More Doom, But Not a Lot

Review of Tom Athanasiou's 'Divided Planet. The Ecology of Rich and Poor' Little, Brown and Company, Boston 1996. This review was written in june 1997. A copy was sent to mr athanasiou but no reply was received. This version has been slightly rewritten.

This is a fairly substantial work covering a wide range of environmental issues. Its main objective is to persuade the environmental movement of the need to take on social issues. Unfortunately, this objective reveals the book's primary orientation is to american readers because whilst this argument might have some validity in america it has much less in europe where environmental groups/parties spend an inordinate amount of time on social issues.

One of athanasiou's main assumptions is that environmental devastation is reaching critical levels. He also explores the environmental backlash, the growing numbers of individuals and institutions (primarily in america) who are not merely wary of, or doubtful about, environmental issues but totally dismiss such matters. Although he doesn't present a detailed account of geophysiological destruction he is aware of how close to the precipice oomans are and, unlike vast sections of the green movement, is not frightened of exploring this issue - a rare example of intellectual honesty from a green. 'Divided Planet' contains one of the most substantial discussions of the conflicts between green optimists, who believe that oomans will prevent an ecological disaster, and green pessismists, who don't. Athanasiou indicates his stance on this issue, "I am an apocalyptic." (p.60) but makes enough caveats to prevent himself from becoming an unabashed millenarian. He presents such a good analysis of why oomans are not going to survive that he sounds far less convincing when he assesses the case for survival. He states, "The fundamental political truth of our time is that the change that is necessary (to stop ecological devastation) is not 'realistic'." (p.295). Unfortunately, as is all too often the case with 'greens', he seems unable to follow through with the logic of his argument. The reason he can't face up to doom is because this would reflect badly on ooman nature/ooman civilization. He just can't bring himself to believe that the world's political leaders, business people and consumers are eco-nazis who, by signing up to the gatt treaty, have in effect formally declared war on the Earth's life support system.

The title "Divided Planet' indicates the gulf between the rich and poor worlds. It highlights the environmental damage caused by third world exploitation. Athanasiou is forthright about rich countries' legalized robbery of third world resources. This robbery is being carried out in the name of third world development and is leaving in its wake widescale malnutrition, poverty, and homelessness. Obviously the best way of exploiting people is by saying that you're trying to improve their job prospects. Although the theft of vast quantities of resources and wealth from third world countries is making northern consumers rich beyond their dreams it is also making them even more obnoxious and condemnatory about aid to third world countries. Northern consumers are without doubt the most ignorant, ungrateful and odious bunch of thieves in ooman history. They're sponging off third world resources whilst pretending to boost 'global trade'. But this is part of a wider ooman phenomena: the richer that oomans become, the more they have to lose, the more revolting, reactionary, and sociopathic they become. This phenomena was epitomized by tony blair in the labour party's general election campaign. He believes the richest members of society who, over the last 18 years, have enjoyed enormous tax reductions, cheap shares from the privatization of nationalized industries and giveaway shares from the conversion of building societies to private banks, couldn't afford to give away any more of their hard earned money. There is only one group of people more exploitative than northern eco-nazis and they are third world countries' ruling elites.

Athanasiou defines himself as a left environmentalist because he believes it is not possible to protect the Earth without abolishing global poverty. The limitations of this perspective, however, are all too obvious in this work - he doesn't express any support for Reforestation, the abolition of the Animal exploitation industry, nor ooman-free Wilderness zones. It is bizarre to believe it is possible to abolish global poverty without abolishing Animal exploitation. However, unlike most lefties he does at least understand some of the problems caused by the Animal exploitation industry. It is also bizarre that he wants to stabilize the climate but believes this can be done without global Reforestation and the creation of Wilderness areas - both of which are in turn dependent on the abolition of Animal exploitation industry. He suffers from the absurd delusion that protecting the Earth's life support system is solely a political matter not an ecological one. He's also quite willing to promote ooman interests at the expense biodiversity e.g. the culling of Elephants, "The ivory ban campaign does not even begin to address the social conditions that engender Elephant poaching in the first place." (270). He seems to have learnt absolutely nothing from deep ecology's critique of anthropocentrism. This work is 95% analysis, 5% prognosis but, despite this and other drawbacks, it is well worth a read for its cautious honesty.