore hard to simulate. But the lack of ice ages in ice-age simulations leads some researchers to believe that climate models contain fatal biases in the direction of warmth.”[119]

Criticisms of Easterbrook’s Views.

Easterbrook’s views were developed in the early 1990s before the global warming trend of the 1980s and 1990s became obvious. He makes the valid point that the greater the variability of the climate, the more difficult it is for scientists to be able to state categorically that anthropogenic factors have been responsible for climate change. He argues, “Nor can they (the ipcc models) fully mimic the largest year-on-year variability in the natural climate system, the el Nino oscillation in the pacific ocean. A greater natural variability in climates might make it harder to discover a genuine human signal.”[120] Once again, these views were expressed a few years before the ipcc’s second assessment of the climate which stated there was now sufficient evidence pointing to oomans’ influence in boosting global temperatures.

Species Extinction Peaked.

The extinction Peak .. “species protection is another place where the ecological trend, far from declining toward doom, is in fact a rousing success story, one only waiting to be recognized.”[121]; “Today dolphin kills by u.s. tuna boats have all but stopped, declining from 19,700 in 1988 to 800 in 1991.”[122] Easterbrook believes the Earth is becoming richer in Biodiversity .. “the biosphere has proceeded not to disorder but to ever greater complexity.”[123] The history of the Earth is not increasing complexity but the stabilization of the climate.

The Successes of Factory Pharming.

“But one overlooked advantage is that it consumes progressively less land. In the late 1930s, u.s. production of the 17 essential food and fibre products - what, corn, cotton, and so on - was 210 million metric tons from 77 million acres. By the late 1980s, u.s. production of the same commodities was 600 million metric tons from 72 million acre. Crops trebled while acres under cultivation declined.”[124] This analysis conveniently ignores the oilfields, the oil spills, the oil terminals, the chemical factories, the petrol stations, that prop up industrialized pharming, etc.

Over-Population Solved.

.. “the long term population outlook already points to decline.”[125]

Authoritarianism and Nuclear arms on the Decline.

.. “authoritarianism and the nuclear arms race are on the decline.”[126]

Economic Growth and Environmental Protection.

One of easterbrook’s most optimistic fantasies is that it is possible to have economic growth and environmental improvements. He is one of those greens who believes it is possible to have your cake and eat it, “By the year 1986, mikhail bernstam finds, net u.s. air pollution emissions had fallen below the level of the year 1940, though population had increased 82% through that period and economic output had gone up by 380%.”[127]; “Given that new homes and factories must be built, the compromises necessary for their construction might as well be intelligent compromises. (There is) .. the hope of permitting an expanding economy and protecting natural habitats at the same time - even allowing people to live more closely enjoined with those habitats, a pleasant clean-technology prospect that will have high public appeal, and will break the land-use planning taboo.”[128]; .. “what appears inarguable in the empirical record: that most economic trends in the developed world now incline in favour of the environment.”[129]; “The moment will pass (the current fashion for doom) and soon - replaced with general recognition of how much ecological progress has been made in the western world in the past two decades, how rapidly and affordably the progress has come, and how much progress will be made in the future. Soon, perhaps by the end of this century, we’re all going to be ecological optimists.”[130]; “If agricultural yield increases faster than the growth in population - as it has in the last few decades in most nations, even in the third world - it is possible to have more people and less demand on land simultaneously.”[131].. “if there is one thing market economics does infuriatingly well, that is producing lots of whatever it is asked to produce. Now that capitalism increasingly is asked to produce environmental protection, lots is coming.”[132]

It’s quite true that in the short term it is possible to adopt conservation measures and energy/materials efficiency which could lead to an increase in economic growth and less pollution. However, such trends are not sustainable. It is not possible to go on and on obtaining such benefits. The exponential growth in the numbers of cars, kids, Cattle, capital, and carnage, would continue to cause the degradation of the Earth’s life support system. The pollution released by the damage inflicted on the environment might overtake the reduction in emissions from fossil fuels. Conservation measures and energy/materials efficiency are part of a big green con. They promise to protect the environment but they can do so only under limited, marginal conditions. Unless there are definite limits to the amount of pollution which can be dumped into the environment and to the damage inflicted on the Earth’s life support system, then such measures are not merely useless, they encourage people to go on wrecking the environment.

The Best World so far - the Environment has never been in Better Condition.

The Earth is in almost Pristine Condition.

Easterbrook is so optimistic he believes the Earth is in a near pristine condition.

* “Consider that for all the miles of road and rail laid by man, most of the acreage of Earth remains either wild or near-wild.”[133]; But hundreds of millions of Animals still die on roads in the industrialized world.

* No biodiversity disaster, “Instead there were at worst a handful of confirmed extinctions globally in that decade.”[134];

* .. “the majority of the world’s woodlands still exist in a mainly natural state.”[135];

* Industrial Forests .. “teem with life: plants and animals going about their business oblivious to the presence of man.”[136]; “Most managed forests teem with life.”[137]

* “Most studies show that u.s. topsoil conservation is sound.”[138]

Environmentalists’ Successes.

Easterbrook is more optimistic about the successes of the environmental movement than environmentalists, “Through the early 1980s .. they won victory after victory. This progression from pauperhood to riches culminated in the 1990 clean air act. On that bill environmentalists put to rout the auto lobby, the steel lobby, the utility lobby, the coal lobby, and other entrenched groups commanding trillions of dollars in economic might.”[139] Another example he gives is the environmental commission to reinforce the environmental side letter to the nafta treaty. A similar side-letter and commission were established for the labour movement. He believes the environmental commission is more powerful than the labour commission indicating that the environmental movement is more powerful than the labour movement, “The next phase of optimistic environmental progress - in which it is generally understood that ecological control measures have been remarkably successful in the past and will be even more successful in the future - will not commence until this political problem is overcome.”[140]; “Yet through their success environmentalists have ceased to be outsiders. Mainstream organizations of the movement today are a branch office of the status quo .. .”[141] However many environmentalists decried nafta as a loss of power for the environment.

The Doom of Doomism.

Criticisms of Doomsterism.

Easterbrook dismisses pessimism because, “Contemporary doomsaying is hard to excuse, given that it comes at a time when most trends in developed countries are positive and most scientific findings suggest the biosphere extremely robust.”[142]

Geophysiological Calamities will Unite Oomans.

Easterbrook believes, somewhat optimistically, that geophysiological calamities will unite oomans in a way they have never been united before, “Here at last (environmentalism) is an issue that joins the globe’s fractious states in common cause. Nation’s will be compelled to co-operate on ecological matters if only to protect their self-interests. This is terrific news.”[143] It has to be asked, if oomans are going to unite over the ecological disasters of the 2000s, why didn’t they do so over the ecological disasters of the 1980s? There are only a limited number of factors that unites oomans over the long term and they are - slaughtering Wildlife, devastating the Earth’s life support system, creating rubbish, money, greed, vulgarity, and stupidity.

The Environment is in such good Condition that Doomism is Politically Redundant.

“One premise of ecorealism is that environmental advocates need not employ overstated alarms because the straightforward case for preservation of the Earth is sufficient.”[144]

Optimism in Technological Overdrive - Technological Cornucopianism - the Onset of New Nature.

Easterbrook is an unrestrained technological cornucopian. The last part of ‘moment on Earth’ is an extraordinary celebration of the technological advances that might be attained over the next 50 million years (sic). He believes technology might abolish old age, disease, and death, and bring about a mastery of the Earth, the solar system, and even the universe. What he hopes will come to pass is that oomans will do away with the old Earth, which has only preserved life for the last 4,000 million years, and create new homes on planets throughout the universe. He believes space engineering could create an aerosol screen around the entire solar system to prevent sunlight from escaping into the universe. He wants to warm up the planets in the solar system to prepare them for ooman colonization - although he doesn’t say what effect this might have on global burning on Earth. These ideas about oomans’ exploration of the cosmos are as interesting as any science fiction novel. They are reminiscent of lynn margulis’s speculations in her recent anthology.

The Colonization of Space

Easterbrook believes oomans will colonize other planets in the solar system, “The obvious first candidate (for ooman expansion to other planets) is mars.”[145] Then the universe, “Working on the assumption that travel at 10% of light speed will someday be practical, jones makes a startling calculation: that human beings could populate the entire galaxy - a galaxy of 100 billion suns - in just 50 million years. Jones derives this number by supposing each successful colony planet would dispatch its own expedition to a new world after a thousand years. Taking into account such a multiplier, every planet in the galaxy could be alive in 50 million years.”[146] Far be it for the mundi club to intrude on people’s dreams but this does sound as if the author has been watching too many star trek series.

Oomans as Stewards to Overcome Nature’s Flaws.

Easterbrook believes the Earth suffers from many flaws - although perversely he doesn’t believe bipeds are one of them. This leads to the proposition that, one day, oomans might rectify these flaws, “Nature has structural flaws and physical limitations. Genus homo may be able to change all that.”[147]; “Even knowing some actions taken by people will be ill-advised, nature might be quite content to accept human meddling with the natural world in return for assistance in the expansion of life.”[148] He wants oomans to create what he calls New Nature, “A New Nature, modified by men and women, is coming. It cannot be stopped, nor should it. The issue that matters is how to make the New nature good rather than bad.”[149] Let’s hope it’s a bit more stable than biosphere II. Having slagged off the ipcc for not knowing everything about the Earth, and then quoted chaos theorists suggesting it is theoretically impossible to understand the workings of the Earth’s life support system, easterbrook believes oomans should become stewards of the Earth. If this is the sort of logic that is going to create new nature then ecocide isn’t likely to be far behind. If the eco-nazis’ behaviour towards the original Earth is anything to go by then new nature will be nothing short of a disaster - you don’t put the mafia in charge of the global banking system.

Oomans will be Civilized by the Time they get into Space.

Easterbrook’s naiveté about ooman progress is so blatant it has to be suspected it is just oomano-imperialist propaganda, “The assumption that human expansion into space would be a nightmare originates by parallel to imperialism; that what would happen in space would be about what happened when europeans began expanding to other continents. Such an unhappy turn of event cannot be ruled out, but based on present information seems unlikely.”[150] The main reasons eco-nazis want to get into space is to expropriate alien planets and treat alien life forms in the same way they treat Animals on Earth. This is indisputable and unarguable. If oomans had any respect for aliens they’d have displayed such an attitude towards the Earth’s Biodiversity. There has not been the slightest evidence of this since oomans dropped out of the Trees. The vast majority of oomans are revolting, mass murdering, scumbags who take pleasure out of murdering defenceless Animals. The first time a ooman space invader comes across an alien life form it will be only a matter of hours before it ends up in a gas oven and reappears on the bipeds’ dinner plates. 

The Benefits of Space Travel for Wildlife.

Easterbrook’s cosmic speculations don’t offer much hope for the Earth’s most important Animals i.e. the non-bipeds. He isn’t in the least bit vexed by the moral implications of oomans’ decimating the planet’s Wildlife. Nor is he concerned that soon after the second world war, the eco-nazis inaugurated the fourth reich and that since then, each year, they have been slaughtering hundreds of billions of Animals around the Earth - a large proportion in concentration camps disguised as abattoirs. It is not surprising, therefore, that he fantasizes that, in the future, it might be possible to genetically transform predators into herbivores, (Animals, that is, not oomans); replace the Animal exploitation industry with genetically engineered bio-meat; and transport Animals with oomans to other planets to increase Biodiversity around the universe.

Easterbrook’s dreams of a cosmic eco-nazi empire provides some consolation for those of us who believe in Animal freedom. He believes that if oomans settle on other planets they might be tempted to leave the Earth in the possession of Wildlife, “And as people moved outward from Earth, it may become possible for humanity’s planet of origin to be returned to the creatures that preceded genus homo.”[151] It is not understood why oomans who don’t like Animals should be allowed to wait until mass space travel before leaving the Earth - there is a good case for suggesting they should be asked now to leave the Earth to find a planet without Wildlife. The idea of vacating the Earth for the sake of Wildlife is like some guilt relief technique for oomans’ failure to protect Wildlife. Oomans have slaughtered Animals but now they can atone for their sins by leaving the Earth to Wildlife. It has to be suspected that easterbrook is offering this sop as a means of disarming opposition to the conquest of space by those in the Animal rights movement. The pollution caused by lifting 6,000,000,000 oomans into space doesn’t bear thinking about.

The Nature of New Nature.

This section highlights easterbrook’s new nature.

(1) .. “the New Nature might include the end of predation by animals against animals. It is possible at least in theory that through genetic intervention, present day predators could become herbivores, continuing to live as wild bears or wolves or weasel, except leaving out the gruesome part. Nature might long for such a reform.”[152]

(2) “Next, the New Nature might include an end of predation against animals by people.”[153] If Animals are going to be genetically engineered to become herbivores then it would be only right that oomans should also be genetically engineered - preferably to expire at the earliest opportune moment.

(3) “Next, the new Nature may include the end of predation against people by people. Suppose the dna codes that prevent most species from killing their own can be isolated and moved into genus Homo, rendering men and women genetically averse to raising weapons against each other.”[154] It could be argued the only way that oomans are going to survive is if geneticists extract the oomans’ genes for slaughtering Animals and covering the Earth’s life support system in concrete, crap or crops.

(4) “Next for New Nature may be the end of extinctions. Nature has never been able to find a means to preserve species rendered extinct by the inevitability of ecological change. Perhaps women and men can.”[155]

(5) “Next would be the end of disease.”[156]; “Suppose as biological life draws toward its inevitable conclusion a person’s patterns of consciousness could be transferred to an electronic support apparatus. That part that matters about you might then exist a very long time, possibly an infinite time. .. there may someday be something approximately like electronic life.”[157]

(6) “Next, the New Nature may be secure against killer rocks (asteroids and comets).”[158]

(7) “Next, in the New Nature there may be no more ageing.”[159]

(8) “Next, the New Nature might end the waste of the sun’s output. Through the century to come men and women will get much better at using the energy that falls on Earth. But what about the vastly greater solar energies that stream off into the void?”[160]

Abolishing Capitalism.

It must be obvious that easterbrook has adopted many of the arguments of anti-green extremists. And yet he claims to be an eco-realist. He appears to be one of the new breed of green cornucopians, such as amory lovins, who supports green consumerism and green producerism. But, unlike lovins, easterbrook doesn’t see capitalism as being sustainable .. “I hope that someday it is replaced by a more just and less stressful system of production and distribution. .. americans are dreaming if they think capitalism is anything other than a transitional phase in pursuit of some method of economic organization that insures the well-being of all members of society.”[161] Whilst lovins wants to make the market even more pervasive to protect the environment, easterbrook believes capitalism is only a transitional phase to a new and better system, “At best capitalism is a transitional phase between a feudal human past and some future social ordering that combines the productive efficiency of free markets with the equity and community capitalism lacks.”[162] His main criticism of capitalism is not that it is destroying the Earth’s life support system but that it is destroying the prospects of ooman fulfilment. Given that throughout most of his book he’d adopted a pro-capitalist stance it is strange to find him dismissing this system.

Easterbrook’s Revulsion of Materialism.

Perhaps even more surprising is easterbrook’s criticisms of materialism .. “humanity will never be happy on Earth until it finds a nonmaterialistic lifestyle, a proposition that seems to me eminently defensible.”[163] He believes everyone on Earth can enjoy as much wealth as americans but hopes they will not indulge in the same consumerist excesses. He supports greens primarily because he believes they challenge materialism, “The coming task is to modify those systems (western economics) to satisfy people’s needs for income security, for a percipient pace of life, and for peace of mind. This may ultimately be a greater and more important challenge for the environmental movement than the current fight against pollution.”[164]; “Down the road, the effort to free women and men from lives of materialistic work and spend represents the most important contribution environmentalism will make to society.”[165]; .. “long after the fight against pollution ends the fight against materialism will continue. Green thinking, now focused on opposition to industry and development, will eventually focus on the more subtle question of the harm materialism does to humanity, not nature.”[166] This is a strange political mixture. It’s not going to win him many friends but it shows intellectual integrity.

Teleology: The Conceit of Optimism - Oomans are an Inevitable Outcome.

According to easterbrook, the universe has evolved to create oomans .. “it is scarcely a mystic reading of evolution to say that nature has been striving for nearly 4 billion years to bring some creature like homo sapiens into being.”[167]; “A fairly straightforward reading of natural history suggests that evolution spent 3.8 billion years working assiduously to bring about the demise of the wholly spontaneous order, via the creation of the intellect.”[168]; “Acquiring consciousness is what nature has been up to these 3.8 billion years.”[169] It isn’t difficult to suggest that the culmination of this process is gun tottin’ eco-nazis driven by greed, sadism, and violence.

Reformulating the Environmental Movement.

Easterbrook supports a major overhaul of the environmental movement. Firstly, he wants it to focus on ooman issues such as abolishing global poverty and combating disease rather than global burning/Animal freedom.

Secondly, he wants the green movement to recognize it is now a major part of the political mainstream and therefore purge itself of doomism, “The transition to insider status means environmentalism must transform its mode of argument, from toxin-ringing to rationality. However emotionally satisfying doomsaying may be, environmentalists must forswear the practice or they will lose their credibility on the many issues on which they are right.”[170] For example, he argues that despite their environmental achievements, “Clinton and gore cannot bring themselves to face good news in any environmental category. So they emphasize despair ...”[171]

The focus of easterbrook’s book is primarily, but not wholly, on american environmentalism and the views promoted by american environmentalists. He believes american environmentalists are too doom-laden. Easterbrook suggests that many of the excesses of his work are due to his desire to counter environmental doomsters whom he believes have become too pervasive in the green movement. But was it surprising that doomism grew in prominence after a decade and a half of reagan promoting extreme right wing, anti-environmentalist, cornucopian, policies? In brutland, because of the influence of a national green party, most greens were too petrified of mentioning anything remotely resembling doomism for fear of scaring off voters - if anything they are even worse now that they have a handful of local councillors around the country.

Easterbrook complains the green movement has not been very rational, “Perhaps the most important failing of u.s. environmental controls is the lack of coherent scientific assessments of risks and priorities. A powerful indication of the environmental community’s distaste for science-set priorities came in 1993 when the senate voted 95 to 3 to elevate the epa to cabinet rank, but with the proviso that future regulations be based on ‘credible science’ and incorporate risk-assessment logic.”[172] He believes environmental groups are only just starting to use science to promote their political causes, “Thus environmental groups have warmed toward science.”[173]  Easterbrook promotes .. “the new view called ecorealism. The founding concept of ecorealism is this: Logic, not sentiment, best serves the interests of nature. The straightforward, rational case for the environment will prove more durable than the fiercest doomsday emotion.”[174] He doesn’t seem to appreciate that many greens have based their political policies on scientific ideas -  for example, the original, and most authentic, Earth First!ers. It is easterbrook who has limited connections with rationality as is apparent from his antiquated theory of nature.

Easterbrook’s Recognition of Minor Drawbacks to Optimism.

Easterbrook is aware there has not been progress on all environmental fronts - most strikingly, third world poverty. But he also notes a few other examples:

Drinking Water.

“By most measures, drinking water in the united states and most of western europe is of high quality. Yet drinking water contamination remains distressingly common.”[175]

Commercial Fishing.

“A water issue where trends are negative is the increasing threat to fish hunted commercially.”[176]

Pesticide Pollution.

“A long term drinking water concern is that some 43 pesticides have been detected in aquifers around the country, usually in trace quantities that pose no danger. But if trace quantities are present does this mean significant quantities are gradually working their way toward the water table? Pesticides seeping into groundwater have the potential to become an environmental emergency of the late 1990s.”[177]; “Perhaps the sole environmental area where it is true that the u.s. is doing little is pesticide runoff from farms. Certification of pesticides is tightly regulated, but use is essentially unrestricted. Agriculture accounts for more than six times the number of impaired river miles attributable to industry. In 1992 some 72% of pollution to u.s. rivers and streams came from agricultural chemicals running off farms.”[178]

Chlorine.

Like greenpeace, easterbrook also worries about chlorine .. “consumption of chlorinated tap water causes as many as 12,000 bladder and rectal cancers annually. This represents more health damage than all worst case estimates for trace toxics in tap water combined.”[179]

The Dangers of Emissions-Only Green Politics.

Easterbrook is the only commentator, besides the mundi club, who fears the success of an emissions-only approach to global burning could lead to an environmental disaster, “Soon western economies will attain a zero-pollution, sustainable basis. But a zero-pollution economy might actually represent a bigger threat to the land, since once genus homo can expand without causing gross ecological harm, the guilty conscience will no longer be a restraining influence.”[180]

Criticisms of Easterbrook’s Work.

Schizophrenia.

Easterbrook’s book has got more contradictions than most other books on environmentalism. He claims to be an environmentalist but adopts many of the arguments of anti-green extremists - including the dismissal of global burning. He sounds like a wise-use supporter but dismisses these anarcho, red-neck, hillbillies, “Today lovers of nature ought to have no use for wise use. The wise use crow, for instance, is nearly psychasthenic in its opposition to the Endangered species act. The ecorealist ought to support strengthening of the act ..”[181]

He believes environmentalists have been highly successful in combating environmental problems, “The moment will pass (the current fashion for doom), and soon - replaced with general recognition of how much ecological progress has been made in the western world in the past two decades, how rapidly and affordably the progress has come, and how much progress will be made in the future. Soon, perhaps by the end of this century, we’re all going to be ecological optimists.”[182] Yet most of his efforts in this book are spent slagging off environmentalists.

He claims to be an eco-realist and yet promotes wholesale green optimism - not so much “the rational is real” as “optimism is real”. He claims the over-industrialized world is sustainable .. “nature might consider the economies of the west the sustainable ones.”[183] and then argues it isn’t .. “there is little chance western life can be sustained exactly in its current manifestation.”[184] He believes nature is chaotic and yet wants to create a new nature. He celebrates capitalist achievements but condemns the essence of capitalism. Not surprisingly, easterbrook suffers from an image problem. Taking part in tv debates about environmental issues he gives the impression of being an anti-environmentalist, a wise-use whacko, and an apologist for the status quo. ‘A Moment on the Earth’ reveals just how rabid he can be. But his book also reveals another side which doesn’t come over in public debates - a condemnation of capitalism and, even more radically, materialism.

No Appreciation of the Science of Geophysiology.

Easterbrook believes it is time environmentalists became more scientific. But his book reveals a marked ignorance of geophysiology - the science of the Earth’s life support system. He fails to even acknowledge the nature of the Earth’s life support system. He has no real understanding of the way the Earth has developed over the last few billion years. If he doesn’t know what the Earth’s life support system is then how can he have a concept of sustainability? Perhaps because he believes, “There has never been and can never be any fixed, correct environmental reality.”[185] He contents himself with the most superficial kind of thinking about the environment - comparing the present to the past. There is no attempt to determine the limits to oomans’ destruction of the Earth’s life support system. In addition, he fails to assess the impact that his green cornucopianism could have on the Earth’s life support system.

Easterbrook compares oomans to Bears to show how ecologically destructive bears are, “The fish and wildlife service estimate that each grizzly requires 17,510 acres of land to itself. Each american human being ‘demarcates’ just nine acres, the u.s. population density being one per nine acres. In that light, which species asks most of nature?”[186] His argument that americans’ ecological footprint is a mere nine acres displays a serious degree of geopysiological ignorance. As bunyard points out .. “people in upper income countries require 4-6 hectares of land in continuous production to maintain their lifestyles. If the current world population of six billion had such standards the total land needed would be 26.5 billion hectares, which is double the Earth’s land surface. Only 8.8 billion hectares of the 13 billion total exist as productive cropland, pasture or forest.”[187]

Misplaced Optimism.

The 1980s and early 1990s was a time when indicators suggested that some environmental improvements in the over-industrialized world were taking place but from the mid 1990s onwards these have been overshadowed by worsening geophysiological problems. Basically easterbrook’s optimism is being overtaken by events,

* in the early 1990s the trend in rising global temperatures was not obvious but it has become far more marked since the mid 1990s;

** the el nino of 1997-99 was the biggest known, having rapidly followed on from the previous biggest in 1982-83;

*** easterbrook fails to mention the bse epidemic in brutland or its spread around the world. A year after the publication of his book it was announced that oomans had contracted bse-cjd and that this too is now spreading around the Earth. The hiv-aids disease has exploded across africa and is spreading rapidly in many other parts of the world;

**** it has been estimated that, “More than a tenth of the world’s plant species are heading towards extinction, according to the first fully comprehensive study of the crisis. The iucn red list of threatened plants, published by the world conservation union this week, includes 33,798 species, of which 380 are extinct in the wild, 371 may be extinct, and the remainder are vulnerable or rare.”[188]

***** easterbrook forecasted that, “World emissions of cfcs are declining rapidly toward zero ..”[189] But the depletion of the stratospheric ozone layer is not likely to slow down anything like as quickly as this. On the contrary, since the publication of his book it has been discovered there’s a huge and growing black market in cfcs, “The loopholes, or rather chasms, within the montreal protocol, have been seized at by western chemical corporations who continue to produce hundreds of thousands of tonnes of cfcs, rather than respecting the spirit of the agreement and the public will, and demonstrating social and moral responsibility by scrapping their production facilities. The traditional leaders in cfc production, like the american companies allied signal and du pont, and the french company elf-atochem, all manufacture cfcs in developing countries and together are responsible for one-third of the world’s on-going cfc production.”[190]

****** he doesn’t mention anything about the way that increasing numbers of so called crop ‘pests’ are developing a resistance to pesticides, "Pesticides continue to lose their effectiveness against crop-destroying pests as a result of genetic selection. At least 520 insects and mites, 150 plant diseases, and 113 weeds have developed resistance to one or more pesticides meant to control them. In addition, at least 17 insect species are resistant to all major classes of insecticide, and several plant diseases are immune to most fungicides used against them. Herbicides now account for 46% of world pesticide use."[191]

******* his optimism drifted off into almost delusional realms when he alleged that, “Extensive burning of amazonia ended in 1991.”[192]

******** towards the end of the 1990s the united nations produced a report on the state of the global environment and devoted a whole section to the emergence of new disasters over recent years.

Easterbrook’s book was written before the publication of the ipcc’s second assessment, which was much more pessimistic than the first, and the publication of greenpeace’s dairy of environmental disasters. It was written at a time when he could argue that the united states had bound itself to stabilizing its greenhouse emissions at 1990 levels, “After replacing bush, bill clinton unilaterally bound the united states to 1990 stabilization.”[193]; “Clinton was wise to bind the united states to the 1990 goal, because if an artificial greenhouse effect is developing, society must start learning the art of carbon reduction.”[194] But even the most casual observer of the american political scene should have been able to conclude from the large numbers of demented, denialist loons roaming around congress that there wasn’t much chance they were going to halt america’s gross, self indulgent, consumerist orgy. According to simon retallack in march/april 1999, “U.s policy has been an unambiguous failure. Emissions currently stand 13% above 1990 levels and are set to reach 30% above 1990 levels in only 11 years.”[195] The situation isn’t much different on the global stage. It has been pointed out that in rio .. “35 industrial countries agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels by 2000. Switzerland looks set to meet this target; so should Britain, which has shut down much of its coal industry, and germany and eastern europe, which have shut down filthy ex-communist factories. The rest will not.”[196]

Easterbrook proclaims that pollution toxic to oomans has gone down in the over-industrialized world but ignores the fact that non-toxic pollution, such as greenhouse gases, is still going up. Unep points out, “North Americans use more energy and resources per capita than people in any other region. This causes acute problems for the environment and human health. The region has succeeded, however, in reducing many environmental impacts through stricter legislation and improved management. Whilst emissions of many air pollutants have been markedly reduced over the past 20 years, the region is the largest per capita contributor to greenhouse gases, mainly due to high energy consumption. Fuel use is high - in 1995 the average North American used more than 1600 litres of fuel a year (compared to about 330 litres in Europe).”[197]

Reforestation.

As regards one of the most vital geophysiological goal of our time - the need for Reforestation to combat global burning, abolish global poverty, and increase Wildlife’s prospects for survival, easterbrook is deluded in believing that, “Many trees growing in the united states are not primal but are young trees replanted after logging. But why would nature care about that, so long as ample mature forests continue to exist?”[198] The answer is quite simply that they are not as good Carbon stores or Carbon pumps as primal Forests.

He argues, “In some respects young woodlands as developed by genus homo are better places for biodiversty than old growth forests.”[199] He suggests this is because young Forests with less canopy allow in more sunlight which attracts more species. However, a more pertinent criterion for Biodiversity is camouflage. The greater the camouflage, the greater the concentration of Wildlife. The amount of camouflage offered by new growth Forests is minimal. Easterbrook is quite open about his geophysiological ignorance, “What reason is left to preserve rainforests? The same one that justified preservation of so many other habitats: We don’t know what we don’t know and thus cannot say what ultimate significance, either to nature or the human future, any wilderness may possess.”[200] He sees no connection between deforestation and global burning nor the connection between the stabilization of the climate and global Reforestation.

Sourcing Easterbrook’s Optimism.

This book abounds with the reality defying, joys of optimism. We are living in the best world so far. Oomans needn’t worry about what they do to the environment, “People should not worry that they will destroy nature.”[201] What oomans should worry about is nature destroying oomans - unless oomans can conquer disease, old age, and space. Nature is dangerous, oomans are not. There is nothing wrong with the planet except the Earth itself. Easterbrook is teetering close to the view that oomans are really too good for the planet. In his eyes the biggest problem is that global cornucopianism might lead to consumerist excesses so some way has to be found to avoid such temptations.

It is difficult determining the source of easterbrook’s optimism. It could be ignorance; it could be his middle class lifestyle; or it could be corporate propaganda - perhaps its a combination of the three. As far as ignorance is concerned it is often recited that ‘ignorance is bliss’. Easterbrook shows a high proportion of blissful thoughts. As far as his middle class lifestyle is concerned it can be suggested that marx was correct when he reiterated an ancient wisdom that “social being determines consciousness”. Easterbrook lives in a middle class neighbourhood, “In my town of arlington, virginia ...”[202]; he has a middle class job, he’s a jet setter, has a highly successful career, he honeymooned in an exotic location; has many successful middle class friends, “Recently i listened as a friend, a prominent washington liberal ...”[203] In this social milieux he has little choice but to extol the positive and the optimistic. Telling the truth would lead him into conflicts with his friends, neighbours, work colleagues, and bosses. It would cause a huge amount of pain and suffering. Middle class social pressure to be wealthy and successful is so intense there is no room for telling the truth about what the prats in multi-national Earth rapist corporations are doing to the Earth. Only a well-heeled, middle class person surrounded by comfort could possibly believe that doomsaying is emotionally satisfying, “However emotionally satisfying doomsaying may be, environmentalists must forswear the practice ...”[204]

Over the last couple of decades corporate propaganda has gone into overdrive. In america a multitude of multi-national corporations are continually pumping out vast numbers of advertisements painting a rosy portrait of the present and the future. They perpetuate the idea that life is marvellous so they can use this as a springboard for encouraging consumers to make life even better by consuming their products. It seems that easterbrook could have overdosed on too many of the good things in life. Is pessimism and doom the last refuge of those psychologically resisting corporate propaganda and who have no intention of becoming a self-branded, corporate livestock. If people are optimistic they are the victims of corporate propaganda. Only those people who are pessimistic show they are not corporate victims.

The problem with green optimists like easterbrook is not merely their ignorance but their cowardice. The truth about the damage which oomans are inflicting on the Earth is ugly, revolting, and painful. Psychologically, optimists simply cannot face up to the pain of comprehending the vast scale of destruction which billions of oomans are carrying out all over the planet. They look for positive facts to preserve their psychological well being and reduce any disruption to their middle class contentment. Easterbrook can’t deal with the fundamental moral issue of our time, the eco-nazis extermination of Wildlife on Earth. And why? Because the scale of the slaughter is so gigantic.

Easterbrook’s ignorance; his comfortable, middle class life, successful career, middle class social life; his absorption of vast quantities of corporate propaganda about the good life; have all helped to foster the illusion that everything is fine with the world (or that it could be right if only the political effort was made). To him it is irrelevant that oomans around the world are devastating the world’s Forests, murdering hundreds of billions of Animals a year in the biggest slaughter ever seen on Earth, and that the numbers of people living in destitution is so vast there is not the slightest prospect that such an endemic problem could ever be solved.

Easterbrook’s work requires a considerable reformulation of the prevailing distinctions between the reactionary, the reformist, and the revolutionary. If readers can wade through the cheap, often irrational, attacks on environmentalists, ignore the appallingly superficial comparative reflections, and put aside the macdonalds/coca cola/nike/disney/santaclaus induced optimism, there are some redeeming features in this book - especially in the last few sections. The book is weak on facts and figures, heavy on opinions and speculation, but has a good entertainment value.