14th January 2016: 'Beyond failure at COP21…' » 2016 » Mobbsey's Musings » Paul Mobbs/MEI » FRAW

consumers4christ
What's the true meaning of Christmas?

(from Terry Gilliam's film, Brazil)

Beyond failure at COP21, environmentalism has its own shortcomings to address

Paul Mobbs, "Mobbsey's Musings", Thursday 14th January 2016

Written for The Ecologist, published 18th January 2016


Consider this: can we "save the planet?"
That's a critical question if you're an environmentalist – though it requires an understanding of what 'saving' and 'the planet' means. And if those founding definitions are not based upon realistic information, what would be the result?


Beyond the clear failure[1] of the COP21 Paris Conference[2] to deliver a binding climate agreement, capable of stopping dangerous climate change, I believe that the environmental movement has its own policy questions to answer.

The ideas explored in this article may leave certain readers aggrieved by what I write. In the end though, the most important critic is the evidence – and today the evidence of ecological harm is at odds with many popular environmental messages.

Ever since early monotheistic religions disentangled human well-being[3] from the ecological systems which supported them, we've been on a downward spiral of environmental destruction and exploitation[4] – which has lead us, inevitably, to today's Anthropocene epoch[5].

The 'new religion'[6] of neoliberal economics, wholly divorced from the material restrictions[7] on the pursuit of growth[8], has accelerated the deleterious trends of that earlier theological separation.

The 'Western' environment movement, distinct from the movements[9] of indigenous peoples[10] with their innate bond to natural systems[11], began with a rejection of the apparently 'false wealth' of the 1960s consumer boom.

In the eco-political swell of the 1990s, when green politics took power and campaign groups slowly began to take corporate funding, that strong philosophical counter-argument to materialism faltered. So-called 'hair shirt' environmentalists[12], who continued to argue against 'consumption' in the wake of this change, were marginalised within many campaign groups.

In the neo-liberal world, political success required an engagement with capitalism[13] in order to deliver sustainability goals; but even left-wing socialists now dismiss the the idea of ecological limits as 'collapse porn'[14].

In the affluent world's media, messages which advocate a deeper connection of humans to the 'living Earth' are often caricatured – evoking idealistic metaphors[15] for the developed world's spiritual dead-end which are ultimately subverted by their associated marketing message[16].

Ecological idealism is ridiculed – willingly consigned[17] to the scrapheap by consumer choice.

Yet in the wake of COP21, any proposal that environmentalism can work within[18] the economic and political status quo has abjectly failed also.

From fields as diverse as agriculture[19], climate[20] and marketing[21], to resource depletion[22], ecological limits[23] and eco-psychology[24] – the evidence on human impacts, and how to tackle them, is increasingly at odds with popular environmental messages.

Promoting that evidence isn't being 'negative', or 'doomerish', or holding an 'outdated prejudice'[25]. Evidence exists as it is – it is how we react to it which defines whether our advocacy is factually-based or, for want of a better description, self-deluding.

Capitalism did not engage with environmentalism in order to deliver realistic change. It engaged with the environmental message in order to own and subvert it to a more profitable end.

Don't agree with that statement? The VW diesel emissions scandal[26] is the perfect example of how that whole model of consumer-driven change has failed – leaving the consumer feeling defrauded of their good intentions.

Another, less publicized example is biofuels.

During the 1990s road protests in Britain[27] the environment movement developed a detailed factual critique of the economic and environmental consequences of car-based transport. In the 2000s campaign groups traded that analysis for the more lucrative narrative of biofuels – which ultimate foundered a decade later when its true impacts[28] were revealed.

For mainstream campaign groups, dependent on trying to secure members, promoting a message of alternative consumption, rather than prohibition and significant lifestyle change, is more conducive to recruiting support. But how far can you go down that route before you lose sight of your original objectives?

Right now I know of a number of people working for campaign groups, talented in their field of ecological expertise, who are focussed on membership or recruitment campaigns rather than doing the primary job of pressuring for change. If supporting the operation of the organisation, rather than its core campaign, becomes its reason d'etre for existence, then what are these campaign groups for?

I came across the issue of climate change as a scientific debate in the mid-1980s. Then in 1988 the UN set up the IPCC[29] to study the issue further; and scientists like James Hansen began to tell policy-makers about the severity of the issue[30].

The IPCC's first assessment[31] came out in 1990. Then in 1992 the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change[32] (UNFCCC) was signed at the Rio 'Earth Summit'

Then… not a lot happened.

The whole process has been chasing its tail[33] ever since.

One stark message to come out of COP21 was the extent to which, on the debate over ecological decline, the movement censors itself[34]. If they were to "speak truth to power" they would no longer be welcome in the room.

Major aspects of climate policy, such as emissions trading, have been shown to contribute a negligible amount[35] to reducing greenhouse gas emissions. And yet many within environmentalism cling to such ideas in order to deliver change without threatening 'business as usual'.

Look at this graph[36]:

CDIAC Plot, 1751-2012

It shows the US Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center's (CDIAC[37]) estimates of greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution – from 1751 until (on provisional data) 2012.

Over 261 years of industrial and technical development, under CDIAC's dataset, humanity has generated 383 billion tonnes of carbon emissions from fossil fuels (note, 'carbon' – the weight of carbon dioxide is 3.667 times greater).

The emissions of carbon since we decided this was a global problem in 1992 have been 152 billion tonnes.

In other words, over 261 years of historic emissions, we've emitted 40% of the total in the 20 years since the world decided we had to tackle this urgent problem. In 20 years annual emission rates have risen almost 60%.

Why the large change, even though technological efficiency has been increasing over this time?

Economic growth.

It is not simply 'consumption' which is the issue, or what form that consumption takes. Any measure of growth in the human system, for simple reasons of thermodynamic reality, will create a change in material consumption[38] – and thus the energy required to enable that activity to take place.

The reason the UNFCCC process has stalled isn't simply that climate deniers have befuddled policy-makers. The entire economic process is based upon a myth of growth[39], and an existential terror that without growth[40] human society as we know it would collapse.

OK – if fossil fuels are a problem, let's switch to renewable energy.

This is reason why the green technology/green consumer argument is so seductive in policy-making fields. It allows a theoretical change in damaging impacts without changing society's dependence upon material consumption and growth.

Problem is that whole argument – like VW's engine management system – is another deception. Not least because while the energy produced might be physically equivalent, irrespective of price the comparative investment returns[41] of these processes are lower than conventional fossil fuels.

Many environmental groups, in their efforts to lobby politicians, love these simple solutions too.

Unfortunately most of their plans for change – for example CAT's Zero Carbon Britain[42] – while they may be balanced in terms of their energy calculations, do not take account of the resource limitations[43] of making them happen. Not simply the resources required[44] to build the energy infrastructure, but also the additional resources involved in society utilising that energy[45].

Right now there is a growing concern amongst academics and industry figures that the specialised resources required to build 'green technologies'[46] on a large scale might not exist. Even conventional resources, such as copper, have their own unique limitations. And while in most cases there are substitutes available, they often have their own limitations or prohibitions on use.

For example, the large, direct-drive wind turbines which are the core of expanding wind power are reliant on the use[22] of rare earth metals such as neodymium and samarium. These metals have a limited supply[47] – which limits the roll-out of wind power well below the theoretical wind resource available. What's more the production of those metals is having a severe[48], toxic impact[49] upon the environment and indigenous communities[50].

One of the largest shifts in environmental activism[51] in recent years has been in the area of on-line activism.

Question is – quite apart from the practical issue of whether such action can create real change[52], or be manipulated to detract from it[53] – has on-line action become part of the ecological problem?

There is a growing cognitive disconnect[54] between what 'clicktivism'[55] can achieve versus its environmental impacts[56].

When you buy a new laptop or smart-phone, roughly 90% of the ecological footprint of that device[57] has already been expended through the production and supply chain. For example, just to make the memory chip of a laptop[58] takes more energy than the device will consume over its average service life with the user.

The ecological footprint of the Internet, which has become essential to the use of many technologies, now exceeds the footprint[59] of that other icon of green angst, global air travel. That trend in consumption has been exacerbated by the recent shift towards 'the cloud'[60].

There are many practical ways to address the issue of impacts of IT. The industry could make devices which last many years, drastically cutting their life-cycle ecological footprint. That, however, is not on the agenda because it would entail a significant contraction in, and loss of revenue from the whole tech sector.

It is not simply that the mainstream of the environment movement fails to call for 'degrowth'[61]. From my own experience, they are vehemently opposed to espousing any line[62] which directly challenges the the political fetish of growth.

Unfortunately the often-used substitute, that "less is more", fails not only on thermodynamic grounds, but also because it disregards the material differences between 'quantity' and 'footprint'.

As outlined earlier, monotheist religion erased the 'spiritual' link of humans to their environment, rendering it expendable in the name of human need or greed. In the same way, the mainstream environment movement has lost its way by simplifying to a single-issue, 'monotheist' belief in climate change – to the exclusion of other, arguably equally deleterious trends in human development.

Depending on definitions there are around nine or ten catastrophic environmental issues[63]. Other than climate change, most of are largely ignored in the mainstream ecological debate.

Any one of these[23] has the potential to collapse the human system. All have a critical time-line for action within the next decade or two to avert that outcome.

For example, intensive farming requires fertilizer. While the media often looks at nitrogen, of equal significance is phosphorous. Right now there's a growing concern about the future supply of phosphorous[64], and what that means for global food supply within the next 20-30 years. But continuing our use of phosphorous is not an option either as it causes significant damage too.

There are alternatives, specifically agroecology[65] or permaculture[66]. Problem is the 'business as usual' lobby don't like these because it requires abandoning the current system of intensive commodity agriculture, with their concentrated ownership and control over production and markets.

That's why tackling climate change is attractive to the 'business as usual' lobby – it's a product which can be sold because it entails using more equipment and energy to solve pollution. That's also why tackling climate change alone will not avert the ecological collapse[67] of human civilisation during this century.

The greatest myth of the consumer society is that modern lifestyles are 'normal' – and this can continue-on forever because we're clever little apes who can solve any problem.

That hubris, in the face of insurmountable ecological limits[68], will be our collective downfall.

Dismissing the reality[69] of ecological limits[70] will not make the problem go away. The mainstream environment movement's overbearing focus on climate change not only makes society ignore many equally critical ecological issues, it also leads people, against the current body of research evidence, to advocate very silly ideas.

However unpopular the issue of criticising economic growth, and however unpopular that makes environmentalists with the leaders of the affluent world, if there is to be any hope of a sustainable and equitable world the environment movement must advocate curtailing consumption to within planetary boundaries. Of course, you don't have to wait for everyone to agree on that to begin. You can make a personal start to 'degrowth', minimising your own ecological footprint, today. And for that conviction, if you are excluded from the doors of power you always have the option to sit outside.


References:

  1. New Internationalist: 'Paris deal: Epic fail on a planetary scale', Danny Chivers and Jess Worth, 12th December 2015 – http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2015/12/12/cop21-paris-deal-epi-fail-on-planetary-scale/
  2. Democracy Now!: 'Naomi Klein on Paris Summit – Leaders' Inaction on Climate Crisis is "Violence" Against the Planet', 30th November 2015 – http://www.democracynow.org/2015/11/30/naomi_klein_on_paris_summit_leaders
  3. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment: 'Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis', 2005 – http://www.millenniumassessment.org/documents/document.356.aspx.pdf
  4. Guardian On-line: 'Human impact has pushed Earth into the Anthropocene, scientists say', Adam Vaughan, Thursday 7th January 2016 – http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jan/07/human-impact-has-pushed-earth-into-the-anthropocene-scientists-say
  5. Wikipedia: 'Anthropocence'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropocene
  6. The Ecologist: ''Credo' – economics is a belief system, and we are ruled by fundamentalists', Paul Mobbs, 6th November 2015 – http://www.theecologist.org/reviews/2986114/credo_economics_is_a_belief_system_and_we_are_ruled_by_fundamentalists.html
  7. American Scientist: 'Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil', Charles A. S. Hall and John W. Day, vol.97 pp.230-237, May-June 2009 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/peakoil/hall_2009.pdf
  8. Post Carbon Institute: 'Beyond the Limits to Growth', Richard Heinberg, 2010 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/limits/heinberg_2010.pdf
  9. Dissident Voice: 'Environmental Degradation, Indigenous Resistance, and a Place for the Sciences', Andrew Gavin Marshall, 22nd July 2013 – http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/07/environmental-degradation-indigenous-resistance-and-a-place-for-the-sciences/
  10. Democracy Now!: 'Indigenous Climate Activists: Paris "Police State" is the Reality Frontline Communities Live With', 30th November 2015 – http://www.democracynow.org/2015/11/30/indigenous_climate_activists_paris_police_state
  11. Wikipedia: 'Spiritual ecology'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_ecology
  12. Wikipedia: 'Hairshirt environmentalism'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hairshirt_environmentalism
  13. Wikipedia: 'Natural Capitalism'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Capitalism
  14. Guardian On-line: 'Why eco-austerity won't save us from climate change', Leigh Phillips, Wednesday 4th November 2015 – http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/nov/04/why-eco-austerity-wont-save-us-from-climate-change
  15. The Arbutus Review: 'Environmentalism and the "Ecological Indian" in Avatar: A Visual Analysis', Justin Fritz, vol.3 no.1 pp.67-90, 2012 – https://journals.uvic.ca/index.php/arbutus/article/download/11530/3223
  16. Keep America Beautiful: 'The Crying Indian', 1971 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7OHG7tHrNM
  17. Global Dialogue: 'Consumer Monoculture – The Destruction of Tradition', Helena Norberg-Hodge, vol.1 no.1, Summer 1999 – http://www.worlddialogue.org/content.php?id=22
  18. Jonathon Porritt: 'Capitalism As If The World Matters', 2007 – http://www.jonathonporritt.com/blog/capitalism-if-world-matters
  19. Science: 'Forecasting Agriculturally Driven Global Environmental Change', Tilman et al., vol.292 pp.281-284, 13th April 2001 – http://eprints.icrisat.ac.in/39/1/Science292_281-284_2001.pdf
  20. Nature: 'The geographical distribution of fossil fuels unused when limiting global warming to 2°C', Christophe McGlade and Paul Ekins, vol.517 pp.187-193, 8th January 2015 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/climate/mcglade_ekins_2015.pdf
  21. Ecological Economics: 'Willing consumers – or locked-in? Policies for a sustainable consumption', Christer Sanne, vol.42 pp.273-287, August 2002 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/simplicity/sanne_2002.pdf
  22. Applied Energy: 'Assessing the dynamic material criticality of infrastructure transitions – A case of low carbon electricity', Roelich et al., vol.123 pp.378-386, 15th June 2014 – http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306261914000816/pdfft?md5=95afab98eb57415a5f6ff286a8b12798&pid=1-s2.0-S0306261914000816-main.pdf
  23. Science: 'Planetary boundaries – Guiding human development on a changing planet', Steffen et al., 15th January 2015 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/limits/steffen_2015.pdf
  24. Aeon Magazine: 'The camping cure', Jill Neimark, 22nd Jauary 2014 – https://aeon.co/essays/environmental-illness-made-me-too-sick-to-live-inside
  25. The Telegraph On-line: 'What the Green Movement Got Wrong – A turncoat explains', Mark Lynas, 4th November 2010 – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthnews/8108090/What-the-Green-Movement-Got-Wrong-A-turncoat-explains.html
  26. Guardian On-line: 'VW and the toxic problem of corporate amnesia', André Spicer, 9th October 2015 – http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/oct/09/vw-bp-corporate-scandals-emissions-tests-oil-spill-horsemeat-rana-plaza
  27. Wikipedia: 'Road protest in the United Kingdom'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_protest_in_the_United_Kingdom
  28. Wikipedia: 'Environmental impact of biodiesel'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_biodiesel
  29. Wikipedia: 'Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
  30. New York Times: 'Global Warming Has Begun, Expert Tells Senate', Philip Shabecoff, 24th June 1988 – http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html?pagewanted=all
  31. Wikipedia: 'IPCC First Assessment Report'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_First_Assessment_Report
  32. Wikipedia: 'United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change
  33. Global Environmental Change: 'Policy responses to rapid climate change – An epistemological critique of dominant approaches', Charlesworth and Okereke, vol,20 no.1 pp.121-129, February 2010 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/climate/charlesworth_2010.pdf
  34. Democracy Now!: 'Top Climate Expert: Crisis is Worse Than We Think & Scientists Are Self-Censoring to Downplay Risk', 8th December 2015 – http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/8/top_climate_expert_crisis_is_worse
  35. Stockholm Environment Institute: 'Has Joint Implementation reduced GHG emissions? Lessons learned for the design of carbon market mechanisms', Anja Kollmuss, Lambert Schneider and Vladyslav Zhezherin, August 2014 – https://www.sei-international.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Climate/SEI-WP-2015-07-JI-lessons-for-carbon-mechs.pdf
  36. Paul Mobbs/MEI: 'CDIAC Plot, 1751-2012', January 2016 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/musings/2016/20160114-cdiac_plot-hq.jpg
  37. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center: 'Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions', June 2016 – http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/meth_reg.html
  38. PLOS One: 'Development and Dematerialization: An International Study', Steinberger et al., October 2013 – http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0070385.PDF
  39. Sustainability: 'The Growth Delusion', Bob Lloyd, vol.1 pp.516-536, 24th August 2009 – http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/1/3/516/pdf
  40. YouTube: 'Surplus – Terrorized into Being Consumers', 2003 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E23QZXG9YQ
  41. Energy Policy: 'EROI of different fuels and the implications for society', Hall et al., vol.64 pp.141-152, January 2014 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/peakoil/hall_2013.pdf
  42. Centre for Alternative Technology: 'Zero Carbon Britain'http://zerocarbonbritain.org/en/
  43. PNAS: 'Metal stocks and sustainability', Gordon et al., vol.103 no.5 pp.1209-1214, 31st January 2006 – http://www.pnas.org/content/103/5/1209.full.pdf
  44. Simon Michaux: 'Peak mining & implications for natural resource management', August 2013 – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TFyTSiCXWEE
  45. Energy Saving Trust: 'The elephant in the living room – how our appliances and gadgets are trampling the green dream', September 2011 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/tech/est_2011.pdf
  46. EC Joint Research Centre: 'Critical Metals in the Path towards the Decarbonisation of the EU Energy Sector – Assessing Rare Metals as Supply-Chain Bottlenecks in Low-Carbon Energy Technologies', Moss et al., 2013 – http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC82322/critical%20metals%20decarbonisation.pdf
  47. Journal of Cleaner Production: 'Recycling of rare earths – a critical review', Binnemans et al., vol.51 pp.1-22, 15 July 2013 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/tech/binnemans_2013.pdf
  48. BBC News: 'The dystopian lake filled by the world's tech lust', Tim Maughan, 2nd April 2015 – http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20150402-the-worst-place-on-earth
  49. Digital Journal: 'Baotou – A toxic lake created because of a thirst for technology', Karen Graham, 11th April 2015 – http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/environment/baotou-a-toxic-lake-created-because-of-a-thirst-for-technology/article/430511
  50. Resources: 'Social and Environmental Impact of the Rare Earth Industries', Saleem H. Ali, vol.3 no.1 pp.123-134, February 2014 – http://www.mdpi.com/2079-9276/3/1/123/pdf
  51. PLOS One: 'The Critical Periphery in the Growth of Social Protests', Pablo Barberá et al., 30th November 2015 – http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/asset?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0143611.PDF
  52. Guardian On-line: 'Clicktivism is ruining leftist activism', Micah White, Thursday 12th August 2010 – http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/aug/12/clicktivism-ruining-leftist-activism
  53. PNAS: 'The spreading of misinformation online', Michela Del Vicario, January 2016 – http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2016/01/02/1517441113.full.pdf?with-ds=yes
  54. European Consortium for Political Research: 'Empowered by Systems of Surveillance? – Critical Reflections on Media Awareness in Networked Protest', Judith Schoßböck and Alexander Banfield-Mumb, August 2011 – http://ecpr.eu/filestore/paperproposal/3b8f29cf-2be1-4a58-bc30-4ec91c367a33.pdf
  55. Wikipedia: 'Slacktivism'https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slacktivism
  56. Paul Mobbs/MEI: 'Promulgating the Web's calorie controlled diet – web design, environmental impact and the much ignored ecological efficiency of the Internet', Ecolonomics No.12, Monday 23rd May 2011 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/mei/ecolonomics/01/ecolonomics-012-20110523.pdf
  57. Paul Mobbs/MEI: 'The ecology of information technology', chapter 2, 'A Practical Guide to Sustainable ICT', APC/IDRC, 2012 – http://www.apc.org/en/system/files/Section2.pdf
  58. Environmental Science and Technology: 'The 1.7 Kilogram Microchip – Energy and Material Use in the Production of Semiconductor Devices', Williams et al., vol.36 pp.5504-5510, 2002 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/tech/williams_2002.pdf
  59. Guardian On-line: 'How viral cat videos are warming the planet', Adam Vaughan, Friday 25th September 2015 – http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/sep/25/server-data-centre-emissions-air-travel-web-google-facebook-greenhouse-gas
  60. Guardian On-line: 'Dirty cloud: warnings over online gaming industry's environmental footprint', Luke Westaway, Friday 5th June 2015 – http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2015/jun/05/warnings-over-online-gaming-industrys-dirty-cloud
  61. Ecological Economics: 'Ecological economics, degrowth, and institutional change', Klitgaard and Krall, vol.84 pp.247-253, December 2012 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/economics/klitgaard_2012.pdf
  62. The Ecologist: 'We scare people off by talking about 'degrowth'', Molly Scott Cato, 14th July, 2010 – http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/Molly_Scott_Cato/538745/we_scare_people_off_by_talking_about_degrowth.html
  63. Nature: 'A safe operating space for humanity', Johan Rockstrom, vol.461 pp.472-475, 24th September 2009 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/limits/rockstrom_2009.pdf
  64. Nature: 'The disappearing nutrient', Natasha Gilbert, vol.461 pp.716-718, October 2009 – http://www.fraw.org.uk/library/limits/gilbert_2009.pdf
  65. The Ecologist: 'The tremendous success of agroecology in Africa', Colion Todhunter, 21st November 2015 – http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2986355/the_tremendous_success_of_agroecology_in_africa.html
  66. Costa Boutsikaris: 'Inhabit – A Permacuture Perspective', 2015 – http://inhabitfilm.com/
  67. Smithsonian Magazine: 'Looking Back on the Limits of Growth', Mark Strauss, April 2012 – http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/looking-back-on-the-limits-of-growth-125269840/
  68. Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute: 'Is Global Collapse Imminent? – An Updated Comparison of The Limits to Growth with Historical Data', Graham Turner, Research Paper No.4 August 2014 – http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdf
  69. Sustainability: 'Mind Sized World Models', Ugo Bardi, vol.5 pp.896-911, March 2013 – http://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/5/3/896/pdf
  70. PNAS: 'Tracking the ecological overshoot of the human economy', Wackernagel et al., vol.99 no.14 pp.9266-9271, 9th July 2002 – http://www.pnas.org/content/99/14/9266.full.pdf