Dear Kelvin,
I'm on your side when it comes to critique of EMT. It makes the North feel better that they have cleaned-up and 'greened' their industries (to what extent one still wonders?), while other parts of the world like China have to build their economies on relatively cheap and available coal. EMT is highly technocentric and certainly not wider or deeper in its engagements with other issues as you suggest.
In the Channel 4 docu I picked up and paraphrase here the argument that Africa is in part being constrained by semi-environmental orientations, i.e. that Africa being rural, uses up woodfuel (contributing to deforestation) and releases CO2 from the fires (but probably much less than during the Medieval period that Prof Stott was so excited about!). Therefore any aim to get electricity "must not" be based around fossil fuels like coal, and that the continent should opt to use alternative energy sources, e.g. Solar. (In Gokwe, Zimbabwe I had to wait till after 11am till the solar had charged before I could use the Council's telephones. On coudy days ...; and school kids trying to use computers ...!)
So, in part what I was arguing is that the EMT and wider discourse around ('shallow greens') it is in part adding to pressure on Africa. We need to remind our selves that in totals and per capita the CO2 and other greenhouse gas emissions in the North remain significantly higher than in Africa and other parts of the South.
 
Nick
 
In a message dated 12/03/2007 09:01:36 GMT Standard Time, [log in to unmask] writes:

Dear Nick

 

It’s good to know that Ecological Modernisation theory is ‘the main practical green orientation’. Apart from technical questions about how EM theory measures up to the scale of the challenge of climate change in practice, I wonder how the theory addresses the broader green agenda for social change that includes peace and social justice? Not so practical in these regards, perhaps?

 

I think we should be careful about using a brush as broad as Channel 4 documentaries.

 

Cheers

 

Kelvin

 

 

From: A forum for critical and radical geographers [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nick James
Sent: 10 March 2007 05:36
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: swindle

 

 

Did anyone watch this?

 

Environmentalists have been painted with one broad brush:

We are anti-growth, anti-technology and dead against the use of fossil fuels.

Now we are told by this group of scientists that CO2 related global warming is all one big swindle.

 

Climate is changing, climate is unpredictable; there have been very warm periods (Medieval in Europe) and cold snaps (when the Thames froze).

 

Professor Stott (a geographer) tells us excitedly about wine and riches when cathedrals were being built in the UK in the medieval days.

 

It is surely the 'uncertainty' that prevails both in the science (incomplete knowledge and arguments about models) and in the social sciences (political and economic debates about costs, development pathways and the precautionary principle).

 

To suggest that all environmentalists wish to stop 'development' in Africa is scandalous; Ecological modernisation theory (the main practical green orientation) can only be afforded in the North, so it is preposterous to suggest that Africa should be constrained by such a cost.

 

Nick