💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › dan-fischer-let-nature-play.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:02:34. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

View Raw

More Information

➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Let Nature Play
Author: Dan Fischer
Date: April 2022
Language: en
Topics: play, total liberation, anti-work, CO2 emissions, indigeneity, transitionary economics, rewilding, eco-futurisms
Source: Retrieved on 8 April 2022 from http://greentheoryandpraxisjournal.org/gtpj-volume-14-issue-1-3-april-2022/

Dan Fischer

Let Nature Play

Many argue that we are running out of time, but perhaps the problem is

time itself. Or rather, it is the alienated time that we spend working

on the clock, obsessively looking at screens, letting consumption of

commodities dominate our free time and even invade our dreams. And it is

the perception we often have of the universe as a giant clock, an inert

machine to be put to work. Too often, there is no sense that nature,

ourselves included, has a right to relax, a right to be lazy, a right to

play.

While Autonomist Marxists define capitalism as an “endless imposition of

work” on human beings (van Meter, 2017), we could add that the system

also imposes endless work on nonhuman animals and nature. Moving even

beyond van Meter’s broad conception of the working class as inclusive of

“students, housewives, slaves, peasants, the unemployed, welfare

recipients and workers in the technical and service industries” in

addition to the industrial proletariat, Jason Hribal (2012) describes

exploited animals as working-class. He points to animals’ labor for

humans’ food, clothing, transportation, entertainment, and medicine.

Corroborating such a perspective, capitalists themselves label exploited

ecosystems as “working landscapes” (Wuerthner, 2014), exploited farm

animals as “labouring cattle” (Hribal, 2012), genetically modified crops

as “living factories” (Fish, 2013), and extracted hydrocarbons as

“energy slaves” (Fuller, 1940). As summarized by Indigenous

Environmental Network director Tom Goldtooth (2015) the dominant

worldview posits that “Mother Earth is a slave.” This endless work has

been disastrous for the planet. Humans’ long hours of alienated labor

contribute to deeply destructive economic growth (Hickel & Kallis, 2019;

Knight et al., 2013). So does the exploited labor of animals, with

livestock taking up some 76% of the world’s agricultural land (Poore &

Nemecek, 2018). Working landscapes “suffer losses in biological

diversity, soil health, and other ecological attributes” (Wuerthner,

2014). And even the cleanest “energy slaves,” wind and solar power, can

require large amounts of resources and land in the context of a growing

economy (War on Want & London Mining Network, 2019).

The resulting situation is, for humanity, a double apocalypse involving

death on the inside and outside alike, a waking nightmare of alienation

and annihilation. Vast majorities of wage-laborers report “sleepwalking

through their workday” or worse (Gallup, 2013). Students are

overwhelmingly bored and stressed during the school day (Watson, 2015).

Silvia Federici (2012) reports that housewives see their endless

cleaning and domestic obligations as “hard, hated work that wastes our

lives.” Ongoing ecological and climate crises already kill millions of

human beings each year , and scientists warn that society may soon

trigger tipping points leading to “civilization-ending apocalypse”

(Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 2022) and potentially even the

“annihilation of all life” (Strona & Bradshaw, 2018).

Given these challenges, it’s understandable that many Leftists and

ecological activists succumb to compromise, surrender, or high-tech

fantasy. Like many Green New Deal champions, Naomi Klein (2019) has

advocated a “1.5–2°C” target that, as explained below, could trigger

tipping points bringing global warming to annihilatory levels. Even more

troubling, the popular eco-radical pamphlet Desert urges readers to

“give up hope” and to resign ourselves to the inevitabilities that

“Global climate change is now unstoppable” and “we seem set for yet

another, if anything more brutal, century of wars and insurrections”

(Anonymous, 2011). Many Marxists have embraced a destructive high-tech

“ecomodernism,” critiqued by John Bellamy Foster (2017), while others

including Foster, greenwash highly polluting and destructive states such

as China’s (Pirani, 2021).

Accordingly, I propose a possible pathway that follows the precautionary

principle (Burkett, 2018) which requires that all safe and

non-authoritarian measures be taken to reduce risks of catastrophe.

Since scientists say time is running out, and they’re not wrong, I will

not waste time with half measures, nor with top-down “false solutions”

(Amorelli et al., 2021) such as geoengineering, nuclear energy,

bioenergy, and hydroelectricity, which pose ecological and social

threats comparable to climate change itself. I adopt the precautionary

targets demanded by the 35,000 participants of the 2010 Cochabamba World

People’s Conference: bring atmospheric carbon dioxide below 300 parts

per million (ppm) and global warming below 1° Celsius relative to

pre-industrial levels. In short, this is a proposal for an abolition of

compulsory work for all beings. It involves rewilding at least 75% of

the Earth with guidance from local and Indigenous communities, and

ensuring that the remainder of the planet “abolish[es] the wage system,

and live[s] in harmony with the Earth” as proposed by the Industrial

Workers of the World (IWW) (2021).

The synergy of reduced work and ecological restoration offers a path

beyond the current impasse of mainstream and much radical eco-politics.

David Graeber (2018) observes, “in ecological terms, a mass reduction of

working hours is probably the quickest and easiest thing that could be

done to save the planet.” The 2020 economic slowdown caused by the

COVID-19 pandemic, while too short-lived to significantly reduce climate

change, gave workers a temporary experience of a society with far less

work. People in many countries resisted a return to full-time work. The

spread of explicitly anti-work ideas (Manjoo, 2021) showed the potential

appeal of solutions involving reduced production. Meanwhile, the

pandemic’s likely origins in a meat and seafood market (Zimmer &

Mueller, 2022), and growing attention to animal agriculture’s central

role in causing prior pandemics (Levitt, 2020), demonstrated an urgency

for adopting plant-based diets.

In the following three sections, I describe a Total Liberation Pathway

(TLP). First, I describe what it would mean to liberate all beings from

compulsive labor. Second, I use climate models to demonstrate that this

trajectory has a reasonable chance of achieving the precautionary

climate targets of 300 ppm and 1°C without resorting to false solutions

such as geoengineering. Third, I outline possible contours of a

revolutionary scenario that can implement the Total Liberation Pathway,

although it is only a source code that will need to be adjusted from

below based on local and changing conditions.

Eliminating Compulsory Work for All Beings

If the world’s abundant wealth were much more equally shared, and if

people therefore did not have a pressure to work so much in order to

survive, many possibilities would blossom. In such a context, shrinking

global production would vastly reduce ecological and climate pressures

while also enabling a shorter workweek for humans. In a degrowing and

non-consumerist Global North, it would be possible to bring humans’

workweek below 10 hours with only a modest reliance on ecotechnologies.

In 1947, Paul and Percival Goodman estimated that a tenth of the United

States’ labor, four weekly hours, was sufficient to locally produce

basic needs. The key steps to abolishing compulsory work for humans are

eliminating wasteful work, redistributing wealth and reducing alienating

consumption, introducing labor-saving ecotechnologies, and transforming

the remaining production into playful and self-managed activity.

The first step involves eliminating wasteful, unproductive labor.

Currently, First World employees themselves consider more than 50% of

their workweek to be unproductive or “bullshit” according to various

surveys, polls, and interviews collected by Graeber (2018), who

summarizes that “we could probably get the real workweek down to fifteen

hours—or even twelve—without anyone noticing much.” Ken Smith estimated

in 1988 that wasteful labor comprised some 90% of wage labor in the

United Kingdom. Additionally, the Global South has its own high amount

of wasteful or “bullshit” labor. “A vendor selling slide whistles blasts

a mocking trill—several times a minute, seven hours a day,” Robert

Neuwirth (2011) describes a São Paulo intersection where workers begin

gathering at 3:30 in the morning to sell balloons and plastic toys. Half

of the world’s employed population, and 60% in Africa and Asia, work in

this non-agricultural “informal” sector (International Labor

Organization 2018), sometimes spending their days selling pirated DVDs

or sitting in Internet cafes sending out email scams. Much of this work,

in the North and South, could be eliminated without even challenging

consumerist lifestyles, although it could help the planet, for example

by reducing car commutes and offices printing.

Of the remainder of the North’s workweek, a majority could be eliminated

by redistributing wealth and eliminating consumerist habits that aren’t

even making people happy. It’s estimated that the world's richest 1

percent bags 82% of the world’s wealth (Oxfam, 2018) and emits 175 times

more carbon than the poorest tenth (Oxfam, 2015). Clearly they will need

to give up the most. Yet, even many workers who belong to the North’s

so-called “middle class” would live more fulfilling and joyful lives by

replacing consumption with fulfilling experiences. Fromm (2008) pointed

out that the “great Masters of Living”—such as Buddha, Jesus, Master

Eckhart, and Marx—emphasized that good living focuses on being rather

than having. Fromm argued that the “having mode,” which Buddha called

craving and Judaism and Christianity call coveting, leads ultimately to

“unhappiness and suffering.” Empirical research has corroborated his

assessment that consuming doesn’t lead to lasting happiness (Kasser et

al, 2013). Ed Diener and Martin Seligman (2004) find that raising a

country’s per-capita GDP above $10,000, slightly below the world’s

per-capita GDP and less than a fifth of the United States’, provides

“virtually no increases or only small increases in well-being.” They

further find, that “health, quality of government, and human rights all

correlate with national wealth, and when these variables are controlled,

the effect of income on national well-being becomes nonsignificant.”

Rather than asceticism or austerity, the solution could be an approach

that Kate Soper (2020) calls “alternative hedonism,” involving “time

freed up for the arts of living and personal relating currently being

sacrificed in the ‘work and spend’ economy.” Along these lines, social

movements around the world are embracing notions of buen vivir (living

well) that suggest forgoing consumerist aspirations can greatly increase

general health and happiness as well as sustainability . There are many

names for analogous concepts around the world, including ubuntu and

ujamaa in Africa, sumak kawsay, suma qamana, nandereko, and minga in

South America, and Lagom and Allemansträttin in Europe, mino

bimaadiziwin and hózhó in North America, and sarvodaya and swaraj in

Asia.

A modest use of labor-saving ecotechnologies can further reduce working

hours, especially in the Global South. The open-source machines

comprising the Global Village Construction Set are designed for “at 2

hours of work per day – using local resources – regeneratively –

achieving a modern standard of living” (Open Source Ecology, n.d.).

Decentralizing global production would lift a burden on the South,

making a 10 hour workweek possible there as well. As a form of

reparations for centuries of plunder, the North should freely share

ecotechnological blueprints such as those for the Global Village

Construction Set’s machines. With a radical reduction of the formal

workweek, it would be possible to evenly distribute household and caring

labor across all genders, compared to the gendered “second shift” that

housework represents for women today (Hochschild & Machung, 2003). In

the North, having less stuff will also mean there’s less work involved

in cleaning and maintenance.

The remaining 10 or so hours of work could be transformed into

self-managed and voluntary craft and hobbies. For those with access to

some free time and meaningful community, there is immense interest in

collectively learning skills like how to garden, cook, and sew clothes.

Community gardens and Maker Spaces are sprouting in many places.

Performing productive activity as a community can make the work more

enjoyable.

For nonhuman beings, too, eliminating compulsory work will not require

an elimination of all productive activity. There is no necessary

exploitation in teaching a dog to guide a blind, human best friend

around, for example. MacPherson-Mayor and Daalen-Smith (2020) propose a

non-hierarchical partnership between a willing guide dog and human,

based on personal experience of a guide dog volunteering his services

and enjoying and benefiting from the role. However, they discuss how

many guide dogs are instrumentalized and mistreated, as are other dogs

who work in police and laboratory roles. Indigenous cultures and radical

ecological movements have long intuited that the Earth willingly shares

its resources to provide humanity’s “basic necessities” (People’s

Agreement of Cochabamba, 2020) or “vital needs” (Harding, 2009). Gitxsan

and Wet’suwet’en organizer Mel Basil describes the Earth’s instruction

to humans as “Take what you need and leave the rest” (Hill & Antliff,

2021). Even plants can be understood as willingly working under only

certain conditions. Botanist Stefano Mancuso argues, “because plants are

sensitive and intelligent beings, we are obliged to treat them with some

degree of respect. That means protecting their habitats from destruction

and avoiding practices such as genetic manipulation, growing plants in

monocultures, and training them in bonsai.” (Pollan, 2013).

By contracting and converging the world’s energy usage at 40% of today’s

level, humanity can transition to all renewable energy, mainly

small-scale solar and wind power, while also ensuring comfortable

material living standards can be guaranteed to all of humanity. Joel

Millward-Hopkins and co-authors (2020) and Kris De Decker (2018) argue

that with expected energy efficiency improvements, just 40% of global

energy usage would enable everyone worldwide to live at least as

comfortably as today’s frugal First Worlder. Even without expected

efficiency improvements, 40% of today’s energy usage could provide high

living standards worldwide. The average Costa Rican, who uses about 40%

of the global per-capita energy consumption, enjoys a higher well-being

and life expectancy compared to the average United States resident who

uses 350% of the world’s average. Residents at Missouri’s Dancing Rabbit

Ecovillage, who each use 25% of the world’s per-capita energy, report

having more meaningful and satisfying lives than the average U.S.

resident (Fischer, 2020). These lower energy consumption levels would

make the transition faster and would address many concerns related to

sustainability. Referring to Millward-Hopkins’s proposed reduced energy

consumption level, the degrowth scholar Jason Hickel (2020) reports,

“This would make it much easier for us to achieve a rapid transition to

100% renewable energy, meeting our climate goals in a matter of years,

not decades.” War on Want and London Mining Network (2019) report that a

degrowing economy would greatly reduce necessary materials and make

possible a “post-extractive” energy sector. The Union of Concerned

Scientists’ analyst James Gignac (2020) emphasizes that recycling most

components of solar panels and wind turbines is already possible, if

costly, and that supportive policies could achieve “100 percent

recyclability.”

Given that the world’s farmers already produce enough food to feed 12 to

14 billion human beings (IAASTD, 2016), feeding the actual population of

8 billion people will be largely a matter of eliminating animal

agriculture and redirecting harvests from livestock to humans.

Additionally, a decentralization of farming and an adoption of

agroecological techniques would boost efficiency in labor and land.

Community self-reliance would make obsolete most of the packaging,

transport, and advertising that make up an estimated four-fifths

(Trainer, 2018) or six-sevenths (Levins & Lewontin, 1985) of total

agricultural labor. Agroecological techniques can save further labor in

weeding and plowing and eliminate the labor involved in applying

herbicides and pesticides (Altieri, 1999). Forgoing plowing and weeding,

Masanobu Fukuoka (2009) described his low-tech, sustainable method as “a

pleasant, natural way of farming which results in making the work easier

instead of harder. ‘How about not doing this? How about not doing

that?’—that was my way of thinking.”

Switching to entirely plant-based farming, by vastly increasing the

efficiency of food production, would not only decrease labor

requirements but would also increase local food self-reliance. Helen

Harwatt and Matthew Hayek (2019) find that if the United Kingdom

switched about one-third of the land used to grow livestock feed over to

growing plant-based food for humans, then the country would be food

self-sufficient not only in terms of calories and protein but also in

terms of micronutrient needs. The other two-thirds of feed cropland and

all of pasture could then theoretically be restored and used to

sequester carbon dioxide. The authors also report that if the United

States switched entirely to plant-based farming then it would feed an

additional 350 million people, more than the country’s current

population. As detailed by contributors to Rethinking Food and

Agriculture, (Kassam & Kassam, 2021), green manures and compost make a

veganic agriculture possible without requiring animal-based or synthetic

fertilizers. Drawing on examples from traditional Mesoamerican milpa

farming and the present-day veganic movement, they describe vegan

agroecology’s benefits to soil health and agrobiodiversity.

Ending animal agriculture would be the most crucial step toward

rewilding 75% of the planet. This step alone would liberate 76% of

farmland (Poore, & Nemecek, 2018), comprising 37% of the world’s

ice-free land for potential rewilding. The large-scale farms covering

88% of global farmland should be the clear priority (Lowder et al.,

2021), although global assistance should also be offered to those

small-scale farmers who decide to transition to plant-based livelihoods

and food sources.

Adding the 28% of ice-free land that only exhibits minimal human impact

(Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2019) would bring the total

of wild areas up to 68%. Halving food waste would free up another 5%

(Röös et al., 2017), and eliminating biofuel use would liberate 2%

(Cristina Rulli et al., 2016). Improving forestry practices and reducing

wood harvests could free up another 3% (Dooley et al., 2018a), bringing

the total of wild lands up to 75%. Land-efficient agroecological

techniques (De Schutter, 2011) could bring the total even higher.

Notions of “tended” and “inhabited” wilderness (Anderson, 2005; Catton,

1997) permit an understanding that wild areas are defined not by an

absence of humans but by a presence of self-willed nature. Indigenous

and local communities must be respected as residents and guardians of

wilderness areas. Dispossession must be adamantly opposed, and

Indigenous peoples should have a right of return to their ancestral

lands where they’ll usually be far better caretakers than any state or

corporate-funded nonprofit can be.

Currently commodified animals in farms, circuses, zoos, and breeding and

research facilities can be adopted by sanctuaries and households where

they can live out their lives without being further bred. Eliminating

experiments on animals and experimenting instead with donated,

lab-grown, 3D-printed, and computer modeled human tissues and cells

would improve the accuracy and efficiency of medical research (Akhtar,

2015; Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, n.d.).

So far, I have tried to show that, while enabling comfortable living

standards for all of humanity, it is possible to abolish compulsory work

for all beings and to rewild the vast majority of our lives and our

planet. In summary, the TLP would bring humans’ workweek down to about

10 self-managed hours, abolish industries that exploit animals, restore

“working landscapes” to wild conditions, and reduce overall usage of

minerals and materials. The result, as I will argue in the next section,

would be to bring into reach precautionary targets for climate and

ecological protection.

Selecting and Achieving Precautionary Targets

In this section, I first argue for the necessity of aiming for

Cochabamba targets of 300 ppm, 1°C, and a 75% wild Earth, and then I

employ two climate models to demonstrate their achievability in the

context of a revolutionary social transformation. Providing a

significant buffer zone, I aim in these models for even more ambitious

targets: bringing atmospheric CO2 to the pre-industrial level of 288

ppm, corresponding with stabilizing global temperatures below today’s,

and freeing up more than 80% of the Earth for grassroots protection.

The Cochabamba targets have vast support in scientific literature

literature; 1 ºC of warming is not just dangerous but could potentially

trigger cataclysmic climate tipping points. Timothy Lenton and

co-authors (2019) warn that “tipping points could be exceeded even

between 1 and 2 ºC of warming,” and several of these same authors note

that the tipping points can lead to a “Hothouse Earth” scenario

eventually reaching the 5 ºC level (Steffen et al., 2018). The Hothouse

Earth temperatures would cause “global diversity collapse” and are

within the range of temperatures that can “annihilate planetary life” in

the virtual Earth models of Strona and Bradshaw (2018). Leading

climatologist James Hansen (2017) has stated, “Effective action must be

undertaken not only to keep temperature rise below 1.5°C but, in my

view, to return it to below 1° C to preserve island nations and global

shorelines.” The 300 ppm target also finds ample support in the

literature. Over the past 400,000 years, the Earth self-regulated its

atmospheric CO2 levels between 180 ppm and 300 ppm, and only surpassed

the 300 ppm level after the Industrial Revolution. A stabilization of

atmospheric carbon at 300 ppm or lower has been advocated by many

scientists including Stephen Harding (2009), Hans Joachim Schellnhuber

Barry Brook, Thomas Goreau, Barrie Pittock, Andrew Glikson, and Gideon

Polya (Polya, n.d.).

Of the Cochabamba targets, 300 ppm is the more demanding. Hansen writes

that 1°C could be achieved with atmospheric CO2 as high as 350 ppm

(2017), and David Spratt and Philip Sutton (2008) posit that “320 parts

per million” could achieve a “cap of 0.5°C.” Stephan Harding (2009)

estimates “300-350 ppm” would make sure that global temperature does

“not exceed 0.5°C relative to pre-industrial levels.” So, achieving 300

ppm most likely means achieving lower than 1°C.

Finally, although the goal of “Half Earth” has been prominently

advocated by scientists including E. O. Wilson (Dooley et al., 2018a), a

more precautionary goal would be preserving and restoring 75% of the

planet. Representing each plant species in a protected area would

require protecting “74.3% of the global land area” (Rodrigues & Gaston,

2001). Protecting ocean biodiversity and minimizing ocean population

collapse may require conserving up to 76% (O’Leary et al, 2016).

Shifting from biodiversity conservation to the more demanding ethic of

“bioproportionality” (Mathews, 2016) gives further reason for protecting

as much of the Earth as possible from intensive economic activity.

My use of C-Roads Pro climate model (Climate Interactive, n.d.), when

combined with recent studies of reforestation and rewilding,

demonstrates the viability of 300 ppm stabilization even if the Total

Liberation Pathway is substantially delayed. I input that the world does

not get started until 2025 and misses certain social movements’

deadlines by a full decade. Whereas The Climate Mobilization (Silk,

2019) calls for decarbonizing the Global North by 2025 and the Global

South by 2030, I enter that these goals are not achieved until 2035 and

2040. And whereas the New York Declaration on Forests calls for a global

end to deforestation by 2030 (Dooley et al., 2018a), I enter that this

goal is not achieved until 2040. My point is not to abandon the more

stringent deadlines for decarbonizing, but rather I am saying that we

should not give up on achieving 300 ppm even in the event that we miss

them. Conservatively, I set the “climate sensitivity,” the rate at which

the planet warms, at 4.5º C, the upper-most estimate given by the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Hansen et al., 2017). In

Figure 1, the green line represents the TLP without the impacts of

sequestering carbon dioxide through massive rewilding and reforestation.

The result is that the atmospheric CO2 concentration peaks below 450 ppm

and declines to 393 ppm CO2 by 2100. These results imply that we need to

draw down more than 1 trillion tons of CO2 from the atmosphere to get to

the 300 ppm target. This factors in the issue that, as Hansen and

co-authors (2017) summarize, “ocean outgassing increases and vegetation

productivity and ocean CO2 uptake decrease with decreasing atmospheric

CO2.” Due to these effects, Hansen estimates that drawing down an

initial 197 ppm requires sequestering 328 ppm in total. Using this

ratio, I calculate that drawing down 93 ppm would require a total

sequestration of 155 ppm, which is roughly 1.2 trillion tons of CO2.

This would involve reversing much of the estimated 1.8 trillion tons

(Erb et al., 2017) of carbon dioxide emissions from historic land-use

change, including pre-industrial.

[]

The scientific literature suggests the required carbon-dioxide drawdown

could be achieved through rewilding and restoration, especially in a

mostly vegan world. According to Mathew Hayek and co-authors (2020),

restoring the land freed by a global vegan diet to wild forest and

grasslands would remove some 0.8 trillion tons of CO2 from the

atmosphere. We can further add the 0.6 trillion tons that Kate Dooley

and co-authors (2018a, 2018b) estimate could be sequestered by

additional reforestation and agroforestry, since they mainly rely on

reduced wood harvest and explicitly “do not assume that reduced land

demand from agriculture could be used towards climate mitigation.”

Already, this totals at 1.4 trillion tons of CO2 of restoration

potential from terrestrial restoration methods alone, enough to bring

atmospheric CO2 down from 393 to 287 ppm. There are indications that

rewilding marine ecosystems offer significant sequestration potential.

Marine Conservation Society and Rewilding Britain (2021) report that

restoring an area of saltmarsh, seagrass, or mangrove sequesters more

CO2 than restoring the same amount of tropical forest. Restoring marine

mammal populations would also bring significant CO2 sequestration, with

each whale absorbing as much CO2 as “thousands of trees” and bringing it

safely to the ocean floor upon death (Chami et al., 2019).

Next, using an open-source climate model called the Global Calculator

(2021a), I find that the TLP would “cause emissions to fall so much that

the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is below

pre-industrial levels (288 parts per million).” Since the calculator

gives several sliders and asks users to put them on Level 1 (minimal

abatement), Level 2 (ambitious), Level 3 (very ambitious), or Level 4

(extremely ambitious), I placed the sliders in order to best approximate

the TLP. I placed several sliders at the lowest, “minimal” level,

signifying no nuclear power and no geoengineering technologies such as

carbon capture and storage technology. I allowed a 99% reduction in

animal agriculture. Imagining a decentralized economy where self-reliant

communities consume mainly what’s produced locally, I input the minimum

possible increase, 56%, in the distance that things are transported by

freight worldwide. Envisioning an end to planned obsolescence and a move

toward multi-use devices (that combine the functions of computers,

phones, and game consoles), I picked the second-least available increase

in the total number of devices, up from about 6 to 8.5 for each urban

household.

[]

The TLP involves a rapid abolition of fossil, nuclear and biomass energy

sources and a socially just transition toward 100% renewable sources,

primarily small-scale wind and solar power. I argued above that this

transition can occur in under a decade, when combined with a rapid

decline of total energy usage. The Global Calculator is not able to

capture anywhere near such a rapid transition, but in order to

approximate it as much as possible, I input a “very ambitious” increase

in wind, a “very ambitious” increase in solar power and energy storage,

and the “minimal” option, signifying virtually no increase, for

hydroelectricity and marine power. As a result, total energy demand

falls, in the Global Calculator’s approximation, from 372 exajoules (EJ)

in 2011 to 190 EJ in 2050, at which point 85% of energy comes from

renewable sources, mainly wind and solar, and the remaining 15% coming

from fossil fuels.

Although it slightly compromises the climate effectiveness of the

pathway, I entered the greatest available increase, 45%, in passenger

distance, to an average of 14806 kilometers a year. Since the long daily

commute to the office will be a relic of the past, I imagine that people

will use this increase in travel in order to explore the world at a

leisurely pace on electric buses, bikes, trains, and sailboats, instead

of cars and planes. As Soper (2020) notes, slower travel enables people

“to enjoy sights and scents and sounds, and the pleasures (and benefits)

of physical activity, and experiences of solitude and silence, all of

which are denied to those who travel in more insulated and speedier

ways.”

Based on UN Special Rapporteur Oliver De Schutter’s (2011) finding that

agroecological techniques can double yields in much of the Global South,

I picked a Level 2 yield increase and a Level 3 land use efficiency

increase. Given the documented failure of GMO agriculture, a global ban

would not negatively impact total yield growth (Hakim, 2016; IAASTD,

2016). By contrast, conventional breeding has created high-yielding

varieties of many crops (GM Watch, n.d). Moreover, organic and

conservation agriculture can radically boost yields with crop rotations,

multi-cropping, push-pull pest management, no-tillage, and continuous

soil cover (Ponisio & Ehrlich, 2016).

I found that human population is not a decisive factor in the ability to

achieve the 300 ppm target. If I input the United Nations’ medium and

high estimates of population growth, then a pre-industrial 288 ppm level

is still achieved by 2100. I did choose the UN’s low estimate, an

increase to 8.3 billion people by 2050, since the TLP, if successful,

would address and eliminate the major causes of global population

growth—poverty and patriarchy (Roberts, 2018; Sen, 1999)—and would

implement policies proven to simultaneously improve equity and decreased

fertility, including improved education for girls and young women,

ending child marriage, and increasing access to voluntary family

planning (Wolf et al., 2021). Eileen Crist (2019) writes that in an

anarchistic society with widely accessible family planning services and

with women in charge of their fertility, “‘Population control’ will not

only be eschewed but also unnecessary,” since “most women will choose to

have zero, one or two children.” After all, children would no longer be

born for reasons such as “old-age insurance, or to labor in sweatshops

or agricultural fields, or to keep the economy growing, or to aggrandize

the armies of nationalistic tyrants.”

The Calculator does not offer a way to choose a starting date other than

2011, and so there are a couple options that could be taken to account

for the TLP’s 2025 starting date. One option is to postulate that the

TLP’s greater ambition cancels out the earlier start date of the

Calculator’s approximation. The Calculator still assumes 15% fossil fuel

reliance and 1.3 million cars in 2050, whereas the TLP abolishes fossil

fuel use and cars by around 2035. So, even though the Calculator’s

approximation starts the energy transition 14 years before the TLP, it

finishes the transition more than 15 years later. It would be

reasonable, therefore, to call it even. A more methodologically cautious

option involves adding extra emissions to account for the Calculator’s

later starting date. The scenario in Global Calculator (2021b) adjusts

the original scenario (Global Calculator, 2021a) in order to add back

the business-as-usual emissions from the years 2011 to 2025. During this

period, the Global Calculator only gives the emissions totals for the

years 2011, 2015, 2020, and 2025. Assuming that emissions changes are

linear in between those years, the total difference is 292 GtCO2. To

approximate a relatively smooth transition, I added another 200 GtCO2.

Thus, levers are adjusted in this model (Global Calculator, 2021b) so

that the total emissions double from 492 to 984 GtCO2. The result is

still an atmospheric CO2 concentration below 288 ppm.

Both the 2021a and 2021b scenarios lead to a rewilding of more than 75%

of the Earth. The 2021a scenario results in 81% of the planet’s ice-free

and desert-free land becoming non-commercial forest and natural

grassland. It is worth noting that restraining population growth and

sprawl actually does not impact this percentage very much. Bringing

population and urbanization levels from the most ambitious to the medium

levels would only decrease the planet’s wild areas from 81% to 79%. The

2021b scenario brings wild areas down just a couple percentage points

further to 77%. Both the 2021a and 2021b scenarios reflect the

calculator’s conservative limits, since even the more ambitious 2021a

scenario assigns 2% of the ice-free and desert-free land to pasture and

biomass crop growth, whereas the true TLP would rewild this area,

bringing total wilderness (including inhabited, tended wilderness) to

83% of the ice-free and desert-free Earth, or 88% of the planet in

total.

Forces for System Change

For achieving the Total Liberation Pathway, I propose a

resist-and-reconstruct strategy for systemic social change. The first

component, drawn from Autonomist Marxist traditions, is the “refusal of

work,” important as a means of achieving the degrowth necessary for

global energy and resource usage. The second component, taken from the

IWW (2021), involves “forming the structure of the new society within

the shell of the old.” Organizing prefigurative productive

structures—such as MakerSpaces, community farms, and horizontally-run

cooperatives—will enable communities to meet their needs outside of paid

employment. Following Kevin van Meter (2017), I view the main (human)

agents of change as the broadly defined working class, including “slaves

and peasants as well as students, homemakers, immigrants and factory and

office workers.” However, especially important roles must be given to

Indigenous peoples’ movements, which have been at the forefront of

protecting and restoring the world’s land, and to energy and

agricultural workers, who control important bottlenecks in the global

economy.

Indigenous communities have long been at the forefront of resisting

ecological destruction (Hill & Antliff, 2021), and their reclamation of

ancestral land will be essential for restoring the Earth’s health. Even

despite facing ongoing settler-colonial erasure, these communities have

often managed to maintain relatively anti-authoritarian cultures and

sustainable lifestyles. Areas controlled by Indigenous peoples, despite

taking up only a quarter of the world’s land, contain about 40% of

“ecologically intact land” and a disproportionately high percentage of

the planet’s biodiversity (Garnett et al., 2018). A joint letter by

Indigenous groups, while demanding the protection “of more than half the

planet in a natural state,” aptly insists that this proposal should “not

mean the creation of more government protected areas, but rather fully

and formally recogniz[ing] the rights and forms of governance of

indigenous peoples over their territories” (Joint Declaration, n.d.).

Energy and farm workers also have a critical role to play. As Tadzio

Müller (2013) argues, the energy sector is an especially important

“point of leverage” on the global economy and is also a central factor

in the climate and ecological crises. The agricultural sector represents

another strategic focal point for the same reasons. Just 128

slaughterhouses are responsible for about than 90% of the cattle

slaughter and deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon, comprising a “a

bottleneck in the livestock breeding chain” (Pegurier, 2017) in the meat

industry in the country that slaughters the most cows. In the United

States, the world’s largest slaughterer of chickens (Sanders, 2020),

slaughterhouses and meat processing plants also comprise a “critical

bottleneck” (Corkery & Yaffe-Bellany, 2020). Regardless of whether

populations choose to reduce their consumption, energy and agricultural

workers’ strikes can unilaterally reduce the availability of destructive

energy and animal products. Moreover, the hazards of their jobs provide

an incentive for refusal of work. Fossil fuel and biomass industry

employees have far higher death rates per unit of energy production than

workers in wind and solar industries. The death rate of coal workers is

over a thousand times higher than that of solar energy workers (Ritchie,

2020). Slaughterhouse workers suffer “a variety of disorders, including

post-traumatic stress disorder and the lesser-known perpetration-induced

traumatic stress” (Newkey-Burden, 2018). Fossil fuel and slaughterhouse

workers who walk off their hazardous and traumatic work can cause

powerful declines in energy and animal product usage. Solidarity funds

and other forms of outside support would assist such workplace actions,

especially since many of the North’s farm workers are undocumented

immigrants facing extreme precarity.

There exist many promising examples of resistance-and-reconstruction

that have taken on deeply ecological themes, such as the Transition

Towns, Right to the City, Global Ecovillage Network, Mississipi’s

Cooperation Jackson, Mexico’s neo-Zapatistas, Syria’s Democratic

Confederalists, and Sri Lanka’s Sarvodaya Shramadana Movement. As

communities shift their productive powers to alternative venues like

Makerspaces, and as employees gain more control over the means of

production, they can simultaneously decrease production (and production

time) and implement more ecological ends of production. Some precedents

include LUCAS Aerospace workers in the United Kingdom striking to

produce renewable energy equipment instead of nuclear weapons, IWW and

Earth First! -affiliated loggers in the United States demanding

sustainable logging and opposing clear-cutting. More recently, the 2019

School Strike for Climate, children around the world skipped school and

indicated that a livable future was more important to them (Klein,

2019). Since schooling can be understood as an apprenticeship for future

employment, and as training to be productive members of a capitalist

society, the school strike can be seen as a powerful and replicable form

of class struggle.

Radical organizing has begun among global energy workers, many of whom

do not want to work in dangerous fossil-fuel jobs, and some of whom do

not want to work at all. Graeber (2011) describes French fossil fuel

workers militantly struggling for an on-time retirement, or, in other

words, “the right to stop being oil workers.” In 2016, affiliates of

Latin America’s Trade Union Confederation of the Americas unanimously

adopted an opposition to fracking. The following year, South Korea’s

Korean Power Plant Industry Union announced they “welcome the shutdown

of worn out coal power plants because we are clear about what kind of

country we want to leave for our descendants” (Trade Unions for Energy

Democracy, 2018). When Spain committed to closing most of its coal mines

in 2018, unions secured and celebrated an early retirement for miners

over 48, and new livelihoods in ecological restoration and renewable

energy for other employees (Nelsen, 2018). In 2021, the U.S. United Mine

Workers announced they would accept a just transition from coal mining

to renewable energy production (Scheiber, 2021). Iran’s striking oil

workers have demanded more paid leave time (Debre, 2021), and winning

this demand would likely result in less oil production per full-time

worker.

La Via Campesina, a network of an estimated 200 million small farmers in

81 countries, can play a major role in a sustainable transformation of

global agriculture. Their practice of agroecology and advocacy of local

food production fit easily into the Total Liberation Pathway. Although

they do not share the Pathway’s commitment to abolish animal

agriculture, there is still significant overlap; La Via Campesina (2018)

opposes factory farming and insists that “we urgently need to reduce

meat consumption” globally.

There would be backlash from not only from the capitalist establishment

but also from far-Right forces including extreme speciesists and

ecofascists alike. We can hope to win over some of their support bases

by explaining the benefits of the Total Liberation Pathway: a

drastically shortened and non-alienating workweek, a stable access to

necessities, and a decent change for human and planetary survival. If

the anti-Total Liberation factions are drastically outnumbered, then

their opposition might not amount to much of a threat. They might crave

and even demand more meat and energy usage, but they will lack coercive

power to make people work in the slaughterhouses or in coal mines.

Insofar as they insist on being violent toward living beings, militant

responses might be appropriate and necessary: Blockades, lockdowns,

house visits, de-platforming, tire slashing, arsons, and so on. If the

Left can rightfully condone such tactics against far-Rightists, then it

can also condone such tactics against propagators of omnicide.

Conclusion: Revolution with and for the Earth

Kevin Van Meter (2017) writes that everyday resistance comprises a

“factor of revolution,” directly challenging capital accumulation and

creating conditions for more overt revolutionary struggle. Everyday

resistance is already very common. John Holloway (2010) looks at such

everyday rebels as an urban gardener, a group of friends who start a

choir, a daydreaming employee, and a group of homeless squatters.

Finding meaning outside of the work-and-spend cycle, at least for these

moments, they “stop making capitalism.” Holloway speculates, “There is

nothing special about being an anti-capitalist revolutionary. This is

the story of many, many people, of millions, perhaps billions.”

Additionally, understanding nature and animals as fighting on our side,

and us on theirs, can help us humans understand revolution as more

feasible. As pattrice jones (2006) writes, “I do know that we are not

alone in the struggle to save the earth. The sooner we see that and act

accordingly, the sooner we can begin to end our own awful estrangement

and help to heal those we have hurt.” In 2003 in Zuzuland, a group of 11

elephants, led by a matriarch named Nana, rescued a group of antelope

that had been captured for breeding. Nana undid the metal latches

closing the gate, and stepped back to watch the antelope escape. A local

ecologist told reporters, “Elephant are naturally inquisitive, but this

behaviour is certainly most unusual and cannot be explained in

scientific terms” (Sapa, 2003). In 2016, Ponyboy the pig and Johnny the

sheep escaped in California and were found wandering together in the

street. In 2017, Fred the goat escaped a New Jersey auction house, and

he returned the next year to release dozens of goats and sheep. In 2018,

a Polish runaway cow found protection among a herd of wild bison. Such

instances of animal resistance, and even of animals resisting together

across species lines, are fairly commonplace and indicate that nonhuman

nature will not accept compulsory work without a struggle (Colling,

2020).

Furthermore, if we understand rewilding landscapes to be a revolutionary

act, then we can also understand the Earth and its self-rewilding

ecosystems as revolutionary agents in their own right. A well-known

illustration of this resilience involves the Chernobyl ecosystem’s

recovery since industry and agriculture abandoned the region after a

1986 nuclear meltdown (Barras, 2016). Abandoned farmlands across Europe

are recovering with shrublands and forests returning (Rey Benayas, 2019)

and sequestering carbon.

Whether or not the Total Liberation Pathway will be achieved, striving

for it could raise the chances of human and planetary survival. If the

aspired 288 ppm and >80% protection targets are not achieved, the more

moderate proposed targets of 300 ppm and 75% protection targets might

be. If that fails too, the more mainstream demands of 350 ppm and Half

Earth might be met. And if colonial and authoritarian structures are not

fully dismantled, then perhaps colonized and oppressed populations can

seize more autonomy and land than they can currently access. Tight-knit

and diverse communities might survive collapse, as envisioned by Octavia

Butler (2019). At worst, we can at least go down fighting, playfully and

joyfully, for a livable future.

Mainstream solutions to climate change often involve ongoing economic

growth, through promises of full-time “green jobs” and high-tech

geoengineering, and are unlikely to stop the present apocalypses of

alienation and annihilation. By contrast, the Total Liberation Pathway

proposes letting nature play, ourselves included. We need to step off

the fast-paced “treadmill of production” and instead take a leisurely

walk. We need to seize the “social factory” and turn it into a

playground. We need to see and treat the world as fundamentally playful

and our everyday lives as sacred and wild.

References

Akhtar, A. (2015). The flaws and human harms of animal experimentation.

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics 24(4): 407-419.

doi:10.1017/S0963180115000079

Altieri, M. (1999). Applying agroecology to enhance the productivity of

peasant farming systems in Latin America. Environment, Development and

Sustainability 1: 197–217.

Amorelli, L., Gibson, D. & Gilbertson, T. (eds.) (2021). Hoodwinked in

the hothouse: Resist false solutions to climate change, Third Edition.

Retrieved from https://climatefalsesolutions.org/

Anderson, M. (2005). Tending the wild: Native American knowledge and the

management of California’s natural resources. Berkeley: University of

California Press.

Anonymous. (2011). Desert. Retrieved from Anarchist Library,

http://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/anonymous-desert

Barras, C. (2016, April 22). The Chernobyl exclusion zone is arguably a

nature reserve. BBC.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160421-the-chernobyl-exclusion-zone-is-arguably-a-nature-reserve

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. (2022). Current time. Retrieved from

https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/current-time/

Burkett, P. (2018). On eco-revolutionary prudence: Capitalism,

communism, and the precautionary principle. Socialism and democracy.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201126201218/https://sdonline.org/71/on-eco-revolutionary-prudence-capitalism-communism-and-the-precautionary-principle/

Butler, O. (2019). The parable of the sower. London: Headline Publishing

Group.

Catton, T. (1997). Inhabited wilderness: Indians, Eskimos and national

parks in Alaska. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.

Chami, R., Cosimano, T., Fullenkamp, C. & Oztosun, S. (2019, December).

Nature’s solution to climate change: A strategy to protect whales can

limit greenhouse gases. Finance & Development.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2019/12/natures-solution-to-climate-change-chami.htm

Climate Interactive. (n.d.). C-Roads Pro.

https://www.climateinteractive.org/tools/c-roads/

Colling, S. (2020). Animal resistance in the global capitalist era. East

Lansing: Michigan State University Press.

Corkery, M. & Yaffe-Bellany, D. (2020, April 18). The food chain's

weakest link: Slaughterhouses. New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/18/business/coronavirus-meat-slaughterhouses.html/

Crist, E. (2019). Abundant Earth: Toward an ecological civilization.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Cristina Rulli, M., Bellomi, D., Cazzoli, A., De Carolis, G. &

D’Odorico, P. (2016). The water-land-food nexus of first-generation

biofuels. Scientific Reports 6.

Debre, I. (2021, June 30). Iran oil workers strike for better wages as

economy strains under sanctions. PBS.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/iran-oil-workers-strike-for-better-wages-as-economy-strains-under-sanctions

De Decker, K. (2018). How much energy do we need? Low-Tech Magazine.

https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2018/01/how-much-energy-do-we-need.html

De Schutter, O. (2011, March 8). Agroecology and the right to food:

Report presented at the 16th session of the United Nations Human Rights

Council [A/HRC/16/49]. Retrieved from

http://www.srfood.org/en/report-agroecology-and-the-right-to-food

Diener, E. & Seligman, M. (2004). Beyond money: Toward an economy of

well-being. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5(1), 1-31.

http://labs.psychology.illinois.edu/~ediener/Documents/Diener-Seligman_2004.pdf

Dooley, K., Stabinsky, D., Stone, K., Sharma, S., Anderson, T.,

Gurian-Sherman, D. & Riggs, P. (2018a). Missing pathways to 1.5°C: The

role of the land sector in ambitious climate action. Climate Land

Ambition and Rights Alliance.

https://www.iatp.org/documents/missing-pathways-15degc

_____. (2018b). CLARA missing pathways to 1.5°C: Supplementary

information—methods and data.

https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5b22a4b170e802e32273e68c/t/5bc35d13e2c48365e0cb7073/1539530003206/CLARA_supplementary_table_2018.pdf

Erb, K.-H., Kastner, T., Plutzar, C., Bais, A. L., Carvalhais, N.,

Fetzel., Gingrich, S., Haberl, H., Lauk, C., Niedertscheider, M.,

Pongratz, J., Thurner, M. & Luyssaert, S. (2017). Unexpectedly large

impact of forest management and grazing on global vegetation biomass.

Nature, 553(7686), 73–76. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25138

Federici, S. (2012). Revolution at point zero: Housework, reproduction,

and feminist struggle. Oakland: PM Press.

Fischer, D. (2020, May 4). Going slowly to 100% renewables...by 2025?

Peace News.

https://web.archive.org/web/20210411032216/http://peacenews.org/2020/05/04/going-slowly-to-100-renewables-by-2025-dan-fischer/

Fish, K. (2013). Living factories: Biotechnology and the unique nature

of capitalism. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Foster, J. (2017, November 1). The long ecological revolution. Monthly

Review.

https://monthlyreview.org/2017/11/01/the-long-ecological-revolution/

Fromm, E. (1973). (2008). To have or to be. London: Continuum.

Fuller, B. (1940). World energy: A map. Fortune. Retrieved from

http://www.fulltable.com/vts/f/fortune/xb/50.jpg

Fukuoka, M. (2009). The one-straw revolution. New York: New York Review

Books.

Gallup. (2013). State of the global workplace.

https://www.gallup.com/services/176735/state-global-workplace.aspx

Garnett, S., Burgess, N., Fa, J., Fernández-Llamazares, Á., Molnár, Z.,

Robinson, C., Watson, J., Zander, K., Austin, B. Brondizio, E.,

French-Collier, N., Duncan, T., Ellis, E., Geyle, H., Jackson, M.,

Jonas, H., Malmer, P., McGowan, B., Sivongxay, A., & Leiper, I. (2018).

A spatial overview of the global importance of Indigenous lands for

conservation. Nature sustainability 1: 369-374. Doi:

10.1038/s41893-018-0100-6

Gignac, J. (2020, October 30). Solar panel recycling: Let’s make it

happen. Union of Concerned Scientists.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/james-gignac/solar-panel-recycling/

_____. (2020, October 30). Wind turbine blades don’t have to end up in

landfills. Union of Concerned Scientists.

https://blog.ucsusa.org/james-gignac/wind-turbine-blades-recycling/

Global Calculator. (2021a).

http://tool.globalcalculator.org/globcalc.html?levers=331444443413444444444144114114224442341111111114f2111111111

Global Calculator.

(2021b).http://tool.globalcalculator.org/globcalc.html?levers=3314444434134444444441441131122244413n1111111114f2111111111

GM Watch. (n.d.) Non-GM successes: high yield.

https://www.gmwatch.org/en/high-yield

Goldtooth, T. (2015). Tom Goldtooth’s Gandhi peace award speech. The

Struggle Video News. Retrieved from

https://www.ienearth.org/iens-executive-director-tom-b-k-goldtooth-awarded-gandhi-peace-award/

Goodman, P. & Goodman, P. (1947). Communitas: ways of livelihood and

means of life. New York: Vintage Books.

Graeber, D. (2011). Revolutions in reverse: Essays on politics,

violence, art, and imagination. London: Minor Compositions.

_____. (2018). Bullshit jobs: A theory. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Hakim, D. (2016, October 29). Doubts about the promised bounty of

genetically modified crops. New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/30/business/gmo-promise-falls-short.html

Hansen, J. (2017, November 7). Global climate justice: making the carbon

majors pay for climate action. Retrieved from

https://web.archive.org/web/20190105171520/https://csas.ei.columbia.edu/2017/11/07/global-climate-justice-making-the-climate-majors-pay-for-climate-action/

Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P., von Schuckmann, K., Beerling, D.,

Cao, J., Marcott, S., Masson-Delmotte, V., Prather, M., Rohling, E.,

Shakun, J., Smith, P., Lacis, A., Russell, G., & Ruedy, R. (2017). Young

people’s burden: requirement of negative emissions. Earth System

Dynamics 8, 577-616. Doi:10.5194/esd-8-577-2017

Harding, S. (2009). Animate Earth: Science, intuition and gaia. Totnes:

Green Books.

Harwatt, H. & Hayek, M. (2019). Eating away at climate change with

negative emissions: Repurposing UK agricultural land to meet climate

goals. Harvard Law School’s Animal Law & Policy Program.

https://animal.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/Eating-Away-at-Climate-Change-with-Negative-Emissions%E2%80%93%E2%80%93Harwatt-Hayek.pdf

Hayek, M., Harwatt, H., Ripple, W. & Mueller, N. (2020). The carbon

opportunity cost of animal-sourced food production on land. Nature

Sustainability. Doi:10.1038/s41893-020-00603-4

Hill, G. & Antliff, A. (2021). Indigeneity, sovereignty, anarchy: A

dialog with many voices. Anarchist Developments in Cultural Studies.

Hochschild, A. & Machung, A. (2003). The second shift. New York: Penguin

Books.

Holloway, J. (2010). Crack capitalism. London: Pluto Press.

Hickel, J. [@jasonhickel] (2020, October 1).

https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1311569060514140160. [Tweet.]

Hickel, J. & Kallis, Giorgos. (2019). Is green growth possible? New

Political Economy. Doi:10.1080/13563467.2019.1598964

Hribal, J. (2012) Animals are part of the working class reviewed.

Borderlands 2(11).

https://web.archive.org/web/20130513071403/http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol11no2_2012/hribal_animals.pdf

Industrial Workers of the World (2021). Constitution.

https://www.iww.org/resources/constitution/

International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and

Technology for Development (IAASTD). (2016). Agriculture at a

crossroads: IAASTD findings and recommendations for future farming.

https://www.globalagriculture.org/fileadmin/files/weltagrarbericht/EnglishBrochure/BrochureIAASTD_en_web_small.pdf

International Labor Organization. (2018). Women and men in the informal

economy: A statistical picture, Third Edition.

https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/documents/publication/wcms_626831.pdf

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (2019, 8 August). Climate

change and land: Summary for policymakers.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2019/08/4.-SPM_Approved_Microsite_FINAL.pdf

Joint Declaration of the Indigenous Peoples of the World to the CBD

(n.d.). Recognize our rights: The first step in healing our mother

Earth. Retrieved July 5, 2021 from

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenttools/joint-declaration-of-the-indigenous-peoples-of-the-world-to-the-cbd-34/20b4fa27750039d7/full.pdf

jones, p. (2006). Stomping with the elephants: Feminist principles for

radical solidarity. In Best, S. & Nocella, A. (Eds.) Igniting a

revolution: Voices in defense of the Earth. Oakland: AK Press.

Kassam, A. & Kassam, L. (Eds.) Rethinking food and agriculture: New ways

forward. Duxford: Woodhead Publshing.

Kasser, T, Rosenblum, K., Sameroff, A., Deci, E., Niemiec, C., Ryan, R.,

Árnadóttir

O., Bond, R., Dittmar, H., Dungan, N. & Hawks, S. (2013). Changes in

materialism, changes in psychological well-being: Evidence from the

three longitudinal studies and an intervention experiment. Motivation

and Emotion. Doi: 10.1007/s11031-013-9371-4

Klein, N. (2019). On fire: The burning case for a green new deal.

Toronto: Knopf Canada.

Knight, K., Rosa, E. & Schor, J. (2013). Could working less reduce

pressures on the environment? A cross-national panel analysis of OECD

countries, 1970-2007. Global Environmental Change 23(4), 691-700, doi:

10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2013.02.017

La Via Campesina. (2018). La Via Campesina in action for climate

justice. In Radical realism for climate justice: A civil society

response to the challenge of limiting global warming to 1.5°C. Berlin:

Heinrich Böll Siftung.

Lenton, T., Rockström, J., Gaffney, O., Rahmstorf, S., Richardson, K.,

Steffen, W., & Joachim Schnellnhuber, H. (2019). Climate tipping

points—too risky to bet against. Nature 575: 592-595. Doi:

10.1038/d41586-019-03595-0

Levins, R. & Lewontin, R. (1985). The dialectical biologist. Cambridge:

Harvard University Press.

Levitt, T. (2020, September 15). Covid and farm animals: nine pandemics

that changed the world. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2020/sep/15/covid-farm-animals-and-pandemics-diseases-that-changed-the-world

Lowder, S., Sánchez, M. & Bertinic, R. (2021). Which farms feed the

world and has farmland become more concentrated? World Development 142.

Macpherson-Mayor, D. & van Daaelen-Smith, C. (2020). At both ends of the

leash: Preventing service-dog oppression through the practice of

dyadic-belonging. Canadian Journal of Disability Studies 9.2.

Manjoo, F. (2021, October 22). Even with a dream job, you can be

antiwork. New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/22/opinion/work-resignations-covid.html

Marine Conservation Society & Rewilding Britain. (2021). Blue carbon:

Ocean-based solutions to fight the climate crisis.

https://www.rewildingbritain.org.uk/news-and-views/research-and-reports/blue-carbon

Mathews, F. (2016). From biodiversity-based conservation to an ethic of

bio-proportionality. Biological Conservation 200: 140-148.

Millward-Hopkins, J., Steinberger, J., Rao, N. & Oswald, Y. (2020).

Providing decent living with minimum energy: A global scenario. Global

Environmental Change 65.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378020307512

Müller, T. (2013). Remarks at the left forum. Retrieved from

https://revolutionaryecology.wordpress.com/2013/12/19/john-bellamy-foster-tadzio-mueller-and-alvaro-garcia-linera-on-the-ecological-metabolic-rifts-and-ways-out/

Nelsen, A. (2018, October 26). Spain to close most coalmines in €250m

transition deal.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/26/spain-to-close-most-coal-mines-after-striking-250m-deal

Neuwirth, R. (2011). Stealth of nations: The global rise of the informal

economy. New York: Random House.

Newkey-Burden, C. (2018, November 19). There’s a Christmas crisis going

on: no one wants to kill your dinner. The Guardian.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/19/christmas-crisis-kill-dinner-work-abattoir-industry-psychological-physical-damage

O’Leary, B., Winther-Janson, M., Bainbridge, J., Aitken, J., Hawkins, J.

& Roberts, C. (2016). Effective coverage targets for ocean protection.

Conservation Letters. Doi: 10.1111/conl.12247

Open Source Ecology. (n.d.). Factor-E Farm. Retrieved October 16, 2020

from https://www.opensourceecology.org/about-factor-e-farm/

Oxfam. (2015, December 2). Extreme Carbon Inequality.

https://www-cdn.oxfam.org/s3fs-public/file_attachments/mb-extreme-carbon-inequality-021215-en.pdf

_____. (2018, January 22). Richest 1 percent bagged 82 percent of wealth

created last year.

https://www.oxfam.org/en/pressroom/pressreleases/2018-01-22/richest-1-percent-bagged-82-percent-wealth-created-last-year

Pegurier, E. (2017, July 27). Study links most Amazon deforestation to

128 slaughterhouses. Mongabay.

https://news.mongabay.com/2017/07/study-links-most-amazon-deforestation-to-128-slaughterhouses/

People’s Agreement of Cochabamba. (2010).

https://pwccc.wordpress.com/2010/04/24/peoples-agreement/

Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine. (n.d.). Physicians

Committee for Responsible Medicine advocates for effective and ethical

research, testing, education, and policy. Accessed November 1, 2020,

https://www.pcrm.org/sites/default/files/2018-11/PCRM-Brochure.pdf

Pirani, S. (2021, April 13). China’s CO2 emissions are soaring. But in

Monthly Review’s world, they are ‘flattening’. People and Nature.

https://peopleandnature.wordpress.com/2021/04/13/chinas-co2-emissions-are-soaring-but-in-monthly-reviews-world-they-are-flattening/

Pollan, M. (2013, December 15). The intelligent plant. The New Yorker.

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/12/23/the-intelligent-plant

Polya, G. (n.d.) 300.org - return atmosphere CO2 to 300 ppm CO2 -

300.org. Retrieved March 8, 2022 from

https://sites.google.com/site/300orgsite/300-org---return-atmosphere-co2-to-300-ppm

Ponisio, L. & Ehrlich, P. (2016). Diversification, yield and a new

agricultural revolution: Problems and prospects. Sustainability 8(1118).

Doi:10.3390/su8111118

Poore, J. & Nemecek, T. (2018). Reducing food’s environmental impacts

through producers and consumers. Science 360, 987-992. Doi:

10.1126/science.aaq0216

Rey Benayas, J. (2019, July 2). Rewilding: as farmland and villages are

abandoned, forests, wolves and bears are returning to Europe. The

Conversation.

https://theconversation.com/rewilding-as-farmland-and-villages-are-abandoned-forests-wolves-and-bears-are-returning-to-europe-119316

Ritchie, H. (2020, February 10). What are the safest and cleanest

sources of energy? Our World in Data.

https://ourworldindata.org/safest-sources-of-energy

Roberts, D. (2018, May 19). I’m an environmental journalist, but I never

write about overpopulation. Here’s why. Earth First! Newswire.

https://web.archive.org/web/20200426022121/https://earthfirstjournal.org/newswire/2018/05/19/im-an-environmental-journalist-but-i-never-write-about-overpopulation-heres-why

Rodrigues, A. & Gaston, K. (2001). How large do reserve networks need to

be? Ecology Letters 4: 602-609.

Röös, E., Bajželj, B., Smith, P., Patel, M., Little, D. & Garnett, T.

(2017). Greedy or needy? Land use and climate impacts of food in 2050

under different livestock futures. Global Environmental Change 47: 1-12.

Sanders, B. (2020, July 29). Global animal slaughter. Faunalytics.

https://faunalytics.org/global-animal-slaughter-statistics-and-charts-2020-update/

Sapa. (2003). Elephant herd rescues antelope from KZN Boma. IOL.

https://www.iol.co.za/news/south-africa/elephant-herd-rescues-antelope-from-kzn-boma-104180

Scheiber, N. (2021, April 19). A coal miners union indicates it will

accept a switch to renewable energy in exchange for jobs. New York

Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2021/04/19/business/stock-market-today#coal-miners-renewable-energy

Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.

Silk, E. (2019). Climate mobilization victory plan.

https://www.theclimatemobilization.org/victory-plan

Smith, K. (1988). Free is cheaper. London: John Ball Press.

Soper, K. (2020). Post-growth living: For an alternative hedonism.

London: Verso.

Spratt, D. & Sutton, P. (2008). Climate code red: The case for a

sustainability emergency. Fitzroy: Friends of the Earth Australia.

Steffen, W., Rockström, J., Richardson, K., Lenton, T. M., Folke, C. &

Liverman, D. (2018). Trajectories of the Earth system in the

Anthropocene. PNAS, 115(33), 8252-8259. Doi:10.1073/pnas.1810141115

Strona, G., & Bradshaw, C. J. (2018). Co-extinctions annihilate

planetary life during extreme environmental change. Scientific Reports,

8(1). Doi:10.1038/s41598-018-35068-1.

Trade Unions for Energy Democracy. (2018). Trade unions and just

transition: The search for a transformative politics.

https://rosalux.nyc/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/tuedworkingpaper11_web.pdf.

Trainer, T. (2018, June 5). The alternative, sustainable society—the

simpler way. http://thesimplerway.info/THEALTERNTIVELong.htm.

Van Meter, K. (2017). Guerrillas of desire: Notes on everyday resistance

and organizing to Make a revolution possible. Oakland: AK Press.

War on Want & London Mining Network. (2019). A just(ice) transition is a

post-extractive transition: centering the extractive frontier in climate

justice.

https://waronwant.org/sites/default/files/Post-Extractivist_Transition_WEB_0.pdf

Watson, S. (2015, October 26). Students unhappy in school, survey finds.

WebMD.

https://blogs.webmd.com/from-our-archives/20151026/students-unhappy-in-school-survey-finds

Wolf, C., Ripple, W. & Crist, E. (2021). Human population, social

justice, and climate policy. Sustainability Science 16: 1753-1756.

Doi:10.1007/s11625-021-00951-w

Wuerthner, G. (2014). Why the working landscape isn’t working. In

Wuerthner, G., Crist, E., Butler T. (Eds.), Keeping the wild: Against

the domestication of the Earth. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Zimmer, C. & Mueller, B. (2022, February 27). New research points to

Wuhan market as pandemic origin. New York Times.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2022/02/26/science/covid-virus-wuhan-origins.html