Received: from smtpgate.uvm.edu (smtpgate.uvm.edu [132.198.101.121]) by csf.Colorado.EDU (8.7.6/8.7.3/CNS-4.0p) with SMTP id GAA07107; Sun, 8 Jun 1997 06:36:30 -0600 (MDT) Date: Sun, 8 Jun 1997 06:36:30 -0600 (MDT) Received: from 8N9J6 (208.18.225.29) by smtpgate.uvm.edu (LSMTP for Windows NT v1.1a) with SMTP id <0.0E746540@smtpgate.uvm.edu>; 8 Jun 1997 8:36:27 -0400 Message-Id: <1.5.4.16.19970608083610.362fb47e@pop.uvm.edu> X-Sender: tryoung@pop.uvm.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: Psn@csf.colorado.edu From: TR Young Subject: the Political Economy of Climatic Change Cc: ahs-talk@ncsu.edu Ed Crenshaw and J. Craig Jenkins have most provocative article on the political economy of global climatic change in the Oct. 1996 issue of Sociological Focus. Both are at Ohio State. I will review it in this electronic version of FROM THE LEFT. The hard copy of the Summer, 1997 issue will be out in two weeks...there is not enough space for all the fine work of progressive scholars in the hard copy so I augment it with pieces on internet. TR Young Senior Editor ******************** Crenshaw and Jenkins critique existing theories of global climatic change and present some 19 inter-connected propositions with which to understand the interactions of social structure and environmental pollution/degradation. A. They note that the dominant scheme for understanding environmental problems key off the IPAT formula: I = Impact P = Population A = Affluence T = Technology the formula is: I = PAT The scheme does focus upon human beings and the ways they affect the environment in which they live...however, there is little attention given to differing forms of social organization in the formula. Crenshaw and Jenkins rectify that oversight. B. Then too, the formula adopts the linearities of modernist philosophy of science...Crenshaw and Jenkins notes that many interactions are non-linear: they mention: 1. Pollution takes a U-shaped curve...newly industrialized countries pollute more than 'developed' economies. 2. Energy increase and economic affluence are not correlated in linear fashion... 3. They note the 'asymetrical' causality between P, A, and T...in a word, technology is institutionalized and does not drop when population drops or when affluence increase....the auto is case in point. 4. They suggest that social equity is lost when abatement programs are instituted; they benefit developed countries most and cost them least... 5. Crenshaw and Jenkins might well have considered the non-linearity when key variables bifurcate...the new sciences of chaos/complexity would have given better grounding of their philosophy of science. C. Three Axiomatic Principles which ground Propositions below: 1. Social structure mediates P, A, and T. 2. Social structure creates non-linear interaction/feedback. 3. Social structure create [class, racial, ethnic] inequalities from which much conflict over policy emeges. D. Propositions [briefly summarized by TRY; do read the article for definitions/explanations]: Neo-Malthusian theory: 1. Environmental impact depends upon stage of development; economies with heavy industry pollute more than those with service. 2. Deforestation depends upon land tenure, debt pressure, and land inequality. 3. Densely populated countries are more energy efficient than sparsely populated countries. **** Development/Modernization Theory: 3. Per capita pollutions increases, reaches a high point, then decreases in response to market dynamics and economies of scale. 4. Urban growth reduces pollution by boosting operational efficiency/innovation/diffusion of technology 5. Globalization of the economy tends to reduce pollution by diffusion of technologies. 6. State ownership/regulation of energy markets increase pollution... 7. Agricultural density improves greenhouse efficiency. 8. Agricultural density reduces greenhouse inefficiencies of state-owned enterprizes. 9. Agricultural density reduces deforestation. Dependency/World System theory: 10. The greater the export dependency, the greater the deforestation. 11. The greater the foreign debt, the greater the deforestation. 12. Land inequality and rural population growth increase deforestation. 13. the more foreign capital, the weaker the regulation of pollution; the greater the greenhouse effect. 14. Dirty industries move from core countries to peripheral countries. State-Centered Theory: 15. Greater state centralization promotes greenhouse efficiency. 16. Greater fiscal capacity of the State the better the greenhouse efficiency. 17. Greater state control of production/distribution decreases greenhouse efficiency. 18. Democratization increases greenhouse efficiency. [I do like this proposition...TRY] 19. Greater International integration the more protection of the environment and greater greenhouse efficiency. E. Policy Implications: 1. Policy to improve greenhouse efficiency should key off social structural variables of the sort laid out in the propositions above. 2. Non-linearities should be factored into any model and into any policy affecting greenhouse regulation. 3. Equity conflicts subvert efforts to implement helpful policies...greater attention/remedy of inequality should help control pollution/greenhouse inefficiency. 4. Beware of closed system models in setting social policy. F. Again, this is only a review and summary of a very complex argument which assumes a lot of prior understanding of malthusian theory, dependency theory, state theory and modernization theory. Errors in reporting/reviewing are mine alone. The virtue of the article is that is goes far beyond the simplistic and monolithic models now used/taught in environmental sociology. TR Young, Editor FROM THE LEFT 8 June, 1997 TR Young The Red Feather Institute 8085 Essex, Weidman, Mi., 48893 [517] 644 3089 Email: tr@tryoung.com