Green Criminology And Green Theories Of Justice: An Introduction To A Political Economic View Of Eco-Justice 3030285723, 9783030285722, 9783030285739

Table of contents :
Preface......Page 6
Contents......Page 10
List of Tables......Page 12
1: Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy......Page 13
The Chapters That Follow......Page 20
Nature “Versus” Humans or a Nature-Human Dialectic?......Page 22
Toward Conceptualizing Eco-justice......Page 26
References......Page 27
2: Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice......Page 33
Planetary Boundaries......Page 36
Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Radiative Forcing......Page 38
Ocean Acidification......Page 39
Biogeochemical Availability......Page 40
Global Freshwater Use......Page 41
Pollutants......Page 42
Summing Up Rockstrom et al.......Page 43
The Human Ecological Footprint......Page 44
References......Page 47
3: Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem......Page 53
Naming the Concept of Green Justice......Page 58
The Concept of Eco-justice......Page 62
Eco-justice, Planetary Boundaries and the Human Ecological Footprint......Page 63
Capitalism and the Production of Eco-injustice......Page 67
References......Page 69
HSEJ and Eco-justice......Page 75
The Capitalist World System, the Treadmill of Production and HSEJ......Page 76
World System Theory and HSEJ......Page 77
The Treadmill of Production and HSEJ......Page 79
Connecting the Capitalist World System, the Treadmill of Production and HSEJ......Page 83
Acknowledging Ecologically Unequal Exchange Effects......Page 87
The Relevance of Ecological Footprints and Consumption Patterns in the Global Capitalist World System......Page 90
Ecologically Unequal Exchange Includes Pollution and Waste......Page 93
Acknowledging Natural Capital Impacts......Page 94
Capitalism, Native People and HSEJ Issues......Page 96
References......Page 98
5: Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman Ecological Justice......Page 104
The Political Economic Analysis of Nonhuman Ecological Justice......Page 106
Nonhuman Eco-injustice (NHEJ)......Page 109
Nonhuman Species Extinctions......Page 111
Nonhuman Ecological Injustice in the Extant Green Criminological Literature......Page 119
Ebay and the Treadmill of Animal Commodification......Page 124
Conclusion......Page 129
References......Page 130
6: Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice......Page 137
Background: Moving Away from the “Only Humans Matter” Concept of Justice......Page 139
Propositions on Gaia, Disequilibrium, Injustice and the Human Origins of Harms and Injustice Against Gaia......Page 141
Propositions Elaborating Human Harm and Injustice Against Gaia......Page 145
Implications and Analysis......Page 148
Enter Political Economy......Page 154
Conclusion......Page 156
References......Page 157
7: Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice......Page 160
Why Metabolic Rift?......Page 163
What Is Metabolic Rift?......Page 169
The Empirical Dimensions of the Metabolic Rift......Page 176
The Metabolic Rift as Crime......Page 180
The Empirical Dimensions of Planetary Boundaries and Ecosystem Stability......Page 184
Ecological Justice, the Metabolic Rift and Planetary Boundaries......Page 186
References......Page 193
8: Political Economy, Food and Eco-justice......Page 202
Food Regimes and the Political Economy of Food......Page 203
Industrialization of Food Production......Page 205
Transnational Organization of Production......Page 208
Eco-justice and Food......Page 211
Conclusion......Page 213
References......Page 214
9: Conclusion......Page 216
References......Page 225
References......Page 227
Index......Page 259

Citation preview

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN GREEN CRIMINOLOGY

Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice An Introduction to a Political Economic View of Eco-Justice Michael J. Lynch Michael A. Long · Paul B. Stretesky

Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology

Series Editors Angus Nurse School of Law Middlesex University London, UK Rob White School of Social Sciences University of Tasmania Hobart, TAS, Australia Melissa Jarrell Department of Social Sciences Texas A&M University - Corpus Christi Corpus Christi, TX, USA

Criminologists have increasingly become involved and interested in environmental issues to the extent that the term Green Criminology is now recognised as a distinct subgenre of criminology. Within this unique area of scholarly activity, researchers consider not just harms to the environment, but also the links between green crimes and other forms of crime, including organised crime’s movement into the illegal trade in wildlife or the links between domestic animal abuse and spousal abuse and more serious forms of offending such as serial killing. This series will provide a forum for new works and new ideas in green criminology for both academics and practitioners working in the field, with two primary aims: to provide contemporary theoretical and practice-based analysis of green criminology and environmental issues relating to the development of and enforcement of environmental laws, environmental criminality, policy relating to environmental harms and harms committed against non-­ human animals and situating environmental harms within the context of wider social harms; and to explore and debate new contemporary issues in green criminology including ecological, environmental and species justice concerns and the better integration of a green criminological approach within mainstream criminal justice. The series will reflect the range and depth of high-quality research and scholarship in this burgeoning area, combining contributions from established scholars wishing to explore new topics and recent entrants who are breaking new ground. More information about this series at http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14622

Michael J. Lynch  •  Michael A. Long   Paul B. Stretesky

Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice An Introduction to a Political Economic View of Eco-Justice

Michael J. Lynch Department of Criminology University of South Florida Tampa, FL, USA

Michael A. Long Department of Sociology Stillwater, OK, USA

Paul B. Stretesky Department of Social Sciences Northumbria University Newcastle, UK

Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology ISBN 978-3-030-28572-2    ISBN 978-3-030-28573-9 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9 © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2019 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. Cover illustration: Don Mennig / Alamy Stock Photo This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Preface

Green criminology is now nearly 30 years old. In that time, a substantial literature has been written, the issues or subject matter addressed by that literature has expanded significantly, and the number of researchers who have contributed to that literature has multiplied many times over. These trends indicate that green criminology is now an established part of the more general field of criminology, and the persistence of this view suggests it will not disappear anytime soon. Our own involvement and contributions to the green criminological literature—to the study of green crimes and harms, assessments of environmental laws and their applications, the various forms of green (in) justice and environmental (in)justice that are related to the distribution of green crime/harm, pollution, ecological disorganization and patterns in and the effects of enforcement of environmental law on green crimes— have centered on taking a political economic approach to those concerns, problems and outcomes. Some of that work is empirical, and some is theoretical and definitional. This book is not an exception to the political economic orientation to green criminology we have developed over the years—it is, in fact, an expansion of our view on a political economic green criminology—and falls within contributions to theoretical and definitional development within green criminology. Increasingly, we believe, our view has become more closely aligned with environmental sociology and, as a result, of less interest within criminology. This is not v

vi Preface

necessarily surprising since there is little political economic analysis carried on within the field of criminology today. As noted, our focus here is on grounding an analysis of green justice in a political economic approach. That means that here our interest in taking up a discussion focused on green justice is not designed to lay out what we would call a general or philosophical view about the boundaries of green justice. That is to say, we are not interested in taking up any number of possible views that define green justice philosophically. Here, in using the term “philosophy,” we refer to the general use of that term as perspectives that address what are called “fundamental problems,” such as academic arguments that examine issues related to, for example, metaphysics, epistemology, reason/intellect, body-mind dualisms and reality. Also, we do not take up the fundamental problem or question, “what is eco-justice?” Instead of doing so, we take up a materialist position on justice consistent with our political economic approach. That means that for us, justice/injustice are described relative to the concept, in the case of green (in)justice, of a harm. In this view, injustices involve activities that generate harms, and here we focus attention on the green harms/crimes that produce eco-injustices. In short, our goal here is only to engage with this idea (green justice) from a political economic perspective. This means we will not be describing all the views green criminologists have proposed about green justice and view any effort to describe that literature, which is not political economic in its orientation, as being outside the present work. Such works remain important, but those works are not examined here nor integrated into the scope of the current discussion unless they also refer to a political economic framing of eco-justice. Green criminologists have offered various green-related theories of justice and ways to view ecological crime and harms as justice issues and concerns. However one conceptualizes the classification of those various green criminological justice arguments, one can say there are more than a few—and those that immediately spring to mind are perspectives on speciesism, nonhuman animal/animal rights, environmental justice, anthropocentric, biocentric, eco-centric and so on (Halsey 2004). That previous literature has not, with few exceptions, explored the political

 Preface 

vii

economic approach to green justice which here, for lack of a better term, we describe as eco-justice. Eco-justice, as we explain in the chapters that follow, has various dimension, and exploring each from a political economic perspective supplies new ways of understanding eco-justice from a green criminological perspective. In taking up this task, it is not our intent to review the existing approaches to green justice that green criminologists have suggested or elaborated in the extant literature. Those views are widely employed in the literature, and here, we are not proposing to either review those arguments or to pose a critique of those views. Rather, we are proposing an alternative to those views that have not been considered or elaborated substantially in the green criminological literature. Thus, much of the literature to which we do refer is from environmental sociology, ecological Marxism, ecology and scientific studies of ecological harm processes that can be related to the concept of eco-justice and to green criminology more generally. As an alternative view, we are not suggesting that our political economic approach is superior to prior views on green justice that have already been taken up in the green criminological literature. Rather our goal here is to draw in concepts and explanations relevant to understanding green/eco-justice from a political economic perspective that have been developed outside of green criminology and to explore their utility. We hope other green criminologists find this work of some use as they explore the concept of green or eco-justice. Given the preliminary nature of this view—which has not been, prior to this work, developed in any extensive way within the green criminological literature—much of the discussion that follows is an effort to establish the background for a political economic approach to eco-justice. Given the preliminary nature of this work, we have limited our discussion to what we identify as some major areas of concern that also connect to political economic approaches that have been taken up outside of green criminology. In other works, we are developing more specific applications of the views taken here and applying them to areas we have not had the opportunity to fully articulate in the present work. Thus, this

viii Preface

should not be viewed as a comprehensive application of the political economic approach to eco-justice developed here, and we hope others also contribute to the further development of this point of view. Tampa, FL Stillwater, OK  Newcastle, UK 

Michael J. Lynch Michael A. Long Paul B. Stretesky

Reference Halsey, Mark. 2004. Against ‘Green’ Criminology. British Journal of Criminology 44 (6): 833–853.

Contents

1 Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy  1 2 Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice 21 3 Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 41 4 Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World Capitalist System and the Treadmill of Production 63 5 Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman Ecological Justice 93 6 Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice127 7 Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice151 8 Political Economy, Food and Eco-justice193 ix

x Contents

9 Conclusion207 References219 Index251

List of Tables

Table 2.1 Table showing the number of earths it takes to support humanity, 1961–2014 33 Table 2.2 Ecological footprints and reserves/deficits for select nations, 2010, in global hectares per capita 35 Table 4.1 World forest cover, millions of hectares, 1990, 2000 and 2010 76 Table 5.1 IUCN species data summary 101

xi

1 Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy

The world system, the treadmill of production, Gaia, metabolic rift, planetary boundaries, the human ecological footprint, political economy— these are terms that have not been widely employed within green criminology in the analysis of green crime, environmental law and eco-­ justice issues. They are, however, theories and phrases employed in the environmental sociology and ecological Marxist literatures and in natural science literature to address problems related to discussions exposing the problem of ecological destruction, the extent of ecological destruction and its measurement, and the state of the world’s ecosystem(s), and also to explanations for why ecological destruction occurs. Here, we make extensive use of these terms to develop a green criminological theory of eco-justice—which we present in segments—that draws on political economic, environmental sociological and scientific explanations of contemporary environmental crises. The term eco-justice, as we review in a later chapter, has been employed in prior literature in various fields, and even within green criminology (White 2013). In White’s view, eco-justice can be or has been examined from three perspectives: through the use of an environmental justice

© The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9_1

1

2 

M. J. Lynch et al.

approach that addresses ecological harms that affect humans; via an ­ecological justice approach that examines ecological harms against the environment; and as an extension of a species justice approach directed toward exploring ecological harms against nonhuman animals. This broad classification of green justice or eco-justice certainly has its uses and facilitates the organization of the kinds of theories of green/eco-justice to which green criminologists have and might refer. In the present work, our focus is on eco-justice specifically in relation to theories that we suggest can be anchored to political economic theory. This unique view of theories of eco-justice is developed in separate chapters focused on how concepts such as the ecological footprint, planetary boundaries and so forth (noted earlier) can be conceptualized from a political economic perspective. In focusing on a political economic view of eco-justice, it is not our intent to provide a critique of other approaches green criminologists have employed to discuss eco-justice or green justice or any other descriptors green criminologists have used. Our intent is to provide another view of eco-justice which can be used alongside of existing views as a supplement to augment those approaches, or to replace those views. The decision about whether to use our approach or any other view is, of course, up to any particular individual green criminologist to make, and we are not arguing for the superiority of our view, or that it should replace views others have or will continue to employ. This book examines several structural viewpoints related to the problem of ecological justice in the contemporary world from a political economic vantage point. Those discussions are relevant to conceptualizing what we will call eco-justice—which we define later as a particular view of justice situated ecologically, analyzed within the context of political economic theory and guided by the incorporation of scientific research on ecological concerns. This book proposes a political economic theory of eco-justice in order to provide a unique vantage point for addressing the problem of justice and injustice that stems from the production of ecological harms. Again, in taking up this position, we are particularly interested in developing a political economic discussion of eco-justice that we believe is useful for clarifying a more general understanding of green justice. This structural approach is consistent with conceptualizing

1  Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy 

3

a green criminology that is written from a political economic perspective (Lynch 1990; Lynch et al. 2013; Stretesky et al. 2013). Political economic approaches to green criminology owe a great deal to environmental sociology. In environmental sociology, a political economic explanatory revolution took place with regard to the analysis of environmental issues spearheaded by Catton and Dunlap’s (1978, Dunlap 1997) critiques of the anthropocentric tendencies sociology exhibits in the analysis of environmental/ecological issues, and how those approaches intersect with the development of an environmental sociology that takes as its main concern the society-nature intersection. In their review of the society-nature intersection literature in sociology, Goldman and Schuman (2000: 565) argued that the existing literature on that intersection must be examined in light of political economic structures. A similar claim can be made about green criminology and its treatment of the society-nature intersection. The political economic approach to eco-justice we take here is an effort to better promote that view within green criminology and illustrates the ways in which a political economic approach toward green criminology increasingly intersects with and integrates into environmental sociology. In previous works we have taken up a political economic orientation to a variety of environmental/green issue, but in those prior works we have not completed an extensive or full-blown analysis of eco-justice issues from the perspective of political economy. For example, in previous works we have explored the political economic approach as it applies to the following issues/topics/kinds of analyses: (1) empirical and theoretical analysis of environmental justice, such as the unequal distribution of pollution across communities with different racial, ethnic and class characteristics (Stretesky and Lynch 1998, 1999, 2002; Lynch and Stretesky 1998, 1999; Lynch et al. 2001; Kosmicki and Long 2016); (2) the analyses of environmental penalties in relation to justice and environmental justice concerns, illustrating how community race, ethnic and class characteristics relate to and impact penalties applied to environmental/green offenders (Lynch and Stretesky 2013b; Lynch et al. 2004a, 2004b; Stretesky and Lynch 2011; Stretesky et al. 2013b; Long et al. 2012); (3) the study of how the political economic structure of global trade relations influences the production of carbon dioxide pollution (Stretesky and Lynch 2009),

4 

M. J. Lynch et al.

and how the treadmill of production impacts ecological disorganization including pollution outputs (Long et al. 2018), ecological withdrawals (Long et al. 2017) and wildlife trade (Stretesky et al. 2018); (4) analysis of state crimes of global warming which facilitates eco-injustice by driving the production of climate change pollution (Lynch and Stretesky 2010, 2012; Lynch, Burns and Stretesky 2010); (5) the development of environmental justice movements (Stretesky et al. 2011; Stretesky et al. 2012; Stretesky et al. 2017); (6) the intersection of social and environmental justice issues for Native Americans (Lynch and Stretesky 2012, 2013b; Lynch et al. 2018a); (7) the assessment of media analysis of ecological crimes and the presentation of power relationships and harm in those analyses (Lynch et al. 2000; Lynch et al. 1989); and (8) a variety of other eco-justice issues related to the following: planetary boundaries (Long et  al. 2014); nonhuman animal harms (Stretesky et  al. 2013a); green victimization of children in schools (Barrett et al. 2016); the intersection of social and ecological justice for workers (Lynch 2016a), and the poor (Lynch et al. 2018b); eco-city models of justice and victimization (Lynch 2013; Lynch and Boggess 2015, 2016); environmental enforcement and biases associated with informal community water monitoring organizations in the United States (Lynch and Stretesky 2013b); inequality/difference in court sentencing (Cochran et  al. 2018); deterrence of environmental offenders (Barrett et al. 2018); the relationship between ecological disorganization and crime (Stretesky et al. 2017); and how political economic organization affects community power structures, the unequal production of green crime and the unequal distribution of access to green justice (Lynch 2016b). None of these studies, however, offer a complete or well-developed political economic view of eco-justice. In considering this body of work, one of the other criticisms we have of our own efforts in this area is its failure to make more evident the larger political economic theory and assumptions that stand behind these individual studies that relate to various forms of green (in)justice. In other words, in the various studies noted above, we have repeatedly made reference to the problem of ecological and environmental justice issues pertinent to green criminology without, however, elaborating a more general political economic theory of green justice that informs our analysis and without specifically laying out the political economic roots

1  Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy 

5

of those analyses in any specific form. We have not, until now, felt it necessary to elaborate the larger structural-political economic model of green justice and eco-justice that we have employed as the basis for these works. However, with the expansion of research on green justice issues from different points of view, we believe additional clarification of the relevance of a political economic approach of eco-justice is important and can contribute to further development of the green criminological position on eco-justice. Much of the discussion of green forms of justice/injustice in the green criminological literature is based on the analysis of justice issues impacting nonhuman species that has been influenced by the significant theoretical and historical work done on this issue particularly by Piers Beirne (1999, 2002, 2007, 2009) and Ted Benton (1998). Given the purpose of the current work—discussing the structural and political economic origins of green criminological perspectives on justice—we will not review the content of Beirne’s arguments here and leave this subject with our acknowledgment of its significant contribution to green criminology, a contribution that is easily identified through any analysis of the green criminological literature. The reason we do not directly take up a more “general” theoretical or philosophical approach to nonhuman eco-justice (NHEJ) is that this form of analysis has been taken up by others in more elaborate (and well-argued) forms (e.g., Beirne 1999; Cazaux 1998, 1999; Nurse 2016; Sollund 2011). But what has been missing from those analyses is a consideration of the political economic dimensions of eco-­ justice for nonhuman animals, a point we will elaborate upon in the chapters that follow in different ways. In our own work, we have examined a variety of situations in which data is analyzed to address the presence/absence of environmental (in) justice. The goal of such studies is to typically determine one of two things. First, following the original definition of environmental justice, whether the distribution of environmental hazards and exposure to toxins and pollutants is evenly distributed across communities, or unevenly distributed and hence biased and unjust. Second, addressing an extension of that argument, which assesses whether community characteristics affect the kinds of formal and informal justice communities receive, including whether government agencies address hazards in the same way

6 

M. J. Lynch et al.

across communities, and whether they punish offenders in the same way controlling for the characteristics of communities. In prior studies, we have not extensively elaborated upon the political economic influences on these processes, although in some studies, we have linked the treadmill of production to environmental enforcement outcomes. Behind both unequal exposure to toxins and the unequal enforcement of environmental laws—that is, behind environmental injustice—lay the same structural forces which translate the forms of inequality found in the political economic organization of society into unequal and hence unjust outcomes for different groups of people. Various parts of this work address these issues, though we do not present a separate political economic environmental justice discussion here. Much of the analyses in the chapters that follow are based on observations related to political economy and the ecological crisis developed in one strand of environmental sociology, the ecological Marxist literature. Ecological Marxists have offered a number of interesting and insightful theoretical analyses of ecological issues, and that literature also includes important empirical assessments of hypotheses related to those arguments. The justice implications of those views for green criminology have yet to be explored. At the same time, we must acknowledge that the relevant literature in sociology—namely the literature identified as ecological Marxism—which has taken up many important issues related to the society-nature intersection from a political economic perspective offers no elaborated or evolved concept of eco-justice. Thus, developing a relevant political economic view of eco-justice is a project that begins to unfold in this work, though we do not expect that this book will be the final word on this subject. To be clear, as stated above, we draw mainly on one specific strand of political economic literature, ecological Marxism. More specifically we base a great deal of our approach on the works of John Bellamy Foster, James O’Connor, Richard York, Andrew Jorgenson, Paul Burkett and others working in this area. There are, of course, a number of other excellent perspectives on environmental problems influenced by a political economic perspective, including those from green criminologists (e.g., Ruggiero and South 2013; Walters 2010).

1  Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy 

7

In our view of green criminology, we believe that there is a need for conceptualizing green justice concerns in political economic terms to provide a theoretical analysis capable of linking forms of green justice and injustice together, and to demonstrate how the connections between forms of eco-injustice are associated with the structural organization and operation of capitalism. The contemporary world’s economy is dominated by global capitalism, and any effort to understand the global and local ecological problems found in that context must make reference to the influence of capitalism on global and local ecosystems through the structure and influence of capitalism and its organization. In taking a structural and political economic view of eco-justice, it is our hope to avoid making moral judgments about the nature of eco-­ justice. From this political economic view, eco-justice is not a violation of an ethical principle about harm but rather is a description of the forms of inequality and unequal harm caused by behaviors that produce ecological destruction under given political economic arrangements that define current relationship to and within capitalism. This suggests that at the most general level, our understanding of eco-justice is about empirical evidence and scientific descriptions concerning forms of ecological destruction that promote harms that are differentially or unequally distributed within and across nations. Indeed, as we point out in the chapter that follows, our initial criteria for eco-injustice involve reference to scientific studies concerning the level and extent of ecological destruction that promote a decline in ecological conditions that limit the ability of local and global ecosystems to reproduce themselves in ways that are capable of sustaining life. To do so we discuss two scientifically derived concepts: planetary boundaries and ecological footprints. Crossing and encroaching upon planetary boundaries and the expansion of the human ecological footprint constitute the first level of our model. At this level of analysis, our model does not yet have a political economic dimension and is simply based on the scientific description of the nature and extent of ecological harm humans produce. Our explanation takes a political economic turn when we describe how the structure of the global capitalist world system serves as the basis of human relations that produce the major forms of ecological destruction that characterize modern societies.

8 

M. J. Lynch et al.

The Chapters That Follow We begin our analysis of eco-justice in Chap. 2. In Chap. 2, we note that there is currently widespread ecological harm in the modern world. We then argue that this widespread ecological harm produces various forms of ecological injustice, or what we call eco-justice. Three main forms of eco-justice are of concern. First, how ecological harm produces ecological injustice for humans or what we call “human social and ecological justice” (HSEJ). Second are the forms of injustice nonhuman species experience which we call “nonhuman eco-justice” (NHEJ). Third are forms of injustice for the living world ecosystem, Gaia, or Gaia Justice (GJ). This chapter then explores the extent of current global ecological harm, focusing attention on two scientific measures: planetary boundaries and the ecological footprint. We explore the concept of eco-justice further in Chap. 3. Here we examine what we mean by eco-justice and the origins of our use of the term. That includes examining the concept of eco-justice relative to other political economic discussions of justice and in relation to ecological destruction. Here we explore the political economic grounding of eco-­ justice and its connection to planetary boundaries and the human ecological footprint measures described in Chap. 2. In Chap. 4, we take our political economic argument about eco-justice and apply that view to an analysis of our first dimension of eco-justice— human social and ecological justice or HSEJ. HSEJ is comprised of the forms of unequal environmental harms and ecological destruction that impact humans. Of particular interest here is the unequal distribution of HSEJ across nations in the capitalist world system and how the spread of the treadmill of production contributes to the geographic pattern of global HSEJ concerns. In Chap. 5, we examine nonhuman ecological justice (NHEJ) issues. Part of that examination describes how unsustainable ecological conditions generated by capitalism produce NHEJ outcomes. As a specific issue of concern, this chapter explores the problem of nonhuman species extinction during the Anthropocene period and the role capitalism plays in driving that pattern of extinction.

1  Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy 

9

Chapter 6 is an application of our political economic approach to eco-­ justice to the forms of injustice humans commit against the living world system, Gaia. Here we endeavor to eclipse traditional concepts of justice and ecological justice by making Gaia, Gaia’s “primacy,” Gaia’s reproductive behavior and Gaia’s life-generating productive behavior the focus of the analysis. We focus on how human behaviors that generate ecological destruction limit Gaia’s reproductive mechanisms and produce eco-­ injustice not only for the species of the world, but for Gaia itself as a living organism. In Chap. 7 we examine a specific and what we believe is a unique view of eco-justice drawing on the work of ecological Marxists, and in particular the various works of John Bellamy Foster on the concept of metabolic rift. Following Foster’s model on the origins of metabolic rift theory in the work of Marx, this chapter explores how capitalism generates a metabolic rift or a prolonged ecological crisis that cannot be solved under capitalism. The metabolic rift is the disjunction between humans and nature that emerges with and is extended by the capitalist mode of production that promotes the destruction of nature by humans in a variety of ways through the extraction and redistribution of ecological metabolic materials. In Chap. 8 we apply the concept of eco-justice and political economic analysis to agriculture and food issues. We outline the political economy of food and agriculture focusing on the concept of food regimes and then demonstrate how the industrialization and transnational organization of agricultural production has shifted the production of food away from its use value (i.e., feeding hungry people) and how production focuses predominately on its exchange value (i.e., production of commodities to generate profit and facilitate accumulation). We conclude the chapter by discussing how the political economy of food and agriculture produces HSEJ, NHEJ and Gaia eco-justice concerns. Chapter 9 is the conclusion where we summarize our overall argument. That is, we discuss our political economic approach to eco-justice and note how the capitalist system of production necessarily produces eco-injustices for humans, nonhuman species and the entire world ecosystem, Gaia.

10 

M. J. Lynch et al.

 ature “Versus” Humans or a Nature-Human N Dialectic? The discussions of eco-justice undertaken in this work from a political economic perspective are not designed as a critique of any of the particular theories or approaches green criminologists have offered concerning their vision of green justice. Rather, this work constitutes our effort to illustrate the use of a political economic analysis of eco-justice issues. In taking up this view, we recognize that our political economic approach to green/eco-justice concerns and green criminology more generally does not place us squarely within the mainstream of green criminological thought related to green justice. Our political economic approach to green criminology is but one variety of green criminology, one that is aligned with radical criminology and the views of ecological Marxists, and offers a materialist view of the world that some may reject (Lynch 1990; Stretesky et al. 2013a). In taking up that view, it is also our goal to combine political economic analysis of eco-justice and scientific studies of ecological harm together and use them in an integrated fashion to discuss the extent and scope of green crime, and to explore how the extent and scope of green crime impacts eco-justice. In doing so we also attempt to contribute to Marx’s proposition that political economic analysis had an important scientific dimension, and one that is relevant, as John Bellamy Foster has illustrated, to the analysis of ecological problems. Notably, this position was also developed by Engels in his book, The Dialectics of Nature, which illustrated that humans and human history exist within and sometimes in opposition to the history and structure of nature. The dialectical view of the relationship between nature and humans is comprised of the relationship between humans as organisms that depend on nature for their existence, and the transformation of nature into commodities in ways that impede human existence. With respect to the concept of eco-justice, part of that dialectic is the contradiction between human concepts of justice, derived for the maintenance of human social and economic organization, and ecologically situated or natural systems of justice that flow from the organization and maintenance of the natural world. In relation to that human-nature justice

1  Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy 

11

­ ialectic, the concept of eco-justice becomes one of the “solutions” to the d contradiction between human and natural conceptualizations of the intersection of justice with the organization of nature, on the one hand, and the organization of human societies on the other hand, and the meaning of justice within each of those organizational or structural frames of reference. Outside of green criminology—within the mainstream of criminology—researchers have failed, quite miserably one could argue, to pose any concept of justice that is useful for exploring the idea of ecological justice. In this sense, the only form of justice that exists in orthodox criminology is the extraordinarily narrow, anthropogenic concept of criminal justice or legal justice, and the various types of legal justice, such as procedural justice that relates to humans and humans alone and in the structural context of human social and economic organization separated from the human-nature intersection. It is not our intent to make any reference whatsoever to this traditional criminal justice view except in a few places where it is necessary to do so to lay out a critique of those approaches in relation to the analysis of ecological justice. Traditional criminological concepts of justice are all limited by the first assumption all criminal justice theories of justice make. That assumption is that all forms of justice have something to do with the derivation and application of some theory or perspective on justice for humans and humans alone (one can say, that even the laws that exist which protect nature are often about human interests). The most extreme example of this human or anthropocentric focus on justice is found in the criminal law and the rights (humans)—particularly property rights—that the criminal law recognizes and protects. In the text of the criminal law, however, one is hard pressed to find any mention of a specific theory of justice, and when such a theory is present, it revolves entirely around a human conceptualization of justice as that concept emerges from the application of law by and to humans. What does the criminal law make of the concept of ecological rights? In general, within the criminal law or, for that matter, almost any form of law humans have created (although one may find an exception here and there, such as rivers, see, Cano-Pecharromman 2018; Kalantzakos 2017; O’Donnell 2018—which includes recognizing the rights of indigenous

12 

M. J. Lynch et al.

peoples), there is no such thing as an ecological right that is not, in the first instance, defined by some assumed association between humans and nature in which humans are the point of reference. While we could select any number of legal analyses as the basis for illustrating our point, let us focus on Taylor (1997), who in the late 1990s wrote an important argument about the extension of ecological rights to international law, and what those rights entail. To begin, Taylor (1998: 309) noted in her analysis of environmental rights using international environmental law as an example that “international environmental law … attempt[s] to create links between the ethics debate and law reform. These debates began with the recognition that philosophical discussions concerning the relationship between humanity and nature and the moral worth of nature … were fundamental to creating new legal obligations.” Similar observations are offered by other legal analysts (for discussion see, Hiskes 2005). This legal view of the intersection of human rights and nature is neither unique nor unusual and sufficiently represents the general legal view of “environmental rights” in law as constructed by the legal apparatus of society and its academic supporters. Thus, the question is not whether Taylor adequately represents the legal view of ecological rights or environmental rights, but rather what that view actually entails and the ways in which that legal view contains serious constraints. In defining the term “ecological rights,” Taylor notes (pp. 309–310) that the definition of ecological rights is used in the law to refer to human rights and how those human rights are constrained. With respect to our critique of the legal, criminological and criminal justice view of ecological rights, this summary is sufficient to illustrate our primary point—that these approaches fail to appreciate a concept of ecological rights that lies beyond some reference to humans alone, and which in doing so ignores the nature-human dialectic. Without being able to move beyond this limitation, all such views exhibit an anthropocentric orientation. In terms of historical development, the ecosystem existed before humans, and without certain environmental conditions emerging and prevailing in the ecosystem, humans would not have emerged. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. To become habitable by nonecological life forms, Earth’s geochemistry first had to become stable and conditions for

1  Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy 

13

­ abitability established (Lammer et al. 2009). Historically, the first sinh gle-cell creatures emerged about 3.6  billion years ago; photosynthesisenabled creatures emerged 3.4 billion years ago; complex cell-structured creatures emerged about 2  billion years ago; multi-cellular life about 1 billion years ago; simple animals about 600 million years ago; fish about 500 million years ago; land plants, 450 million years ago; insects, 400 million years ago; mammals, 200 million years ago; birds, 150 million years ago; and primates 60 million years ago. Hominids or modern humans emerged about 2.3 million years ago. In this time line of multi-species history, humans have existed for only 0.05% of Earth’s history, or for 0.064% of the time since the first single-celled creatures emerged. With respect to historical priority relative to a habitable earth and in relation to other living species, we can say that humans have not been around for very long. Yet, human theories of justice related to ecological rights ignore this historical record and bestow on humans a “rights priority” in which the rights of the ecosystem and all other species are made subordinate to the rights of humans. This “human rights priority” position ignores the fact that humans could not exist in the first place unless conditions for their existence were manufactured by nature and nature’s economy, and by the other species of life that predated humans. In terms of the priority of relations of existence, humans are, in reality, subordinate to nature (and one could argue, to the other species that came first). But legal and criminological theories of justice see things the other way around by prioritizing human rights over environmental rights. In the modern era, a period now identified by scientists as the Anthropocene, humans cause extensive ecological damage, and in so doing are undermining the ability of nature to generate conditions conducive to the continuation of life on earth. The term Anthropocene was created by Eugene Stoermer to identify the period in earth’s history during which humans have created such a significant negative ecological impact that they are changing the course of earth’s history and challenging the ability of earth to reproduce the basic requirements for life on the planet (Steffen et al. 2011). Examined from the perspective of scientific research related to the Anthropocene and the effects of humans on earth’s reproductive capacity, one could question whether humans should, because of their negative ecological effect, be given any preference in

14 

M. J. Lynch et al.

regard to identifying ecological rights. Legal and criminological analysis of the concept of ecological rights, however, does just that. In order to more fully appreciate the concept of eco-justice or ecological rights, it is first necessary to do away with the anthropogenic concept of ecological rights promoted by legal and criminological approaches to the concept of rights. In our alternative view, humans have no more right to resources or to consume the resources of the ecosystem than any other species or the earth itself. Indeed, in terms of historical priority, the rights of all other species come first, and those rights are superseded by the ecosystem’s priority over species’ rights as the “giver of life.” Without appropriate ecosystem quality, no other living things would exist, and without the existence of those other living things, humans would not exist. From an eco-justice view, therefore, one would say that humans have no more and perhaps fewer ecological rights than any other species. The only reason law preferences human rights over ecological rights is that the law is a human construction designed to promote human systems of relations. The human domination established in the law is, importantly, a political economic force, one which justifies human property relations but in particular the property relations associated with capitalism (Commons 1924). Viewed from that political economic vantage point, we can say that legal and criminological theories of justice will tend to privilege “human rights” over other rights, misinterpret the relations between humans and nature, and ignore the priority the ecosystem should be given in the examination of the concept of environmental rights.

Toward Conceptualizing Eco-justice Given the above, one of the rationales for employing the term eco-justice is to differentiate our view from the traditional legal and criminological views in which the term environmental and ecological rights is more prevalent. We must recognize, however, that our choice of the term eco-­ justice is not without its limitations, and this term has been employed in relevant literature describing the concept of ecological rights, civil liberties related to ecological justice, environmental justice concerns,

1  Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy 

15

e­ mpowerment of people to protect their ecological rights, their access to resources and their rights to be free from exposure to toxic pollutants, and to religious views of environmental justice (see variously, Bowers 2001, 2002; Kearns 1996; Williams 2004 and Chap. 3). Thus, there is a need for us to define more precisely what we mean when we use the term eco-justice. While we explore this issue in greater detail in Chap. 2, it is necessary at this point to note that by eco-justice we mean: 1 . A particular view of ecological justice to be used for exploring 2. the political economic causes of ecological injustice that affects 3. humans, nonhuman species and local and global ecosystem arrangements, including the living earth system, Gaia, that 4. pays attention to ways in which the structural arrangement of the capitalist world system and the global and local treadmills of production generate harms that are 5. scientifically measureable and understandable. There are main subcomponents of such an analysis related to political economic exploration of eco-justice: the examination of human social and ecological justice (HSEJ), nonhuman eco-justice (NHEJ) issues and forms of ecological justice related to the ability of earth’s living system to reproduce the conditions for the existence of species, or what we call Gaia Justice (GJ). Elaborations of these positions are found in the chapters that follow.

References Barrett, Kimberly L., Michael J. Lynch, Michael A. Long, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2018. Do Fines Deter? Monetary Penalties and Compliance with Environmental Laws. American Journal of Criminal Justice 43 (3): 530–550. Barrett, Kimberly L., Michael J.  Lynch, and Paul B.  Stretesky. 2016. Green Criminology and the Reconceptualization of School Violence: Comparing Green School Violence and Traditional Forms of School Violence for School Children. Critical Criminology 24 (1): 19–37. Beirne, Piers. 1999. For a Nonspeciesist Criminology: Animal Abuse as an Object of Study. Criminology 37 (1): 117–148.

16 

M. J. Lynch et al.

———. 2002. Criminology and Animal Studies: A Sociological View. Society and Animals 10 (4): 381–386. ———. 2007. Animal Rights, animal abuse and green criminology. In Issues in Green Criminology, ed. P. Beirne and N. South, 55–86. Devon, UK: Willan. ———. 2009. Confronting Animal Abuse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Benton, Ted. 1998. Rights and Justice on a Shared Planet. Theoretical Criminology 2 (2): 149–175. Bowers, Chet A. 2001. Educating for Eco-justice and Community. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. ———. 2002. Toward an Eco-justice Pedagogy. Environmental Education Research 8 (1): 21–34. Cano Pecharroman, Lidia. 2018. Rights of Nature: Rivers That Can Stand in Court. Resources 7 (1): 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7010013. Catton, Wiliam R., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1978. Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm. The American Sociologist 13: 41–49. Cazaux, Geertrui. 1998. Legitimating the Entry of ‘The Animals Issue’ into (Critical) Criminology. Humanity & Society 22 (4): 365–385. ———. 1999. Beauty and the Beast: Animal Abuse from a Non-speciesist Criminological Perspective. Crime, Law and Social Change 31 (2): 105–125. Cochran, Josh, Michael J. Lynch, Elisa Toman, and Ryan Shields. 2018. Court Sentencing Patterns for Environmental Crimes: Is There a “Green” Gap? Journal of Quantitative Criminology 34 (1): 37–66. Commons, John R. 1924 [2007]. Legal Foundations of Capitalism. New York: Macmillan. Dunlap, Riley E. 1997. The Evolution of Environmental Sociology: A Brief History and Assessment of the American Experience. In The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, ed. M.  Redclift and G.  Woodgate’s, 21–39. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Goldman, Michael, and Rachel A. Schuman. 2000. Closing the ‘Great Divide’: New Social Theory on Nature and Society. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 563–584. Hiskes, Richard P. 2005. The Right to a Green Future: Human Rights, Environmentalism and Intergenerational Justice. Human Rights Quarterly 27: 1346–1354. Kalantzakos, Sophia. 2017. River Rights and the Rights of Rivers. RCC Perspectives 6: 45–52. Kearns, Laurel. 1996. Saving the Creation: Christian Environmentalism in the United States. Sociology of Religion 57 (1): 55–70. Kosmicki, Sarah, and Michael A.  Long. 2016. Exploring Environmental Inequality within US Communities Containing Coal and Nuclear Power

1  Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy 

17

Plants. In Hazardous Waste and Pollution: Detecting and Preventing Green Crimes, ed. T. Wyatt, 79–100. New York: Springer. Lammer, Helmut, J.H.  Bredehöft, A.  Coustenis, M.L.  Khodachenko, L.  Kaltenegger, O.  Grasset, D.  Prieuret, F.  Raulin, P.  Ehrenfreund, M. Yamauchi, J.E. Wahlund, J.M. Grebmeier, G. Stangl, C.S. Cockell, Yu N.  Kulikov, J.L.  Grenfell, and H.  Rauer. 2009. What Makes a Planet Habitable? The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 17 (2): 181–249. Long, Michael A., Michael J. Lynch, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2018. The Great Recession, the Treadmill of Production and Ecological Disorganization: Did the Recession Affect Ecological Disorganization Across US States, 2005– 2014? Ecological Economics 146: 184–192. Long, Michael A., Paul B. Stretesky, and Michael J. Lynch. 2014. The Treadmill of Production, Planetary Boundaries and Green Criminology. In Environmental Crime and Its Victims, ed. T. Sapiens, Rob White, and M. Kluin’s. Devon, UK: Ashgate. ———. 2017. Foreign Direct Investment, Ecological Withdrawals and Natural Resource Dependent Economies. Society & Natural Resources 30 (10): 1261–1276. Long, Michael A., Paul B. Stretesky, Michael J. Lynch, and Emily Fenwick. 2012. Crime in the Coal Industry: Implications for Green Criminology and Treadmill of Production Theory. Organization & Environment 25 (3): 299–316. Lynch, Michael J. 1990. The Greening of Criminology: A Perspective for the 1990s. The Critical Criminologist 2 (3): 3–4–11–12. ———. 2013. Reflecting on Green Criminology and Its Boundaries: Comparing Environmental and Criminal Victimization and Considering Crime from an Eco-City Perspective. In The Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology, ed. N. South and A. Brisman, 43–57. London: Routledge. ———. 2016a. Green Criminology and Social Justice: A Reexamination of the Lynemouth Plant Closing and the Political Economic Causes of Environmental and Social Injustice. Critical Sociology. 43 (3): 449–464. ———. 2016b. The Ecological Distribution of Community Advantage and Disadvantage: Power Structures, Political Economy, Communities, and Green-state Crime and Justice. Critical Criminology. 24 (2): 247–262. Lynch, Michael J., and Lyndsay N. Boggess. 2015. Ecocities, Crime and Justice: The Implication of Ecocity Theory for Social Disorganization Theory and Green Criminology. Sociological Spectrum 35: 309–328. ———. 2016. A Radical Grounding for Social Disorganization Theory: Investigating the Causes of Poverty and Inequality. Radical Criminology 6: 11–69.

18 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Lynch, Michael J., Ronald G. Burns, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2010. Global Warming as a State-Corporate Crime: The Politicalization of Global Warming During the Bush Administration. Crime, Law and Social Change 54 (3): 213–239. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, Kimberly L. Barrett, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2013. Is It a Crime to Produce Ecological Disorganization? Why Green Criminology and Political Economy Matter in the Analysis of Global Ecological Harms. British Journal of Criminology 55 (3): 997–1016. Lynch, Michael J., Mahesh K. Nalla, and Keith W. Miller. 1989. Cross Cultural Perceptions of Deviance: The Case of Bhopal. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (1): 7–35. Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B. Stretesky. 1998. Uniting Class and Race with Criticism Through the Study of Environmental Justice. The Critical Criminologist 1 (Fall): 4–7. ———. 1999. Clarifying the Analysis of Environmental Justice: Further Thoughts on the Critical Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues. The Critical Criminologist 9 (3): 5–8. ———. 2010. Global Warming, Global Crime: A Green Criminological Analysis. In Global Environmental Harm and the Greening of Criminology, ed. R. White, 62–86. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. ———. 2012a. A Proposal for a New Vehicle Based Carbon Tax: Vehicle Based Global Warming and Criminology. In Climate Change from a Criminological Perspective, ed. R. White’s. New York: Springer. ———. 2012b. Native Americans, Social and Environmental Justice: Implications for Criminology. Social Justice 38 (3): 34–54. ———. 2013. The Distribution of Water-Monitoring Organizations Across States: Implications for Community Policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 36 (1): 6–26. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky, and Ronald G. Burns. 2004a. Determinants of Environmental Law Violation Fines Against Oil Refineries: Race, Ethnicity, Income and Aggregation Effects. Society and Natural Resources. 17 (4): 333–347. ———. 2004b. Slippery Business: Race, Class and Legal Determinants of Penalties Against Petroleum Refineries. Journal of Black Studies 34 (3): 421–440. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky, and Paul Hammond. 2000. Media Coverage of Chemical Crimes: Hillsborough County, Florida, 1987–1997. British Journal of Criminology. 40 (1): 112–126.

1  Introduction: Green Theories of Justice and Political Economy 

19

Lynch, Michael J., Paul B.  Stretesky, and Michael A.  Long. 2018a. Green Criminology and Indigenous/Native Peoples: The Treadmill of Production and the Killing of Indigenous Environmental Activists. Theoretical Criminology 22 (3): 318–341. ———. 2018b. Blaming the Poor for Biodiversity Loss: Environmental Justice and the Study of Poaching and Wildlife Trafficking. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 25 (3): 263–275. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B.  Stretesky, and Danielle McGurrin. 2001. Toxic Crimes and Environmental Justice. In Controversies in White Collar Crime, ed. G. Potter’s. Cincinnati: Anderson. Nurse, Angus. 2016. Beyond the Property Debate: Animal Welfare as a Public Good. Contemporary Justice Review 19 (2): 174–187. O’Connor, James R. 1998. Natural causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: Guilford Press. Ruggiero, Vincenzo, and Nigel South. 2013. Green Criminology and Crimes of the Economy: Theory, Research and Praxis. Critical Criminology 21 (3): 359–373. Sollund, Ragnhild. 2011. Expressions of Speciesism: The Effects of Keeping Companion Animals on Animal Abuse, Animal Trafficking and Species Decline. Crime, Law and Social Change 55 (5): 437–451. Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeill. 2011. The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (1938): 842–867. Stretesky, Paul, Sheila Huss, and Michael J. Lynch. 2012. Density Dependence and Specialized Environmental Justice Organizations, 1970–2008. The Social Science Journal 49 (3): 343–351. Stretesky, Paul B., Shelia Huss, Michael J. Lynch, Sammy Zahran, and Bob Childs. 2011. The Founding of Environmental Justice Organizations Across US Counties During the 1990s and 2000s: Civil Rights and Environmental Movement Cross Effects. Social Problems 58 (3): 330–360. Stretesky, Paul B., Michael A. Long, and Michael J. Lynch. 2013a. The Treadmill of Crime: Political Economy and Green Criminology. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. ———. 2013b. Does Environmental Enforcement Slow the Treadmill of Production? The Relationship Between Large Monetary Penalties, Ecological Disorganization and Toxic Releases within Offending Corporations. Journal of Crime and Justice 36 (2): 235–249.

20 

M. J. Lynch et al.

———. 2017. Trends in the formation of Environmental Enforcement International Non-Governmental Organizations, 1950 to 2010. Globalizations 14 (4): 627–642. Stretesky, Paul B., and Michael J. Lynch. 1998. Corporate Environmental Violence and Racism. Crime, Law and Social Change 30 (2): 163–184. ———. 1999. Environmental Justice and the Prediction of Distance to Accidental Chemical Releases in Hillsborough County, Florida. Social Science Quarterly 80 (4): 830–846. ———. 2002. Environmental Hazards and School Segregation in Hillsborough, 1987–1999. The Sociological Quarterly 43 (4): 553–573. ———. 2009. A Cross-National Study of the Association Between Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Exports to the United States. Social Science Research 38: 239–250. ———. 2011. Coal Strip Mining, Mountain Top Removal and the Distribution of Environmental Violations Across the United States, 2002–2008. Landscape Research 36 (2): 209–230. Stretesky, Paul B., Michael J. Lynch, Michael A. Long and Kimberly L. Barrett. 2017. Does the Modernization of Environmental Enforcement Reduce Toxic Releases? An Examination of Self-policing, Criminal Prosecutions and Toxic Releases in the United States, 1988–2012. Sociological Spectrum 37 (1): 48–62. Stretesky, Paul B., Ruth E.  McKie, Michael J.  Lynch, Michael A.  Long, and Kimberly L. Barrett. 2018. Where Have All the Falcons Gone? Saker Falcon (falco cherrug) Exports in a Global Economy. Global Ecology and Conservation 13: e00372. Taylor, Prudence. 1997. From Environmental to Ecological Human Rights: A New Dynamic in International Law. Georgetown International Law Review 10: 309–397. Walters, Reece. 2010. Crime, Political Economy and Genetically Modified Food. Oxford: Routledge. White, Rob. 2013. Environmental Harm: An Eco-Justice Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press.

2 Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice

Ecological decline is an important contemporary issue on several different levels of analysis. In the biology and ecology literatures, ecological decline has extraordinary importance when it comes to ecosystem health. The more ecosystems are stressed, the less capable those systems become of supporting themselves and other forms of life. Moreover, as ecosystem stress increases, the ecosystem changes and natural resource adequacy issues emerge. As a result, various species begin to experience the effects of ecological decline on their health and well-being. This can, as scientific studies have illustrated, lead to increasing rates of species extinction as the rapid pace of ecological decline causes a larger and larger number of species to experience a disjunction between their existence requirements and the material structure of local ecosystem changes (see Chap. 5). Animal and plant species cannot easily adapt to the various ecological changes occurring in the world due to their lack of geographic mobility, which may be one of the factors contributing to the accelerated rates of species extinction scientists have discovered in the modern era (e.g., Zalasiewicz et al. 2010; Steffen et al. 2007; Steffen et al. 2011; Stork 2010). These accelerated rates of extinction demonstrate that ecological changes produced by human activity (e.g., anthropogenic climate change) are © The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9_2

21

22 

M. J. Lynch et al.

c­ hanging the world so dramatically and quickly that species do not have the necessary time to develop adaptive coping mechanisms that might normally occur if such changes occurred slowly and allowed species to evolve in “normal” ways over long periods of time. For social scientists, among them green criminologists, ecological decline is important in other ways as well. The rapid forms of ecological decline experienced globally during the twentieth and the twenty-first centuries have important justice implications for humans in terms of its social and economic justice impacts (or HSEJ). Those same conditions also have important implications for nonhuman species (which we call nonhuman eco-justice, or NHEJ) as well as ecological justice impacts on earth’s living system, Gaia (or what we call Gaia Justice or GJ). Taken together, these three forms of distributive justice (HSEJ, NHEJ and GJ) combine to form what we refer to eco-justice and its dimensions. Green criminology has yet to explore these various dimension of eco-justice and how ecological decline impacts eco-justice across living things. The purpose of this chapter, therefore, is to examine the general issue of the connection between eco-justice and ecological decline, and to illustrate how ecological decline translates into increased levels of ecological injustice experienced across living things in different ways. In undertaking an analysis of these general political economic approaches even in this work, we admit to having omitted an important topic that requires further elaboration, and which we have yet to fully complete assessing, and which we have addressed in various forms in works beginning around 2012. That topic concerns what we call the form of eco-(in)justice that impacts the lives of indigenous/native peoples (INP) throughout the world (Lynch et  al. 2018; Lynch and Stretesky 2012, 2013; see also, Crook et  al. 2018; Gutierrez-Gomez 2017; Mol 2017; Moloney an Chambliss 2014; Rojas-Paez 2017; Tooney 2012). In political economic terms, INP have suffered from the global expansion of capitalism since its inception (Crook and Short 2014), and we believe it is useful to draw on this style of political economic thinking to further understand the forms of green crime and injustice, including the killings of indigenous environmental activists, that have affected INP across the planet. As, for instance, Crook and Short note, INP have suffered from a combined form of genocide-ecocide since the emergence of capitalism in

2  Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice 

23

the 1500s. In our developing view of this problem, INP ecocide-genocide has been influenced not only by the expansion of capitalism, but since the mid-twentieth century, by the expansion of the global treadmill of production, and its efforts to locate and exploit resources in less developed nations to supply the consumption habits of those in developed nations, and to promote continued expansion of the profit goals of capitalism. We are not the first to recognize this connection, and Crook and Short (2014: 299) have specifically argued that the political economy of capitalism, as it plays out historically, generates “ecologically induced genocide” (see also, Hall and Fenelon 2015). We have omitted a specific discussion of the political economic explanation to INP ecocide-­genocide/ eco-(in)justice, which is, in our view, a developing approach and requires a more specific and detailed elaboration than we have previously outlined and are still developing (Lynch, Stretesky and Long 2018). Thus, while we recognize this as an important issue, and as one to which political economic explanations can be applied, in the present work rather than repeat the argument we have already recently made, we have excluded this subject because we are simply not prepared at this point to take that argument further. Overall, our goal here is to demonstrate the ways in which ecological decline and eco-justice are connected. But, more than that our goal is to examine how ecological decline in the contemporary era is produced by capitalism, and therefore as a consequence of how the forms of eco-justice and injustice (which we generally refer to simply as eco-justice) that are found in the modern world have structural origins in the capitalist world economic system. We have reached this conclusion through, first, an examination of the scientific literature on ecological decline and, second, by attaching that scientific literature to well-argued political economic explanations for ecological decline found in the ecological Marxist literature. This political economic view of the relationship between capitalism, ecological decline and disorganization and eco-justice and injustice will emerge through various applications of this approach in the chapters that follow. To illustrate that point, we divide our discussion of these issues into separate chapters. In the current chapter, we examine the general extent of ecological decline in reference to planetary boundaries and the

24 

M. J. Lynch et al.

e­cological footprint and their specific effects on one dimension on HSEJ. In the chapters that follow, we first address the effects of ecosystem decline for humans with respect to human social and ecological justice concerns (HSEJ). In subsequent chapters we take up those issues for nonhuman animals and the living earth system, Gaia, respectively. To begin that analysis, we turn first to indicators of ecological decline to establish that negative ecological states are now faced by both the global and local ecosystems.

Indicators of Ecological Decline The decline of ecosystem health and stability has, as noted in the introduction, widespread justice implications for humans, nonhuman animals and for the living ecosystem itself, Gaia. As ecological health declines, so too does human, nonhuman animal and Gaia’s health and stability. The role humans play in creating unhealthy ecological conditions drives a broad array of injustices and inequalities—not only those that can be classified as ecological, but also those that are defined as social and economic (though one could argue that the emergence of social and economic injustice would not, in many cases, appear without the emergence of ecological injustice). Before we can examine those concerns in greater detail, it is first necessary to establish that ecosystem decline exists. In order to establish that ecosystem decline is occurring, we examine the concepts of planetary boundaries and the human ecological footprint. We believe that these two concepts provide empirical evidence of the threat posed by ecological decline.

Planetary Boundaries We base our discussion of the parameters of ecological decline on two different but related indicators of ecological decline: planetary boundaries and the human ecological footprint. To begin that analysis, we draw attention first to the planetary boundaries as a measure of the ways in which humans force, cause or produce ecological destruction.

2  Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice 

25

Rockstrom et al.’s (2009a; see also Rockstrom et al. 2009b) analysis of the nine planetary boundaries identifies scientific standards related to identifying the threshold of ecological sustainability or the point at which various segments of the global and local ecosystem enter a state of decline that threatens ecological sustainability. This is an important scientific paper which, when this chapter was revised (April, 2018), has been cited nearly 6200 times since its publication in 2009. Based on prior research, Rockstrom et al. begin their analysis by suggesting that anthropogenic forces have changed the world ecosystem so significantly that we are now in an era of ecological history where abrupt environmental changes have become possible as we reach and cross planetary boundaries or ecological thresholds. This possibility of crossing ecological boundaries and threatening ecological stability increases as ecological conditions deteriorate further pushing the earth’s global ecosystem closer to the point of collapse or toward thresholds where the earth system can no longer sustain life in the ways that it once had. While this historically linked statement concerning earth’s life support capacity could be interpreted in different ways, we link this long period of favorable life-supporting ecological conditions to the emergence of several trends in the life course of species. At a minimum, this period of ecological stability can be traced back 275 million years ago to the emergence of mammals. Other species, however, display evidence of stability for much longer periods of time. Fish, for example, appeared about 500  million years ago, and simple, multi-celled life forms appeared about 1 billion years ago. The point is that without the influence of humans and the rapid ecological deterioration they have generated since the industrial revolution, earth’s life support system has been rather stable over millions of years (for discussion, see Lovelock 2006) and the forms of ecological instability currently emerging are due to the influence that humans have on the ecosystem. We shall return to this issue later in this book to describe how capitalism drives the forms of ecological instability and destruction that have occurred since at least the industrial era. The planetary boundaries model identifies nine key ecological conditions related to the stability of the global ecosystem or the living ecosystem, Gaia. Rockstrom et al. (2009a: 32) state that “[t]ransgressing one or more planetary boundaries may be deleterious or even catastrophic due

26 

M. J. Lynch et al.

to the risk of crossing thresholds that will trigger non-linear, abrupt environmental change within continental- to planetary-scale systems.” The majority of the nine ecological thresholds they identify have specific scientifically derived indicators, meaning that this definition of ecological harm identifies the upper limit of ecological destruction scientifically and, we would argue, can be employed to specify the empirical dimensions of damage that lead to growing injustice for humans, nonhuman animals and the ecosystem. We briefly review these nine planetary boundaries below to supply background material on the measures and the consequences of crossing particular planetary boundaries.

The Planetary Boundaries, Measures and Effects Carbon Dioxide Concentration and Radiative Forcing Scientists have determined that the sustainable level of atmospheric carbon dioxide is below 350 parts per million (Hansen et al. 2008; Azhar and Rodhe 1997). The current carbon dioxide level, 408.55 ppm (as of September 2019; highest recorded level was 414, in May, 2019) is already in excess of the suggested atmospheric carbon dioxide planetary boundary. Thus, this planetary boundary measure has already been crossed and could be creating non-linear disruptive ecologically destructive effects (Ackerly and Bazzaz 1995; Rial et al. 2004; Schienker and Roberts 2009; Schneider 2004). Radiative forcing provides an alternative measure to the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration measure. Radiative forcing measures the difference between the heat energy that comes into and is absorbed by the atmosphere from the sun (called insolation), and the reflection of heat energy back into space measured in watts per square meter (W/m2) of earth’s surface, controlling for other factors. If the reflected energy is greater than the incoming energy, cooling is occurring, while greater incoming than outgoing energy or positive forcing causes warming. The difference between a radiative forcing measure and an atmospheric carbon dioxide measure is that the measure of radiative forcing includes the effects of non-carbon dioxide contributors to negative ecological conditions, namely methane, chlorofluorocarbons,

2  Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice 

27

nitrous oxide, atmospheric water vapor and tropospheric ozone (in addition to other pollutants, see Blasing 2014). According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the measure of radiative forcing is 1.6 W/m2. Rockstrom et al. suggest that the planet can sustain a + 1.5 W/m2 level of radiative forcing. This measure suggests that the radiative forcing boundary has already been crossed.

Ocean Acidification Increased ocean acidification impacts the ability of ocean species to survive and hence is an extremely important indicator of one of the core planetary boundaries. Moreover, the ocean is an important carbon sink, and it has been estimated that about 25% of human-produced CO2 since the industrial era has been absorbed in the world’s oceans (Feeley et al. 2009). The more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more is available to be absorbed by oceans. In terms of effects, in the ocean, dissolved carbon dioxide increases seawater acidity by forming carbonic acid (H2CO3; Orr et al. 2005). Carbonic acid, in turn, undergoes a further chemical reaction creating freed H+ ions, causing a decrease in pH as well as a decline in available carbonate ions (Feeley et  al. 2009). The decline in carbonate ions limits the ability of certain ocean species (e.g., shelled species) to survive. The Southern Oceans are particularly vulnerable to the consequences of ocean acidification (Orr et al. 2005). Ocean acidification, as noted, can have a significant deleterious impact on the development and survival of shelled sea-life, coral reefs and coral reef communities (i.e., coral bleaching), and hence on the chain of ocean life. One indicator of acidification is the availability of aragonite (calcium carbonate) in ocean waters. The preindustrial level of aragonite was 3.44 (omega, Ω, units), which has declined to 2.9, indicating the decreased availability of aragonite, which consequently limits the growth of coral reef systems (Hoegh-­Guldberg et al. 2007). Rockstrom et al. suggest that the aragonite planetary boundary mean should be set at 80% or more of its preindustrial level (or to about 2.75 Ω). Evidence suggests aragonite availability will decline to 2.29 by 2050, which following Rockstrom et  al. is an ­indicator of an ecologically unsustainable condition for ecological reproduction in oceans.

28 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Stratospheric Ozone Depletion Stratospheric ozone plays an important role in filtering ultraviolet radiation from sunlight. As Rockstrom et al. note, significant human efforts to reduce chemical emissions that have deleterious stratospheric ozone impacts are having positive impacts on slowing the erosion of stratospheric ozone. Consequently, this is one of the planetary boundaries that humans appear to have significantly protected through global environmental policy programs. Nevertheless, Rockstrom et al. set the boundary value for stratospheric ozone as 275 Dobson units, which is below its current value of 283 Dobson units (one Dobson unit equals a layer of pure ozone 0.01 mm thick at standard temperature and pressure or 0 °C and 760 millimeters pressure on a mercury scale).

Biogeochemical Availability Rockstrom et al.’s discussion of biogeochemical availability focuses attention on two issues: the disruption of natural nitrogen and phosphorus cycles. Phosphorus and nitrogen cycles are disrupted both locally and globally due to excessive use of fertilizers. As the authors note, phosphorus and nitrogen pollution disrupt fresh and salt water system nutrient cycles and can be magnified in the presence of other forms of human ecosystem disruption (e.g., over-fishing, soil erosion and wetland disturbance), producing an additive, non-linear impact. Excessive availability of nitrogen and phosphorous can cause algae blooms and decrease water oxygen content (the combination of increased nutrients and decreased water oxygen content is called eutrophication), and these outcomes produce conditions that adversely impact waterway health and waterway species. Rockstrom et al. note that the nitrogen boundary is 35 million tons/year, while the current measure of nitrogen is 121 million tons, or 3.45 times the boundary. The excessive emission of phosphorus into waterways is likely responsible for mass fish and other marine species kills from depleted water oxygen content (referred to as an anoxic event related to eutrophication; for discussions see: Carpenter 2005; Smith et  al. 1999). Prior research indicates that phosphorus emissions 20% in excess

2  Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice 

29

of natural background rates can produce anoxic events. Due to uncertainties in the prediction of the effects of phosphorus in waterways and oceans, Rockstrom et al. set a conservative value for phosphorus emissions of 11  million tons per year, which is about one-half the level of global production (Liu et al. 2008).

Biodiversity Loss Biodiversity loss is both a consequence of global ecosystem decline, and a contributing factor to global ecological decline. Species have important ecosystem niches, and declining species diversity can cause an ecological ripple effect that leads to the extinction of other interdependent species. Current biodiversity loss is extensive and has led scientists to label the current period of extinction “the sixth wave of extinction” and the “Anthropocene” (Steffen et al. 2007; Steffen et al. 2011). As Rockstrom et al. note “[a]ccelerated species loss is increasingly likely to compromise the biotic capacity of ecosystems to sustain their current functioning under novel environmental and biotic circumstances” (p. 37). The current rate of extinction is estimated to be between 100 and 1000 times the background extinction rate (which is between 0.1 and 1 extinction per million species years). Rockstrom et  al. suggest that an extinction rate greater than 10 times the background rate (i.e., 10 species a year per million species) defines this planetary boundary.

Global Freshwater Use The availability of freshwater is an extremely important planetary boundary. Humans provide the most significant stress on freshwater systems. Freshwater availability is linked to other planetary boundaries and has multiple effects on ecosystem sustainability (Rockstrom et  al. 2009b). The two major forms of freshwater use of concern to ecosystem sustainability are blue water (surface groundwater) and green water (water stored in soil). Because blue water affects green water availability, the measure of water sustainability is calculated by Rockstrom et  al. relative to blue

30 

M. J. Lynch et al.

water. Rockstrom et al. estimate that 4000 cubic meters of blue water use annually is the sustainability limit for use. Current blue water use is 2700 cubic meters annually.

Land Use Change The conversion of forests, wetlands and other natural ecosystems to human uses such as cropland, housing, urban and industrial development and so forth plays a significant role in ecological stability and sustainability. Current rates of conversion of ecosystems to human use are already near unsustainable levels. Rockstrom et  al. estimate that about 12% of ice-free land is under agricultural development, and that such development should not exceed 15% of ice-free land.

Atmospheric Aerosol Loading Atmospheric aerosol concentrations including chemical pollutants have doubled since the industrial era. In addition to their ecological impacts, these chemical pollutants also have negative human health effects (e.g., heart and lung disease, cancer and deaths; Lighty et al. 2000; Pope and Dockery 2006; Valavanidis et  al. 2008). The adverse effects of atmospheric aerosol loading also include crop damage (Yang et al. 2013), negative impacts on forest health and water cycles (Andraea 2007), and loss of fresh water fish stock (Rockstrom et  al. 2009a, 2009b). Given the complex nature of atmospheric aerosols’ effects on the ecosystem and human health, it is not yet possible to identify their planetary boundary marker.

Pollutants Pollution is a significant cause of ecological decline. The primary pollutants of concern are radioactive, heavy metal and organic compounds, all of which have significant health impacts (Rockstrom et al. 2009a, 2009b). But, beyond the few major pollutants identified by Rockstrom et al., it is

2  Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice 

31

also well known that other pollutants (e.g., particle matter 2.5 [PM 2.5]; ground-level ozone; nitrogen oxides; sulfur oxides) also have significant health effects on human and nonhuman species, and these are widely regulated in environmental laws. Pollutants have numerous planetary boundary feedback/interaction effects such as altering climate change, impacting species health (Haines et al. 2006; Martin et al. 2010), forest decline (Paoletti et  al. 2010), biodiversity loss (Cohen et  al. 1993; McNeely 1992) and increasing vulnerability to climate change including changes in chemical toxicity effects (Kim et al. 2010; Noyes et al. 2009). Because of the ubiquitous nature of pollution, the large number of chemical pollutants that exist and the fact that the effects of numerous pollutants on ecological and human health have not been scientifically assessed, a general planetary boundary for pollution cannot be estimated.

Summing Up Rockstrom et al. Above we have summarized Rockstrom et  al.’s scientific approach to quantifying planetary boundaries. This approach creates a complex series of scientific measures addressing various dimensions of ecological health and its impacts on ecological sustainability. Given that our objective is to address ecological justice concerns, this type of layered approach allows for the creation of a complex analysis of eco-justice. At the same time, we recognize that the kind of complex model that would result is unnecessary for establishing that ecological injustice exists with respect to specific measures of any given dimension of ecological decline. While the forms of ecological harm that impact ecological sustainability and eco-justice have various dimensions, we appreciate that a more parsimonious model of eco-justice can be constructed. It is not necessary to create an eco-­ justice model that addresses each dimension of the planetary boundary model except in cases where any specific boundary has regional as opposed to global impacts. Moreover, while some of these planetary boundaries may indeed have differential regional impacts currently, it is the more general form of injustice rather than its specific manifestations and variability that requires attention. Toward that end, we review a second measure of ecological harm that is of a more general variety and which by its

32 

M. J. Lynch et al.

nature produces an aggregate indicator of ecological harm useful for discussing ecological justice concerns but which, at the same time, can be used to examine variability in negative ecological decline across geographic regions. That indicator of ecological decline is the human ecological footprint.

The Human Ecological Footprint The human ecological footprint is a measure of ecological sustainability that focuses on human consumption of ecological resources. In contrast to the nine planetary boundary measures, the human ecological footprint’s parts can be summed together to produce a general measure of ecological sustainability and harm. The human ecological footprint is calculated on an easily understandable scale. When the footprint is 1.0 or less, it indicates that human societies are consuming ecological resources at a sustainable rate. When the footprint exceeds 1.0, it indicates that human consumption is greater than the reproductive abilities of nature and that the additional portion of human consumption above 1.0 is a form of consumption that is eating into nature’s raw material reserves and liquidating natural assets (e.g., see, Wackernagel et al. 2006; Lynch et al. 2017). Currently, the human ecological footprint is 1.8, meaning that humans consume 1.8  years of nature annually. This exceeds nature’s reproductive ability by 0.8 years and hence consumes nature’s ecological reserve (for further discussion of the ecological reserve and its consumption, see Lynch et al. 2017). When the ecological footprint is in excess of 1.0, and human ecological use is consuming nature’s ecological reserve, serious ecological decline exists and challenges the ability of nature to replace consumed ecological matter. That reserve is the material nature employs to create the conditions for life on the planet. The longer human consumption exceeds 1.0, the greater the likelihood that ecosystem reproduction collapses. Examples of the estimate of the global ecological footprint from the Global Footprint Network (www.footprintnetwork.org) are illustrated in Table 2.1. Whenever the human ecological footprint is in excess of 1.0, ecological decline occurs. That ecological decline is experienced by all species and by

a

0.15 0.16 0.19 0.20 0.21 0.24 0.26 0.26 0.27 0.28 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.18

0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.06 0.02

0.14 0.15 0.15 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.17 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.03

0.08 0.09 0.09 0.10 0.10 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.09 0.00

0.73 0.84 1.01 1.10 1.19 1.19 1.29 1.32 1.33 1.37 1.54 1.66 1.69 0.95

Source: Global Footprint Network National Footprint Accounts, 2018 Edition Downloaded 21 April 2018 from http://data. footprintnetwork.org

0.32 0.40 0.53 0.59 0.66 0.62 0.69 0.73 0.74 0.76 0.90 1.02 1.01 0.69

3.1 3.3 3.7 4.1 4.4 4.8 5.3 5.7 6.1 6.5 6.7 6.9 7.2 4.1

1961 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1996 2000 2005 2010 2014 Change

0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.03

Population Built-up land Carbon Cropland Fishing grounds Forest products Grazing land Total earths

Year

Table 2.1  Table showing the number of earths it takes to support humanity, 1961–2014a 2  Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice 

33

34 

M. J. Lynch et al.

the living earth system, Gaia. Like the planetary boundary measures, the human ecological footprint is generally presented as a global measure. But, the human ecological footprint may also be calculated regionally, in which case it has the ability to provide an empirical indicator of the scale of over-consumption by region or by any given nation, and can even be assessed at smaller levels of aggregation (e.g., regions, cities, Rees and Wackernagel 2008). In that form, the ecological footprint can identify nations, regions, cities and so on that over-consume. When a nation, a group of nations or other ecological units over-­ consume, it must, by definition, be over-consuming natural resources, since nature, as we shall discuss in a later chapter, provides the resources that make up consumables. Over-consumption causes not only negative ecological impacts, but because of the way in which contemporary production and consumption occur in the global world capitalist system, it also generates unequal deleterious ecological impacts through ecological withdrawals that target differentially dispersed, ecological-rich resource areas. Thus, national and regional footprint measures are useful for identifying locations that generate ecological injustice through over-­ consumption. In Table 2.2, we present examples of some of the nations with the largest and smallest ecological footprints from data provided by the Global Footprint Network. The limitation of the human ecological footprint is that this measure of ecological destruction does not fully include the impact of pollution on ecological sustainability except with respect to an estimate of the ecosystem’s ability to absorb a given quantity of waste—that is, the footprint does not measure whether pollution causes ecological harm. Thus, unlike the planetary boundary measures, the human ecological footprint does not capture the ways in which pollution can disrupt the ecosystem’s balance with respect to certain dimensions of the life support function of the ecological system. Furthermore, neither measure assesses whether exposure to pollution generates disease. The importance of both the human ecological footprint and planetary boundary measures with respect to ecological and social justice concerns should not be overlooked. Employing these measures, it is evident that current levels of human consumption are ecologically unsustainable (Wackernagel et al. 2006; Wackernagel and Rees 1997). With respect to

2  Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice 

35

Table 2.2  Ecological footprints and reserves/deficits for select nations, 2010, in global hectares per capita United Arab Emirates Netherlands South Korea United States Japan Italy Spain United Kingdom Denmark Germany France Norway Venezuela Afghanistan Russia Sweden Argentina Brazil Finland Australia Canada

Footprint

Reserve(+)/deficit(−)

10.68 6.19 5.34 8.00 4.73 4.99 5.42 4.89 8.26 5.08 5.01 5.56 2.89 0.62 4.41 5.86 2.60 2.91 6.16 6.84 7.01

− 9.83 − 5.16 − 4.54 − 4.13 − 4.13 − 3.85 − 3.81 − 3.55 − 3.41 − 3.16 − 2.01 − 0.08 − 0.08 − 0.08 + 1.34 + 3.87 + 4.90 + 6.07 + 6.30 + 7.87 + 7.91

green criminology, these unsustainable human consumption behaviors have various eco-justice costs that have not been widely explored. We examine these eco-justice issues in the chapters that follow.

References Ackerly, D.D., and F.A. Bazzaz. 1995. Plant Growth and Reproduction Along CO2 Gradients: Non-linear Responses and Implications for Community Change. Global Change Biology 1 (3): 199–207. Andraea, Meinrat O. 2007. Atmospheric Aerosols Versus Green House Gases in the 21st Century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Part A 365 (1856): 1915–1923. Azar, Christian, and Henning Rodhe. 1997. Targets for Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2. Science 276 (5320): 1818–1819.

36 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Blasing, T.J. 2014. Recent greenhouse gas concentrations. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html. Accessed 15 April 2014. Carpenter, Stephen R. 2005. Eutrophication of Aquatic Ecosystems: Biostability and Soil Phosphorus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (29): 10002–10005. Cohen, Andrew S., Roger Bills, Christine Z. Cocquyt, and A.G. Caljon. 1993. The Impact of Sediment Pollution on Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika. Conservation Biology 7 (3): 667–677. Crook, Martin, and Damien Short. 2014. Marx, Lemkin and the Genocide– ecocide Nexus. The International Journal of Human Rights 18 (3): 298–319. Crook, Martin, Damien Short, and Nigel South. 2018. Ecocide, Genocide, Capitalism and Colonialism: Consequences for Indigenous Peoples and Global Ecosystems Environments. Theoretical Criminology 22 (3): 298–317. Devall, Bill. 1991. Deep Ecology and Radical Environmentalism. Society & Natural Resources 4 (3): 247–258. Feely, Richard A., Scott C.  Doney, and Sarah R.  Cooley. 2009. Ocean Acidification: Present Conditions and Future Changes in a High-CO2 World. Oceanography 22 (4): 36–47. Gutiérrez-Gómez, Laura. 2017. Mining in Colombia: Tracing the Harm of Neoliberal Policies and Practices. In Environmental Crime in Latin America: The Theft of Nature and the Poisoning of the Land, ed. D.R. Goyes, H. Mole, A. Brisman, and N. South, 85–113. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Haines, Andy, R.  Sari Kovats, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, and Carlos Corvalán. 2006. Climate Change and Human Health: Impacts, Vulnerability and Public Health. Public Health 120 (7): 585–596. Hall, Thomas D., and James V.  Fenelon. 2015. Indigenous Peoples and Globalization: Resistance and Revitalization. London: Routledge. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, and James C.  Zachos. 2008. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics 2: 217–231. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P.J.  Mumby, A.J.  Hooten, R.S.  Steneck, P.  Greenfield, E. Gomez, C.D. Harvell, P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R.H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M.E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Science 318 (5857): 1737–1742.

2  Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice 

37

Kim, Jungkon, Jeongim Park, Pan-Gyi Kim, Chulwoo Lee, Kyunghee Choi, and Kyungho Choi. 2010. Implication of Global Environmental Changes on Chemical Toxicity-effect of Water Temperature, pH, and Ultraviolet B Irradiation on Acute Toxicity of Several Pharmaceuticals in Daphnia Magna. Ecotoxicology 19 (4): 662–669. Lighty, JoAnn, John M.  Vernth, and Adel F.  Sarofin. 2000. Combustion Aerosols: Factors Governing Their Size, and Composition and Implication to Human Health. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 50 (9): 1565–1618. Liu, Yi, Gara Villalba, Robert U.  Ayres, and Hans Schroder. 2008. Global Phosphorous Flows and Environmental Impacts from a Consumption Perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12 (2): 229–247. Lovelock, J. 2006. The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis & the Fate of Humanity. New York: Basic Books. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, Paul B. Stretesky, and Kimberly A. Barrett. 2017. Green Criminology: Crime, Justice and the Environment. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B. Stretesky. 2012. Native Americans, Social and Environmental Justice: Implications for Criminology. Social Justice 38 (3): 34–54. ———. 2013. The Distribution of Water-Monitoring Organizations Across States: Implications for Community Policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 36 (1): 6–26. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B.  Stretesky, and Michael A.  Long. 2018. Green Criminology and Indigenous/Native Peoples: The Treadmill of Production and the Killing of Indigenous Environmental Activists. Theoretical Criminology 22 (3): 318–341. Martin, Lynn B., William A. Hopkins, Laura D. Mydlarz, and Jason R. Rohr. 2010. The effects of anthropogenic global changes on immune functions and disease resistance. Annals of the New  York Academy of Sciences 1195 (1): 129–148. McNeely, Jeffrey A. 1992. The Sinking Ark: Pollution and the Worldwide Loss of Biodiversity. Biodiversity & Conservation 1 (1): 2–18. Mol, Hanneke. 2017. Agro-Industry Expansion Through “Strategic Alliances”: The Shifting Dynamics of Palm Oil-Related Dispossession. In Environmental Crime in Latin America: The Theft of Nature and the Poisoning of the Land, ed. D.R.  Goyes, H.  Mole, A.  Brisman, and N.  South, 163–186. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

38 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Moloney, Christopher J., and William J.  Chambliss. 2014. Slaughtering the Bison, Controlling Native Americans: A State Crime and Green Criminology Synthesis. Critical Criminology 22 (3): 319–338. Noyes, Pamela D., Matthew K. McElwee, Hilary D. Miller, Bryan W. Clark, Lindsey A. Van Tiem, Kia C. Walcott, Kyle N. Erwin, and Edward D. Levin. 2009. The Toxicology of Climate Change: Environmental Contaminants in a Warming World. Environment International 35 (6): 971–986. Orr, James C., Victoria J. Fabry, Olivier Aumont, Laurent Bopp, Scott C. Doney, Richard A.  Feely, Anand Gnanadesikan, Nicolas Gruber, Akio Ishida, Fortunat Joos, Robert M. Key, Keith Lindsay, Ernst Maier-Reimer, Richard Matear, Patrick Monfray, Anne Mouchet, Raymond G. Najjar, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Keith B. Rodgers, Christopher L. Sabine, Jorge L. Sarmiento, Reiner Schlitzer, Richard D. Slater, Ian J. Totterdell, Marie-France Weirig, Yasuhiro Yamanaka, and Andrew Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification Over the Twenty-first Century and Its Impact on Calcifying Organisms. Nature 437 (7059): 681–686. Paoletti, E., M.  Schaub, R.  Matyssek, G.  Wieser, A.  Augustaitis, A.M.  Bastrup-Birk, A.  Bytnerowicz, M.S.  Günthardt-Goerg, G.  Müller-­ Starck, and Y. Serengil. 2010. Advances of Air Pollution Science: From Forest Decline to Multiple-stress Effects on Forest Ecosystem Services. Environmental Pollution 158 (6): 1986–1989. Pope, Carl Arden, and Douglas W.  Dockery. 2006. Health Effects of Fine Particle Air Pollution: Lines that Connect. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 56 (6): 709–742. Rees, William, and Mathis Wackernagel. 2008. Urban Ecological Footprints: Why Cities Cannot Be Sustainable—and Why They Are a Key to Sustainability. In Urban Ecology, ed. J.M.  Marluff et  al., 537–555. Boston: Springer. Rial, José A., Roger A.  Pielke, Martin Beniston Sr, Martin Claussen, Josep Canadell, Peter Cox, Hermann Held, Nathalie De Noblet-Ducoudre, Ronald Prinn, James F. Reynolds, and Jose D. Salas. 2004. Nonlinearities, Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds Within the Earth’s Climate System. Climatic Change 65 (1–2): 11–38. Rockstrom, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin III, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Björn Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin, Peter K.  Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert

2  Connecting Ecological Decline and Eco-justice 

39

W. Corell, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, and Jonathan A. Foley. 2009a. A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature 461: 472–475. Rockstrom, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Perrson Asa, F. Stuart Chapin, Eric Lambin, Timothy M.  Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Bjorn Nykvst, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sorlin, Peter K.  Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falekmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert W. Corell, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hanson, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, and Jonathan Foley. 2009b. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14 (2): 32–47. Rojas-Paez, Gustavo. 2017. Understanding Environmental Harm and Justice Claims in the Global South: Crime of the Powerful and Peoples’ Resistance. In Environmental Crime in Latin America, ed. D.R.  Goyes, H.  Mol, A. Brisman, and N. South, 57–83. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Schlenker, Wolfram, and Michael J.  Roberts. 2009. Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to US Crop Yields Under Climate Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (37): 15594–15598. Schneider, Stephen H. 2004. Abrupt Non-linear Climate Change, Irreversibility and Surprise. Global Environmental Change 14 (3): 245–258. Smith, Val H., G. David Tilman, and Jeffery C. Nekola. 1999. Eutrophication: Impacts of Excess Nutrient Inputs on Freshwater, Marine, and Terrestrial Ecosystems. Environmental Pollution 100 (1): 179–196. Steffen, Will, Paul J. Crutzen, and John R. McNeill. 2007. The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 36 (8): 614–621. Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeill. 2011. The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (1938): 842–867. Stork, Nigel E. 2010. Re-assessing Current Extinction Rates. Biodiversity and Conservation 19 (2): 357–371. Tooney, David E. 2012. Indigenous People, Environmental Groups, Networks and the Political Economy of Rainforest Destruction in Brazil. International Journal of Peace Studies 17 (1): 73–97. Valavanidis, Athansois, Konstantinos Fiotaskis, and Thomais Vlachogianni. 2008. Airborne Particle Matter and Human Health: Toxicological Assessment

40 

M. J. Lynch et al.

and Importance of Size and Composition of Particles for Oxidative Damage and Carcinogenic Mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C 26 (4): 339–362. Wackernagel, Mathis, Dan Moran, Sahm White, and Michael Murray. 2006. Ecological Footprint Accounts for Advancing Sustainability: Measuring Human Demand on Nature. In Sustainable Development Indicators in Ecological Economics, ed. P. Lawn, 246–266. Northampton, MA: Edgar Elgar. Wackernagel, Mathis, and William E.  Rees. 1997. Perceptual and Structural Barriers to Investing in Natural Capital: Economics from an Ecological Footprint Perspective. Ecological Economics 20 (1): 3–24. Yang, Xiaoya, Senthold Asseng, Mike Ting Fook Wong, Qiang Yu, Jun Li, and Enmin Liu. 2013. Quantifying the Interactive Impacts of Global Dimming and Warming on Wheat Yield and Water Use in China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 182: 342–351. Zalasiewicz, Jan, Mark Williams, Will Steffen, and Paul Crutzen. 2010. The New World of the Anthropocene. Environmental Science & Technology 44 (7): 2228–2231.

3 Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem

When discussing the issue of eco-justice, it is necessary to recognize that there are a variety of views concerning the concept of justice in ecological terms, and that these concepts of ecology can be translated into more specific, definable orientations toward eco-justice (e.g., Opotow and Clayton 1994 for review). That is to say, there are different ways of defining the content of “green justice,” which is defined relative to a definition or conceptualization of the idea of an ecosystem or ecological unit. At issue are whether any of these approaches are to be preferred and the implications of choosing one orientation toward green justice over any other view. As Opotow and Clayton (1994) note, the variety of views toward green justice, or what we refer to as eco-justice here, includes the following issues and approaches: (1) considerations of impacts of current environmental decisions on future generations; (2) consideration of property rights issues that emerge with respect to the harms caused by ecological destruction and with respect to laws that limit how property owners may use their property; (3) the analysis of illegal taking of resources and how the illegal acquisition of resources impacts ecological justice; (4) attention to the inclusion of marginalized groups in relation to environmental © The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9_3

41

42 

M. J. Lynch et al.

j­ustice concerns in the discussion of ecological justice and how the rights of marginalized groups should be recognized; (5) consideration of procedural justice concerns and whether the procedures that attempt to ensure justice are followed; (6) impacts related to the conceptualization of distributive justice and whether goods are fairly distributed within society and equity in distribution of goods is evident; (7) the role of conflict management in relation to environmental justice; (8) concepts of eco-­ justice derived from ethical and moral orientations; and (9) justice as fairness in the Rawlsian sense (“justice as fairness”). This list of issues is extensive but not exhaustive, and the approaches identified by Opotow and Clayton reflect many of the common orientations to eco-justice. Nevertheless, despite the breadth of this list, it is not without its shortcomings. For green criminologists, one obvious deficiency in Opotow and Clayton’s perspective is that these views are anthropocentric and overlook the fact that green justice can also be defined in relation to biocentric and eco-centric orientations related to justice that spans beyond human interests in ecological preservation (for discussion, see Beirne 1999; Benton 1998; Lynch and Stretesky 2003; White 2007). In short, we can say that Opotow and Clayton’s approach only concerns itself with ecological justice in relation to humans and is therefore missing an array of justice issues that green criminologists have identified, especially, for example, with respect to justice for nonhuman animals (Beirne 1999, 2007). Here, we must also keep in mind that in the scientific literature, the global ecosystem has been defined as a living entity, Gaia, and therefore, as we described in a later chapter, it becomes possible to discuss eco-justice from the perspective of Gaia and the harms humans commit that adversely impact Gaia as a living entity. Clearly, humans are not the only species impacted by ecological injustice, and a concept of ecological justice devoid of recognition of nonhuman species—and by nonhuman we mean all other living species as well as Gaia, and not just nonhuman animal species—is only capable of establishing the parameters of ecological justice with respect to humans. Such an approach misses the variety of forms of ecological injustices that exist in the contemporary world and the fact that humans drive the forms of injustice nonhuman entities experience. With respect to our earlier

3  Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 

43

­ iscussion, this kind of approach misses the dialectic of justice or the d intersection of humans with nature. It is perhaps this concept of “experience” that is so troubling to anthropocentric approaches to eco-justice. When we use this term, we do not mean experience in a psychological or emotional way, but rather as a life experience related to encounters with ecological limits that alter the path of development of any living creature within a nonhuman species or the life course of an entire nonhuman species. When, for example, a forest is cut down, this alters the experience of nonhuman species with respect to the path of development of a nonhuman species that inhabited those forest lands (as individuals and species members). We do not know if that particular species or individual experiences psychological strain, but what we do know is that the alteration of the environment changes the life course of the species: they must find somewhere else to live or perish (e.g., Wake and Vredenburg 2008). Globally, we know that many species face challenges from just this type of ecological disruption, and it is fair to include those nonhuman species in broader discussions of the concept of eco-justice and examinations of the scope and extent of eco-justice (see Chap. 5). These are not easy questions to address. White (2007: 35) makes a similar point when he noted that “ambiguities and tension over ‘rights’ are essential parts of the criminological debate that marks the shift from eco-philosophy to conceptions of environmental crime,” and therefore must be addressed. Moreover, White clarifies the problem when he notes that what often gets recognized as injustice are activities that are viewed as injustice from an anthropocentric perspective. An anthropocentric view, as White notes, omits a significant range of justice issues that biocentric and eco-centric views are capable of addressing. In offering a solution to this dilemma of orientation, White (2007: 51) recommends that “green criminology ought to be about public accountability in regard to how specific population of people live their lives and how humans, generally, relate to the biosphere and the non-human world. Accountability is about being responsible for ourselves and the world around us. Ecological citizenship means taking environmental harm seriously, both as an object of study and as an agenda for action.” Indeed, as White

44 

M. J. Lynch et al.

asserts, any notion of ecological justice must include a position on how humans destroy the environment and hence are responsible for the production of eco-injustice. This, of course, is no small matter. Drawing on the perspectives laid out by other green criminologists, White, indeed, points us in a useful direction. In contrast to the narrowly defined concept of ecological justice found in anthropocentric approaches, there is a need for green criminologists to more precisely define the concept of ecological justice in a broader way that is more inclusive of a concept of justice that relates to nonhuman species and the living earth system, Gaia. To begin, such a view must be willing to recognize that the defining issue of a green criminological orientation toward ecological justice, by whatever name we call it, is grounded in a model of relations that recognizes the priority of the ecosystem as the source of conditions that allow other life forms to exist. The basis for justice for all species is the continued, healthy existence of a properly function living world system of ecological relations. In that view, behaviors that cause harm to the ecosystem also produce injustice for species living in ecosystems at either the local or global levels. In the traditional language of philosophy, we would normally refer to such a view as “eco-centric.” But this is not our preferred term here because when we refer to issues of ecological justice, we mean more than this. Eco-centrism is based on an ontological assumption that promotes an ethical claim concerning valuing a view of the intersection of humans with nature in its many forms. In contrast to this view, our vision of green justice or eco-justice is based on a scientific position which recognizes that the earth itself is a living organism (Lovelock 2006). All other living things play a role in the continuation of the living earth system. At the same time, however, it must be recognized that this living earth system, Gaia, as it currently exists is first dependent upon the historical development of chemical/physical properties that promote the existence of “other” life forms which overtime are incorporated into the unity of the living world system. That living system has identifiable dimensions, and as we reviewed above, the idea of planetary boundaries is able to conceptualize and identify those conditions empirically and in a materialistic manner. In our view, this means that a green concept of justice can be

3  Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 

45

built on the recognition that there are scientific boundaries to the living world system, and these boundaries become the principles from which a concept of justice can be derived. Simply put, in this view, human activities—and we specify human activities here as humans are the agents of change that alter ecological conditions—that cause damage to the planetary boundaries are unjust acts that destroy the very basis of life on earth. We would argue, therefore, that from a green criminological perspective, the concept of justice relates to human actions that impede ecological sustainability or which are unsustainable from a physical/chemical/scientific view of the requirements for ecological stability of the living world system. This is a different conceptualization of the concept of justice than one that derives from the study of animal rights (Beirne 2007). The animal rights approach within green criminology has not generally taken up a global view of species rights as they intersect with the rights of Gaia, but has often focused on the rights of species to survival and to their right to be free from specific harms such as animal trafficking and trade. When we refer to animal rights, we mean more than freedom from specific acts of harm and instead mean that nonhuman animals, which preceded humans in the evolution of the world, have a right to “natural development,” that is to exist in conditions freed from the constraints humans apply to the ecosystem. In today’s world with its extensive urbanization and population growth, and its extensive use of natural resources, we appreciate that such conditions are no longer possible for many nonhuman species. The fact that this condition no longer exists, however, does not mean that the existence of such a condition is not a right for nonhuman species. Indeed, humans continually encroach on the rights of nonhuman species in a world ecological context beneficial to the development of those nonhuman species. There is, in other words, a trade-off between human rights to survival and nonhuman animal rights to survival, and given the differential abilities of human and nonhuman species, nonhuman species will always lose this war of survival and rights. However, this does not mean that we should ignore identifying the nature of the conditions that make the world a just place for nonhuman species.

46 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Naming the Concept of Green Justice Above we have laid out a few of the background issues relevant to creating a concept of green justice. As we have seen in that discussion, prior analysis has taken a specific position on green justice, and that view has largely been oriented toward anthropocentric concerns. As we have noted, we mean more than this when we refer to the concept of green justice, and therefore, there is some need to label our view differently to enable easy reference to that view. More specifically, currently the green criminological literature lacks a term that refers to our specific understanding of ecological justice in relation to the scientific identification of the boundaries of the sustainability of the living earth system. The closest existing term in the broader ecological literature is biocentrism. But there are limits to the use of that term. Certain derivations of the term biocentric have origins in a moral orientation toward living creatures associated with Albert Schweitzer’s ethical-religious grounded views as stated in Reverence for Life (Schweitzer 2002; Attfield 2012; for a critique of biocentrism and this view, see Durland 2008), and this type of ontological view is far from the one we prefer. Biocentrism makes several important observations including that all things are inherently valuable, that nature is not simply a resource available for human consumption and that humans are not to be privileged over other species or the ecosystem. Yet, even early on in academic analysis of these concepts, conflicts between varieties of biocentrism emerged (Watson 1983), including efforts to ground biocentrism in a scientific perspective (Golley 1987), and the emergence of a deep ecology view (Naess 1973; Devall 1980; Rothenberg 1987), which also included discussions of the intersection of deep ecology and radical environmentalism (Devall 1991) and socialist ecological approaches related to biocentrism (Bookchin 1988). In addition to the above variations, there is a more radical variety of biocentrism, left-biocentrism or left eco-centrism associated with the work of David Orton (2014a). Left-biocentrism is viewed as an extension of deep ecology, though Orton was also critical of deep ecology in some respects (Orton 2014a). Orton’s work was not widely published, ­especially

3  Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 

47

in academic circles; however, the main discussion of that view is found in his Left Biocentrism Primer (Orton 2014a). As Orton (2014a) notes, left-biocentrism “holds up as an ideal, identification, solidarity and compassion with all life,” and includes an “anti-­ industrial and anti-capitalist but not necessarily socialist” view. Left-biocentrism notes that “individuals must take responsibility for their actions and be socially accountable” to minimize their impact on the earth, a point that is consistent with the argument proposed by White (2007) reviewed earlier. Moreover, left-biocentrism is committed to a concern for social and class justice but within the context of ecological thinking. That concern for social and class justice is proposed as “a necessary” element for mobilization of people, and generates left-biocentrism’s concern for the redistribution of wealth and its opposition toward consumerism and economic development and growth to promote ecological conditions wherein “all other species may flourish.” To facilitate that goal, left-biocentrism also promotes bioregional economic organization over the idea of global economic organization, and suggests quite specifically that industrial nations need to reduce their current negative ecological impacts to one-tenth of its current impact on Earth. To accomplish these outcomes, left-biocentrism also proposes the need for a “spiritual transformation” to initiate major social change and limit the negative ecological impacts of industrial society. Orton argued that this “spiritual transformation” would allow “the interests of all species to over-ride the short-term self-interest of the individual, the family, the community and the nation.” In taking up this view, left-biocentrism specifically rejects social-ecology, eco-feminism and eco-Marxism as anthropocentrically situated, and rejects current green party movements as owing allegiance to industrial society and hence being devoid of a (spiritual) commitment to the deep ecology concepts central to left-biocentrism. In many respects, the concept of left-biocentrism reviewed above makes a quite radical break from more widely accepted notions of green justice. In our view, we see the “spiritual orientation” of left-biocentrism as problematic, which, as Cook (1992) noted with respect to other issues (specifically the intersection of critical race theory and Marxism), produces the need to “negotiate an uneasy tension between religiously inspired moral visions and secular analyses of oppression ….” To our

48 

M. J. Lynch et al.

knowledge, Orton’s notion of “spirituality” is not religious, but nevertheless draws the analysis of ecological problems and justice into ontological and metaphysical territory we wish to avoid due to the need to make value judgments related to the “proper” identification of some concept of an over-arching “spiritual unity” between humans, nonhuman species and the Earth. To be sure, such concepts are central to Native/Indigenous ecological positions (Merchant 2005), but remain beyond the materialist and scientific approach toward ecological justice we are willing to entertain as part of a radical-green criminological vision of ecological justice (Lynch et al. 2013; Stretesky et al. 2013). Nevertheless, several of the core assumptions of left-biocentrism are useful for establishing a unique green criminological perspective on eco-justice and its intersection with ecological decline and transformation. Moving beyond the equality of species approach associated with biocentrism, left-biocentrism inserts additional assumptions related to the connection between capitalism and ecological destruction. A core assumption of left-biocentrism is that the contemporary ecological crisis is largely produced by industrialization, and hence human behavior. Left-­ biocentrism, however, stops short of making the argument that it is the specific form of industrialization associated with capitalism that requires examination. This is to be expected since left-biocentrism rejects Marxist analysis as anthropocentric. This is, however, an issue we believe requires further analysis and commentary. In taking an oppositional view of industrialization, left-biocentrism shares some ground with ecological Marxism. While left-biocentrism focuses attention more broadly on industrialization, ecological Marxism specifically draws attention to the contradiction between capitalism and nature as oppositional forces as illustrated in the ecologically destructive tendencies of capitalism (Burkett 2008; Burkett and Foster 2006; Clark and York 2005, 2008; Foster 1992, 1994, 1997, 1999, 2000; Lynch et al. 2016). To be sure, Orton’s left-biocentrism makes reference to the influence of capitalism on industrial development, but in the end rejects a Marxist approach to the analysis of ecological justice due to its anthropocentric orientation. In our view, however, newer varieties of ecological Marxism associated with the work of Foster (1999, 2000) and Burkett (2008; see also Burkett and Foster 2006) move beyond the ­anthropocentric

3  Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 

49

orientations Orton assumes that approach must entail. To be sure, the primary issues ecological Marxists have described and which they have examined empirically often have human victims and human justice concerns. But, to conflate that focus simply with an anthropocentric orientation misses the much broader implications of the perspective taken by ecological Marxists as they relate to issues of ecological destruction and ecological justice—even as these have been expressed in the green criminology literature (Benton 1998). Ecological Marxism clearly states that a core concern in that view is that capitalism and nature are in conflict and contradiction with one another, and that in order to expand and continue to facilitate profit making, capitalism must destroy nature (Foster 1999, 2000). In order to recognize that contradiction between capitalism and nature and to take up the issue of the destruction of nature by capitalism and the forms of injustice capitalism engenders through the destruction of nature, ecological Marxism is required to move beyond an anthropocentric orientation in order to take up the issue of ecological destruction and its impacts, especially in recognition of nature as a real and independent entity (see the basis of these discussions in: Castree 2000, 2002; Foster 2002; O’Connor 1998). Left-biocentrism appears to expand its focus beyond ecological Marxism by asserting species equality. The issue of how concern for nonhuman species fits in with Marxian analysis, however, has been more widely addressed in recent years (Perlo 2002). Of particular note is Gunderson’s (2011) analysis of Marx’s position of harms against animals. In Gunderson’s view, Marx’s comments should not be interpreted as a critical stance against taking harms against animals seriously, but rather should be taken as evidence of Marx’s critique of the forms of cruelty toward animals that arise under capitalism. Ecological Marxists have indeed drawn attention to this issue as well but within the context of macro-level analysis of the biodiversity crisis (Clausen and York 2008), without directing attention to the micro-level concerns of animal rights. While Gunderson argues that Marx’s work is inaccurately described as anthropocentric, others such as Castree (2000) illustrate how such an interpretation emerges. One of Marx’s concerns was with the social construction of nature under the system of capitalist production. Thus, this draws attention to Marx’s comments toward illustrating that point and

50 

M. J. Lynch et al.

allowing the analysis to appear to be anthropocentric (O’Connor 1998: 3–7). However, it could easily be argued that Marx’s point was to illustrate how capitalism was anthropocentric and ignores nonhuman animals since the only role nonhuman species play under capitalism relates to furthering the development of capitalism. In other words, it was capitalism and not Marx that is anthropocentric. On other grounds, left-biocentrism and Marxism share additional concerns related to the problems associated with ecological destruction. For example, both Marxist and left-biocentric analyses draw attention to the connection between capitalism, ecological destruction and concerns with social justice issues for marginalized groups and the working class (Faber 1998; Field 1997; Layfield 2008). Indeed, for both the left-­ biocentric and Marxist views, capitalism’s destructive forces and ownership patterns produce ecological injustice by limiting access to raw materials, creating unequal markets and inhibiting the reproductive power of nature (e.g., Orton 2014b; Layfield 2008). Thus these views share some points of compatibility. Yet, we wish to separate our view of eco-justice from the view proposed by left-biocentrism. We elaborate on our view below.

The Concept of Eco-justice In the discussion above, we have laid out a review of some positions on ecological justice we believe are worthwhile entertaining as an over-­ arching concept of ecological justice. We also recognize that our view agrees with elements of left-biocentrism and ecological Marxism. However, to distinguish our specific view on ecological justice from more general or specific views, we refer to our general position on ecological justice as an eco-justice model. As noted, that model is based in a materialist model of capitalism and, given that grounding, frames various types of eco-injustice (e.g., environmental injustice and nonhuman animal species injustice) in their relationship to the structure of capitalism and its destructive ecological tendencies as addressed by ecological Marxism. In this view, the ecologically destructive tendencies of capitalism create a diverse array or forms of eco-injustice experienced across people located

3  Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 

51

in different economic groupings within and across nations with respect to the global world order of capitalism, as well as by nonhuman species (both wild and domesticated), and by local ecosystems and the global, living world ecosystem, Gaia. Our definition of eco-justice as noted in Chap. 1 is reviewed as follows: (1) a view of ecological justice to be used for exploring (2) the political economic causes of ecological injustice that affects (3) humans, nonhuman species and local and global ecosystem arrangements, including the living earth system, Gaia, that (4) pays attention to ways in which the structural arrangement of the capitalist world system and the global and local treadmills of production generate harms that are also (5) scientifically measurable and understandable.

 co-justice, Planetary Boundaries E and the Human Ecological Footprint Before continuing our discussion of the concept and implications of eco-­ justice and eco-injustice, it is useful to refer to our previous discussion of the measurement of ecological destruction. It is only here, now that we have a concept of eco-justice in mind, that these empirical referents can be employed to make some sense of how the measurement of ecological destruction and eco-justice dovetail with one another. As noted earlier, there are two important scientific methods for describing ecological destruction: planetary boundaries and the human ecological footprint. We have seen how these measures differ with respect to their measurement of ecological destruction, and how they empirically represent the extent of ecological destruction. The question we face here concerns the relationship of these measures to the concepts of eco-justice and eco-injustice. As described earlier, the planetary boundaries argument proposes nine scientific measures of ecological “health” that when crossed indicate significant ecological destruction and an increased probability that ecological reproduction and the health of the living world ecological system (Gaia) are compromised. While scientists have been able to identify these

52 

M. J. Lynch et al.

ecological boundaries that define ecological harm empirically, they have not addressed theoretical issues relevant to the causes of ecological destruction and specifically have not proposed a theoretical explanation of why planetary boundaries have been crossed (other than, perhaps, to say that population growth is a primary driver of crossing ecological boundaries). Natural scientists will tend to make the general observation that ecological destruction and industrialization are linked, but do not make much of posing a theoretical analysis of why industrialization produces these negative ecological outcomes or how that process of negative industrial ecological outcomes is driven by capitalism. A theoretical explanation of these connections is necessary if one is to make useful observations related to the causes of crossing planetary boundaries and how the causes of crossing planetary boundaries also relate to eco-­ justice issues. Of relevance to this discussion is Foster’s (2012) analysis of the intersection of political economic theory and the concept of planetary boundaries which he refers to as “planetary rift,” an idea related to his earlier description of metabolic rift (Foster 1999; see Chap. 7). Theoretically, Foster’s various arguments explain the origins of planetary rift in terms of capitalism and the internal assumption that unlimited growth is possible under capitalism. In addition, from the perspective of capital, growth is interpreted as unconstrained by the availability of natural resources (Foster 2012). In short, from the perspective of capital, not only is growth valued, it is viewed as limitless, despite the fact that there are obvious physical (i.e., chemical, laws of physics) limits to growth. Thus, here what Foster begins to point out is that capitalism’s internal growth assumptions do not fit with the fact that there are limits to growth imposed by the physical nature of the world around us. Supporting this unrealistic view of the relationship between capitalism, growth and nature, the ecological modernization paradigm suggests that capitalism will innovate new methods of production that address ecological resource limitations over time, and hence that economic growth and capitalist expansion can continue unabated without the need to consider real world natural resource limitations—that is how resource availability constrains or ought to constrain economic growth in order to prevent ecological destruction. The implications of the ecological

3  Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 

53

­ odernization approach can be seen in the ample literature on the m Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC), which we will not review here (for a green criminological/Marxist view, see Lynch 2016). It is sufficient to note that much of that literature suggests that as industrialization and economic modernization advance, there should be (hypothesized) or is (empirically) a decline in ecological destruction and pollution (Choumert et al. 2013; Dinda 2004; Grossman and Krueger 1995; Kaika and Zervas 2013a, b; Stern 2004). The general relationship between industrialization/modernization and ecological destruction/pollution should, from the perspective of Environmental Kuznets Curve theory, resemble an inverted “U” when graphed—which indicates that as capitalism/industrialization/modernization increases over time and a peak period of ecological destruction is encountered (the top of the inverted “U”), then a period of declining ecological destruction follows as society becomes more concerned with environment and environmental services and environmental protection while economic production and consumption continue to expand. This relationship, however, has not always been found in empirical studies of the Environmental Kuznets Curve, and the outcome is found to vary and to occur differentially in a variety of circumstances (for a theoretical critique, see York, Rosa and Dietz 2003; Boyce 2002; for examples of contradictory empirical evidence, see Al Sayed and Sek 2013; Babu and Datta 2013; Lau, Choong and Eng 2014; Saboori and Sulaiman 2013; Wang et al. 2014). Indeed, one can argue that the empirical findings are so diverse that they fail to support the Environmental Kuznets Curve argument/hypothesis (Lynch 2016). Taken together, this orthodox economic view of capitalism is based on assumptions such as modernization and the Environmental Kuznets Curve, and presents the possibility of long-term economic growth along with ecological stability. Foster (1997, 1999, 2012), along with many others (Burkett 2008; Gould et al. 2008; Stretesky et al. 2013; York and Rosa 2003; York et al. 2003, 2010), has provided extensive and useful critiques of this view of the stability of capitalism in the face of ecological constraints proposed in ecological modernization arguments. Those critiques illustrate the ways in which capitalism is, in contrast to the assertions made in ecological modernization, constrained by resource

54 

M. J. Lynch et al.

availability. In both the short and long run, capitalism continues to ­produce ecological destruction, and at some point, the extent of ecological destruction limits the growth of capitalism. Logically, this must be true—the world has a finite volume of resources. As those resources are extracted and converted into commodities, and the ecosystem is destroyed by ecological withdrawals and the addition of pollutant to ecosystems, and the forms of energy (capitalism historically relied on fossil fuel energy to propel its expansion) are consumed increasing entropy, the global ecosystem becomes incapable of supporting the physical demands of capitalism. The critique of modernization arguments illustrates how capitalism produces environmental destruction and in so doing causes the resource constraints that inhibit its growth, thereby presenting a contradiction to the assumption that capitalism can expand continuously without limitations. Equally relevant is the ecological Marxist observation that outlines the emergence of factors that result in the encroachment of and crossing of planetary boundaries. Thus, in a nutshell, ecological Marxism provides the theoretical basis for understanding why in the contemporary context we are reaching and crossing planetary boundaries within the context of global capitalism, and how capitalism and expanding human ecological footprints are connected, and promote ecological destruction and ecological disorganization. There is a significant empirical literature supporting the contention that capitalism causes the forms of ecological destruction that can produce encroachment on and the crossing of planetary boundaries (Burns et  al. 1997; Grimes and Kentor 2003; Jorgenson 2003, 2006, 2011; Jorgenson and Burns 2007; Jorgenson and Clark 2011, 2012; Jorgenson and Rice 2005). Given that literature, we can say that there is sufficient reason to take seriously the contention that capitalism, ecological decline and the crossing of planetary boundaries appear to be associated with one another. The above discussion leads us to an additional consideration. If indeed we can say that capitalism, ecological destruction and the infringement on planetary boundaries are connected, how does this relate to eco-­ justice? We now elaborate on this point.

3  Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 

55

Capitalism and the Production of Eco-injustice As a system of production, capitalism is based on inherent inequality in ownership of the means of production and wealth. In the context of both national and global capitalism, that inherent form of inequality also means that the negative impacts of capitalism such as harms associated with ecological destruction can be expected to be unequally distributed and to have greater adverse impacts for some populations as opposed to others (an observation that can be applied to both human and nonhuman species). A significant literature on the occurrence and extent of environmental injustice supports that argument (e.g., for reviews, see Brulle and Pellow 2006; Mohai et al. 2009; for a criminological review, see Lynch et al. 2015). Thus, with respect to the human domain of eco-­ justice, the proposition that capitalism enhances the extent and scope of environmental injustice appears warranted. The fact that capitalism has negative impacts on eco-justice for humans, however, only addresses part of the ecological justice question raised in our eco-justice approach. The remaining eco-justice concerns are those that impact nonhuman species, and the local and global ecosystems. Since we explore these issues in greater depth below, it is sufficient to offer some general observations here that will facilitate more extended analysis. In our view, just as capitalism poses eco-injustice concerns for humans, so too does it pose similar concerns for nonhuman species and nature. With respect to both nonhuman species and ecosystems, capitalism generates eco-injustice through continuously accelerating ecological consumption. That consumption poses a direct threat to nature when it promotes ecological destruction in the short and long term, an observation that is also useful for explaining why planetary boundaries that measure ecological stability are crossed. On this point, for instance, consider that the destructive ecological consequences of capitalism are cumulative, and this is what forces environmental conditions to deteriorate and approach or cross planetary boundary thresholds when the process of ecological destruction is examined over time (i.e., those effects do not dissipate, but accumulate). In turn, approaching and crossing those planetary thresholds and increasing planetary rift have feedback effects across ecological

56 

M. J. Lynch et al.

units for the various nonhuman and human species located within the boundaries of local and global ecosystems impacted by ecological destruction. In addition, in the same sense that capitalism causes unequal exposure to environmental maladies such as pollution, a similar situation emerges for nonhuman species as well as for ecosystem. Ecosystems in the global South are exposed to greater risks and negative side effects of capitalism than those in the North, which is a result of the exploitation of resources in the Southern hemisphere and the historical decline in Northern hemisphere resources that have long been exploited. Giljum and Eisenmenger (2004) note that empirical studies support a North-­ South dimension to the association between biophysical accounting and metabolic profiles of nations in the North/South, and to the differentiation in North/South economic specialization. The same forms of unequal effects can be seen across nations in the global capitalist world system. Negative ecological effects are more pronounced in what world system theorists refer to as the periphery and semi-periphery in relation to capital’s exploitation of natural resources than in core nations. Further, because these ecosystem effects are unequally and differentially distributed, so too must be the harms and forms of injustice nonhuman species experience in the capitalist world system. In taking the above view, it is our contention that the forms of harm and injustice experienced by ecosystems and nonhuman animal populations can be addressed in the same way ecological Marxism approaches the question of ecological destruction. As noted above, numerous studies by ecological Marxists have provided empirical evidence of uneven ecological impacts for a variety of environmental harms. While the extant literature has not applied these same kind of structural, macro-model, ecological Marxist analyses to the forms of injustice experienced by nonhuman animals, this does not mean that such an argument is implausible or impossible to construct. Theoretically, all one needs to do is insert the concept of nonhuman species harm and injustice into those explanations, and then move toward macro-level assessments of those theoretical implications in some logical empirical way (e.g., see Hoffman 2004; Stretesky et al. 2018). This may prove somewhat difficult since the necessary data would require measures of harm against nonhuman species and indicators of the dispersion of species (e.g., Hoffman 2004; McKinney et al.

3  Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 

57

2010; Shandra et al. 2009; Stretesky et al. 2018). Given that we are not experts on the measurement of animal populations and the availability of such data, it is beyond the scope of our knowledge to comment extensively on the plausibility of this type of analysis. But, one could imagine such an empirical analysis using the distribution of endangered species provided by indicators such as the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s Red List measuring species’ health and stability (for discussion, see Chap. 5; Hoffman 2004; on global threats to bird and mammal species, see McKinney et al. 2010; for an empirical study relating the treadmill of production, ecological modernization and conservation biology approaches to the falcon trade, see Stretesky et al. 2018). Having reviewed issues related to ecological decline and the theoretical argument linking ecological decline to eco-justice and injustice, below we extend this analysis. We do so in three chapters. In the first chapter we examine unsustainability issues with respect to human social and ecological justice as one dimension of eco-justice. In the following two chapters, we take up those issues with respect to nonhuman animals and then with the living ecological system, Gaia.

References Al Sayed, Ahmad R.M., and Siok Kun Sek. 2013. Environmental Kuznets Curve. Evidences from Applied Mathematical Sciences 7 (22): 1081–1092. Attfield, Robin. 2012. Biocentrism and Artificial Life. Environmental Values 21 (1): 83–94. Babu, Swati Sinha, and Soumyendra Kishore Datta. 2013. The Relevance of Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) in a Framework of Broad-based Environmental Degradation and Modified Measure of Growth–a Pooled Data Analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 20 (4): 309–316. Beirne, Piers. 1999. For a Nonspeciesist Criminology: Animal Abuse as an Object of Study. Criminology 37 (1): 117–148. ———. 2007. Animal Rights, animal abuse and green criminology. In Issues in Green Criminology, ed. P. Beirne and N. South, 55–86. Devon, UK: Willan. Benton, Ted. 1998. Rights and Justice on a Shared Planet. Theoretical Criminology 2 (2): 149–175.

58 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Bookchin, Murray. 1988. Social Ecology Versus Deep Ecology. Socialist Review 18 (3): 9–29. Boyce, James K. 2002. The Political Economy of the Environment. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Brulle, Robert J., and David N. Pellow. 2006. Environmental Justice: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health 27: 103–124. Burkett, Paul. 2008. Marxism and Ecological Economics: Toward a Red and Green Political Economy. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Burkett, Paul, and John Bellamy Foster. 2006. Metabolism, Energy, and Entropy in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: Beyond the Podolinsky Myth. Theory and Society 35 (1): 109–156. Burns, Thomas J., Byron L. Davis, and Edward L. Kick. 1997. Position in the World System and National Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. Journal of World Systems Research III: 432–466. Castree, Noel. 2000. Marxism and the Production of Nature. Capital & Class 24 (3): 5–36. ———. 2002. False Antitheses? Marxism, Nature and Actor-networks. Antipode 34 (1): 111–146. Choumert, Johanna, Pascale Combes Motel, and Hervé K. Dakpo. 2013. Is the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Deforestation a Threatened Theory? A Meta-analysis of the Literature. Ecological Economics 90: 19–28. Clark, Brett, and Richard York. 2005. Carbon Metabolism: Global Capitalism, Climate Change, and the Biospheric Rift. Theory and Society 34 (4): 391–428. ———. 2008. Rifts and Shifts: Getting to the Root of Environmental Crises. Monthly Review 60 (6): 13–24. Clausen, Rebecca, and Richard York. 2008. Global Biodiversity Decline of Marine and Freshwater Fish: A Cross-national Analysis of Economic, Demographic, and Ecological Influences. Social Science Research 37 (4): 1310–1320. Devall, Bill. 1980. The Deep Ecology Movement. Natural Resources Journal 20 (April): 299–322. Dinda, Soumyananda. 2004. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics 49: 431–455. Durland, Karann. 2008. The Prospects of a Viable Biocentric Egalitarianism. Environmental Ethics 30 (4): 401–416. Faber, Daniel J., ed. 1998. The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States. New York: Guilford Press.

3  Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 

59

Field, Rodger C. 1997. Risk and Justice: Capitalist Production and the Environment. Capitalism Nature Socialism 8 (2): 69–94. Foster, John Bellamy. 1992. The Absolute General Law of Environmental Degradation Under Capitalism. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 3 (3): 77–82. ———. 1994. The Vulnerable Planet: A Short Economic History of the Environment. New York: Monthly Review Press. ———. 1997. The Crisis of the Earth: Marx’s Theory of Ecological Sustainability as a Nature-Imposed Necessity for Human Production. Organization & Environment 10 (3): 278–295. ———. 1999. Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 105 (2): 366–405. ———. 2000. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New  York: Monthly Review Press. ———. 2002. Marx’s Ecology in Historical Perspective. International Socialism 96: 71–86. ———. 2012. The Planetary Rift and the New Human Exemptionalism: A Political-Economic Critique of Ecological Modernization Theory. Organization & Environment 25 (3): 211–237. Giljum, Stefan, and Nina Eisenmenger. 2004. North-South Trade and the Distribution of Environmental Goods and Burdens: A Biophysical Perspective. The Journal of Environment & Development 13 (1): 73–100. Golley, Frank B. 1987. Deep Ecology from the Perspective of Environmental Science. Environmental Ethics 9 (1): 45–55. Gould, K.A., D.N. Pellow, and A. Schnaiberg. 2008. The Treadmill of Production. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Grimes, Peter E., and Jeffrey Kentor. 2003. Exploring the Greenhouse: Foreign Capital Penetration and CO2 Emissions, 1980–1996. Journal of World Systems Research IX (2): 261–275. Grossman, Gene M., and Alan B. Krueger. 1995. Economic Growth and the Environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 60: 353–377. Gunderson, Ryan. 2011. Marx’s Comments on Animal Welfare. Rethinking Marxism 23 (4): 543–548. Hoffmann, John P. 2004. Social and Environmental Influences on Endangered Species: A Cross-national Study. Sociological Perspectives 47 (1): 79–107. Jorgenson, Andrew K. 2003. Consumption and Environmental Degradation: A Cross-national Analysis of the Ecological Footprint. Social Problems 50 (3): 374–394.

60 

M. J. Lynch et al.

———. 2006. Unequal Ecological Exchange and Environmental Degradation: A Theoretical Proposition and Cross-National Study of Deforestation, 1990–2000. Rural Sociology 71 (4): 685–712. ———. 2011. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Central and Eastern European Nations, 1992–2005: A Test of Ecologically Unequal Exchange Theory. Human Ecology Review 18 (2): 105–114. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Thomas J.  Burns. 2007. The Political-economic Causes of Change in the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1991–2001: A Quantitative Investigation. Social Science Research 36 (2): 834–853. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Brett Clark. 2011. Societies Consuming Nature: A Panel Study of the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1960–2003. Social Science Research 40 (1): 226–244. ———. 2012. Are the Economy and the Environment Decoupling? A Comparative International Study, 1960–20051. American Journal of Sociology 118 (1): 1–44. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and James Rice. 2005. Structural Dynamics of International Trade and Material Consumption: A Cross-national Study of the Ecological Footprints of Less-developed Countries. Journal of World-­ Systems Research 11 (1): 57–77. Kaika, Dimitra, and Efthimios Zervas. 2013a. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Theory—Part A: Concept, Causes and the CO2 Emissions Case. Energy Policy 62: 1392–1402. ———. 2013b. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Theory. Part B: Critical Issues. Energy Policy 62: 1403–1411. Lau, Lin-Sea, Chee-Keong Choong, and Yoke-Kee Eng. 2014. Investigation of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Carbon Emissions in Malaysia: Do Foreign Direct Investment and Trade Matter? Energy Policy 68: 490–497. Layfield, David. 2008. Marxism and Environmental Crises. Bury Street Edmunds, UK: Arena Books. Lovelock, J. 2006. The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis & the Fate of Humanity. New York: Basic Books. Lynch, Michael J. 2016. A Marxian Interpretation of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Global Capitalism and the Rise, Fall (and rise) of Pollution. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 27 (4): 77–95. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, Kimberly L. Barrett, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2013. Is It a Crime to Produce Ecological Disorganization? Why Green Criminology and Political Economy Matter in the Analysis of Global Ecological Harms. British Journal of Criminology 55 (3): 997–1016.

3  Eco-justice and an Orientation toward the Ecosystem 

61

Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2015. Anthropogenic Development Drives Species to be Endangered: Capitalism and the Decline of Species. In Green Harms and Crimes: Critical Criminology in a Changing World, ed. R.A. Sollund, 117–146. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B.  Stretesky. 2003. The Meaning of Green: Contrasting Criminological Perspectives. Theoretical Criminology. 7 (2): 217–238. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky, and Michael A. Long. 2016. A Proposal for the Political Economy of Green Criminology: Capitalism and the Case of the Alberta Tar Sands. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 58 (2): 137–160. McKinney, Laura A., Edward L. Kick, and Gregory M. Fulkerson. 2010. World System, Anthropogenic, and Ecological Threats to Bird and Mammal Species: A Structural Equation Analysis of Biodiversity Loss. Organization & Environment 23 (1): 3–31. Merchant, Carolyn. 2005. Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World. New York: Routledge. Mohai, Paul, David Pellow, and J.  Timmons Roberts. 2009. Environmental Justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34: 405–430. Naess, Arne. 1973. The Shallow and the Deep, Long-range Ecology Movement. A Summary. Inquiry 16 (1–4): 95–100. O’Connor, James R. 1998. Natural causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: Guilford Press. Opotow, Susan, and Susan Clayton. 1994. Green Justice: Conceptions of Fairness and the Natural World. Journal of Social Issues 50 (3): 1–11. Orton, David. 2014a [1998]. Left Biocentrism Primer. http://home.ca.inter. net/~greenweb/lbprimer.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2014. ———. 2014b [1994]. Envirosocialism: Contradiction or Promise? http:// home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Envirosocialism.html and/or http://ecotopianetwork.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/a-left-biocentrism-primer-mypath-to-left-biocentrism-part-1-by-david-orton/. Accessed 15 Jan 2014. Perlo, Katherine. 2002. Marxism and the Underdog. Society and Animals 10 (3): 303–318. Rothenberg, David. 1987. A Platform of Deep Ecology. Environmentalist 7 (3): 185–190. Saboori, Behnaz, and Jamalludin Sulaiman. 2013. Environmental Degradation, Economic Growth and Energy Consumption: Evidence of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Malaysia. Energy Policy 60: 892–905.

62 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Schweitzer, Alfred. 2002. Reverence for Life: The Ethics of Albert Schweitzer for the Twenty First Century. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Shandra, John M., Christopher Leckband, Laura A.  McKinney, and Bruce London. 2009. Ecologically Unequal Exchange, World Polity, and Biodiversity Loss a Cross-national Analysis of Threatened Mammals. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 285–310. Stern, David I. 2004. The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development 32 (8): 1419–1439. Stretesky, Paul B., Michael A. Long, and Michael J. Lynch. 2013. The Treadmill of Crime: Political Economy and Green Criminology. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Stretesky, Paul B., Ruth E.  McKie, Michael J.  Lynch, Michael A.  Long, and Kimberly L. Barrett. 2018. Where Have All the Falcons Gone? Saker Falcon (falco cherrug) Exports in a Global Economy. Global Ecology and Conservation 13: e00372. Wake, David B., and Vance T. Vredenburg. 2008. Are We in the Midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? A View from the World of Amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 10 (S-1): 11466–11473. Wang, Laili, Xuemei Ding, and Xiongying Wu. 2014. Environmental Kuznets Curve for Pollutants Emissions in China’s Textile Industry: An Empirical Investigation. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management 17 (1): 14–29. Watson, Richard A. 1983. A Critique of Anti-anthropocentric Biocentrism. Environmental Ethics 5 (3): 45–56. White, Rob. 2007. Green Criminology and the Pursuit of Social and Ecological Justice. In Issues in Green Criminology: Confronting Harms Against Environments, Humanity and other Animals, ed. P.  Beirne and N.  South, 32–54. Devon, UK: Willan. York, Richard, and Eugene A.  Rosa. 2003. Key Challenges to Ecological Modernization Theory. Organization & Environment 16: 273–288. York, Richard, Eugene A. Rosa, and T. Dietz. 2010. Ecological Modernization Theory: Theoretical and Empirical Challenges. In The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, ed. M.R.  Redclift and G.  Woodgate, 77–90. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. York, Richard, Eugene A.  Rosa, and Thomas Dietz. 2003. Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity. American Sociological Review 68: 279–300.

4 Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World Capitalist System and the Treadmill of Production

In this chapter we take up the issue of human social and environmental injustice (HSEJ), focusing attention on concerns laid out in previous chapters. Among those concerns is the way in which the capitalist world system and the organization and reorganization of the capitalist treadmill of production create variability in HSEJ across nations. We also argue that similar conditions can be seen within nations, using Native Americans as an example.

HSEJ and Eco-justice Human social and ecological injustice is, in our view, part of the larger concept of eco-justice. The vast majority of research on environmental issues and ecological destruction tends to place human social and ecological justice concerns into unique categories for analysis, and segments the negative effects of ecological destruction on humans from larger concerns focused on the effects of ecological destruction for nonhuman populations and ecosystems. Because of that focus, studies of the negative environmental impacts of ecological destruction are often criticized for being © The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9_4

63

64 

M. J. Lynch et al.

anthropocentric. That is, these studies ignore nonhuman dimensions of the ecological system and the impact of ecological destruction on nonhuman species. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to take an anthropocentric view in order to understand the specific and differential effects of ecological destruction on humans. That means that sometimes, a broad, very general theory of eco-justice may have limitations when it comes to understanding some of the very specific effects of ecological destruction. For example, we know that being exposed to air pollution is likely to have deleterious impacts for all kinds of species. It has long been recognized, for example, that exposure to chronic air pollution can adversely impact tree species (McLaughlin et  al. 1982; Smith 1970). It can be assumed that air pollution has adverse effects on wildlife, or specific wildlife species (e.g., birds), but it is difficult to locate studies illustrating that connection empirically (Hames et al. 2002; Llacuna et al. 1993), while there are significantly more studies examining the effects of air pollution on humans. Thus, it is often necessary to take different kinds of environmental victims and treat them separately, even if there is a larger theory behind exploring species-specific environmental victimization.

 he Capitalist World System, the Treadmill T of Production and HSEJ We take the view that it is necessary to explore the ways in which human social and ecological justice (HSEJ) problems emerge from the ecologically unsustainable practices associated with the capitalist world system and the treadmill of production. As noted earlier, capitalism and nature are in contradiction with one another because they have alternative internal dynamics. Capitalism seeks to grow continuously and, in so doing, to transform a growing quantity of nature into commodities whose production and sale facilitate the growth of capitalism. At the same time, nature seeks to remain in a state of equilibrium in order to reproduce itself. This reproduction is what sustains life on planet earth. The reason for this is simple: nature needs some stock or quantity of raw material to perform those duties (i.e., reproduction), and thus the necessary boundary of

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

65

e­ cosystem maintenance limits the growth of capitalism and defines the real material limits of capitalism (see Lynch et  al. 2017 for empirical details). In the following discussion we attempt to (1) propose some assumptions specifically designed to relate capitalism, world system theory, treadmill of production theory and discussions of eco-justice to the specific nature of HSEJ justice; and (2) demonstrate the causal associations between the negative ecological outcomes associated with the world system, the treadmill of production and negative HSEJ outcomes. That focus draws attention not only to the general ways in which capitalism generates HSEJ, but to the specific ways in which HSEJ is generated by the capitalist world system and the treadmill of production.

World System Theory and HSEJ World system theory was influenced heavily by Immanuel Wallerstein (1976) and posits that there is a global world economy based on capitalism. That system is the over-arching system of production and exchange in the modern world (in the WST view, since the long fifteenth century around 1450), and hence all nations of the world participate in the global capitalist world system. In world system theory, analysis revolves around illustrating how the general explanation of capitalism applies across nations in relation to the different structural locations of nations in the capitalist world system and the roles that accompany those structural locations. Thus, at the world system level, attention is drawn to the position of a nation in the global capitalist world order. In world system theory, nations essentially occupy class positions in the international world order of capitalism. Core nations or the class of capitalist nations that dominate the world system through ownership of the primary means of production and control over the major forms of international exchange that take place. This means that exchanges will generally favor core nations over semi-peripheral (developing) and peripheral (less-developed/underdeveloped) nations, and that core nations will dominate and exploit the resources available in other nations for their own use to enhance capital accumulation in unequal ways

66 

M. J. Lynch et al.

(Wallerstein 1974; for precursors to this explanation which make similar observations, see also Prebisch 1950). The structural organization of the capitalist world system dictates that the world system is based, like any form of capitalism, on inequality in ownership, unequal access to resources and unequal exchanges. Those unequal ownership and exchange relations include access to raw materials. Historically, this unequal access to raw materials was promoted through forms of colonial conquests (and other example such as the German statues on the theft of wood, see Marx 1842). Those unequal exchanges between colonizers and colonies continue to characterize the contemporary world system and advantage core capitalist nations and their exploitation of raw material resources located in noncore (peripheral and semi-peripheral) nations. This leads to the long-term development of a system of raw material exchange in which raw materials are exported primarily from the periphery for use and consumption in the core. This system of unequal exchange also includes the exchange of labor following the general pattern of the exploitation of labor Marx described as a central feature of capitalism. At the global level, this includes the appearance of “enhanced” labor exploitation or an increase in the exploitation of noncore labor relative to the exploitive conditions faced by the core labor force. In this way, the structure of the global labor market and differentials in labor costs creates an unequal exchange of labor, which also contributes to differentials in ecological footprints across nations (Hornborg 2006; Kentor and Jorgenson 2010). Given the general structure of these unequal exchange patterns, the core is able to consume a large portion of raw materials extracted from the periphery. This unequal exchange between the core and periphery reduces the availability of raw materials for consumption within the periphery which leads to long-term underdevelopment of the periphery (Bunker 1984; Jorgenson et al. 2009). For example, Rice (2007a: 1369) specifically argues that the high ecological resource consumption rates of developed (core) nations promotes underdevelopment in less-developed nations and constrains the consumption of ecological resources in underdeveloped nations. Jorgenson (2006a) has offered a specific explanation

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

67

for the application of the idea of unequal exchange to ecological resources (ecologically unequal exchange theory). In that view, the unequal access to raw materials and exchanges can be seen in the distribution of the ecological footprint across nations (Jorgenson 2003, 2006a, 2011). Nations with the highest ecological footprints will tend to be core nations, followed by semi-peripheral and then peripheral nations. Following our earlier discussion, this form of world system inequality also generates inequality in the distribution of ecological harm. This does not mean, however, that there is an absence of ecological destruction in core nations. Rather, it means that the various forms in which ecological destruction appears across nations impact nations in different ways, and therefore, evidence of this differential in ecological destruction will be evident across nations. Moreover, given that ecological destruction is differentially distributed across nations, forms of eco-injustice will also be unequally distributed across nations, including HSEJ.

The Treadmill of Production and HSEJ The unequal exchange of resources facilitated by the capitalist world system is enhanced by the growth and expansion of the treadmill of production in the capitalist word system. The treadmill of production refers to changes in the capitalist mode of production that took place following World War II (WW II) (Schnaiberg 1980). The specific change of interest in capitalism at this juncture in history is the increased reliance on the use of chemical and fossil fuel labor in the production process to intensify the productivity of labor in an effort to accelerate productivity and the generation of profits. Such productive practice transformations have the general tendency of reducing the quantity of laborers employed in production and increasing the volume of goods produced by a given quantity of labor (i.e., labor becomes more productive; the organic composition of capital—the ratio of constant to variable capital—is changed; and rates of extraction for surplus value and profit change). Following the productive logic of capitalism, this not only increases production output, but reduces the ratio of labor used relative to output. In doing so, the

68 

M. J. Lynch et al.

increased use of fossil fuel and chemical labor reduces the demand for human labor and drives the expansionary tendencies of capitalism through the development of new technologies of production and labor control. This transformation in productive practices sets the stage for a rising rate of surplus value and labor productivity even as the segment of the core economy devoted to manufacturing declines, and core nations shift their economies to a service economy. In this case, the production of surplus value is expanded by reduced labor costs for extraction in the periphery and increased return due to unequal economic exchanges and ecologically unequal exchanges (see also, Bunker 1984; Foster and Holemen 2014; Hornborg 1998, 2009, 2014). Over time, core manufacturing is replaced by less capital-intensive manufacturing in the semiperiphery and periphery which, due to lower labor costs and proximity to natural resources, inflates profits relative to capital investment. This transfer of manufacturing keeps the costs of commodities low and increases demand for commodities both within the core and in noncore nations as incomes and standards of living rise. Such a condition increases pressure to produce more and, in so doing, leads to consuming and destroying an increasing quantity of natural resources. Historically, the concept of the treadmill of production was developed to explain the specific shift in capitalism and its productive relationships in the United States since World War II (Schnaiberg 1980). Over time, however, the development of the treadmill of production in the United States has been exported across the nations in the world system, and the treadmill of production takes on an international/global form over time (Gould et al. 2008). In Schnaiberg’s (1980) general description of the treadmill of production, negative ecologically destructive outcomes are referred to as “ecological disorganization.” He then argued that there are two primary types of ecological disorganization: ecological withdrawals and ecological additions. Ecological withdrawals involve the extraction of raw materials and the processes employed to facilitate the withdrawal of raw materials. Following WW II, new withdrawal technologies were designed to increase the efficiency of ecological withdrawals. Increased efficiency of ecological

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

69

withdrawals is facilitated by the general technologies associated with the treadmill of production—that is, an increase in the use of fossil fuel and chemical energy for purposes of extracting raw materials (for more extended discussion and criminological analysis, see Stretesky et al. 2013; Lynch et al. 2013). The expansion of fossil fuel and chemically related ecological withdrawal technologies increases the extraction of raw materials and will tend to do so in ways that accelerate ecological disorganization. On the one hand, ecological disorganization is accelerated in the aggregate as the new technologies for ecological withdrawal speed up the withdrawal process and cause more of the ecosystem to be destroyed. On the other hand, there is also a relatively greater impact associated with these new forms of ecological withdrawal that also accelerates aggregate ecological disorganization. This occurs because the new forms of technology employed to make raw material extraction more efficient also intensify ecological destruction and make ecological disorganization more extreme. One example is mountaintop removal mining. Whereas underground mining has a number of adverse ecological effects (Rathore and Wright 1993), these impacts are intensified by mountaintop mining, which destroys the local ecosystem more extensively than underground mining (Bernhardt and Palmer 2011) while increasing ecological withdrawals and the potential for profit. Ecological additions are defined as the emission of pollutants into the ecosystem. In the absence of any increase in the efficiency of production—that is, absent changes in the technology of production that increase the efficient use of raw materials and minimize the level of extraction required—the volume of pollution emitted is expected to increase along with an expansion in production. It is plausible that ecological additions may decline with expanded production if increased efficiency in the transformation of raw materials into commodities reduces the emission of pollution and the increase in efficiency in the transformation of raw materials is greater than an increase in productive scale (i.e., the volume of pollution saved by increased efficiency in the transformation of raw materials into commodities leads to a decline in pollution greater than the increase in pollution generated by increased production). However, as we know from research that has examined the relationship

70 

M. J. Lynch et al.

between increased efficiency in production and the generation of pollution, increased efficiency typically leads to increased consumption, offsetting any pollution reduction gains made through technological efficiency—which would be expected under capitalism. This outcome is known as Jevon’s Paradox (Jevons 1866; Clark and Foster 2001; Clement 2011; Foster et al. 2010). Regardless of which of these outcomes occurs, the treadmill of production perspective explains the association between the expansion of the treadmill and the tendency for ecological additions to accelerate. This view of the association between the expansion of the treadmill of production and ecological destruction or ecological disorganization is in sharp contrast to the modernization view depicted by the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) hypothesis described earlier. Since ecological additions are unequally distributed, so too are the adverse eco-justice impacts generated by the production of ecological additions by the treadmill of production. In recent years, it has been argued that the effects of the treadmill of production are not confined to the United States (Gould et  al. 2008)—the original context in which treadmill of production theory was created as an explanation of ecological harms. Rather, researchers have recognized that the treadmill of production and the capitalist world system interact to generate a global effect on ecological disorganization and its patterned distribution (York et al. 2003). We would add to these propositions the observation that the deindustrialization of the core leads to the transfer and growth of treadmill of production practices in the semi-periphery and periphery, which can be explained by an investment shift in manufacturing reflecting global wage structures and natural resource availability. This technological transfer of the treadmill of production globally has generated conditions that have led to the rise of the Chinese and other Asian economies rooted in manufacturing (for a green criminological example related to the intersection of the transfer of treadmill of production technology and facilities, economic, social justice and ecological justice, see Lynch 2016). This transfer of the treadmill of production brings with it a shift in the global distribution of pollution (Frey 2003) and ecological disorganization (Buttel 2004; see also, Baer 2008; Jorgenson 2006a, b).

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

71

 onnecting the Capitalist World System, C the Treadmill of Production and HSEJ The relationship between deindustrialization of the core, industrialization of the semi-periphery, resource extraction in the periphery and semi-­ periphery, pollution and ecological destruction/disorganization is complex, especially with respect to issues such as human eco-justice. In the first place, deindustrialization in the core, as US data from the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) suggests, does not necessarily lead to a long-­ term, significant decline in pollution. In 2002 the 25,247 firms reporting TRI emissions to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) reported releasing 26.41 billion pounds of hazardous chemical pollutants, or an average of 1.046 million pounds per reporting facility. In 2011, the 20,297 reporting firms reported releasing 22.79 billion pounds or about 13% less emissions—though here, one must bear in mind that the number of reporting facilities declined by 4950, or by 19.6%. On a per firm basis, in other words, there was an increase in emissions from 1.046 million pounds to 1122.8 million pounds, or an increase of 7% in emission per facility. Thus, in the aggregate, emissions declined as deindustrialization accelerated and the scope of production became more concentrated, but only as a result of increased concentration in emissions among a smaller number of polluting firms. Since 1991, the TRI indicates that the aggregate volume of industrial pollution in the United States has declined, though it rose significantly during the late 1990s and early 2000s. But several factors influence that apparent decline. Important among these factors is that requirements for reporting industrial waste under the TRI have changed, reducing the number of facilities that are required to report. Bennear (2008) discovered that as much as 40% of the decline in self-reported emissions by facilities in Massachusetts appeared to be due to changes in reporting requirements (the threshold for reporting was raised, meaning fewer firms were required to report pollution), and to the growth of smaller facilities that do not meet legal reporting requirements because they do not produce pollution above the level specified in environmental laws and regulations and hence are not required to report their emissions.

72 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Moreover, while the decline in the TRI may be statistically significant, the total aggregate volume of pollution remains so high that these statistically significant yet small aggregate reductions in TRI emissions mean that the aggregate volume of TRI pollution and the forms of ecological disorganization they create remain quite high. That is to say, even though, for instance emission declined by 13% from 2002 compared to 2011, in 2011 there were still nearly 23  billion pounds of TRI emissions—no small amount, and a higher rate of emissions per facility. This outcome is similar to what can be expected with reference to Jevons Paradox. It should also be noted that the long-term trend in TRI emissions hides shorter-term trends that are important to consider. For instance, from 2002 through 2009, TRI emissions in the United States decreased from 26.41 billion pounds to 20.39 billion pounds or by about 22.8%. That decline was largely driven by a global economic slow-down in production which also impacted the volume of production in the United States. Since 2009, TRI emissions rose to 22.79 billion pounds by 2011, or by 11.8%, which again was the result of global trends and the end of a world economic downturn. Thus, the trend from 2002 to 2011 which shows an overall decline in TRI emissions hides an increase in emissions following 2009 as the world economy recovered. Indeed, as Long, Lynch and Stretesky (2018) have shown, the significant decline in TRI emissions in the United States noted in the 2005–2014 period was due to the global economic recession—or to the slowed pace of the treadmill of production. That empirical evidence illustrates how the recession caused a contraction in the treadmill of production, generating a reduction in TRI emissions that could not be explained by other factors. While the total aggregate decline in TRI emissions from 2002 through 2011 is statistically significant, the absolute aggregate volume of toxic releases in 2011 remains staggering, as does the aggregate volume of TRI emissions released in the United States from 2002 to 2011. If one adds these decade-long TRI emissions together, about 250 billion pounds of toxic chemicals were released in the United States in a decade, which is enough toxic waste, according to our estimate, to cover the State of New Jersey in a three-foot deep layer of toxic waste. That quantity of waste would be sufficient to produce a wide variety of serious illnesses (Lynch and Stretesky 2014). Indeed, that quantity of waste, if confined to one

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

73

location (e.g., New Jersey), would make that place—and its 8723 square miles or 5.6 million acres—uninhabitable. Luckily—or is it unlucky— that volume of pollution is spread out across a larger landscape where it is less damaging, though still of significant consequence in terms of its ecological costs. A similar problem can be seen in nations to which industrialization has been transferred through the economic treadmill. In those nations, very large increases in pollution emissions occur. It is possible that the rise in and production of emissions in developing industrial nations occurs at a lower rate than the pollution production rate in deindustrializing nations due to the use of new methods of production in developing industrial nations which are more efficient and produce a relative decline in emissions (see Lynch 2016). Despite the reduction in the pollution emission rate, we would hypothesize that it is likely that increased demand stimulated by the aggregate growth in wealth in industrializing nations drives an increase in consumption, and more than offsets any pollution decline associated with improved efficiency of production in industrializing nations (for various measures related to China, see, e.g., http://www.chinafaqs.org/issue/energy-and-emissions-data, accessed April 1, 2018). While the differential in pollution production between developing and developed nations has received significant attention in the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) literature, those studies have overlooked important issues. As noted in an earlier chapter, the results from the EKC literature are mixed. Nevertheless, the general assumption in the EKC hypothesis is that the shift in production and pollution from developed to developing nations reduces overall ecological destruction—that is, as countries modernize, and new, more efficient methods of production are employed and exported to less-developed nations, the modernization of production and its shift to less-developed nations should produce a decline in global pollution. But this, as Jevons Paradox would predict, is not at all what happens. What that literature also omits, however, is consideration of the continued relationship between pollution, its negative public health impacts and the continued effects of pollution on the human ecological footprint and the encroachment and crossing of planetary boundaries. Thus, even if one accepts the EKC hypothesis, that literature does not suggest that

74 

M. J. Lynch et al.

the long-term reduction in industrial pollution globally plays any significant role in reducing human, nonhuman and ecological harm—that there is, as a result of decreased emissions, now more ecological justice. Instead, that literature makes the assumption that because the level of pollution is declining, human, nonhuman animal and ecological health must consequently improve. This assumption, however, has not been proven empirically, and indeed, one could argue that the aggregate level of pollution remains sufficiently high as to continue to threaten human, nonhuman and ecosystem health. That is to say, while pollution in the aggregate may have declined, that decline is not substantial enough to improve human, nonhuman animal or ecological health. In this context, consider the TRI data reviewed in an earlier section of this chapter. There we noted that there was a decline in TRI emissions of about 19.6% from 2002 through 2011. Numerically, the decline appears large—3.62  billion pounds less pollution. But, at the same time, there was still a staggering amount of pollutants emitted in the United States—22.79  billion pounds in 2011. At the same time that emissions in the United States have been declining, air emissions in China have risen and are now at dangerous levels with 113 Chinese cities failing to meet that country’s air pollution standard. For example, it has been estimated that nitrogen oxide emissions in China have increased by an average of 3.8% per year for 25 consecutive years. The PEW research center estimated that for the 333 days in 2014 in which Chinese air pollution data was available for Beijing, that on 65.2% of those days the air quality was “unhealthy” or worse for an average healthy person. Moreover, there were only 10 days when air quality was good. In addition to the above, there is a need to consider whether deindustrialization in the core and the supposed reduction in pollution have any significant impact on eco-justice considered in a global context. While there may be some reduction in pollution in deindustrializing nations, deindustrialization in the core is expected to display a specific geographic pattern. At issue is whether the decline in pollution that may emerge in the core as a result of deindustrialization significantly changes the geographic distribution of pollution in the core. If, as EKC arguments suggest, deindustrialization has the effect of lowering the emission of pollutants in the core, this observation fails to address whether one would

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

75

expect to see continued evidence of environmental injustice or differentials in exposure to toxic pollutants across racial and class groups in core nations. Therefore, while the overall level of pollution may be declining, it may still be unequally distributed. Indeed, EKC literature does not address whether the theoretical decline in pollution is equally or unequally distributed. Also unaddressed in the EKC approach is the issue of the relationship between the growth of pollution in developing nations and its impact on eco-justice. The concern here is that increased pollution in developing nations may expand HSEJ in developing nations. Whether that increase in pollution is also related to the emergence of forms of environmental injustice specific to developing nations is an empirical question that to our knowledge has yet to be addressed. One could image a number of empirical studies that might address this question. For example, even if industrialization of the semi-periphery is leading to a global reduction in pollution, it is likely to be increasing the volume of pollution within semi-peripheral nations. At issue is whether those increases in emission in the semi-periphery are equally or unequally distributed, a question than can be answered empirically by assessing the relationship between those emissions and the characteristics of populations living in and around areas experiencing increases in production and pollution.

 cknowledging Ecologically Unequal A Exchange Effects Eco-justice issues related to the expansion of the treadmill of production in industrializing nations also raise other relevant concerns. One such concern is ecologically unequal exchange. While the highly ecologically destructive resource withdrawal practices associated with the treadmill of production are evident in all nations, the ecologically destructive force of the capitalist treadmill of production is particularly evident in the periphery since this is where a significant quantity of raw materials are located and extracted. As prior studies demonstrate, the destructive effects of the treadmill of production are

76 

M. J. Lynch et al.

e­specially visible in those locations with natural resources (Long et  al. 2017) and with respect to processes such as deforestation (Jorgenson 2006a, b; Jorgenson et al. 2009; Austin 2010a) and for the production of other commodities including beef (Austin 2010a), coffee (Austin 2012) and soybeans (Austin 2010b). This ecologically unequal exchange (Rice 2007b) is facilitated by the increasing international scope of the treadmill of production (Rice 2009) and is, therefore, also related to the expansion and reorganization of capitalism on a global scale. We have suggested that unequal resource extraction and HSEJ are connected through transformations in the organization of the global capitalist economy and the realignment of the capitalist treadmill of production. This is especially true if we define HSEJ as an equity issue and as a form of distributive justice. As we have reviewed, prior empirical studies have illustrated that distributive justice, and we would argue as a result HSEJ issues, is related to central measures of the world system, the treadmill of production and ecological Marxist theory. This leads to the following observation: the capitalist world system and treadmill of production force the negative ecological and economic outcomes associated with the organization of production and consumption locally and globally to be unequally distributed relative to the supply and consumption of raw materials. Though it does not contain a specific indicator of world system position, data from the Earth Policy Institute illustrates this point with respect to deforestation (Table 4.1). Table 4.1 illustrates a relationship between deforestation and a very general depiction of world system position. Table 4.1 shows that deforestation has expanded to the greatest degree in Africa and South America, Table 4.1  World forest cover, millions of hectares, 1990, 2000 and 2010 Africa Asia Europe North and Central America Oceania South America Source: Earth Policy accessed, May 7, 2015.

1990

2000

2010

% +/−, 1990–2010

749 576 989 708 199 946

709 570 998 705 198 904

674 596 1005 705 191 864

− 10.01 3.37 1.62 − 0.42 − 4.02 − 8.67

Institute,

http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C56,

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

77

two of the regions in the global South most impacted by the forms of ecologically unequal exchange evident in the capitalist world system. In African nations, deforestation has led to a loss of 75 million hectares of forest cover, or 10% of the forest cover that was available in Africa in 1990. In South America, the effect is somewhat less on a percentage basis (nearly 8.7%), but in the aggregate constitutes a larger loss of 82 million hectares of forest between 1990 and 2010. With respect to various theories concerning the relationship between capitalism, ecological destruction, ecologically unequal exchange and our focus on HSEJ, the data from Table 4.1 along with empirical analyses by Jorgenson (2003, 2006a) speaks to how global capitalism impacts HSEJ.  Deforestation erodes long-standing traditional subsistence relationships in underdeveloped nations and leads to legally enforceable prohibitions that limit access to forests for Native peoples in underdeveloped and developing regions (Firestone et al. 2004; Hitchcock 1994; Raymond 2007) as well as for Native peoples in developed nations (O’Neill 2000)— two eco-justice issues of particular relevance to indigenous/native peoples and how they are impacted by the global treadmill of production, its expansion and its quest for access to raw materials. Such legal restrictions limiting access to ecological resources clearly have adverse impacts on Native peoples living under those types of arrangements (Lynch and Stretesky 2012). These conditions also cause a collapse in the more ecologically sustainable lifestyles of Native peoples which exist independently from constantly expanding consumption and accumulation pressures associated with the global world system and treadmill of production. These kinds of local ecologically unequal exchange effects should not be dismissed or glossed over, nor should they be misinterpreted simply as aberrations or treated as situation-specific cases, an outcome that may be fostered by case study approaches. Evidence on any specific case concerning the effect of deforestation on local populations (e.g., Goldstein 2004; Tongson and Dino 2004) must be seen as part of the larger structural process driving global deforestation, and it is necessary to understand how the HSEJ impacts of deforestation for any specific population intersect with trends in production and consumption generated by the global system of capitalist production.

78 

M. J. Lynch et al.

It is in this sense that one must take seriously C. Wright Mills’ (1959) argument on the appropriate application of the sociological imagination. In that view, Mills cautioned that social explanation must be able to connect biography and history, or in the present case to link the forms of HSEJ experienced by any given group as a consequence of deforestation to the larger structural forces driving global deforestation. In the context of global deforestation, that means being able to appreciate that localized forms of HSEJ are indicators of the global forms of HSEJ the capitalist world system produces. This means considering how global deforestation is linked to the expansion of capitalism and the treadmill of production and how those processes also drive larger HSEJ outcomes that emanate from deforestation such as the effect of deforestation on climate change and the production of pollution more generally, and how those processes create the unequal distribution of ecological harms across nations, classes and ethnic groups. As prior studies indicate, the poor are at a greater structural disadvantage with respect to responding to and protecting themselves from the advance of the effects from climate change (Dasgupta et al. 2009; Mendelson et al. 2006).

 he Relevance of Ecological Footprints T and Consumption Patterns in the Global Capitalist World System Inequality in HSEJ is also illustrated by studies of the human ecological footprint (Wackernagel and Rees 1997; Wackernagel et  al. 2006). The ecological footprint measures the relationship between ecological consumption and ecological availability, or what is also called available biocapacity across nations. As noted earlier, when the ecological footprint is 1.0, it indicates that a nation consumes its available biocapacity; when it is less than 1.0, biocapacity is being preserved; and when the footprint exceeds 1.0, excessive consumption is eating away at the biocapacity reserve (Lynch et al. 2017). Nations with ecological footprints above 1.0 consume more ecological biocapacity than is available within their borders, and must obtain that additional biocapacity by consuming the

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

79

e­ cological biocapacity of other nations. Within the context of the capitalist world system, this observation means that over-consuming nations impose their consumption habits on other nations by depleting the ecological resources of other nations. This process establishes a system of unequal exchange relations where raw materials flow from the periphery and semi-periphery to satisfy consumption patterns in core nations. A number of studies support this contention and hence our proposition of inequality in the distribution of HSEJ across nations (Jorgenson 2003, 2006a, b, 2011; Jorgenson and Burns 2007; Jorgenson and Clark 2011; Jorgenson and Rice 2007a; York et al. 2003). Those studies indicate that the ecological footprints of core nations are well in excess of those of peripheral nations, providing evidence of an unequal exchange of resources between the core and periphery. The form of ecologically unequal exchange contained in that system of global capitalism has also been illustrated with respect to other indicators of consumption. Moran et al. (2009) demonstrate that point with respect to the non-­ carbon dioxide consumption patterns across regions of the world. Using data that displays inter- and intra-regional consumption, Moran et  al. create an aggregate measure of the unequal ecological surplus and deficits for each world region in millions of hectares. A surplus indicates that a nation consumes above its local ecological limits and must important materials from other nations to meet its consumption demands/habits. Countries with a consumption deficit are exporters of consumables. The data for each world region as defined by Moran et al. is as follows, listed in order of magnitude of effect (greatest deficits/exporters first): Western Europe, −48.8  million hectares; Middle Eastern and Central Asian nations, −25.4; Latin America, −19.3; Africa, −5.9; Asia-Pacific, −2.3; non-Western European nations, +23.4; North America, +78.3  million hectares. With respect to the concept of HSEJ, nations with positive ecological surpluses are those that have excessive consumption behaviors related to the intensity of capital’s global distribution and which lead them to consume the ecological resources of other nations. In this sense, over-­ consumption facilitates economic growth and the expansion of “advances” in average lifestyles in high consumption nations. That “advance” is defined within the logical parameters of capitalism, which suggests that

80 

M. J. Lynch et al.

increased consumption is a valuable outcome and therefore, excessive consumption is interpreted favorably. Examined outside of the logical parameters of capitalism, this “advance” in average lifestyle in high consumption nations comes at the cost of general, global ecological decline as well as a decline in the availability of ecological resources for dependent nations that export raw materials and commodities for consumption to other nations. In this case, we can see that over-consumption in North America (78.3  million hectares) and non-Western European nations (+23.4) drives the export of ecological consumption and the export of ecological consumption from other regions of the world. The distribution of consumption evident in Moran et al.’s data indicates extensive eco-injustice. This consumption evidence also speaks to issues we have reviewed here, such as the relationship between eco-justice, capitalism, the world system, the treadmill of production and unequal exchange. In short, we can say that the capitalism-dependency-unequal exchange relationship behind this consumption/distribution pattern is a significant force behind the global distribution and inequality in HSEJ. A more specific study by Rice (2007a) also illustrates this point with respect to world system position and ecologically unequal exchange. Employing a sample of 137 nations, Rice demonstrated how peripheral and semi-peripheral nations are impacted by ecologically unequal exchange. Rice (2007a: 1369) posits a proposition that is of central importance to our discussion of HSEJ: The theory of ecologically unequal exchange suggests the structure of international trade shapes disproportionate access to global environmental space in a manner substantially predicated upon hierarchical position in the world system. Environmental space encompasses the stocks of natural resources and sink capacity (or waste assimilation properties) of ecological systems supporting human social organization … Disproportionate consumption of global environmental space by industrialized countries conceivably limits the present and future utilization opportunities of less developed countries.

In relation to our eco-justice argument, we can say that world system position impacts environmental space access opportunities and hence impacts the distribution of HSEJ across nations in unequal ways. Rice’s

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

81

analysis supports this general argument in two ways. First, he found that a greater proportion of commodities produced in less/lesser- or underdeveloped (peripheral and semi-peripheral) nations were exported to the core for consumption, illustrating that world system position transforms access to environmental space into uneven consumption outcomes across nations in the capitalist world system. Second, the analysis also indicated that internal or domestic consumption of environmental materials was lower in less/lesser- or underdeveloped nations compared to core nations. Thus, we can say that position in the world system adversely affects HSEJ by promoting unequal global consumption of ecological resources and the unequal flow of ecological resources across nations, consistently favoring core nations and generating a structural form of differential HSEJ across nations. At the same time, it also appears that world system position protects against excessive ecological destruction by reducing ecological demand within developing nations. When examined only in relation to internally imposed ecological resource use, developed nations appear to place less stress on the global ecosystem and the human ecological footprint. At the same time, however, what those nations do not consume internally—or the decline in ecological resource use within developed nations—is transformed/externalized through consumable ecological assets acquired from other, lesser-developed nations.

 cologically Unequal Exchange Includes Pollution E and Waste Above we have examined the issue of ecologically unequal exchange with respect to commodity consumption and ecological footprints. Those indicators form important dimensions related to HSEJ and the explanation of how capitalism and HSEJ are connected to unequal consumption. The issue of unequal consumption is also related to the global unequal production of pollution and the generation of waste. For example, in their analysis of the association between the production of carbon dioxide pollution and trade patterns with the United States, Stretesky and Lynch (2009) found that trade exchanges with the United States, a particularly influential core nation in the world capitalist system, were

82 

M. J. Lynch et al.

associated with the volume of carbon dioxide pollution generated in exporting nations. In other words, an exchange relationship with the United States increases the production of carbon dioxide pollution in other nations. This finding is important because it illustrates how a core nation (in this case, the United States) has a larger carbon footprint than would result from traditional calculations, since in the traditional calculation, only the direct carbon footprint resulting from domestic production is included. Stretesky and Lynch’s method included a calculation of the carbon consumption footprint that was indirect, or which measured how US imports impacted the carbon footprint in nations from which the United States imports goods. This result suggests that even individually, core nations consume at such extensive rates that they impact the generation of pollution in other nations, contributing more significantly to global ecological destruction than internal consumption and pollution data indicate on their own. In terms of equity issues and HSEJ, this means the core produces significantly more ecological damage and injustice than is ordinarily conceptualized in some research since the impact of trade is often overlooked in these studies. Moreover, these studies indicate how the core generates adverse environmental impacts in other nations and causes an unequal distribution of exposure to pollutants. Related studies such as those on the distribution of ecological footprints across nations (Jorgenson 2011; Jorgenson and Clark 2011) and economic-­environmental decoupling (Jorgenson and Clark 2012) support these conclusions.

Acknowledging Natural Capital Impacts As noted above, HSEJ issues can be related to access to raw materials, which in more general terms is a description of how the global system of capitalism structures access to “natural capital” or the global stock and store of nature within and across nations. Natural capital exists in many different forms and is differentially distributed across nations. The concept of natural capital includes the value of natural resources beyond their transformation into and consumption as commodities. This includes

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

83

reference to the value of natural resources with respect to the role those resources play in preserving and reproducing Earth’s life support system and with respect to long-term environmental stability and sustainability (Costanza et  al. 1997). In recognizing this connection, studies have developed objective measures of the value of ecological resources using the concept of natural economic accounting (Wackernagel et al. 1999; Monfreda et al. 2004). In a related study, Jorgenson (2006a) examined the issue of natural capital depletion for a sample of nations from 1990 to 2000 with respect to deforestation. Employing a world system-styled approach coupled to his argument about ecologically unequal exchange, Jorgenson hypothesized that developed countries are able to use their economic and political power to externalize consumption-related costs onto underdeveloped nations and consume the natural capital of underdeveloped nations reducing the impact of consumption on developed nation’s natural capital. An example of that effect can also be found in Table 4.1 as described earlier. In effect, this means that developed or core nations use their power and influence to extract raw materials from lesser/underdeveloped nations, shifting the consumption of raw materials to those locations and establishing a pattern of unequal consumption detrimental to the ability of underdeveloped nations to access and control their natural capital assets for their own needs, and decreasing long-term ecological sustainability and reproduction. These studies contribute findings that support our contention that the distribution of HSEJ is unequal across nations, and that contemporary forms of ecological decline and destruction have greater adverse impacts on underdeveloped nations. In reference to these observations, we can say that HSEJ is impaired for residents of underdeveloped nations by the penetration of developed nations’ economies and consumption demands. In this way, the unequal relations of the capitalist world system deprive residents of underdeveloped nations of their control of natural capital and, in doing so, facilitate and reproduce economic dependence in those nations which contribute to a cycle of natural capital exploitation that produces HSEJ injustice for people in lesser/ underdeveloped nations.

84 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Capitalism, Native People and HSEJ Issues It is important in a discussion of global HSEJ to consider not only the nature of that global process, but to determine HSEJ effects that may escape attention in a more general global analysis. On example involves HSEJ impacts of global capitalism on Native People. Al Gedicks (2003: 85) proposed the following argument with respect to Native Peoples and ecological destruction: Native people are under assault on every continent because their land contains valuable resources needed for industrial and military production. Advances in exploration technologies have allowed multinational mining, oil and lumber corporations to identify resources in the most isolated and inaccessible parts of the world’s rainforests, mountains, deserts and tundras. These are precisely the areas occupied by the world’s remaining indigenous peoples.

Although this relationship between industrialization and Native Peoples is well known and widely recognized, the analysis of Native People’s exploitation in relation to ecological destruction remains under-­ theorized and under-examined, especially within green criminology. To do so it is necessary to explore Native People’s environmental victimization as a form of HSEJ generated by global capitalism. To place Native People’s environmental victimization in context, it should be noted that the earliest forms of capitalism and the conquest of foreign lands were forged hand-in-hand with the exploitation of Native Peoples’ ecological resources. In that sense we can say that there is a long-­ term historical relationship between the expansion of the capitalist world system and the exploitation and destruction of Native Peoples’ ecosystems. This long-term historical relationship illustrates one of the arguments of ecological Marxism—namely that capitalism and nature are in contradiction with one another, and that the expansion of capitalism into the world system begins with the conquest of ecological resources in foreign lands frequently populated by Native Peoples. Long-term ecologically unequal exchanges with Native Peoples can be illustrated by the treatment of Native Americans. That record includes significant evidence of ecologically unequal exchange and environmental

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

85

injustice for Native Peoples (Lynch and Stretesky 2012). Numerous resources such as oil, coal, uranium and precious metals have been extracted from Native American communities in ways that produce ecologically unequal exchange. Many of those ecologically unequal exchanges involve the production of conditions that promote environmental injustice for Native American communities. As Lynch and Stretesky note, Native American communities across the American landscape have been saddled with waste left behind by industrial mining and manufacturing, generating unequal environmental health burdens for Native Americans. As evidence of these ecological and economic unequal exchanges, it should be noted that despite the great ecological wealth deposited on the lands of Native peoples and the exploitation of those resources by the capitalist treadmill of production, Native Americans are among the poorest ethnic groups in America (Lynch and Stretesky 2012). As an example, consider that US Census Bureau data indicates that of the 11 poorest counties in the United States, 7 are comprised primarily of Native American populations. Moreover, Native American communities are more likely to have over-crowded housing, to have deficient water supplies and plumbing and to lack indoor plumbing (Lynch and Stretesky 2012). At the same time, these communities often have rich natural resource deposits which are exploited for the gain of nonnative enterprises. The ecological resources found in Native American communities have been an important source of wealth that treadmill of production techniques have been employed to extract. The treadmill of production has generated significant ecological destruction and pollution, and persistent evidence of adverse health consequences for Native American peoples tied to the forms of ecological withdrawals and additions the treadmill of production has created on Native American lands (Lynch and Stretesky 2012). Yet, despite these observations, green criminology has directed very little attention to the HSEJ issues that capitalism poses for Native American communities. This same general conclusion applies to Native peoples in other nations as well. It is not our intention to review the adverse HSEJ conditions for Native Peoples across the globe here, but rather to call attention to the fact that green criminologists have largely ignored the problems of green justice for Native Peoples, and that significant work on this issue remains to be undertaken.

86 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Conclusion In this chapter we have examined the intersection of capitalism and the generation of negative HSEJ outcomes within and across nations. The general structure of capitalism, its specific form in the world capitalist system and the expansion of the capitalist treadmill of production create a diverse array of eco-injustices for humans. That eco-injustice is distributed unequally across nations of the world, and in specific forms is concentrated in different ways in the various segments of the capitalist world system. The process of unequal economic and ecological exchange has a tendency to benefit the core with respect to consumption of resources. Within the core, however, the unequal distribution of pollution disadvantages some groups more so than others. Across the nations of the world, the greatest deleterious ecological impacts related to ecological destruction associated with recourse withdrawals and differential consumption disadvantage developing nations. Taken together the expansion of the capitalist world system and the treadmill of production reinforce ecologically unequal exchanges and promote negative global HSEJ outcomes. Having laid out a general argument about eco-injustice related to capitalism and human populations, we turn our attention to consideration of this issue with respect to nonhuman eco-injustice in the chapter that follows. As we shall demonstrate, the same general processes that create eco-­ injustice for humans are also the processes that create eco-injustice for nonhuman species.

References Austin, Kelly F. 2010a. The “Hamburger Connection” as Ecologically Unequal Exchange: A Cross-National Investigation of Beef Exports and Deforestation in Less-Developed Countries. Rural Sociology 75 (2): 270–299. ———. 2010b. Soybean Exports and Deforestation from a World-Systems Perspective: A Cross-National Investigation of Comparative Disadvantage. The Sociological Quarterly 51 (3): 511–536.

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

87

———. 2012. Coffee Exports as Ecological, Social, and Physical Unequal Exchange: A Cross-national Investigation of the Java Trade. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 53 (3): 155–180. Baer, Hans. 2008. Global Warming as a By-product of the Capitalist Treadmill of Production and Consumption—The Need for an Alternative Global System. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 19 (1): 58–62. Bennear, Lori S. 2008. What Do We Really Know? The Effect of Reporting Thresholds on Inferences Using Environmental Right-to-know Data. Regulation & Governance 2: 293–315. Bernhardt, Emily S., and Margaret A. Palmer. 2011. The Environmental Costs of Mountaintop Mining Valley Fill Operations for Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachians. Annals of the New  York Academy of Sciences 1223 (1): 39–57. Bunker, Stephen G. 1984. Modes of Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Progressive Underdevelopment of an Extreme Periphery: The Brazilian Amazon, 1600–1980. American Journal of Sociology 89 (5): 1017–1064. Buttel, Frederick H. 2004. The Treadmill of Production: An Appreciation, Assessment, and Agenda for Research. Organization & Environment 17 (3): 323–336. Clark, Brett, and John Bellamy Foster. 2001. William Stanley Jevons and the Coal Question: An Introduction to Jevons’s ‘Of the Economy of Fuel. Organization & Environment 14 (1): 93–98. Clement, Matthew Thomas. 2011. The Jevons Paradox and Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Panel Analysis of State-level Carbon Emissions in the United States, 1963–1997. Society & Natural Resources 24 (9): 951–961. Costanza, Robert, Ralph d’Arge, Rudolf De Groot, Stephen Farber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon, Karin Limburg, Shahid Naeem, Robert V. O’Neill, Jose Paruelo, Robert G. Raskin, Paul Sutton, and Marjan van den Belt. 1997. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 387 (6630): 253–260. Dasgupta, Susmita, Benoit Laplante, Craig Meisner, David Wheeler, and Jianping Yan. 2009. The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Climatic Change 93 (3–4): 379–388. Firestone, Jeremy, Jonathan Lilley, and Isabel Torres de Noronha. 2004. Cultural Diversity, Human Rights, and the Emergence of Indigenous Peoples in International and Comparative Environmental Law. American University International Law Review 20: 219–230.

88 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Foster, John Bellamy, Brett Clark, and Richard York. 2010. Capitalism and the Curse of Energy Efficiency: The Return of the Jevons Paradox. Monthly Review 62 (6): 1–12. Foster, John Bellamy, and Hannah Holleman. 2014. The Theory of Unequal Ecological Exchange: A Marx-Odum Dialectic. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (2): 199–233. Frey, R. Scott. 2003. The Transfer of Core-based Hazardous Production Processes to the Export Processing Zones of the Periphery: The Maquiladora Centers of Northern Mexico. Journal of World-Systems Research 9 (2): 317–354. Gedicks, Al. 2003. Resource Wars Against Native Peoples in Colombia. Capitalism Nature Socialism 14 (2): 85–111. Goldstein, Gregg. 2004. Legal System and Wildlife Conservation: History and the Law’s Effect on Indigenous People and Community Conservation in Tanzania. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 17: 481–515. Gould, K.A., D.N. Pellow, and A. Schnaiberg. 2008. The Treadmill of Production. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Hames, Ralph S., Kenneth V. Rosenberg, James D. Lowe, Sara E. Barker, and André A. Dhondt. 2002. Adverse Effects of Acid Rain on the Distribution of the Wood Thrush Hylocichla Mustelina in North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (17): 11235–11240. Hitchcock, Robert K. 1994. International Human Rights, the Environment, and Indigenous Peoples. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 5: 1–22. Hornborg, Alf. 1998. Towards an Ecological Theory of Unequal Exchange: Articulating World System Theory and Ecological Economics. Ecological Economics 25 (1): 127–136. ———. 2006. Footprints in the Cotton Fields: The Industrial Revolution as Time–space Appropriation and Environmental Load Displacement. Ecological Economics 59 (1): 74–81. ———. 2009. Zero-sum World: Challenges in Conceptualizing Environmental Load Displacement and Ecologically Unequal Exchange in the World-system. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3-4): 237–262. ———. 2014. Ecological Economics, Marxism, and Technological Progress: Some Explorations of the Conceptual Foundations of Theories of Ecologically Unequal Exchange. Ecological Economics 105: 11–18. Jevons, W. Stanley. 1866 [1906]. The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-mines. New York: Macmillan.

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

89

Jorgenson, Andrew K. 2003. Consumption and Environmental Degradation: A Cross-national Analysis of the Ecological Footprint. Social Problems 50 (3): 374–394. ———. 2006a. Unequal Ecological Exchange and Environmental Degradation: A Theoretical Proposition and Cross-National Study of Deforestation, 1990–2000. Rural Sociology 71 (4): 685–712. ———. 2006b. Global Warming and the Neglected Greenhouse Gas: A Cross-­ national Study of the Social Causes of Methane Emissions Intensity, 1995. Social Forces 84 (3): 1779–1798. ———. 2011. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Central and Eastern European Nations, 1992–2005: A Test of Ecologically Unequal Exchange Theory. Human Ecology Review 18 (2): 105–114. Jorgenson, Andrew K., Kelly Austin, and Christopher Dick. 2009. Ecologically Unequal Exchange and the Resource Consumption/Environmental Degradation Paradox A Panel Study of Less-Developed Countries, 1970— 2000. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 263–284. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Thomas J.  Burns. 2007. The Political-economic Causes of Change in the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1991–2001: A Quantitative Investigation. Social Science Research 36 (2): 834–853. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Brett Clark. 2012. Are the Economy and the Environment Decoupling? A Comparative International Study, 1960–20051. American Journal of Sociology 118 (1): 1–44. ———. 2011. Societies Consuming Nature: A Panel Study of the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1960–2003. Social Science Research 40 (1): 226–244. Kentor, Jeffrey, and Andrew K.  Jorgenson. 2010. Foreign Investment and Development: An Organizational Perspective. International Sociology 25 (3): 419–441. Llacuna, S., A. Gorriz, M. Durfort, and J. Nadal. 1993. Effects of Air Pollution on Passerine Birds and Small Mammals. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 24 (1): 59–66. Long, Michael A., Michael J.  Lynch, and Paul B.  Stretesky. 2018. The Great Recession, the Treadmill of Production and Ecological Disorganization: Did the Recession Affect Ecological Disorganization Across US States, 2005–2014? Ecological Economics 146: 184–192. Long, Michael A., Paul B. Stretesky, and Michael J. Lynch. 2017. Foreign Direct Investment, Ecological Withdrawals and Natural Resource Dependent Economies. Society & Natural Resources 30 (10): 1261–1276.

90 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Lynch, Michael J. 2016. Green Criminology and Social Justice: A Reexamination of the Lynemouth Plant Closing and the Political Economic Causes of Environmental and Social Injustice. Critical Sociology. 43 (3): 449–464. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, Kimberly L. Barrett, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2013. Is It a Crime to Produce Ecological Disorganization? Why Green Criminology and Political Economy Matter in the Analysis of Global Ecological Harms. British Journal of Criminology 55 (3): 997–1016. Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B. Stretesky. 2012. Native Americans, Social and Environmental Justice: Implications for Criminology. Social Justice 38 (3): 34–54. ———. 2014. Exploring Green Criminology: Toward a Green Revolution in Criminology. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate. Marx, Karl. 1842. Debates on the Law on Theft of Wood, Rheinische Zeitung, 298, 300, 303, 305 and 307. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/ download/Marx_Rheinishe_Zeitung.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2018. McLaughlin, S.B., R.K. McConathy, D. Duvick, and L.K. Mann. 1982. Effects of Chronic Air Pollution Stress on Photosynthesis, Carbon Allocation, and Growth of White Pine Trees. Forest Science 28 (1): 60–70. Mendelsohn, Robert, Ariel Dinar, and Larry Williams. 2006. The Distributional Impact of Climate Change on Rich and Poor Countries. Environment and Development Economics 11 (2): 159–178. Mills, C.  Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New  York: Oxford University Press. Monfreda, Chad, Mathis Wackernagel, and Diana Deumling. 2004. Establishing National Natural Capital Accounts Based on Detailed Ecological Footprint and Biological Capacity Assessments. Land Use Policy 21 (3): 231–246. Olson, Valerie, and Lisa Messeri. 2015. Beyond the Anthropocene: Un-Earthing an Epoch. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 6 (1): 28–47. Prebisch, Raul. 1950. The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principle Problems. New York: United Nations. Rathore, C.S., and R.  Wright. 1993. Monitoring Environmental Impacts of Surface Coal Mining. International Journal of Remote Sensing 14 (6): 1021–1042. Raymond, Hames. 2007. The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate. Annual Review of Anthropology 36: 177–190. Rice, James. 2007a. Ecological Unequal Exchange: International Trade and Uneven Utilization of Environmental Space in the World. Social Forces 85 (3): 1369–1392.

4  Human Social & Ecological Justice in the Global World… 

91

———. 2007b. Ecological Unequal Exchange: Consumption, Equity, and Unsustainable Structural Relationships within the Global Economy. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 48 (1): 43–72. ———. 2009. The Transnational Organization of Production and Uneven Environmental Degradation and Change in the World Economy. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3-4): 215–236. Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press. Smith, William H. 1970. Air Pollution—Effects on the Structure and Function of the Temperate Forest Ecosystem. Environmental Pollution 6 (2): 111–129. Stretesky, Paul B., Michael A. Long, and Michael J. Lynch. 2013. The Treadmill of Crime: Political Economy and Green Criminology. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Tongson, Edgardo, and Marisel Dino. 2004. Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: The Case of Sibuyan Mangyan Tagabukid, Philippines. In Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work, ed. T.O.  McShane and M.P.  Wells, 181–207. New York: Columbia University Press. Wackernagel, Mathis, Dan Moran, Sahm White, and Michael Murray. 2006. Ecological Footprint Accounts for Advancing Sustainability: Measuring Human Demand on Nature. In Sustainable Development Indicators in Ecological Economics, ed. P. Lawn, 246–266. Northampton, MA: Edgar Elgar. Wackernagel, Mathis, Larry Onisto, Patricia Bello, Alejandro Callejas Linares, Ina Susana López Falfán, Jesus Méndez Garcı ́a, Ana Isabel Suárez Guerrero, and Ma Guadalupe Suárez Guerrero. 1999. National Natural Capital Accounting with the Ecological Footprint Concept. Ecological Economics 29 (3): 375–390. Wackernagel, Mathis, and William E.  Rees. 1997. Perceptual and Structural Barriers to Investing in Natural Capital: Economics from an Ecological Footprint Perspective. Ecological Economics 20 (1): 3–24. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. York, Richard, Eugene A.  Rosa, and Thomas Dietz. 2003. Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity. American Sociological Review 68: 279–300.

5 Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman Ecological Justice

In the previous section we outlined an argument connecting unsustainable development to human social and ecological justice. In doing so, we provided summaries of several studies whose results support the notion that unsustainable development is differentially distributed across nation. Moreover, those studies indicate that differential unsustainable development is related to the structure of global capitalism, and results from the organization of the treadmill of production. In addition, we noted that the organizational structure of capitalism promote ecologically unequal exchange and ecological exploitation in ways that impair the ability of less-developed nations to access and control their own ecological resources. In short, drawing on prior literature, we can say that these conditions, connected to the organization of the capitalist world system, cause social and ecological (in)justice to be unevenly distributed, and have particularly adverse consequences for less-developed nations with respect to equity issues related to access to and the use of ecological resources. In making that argument, we also noted that those processes have important nonhuman ecological injustice impacts. In this section, we take up that argument. Addressing this issue requires discussing a different set of studies concerning the unequal impacts of the world capitalist © The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9_5

93

94 

M. J. Lynch et al.

system on nonhuman species in order to develop a concept of nonhuman ecological justice (NHEJ). As noted at the beginning of Chap. 4, it is not always necessarily wise to focus on dividing environmental victimizations into small segments. It is indeed possible that something can be learned from such approaches. However, at the same time, sometimes it can be useful to examine the specific kinds of victimization different species experience because those victimization experiences are not necessarily the same or comparable across species. That is to say, dividing up environmental victimizations by type can mask the factors that are similar across victimized groups, while at the same time if the similarities in the forces affecting victimization are kept in mind, assessment of victim-specific relationships can also reveal information that is hidden by more general analysis and discussion. Nonhuman ecological injustice involves identifying the effects of humans on nonhuman species access to and use of ecological resources with respect to their health, development and survival. In undertaking this analysis, we first posit an assumption derived from the general observations made by ecological Marxists: namely, that each advance in the human consumption of nature reduces the volume of natural capital available to nonhuman species, disrupting the existence of sustainable ecological relations for nonhuman species. This is an important issue as reducing the quantity of ecological space impacts the ability of nonhuman species to survive. A large number of studies address this issue with respect to outcomes including the contraction of natural spaces such as forests and wetlands, the destruction of other forms of habitat including coral reefs and other aquatic environments, and the accelerated extinction of species that stems from excessive human consumption of ecological resources. The general observation that human consumption patterns associated with the constant expansion of the world capitalist system reduce the access of nonhuman species to natural capital can be constructed from the results of a number of different types of studies. To begin, however, we must first frame the concept of NHEJ in relation to political economic analysis.

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

95

 he Political Economic Analysis of Nonhuman T Ecological Justice A political economic view of NHEJ begins with framing that argument relative to the effects of capitalism on ecological destruction/disorganization, and exploring the ways in which the normal progression of capitalism produces forms of ecological destruction that generate NHEJ effects. A significant portion of that argument has been laid out in prior chapters. In general terms, this means accepting that the primary goal and driving force of capitalism is the production of commodities for purposes of accumulating capital. Beginning with that assumption, ecological Marxists (e.g., Foster 1999) posit that this primary goal of capitalism must produce ecological disorganization/destruction, an argument we reviewed earlier. As capitalism withdraws ecological resources for production, in the process of withdrawal and production, it generates ecological disorganization through withdrawals that cause damage to ecosystems, which simultaneously add pollutants or ecological additions to ecosystems. There are, in this view, two ecologically damaging pathways caused by production—one through ecological withdrawals and one through ecological additions. The process of ecological withdrawal is required for production, and the production process generates ecological additions. But, the withdrawal process itself can also generate ecological additions. For example, consider the withdrawal of copper ore. In the United States, two types of copper ore are mined: copper oxide and copper sulfide. Copper oxides are found closer to the surface than copper sulfides. Both kinds of cooper ores are mined using large-scale, open pit mining. Extraction of cooper sulfides, however, requires more extensive mining, including deeper extraction pits. And both are processed, on site or nearby, under slightly different conditions. Sometimes, however, the copper deposit is well below the earth’s surface. One example is the largest US copper mine, Eagle Mine, in the upper Michigan peninsula. At Eagle Mine, the ore is reached using an 18 foot wide, one mile long tunnel that is 1000 feet deep. Some basic math skills illustrate the large ecological impact. In order to transfer the ore to the surface from 1000 feet below surface, the grade of tunnel is cut at 13 degrees so that trucks can move

96 

M. J. Lynch et al.

the ore through the mine tunnel. Because of this, the one mile tunnel must clearly destroy a significant area, since there are 5280 feet in a mile—so it requires destroying one mile of underground area to go 1000 feet below the surface. Then, holes are drilled in the underground deposits, and explosives used to break up the underground rock formation. The area where the underground deposit has been removed is then filled with a composition of dirt and concrete. The concrete/cement industry produces significant quantities of carbon dioxide. Globally, about 5% of CO2 emissions come from the manufacture of concrete, with 40% due to the burning of fossil fuels used in this process, and half due to the chemical process used to create the concrete. Concrete has a high alkalinity, and thus adding concrete to an area can change the soil pH. Moreover, some types of concrete are made from stone that contains radioactive materials. In the United States, historically most copper has been mined using open pit mining. There are seven operating and former open pit copper mines in the United States. As an example, Berkeley Pit in Butte, Montana, opened in 1955 and closed in 1982, is located in a geologically sensitive area where underground water seeps into the mine, and while the mine was operational, was pumped into holding ponds. Since the mine was closed, water has accumulated in the pit, and is now about 150 feet below the natural water table. The water in the pit has high acidity (pH of 2.5). This causes minerals in the rocks to dissolve, releasing sulfuric acid, copper, cadmium, arsenic and zinc into the water—creating a heavy metal, high acidity toxic mix. Illustrating the additional ecological harms presented by the pit, in two separate incidents—one in 1995 which killed 342 migrating geese, and one in 2016 involving “several thousand” snow geese—wildlife have been killed by landing in the pit waters through exposure to arsenic, copper and cadmium (Guarino 2016; LeCain 2013). The Berkeley pit is also classified as the largest Superfund site in the United States. Moreover, the Berkeley Pit example is not important solely for its negative impacts on the local water table, the known death of geese (there are likely other, unrecognized animals’ deaths associated with this pit), but also for its effect on humans. Berkeley Pit is about 1.3 miles from downtown Butte, Montana, and has had numerous impacts on the city of Butte (see, Leech 2018), and US EPA has recorded “eleven time-critical

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

97

removal actions and expedited response … actions [between] 1987 and 2005 to address immediate and significant human health and environmental risks” at this site (https://cumulis.epa.gov/supercpad/SiteProfiles/ index.cfm?fuseaction=second.Cleanup&id=0800416#bkground). When the open mining process is used, a series of pits are dug, using steeped ridges to expose hard rock where the ores are located. Boring machines are then employed to drill into the rock, and explosives are used to blast the rock and produce removable rock where the ore is located. The rock and boulders containing the ore are then hauled to large primary crushing machines located in or near the copper pit. The primary crushers reduce the extracted boulders to about the size of a ping-­pong ball. The above example illustrates how a process such as mining creates various forms of ecological disorganization and destruction—many of which we may hardly think much about. In some cases, such as in the Berkeley Pit example, there are numerous effects on humans, nonhumans and the ecosystem associated with not only mining withdrawals, but with the ecological additions mining generates. Taking a species-specific view, we might overlook one or more of these victimization outcomes and fail to appreciate how each form of victimization is linked through the treadmill of production. The negative ecological effects of treadmill of production ecological withdrawals establishes the kinds of negative ecological circumstances that impairs the ability of species to survive, an issue we shall explore in greater depth below. Ecological Marxist arguments note that as the treadmill of production expanded, so too did the consumption of fossil fuels and chemicals (Clark and York 2005, 2008; Krausmann and Haberl 2002; Schandl and Schulz 2002), which generates continuous ecological decline (see prior discussion of planetary boundaries and ecological footprints). Under such conditions, the ecosystem is being destroyed more rapidly, climate change continues to be driven upward and the availability of resources for species consumption declines. This includes ecological resources related to nonhuman animal habitat. In that context, nonhuman ecological habitat shrinks and becomes segmented (i.e., smaller ecological spaces are divided and separated from one another by development and the destruction of nature and native ecological space), impeding the ability of nonhuman species to maintain their population base.

98 

M. J. Lynch et al.

As the treadmill of production increases ecological withdrawals and causes ecological damage, it adds to that damage through an increase in the production and disposal of toxic waste. As studies indicate, the emission of treadmill of production toxic wastes can be linked to events such as localized species extinction (Brown et al. 2009). Other studies indicate that these toxic pollutants can travel vast distances leading to direct threats to species health, welfare and biodiversity on a global scale (de Wit et al. 2010; Lee and Jetz 2011; Lemly and Skorupa 2012; Letcher et al. 2010; Lovett et al. 2009; McKinney et al. 2009; Oehlmann et al. 2009; Sovacool 2012). These are issues to which we shall return to below. In sum, the capitalist world system and the treadmill of production create forms of ecological disorganization and destruction that have adverse conditions for nonhuman species. The question that remains is: why should those adverse conditions be treated as specific instances of eco-injustice?

Nonhuman Eco-injustice (NHEJ) The negative ecological consequences outlined above are a product of how humans have organized their economic activity and the forms of production they employ. It is clear that human development, economic production and consumption have reached such excessive levels as to produce serious forms of ecological damage—and that in some cases, as reviewed earlier, the damage is so widespread as to cause concern with the stability of the planetary boundaries. Scientific studies make it clear that development/industrialization are important drivers of ecological destruction, but stop short of labeling that destruction the way ecological Marxists do—as forms of ecological disorganization that originate in the core organizational and operational processes embedded within capitalism. Nevertheless, in the contemporary period or over the longer term of what scientists call the Anthropocene, the negative ecological impacts human produce have become so great as to pose a challenge to the survival of other species (Steffens et al. 2007; Steffens et al. 2011). At a general level, we posit that when one species creates conditions that damage the ability of other species to survive and reproduce, limits

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

99

their access to resources or causes pain and suffering for another species, then such behaviors constitute a form of injustice. That definition, however, is overly broad and can lead to conclusions that may suggest that if nonhuman species A hunts nonhuman species B into extinction, then nonhuman species A can be said to have engaged in an act of eco-­injustice. It is not our intention to make such a suggestion. Rather, we can insert into this assumption that in order for the species that generates harm to another species to be held responsible for that harm, that offending species must have some form of consciousness capable of perceiving that it causes harm. This assumption does not mean that every individual in the offending species must consciously recognize the harm, but rather that one can reach the conclusion that the offending species should understand that it creates harm based on some external criteria that can be used to evaluate that judgment and the form of harm created. In the case of NHEJ, since the offending species are humans, we can say that the external yardstick for that evaluation is scientific evidence. From the above, we can say that humans cause nonhuman species to experience eco-injustice through ecosystem destruction and disorganization. More specifically, in the context of our political economic approach, we would say that humans should be able to grasp at this point in history that the expansionary, consumption and profit orientation of capitalism lead to over-consumption of natural resources and hence to a decline in ecological sustainability in ways that negatively impact the health and welfare of nonhuman species. There is not much need to provide detailed support for this view, and in the last 100 years, there is a sufficient scientific literature on this issue, a large number of philosophical examinations of the human-nature intersection and the creations of a wide variety of environmental laws designed to protect the ecological system precisely to protect the existence, health and welfare of nonhuman species. In the sections that follow, we take up a review of evidence related to the nonhuman species consequences of ecological harm. This review is necessary in order to establish that humans indeed commit forms of ecological destruction that constitute forms of injustice against nonhuman species. We begin that review with a discussion of nonhuman species extinction.

100 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Nonhuman Species Extinctions Extinction is the most serious adverse NHEJ outcome a species can face. Species extinction is also a serious concern because species contribute to overall ecosystem health in various ways. For instance, nonhuman species occupy an ecological niche that contributes to the development and continuation of healthy ecosystems. In making this observation, one must also recognize that many species are codependent in nature and depend upon other species for survival. Thus, the extinction of one species can have a ripple effect that increases the likelihood of extinction for other species. In addition, extinction is the “final measure” in some sense of the extent of harm humans do to the environment. In many cases species become extinct or are threatened with extinction because of the degree of harm ecosystems experience that humans have produced. Those negative human-imposed conditions may be localized or global. For instance, at the local level, when a wetland is drained to be converted into another use, local species that are found only in that specific location face an increased threat of extinction. Other negative ecological impacts such as climate change produce global impacts across numerous species. For example, the destruction of coral reefs, though local in origin, can have wide-ranging ecological effects or ripple effects that impact ocean life outside the coral reef system including effects on fish populations and fish nurseries (Dorenbosch et al. 2007), and the effects of coral reef instability on outcomes such as species genetic diversity (Gray 1997). In taking this structural view of extinction, we take up a view that is not widely held within green criminology. Instead of structural factors that promote extinction, the vast majority of green criminologists focus attention on poaching and wildlife trafficking effects as factors that promote the extinction of species (for discussion, see Lynch et al. 2015, for critique, see Lynch et al. 2017; for an empirical application, see Stretesky et al. 2018). To be sure, those effects (i.e., hunting and poaching) matter for some species, but not for most species that find themselves threatened with extinction. The “average” species threatened with extinction is not hunted; they are largely unnoticed; they do not have special groups organized for their protection. The “average” species threatened with ­extinction, in other words, is not one that is hunted or collected, but one

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

101

that faces extinction due to the forms of habitat destruction promoted by the continuous expansion of the global capitalist world system, and its consumption of nature, or ecological space and its conversion into commodities and wasteland. For example, if one refers to the status of species as recorded in the global survey of species—The Red List—conducted by the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, one finds widespread species existence threats (http://www.iucnredlist.org/). These are shown in Table 5.1. As this Table indicates, of the species that have been assessed globally by the 2013 assessment, 29.7% are classified as threatened with extinction. Only about 4% (N = 71,576) of the estimated species in existence (N = 1,729,693) have had their status assessed, and it is therefore difficult to reach broader generalizations from these data alone. Part of our point, however, is that among the 71,576 threatened species, few have organizations devoted specifically to saving them from extinction, and those that do typically focus on the poaching/hunting of those species (e.g., tigers, elephants, rhinoceros, sea turtles, tuna, gorillas, polar bears, seals, sea lions, whales, etc.). While it is widely known that lions, tigers, elephants, whales and rhinoceros have groups that protect them from extinction, most species do not—and most of those species, we ­suggest, are victims of the global process of capitalist development and Table 5.1  IUCN species data summary Estimated Assessed Threatened 1996 Threatened 2013 (%a) Vertebratesb Invertebrates Plants Fungi/Protists TOTAL

65,146 1,305,250 306,674 51,623 1,729,693

37,356 15,911 18,291 18 71,576

3314 1891 5328 -10,533

7390 (19.8/11.3) 3822 (24.0/0.3) 10,065 (55.0/3.3) 9 (NA/NA) 21,286 (29.7/1.2)

Notes: The two percentages here represent, first, the percentage of assessed species that are threaten and second, the percentage of all estimated species in a group that are threatened. b Vertebrates include mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fish. Invertebrates include insects, mollusks, crustaceans, corals, arachnids, velvet worms and horseshoe crabs. Plants include mosses, ferns and allies, gymnosperms, flowering plants, green algae and red algae. Fungi/protists include lichens, mushrooms and brown algae. a

102 

M. J. Lynch et al.

are not the victims of behaviors such as wildlife poaching and trafficking as a cause of their potential extinction. If, for example, one was to construct and examine the list of the 142 species known or believe to be extinct in the United States (see Lynch et al. 2015: 139–140), the most often identified cause extinction among those species would be ecological destruction. In support of this view, consider the following examples: the Pearly Mussel (Epioblasma arcaeformis) became extinct due to the damming of rivers and streams in which it lived; the Alvord Cutthroat Trout became extinct due to hybridization with other nonnative trout species introduced into its habitat; many species (e.g., Bachman’s Warbler, Catahoula Salamander, Dusky Seaside Sparrow, Heath Hen, Ivory-Billed Woodpecker) became extinct due to excessive habitat destruction; and it is only a small minority of species (e.g., the Passenger Pigeon) which are also impacted by activities such as hunting, especially in a commercial form. As a result it is more useful to develop discussions related to extinction and species justice within the context of routine structural forces that affect most extinction and threatened species, and not in relation to what are “unusual” situations for some well-publicized species. We have argued that the political economic structure and excesses of capitalism’s over-production and over-consumption tendencies driven by the capitalist world system and the treadmill of production cause extensive ecological destruction and disorganization (for extended discussion, see Lynch et al. 2017). That ecological destruction and disorganization appears in two forms: global harms and unequally distributed localized ecological harms. Those harms are evident in measures of the planetary boundaries and the ecological footprint. Here we call attention to how ecological destruction promoted by capitalism is linked to one of the most serious forms of NHEJ experienced by nonhuman species: extinction. Of particular interest in this discussion of the connection between capitalism and nonhuman species extinction is evidence on extinction rates, and in particular, evidence of the effects of extensive negative ecological effects capitalism and hence humans have had on nonhuman species extinction during the Anthropocene period (Steffens et  al. 2011). The Anthropocene is important to this discussion because it marks the sixth wave in nonhuman species extinction historically. In rough histori-

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

103

cal terms, the Anthropocene begins with the latter portion of the industrial revolution around the mid-1800s. In the past, the identification of an extinct species was based on an estimate of reports and observations regarding the last known citing of a species. Over the past decade-and-a-half, more sophisticated empirical models for determining species extinction and the ability to predict future species extinctions have emerged (Chevin et al. 2010). Those models include information on human impacts on the global and local ecosystems, species breeding data and species genetic data, and for larger species can include the use of satellite and other types of tracking data (Godley et al. 2008; on biotelemetry and endangered species tracking, see Cooke 2008; on remote sensing technology and GPS, see Schofield et al. 2007). These methods have helped improve the prediction of species endangerment and extinction (Chevin et al. 2010). One of the general and important findings from these studies is that the primary determinant of nonhuman species extinction likelihood is human impact on ecosystems (Lee and Jetz 2011). The decline of local and global ecosystems generated by human influences is now so extensive that the problem of species extinction in the modern, Anthropocene era has been labeled as the “race toward extinction” by Huey, Losos and Mortiz (2010). One of the most important international sources of data on species health and status is the International Union for the Conservation of Nature’s (IUCN) Red List. Data for the Red List was first collected in 1964. The Red List contains an extensive list of species and an indicator of the threatened status of each species. The Red List is divided into seven categories related to the threat of extinction, and a summary of that data can be found in Table 5.1. These data indicate that as of 2014, upper-­ level extinction estimates suggest that as many as 56% of amphibians, 42% of gymnosperms, 37% of mammals, 18% of fish and 14% of birds are threatened with extinction. Numerous studies predicting the patterns and probabilities of species extinction for individual species indicate serious extinction threats (Beever et al. 2011; Thomas et al. 2004; Williams et al. 2003). Particular attention has been focused on the effects of climate change on the likelihood of extinction for various species (for plants, see Fordham et  al. 2012; for coral and coral reefs, see Carpenter et al. 2008; Hoegh-Guldberg

104 

M. J. Lynch et al.

et al. 2007; on coral reef fish, see Graham et al. 2005; for marine ecosystems in general, see Hoegh-Guldberg and Bruno 2010; for polar bears, see Hunter et al. 2010; for amphibians, see Collins 2010; on lizards, see Huey et al. 2010). Studies also indicate that the species most at risk are those with small geographic ranges found in tropical climates, such as amphibians (Collins et al. 2009; Wake and Vredenburg 2008). In undertaking these studies of extinction, scientists employ an important measure that compares current rates of extinction to background rates of extinction. The background rate of extinction is the “normal” rate of extinction for a species defined over long historical periods of time. That background rate is the average rate at which species become extinct. These rates are calculated from the existing data on modern extinctions and the fossil record of earlier extinctions. A number of studies point out that modern extinction rates are well in excess of the background rate of extinction. Studies focused on birds suggest that the modern rate of extinction is about 26 times higher than the background rate of extinction, though Pimm et al. (2006) estimate the rate of extinction for birds to be 100 times the background rate of extinction. Pimm et al.’s studies suggest that unless serious conservation measures are implemented to protect bird species, the bird extinction rate will reach 1500 times the background extinction rate by the end of the twenty-first century. Pimm et  al. also cautioned researchers not to generalize from studies of bird extinction rates to other species. As serious as the extinction rate might be for birds, other species face specific conditions that can increase the estimate of the background extinction rate for nonbird species. They also note that birds have been more likely than other species to be protected by conservation efforts, reducing the estimate of extinction compared to other species. Illustrating Pimm et  al.’s point concerning extinction, consider the extinction rate estimates for lizards. In a 2010 study, Sinervo et al. examined the extinction process and rates among 200 species of lizards in Mexico since 1975. In percentage terms, the researchers found that 12% of lizards had become extinct during that time period. Based on an extinction trajectory, Sinervo et al. estimated that the extinction rate for lizards in Mexico would reach 39% by 2080.

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

105

Data on the health of amphibious populations also indicates that extensive human pressure creates a high rate of extinction. Wake and Vredenburg (2008) estimate that one-third of the 6300 species they examined face extinction conditions. Research suggests that the current rate of extinction is between 25,039 and 45,474 times the background rate of extinction for amphibian species, which poses a significant threat to the global health of amphibian populations (McCallum 2007). Despite this high extinction rate, studies suggest that the extinction rate for amphibian species is likely to increase. The increase in amphibian extinctions is most likely to impact species with limited ranges, and those confined to specific types of ecosystems such as tropical rainforests due to the destruction of those ecosystems (Wake and Vredenburg 2008). In a widely cited study conducted in 1999, Ricciardi and Rasmussen examined fresh water species extinction rates for North American fauna species. They estimated that the extinction rate for those species would be an average of 3.7% per decade across those species over the next century. That extinction rate estimate means that North American freshwater fauna species have a current extinction rate of more than 1000 times the background extinction rate. Moreover, the authors’ analysis suggests that the species extinction rate for North American freshwater fauna species is greater than the extinction rate for tropical rain forest species, which generally have been considered the groups most threatened with extinction (for a related study of fresh water mussels, see Ricciardi et al. 1998). Studies of larger cross-sections of species indicate an alarming rate of potential species extinctions. In an extensive study of 25,780 species, a group of 174 scientists (Hoffman et  al. 2010) came to some startling conclusions with respect to extinctions. Hoffman et  al. found that approximately one-fifth of those species were threatened with extinction, a rate somewhat lower than expected from the Red List. That outcome, however, may have to do with the composition of the sample of species since the study included only about 40% of the number of species examined in the Red List. The authors estimated that at current levels of extinction, 52 species move one category closer to extinction each year. The study also noted that for many species, the possibility of extinction has been slowed—but not necessarily eliminated –by conservation efforts. The authors note that their data indicates that their estimate of extinction

106 

M. J. Lynch et al.

likelihood would be 20% greater in the absence of conservation efforts. Despite the importance of conservation efforts, however, those practices are insufficient to offset all negative human-forced ecological impacts that affect extinction likelihood (e.g., see Stretesky et al. 2018). Especially important in that regard, the authors note, is the expansion of agriculture and logging/deforestation on conversion of natural spaces to human use. Other studies have examined extinction rates for mammals. As noted earlier, the Red List indicates that about 37% of mammals examined are threatened with extinction. Of special concern is the extinction rate for large mammals because large mammals appear to be especially vulnerable to extinction threats (Schipper et al. 2008). Schipper et al. found that factors related to mammal extinction rates varied for land and marine mammals. Threats to marine mammals were largely the result of pollution, while for land mammals the major threat was habitat loss. Other studies have also commented on factors that impacted large (over 6.6 pounds) land mammal extinction rates (Cardillo et al. 2005). In particular, Cardillo et al. found that elevated extinction rates for mammals are impacted by three conditions: species size, the low rate of reproduction among larger mammals and the impact of environmental conditions generated by humans including habitat loss. Especially important was the interaction between size and environmental factors. The low reproduction rates of large mammals interact with environmental factors to produce an accelerated risk of extinction. Cardillo et al. also found that their estimate of extinction likelihood for mammals was higher than in previous studies. Without belaboring the point any further, as Lomolino et al. (2001: 223) note, “[f ]ew if any serious scientists question that we are witnessing an acceleration of extinction rates. The ongoing loss of biodiversity far exceeds what paleontologists consider background levels and may well, if projections are accurate, rival some of the mass extinctions on record …. In this case, of course, the extinction results from the action of one species, our own” (see also, Jablonski 1995; Barnosky et  al. 2011; Stork 2010). Unlike any previous mass extinction where the causes of extinction were related to natural phenomena such as rising and falling sea levels (the Ordovician-Silurian extinction, 439 million years ago; Sheehan 2001), global cooling (the late Devonian extinction, 364 million years

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

107

ago; McGhee 1996), comets and volcanic activity (the Permian-Triassic extinction, 251 million years ago; McElwain and Punyasena 2007), lava flow (the late Triassic-Jurassic extinction, 214–199  million years ago; Kiessling et  al. 2007) and asteroids (the Cretaceous-Paleogene or Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction, 65  million years ago; Macleod et  al. 1997), the sixth extinction is, in contrast, being forced by humans. This sixth extinction is being driven by the following human impacts on the ecological system: mass habitat destruction, anthropogenic climate change, human displacement of species through unnatural species invasion processes, over-harvesting of natural resources, deforestation and human over-population (for an example of deforestation and extinction rates, see Brook et  al. 2003; for cross-national extinction rates, see Hoffman 2004; on habitat loss and extinction, see Jantz et  al. 2015). Thus, unlike previous extinctions, the current period of extinction has been fostered by humans. Of special concern in the contemporary period of extinction are anthropogenic climate change and the ways in which it contributes to species extinction (e.g., Blaustein et al. 2010). As scientists have noted, natural climate change has been a factor in previous periods of extinction. In the current anthropogenic period, we are witnessing first-hand how climate change creates feedbacks that accelerate extinction. Indeed, by living through anthropogenic climate change and witnessing its development, scientists have been able to observe that extinction patterns related to climate change can be abrupt and less predictable than normally assumed (Brook et al. 2008). In other words, what we have already witnessed is how anthropogenic climate change can accelerate species extinction in unpredictable (negative) ways. Some argue that the sixth period of extinction began with the agricultural revolution some 10,000 years ago, when humans began to transform the world by shifting from hunting and gathering to stationary existence grounded in agricultural production rather than foraging, and the transformation of local ecosystems to agricultural lands that began to limit ecological and species diversity (Holdaway and Jacomb 2000). The transformation of ecosystems into agricultural lands dating back 10,000 had significant impacts on local species and extinction rates. Yet, it is only in the past 170  years since the end of the Industrial Revolution

108 

M. J. Lynch et al.

(1760–1840) that rates of extinction began their rapid acceleration, and it is in the past 70 years, since WW II and the expansion of the treadmill of production, that rates of extinction have reached what can be labeled as epidemic proportions. Given the above associations between extinctions and economic development, the acceleration of the sixth mass extinction can be linked to the expansion of the capitalist treadmill of production following WW II (Schnaiberg 1980). While scientists indicate that the sixth extinction has links to economic development, they have not specifically linked the sixth mass extinction to forces such as capitalism, the treadmill of production, the capitalist world system and the forms of over-consumption, over-production and the acceleration in ecological withdrawals and ecological additions generated by the capitalist treadmill of production (except see, Hoffman 2004; Holland et al. 2009; McKinney et al. 2010; Shandra et al. 2009). Scientists instead tend to make very general observations about the link between human development and extinction, leaving out the details of the argument, especially those that define development. Those analyses generally lack any reference to social or economic theories and, because of that oversight, are not very specific about the causes of extinction. Holland, Peterson and Gonzalez (2009), for example, found that biodiversity loss and threatened species likelihoods were best predicted by empirical models that included a measure of the economic footprint of nations and a measure of economic inequality. Hoffman’s (2004) analysis found empirical support for the contention that the treadmill of production negatively impacts the likelihood of species being threatened with extinction.

 onhuman Ecological Injustice in the Extant Green N Criminological Literature Green criminological studies have examined a variety of nonhuman concerns and issues. Among these issues, one can find studies of illegal wildlife trafficking (Wyatt 2009, 2011; Ngoc and Wyatt 2013), species poaching (Clarke and Rolf 2013; Eliason 2012; Lemieux and Clarke 2009; Pires and Clarke 2011, 2012), illegal logging (Bisschop 2013;

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

109

Green et al. 2007; Wyatt 2014) and the illegal charcoal industry (Wyatt 2013), among other issues (Beirne and South 2006, 2007; South and Brisman 2013; White 2009). While these studies have examined the negative ecological impacts of human-produced ecological destruction, they rarely posit any theoretical argument concerning why humans destroy the environment, why such destruction accelerates or how human ecological destruction leads to eco-injustice. In our view, the important theoretical issues are those related to capitalism and its organizational structure. We now provide an example of how these types of studies can be reinterpreted through a political economic lens. Let us consider legal and illegal animal trafficking and their impacts on animal populations. We posit that in the modern world, an animal “becomes” a commodity in the global marketplace for a variety of reasons, perhaps as pets, or with respect to using parts of those animals in traditional Asian medicines, or as a display piece, or for use as food (for a discussion of perspectives on animal commodification, see Wadiwel 2016). Animal trafficking and trading is big business in the contemporary world, producing upward of $323 billion in the world economy (see Traffic: The Wildlife Trade Monitoring Network’s website). Illegal animal trade is likely worth more than $30  billion. Between legal and illegal animal trading, there is a significantly large “animal economy.” Whether as food, for entertainment purposes or for private consumption, the global animal economy has become an impressively large dimension of the global world economy, and constitutes about 2% of international trade. The capitalist marketplace for animals plays a role in species becoming a marketable commodity because capitalism places a price on species and species’ parts as commodities, leading to a market for animal species and the over-consumption of species often contributing to threats to their existence. The commodification of animals is driven by the over-­ abundance of economic resources—that is, the production of excessive wealth beyond what is required for an adequate human lifestyle leaves an excess of capital that can be spent for nonessential items. Once accumulated, these resources become pathways to the exploitation of nature. This argument is not meant to suggest that in the precapitalist period, ecological destruction or the consumption of animals was unknown. Our

110 

M. J. Lynch et al.

a­rgument, however, is that absent capitalism, the extent of ecological exploitation would not have reached its current levels, and the acceleration of species extinctions would be significantly lower. Absent capitalism and the commodification of nature in various forms and ways (Castree 2003), it is unclear what would drive a global animal trade, especially in rare or endangered species. Why would anyone want to accumulate animals and to build a global market involving the purchase of exotic animals other than for profit? To be sure, there are some exceptions to such an analysis such as the traditional Chinese medical market in which animals are valued for their assumed health-related benefits. However, the profitability of this market is significant enough to promote an illegal, black market in animal trading, illustrating a connection to capitalism and accumulation. Part of the answer to such questions has to do with the assumptions capitalism makes about nature (Foster 2000; Burkett 2008). Those assumptions have much to do with the role natural raw materials (which one could argue includes animals) plays in the capitalist system of commodity production and whether capital places any value on nature outside of the labor expended to extract resources (Burkett 2008; Foster 2000). This observation highlights the fact that for capitalism, nature has no value until it is transformed into a commodity. In the logic of capitalism and its calculation of value, a stand of trees or a herd of animals has no natural value—that is no inherent value outside of capital’s ability to treat it as a commodity. Whatever role the part of nature might play in reproducing nature is of no concern to the capitalist, and hence whatever natural value that part of nature produces for the continuation of nature itself has no value in the capitalist economy. Because capitalism treats nature as having no value outside of capitalism and fails to view nature as an independent entity with its own production and reproductive system (Foster 2000), the input of raw materials into the capitalist system of production (e.g., trees) or in finished form (e.g., animals) as complete “commodities” allows capital to acquire the value of nature’s materials without acknowledging the value of those things in nature and without, therefore, the need to compensate nature for its loss (Burkett 2008; Foster 2000). Foster (1999: 34) describes this uncompensated “transfer” of wealth from nature to capitalism as an act of

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

111

“robbery.” Consequently, there is no “cost” to capitalism for consuming nature. By “cost,” we mean that capitalism is unable to identify how it damages nature, or even if it damages nature. Nature is, in the structure of capitalism, simply a raw material to be molded into a commodity. Its destruction is a sign of economic health, while the contradiction of economic health and economic growth—limiting nature’s ability to reproduce itself and the conditions for life on the planet—is ignored. In terms of eco-justice, it should be clear that the internal organizational structure of capitalism denies the need to view nature and ecosystems as having any rights other than those attached to the property relations of capitalism. Nature, in short, only has standing in the capitalist legal structure as property of capitalism. Capitalism cannot, as we illustrated above, provide for the legal protection of nature outside of the intersection of capitalism-nature restricted by the property and ownership concepts capitalism supports. This general rejection of nature as a living entity with value for the reproduction of the planet establishes both the larger approach to nature as an entity, and toward any individual expression of nature such as a species, a forest or minerals. While the ideology of capitalism does much to promote a cultural of individualism with respect to humans, it has no concept of the individual in nature. Thus, the treatment of any individual within a species cannot be interpreted as a harm or injustice. Turtles, for example, may be traded on the open market, and the only constraint from the perspective of the political economic organization of capital is the free market and the balance between supply, demand and price. Ecologically, one of the limitations of capitalism has been its inability to apply the concept of ecological supply successfully to price to create an adequate free market that protects nature from the destructive tendencies of capitalism (Burns et al. 2008). As a related example consider the practice of legal and illegal logging. Both legal and illegal logging and the withdrawal of other illegal forest products are produced by the same capitalist market structures and incentives to over-produce and over-consume. Indeed, one can posit that illegal logging is particularly driven by the price of wood in the capitalist marketplace (e.g., Hansen and Treue 2008). It matters little in this market relationship whether the trees being consumed are rare or threatened

112 

M. J. Lynch et al.

species. All that matters from the political economic view of capital is that these rare species can be transformed into various commodities. Since the supply of rare species is limited, the price of such species escalates in the capitalist market, but not high enough to avoid transforming those species into commodities. The price of rare species may become high enough to limit their consumption to the wealthy. As an example, consider recent trends in US wood prices. Despite the fact that deforestation is a major global concern and that even within the United States, the annual average loss of forest is estimated to be approximately 385,000 acres per year since 1990 (or in 25 years, 9.6 million acres), prices for lumber have recently declined. Globalwood.org indicates that the prices of various woods have declined sharply since April 2013, continuing that decline through January 15, 2015 (accessed, May 7, 2015). Average prices for framing wood, for example, declined 16.5% from 2013 to 2014, and by an additional 2.7% from 2014 through January 2015 despite continued deforestation which would imply increased rarity of trees. A critique of our argument that might be offered by an orthodox economic analysis would suggest that the supply-demand function facilitates, as well as limits, species extinction. Traditional supply-demand approaches to capitalism suggest that threatened species become protected by rising costs as the supply of a species declines (for further discussion and critique, see Burns et  al. 2008). This orthodox argument assumes that there is appropriate knowledge of the supply of a species that adjusts the price of the product accordingly, and that market evaluations of supply-demand-price actually respond appropriately to supply tension in the natural world (e.g., to the restriction of raw material supplies rather than to the price of extraction of raw materials supplies). The history of species extinction in relation to their role as commodities does not provide empirical support for these orthodox economic contentions as a number of species have been driven into extinction or to near extinction due to continued demand, despite rising supply costs (Burns et al. 2008). Moreover, the capitalist supply-demand assumption does not apply to other forms of ecological withdrawals or ecological additions, and does not tend to raise the price of commodities that damage the ecological system’s reproductive abilities. Capitalism is not designed to

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

113

respond to the destruction of nature, and as we argued above based on the work of ecological Marxists, capitalism must destroy nature to produce commodities and profit—this is the core contradiction between capitalism and nature. One of the consequences of ecosystem destruction is the increase in species extinction as the ecosystem is consumed to produce products for the capitalist marketplace. It is in this broad political economic sense, in the contradictions between capitalism and nature, that species extinction becomes one of the prices of contemporary capitalism. But it is not just species that are becoming extinct—their extinction is being driven by the accelerated consumption of nature and the destruction of nature’s reproductive capabilities—that is, the consumption of the ecosystem itself. Species extinction, in other words, is an outcome of the more general destruction of nature as it is transformed in various ways into commodities for the capitalist marketplace, a point we take up in the chapter that follows.

Ebay and the Treadmill of Animal Commodification Capitalism gives rise to various marketplaces that emphasize the sale of commodities for profit. As an example, Ebay© has been referred to as a “symbolic prototype of digital capitalism” (Chesebro 2003), or what we will simply call “Ebay Capitalism.” Ebay capitalism is propelled by profit, and in the case of Ebay because there is no production of commodities (except in the case of some individual sellers), just the resale of commodities, profit is driven by the volume of sales. Driving that volume is also the wide scope of commodities available. And that scope of products includes animal products, and Ebay is, we suggest, likely a very large global animal-product marketplace. Here, we examine Ebay Capitalism in relation to animal commodification. To do so, we report on sales data we collected from Ebay. That data allows us to understand something about the scope and volume of animal-­related products offered for sale that have become part of the treadmill of animal commodification. Our point in examining Ebay advertisement in this way is that, consistent with arguments made earlier in this chapter, Ebay can be considered

114 

M. J. Lynch et al.

a part of the global treadmill of production—since production also requires a connected consumption marketplace and, more specifically, is part of the animal product treadmill. To begin, it should be noted that Ebay provides a huge marketplace—as of December 31, 2017, Ebay had 170 million active users. In contrast, Amazon, the most frequently used internet sales site, had 370 million users. In examining Ebay advertisements, we were interested in how that marketplace potentially contributes to eco-injustice for nonhuman animals by creating a marketplace that allows consumers throughout the world to purchase animal-linked products. While we do not know from this study any of the specifics about how any of the particular animal products came into being, what we do know is that the ads require commodification of animals, and following arguments made by Gunderson (2011, 2013), the effect of generalized production focused on animal products adversely impacts animal welfare. To illustrate these points, we conducted a small study of animal-linked products for sale on Ebay. To make this discussion and assessment feasible, we first limited our definition of “animal-linked” to mean products/ items that included parts from animals. That definition still leaves us with a wide range of products that are “animal-linked.” To further reduce the pool of items examined, we excluded items that depicted, represented and mimicked animals such as paintings of animals, toy stuffed animals, carved items and statutes. That definition, however, still leaves a large number of items, and to make this analysis possible, we limited the scope of our analysis further by examining two specific types of items—rogue and novelty taxidermy (RANT)-related items and traditional taxidermy items—so that our analysis focused on animal-linked taxidermy items. It is beyond the scope of this brief discussion to review the history of taxidermy, and to fully explore its various divisions. Taxidermy involves the use of real, formerly living animals and their parts. Traditional taxidermy was undertaken for scientific purposes, but also spawned public interest in taxidermy and the preservation of animals for display in homes and businesses. The latter form of taxidermy is what we refer to as novelty taxidermy—animal-based items for display in homes, businesses and so on, and includes the various parts of animals that are offered for sale to construct novelty taxidermy items.

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

115

Novelty taxidermy items have, in the modern era, taken on many forms, and on Ebay, some of those forms involve the use of animals for “amusement” and present animals engaged in various human activities. For example, on Ebay, if one searches for “Cowboy Squirrels,” they will find a large number of items using stuffed-squirrels engaged in various activities associated with cowboys (e.g., dressed in cowboy attire, wearing holsters and guns; one riding a horse made from a skunk). Using different search configurations, one can find squirrels doing the following: rowing canoes, drinking beer, fishing, hunting and so on. One can also find thousands of items depicting squirrels “more naturally,” climbing trees, perched on tree limbs, gathering nuts and so on. The link between these items is the form of depiction, which is based on the use of taxidermy as the method of presentation of the animal(s). One can also find other animals depicted in both natural and human-­like settings (e.g., chipmunks, frogs, raccoons), and the scope of those representations tells us something about the scope of animal commodification. Included within the count of taxidermy items, one can also find elaborate, realistic taxidermy items. Realistic, elaborate taxidermy items also measure part of the scope of animal commodification. Realistic, elaborate taxidermy items, we found, will also tend to feature larger animals, while, in contrast, larger animal species are rarely used for novelty items. These large items also come at large financial costs, indicating that there is also a marketplace segment supporting the sale of expensive items. As examples, consider the following short list of items for sale on Ebay in March, 2018. In creating this short list, we selected examples only from among the highest price items: Musk Ox ($60,500); African animal taxidermy exhibit, consisting of 13 South African animals ($59,000); Rocky Mountain Big Horn Sheep head and shoulder mount ($50,000); Big Horn Sheep, full mount ($27,000); Alaskan Moose head and shoulder mount ($25,000); Crocodile pursuing Warthog ($17,500); African Cape Buffalo head and shoulder mount ($10,500); Musk Ox, full size ($10,000); Giraffe head and shoulder mount ($6325); and Zebra pedestal mount ($3495). Acquiring these specimens for taxidermy purposes requires hunting and killing and pre-

116 

M. J. Lynch et al.

serving each properly for ­transformation into a commodity, and those actions impact the kinds of eco-justice nonhuman animals experience. In contrast to novelty and realistic taxidermy, there are also items considered to be examples of rogue taxidermy. Rogue taxidermy items are considered as “art,” and as mixed media representations of animals, and which are sometimes made from several animals’ parts. Rogue taxidermy also involves a social movement among some taxidermists to use discarded animal parts, or animals found dead from natural causes, or those killed by automobiles (i.e., roadkill) in art forms as a protest against traditional taxidermy and the killing of animals specifically for use in taxidermy items. Despite this claim, these items still incorporate and transform animals into commodities, even if those making these commodities label them as art. To illustrate the extent of the sale of these items on Ebay, we established parameters for searching Ebay advertisements to produce a scientifically representative sample of the taxidermy items described above for sale. Since our concern is with the sale of taxidermy items, bones and other animal parts, as well as with RANT taxidermy, we performed several general and a number of more specific searches to determine the extent that such items were offered for sale. General searches included those for animal skins, animal bones and teeth, animal pelts and tanned hides. Specific searches were then conducted for more than 100 animal species associated with the word “taxidermy” (e.g., taxidermy raccoon; taxidermy deer). After conducting all of these various searches for items sold on one day, we extracted a sub-sample of taxidermy items representing 68 specific species/types of animals with a sufficient number of items to consider including a specific species in the count of taxidermy items. To be included, a minimum of 15 ads had to be located. The searches for animal parts produced the following exclusive results (i.e., an item counted as an animal skin is not included in the other categories) for Ebay ads searched on one day: (1) animal skins, N = 66,918; (2) full or partial taxidermy animals, N = 21,321; (3) animal hides, N = 7913; (4) animal teeth and or bones, N = 494; and (5) animal pelts, N = 123. In total, across these categories, we located 96,769 items for sale, illustrating an extensive market for these kinds of related taxidermy on Ebay.

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

117

Next, we specifically searched by species to locate rogue and novelty taxidermy (RANT) items—or items specifically depicting animals engaged in human activities. We discovered 15 species with more than 15 advertisements each engaged in human activities and included an “other species” category to represent the count for all other types of animals which did not have 15 or more advertisements. In the “other species” category, we found 57 items. The species-specific results were as follows: (1) mounted squirrel, N  =  423; (2) raccoons, N  =  393; (3) snakes, N = 260; (4) beavers, N = 226; (5) rabbits, N = 222; (6) bats, N = 187; (7) frogs, N = 119; (8) rats, N = 93; (9) chipmunks, N = 81; (10) toads, N = 68; (11) mouse/mice, N = 62; (12) ducklings, N = 53; (12) moles, N = 17; and (18) monkeys, N = 15. In total, there were 2271 RANT items depicting animals engaged in human activities. As a final step in this analysis, we searched Ebay ads for traditional taxidermy items—those that included whole, unaltered animals (i.e., these were not RANT items), and those that featured mounts of animal heads. Here, we only report on animals for which ten or more such items could be located. After conducting that search, and limiting the count to animals for which there were 10 or more items, we identified 54 general species categories (e.g., we counted lions, tigers, mountain lions, cougar and lynx as one category; all turtles in the general category “turtle”) that include 15,674 advertisements. While the above examination does not include all animals, and may have undercounted some example, across taxidermy-related (i.e., not whole animals), RANT items and traditional taxidermy items, we discovered 114,714 animal items for sale on one day on Ebay. As part of this study, we did not attempt to estimate item “turnover,” or the length of time it took to sell an item. For many of the high-priced items, one can assume that the turnover rate is quite long (e.g., one year or more). For some of the RANT items (e.g., squirrel dressed as hunter, carrying gun, dressed in orange hunting safety vest, $219), the number of items sold noted in the advertisement was as high as 50  in the prior six-month period. If the turnover rate was an average of 5 across all these items, then in one year, more than 570,000 RANT and traditional taxidermy items would be sold through Ebay.

118 

M. J. Lynch et al.

To summarize, our point in undertaking this project was to employ a unique data source (Ebay), which is part of the global animal treadmill of commodification, to examine the extent of animal commodification, and by inference, measure some dimension of the forms of eco-injustice to which animals are exposed through commodification. As our results indicate, the commodified animal market for taxidermy items on Ebay is substantial and may well include more than 500,000 items annually. Extracting those animals from nature not only affects ecosystems but illustrates the ways in which animal commodification harms individual animals.

Conclusion In this chapter we expanded our discussion of eco-justice by applying our political economic analysis to an assessment of the forms of ecological injustice capitalism produces for nonhuman species. In doing so we referred back to our definition of eco-justice and expanded its scope to include nonhuman animal injustice (NHEJ). We also expanded upon our theoretical model linking capitalism, the world capitalist system and the treadmill of production to NHEJ. A significant portion of that discussion involved exploring the connection between the expansion of capitalism and rising rates of species extinction, with the latter being an indicator of escalating NHEJ. We also illustrated that scientific studies of species extinction conform to the argument that capitalism escalates ecological destruction and species extinction over time, noting that one of the limitations of scientific research has been its tendency to fail to interpret research findings linking human development to species extinction within relevant social and economic theories. Further, we suggested that generally, green criminologists also tend to overlook the connection between political economy and the structure of capitalism and NHEJ. Having now laid out our eco-justice position for humans and nonhumans, we turn to the last segment of our argument—exploring eco-­justice from the perspective of the ecosystem itself through a political economic understanding of eco-justice and injustice.

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

119

References Barnosky, Anthony D., Nicholas Matzke, Susumu Tomiya, Guinevere O.U.  Wogan, Brian Swartz, Tiago B.  Quental, Charles Marshall, Jenny McGuire, Emily L. Lindsey, Katlin C. Mcguire, Ben Mersey, and Elizabeth S.  Ferrer. 2011. Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived? Nature 471 (7336): 51–57. Beever, Erik A., Chris Ray, Jenifer L. Wilkening, Peter F. Brussard, and Philip W. Mote. 2011. Contemporary Climate Change Alters the Pace and Drivers of Extinction. Global Change Biology 17 (6): 2054–2070. Beirne, Piers, and Nigel South, eds. 2007. Issues in Green Criminology. Devon, UK: Willan. Blaustein, Andrew R., Susan C.  Walls, Betsy A.  Bancroft, Joshua J.  Lawler, Catherine L.  Searle, and Stephanie S.  Gervasi. 2010. Direct and Indirect Effects of Climate Change on Amphibian Populations. Diversity 2 (2): 281–313. Brook, Barry W., Navjot S. Sodhi, and Corey J.A. Bradshaw. 2008. Synergies Among Extinction Drivers Under Global Change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (8): 453–460. Brook, Barry W., Navjot S.  Sodhi, and Peter K.L.  Ng. 2003. Catastrophic Extinctions Follow Deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424 (6947): 420–426. Brown, A.  Ross, David J.  Hosken, François Balloux, Lisa K.  Bickley, Gareth LePage, Stewart F.  Owen, Malcolm J.  Hetheridge, and Charles R.  Tyler. 2009. Genetic Variation, Inbreeding and Chemical Exposure—Combined Effects in Wildlife and Critical Considerations for Ecotoxicology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1534): 3377–3390. Burkett, Paul. 2008. Marxism and Ecological Economics: Toward a Red and Green Political Economy. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Burns, Ronald G., Michael J. Lynch, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2008. Environmental Law, Crime and Justice. New York: LFB Scholarly. Cardillo, Marcel, Georgina M.  Mace, Kate E.  Jones, Jon Bielby, Olaf R.P. Bininda-Emonds, Wes Sechrest, C. David L. Orme, and Andy Purvis. 2005. Multiple Causes of High Extinction Risk in Large Mammal Species. Science 309 (5738): 1239–1241. Carpenter, Kent E., Muhammad Abrar, Greta Aeby, Richard B. Aronson, Stuart Banks, Andrew Bruckner, Angel Chiriboga, et al. 2008. One-Third of ReefBuilding Corals Face Elevated Extinction Risk from Climate Change and Local Impacts. Science 321 (5888): 560–563.

120 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Castree, Noel. 2003. Commodifying What Nature? Progress in Human Geography 27 (3): 273–297. Chesebro, James W. 2003. The Rhetoric of Economics: Exploring the Link Between Communication Technologies and Political Economies–eBay as Symbolic Prototype of Digital Capitalism. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association of Puerto Rico (SCAPR), San Juan. Chevin, L.M., R.  Lande, and G.M.  Mace. 2010. Adaptation, Plasticity, and Extinction in a Changing Environment: Towards a Predictive Theory. PLoS Biology 8 (4): e1000357. Clarke, Ronald V., and A. Rolf. 2013. Poaching, Habitat Loss and the Decline of Neotropical Parrots: A Comparative Spatial Analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology 9 (3): 333–353. Clark, Brett, and Richard York. 2005. Carbon Metabolism: Global Capitalism, Climate Change, and the Biospheric Rift. Theory and Society 34 (4): 391–428. ———. 2008. Rifts and Shifts: Getting to the Root of Environmental Crises. Monthly Review 60 (6): 13–24. Collins, James P. 2010. Amphibian Decline and Extinction: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 92 (2–3): 93–99. Collins, James P., Martha L. Crump, and Thomas E. Lovejoy III. 2009. Extinction in our times: Global amphibian decline. New York: Oxford University Press. Cooke, Steven J. 2008. Biotelemetry and Biologging in Endangered Species Research and Animal Conservation: Relevance to Regional, National, and IUCN Red List Threat Assessments. Endangered Species Research 4 (1–2): 165–185. de Wit, Cynthia A., Dorte Herzke, and Katrin Vorkamp. 2010. Brominated Flame Retardants in the Arctic Environment—Trends and New Candidates. Science of the Total Environment 408 (15): 2885–2918. Dorenbosch, M., W.C.E.P.  Verberk, I.  Nagelkerken, and G.  Van der Velde. 2007. Influence of Habitat Configuration on Connectivity Between Fish Assemblages of Caribbean Seagrass Beds, Mangroves and Coral Reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 334: 103–116. Eliason, Stephen. 2012. From the King’s Deer to a Capitalist Commodity: A Social Historical Analysis of the Poaching Law. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 36 (2): 133–148. Fordham, Damien A., H.  Resit Akçakaya, Miguel B.  Araújo, Jane Elith, David A.  Keith, Richard Pearson, Tony D. Auld, Camille Mellin, John W.  Morgan, Tracey J.  Regan, Mark Tozer, Michael J.  Watts, Matthew White, Brendan A. Wintle, Colin Yates, and Barry W. Brook. 2012. Plant Extinction Risk Under Climate Change: Are Forecast Range Shifts Alone a Good Indicator of Species Vulnerability to Global Warming? Global Change Biology 18 (4): 1357–1371.

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

121

Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 105 (2): 366–405. ———. 2000. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New  York: Monthly Review Press. Godley, B.J., J.M.  Blumenthal, A.C.  Broderick, M.S.  Coyne, M.H.  Godfrey, L.A. Hawkes, and M.J. Witt. 2008. Satellite Tracking of Sea Turtles: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go Next. Endangered Species Research 4 (1–2): 3–22. Graham, N.A.J., N.K.  Dulvy, S.  Jennings, and N.V.C.  Polunin. 2005. SizeSpectra as Indicators of the Effects of Fishing on Coral Reef Fish Assemblages. Coral Reefs 24 (1): 118–124. Gray, John S. 1997. Marine Biodiversity: Patterns, Threats and Conservation Needs. Biodiversity & Conservation 6 (1): 153–175. Green, Penny, Tony Ward, and Kirsten McConnachie. 2007. Logging and Legality: Environmental Crime, Civil Society, and the State. Social Justice 34 (2): 94–110. Guarino, Ben. 2016. Thousands of Montana Snow Geese Die after Landing in Toxic, Acid Mine Pit. The Washington Post. December 7. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/07/montana-snow-geesesearching-for-pond-land-in-toxic-mine-pit-thousands-die/?utm_term=. 87db1b0927bc. Gunderson, Ryan. 2011. Marx’s Comments on Animal Welfare. Rethinking Marxism 23 (4): 543–548. ———. 2013. From Cattle to Capital: Exchange Value, Animal Commodification, and Barbarism. Critical Sociology 39 (2): 259–275. Hansen, Christian Pilegaard, and Thorsten Treue. 2008. Assessing Illegal Logging in Ghana. International Forestry Review 10 (4): 573–590. Hoegh-Guldberg, Ove, and John F.  Bruno. 2010. The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems. Science 328 (5985): 1523–1528. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P.J.  Mumby, A.J.  Hooten, R.S.  Steneck, P.  Greenfield, E. Gomez, C.D. Harvell, P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R.H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M.E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Science 318 (5857): 1737–1742. Hoffmann, John P. 2004. Social and Environmental Influences on Endangered Species: A Cross-national Study. Sociological Perspectives 47 (1): 79–107. Holdaway, R.N., and C. Jacomb. 2000. Rapid Extinction of the Moas (Aves: Dinornithiformes): Model, Tests and Implications. Science 287 (5461): 2250–2254.

122 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Holland, Tim G., Garry D. Peterson, and Andrew Gonzalez. 2009. A Cross-­ National Analysis of How Economic Inequality Predicts Biodiversity Loss. Conservation Biology 23 (5): 1304–1313. Huey, Raymond B., Jonathan B. Losos, and Craig Mortiz. 2010. Are Lizards Toast? Science 328 (5980): 832–833. Hunter, Christine M., Hal Caswell, Michael C. Runge, Eric V. Regehr, Steve C. Amstrup, and Ian Stirling. 2010. Climate Change Threatens Polar Bear Populations: A Stochastic Demographic Analysis. Ecology 91 (10): 2883–2897. Jablonski, D. 1995. Extinctions in the Fossil Record. In Extinction Rates, ed. J.H. Lawton and R.M. May’a, 25–44. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jantz, Samuel M., Brian Barker, Thomas M. Brooks, Louise P. Chini, Qiongyu Huang, Rachel M. Moore, Jacob Noel, and George C. Hurtt. 2015. Future Habitat Loss and Extinctions Driven by Land-use Change in Biodiversity Hotspots Under Four Scenarios of Climate-change Mitigation. Conservation Biology 29 (4): 1122–1131. Kiessling, Wolfgang, Martin Aberhan, Benjamin Brenneis, and Peter J. Wagner. 2007. Extinction Trajectories of Benthic Organisms Across the Triassic– Jurassic Boundary. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 244 (1): 201–222. Krausmann, Fridolin, and Helmut Haberl. 2002. The Process of Industrialization from the Perspective of Energetic Metabolism: Socioeconomic Energy Flows in Austria 1830–1995. Ecological Economics 41 (2): 177–201. LeCain, Timothy James. 2013. An Impure Nature: Memory and the Neo-­ Materialist Flip at America’s Biggest Toxic Superfund Site. Global Environment 6 (11): 16–41. Lee, Tien Ming, and Walter Jetz. 2011. Unravelling the Structure of Species Extinction Risk for Predictive Conservation Science. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278 (1710): 1329–1338. Leech, Brian James. 2018. The City That Ate Itself: Butte, Montana and Its Expanding Berkeley Pit. Las Vegas: University of Nevada Press. Lemieux, Andrew M., and Ronald V. Clarke. 2009. The International Ban on Ivory Sales and Its Effects on Elephant Poaching in Africa. British Journal of Criminology 49 (4): 451–471. Lemly, A. Dennis, and Joseph P. Skorupa. 2012. Wildlife and the Coal Waste Policy Debate: Proposed Rules for Coal Waste Disposal Ignore Lessons from 45 Years of Wildlife Poisoning. Environmental Science & Technology 46 (16): 8595–8600.

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

123

Letcher, Robert J., Jan Ove Bustnes, Rune Dietz, Bjørn M.  Jenssen, Even H. Jørgensen, Christian Sonne, Jonathan Verreault, Mathilakath M. Vijayan, and Geir W. Gabrielsen. 2010. Exposure and Effects Assessment of Persistent Organohalogen Contaminants in Arctic Wildlife and Fish. Science of the Total Environment 408 (15): 2995–3043. Lomolino, Mark V., Rob Channell, David R. Perault, and Gregory A. Smith. 2001. Downsizing Nature: Anthropogenic Dwarfing of Species and Ecosystems. In Biotic Homogenization, ed. J. Lockwood and M. McKinney’s, 223–243. New York: Springer. Lovett, Gary M., Timothy H. Tear, David C. Evers, Stuart E.G. Findlay, B. Jack Cosby, Judy K. Dunscomb, Charles T. Driscoll, and Kathleen C. Weathers. 2009. Effects of Airpollution on Ecosystems and Biological Diversity in the Eastern United States. Annals of the New  York Academy of Sciences 1162 (1): 99–135. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2015. Anthropogenic Development Drives Species to be Endangered: Capitalism and the Decline of Species. In Green Harms and Crimes: Critical Criminology in a Changing World, ed. R.A. Sollund, 117–146. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Macleod, N., P.F.  Rawson, P.L.  Forey, F.T.  Banner, M.K.  Boudagher-Fadel, P.R.  Bown, J.A.  Burnett, P.  Chambers, S.  Culver, S.E.  Evans, C.  Jeffery, M.A. Kaminski, A.R. Lord, A.C. Milner, A.R. Milner, N. Morris, E. Owen, B.R. Rosen, A.B. Smith, P.D. Taylor, E. Urquhart, and J.R. Young. 1997. The Cretaceous-Tertiary biotic transition. Journal of the Geological Society 154 (2): 265–292. McCallum, Malcolm L. 2007. Amphibian Decline or Extinction? Current Declines Dwarf Background Extinction Rate. Journal of Herpetology 41 (3): 483–491. McElwain, J.C., and S.W. Punyasena. 2007. Mass Extinction Events and the Plant Fossil Record. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22 (10): 548–557. McGhee, George R. 1996. The Late Devonian Mass Extinctions: The Frasnian/ Famennian Crisis. New York: Columbia University Press. McKinney, Laura A., Edward L. Kick, and Gregory M. Fulkerson. 2010. World System, Anthropogenic, and Ecological Threats to Bird and Mammal Species: A Structural Equation Analysis of Biodiversity Loss. Organization & Environment 23 (1): 3–31. McKinney, Melissa A., Elizabeth Peacock, and Robert J. Letcher. 2009. Sea Ice-­ associated Diet Change Increases the Levels of Chlorinated and Brominated Contaminants in Polar Bears. Environmental Science & Technology 43 (12): 4334–4339.

124 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Ngoc, Anh Cao, and Tanya Wyatt. 2013. A Green Criminological Exploration of Illegal Wildlife Trade in Vietnam. Asian Journal of Criminology 8 (2): 1–14. Oehlmann, Jörg, Ulrike Schulte-Oehlmann, Werner Kloas, Oana Jagnytsch, Ilka Lutz, Kresten O. Kusk, Leah Wollenberger, Eduarda M. Santos, Gregory Paull, Katrien J.W. Van Look, and Charles R. Tyler. 2009. A Critical Analysis of the Biological Impacts of Plasticizers on Wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1526): 2047–2062. Pimm, Stuart, Peter Raven, Alan Peterson, Çağan H. Şekercioğlu, and Paul R.  Ehrlich. 2006. Human Impacts on the Rates of Recent, Present, and Future Bird Extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (29): 10941–10946. Pires, Stephen F., and Ronald V. Clarke. 2011. Sequential Foraging, Itinerant Fences and Parrot Poaching in Bolivia. British Journal of Criminology 51 (2): 314–335. ———. 2012. Are Parrots CRAVED? An Analysis of Parrot Poaching in Mexico. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49 (1): 122–146. Ricciardi, Anthony, Richard J.  Neves, and Joseph B.  Rasmussen. 1998. Impending Extinctions of North American Freshwater Mussels (Unionoida) Following the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena Polymorpha) Invasion. Journal of Animal Ecology 67 (4): 613–619. Schandl, Heinz, and Niels Schulz. 2002. Changes in the United Kingdom’s Natural Relations in Terms of Society’s Metabolism and Land-use from 1850 to the Present Day. Ecological Economics 41 (2): 203–221. Schipper, Jan, Janice S.  Chanson, Federica Chiozza, Neil A.  Cox, Michael Hoffmann, Vineet Katariya, John Lamoreux, et al. 2008. The Status of the World’s Land and Marine Mammals: Diversity, Threat, and Knowledge. Science 322 (5899): 225–230. Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press. Schofield, Gail, Charles M.  Bishop, Grant MacLean, Peter Brown, Martyn Baker, Kostas A.  Katselidis, Panayotis Dimopoulos, John D.  Pantis, and Graeme C.  Hays. 2007. Novel GPS Tracking of Sea Turtles as a Tool for Conservation Management. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 347 (1): 58–68. Shandra, John M., Christopher Leckband, Laura A.  McKinney, and Bruce London. 2009. Ecologically Unequal Exchange, World Polity, and Biodiversity Loss a Cross-national Analysis of Threatened Mammals. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 285–310. Sheehan, Peter M. 2001. The Late Ordovician Mass Extinction. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 29 (1): 331–364.

5  Unsustainable Economic Development and Nonhuman… 

125

South, Nigel, and Avi Brisman, eds. 2013. Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology. New York: Routledge. Sovacool, Benjamin K. 2012. The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9 (4): 255–278. Steffen, Will, Paul J. Crutzen, and John R. McNeill. 2007. The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 36 (8): 614–621. Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeill. 2011. The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (1938): 842–867. Stork, Nigel E. 2010. Re-assessing Current Extinction Rates. Biodiversity and Conservation 19 (2): 357–371. Stretesky, Paul B., Ruth E.  McKie, Michael J.  Lynch, Michael A.  Long, and Kimberly L. Barrett. 2018. Where Have All the Falcons Gone? Saker Falcon (falco cherrug) Exports in a Global Economy. Global Ecology and Conservation 13: e00372. Thomas, C.D., A.  Cameron, R.E.  Green, M.  Bakkenes, and L.J.  Beaumont. 2004. Extinction Risk from Climate Change. Nature 427: 145–148. Wadiwel, Dinesh Joseph. 2016. “Like One Who Is Bringing His Own Hide to Market”: Marx, Irigaray, Derrida and Animal Commodification. Angelaki 21 (2): 65–82. Wake, David B., and Vance T. Vredenburg. 2008. Are We in the Midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? A View from the World of Amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 10 (S-1): 11466–11473. White, Rob., ed. 2009. Environmental Crime: A Reader. Devon, UK: Willan. Williams, S.E., E.E. Bolitho, and S. Fox. 2003. Climate Change in Australian Tropical Rainforests: An Impending Environmental Catastrophe. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London B 270: 1887–1892. Wyatt, Tanya. 2009. Exploring the Organization of Russia Far East’s Illegal Wildlife Trade: Two Case Studies of the Illegal Fur and Illegal Falcon Trades. Global Crime 10 (1–2): 144–154. ———. 2011. The Illegal Trade of Raptors in the Russian Federation. Contemporary Justice Review 14 (2): 103–123. ———. 2013. From the Cardamom Mountains of Southwest Cambodia to the Forests of the World: An Exploration of the Illegal Charcoal Trade. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 37 (1): 15–29. ———. 2014. The Russian Far East’s Illegal Timber Trade: An Organized Crime? Crime, Law and Social Change 61 (1): 15–35.

6 Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice

In the present chapter we present an orientation toward the study of eco-­ justice related to the theoretical analysis of the science of Gaia or the living world system. While it is indeed possible to devise a green theory of justice based on a number of different theoretical orientations, the scope of green theories of justice has been limited to nonhuman rights approaches (Beirne 1999, 2009; Barnett 1999; Benton 1998), and to specific examinations of injustice related to the distribution of pollutants and legal outcomes (Lynch and Stretesky 2012, 2013; Stretesky et  al. 2013; Stretesky and Lynch 2011). A more general theory of eco-justice has yet to be developed with respect to the global ecological system and more specifically in relation to the concept of the global ecosystem as a living system with an independent existence from humans and with some set of rights and a notion of justice compatible with recognition of the independence of nature. Gaia theory can be useful to this type of analysis. Existing green theories of justice tend to serve as a critique of anthropocentric theories of justice, and thus tend to be quite unique from the kinds of theories of justice criminologists typically encounter, which are, as we noted earlier, wholly anthropocentric in orientation. Theories of justice that appear within the orthodox criminological and criminal © The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9_6

127

128 

M. J. Lynch et al.

j­ustice literature are always anthropocentrically derived or constructed entirely in relation to human social relationships, values and expectations. In contrast, one can imagine that a green theory of justice can be situated and constructed against nonhuman systems of needs, and anchored to theories of justice that pay attention to issues of justice from the perspective of nature (Barnett 1999; Benton 1998). Again, Gaia theory addresses these concerns. Below, we lay out a specific theory of green justice centered on privileging the form of justice consistent with the health of earth’s living ecological system, or Gaia. Gaia theory, first proposed as the Gaia hypothesis by Lovelock and Margulis (1974), is now a widely accepted view in the natural and physical sciences, though this approach is not without its limitations (Lenton and van Oijen 2002a, b). Employing the basic ideas of Gaia theory and integrating these assumptions with other theoretical models and empirical research, especially theory connected to a political economic view of nature, we argue that the life-giving force of Gaia ought to be privileged in theoretical explanations of green justice. Privileging Gaia allows a green theory of justice to emerge where the living earth’s reproductive requirements and its life-giving forces are center stage when defining green justice. The privileging of Gaia in this way also allows specification of forms of injustice that violate Gaia’s system of justice, and which can also be interpreted as green crimes from the perspective of Gaia. Below, we review the assumptions of Gaia theory. Following that review, we propose two sets of propositions that can be derived from Gaia theory. The initial set of propositions (propositions A. 1–A. 13) reviews general assumptions of justice we tie to and relate to Gaia theory. In the second set of propositions (B. 1.–B. 12), we extend this argument and build in a critique of a capital-centered theory of justice, and explore how a capital-centric and a Gaia-centered theory of justice are in opposition with one another. It is not our intention to rectify the contradictions between the capital-centric and Gaia-centered theory of justice—that is, to offer a unification of these two opposing positions on justice. Rather, our point is to illustrate that there is a green theory of justice that can be derived from Gaia theory, and that from the perspective of Gaia, the capitalist system of production constitutes an act of ecological injustice against the organization, functions and stability of Gaia.

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

129

 ackground: Moving Away from the “Only B Humans Matter” Concept of Justice Traditionally, within criminology and criminal justice, the analysis of justice, its scope, meaning and content have been studied from a human-­ centered view oriented toward philosophical conceptions of justice related solely to human concerns and values. In that view, justice is entirely a human concept, and other orientations for a theory of justice are rejected out of hand. This has produced a limited conceptualization of justice in which “only humans matter.” In essence, actions that are just or unjust are so because they are in accord with or violate human-­ centered visions of justice related to a consideration of human needs and the human condition. Yet, because the vast majority of theories of justice, particularly in the field of criminology, are anthropocentrically oriented or centered, they omit alternative possibilities for grounding theories of justice in more universalistic terms. Likewise, because theories of justice are anthropocentric, they tend to overlook forms of injustice when the victims of injustice are nonhuman entities, species or other living things. Among these other important nonhuman living entities that are victimized by forms of eco-injustice is Gaia, the living earth system. For purposes of the present analysis of a green theory of justice, we accept the general premises of Gaia theory as the basis for a scientifically grounded concept of green justice. The general propositions of Gaia theory include the following scientifically accepted ideas (for detailed descriptions, see Lenton and Lovelock 2000; Lenton and van Oijen 2002a, b; Lovelock 2006, 2009; Lovelock and Margulis 1974; Schwartzman 2002). 1 . The Earth is a living system. 2. The Earth is a self-regulating, complex system. 3. Gaia, or the Earth system, is composed of all living things in interaction with the various physical dimensions of the Earth system. 4. As a system, Gaia functions in a way that generates physical and chemical properties consistent with an environmentally optimal state

130 

M. J. Lynch et al.

for the existence of life forms, and attempts to remain in a state of homeostasis that facilitates the existence of life forms. 5. The primary physical dimensions of the system include the regulation of optimal atmospheric conditions, surface temperature, ocean salinity and the carbon cycle, all of which help maintain life on earth. These conditions for life are maintained by chemical interactions as well as interactions between life forms and the structure of earth and its physical properties. Given that the Earth is a living system and that the organizational structure of the living Earth system facilitates the existence of other life forms, and that life forms interact to facilitate the survival of Gaia, we define eco-injustice against Gaia as: an act or series of acts that undermines Gaia’s ability to maintain ecological conditions conducive to the continued existence of Gaia in a productive and reproductive state that produces and reproduces ecological conditions that contribute to the health and existence of the entire ecological system of Earth and Gaia. In this view of justice, actions that violate Gaia’s requirements for survival and undermine its functions are forms of injustice, as are behaviors that cause the system of Gaia to change and self-regulate in new ways that produce negative impacts for living species (e.g., such as anthropogenic climate change). These injustices can also be conceptualized as crimes against the living Earth system. Particularly important in this view of justice is the impact of humans on Gaia. Of all species, only humans have been identified as having such a large impact on local and global ecology that they can change the nature of Gaia and cause it to seek a new equilibrium through self-regulation (Lovelock 2006). Thus, in any discussion of injustice against Gaia and nonhuman species, the focus must be on humans as a cause of injustice. To flesh out this position, in the following section, we review a series of propositions that justifies an eco-justice theory centered around the requirements and contributions of Gaia to the emergence and continued existence of life forms on Earth.

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

131

 ropositions on Gaia, Disequilibrium, Injustice P and the Human Origins of Harms and Injustice Against Gaia In this section, we lay out the initial assumptions behind our argument. These assumptions establish that Gaia is a living system; that as a life form Gaia is quite ancient; that Gaia’s age and hierarchal location in the system of life forms establish its priority and preference over other life forms with respect to the priority of interpretations of justice; that Gaia’s state of equilibrium is associated with a specific form of justice and hence injustice; that injustice against Gaia produces a “natural” response or what we might, in an anthropocentric view, interpret as “revenge”(Lovelock 2006); and that the vast majority of harm and eco-injustice Gaia has experienced has been produced over the past four centuries in general, but more specifically over the past century-and-a-half by the over-­ consumption of Gaia’s resources by humans owing to the expansion of capitalism. Below, we lay out this argument in the form of several positions and statements related to the Earth as a living system. Some of these propositions relate to the intersection of Gaia and capitalism, a point to which we shall return later in this analysis. A.1. The Earth is a living system, Gaia. While there is some disagreement over the exact ways in which Gaia functions as a living system (Clarke 2010; Kirchner 2002; Lenton 2002; Lenton and Lovelock 2000), the idea of earth as a living system is generally widely accepted by physical scientists (but see Kirchner 2003 for criticism). A.2. As a living system, Gaia predates all other forms of life. The earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old, and Gaia is approximately 4 billion years old (Lovelock 2006). Homo Sapiens have only existed for 250,000 years, and Homo Sapiens’ ancestors for 2.2 million years. Gaia’s age gives it historical preference over other species and life forms with respect to establishing historical precedence of a claim to justice and the structure and content of justice. In that view, Gaia’s age gives it precedence, followed by other nonhuman life forms, and then, finally, humans. In this sense, there should be some consideration that theories

132 

M. J. Lynch et al.

of justice have a hierarchical domain of reference with Gaia at the pinnacle. A.3. The organization of Earth’s living system established the conditions which allowed other life forms to arise. Gaia’s structure and function provide those other life forms with a space in Gaia’s living system and produced the conditions required for their existence. Thus, absent the preexistence of Gaia, other life forms could not exist. In this sense, all non-Gaia life forms owe a debt to Gaia, and are bound to Gaia’s health and vitality. A.4. Earth’s living ecological system not only produced the conditions for the existence of other life forms but continuously regenerates conditions which allow other life forms to continue their existence. If Gaia did not contain mechanisms for regulating the earth’s temperature, other life forms could not exist, and if earth loses that ability, the probability of other life forms ceasing to exist increases. Here, the necessary conditions for Gaia’s existence and conditions that allow Gaia to perform its functions take precedence over the requirements for non-Gaia life forms. In this sense, the justness of acts that harm Gaia is judged against the ultimate needs of Gaia. However, since Gaia is a living system, it also depends on and is in a symbiotic relationship with many other life forms that also contribute to the existence of Gaia. In contrast to this relationship between Gaia and some life forms, humans tend to be a drain on Gaia. This is especially true since the emergence of capitalism. Humans have undermined the core requirements for the reproduction and continuation of Gaia in an equilibrium state (e.g., threatening the planetary boundaries and exceeding the ecological footprint of earth). A.5. Points A. 3 and A. 4 above established the hierarchical privilege of Gaia with respect to other life forms. Gaia is the bedrock of all life forms and occupies a privileged position in the hierarchy of life forms because of the role it plays in producing and reproducing the conditions for the life of other living entities. Again, because Gaia is a living system, many other life forms contribute to the continuation of Gaia. Building upon these observations, it can be posited that acts that undermine Gaia’s health and reproductive abilities or the health of other necessary life forms are acts of injustice and crimes against Gaia.

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

133

A.6. To maintain itself and other life forms, Gaia must be allowed to function as it has throughout the long run of its history, since at least 3.6 billion years ago when the first single-cell organisms appeared. Gaia’s primary purpose, in this view of Gaia theory, is to maintain itself. The beneficial consequences of that maintenance for other species may be an unintended consequence of Gaia’s production and reproduction of its own life forces. Since other species also contribute to the evolution of Gaia and the maintenance of Gaia after those other life forms come into existence, the stability of the system is dependent upon the stability of numerous species of life. Nevertheless, other species, including humans, exist only because the conditions produced by Gaia allow their existence. Undermining Gaia, therefore, undermines the existence of other species, and an offense against Gaia can be considered an offense against all the life forms its supports. A.7. Since its function is to maintain itself, in its normal functioning Gaia does not harm itself, but always functions in accordance with its maintenance function. Harms to Gaia and injustice against Gaia are always external to Gaia’s own system, which is a natural system with a record of billions of years of “success.” Some of the harms to Gaia are exogenous, such as the effect of other planetary impacts or external shocks to Gaia that have appeared periodically throughout the history of Gaia. Some of these exogenous disturbances significantly alter the life-course of Gaia. In the historical long run of eons, however, Gaia has displayed a tendency to be able to recover from those exogenous impacts. The current impacts on Gaia, however, are endogenous to the extent that one of the species which Gaia has produced, humans, disturbs Gaia’s equilibrium. A.8. One form of harm to Gaia is that which is imposed by other living species. Those harms occur when species take more from Gaia than Gaia is capable of replacing. In this sense over-consumption by species can damage Gaia’s health. When other living species harm Gaia’s ability to reproduce itself in this way, through excessive consumption, Gaia responds by altering conditions to effectively “starve” off harmful species thereby reducing the demands on Gaia. Excessive consumption that throws Gaia into disequilibrium, even at local levels, creates a response designed to restore equilibrium or to impose a new equilibrium, which may include the process of extinction to rid Gaia of adverse harm

134 

M. J. Lynch et al.

(Lovelock 2006). Since Gaia’s function is not conscious, its efforts to restore equilibrium may not be targeted at any of the specific offending species. This effect can be seen in the contemporary era in rising rates of extinction that affect numerous species despite the fact that contemporary ecological strain is produced by humans. Scientists have recognized this effect by identifying a new era in Gaia’s history, the Anthropocene, which defines a period of history since the industrial revolution where human effects on the ecosystem have been large enough to produce a rapid increase in the rate of species extinctions (Barnosky et  al. 2011; Steffen et al. 2011). A.9. As a living system with only chemical and physical systems, Gaia possesses no consciousness, thus its response to the harms posed by other living entities is not a conscious response but rather a structural response. In this sense, Gaia has an innate response to the over-consumption tendencies of capitalism that is structurally determined by the effects of over-­ consumption on the various components of Gaia’s living system. In this interpretation of Gaia and justice, over-consumption is a form of injustice with respect to Gaia’s natural state of existence. Gaia’s response to over-consumption is to change. That change alters the short-term nature of Gaia’s functions; however, given the span of Gaia’s lifetime, such “short-term” responses may last for thousands of years (Lovelock 2006). Gaia’s structural response to injustice may have collateral consequences for nonoffending species since Gaia is not responding directly to the species harm posed by a given species, but rather to the state of disequilibrium that has been produced. Thus, Gaia’s response may harm living entities that are not responsible for disequilibrium. A.10. The long-term form of disequilibrium that Gaia has experienced over the past three centuries is a consequence of the over-consumptive tendencies of the human species resulting from the economic form of organization humans have developed, capitalism. For many millennia prior to that time, humans and Gaia lived in closer harmony, and it is not simply “in the nature of humans” that this tendency for over-­consumption is located, but rather in the expansionary drives of capitalism. A.11. The over-consumptive tendencies of humans over the past three centuries of human development are linked to the production of disequilibrium for Gaia, and constitute an injustice from the perspective of Gaia.

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

135

A.12. Over the past three centuries, human developed has been dominated by the development, transition and expansion of capitalism. Thus, capitalism can be identified as the primary form of human organization that has led to the forms of injustice Gaia experiences. This connection has been one of the discoveries of ecological Marxism (Foster 2000, 2010; Clark and Foster 2010; Burkett 2006; Foster and Burkett 2008; Foster et al. 2010; Jorgenson and Clark 2011) and treadmill of production theories (Schnaiberg 1980; Gould et al. 2008). A.13. As treadmill of production theory argues, the forms of ecological disruption humans produce create ecological disorganization, which disrupts Gaia’s ability to reproduce itself and the conditions of life for other species (Schnaiberg 1980; Foster 2000). This is the primary form of injustice in the modern world from which Gaia suffers, and is due largely to the effects of capitalist over-production and over-consumption. Capitalist over-production and over-consumption generate two primary forms of harm: those associated with ecological withdrawals or with the manner in which raw materials are extracted from the living earth system, and those related to ecological additions or the pollution of the living earth system.

 ropositions Elaborating Human Harm P and Injustice Against Gaia In this section, we elaborate on the assumptions outlined above to specify some of the additional conditions related to the relationship between Gaia and the human species, and how that relationship has changed historically over the past three centuries. The assumptions detailed below explain why humans do not perceive the forms of injustice they commit against Gaia, and fail to further identify the forms of ecological injustice against Gaia produced by capitalism. B.1. The human species, owing to the unique form of consciousness it possess among living species, has developed elaborate rationalizations and justifications for its human system of justice. B. 2. The human system of justice is species based, revolves around human existence and is constructed independently of the relations of

136 

M. J. Lynch et al.

humans to Gaia or to the embeddedness of humans in the living Earth system. That is to say, humans do not ordinarily think dialectically about justice and their relationship to nature. In the criminological literature, this tendency to overlook the human-Gaia connection has produced a unique human or anthropocentric analysis of the concept of justice detached from any assumptions about human-Gaia interconnections and interactions, and devoid of a concept of justice linking human justice and justice for Gaia. B. 3. Because the human system of justice is species based, it has a tendency to ignore the rights of other living entities and their historical precedence over the human form of justice. As a result, human-centered systems of justice invert the real, material relations in the world that would prioritize Gaia’s definition of justice over human systems of justice. This inversion of the concept of justice has implications for how humans behave and respond to Gaia, injustice against Gaia and their tendency under capitalism to over-consume Gaia’s resources. B. 4. The rationalizations for justice and exploitation of nonhuman entities contained in systems of human justice invert the hierarchy of privilege associated with the historical sequence of the development of life forms since the beginning of Gaia. Since all life forms require the existence of Gaia for their survival, it should be the health of Gaia that is privileged. It is in this sense that all living species owe a debt to Gaia, and all living species rights are subservient to those of Gaia. In human consciousness, however, things are not often seen this way; rather human interpretations of rights and justice tend to privilege humans and human property relations over those of Gaia to justify the exploitation of Gaia for human purposes. This tendency has become increasingly exaggerated under capitalism. This leads to the promotion of behaviors that will undermine a concept of justice consistent with promoting the health and long-term viability of Gaia. This is especially true in the Anthropocene era dominated by capitalism and its tendency toward over-production and over-consumption. B. 5. The various justifications and rationalizations for harm and injustice against Gaia that humans employ are grounded philosophically, ­religiously and economically, ignoring the science of Gaia and the environment. These justifications and rationalizations are situated in anthro-

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

137

pocentric orientations that fail to appreciate the existence of Gaia as a living entity with needs, or as the progenitor of life. As the progenitor of life, the needs of Gaia supersede those of other life forms, and therefore acts that damage the needs of Gaia can be viewed as acts of injustice against Gaia. Human systems of justice, however, do not recognize the precedence of Gaia in the chain of justice claims. B. 6. The human-centered justifications for harm and injustice against nature undermine the historical and hierarchal privilege of Gaia over other life forms. These justifications and rationalizations are employed to legitimize the human exploitation of Gaia for human purposes and the expansion of capitalism. B. 7. In the contemporary world, the primary justifications and rationalizations for acts of harm and injustice committed against Gaia are grounded in language that values human “development” framed from not only an anthropocentric perspective, but especially from a capital-­ centered view of human “development,” which we shall call a “capital-­ centric” view of the relations of humans to nature. In that capital-centric view, concepts such as human development and modernization are preferenced over ecological values such as the maintenance of Gaia, and are oriented toward the expansion of capital despite the harm and injustice such a system produces for Gaia. B. 8. Unlike other species, the human species, owing to its state of consciousness and the production of social relations of production that become detached from the natural world (i.e., capitalism), generates elaborate justifications for the forms of injustice it commits against Gaia and the other species in that system. These capital-centric values promote the accumulation of wealth over the protection of nature, and undermine the health of Gaia. B. 9. The capital-centric human view of justice defends the notions of development, progress and modernization from the perspective of capital, meaning these concepts are used to defend the right of capital to grow despite the harm that growth produces for Gaia. B. 10. Following the structure of capitalism, the capital-centric view of justice is one that rationalizes and legitimizes the growth of profit-­making, accumulation and the constant expansion of capitalism over any other form of value and over other forms of justice. In this view, the expansion

138 

M. J. Lynch et al.

of capitalism is rationalized and justified over the needs of Gaia despite the existence of significant evidence that the expansion of capitalism undermines the health of the ecosystem, and that capitalism and nature are in contradiction with one another (for discussion see: Burkett 2006; Clark and Foster 2010; Foster 2000, 2012; Foster and Burkett 2008; Foster et al. 2010). B. 11. Based on the above propositions, and especially propositions B-6 to B-10, it becomes evident that a Gaia theory of justice and a capital-­ centric theory of justice are opposed to one another. That is to say, the elements of justice supported by a capital-centered theory of justice— economic growth, capital accumulation, the unlimited growth of capitalism—are all counter to the conditions of justice required to maintain the health of Gaia. That opposition mirrors the opposition between nature and capitalism posited by ecological Marxism. B. 12. A capital-centric theory of justice and a Gaia theory of justice cannot be integrated and harmonized because, borrowing from the scientific and ecological literatures, we can say that the very premise of capitalism is opposed to the stability of Gaia and to the conditions that lead to the stability of the living earth system in the long run.

Implications and Analysis Above we have set out several core (A.1–A. 13) and auxiliary (B.1–B. 12) propositions concerning a concept of justice grounded in Gaia theory. One of the points of those propositions was to illustrate that an ecologically grounded theory of justice that also considers political economic concerns of how capitalism undermines ecological justice can be constructed in reference to Gaia theory. In contrast to the view our propositions have examined, one of the few studies to specifically examine the relationship between Gaia and justice (Wissenberg 1993) takes a very different point of view than our analysis proposes. Thus, it is instructive to review Wissenberg’s argument and explore whether the differences between our approach and his can be rectified.

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

139

Wissenberg (1993: 9) suggests that there are three forms of “Gaianism” related to concepts of justice. He argues that these three forms of Gaianism have to do with distributive justice issues and the actions humans ought to follow in relation to Gaia depend upon which initial assumptions about Gaia and justice are invoked. The first form of Gaianism involves the idea that as a self-regulating system, Gaia can “can take care of herself and does not need man’s help or cooperation ….” Wissenberg argues that if this is how the self-­ regulating Gaia system is to be interpreted, then there is no need for humans to consider how their actions impact Gaia. Gaia should be left to its own devices, and humans should, well, act like humans but should refrain from interfering with Gaia. We would argue that this is a misinterpretation of the premises of Gaia theory because while the living earth system is indeed self-regulating, that form of self-regulation also involves self-regulating reactions related to the interaction between species within the general system of Gaia. If, therefore, humans generate extensive ecological damage, then Gaia will engage in forms of self-regulation that will eliminate activities that lead to disequilibrium. This negative reaction to human disruption could, of course, be posited as its own theory of justice: humans get what they deserve from Gaia. Such a proposition, however, may essentially anthropomorphize Gaia and grant to Gaia some subtle form of consciousness associated with theories criminologists employ, such as retribution. This approach would lead to the assumption that Gaia is vengeful, which is opposed to the scientific view of Gaia as a living system that is simply reinforcing the requirements for its existence as a result of the structural organization of Gaia. In this proposition, Wissenberg states that Gaia does not need human interference, and therefore humans should refrain from interfering with Gaia. By this Wissenberg means that Gaia is capable, on its own, of responding to ecological disruption. But, it is precisely the behavior of humans which causes Gaia to engage in new forms of self-regulation. In the modern era, ecological disequilibrium in the living world system is generated by humans. Gaia will respond to those irritants by generating conditions that will allow it to return to a stable state of ecological ­equilibrium. This may, for example, lead to climate change which will cause a decline in the number of species reducing the demands on Gaia,

140 

M. J. Lynch et al.

thereby allowing a return to long-term stability in the living world system. The question is not whether Gaia can respond to such disruption (or whether it does so “consciously”), and to be sure, it’s long billions of years history suggests that it can. Rather, the question is whether human disruption of Gaia is “fair” and “just” in some broader meaning of those terms, and whether the interference humans create is unjust. In the sense of self-­regulation, Gaia will eventually handle the disruption humans posed and eliminate it. But, the question is not whether Gaia can respond to disruption, but whether purposeful disruptions related to the types of harms humans generate are fair and just in the larger sense that those disruptions cause structural changes in the living world system that impact not only the nature of the system, but the ability of other species to survive as we have illustrated in an earlier chapter in our discussion of species extinction in the Anthropocene. While Gaia is self-regulating, the question is whether the systemic response to human disturbance of the system leads to unfavorable (unjust) outcomes for other species or specific components of the ecosystem. If, for example, Gaia self-regulates by promoting climate change to reduce the population of species because it can no longer support such extensive populations, or the excessive consumption habits that humans have developed through a reliance on capitalism, have humans engaged in behavior that causes ecological injustice for other species? To be sure, humans could refrain from causing such consequences, but they have not in the contemporary period of human history. Thus, it would seem that humans have some responsibility for the negative self-regulating outcomes Gaia generates and that they routinely—and perhaps one might say unconsciously—interfere with Gaia. As noted earlier, scientists have stated that the world is now in a period they describe as the Anthropocene. This period of history is marked by extensive alteration of Gaia by human activity and results in negative consequences from Gaia’s self-regulation such as increased rates of species extinction. While in the long run, Gaia will accommodate human impacts on the system through self-regulation, the question remains whether the human acts that cause Gaia’s response and self-regulation are forms of injustice in the sense that they lead to harm to other species. The second form of Gaianism Wissenberg identifies is “quietism.” Quietism is the idea that Gaia requires the passive support of humans to

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

141

maintain equilibrium since, after all, humans are part of the living structure of Gaia. This observation implies that humans ought to follow the “rules” of Gaia. In this view, Wissenberg argues, humans cannot “authoritatively or autonomously influence our environment. At best we can have a say in what constitutes our private nature—that is, our character, inclinations, preferences, etc.” This depiction of Gaianism is obviously in conflict with what we know about the impacts of humans on Gaia and the course Gaia travels. Humans have large, significant impacts on Gaia, and attending to our own interests and preference as if there were private matters that had no impact on Gaia is not an accurate depiction of real-world conditions. Indeed, the “private lives” of humans have had extensive impacts on Gaia. Quietism appears, to us at least, to be quite similar to the first form of Gaianism Wissenberg identifies. Neither requires humans to think much about Gaia or to do anything that supports Gaia’s efforts to maintain a state of equilibrium conducive to the health of the entire system and its inhabitants. The third possibility, Wissenberg argues, is an active support model. In this view, Gaia depends on the “active support of mankind for its maintenance ….” This argument, Wissenberg believes, is inappropriate for two reasons. First, as noted earlier, Wissenberg argues that Gaia is self-­ regulating and does not need the assistance of humans. Second, Wissenberg sees this option as totalitarian in nature and argues that it leads to the “subjection of all human interests to one non-human, external goal: the preservation of nature.” Wissenberg’s position on this latter point implies that the only “appropriate” form of existence for humans is as a self-directing species freed from any external restraints, including those that would be imposed by nature and Gaia. Wissenberg’s view is, of course, anthropocentric and an ecological reformulation of the general orientation found in humanist philosophy. This view does not sit well with any effort to suggest that an orientation other than human provides the best solution to the problem of ecological destruction, at least for humans considered entirely in isolation from the context in which they are enmeshed—as part of Gaia. Indeed, it is precisely because he takes this humanist view that Wissenberg interprets the superior position of nature over humans in the active support model to be problematic. Distasteful as this might be from

142 

M. J. Lynch et al.

an anthropocentric/humanist perspective, the issue is not whether human subservience to nature violates some preconceived notions of human self-­ determination. Rather, the issue has to do with the survival of Gaia, and hence the survival of the human species. If humans cannot survive without Gaia—and this is clearly the case—then all the humanist thinking we can muster cannot replace the need for humans to live within the confines of Gaia, or suffer the consequences—extinction. With respect to the humanist proposition offered by Wissenberg, we can say that if human survival requires subservience to Gaia, then humans can still make the “choice” between subservience to Gaia and survival, or between self-determination and destruction—that is, that humans can still assert their “humanness” regardless of the consequences. On this point, however, we would like to point out that we have purposefully placed the word choice in quotations marks. We have done so because we do not think that the very abstract form of humanist analysis Wissenberg presents makes a carefully analysis of the word choice. To make a choice or to choose means to select from among at least two alternatives. We would like to point out that the average person does not, in any sense of this idea or this word, make a choice between subservience to Gaia or the option of self-determination and destruction. Moreover, it is clearly not the average person who is making choices about how humans will treat Gaia; rather it is the economically and politically powerful who make that choice. The average person does not decide which raw materials are consumed, or at what rate resources are consumed, or the processes used to extract raw materials from the earth, or from where those materials are to be extracted; or how destructive ecological resource withdrawals methods are. The average person may not even know that humans consume at a pace greater than nature can withstand. These extraction and production decisions are made by the owners of capital, and treating the “subservience of humans to Gaia” question as if it were a free choice made by individual humans rather than by the owners of capital is to entirely ignore the structured nature of choices as they exist in the capitalist ­marketplace where the decisions of a few are imposed upon the rest of society in a controlled way. In light of the above and acknowledging the self-correcting mechanisms found in Gaia and that Gaia does not require the cooperation of

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

143

humans, we would suggest a fourth alternative, cooperativism. Cooperativism would be the human recognition of their dependence on Gaia, and the ability to perceive that cooperation with Gaia provides humans with their only long-term hope of survival. Indeed, in opposition to Wissenberg’s preference for humanism, cooperativism requires that humans give up selfish notions of wealth and excess and the constant expansion of the standard of living for a sustainable lifestyle that does not cause harm to Gaia. It should also be acknowledged that the development of an ethic related to Gaia can also be related to other interpretations such as to the stages of human moral development as outlined by Kohlberg (1970). Kohlberg’s six well-known stages of moral development are as follows from the lowest to the highest form: (1) obedience and punishment orientation; (2) self-interest orientation; (3) interpersonal accord and conformity; (4) authority and social order maintenance; (5) social contract orientation and (6) universal ethical principles. As we can see from Kohlberg’s theory, the lowest stage of moral development is the one most often associated with the study of crime and its control—the obedience and punishment orientation, where an individual is supposed to focus on the direct consequences of their actions, such as in deterrence theory. The humanist orientation of Wissenberg’s description of an ecological ethic attached to Gaia, we would argue, is stage two or a very low stage of moral development associated with the “what’s in it for me” attitude. In the humanist view, “what’s in it for me” is freedom from subjugation, a point Wissenberg emphasizes. In contrast to these low-level stages of moral development found in criminal justice and Wissenberg’s terms, a Gaia cooperativism perspective would reflect level 6 moral development, or the highest level of moral development where universal moral principles emerge and develop. In our view, however, we see this more as a scientific rather than an ethnical or moral issue. The reproduction requirements of Gaia have been identified, if not directly but indirectly, by research on planetary boundaries required for the further healthy existence of Gaia reviewed in an earlier chapter. The scientists involved in such work do not directly refer to Gaia and Gaia theory (for an example of a work which begins this

144 

M. J. Lynch et al.

discussion, see Olson and Messeri 2015)—but, rather refer to the “planet,” as if it were not necessarily a living entity. In short, we can say that a well-developed idea of cooperativism stemming from the analysis of Gaia theory provides an alternative to capital-­ centric and anthropocentric definitions of justice that are more useful to the development of a green perspective on eco-justice. As we have illustrated through the above propositions, the analysis of Wissenberg’s alternatives and, in reference to Kohlberg’s moral theory approach, a Gaia-centric theory of green justice allow fresh analysis of the concept of green justice. While we do not believe that this cooperativist Gaia theory of justice is the only way to interpret green justice, we find it appealing because of its scope and its ability to address issues that have been omitted from prior discussions of green justice, particularly the impact of capitalism on Gaia, and the conceptualization of capitalism as an unjust system from the perspective of Gaia, and its link to scientific research.

Enter Political Economy A critique of the argument we have thus far laid out is that it appears to lack a strong political economic orientation. The answer to the political economic question in the case of an eco-justice theory derived from Gaia-­ based analysis has to do with conceptualizing Gaia’s productive and reproductive system as a form of nature’s economy, a suggestion found in the work of ecological Marxism (Foster 1999, 2000). To do so we must give up the orthodox notion that a productive system, one that has an economy, is necessarily one that is constructed by humans. This means we must abandon an anthropocentric view of economy. The basis of this argument is found in the political economic view of nature ecological Marxism has developed. In political economic terms, ecological Marxism has advanced the observation that nature—or what we call Gaia here—has its own system of production (Foster 2000; Burkett 2008). That system of production generates a form of wealth or assets located in the raw materials Gaia employs to create a functioning ecosystem capable of supporting life. The value of Gaia’s assets and wealth exists independently from human evalu-

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

145

ation of wealth, any particular human systems of wealth and any associated economic values or monetary valuations. In that view, Gaia’s produces “good and commodities” that include the production of the atmosphere and the mechanisms for atmospheric regulation and reproduction, along with other regulating and reproductive activities that allow Gaia to create earth’s habitable environment such as the systems of temperature control and climate (which includes, for example, regulation of the oceans and other waterways, forests, etc.). These regulatory, productive and reproductive mechanisms make up Gaia’s or nature’s “economy.” Nature’s economy is visible outside of the limiting assumptions of orthodox economic theory which are constructed only with respect to the human economy, which only takes into account the anthropocentric view of the idea of economy. Nature’s economy, in contrast, is discoverable from the perspective of the physical sciences that have identified the physical rules of nature in such disciplines as physics, chemistry, geochemistry, biology, atmospheric sciences and so forth. There is, in this view, an important distinction between “nature’s economy” and the “human economy.” That difference relates to the limiting anthropocentric assumptions noted above, but also to the fact that the human economic view of value is a social construction. As a social construction, human economic systems can only comprehend the concept of value with respect to human relations, which under capitalism are expressed in ownership and monetary terms. From a political economic perspective sensitive to the existence of nature’s economy, the complete articulation of that human-centered view of value requires that human economic assumptions erase the very notion of independence between the human economy and nature economy, or that it does away with the idea of oppositional dualistic/dialectic economies. This has been a main feature of capitalism which can only comprehend the concept of value “in nature” with respect to how nature is used in and allows for the production of commodities in the capitalist system. In contrast to this ­subjective, socially constructed capitalist view of value, nature’s value is rooted in the reproduction of the conditions for life. With respect to eco-justice, it is the assumptions of and the operation of the human economic system and its anthropocentric orientation that

146 

M. J. Lynch et al.

facilitates the abuse of Gaia in ways that violate the productive/reproductive economy of nature assumptions that are at issue when defining injustices against Gaia. As we argued earlier, Gaia has a privileged status over humans both historically and with respect to necessity. In terms of necessity, humans cannot exist without Gaia while Gaia has and can exist without humans. Gaia is a necessary condition of human existence, while the reverse is not true. To be sure some might—especially if they draw their perspective on economy from an orthodox economic position—be concerned with the position on dual/dialectic systems of economies and values taken above. They would suggest that this two economy view creates incommensurate values that cannot be compared, and that there is, therefore, no simple way to solve the contradiction between the values found in nature’s economy and those in the human economy. To some extent, that observation is correct, and is in part the point of identifying these two different economies and their different definitions of value. It might be possible to create a unifying model that can translate value from nature’s economy into human economic terms, and more specifically into terms that make sense within the confines of capitalism (e.g., translating, for example, the reproductive works of trees/forests with respect to the manufacture of oxygen, its work on filtering water, its role in regulating climate change, and so on, into equivalent human-based monetary values). While it might be possible to do so conceptually to illustrate the existence of specific concerns such as the exploitation of nature by capitalism, doing so also creates the possibility of misrepresenting the nature-human economy dualism that is essential to understanding eco-justice from the perspective of Gaia.

Conclusion Now a quarter of a century in the making, additional theoretical elaborations of green criminology are in order. In the present chapter we examined a green theory of justice based on Gaia theory. The theories of justice criminologists typically encounter are anthropocentric and ignore issues

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

147

of justice related to larger environmental concerns. A Gaia-centered theory of justice poses an alternative to anthropocentric justice models. Our Gaia-centered theory of cooperativism examines the structural nature of injustice generated by capitalism. From the perspective of Gaia, we argued that capitalism promotes ecological conditions that are unjust and illustrate the contradictions between nature and capitalism. Moreover, our argument is not based on a theory of rights or equity, two common approaches to identifying justice in anthropocentric models of justice. Rather, our Gaia-centered analysis suggests that an injustice can be identified as harm, and specifically as harm to the normal function of Gaia in its long-term state of equilibrium displayed over billions of years. Over the past few hundred years, human behavior and in particular the pursuit of capitalist values have undermined the stability of Gaia and cause Gaia to seek new levels of equilibrium through self-regulating mechanisms. That new equilibrium has produced negative outcomes across species and across ecological systems. These negative outcomes are the forms of injustice humans produce, and can only be interpreted as forms of injustice from the perspective of Gaia theory and the long-term stability of Gaia. Extensions of this argument to specific ecological issues and forms of injustice are required to determine if specific cases uphold the general arguments we have made here. We welcome further analysis of our positions and its utility for further elaboration of a green theory of justice.

References Barnett, Harold. 1999. The Land Ethic and Environmental Criminology. Criminal Justice Policy Review 10 (2): 161–191. Barnosky, Anthony D., Nicholas Matzke, Susumu Tomiya, Guinevere O.U.  Wogan, Brian Swartz, Tiago B.  Quental, Charles Marshall, Jenny McGuire, Emily L. Lindsey, Katlin C. Mcguire, Ben Mersey, and Elizabeth S.  Ferrer. 2011. Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived? Nature 471 (7336): 51–57. Beirne, Piers. 1999. For a Nonspeciesist Criminology: Animal Abuse as an Object of Study. Criminology 37 (1): 117–148. ———. 2009. Confronting Animal Abuse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

148 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Benton, Ted. 1998. Rights and Justice on a Shared Planet. Theoretical Criminology 2 (2): 149–175. Burkett, Paul. 2008. Marxism and Ecological Economics: Toward a Red and Green Political Economy. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Clark, Brett, and John Bellamy Foster. 2010. Marx’s Ecology in the 21st Century. World Review of Political Economy 1 (1): 142–156. Clarke, Bruce. 2010. Neocybernetics of Gaia: The Emergence of Second-Order Gaia Theory. In Gaia in Turmoil: Climate Change, Biodepletion, and Earth Ethics in an Age of Crisis, ed. B. Crist and H.B. Rinker, 293–314. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 105 (2): 366–405. ———. 2000. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New  York: Monthly Review Press. ———. 2012. The Planetary Rift and the New Human Exemptionalism: A Political-Economic Critique of Ecological Modernization Theory. Organization & Environment 25 (3): 211–237. Foster, John Bellamy, and Paul Burkett. 2008. Classical Marxism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Marx/Engels, the Heat Death of the Universe Hypothesis, and the Origins of Ecological Economics. Organization & Environment 21 (1): 3–37. Foster, John Bellamy, Brett Clark, and Richard York. 2010. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth. New York: New York University Press. Gould, K.A., D.N. Pellow, and A. Schnaiberg. 2008. The Treadmill of Production. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Brett Clark. 2011. Societies Consuming Nature: A Panel Study of the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1960–2003. Social Science Research 40 (1): 226–244. Kirchner, James W. 2002. The Gaia Hypothesis: Fact, Theory, and Wishful Thinking. Climatic Change 52 (4): 391–408. ———. 2003. The Gaia Hypothesis: Conjectures and Refutations. Climatic Change 58 (1-2): 21–45. Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1970. Stages of Moral Development. In Moral Education, ed. T. Lickona, 23–92. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Lenton, Timothy M. 2002. Testing Gaia: The Effect of Life on Earth’s Habitability and Regulation. Climatic Change 52 (4): 409–422.

6  Gaia and a Green Theory of Justice 

149

Lenton, Timothy M., and James E. Lovelock. 2000. Daisyworld Is Darwinian: Constraints on Adaptation Are Important for Planetary Self-regulation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206 (1): 109–114. Lenton, Timothy M., and Marcel van Oijen. 2002a. Gaia as a Complex Adaptive System. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 357 (1421): 683–695. ———. 2002b. Gaia as a Complex Adaptive System. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 357 (1421): 683–695. Lovelock, James. 2006. The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis & the Fate of Humanity. New York: Basic Books. ———. 2009. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. New York: Basic Books. Lovelock, James E., and Lynn Margulis. 1974. Atmospheric Homeostasis by and for the Biosphere: The Gaia Hypothesis. Tellus 26 (1–2): 2–10. Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B. Stretesky. 2012. Native Americans, Social and  Environmental Justice: Implications for Criminology. Social Justice 38 (3): 34–54. ———. 2013. The Distribution of Water-Monitoring Organizations Across States: Implications for Community Policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 36 (1): 6–26. Olson, Valerie, and Lisa Messeri. 2015. Beyond the Anthropocene: Un-Earthing an Epoch. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 6 (1): 28–47. Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press. Schwartzman, David. 2002. Life Temperature and the Earth: The Self-Organizing Biosphere. New York: Columbia University Press. Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeill. 2011. The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (1938): 842–867. Stretesky, Paul B., Michael A. Long, and Michael J. Lynch. 2013. The Treadmill of Crime: Political Economy and Green Criminology. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Stretesky, Paul B., and Michael J. Lynch. 2011. Coal Strip Mining, Mountain Top Removal and the Distribution of Environmental Violations Across the United States, 2002–2008. Landscape Research 36 (2): 209–230. Wissenberg, Mark. 1993. The Idea of Nature and the Nature of Distributive Justice. In The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political Theory, ed. A. Dobson and P. Lucardie, 2–20. London: Routledge.

7 Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice

In 1999, John Bellamy Foster introduced the concept of metabolic rift into the ecological Marxist and environmental sociological literatures, an idea he suggests he derived from Marx’s work. If one follows Foster’s argument, they can see the origins of metabolic rift in Marx’s work. However, Foster’s elaboration is significant in itself and important in its own terms—and not to ignore Marx, but we most certainly appreciate Foster’s contributions on these points. Foster, Clark and York (2010: 45–46) provide a useful overview of the concept of metabolic rift in their book The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth: In the nineteenth century, Karl Marx introduced the notion of the ‘metabolic rift,’ or a rift in the metabolic exchange between humanity and nature. The context was the robbing of the soil of the countryside of nutrients and sending of these nutrients to the cities in the form of food and fiber, where they ended up contributing to pollution. This rupture in the soil nutrient cycle undermined the regenerative capacities of the ecosystem. Marx argued that it was necessary to ‘restore’ the soil metabolism to ensure environmental sustainability for the generations to come.

© The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9_7

151

152 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Marx linked pollution in the cities with soil depletion in the countryside, thereby highlighting how capitalism creates and maintains an unsustainable relationship with nature. This discussion of the transfer of metabolic material from rural to urban areas has been extended by Foster and others to note how raw materials are transferred from developing to developed countries, further documenting and explaining capitalism’s transformation of global and local ecosystems, creating a metabolic rift across nations. In short, by creating a rift in the metabolic relationship between society and nature, capitalism is destroying nature. And consequently, “[m]etabolic analysis serves as a means to study these complex relationships of ecological degradation and sustainability” (Foster et al. 2010: 46). At one level of analysis, the metabolic rift requires us to think about the ontological rift (the conceptualization of the nature of nature) between capitalism and nature and how that rift is produced by capitalism to justify the ecological destruction of nature and the resulting ecological crises. At another level, the analysis draws attention to the scientific underpinning of a political economic analysis focused on the ways in which dimensions of the metabolic rift can be measured empirically and linked back to the ecologically destructive tendencies of capitalism. This idea has been well-cited in the social ecology literature. For example, the ten most often-cited works on this subject have been cited more than 2500 times (October, 2019), and given that such work is of relatively recent origin, that is an impressive number of citations to this idea. Moreover, development of the concept of metabolic rift and its application has led to the emergence of an entire, specialized literature focusing on this application of political economic theory to ecological destruction (see for example, Foster et al. 2010). In contrast to those numerous arguments, this idea has yet to make its way into the green criminological literature. In the present chapter we explore in some detail the concept of metabolic rift and its political economic grounding. We then examine how this concept can be used to discuss green justice in relation to the production of green crime and harm. Our argument that follows can be summarized in the following way. The concept of a metabolic rift between society and nature explores the ways in which capitalism undermines the

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

153

ecological organization of nature and the ability of the ecosystem to reproduce itself. This process not only destroys nature, it destroys value aspects of nature such as its production and distribution of energy. Moreover, because of these outcomes and other conditions that come to play significant roles in the history of capitalism, the process of metabolic rift leads to the unequal distribution of matter and energy represented in the capitalist economy by goods/commodities, privileging some nations over others. In this view it is also important to draw attention to the fact that the political economy of capitalism leads to ecological demands that promote the exhaustion of natural resources, especially those related to soil fertility, generating the need for new capitalist industries that seek to augment nature’s productivity. In this sense, capitalism consumes the productive abilities of nature, and responds by creating methods of supplementing nature’s productive abilities, which further contributes to ecological destruction through extraction of raw materials and the production of pollution and polluting soil amendment products. This is an unfolding historical process in which different phases of capitalist production generate unique forms of metabolic rift that contribute to the destruction of nature (Moore 2000, 2011). The concept of the metabolic rift can aid in the conceptualization of eco-justice by connecting green crime and green injustice to the growth and profit pressures of capitalism. In this view, the expansionary tendencies of capitalism generate forms of ecological destruction (crime) and lead to unsustainable ecological conditions (injustice). Empirically, these forms of green crime and injustice are unequally distributed across the capitalist world system. From the perspective of metabolic rift analysis which employs an eco-centric view of ecological harm, those negative ecological conditions constitute crimes against nature and the ecological system that damage the sustainability of the ecological system, and those crimes, in turn, generate ecological injustice. Related scientific work on planetary boundaries and the scientific analysis of ecological sustainability can be employed to yield ecologically sensitive definitions of the forms of crime and injustice associated with the metabolic rift. Drawing on concepts such as metabolic rift and planetary boundaries can also serve to generate a green definition of crime and justice that is objective and based

154 

M. J. Lynch et al.

on crossing scientifically established thresholds related to the production of ecological harm at the aggregate and national levels. In the present chapter, we take up the green criminological implications of metabolic rift and planetary boundaries. In particular, we draw attention to political economic arguments concerning the role capitalism plays in destroying nature by facilitating metabolic rift and crossing planetary boundaries. Our goal is to build an argument that not only demonstrates the forms of metabolic rift generated by capitalism, but that these metabolic rifts constitute violations of the empirical science of planetary boundaries, and hence constitute crimes from nature’s perspective, and in particular, in relation to the empirically/scientifically verifiable standards of ecological sustainability. Such an approach creates an empirical basis for a green definition of crime and justice that draws upon metabolic rift analysis for its theoretical foundation and scientific analysis of planetary boundary analysis for its empirical foundation. To do so, we begin with a discussion of how/why the concept of metabolic rift has importance for ecological analysis, and for a political economic green criminology. We follow that section with a more extended discussion of the metabolic rift concept. In the sections that follow, we employ the concept of metabolic rift to explore its uses within green criminology and its combination with planetary boundary analysis as the basis for a green definition of crime. We then turn to a discussion of the concepts of environmental and ecological justice and how they can be framed in the green approach relative to concepts such as metabolic rift and planetary boundaries.

Why Metabolic Rift? To begin, it is necessary to frame the utility of the concept of metabolic rift for the development of ecological theories and to illustrate how the goals of referring to the concept of metabolic rift constitute an important aspect of green theorizing, especially in relation to political economic analysis. In making this argument, Foster’s (1999) analysis of the metabolic rift highlighted how Marx’s work, from which metabolic rift analysis emerges, could contribute to the following:

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

155

1. Further development of environmental sociology and efforts to overcome resistance to the study of environmental issues as an integral part of sociological analysis (p. 367). 2. Establish a break with classical sociological analysis and its tendency to avoid ecologically centered analysis in favor of analysis of human societies abstractly detached from its ecological context and based on anthropocentric concepts (pp.  367–368)—that is, in opposition to dialectical thinking about the human-nature interface. 3. As a replacement of an anthropocentric theoretical orientation with a broader consideration of the ways in which society-nature intersect (p. 368). According to Foster, this could be accomplished by exploring the specific intersection of capitalism and nature from a political economic perspective sensitive to the issue of metabolic rift as found in the work of Marx. This latter observation then becomes the fourth contribution of metabolic rift analysis: the development of a political economic theory of the ways in which capitalism contributes to the destruction of nature, and how that ecological destruction is an integral part of the dynamics of capitalism and is related to the production of metabolic rift. In Foster’s view, a focus on the concept of metabolic rift addresses each of the concerns noted above. Specific attention to the issue of metabolic rift allows the emergence of a theory that is sensitive to society-nature intersections, one that is capable of drawing out and exploring how capitalism creates a metabolic rift in nature through its normal process of development and expansion. By paying attention to the intersection of nature and capitalism, metabolic rift analysis can overcome the historical tradition in sociology that favors the use of anthropocentrically grounded theory and moves ecological theorizing and explanation to a new level of analysis capable of properly describing and appreciating the nature-­ human intersection, and the particular expression of that relationship under capitalism. This is an important point because as Foster (2000) has argued elsewhere, capitalism must consume nature in order to survive, and the constant expansionary tendencies of capitalism lead to expanded consumption of nature and the continuous expansion of ecologically destructive production practices (see also, Schnaiberg 1980; Gould et al.

156 

M. J. Lynch et al.

2008), including, in the Foster/Marx argument, metabolic rift. In other words, one can say that the relationship between nature and capitalism is, like the relationship between capital and workers, one based in exploitation. In this sense, this is not a mutually beneficial relationship, and the flow of the benefit is one way, from nature to capital. Because the flow is in one direction (nature doesn’t benefit from capitalism), and because capitalism is also based on inherent class inequalities that denote unequal relationships between people, the “benefits” (defined in a capitalistic sense) of the nature-capital relationship are therefore unequally distributed across classes. Extending the observation that capitalism must consume and destroy nature, metabolic rift becomes one of the ways which illustrates how this type of ecological destruction and consumption occurs. Moreover, in justifying a metabolic rift approach, Foster suggests that the consumption and destruction of nature under capitalism is historically unique from any other period of human development and therefore must be understood on its own political economic terms. Above, we reviewed Foster’s argument that attention to the political economic theory of metabolic rift corrects some of the deficits in traditional sociological analyses of ecological problems. These same issues defined by Foster can easily be traced within criminology as well. Criminology has long been influenced by and followed along the path of classic sociological analysis, leaving little room for the emergence of any effort to examine society-nature intersections with respect to environmental issues. Moreover, the orientation of criminology has historically been almost entirely anthropocentric and focused solely on society and the problem of crime within the context of human relations and interactions, ignoring the human-nature intersection. The consequence of this anthropocentric orientation is the omission of any consideration of the possibility that humans and the forms of social organization they construct generate crimes and injustices against nature. Specifically, the basic intersection of humans and nature under capitalism is marked by a series of long-term, widespread crimes and forms of injustice involving ecological destruction that can be illustrated with analysis of metabolic rift. Within criminology, this general anthropocentric orientation toward nature, and crimes and injustice against nature, was largely true until the

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

157

development of green criminology in 1990 (Lynch 1990), at which point some effort has been made to eclipse anthropocentric theories of environmental crimes and injustice (White 2003). Thus, despite the observation that has been offered that there was a green criminology before green criminology, or that green criminology had precursors (Goyes and South 2017), none of those prior positions were able to comprehend an appropriate nature-society dialectic since they were all embedded within the anthropogenic history of sociological theories of human deviance and criminological theories of offending. It is only with the emergence and further development of green criminology that the conditions identified by Foster emerged and became possible within the academic space within criminology. This relates to, as we note above, the: ability to overcome resistance to the study of environmental issue as an integral part of criminological analysis; the ability to establish a break with classical criminological analysis and its tendency to avoid ecologically centered analysis; the development of an ecological imagination (Lynch and Stretesky 2014) which, in place of creating abstract theories of human interactions at the micro-level, and limiting the concept of environmental analysis to the spatial analysis of offending within cities, could begin to conceptualize the existence of a living ecological system in which human societies were enmeshed; and how the organization of human societies, and in particular the economic, social and political organization of capitalism, interacts with the organization of nature, and creates an exploitive nature-society dialectic relationship. In contrast to environmental sociology and ecological Marxism, prior to the emergence of green criminology—and perhaps even after its introduction—little criminological interest was shown in developing an ecological perspective within criminology that paid attention to any form of “ecology” beyond humanly constructed ecological entities such as cities, the rural-urban division related to crime or the more general “geography” of crime focused solely on spatial analysis of the distribution of crimes against humans. Even after its introduction, criminologists have failed to appreciate the revolutionary form of thinking offered by a green criminological perspective in general, or its uses with respect to the reconceptualization and analysis of crime, law and justice from an eco-centric and political perspective (Lynch and Stretesky 2014), and that this form of

158 

M. J. Lynch et al.

thinking is a rejection of any of the approaches to crime and justice that had been conceptualized within criminology up until that point in time. It was almost a decade after Lynch’s (1990) discussion of green criminology (see also Frank and Lynch 1992) that the idea of a green criminology began to show any evidence of development, and several more years before a significant growth in the green criminological literature emerged, and finally displayed an interest in tackling environmental issues from a quite unique criminological perspective on the environment. Among the most important of these green criminological efforts was the construction of a nonanthropocentric orientation associated with the work of Piers Beirne (1999). That work illustrated how conceptualizing and understand harms against nonhuman species required a new theoretical orientation that existed outside of the traditional criminological landscape. While this work has had important developmental implications for green criminology, traditional forms of criminology have yet to appreciate the relevance of green criminology and its reconceptualization of crime, law, justice and social control problems within a green frame of reference capable of transcending the mainstream’s anthropocentric form of theorizing. Moreover, while green criminological analysis has grown in recent years, the suggested framework for developing green criminology in relation to political economic analysis (Lynch 1990) has been neglected and underdeveloped (for exceptions see, Lynch and Stretesky 2003; Long et al. 2012; Stretesky et al. 2013; Lynch et al. 2013; Lynch et al. 2016). This has delayed development of a richer critique of capitalism as a driving force behind contemporary green crime and injustice, and the development of theoretical positions capable of conceptualizing the nature-human intersection under capitalism as another form of exploitation under capitalism. As a result of its neglect of political economic analysis, concepts developed in the environmental sociological and ecological Marxist literature such as metabolic rift have not been widely employed to address issues of relevance to green criminology, and have not been employed to further develop a political economic analysis of green crime, law and justice. The development of concepts such as the metabolic rift holds out the possibility of contributing to further development of a green political economic analysis of environmental issues.

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

159

Foster (1999) argues that the concept of metabolic rift is also important because it contains Marx’s answer to other prominent ecological paradigms such as Darwinian evolutionary theory. The Darwinian concept of evolution forces a developmental notion of ecological conditions as the interpretive framework for ecological analysis, and results in an assumption that ecological change and development is a historic process related almost entirely to the natural evolution of the ecosystem. Such a perspective overlooks the fact that ecological development is shaped not solely by a simple conception of Darwinian evolution applied to ecological systems but is largely shaped by human interactions with nature, especially in the historical period scientists identify as the Anthropocene or the period of ecological history marked by extensive evidence of human impact on Earth’s ecosystem (Steffen et  al. 2007). Moreover, the Darwinian evolutionary theory, significantly misinterpreted by social Darwinists as the simplified concept of the survival of the fittest, ignores the role of economic production on natural evolution, species and ecosystem stability/instability, and the transition of the ecosystem from a stable to an unstable state in response to human ecological influences, especially under capitalism—and it is here, as well, that the concept of a living earth system, Gaia, plays some role. The metabolic rift produced by capitalism alters (human and nonhuman) species survival and health through its transfer of resources and its destruction and pollution of the environment (see Chap. 5). For instance, following Foster, we can say that the transfer of ecological resources consistent with the metabolic rift from rural to urban areas and from developing/colonial regions to industrialized capitalist areas of the world has a distinct impact on the survival of species independent of the Darwinian concept of evolution. In the rural and developing regions, biological rifts cause a decline in available ecological materials used for species survival, which can promote extinction, a process seen in the current emergence of the Anthropocene extinction rates exhibited in the modern era of world ecological history (Barnosky et al. 2011; Steffen et al. 2007; Steffen et al. 2011). The metabolic rift also explores the exploitation of nature, nature’s role in the creation of economic value under capitalism (see also, Foster 2000), the limits of natural resources and nature, and the role technology and capitalism play in generating ecological disorganization and ­environmental

160 

M. J. Lynch et al.

degradation (Foster 1999: 372–373). It is in relation to these outcomes that the concept of the metabolic rift adds a political economic dimension to ecological analysis by specifying the role capitalism plays in each of these outcomes and processes. Nature’s exploitation is expanded significantly by capitalism, which ignores the concrete limits of nature and seeks to constantly expand production as if its impacts on nature were nonexistent and the physical limits of the natural world were immaterial to the continuous expansion of capitalism (Foster 2000). At the same time, technological innovations add to capitalism’s ability to consume nature in ever increasing quantities, accelerating ecological disorganization and destruction (Foster 2000), adding to metabolic rift (Foster 1999), and in the view of an eco-justice orientation, creating green crimes against nature that generate forms of eco-injustice.

What Is Metabolic Rift? In the present work, we follow the path of several previous analyses and restrict the concept of metabolic rift to the emergence of this particular issue under capitalism (Clark and York 2005; Claussen and Clark 2005; Dickens 2004; Foster 1997, 1999, 2000; Moore 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2011; York et al. 2003). In this sense, metabolic rift is an indicator of political economic effects of capitalism on nature, the redistribution of nature and the expanding use of nature’s resources in relation to the organizational structure and expansion of the capitalist system of production. In its most concise form, the metabolic rift is the difference between the productive demands made by capitalism on nature, and nature’s ability to meet those demands associated with the consumption and redistribution of nature’s metabolic materials. In many ways, this general description of the metabolic rift involves reference to the scientific literature and measures of ecological harm and destruction found in that literature. Relevant examples related to this literature such as planetary boundary and human ecological footprint analysis were reviewed in Chap. 2. The relationship between metabolic rift and capitalism is complicated by other aspects of the political economic relationship between c­ apitalism

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

161

and nature, including the role economic production and extraction plays in causing ecological degradation (e.g., the ideas of ecological withdrawal and ecological additions), the role that pollution plays in this process and, as we shall see, the unequal distribution of metabolic rift associated with the extension of the capitalist world system of production and consumption. Foster (1999: 383) noted that Marx and Engels were the first to extend the idea of metabolism to social relations and interactions with nature. Following that orientation and in a more general sense, Foster states that the concept of metabolism refers to a complex process of metabolic exchange, whereby an organism (or a given cell) draws upon materials and energy from its environment and converts these by way of various metabolic reactions into the building blocks of proteins and other compounds necessary for growth. The concept of metabolism is also used to refer to the regulatory processes that govern this complex interchange between organisms and their environment (Foster 1999: 382). This concept thus develops from a more general scientific view of metabolism, but is applied in metabolic rift analysis to social situations, and in particular to the problem of metabolic rift under capitalism, defining the nature-human intersection under conditions imposed by capitalism on nature. One dimension of the metabolic rift between capitalism and nature involves the differential utilization and exploitation of natural resources in industrialized versus colonized and natural resource-exploited nations. This metabolic rift across nations can be situated, therefore, within the context of world system theory (and also as part of the concept of ecological unequal exchange reviewed earlier). In terms of world system theory, the exploitation of colonial resources is used to feed the forms of metabolic rift industrial capitalism has produced on a global scale (Foster 1999: 384). This produces a flow of resources from the periphery and semi-periphery to the core, which destabilizes nature and results in the unequal distribution of metabolic rift and the unequal redistribution of ecological resources. The unequal distribution of the metabolic rift is important to development of the association between metabolic rift, ecological disorganization and destruction, capitalism and eco-injustice.

162 

M. J. Lynch et al.

The origins of the concept of metabolic rift in Marx’s description emerged from his specific analysis of how the process of metabolic rift is driven by the urban/rural divide within capitalist systems of production. In Marx’s view, urban areas, or the physical locations in which capitalism was concentrated (in order to also concentrate and better exploit workers), required an in-flow of metabolic materials to feed into the productive process, and as a source of food for the working class. Local resources near urban areas were quickly dissipated for these purposes, requiring access to metabolic materials from outside urban areas. In expanding on this approach, Foster’s metabolic rift analysis treats the exploitation of the land employed for these purposes, which “transfers” metabolic material from rural to urban areas, as the “robbery” of ecological resources (1999: 384). That robbery of resources disadvantages rural communities while advantaging urban areas to the extent that the differential in energy reallocation benefits urban areas over rural areas. This process has clear implications for an analysis of eco-injustice understood from an ecosystem perspective at the geographic level that centers on the division of production between agriculture and industry, and how metabolic materials are used, exploited and transferred in those processes. The flow of resources from rural to urban areas is a consequence of the development of capitalism and the historical process that leads to the development of large urban centers of production due to the efficiency of large concentrations of workers. From the metabolic rift perspective, this division of labor differentiation involves a conflict/contradiction between industrial and agricultural capital related to the transfer of energy from rural to urban areas. Part of that conflict involves not only the transfer of metabolic energy, but also that this transfer of energy benefits industrial capital while disadvantaging agricultural capital, which must now work within the confines of an ecological system where the transfer of metabolic energy reduces the productivity of the land. This rural-urban transfer of metabolic matter is, at one level of analysis, of little concern to industrial capital, and industrial capital has, in the initial stage of this process, little interest or intention of solving the problems created by the urban-rural metabolic rift. In taking those metabolic resources from rural areas, industrial capitalism has no intention of producing their replacement, or aiding in the reproduction of nature. Rather,

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

163

following along with the capitalist principles of constant expansion, industrial capital uses up rural natural resources to facilitate economic growth and profit, and in the process generates numerous forms of ecological disorganization. As a result, it is in this sense that industrial capitalism helps to make one of the contradictions of capitalism visible—the locally destructive ecological consequences of capitalism associated with metabolic material consumption are supplemented by shifting the consumption of metabolic materials, and extracting the needed materials from rural areas. This leads to the decline of metabolic materials in rural areas, including soil nutrients, needed to grow food to continue the expansion of capitalism. And capitalism must then solve this dilemma or stop growing. In his later work, Foster (2000) specifically describes this relationship between capitalism and nature as a contradiction to illustrate that the structural growth and profit motives of capitalism are forces that cause the destruction and contraction of nature. Metabolic rift is one measure of this contradiction between capitalism and nature. In the long-run, the urban-rural metabolic rift presents a contradiction for capitalism—it appears as an issue for capitalism once the urban-rural metabolic rift limits growth for industrial capital. The more industrial capital depletes the metabolic resources in rural areas, the more ecologically disorganized those areas become, and rural capitalist agricultural production is less able to meet the metabolic energy needs of the expansion of industrial capitalist production in urban areas. Only at this point does industrial capitalism attend to solving that contradiction. As noted below, developments in the science of agricultural and capitalism combine to “solve” this problem by using human-engineered fertilizers to redistribute metabolic energy across and to rural areas to enhance the production of foods, which provides metabolic energy for the working class and facilitates the ability of capitalist production to continue on its expansionary pathway. Here, we must draw our attention back to the form of “ecological robbery” that characterizes the process of metabolic rift as implied by Foster. That robbery has important implications for understanding the emergence of conditions that can be related to forms of eco-injustice. As Foster notes, the ecological robbery associated with metabolic rift occurs on two different scales: (1) between urban and rural areas, as

164 

M. J. Lynch et al.

briefly described above, and (2) between developed capitalist nations, one the one hand, and underdeveloped and developing nations on the other. We can describe this form of robbery as consisting of the redirection in the flow of natural resources and value from rural to urban areas, with the urban area being the center of capitalist production and gaining value from the material resource flow (Moore 2000; e.g., in the United States, agriculture is 1% of gross domestic product, while durable and nondurable goods manufacturing, corporate management and construction account for 18% of GDP). The ecological robbery that occurs in this case is a transfer of metabolic material and energy. Important in the history of capitalism is that this form of ecological robbery can also be seen across nations from the onset of capitalism as defined in world systems theory, as the movement of ecological resources from developing/underdeveloped nations to the national capitalist centers of production in the core (see Moore 2000, 2001, 2003 for further description). This transfer of nature creates an imbalance in the global ecosystem (i.e., the metabolic rift) and provides evidence of the ecological destructive forces of capitalism (Foster 1992, 1994). Across nations, resources are being more extensively depleted in less-developed nations as metabolic materials are extracted within those nations to essentially feed both the urban working class in the core, and the industrial machinery of production. This transfer includes the actual physical transfer of metabolic materials from less-­ developed to more developed nations, and in developed nations, those materials are transformed into goods for sale and create waste pools of metabolic resources—various forms of pollution. Those pollutants resulting from the consumption of metabolic materials from less-developed nations become concentrated in the urban waste stream, and this act of concentration not only is evidence of the transfer of metabolic materials, but results in the production of harmful pollutants that were previously disbursed in the ecosystem. This process of metabolic rift also has implications for understanding the problem of eco-justice for nature as a result of this form of nature-­ human interaction. Both the urban/rural and the developed/less-­ developed metabolic rifts have detrimental effects on ecosystem health in the metabolically exploited regions. Here, we see that the flow of metabolic materials to core nations and urban centers causes ecological

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

165

­ isorganization in rural/less-developed nations. This is easily understood. d Less well understood is the additional contradiction implicit in this process. The flow of metabolic materials from rural/less-developed area not only disorganizes the local ecosystem in those locations, it has an adverse impact on the health of the global ecosystem. Here, we can take an example such as deforestation. Deforestation can have numerous local adverse impacts on ecosystem, and hence on the nonhuman and human species living within and near those ecosystems. These effects could be extensively detailed and cataloged (e.g., a decline in nonhuman and human species habitat; changes in water quality; diminished species diversity and extinction of specific species that can be cataloged as well). This list or catalog of effects associated with the effects of metabolic rift locally, however, is less important to document than the larger contradiction capitalism has produced through the massive transfer of metabolic materials. This massive transfer causes local ecosystem instability across the global to interconnect, and to magnify, altering the nature of Nature—or the stability of the global ecosystem. Local deforestation, while certainly harmful, combines in other process such as the reduced inability of nature to compensate for the addition of carbon dioxide pollution generated by industrial capitalism. In other words, here (in the case of deforestation) we have not only an eco-injustice associated with metabolic transfer from rural/less developed to industrialized location (as well, one can argue to advance capitalist nations that have shifted from industrial to service sector/consumer-oriented locations), but eco-injustice effects for local and global ecosystems (ecosystems as victims), nonhuman species (not only local species, but those far away that suffer from climate change) and humans (direct, local victims and distant victims of climate change). Understanding metabolic rift in this way, that is, from a political economic perspective that draws on related ideas such as world systems theory and ecological unequal exchange theory, helps uncover the ways that exploring the metabolic rift generates a wide array of eco-victimization experiences that can be conceptualized as eco-injustice. Such a conceptualization also allows understanding and analysis of how capitalism causes ecological disorganization through metabolic material transfers and use, and how the deleterious effects (injustices) of that process are unequally distributed across different geographic locations (not only urban/rural or

166 

M. J. Lynch et al.

developed/less-developed areas; but within urban areas or within a single or a group of less-developed nations). Some evidence of attention to these effects are seen in the empirical literature in environmental sociology, particularly in the work of Andrew K. Jorgenson (2003, 2006a, 2007, 2011; Jorgenson et al. 2009; Jorgenson and Clark 2011; Jorgenson and Rice 2005; Jorgenson et al. 2017; Jorgenson et al. 2016), but also in relation to various issues assessed in the empirical green criminological literature (Long et al. 2017; Long et al. 2012; Stretesky et al. 2013b; Stretesky et al. 2017; Stretesky and Lynch 2009). With respect to agricultural use and transfers of metabolic materials, capitalism faces an additional contradiction associated with the expansive use of the land’s productive powers that is important to review. Historically, agricultural land use coupled with growth of the urban population promoted by capitalism leads to declining land productivity and the search for mineral supplements to augment land productivity (Foster 1999; Moore 2000). The capitalist system is forced to maintain the productivity of the land which is being drained of its nutrients in order to feed the industrial working class in urban areas and to maintain the surplus population (Moore 2000). The first of these efforts to supplement rural productivity is related to attempts to control markets and regions where natural fertilizers are located, and leads to global capitalist colonization of areas rich in natural fertilizers (Clark and Foster 2009). Those natural sources of fertilizer, however, are soon exhausted with the expansion of capitalism, leading, eventually, to their replacement with scientific discoveries that aid in land productivity management such as the development of synthetic fertilizers (Foster 1999). This leads to the creation of the fertilizer industry and the production of artificially created fertilizers (and over time the creation of herbicides and pesticides) to increase land productivity. One can also assert here that the emergence of the industrial fertilizer/pesticide industry solves one of the metabolic rift contradictions of capitalism at one level by giving urban capital a stake in maintaining rural/agricultural production. Capitalism accomplishes this task by creating a new industry that—consistent with the contradiction capitalism generates—provides new opportunities for profiting from a problem that originates within capitalism. Moreover, and at the same time, and also resulting from this contradiction in production, that new industry c­ reates

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

167

new forms of pollution that harm local and global ecosystems (e.g., recall earlier, that scientists have identified planetary boundaries, and two of these—nitrogen and phosphorous—directly relate to solving the metabolic rift crisis within capitalism). At the same time, as noted above, that industrial capitalism solves one of its crises (the loss of metabolic energy in rural/agricultural areas), it produces a new and quite extensive problem. That problem is that of the fertilizer/pesticide sector, which now produces additional forms of ecological destruction from the extraction of minerals (usually from less-­ developed nations), the volume of pollution associated with the industrial transformation of materials into fertilizer/pesticides and the negative ecological impacts associated not only with the production of, but also with (over)use of pesticides/fertilizers. This latter issue is one that is well documented in the scientific literature (Geiger et  al. 2010; Pimentel 2005; Snyder et al. 2009; Tilman 1999). While pesticide/fertilizer use expands the productivity of the land, their use also causes numerous forms of ecological destruction with respect to, for instance, waterways (Ding et al. 2010) and waterway species (Mercer et al. 2013; Burgert et al. 2011; Damásio et al. 2010). The forms of pollution associated with pesticide production are extensive and include the production of and exposure to persistent organic pollutants (POPs) including dioxin (Gotz et al. 2013). The generation of these forms of metabolic shift and responses also has international law ramifications associated with efforts to control such pollutants under the Stockholm Convention (Torres et al. 2013).

The Empirical Dimensions of the Metabolic Rift The metabolic rift is not simply a theoretical concept; it is one that can also be measured empirically by various indicators. It is important not to lose sight of these empirical indicators of metabolic rift because they confirm what metabolic rift as a theory tells us about the world around us: that it is being destroyed and changed by capitalism. The concept of metabolic rift is not simply a heuristic device for exploring the possible connections between capitalism and ecological destruction. Rather than being an abstract concept that can only be explored theoretically,

168 

M. J. Lynch et al.

­ etabolic rift has specific indicators related to the destruction of the ecom logical system—largely because, as an idea that is associated with Marx’s analysis of capitalism, the roots of the concept are scientific and materialist. Foster, Clark and York (2010) review some of the indicators of metabolic rift, which include the nine forms of planetary boundaries identified by Rockstrom et al. (2009), as reviewed more extensively in Chap. 2, and their empirical measurement. Because, for example, metabolic rift has an empirical dimension, research has been able to examine dimensions of this problem statistically (Jorgenson 2006a, 2007; Jorgenson, Kennon and Kuykendall 2008). Thus, the utility of the concept of metabolic rift is also related to the ability to empirically assess this concept. Therefore, metabolic rift has important implications for the grounding of a theory of eco-injustice in measurable outcomes including those related to the unequal distribution of metabolic rift, which is useful for assessing concepts such as eco-injustice. Inequality and injustice have a natural affinity with one another, and the notion that some outcome is unequally distributed has implications for referring to that outcome in relation to the forms of injustice inequality generates. Equally relevant to this point is that the existence of empirical measures of different dimensions of metabolic rift allows the specification of testable hypotheses that have relevance to green criminology. Thus, the existence of measures of metabolic rift can help move green criminology beyond the mere description of ecological problems believed to be important, to the study of empirical measures that can provide proof of the claims made by green criminologists. For example, with respect to planetary boundaries, measures of carbon dioxide concentrations or radiative forcing become important empirical measures of the effect of capitalist production on the destruction of the world’s ecosystem (Jorgenson 2006b; Jorgenson and Clark 2010; Jorgenson et al. 2017). Indicators of the extent of ocean acidification provide measurement of the effect of capitalism on the metabolic rift occurring in the world’s oceans (Clark and Claussen 2008; Claussen and Clark 2005, 2008). Measures of the nitrogen and phosphorous cycles are important measures of the effect of capitalism on metabolic rift related to the pollution of the environment by the over-production and consumption of nitrogen and phosphorous and the effects of that form of pollution on ecosystem stability, ­particularly

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

169

oceans and freshwater systems (Rockstrom et al. 2009). Other indicators of the planetary boundaries, for which there are currently no world-wide measures, such as chemical pollution, also serve as measures of metabolic rift. Each of these indicators can be used to explore the empirical relevance of a political economic theory of the relationship between capitalism and metabolic rift (Foster et al. 2010). The issue for green criminologists when using these indicators goes beyond the issue of ecological destruction and the forms of metabolic rift of concern to scientists, environmental sociologists and ecological Marxists who have employed such measures. For green criminologists, the utility of these measures must be connected to discussions about the definition of crimes against nature and forms of ecological injustice. In particular, criminologists should be concerned with explaining why the metabolic rift is a crime and how it generates ecological injustice (see as an example, Lynch et al. 2013 on ecological disorganization as crime). This may also include questions related to justice such as whether the existence of metabolic rift produces forms of injustice that damage nature, and what a concept of justice derived from the theory and measurement of metabolic rift might look like. These questions of ecological justice would allow the development of a nonanthropocentric, materialist theory of eco-justice to emerge which can be empirically grounded, and hence is defensible in ways that purely philosophical discussions of green justice are not. Finally, the empirical measurement of metabolic rift can also be employed to examine issues of social control of green crimes and injustice in relation to metabolic rift. At the most obvious level, this would include being able to specify the kinds of laws required to manage various aspects of the metabolic rift such as climate change, phosphorus or nitrogen pollution, the production of stratospheric ozone, biodiversity loss, ocean acidification or land use change. These are important considerations since each of these issues has been scientifically shown to impact ecological health, and each is a product of human societies, but in particular capitalism and its political economic structure. Since capitalism is unlikely to yield anytime soon to its necessary replacement (necessary in the sense that capitalism destroys the ecosystem and must be transcended to save the ecosystem, Foster 2000), laws controlling pollution and ecological

170 

M. J. Lynch et al.

destruction related to, for instance, over-consumption would be important mechanisms for limiting (though not erasing) the effects of capitalism on the ecological system. It should also be noted that the empirical referents associated with metabolic rift would, or perhaps should, stimulate additional quantitative empirical studies by green criminologists. Quantitative empirical studies of the assumptions of green criminology are lacking and have been performed only by a handful of green criminological scholars (Clarke and Rolf 2013; Crow et al. 2013; Derezinski et al. 2003; Lemieux and Clarke 2009; Kosmicki and Long 2016; Long et al. 2012; Lynch and Stretesky 2013; Lynch et al. 2004a, b; Ozymy and Jarrell 2015; Petrossian and Clarke 2014; Petrossian et al. 2015a, b; Pires 2015; Pires and Clarke 2011, 2012; Pires and Petrossian 2015; Stretesky 2006; Stretesky and Gabriel 2005; Stretesky et al. 2013b; Stretesky and Lynch 1999, 2002, 2009a, 2009b, 2011). This is unfortunate for at least two reasons (Lynch et al. 2017). First, criminology is a highly empirical and quantitative discipline, and areas of research that minimize the use of quantitative empirical methods and studies will therefore have a tendency to be overlooked, devalued and marginalized by criminologists. Given that one of the goals of green criminology is to garner greater attention and draw criminology toward greater discussion of green issues, the avoidance of quantitative empirical studies works counter to that goal. Second, more generally, quantitative empirical research has long been central to the analysis of environmental issues in the social and physical sciences. Neglecting quantitative empirical studies reduces the likelihood that environmental researchers in other disciplines will find uses for green criminological research. These two conditions provide strong limitations on green criminology, and until green criminologists take up more quantitative empirical research, it will be marginalized not only within criminology, but also among other disciplines that rely on quantitative empirical approaches to study environmental harm (for an expanded discussion of the lack of quantitative empirical studies in green criminology, see Lynch et al. 2017). Green crime, harm and concepts such as eco-justice are not simply heuristic devices for suggesting that the definition of crime or justice more generally requires attention and that there are forms of crime such as green crimes and injustice that eclipse the scope of the more ­traditional,

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

171

long-standing legal definition of crime as a violation of the criminal law that hold sway within criminology. There are very real empirical issues behind green criminology, and their avoidance limits the scope of green criminology and its ability to address ecological conditions. With respect to this concern, it is only the political economic explanations of green criminology that has been more widely empirically tested, and by empirically tested, we mean through the assessment of hypotheses and data concerning the expectations of green criminology. In our view, the concept of metabolic rift is important because it also adds to the empirical dimensions of a political economic green criminology that can be tested. This is no small observation, and among the varieties of green criminology that exist, it is only its political economic variant and its more traditional applications in crime control models (e.g., Clarke and Rolf 2013; Petrossian and Clarke 2014 in the form of CRAVE models) that has been examined both theoretically and empirically. While green criminologists may choose to continue to offer qualitative assessments of ecological issues, it must be recognized that this choice involves a cost. That cost is to limit the applicability and acceptability of green criminology. This is a cost green criminology cannot well afford if one of its goals is to contribute to the control of ecological destruction.

The Metabolic Rift as Crime In this section we examine the idea of metabolic rift as an example of a green crime. We do so because exploring the connection between crime and injustice is important for further discussion of the relationship between metabolic rift and the political economic formulation of eco-­ justice. In that sense, we can say that the crimes associated with the generation of metabolic rift produce forms of injustice. One of the issues criminologists face when using concepts such as metabolic rift in discussing eco-justice is also establishing that the consequences of metabolic rift can be defined as criminal. Perhaps a simple solution to this issue has already been provided by Foster (1999) who has labeled metabolic rift as theft/robbery. That label (theft/robbery), however, is a conceptual short-cut which does not establish that metabolic rift

172 

M. J. Lynch et al.

indeed has the characteristics that can be associated with crime. The larger question, then, is what is it about metabolic rift that would justify examining it as green crime? And why do we want to conceptualize metabolic rift as a green crime? In order to conceptualize metabolic rift as green crime, it is necessary to escape the limitations of an anthropocentric orientation to crime, one in which crime is defined relative to humans and human society. There is, in others words as we have argued above, a need to eclipse the narrow definitional boundaries of crime associated with traditional forms of criminology (for an extended discussion of our view, see Lynch et  al. 2015). The alternative to that view is an eco-centric/eco-justice orientation in which the crimes associated with metabolic rift are defined from the perspective of nature and in relation to the harms humans have committed against the ecosystem. The empirical aspects of defining green crime should not be ignored, as the difference between metabolic rift and sustainable human activity is also likely to be a matter of degree related to the quantity of ecological harm humans generate. As an example, let us return to Rockstrom et al.’s (2009a, b) discussion of the nine planetary boundaries. Rockstrom et al. note that the threshold for defining planetary harms can be identified by specific quantitative analysis of trends in variables that impact planetary boundaries estimated from empirical assessments of ecological harm. While planetary boundary thresholds can be determined scientifically, Rockstrom et al. note that the goal of scientific analysis of those thresholds is an effort to prevent the threshold from being crossed. Thus, the thresholds themselves are not the definition of harm, but are a definition of a condition where extreme harm already exists, and a call for some form of social control that prevents the planetary boundaries from being eclipsed can, at least in theory, be tied to efforts to prevent the boundary in question from being crossed. As Rockstrom et al. note, it is therefore necessary to identify a lower level of harm where harm begins to accumulate sufficiently to suggest that the pathway to extreme harm is likely. The point in identifying this “boundary” of harm is to be able to set “human determined values” that can be used to control planetary harm and keep it “a safe distance” from dangerous or extreme harm. Below we provide examples of this definition based on Rockstrom et al.’s discussion and analysis.

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

173

The usefulness of this type of empirically linked definition of harm is that it overcomes the limitations of purely subjective interpretations and definitions of harm, which include the traditional criminal law definition of crime employed within criminology (see Lynch et al. 2015 for review and analysis). To our knowledge, no definition of crime has an empirical basis, and thus all definitions of crime are subjective and subject to criticisms easily formed that object to the selected standard for defining crime, and can be based on number of critiques of those definitions because of their subjective content (Lynch et al. 2015). Empirical measures of ecological harm/crime, however, are much more difficult to critique since they have origins in objective measures that can be made by anyone with appropriate skills and technology. Theoretically, following the same procedures, those empirical definitions of ecological harm employ specific measures of harm that can be made multiple times. Importantly, when the empirical definition of harm defined by such a quantitative approach exists, it is easily demonstrated, and the measurement of harm will yield the same results each time with respect to defining whether or not an ecological harm exists. The same cannot be said for the criminal law definitions of crime, which, as criminologists, we know leads to extensive variations in the application of law and to extensive variability in outcomes (Lynch et al. 2015). Drawing on literatures from three separate forms of analysis of ecological impacts, Rockstrom et  al. created empirical indicators of planetary boundaries that when crossed can be said to lead to the generation of the metabolic rift described earlier. Rockstrom et  al. do not use the term metabolic rift, and we adopt this term here to apply to their concept of planetary boundaries. In our view, planetary boundaries and metabolic rift are similar in the empirical sense of Rockstrom et al.’s work. The planetary boundaries, and as we argue, metabolic rift indicators Rockstrom et al. develop draw on research on ecological sustainability in combination with a variety of other important indicators of ecological sustainability including: life-support analysis or what we refer to as ecological reproduction of life conditions; the analysis of complex system dynamics (Xu et  al. 2002); the self-regulatory nature of the ecosystem and its physical requirements (Cairns 2004); limits to growth analysis (Meadows et al. 2004); steady-state economic assessments (Daly 1991);

174 

M. J. Lynch et al.

safe minimum standards analysis (Hohl and Tisdell 1992); and tolerable windows analysis (Yohe 1997). Taken together, these methods allow the identification of an ecological state related to specific aspects of metabolic rift that can be measured in specific ways. According to Rockstrom et al., these various measures allow an empirical representation of the “space” and “scale” of the Earth system, which define “Earth’s ‘rules of the game’” and the scope of the “planetary playing field.” This empirical definition, then, is also one that is eco-centric and drawn from nature’s definition of its own survival needs. This definition has the advantage of being empirical. “Being empirical” means, as Rockstrom et al. assert, that the measure of harm proposed in such an approach “exists irrespective of people’s preferences, values, or compromises based on political and socioeconomic feasibility” (2009: 5). This method of defining harm/crime produces an objective definition of harm and crime to the extent that the scientifically selected standard for harm is appropriate (Lynch et al. 2015). In addition, we should also consider that Rockstrom et al.’s approach takes an eco-centric rather than an anthropocentric definition of harm which can then be used as the standard for defining the green crimes related to the generation of the various dimensions of the metabolic rift. The standard that is selected, in other words, is one defined in relation to the needs of the ecosystem and its sustainability, and is not subject to some arbitrary standard concerning the level of harm and, one could argue, the forms of social response required to contain ecological harm. Such a definition makes the process of defining crimes related to metabolic rift quite scientific, and eliminates the issue of whether these harms require philosophical justifications. Moreover, such an empirical approach to the definition of crimes related to metabolic rift allows for the empirical assessment of environmental laws designed to protect the ecological system, again, without the need to debate philosophical issues related to the value of protecting the ecosystem or the content and construction of those laws. In the metabolic rift approach, the basis of laws that identify and respond to green crimes associated with metabolic rift should be empirically derived and can be assessed on that basis, independent of value systems or political or economic pressures normally used to define

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

175

ecological crime that results from the typical process of lawmaking which involves creating “agreeable” outcomes from opposing positions (e.g., scientific results versus corporate desires versus lawmaker and other interest groups’ wishes). With respect to the association between capitalism and ecological destruction, such a system has the unique advantage of being able to offer resistance to the growth and profit orientations of capitalism, which continually leads to efforts to reduce ecological protection and the effort to promote environmental laws that do not interfere with profit-making and economic growth (Long et al. 2012; Stretesky et al. 2013b, Stretesky et al. 2017). In contrast to the value position related to growth and profit embedded in capitalism, the planetary boundary approach is capable of identifying very specific indicators of ecological harm that are scientific and objective and thus devoid of the social content of a social control approach informed from the perspective of capitalism and economic expansion. These metabolic rift-planetary boundary levels of harm indicators are likely to be in opposition to the constant expansionary pressure for growth and profit exerted by capitalism, and can also be used to illustrate the ecological boundaries of capitalism relative to ecosystem sustainability.

 he Empirical Dimensions of Planetary T Boundaries and Ecosystem Stability Above, we suggest that the combination of metabolic rift and planetary boundary analysis provides a useful starting point for the empirical specification of ecosystem stability and unsustainability. Theoretically, drawing on the general arguments in metabolic rift analysis, and treadmill of production theory as applied within criminology to green crimes (Lynch et  al. 2013; Stretesky et  al. 2013a, b; Long et  al. 2012), the driving force behind ecologically unsustainable human activity that promotes outcomes such as metabolic rift and ecological disorganization is the global expansion of the capitalist mode of production. These effects are distributed unequally across nations, an inherent condition

176 

M. J. Lynch et al.

of the consequences of uneven development associated with global capitalism, an argument long recognized in the world system theory and economics literatures (Wallerstein 1974; Walker 1978; Weeks 2001), and one that has even been recognized by some mainstream economists (Krugman 1981). Planetary boundary models are whole ecosystem models, meaning that they are calculated relative to the functioning of the world ecosystem. This raises an important question that must be addressed. Since the planetary boundary model is global, and production and consumption are often treated as national issues, there is some need to derive national indices of harm in order to establish legal rules that could be applied to issues such as metabolic rift as a crime. How such models are determined in the current world is decided by political decision making bodies, each with an interest or stake in promoting a legal rule that benefits a particular nation. From the alternative perspective of eco-justice, such a model would simply place restrictions on each nation, and require nations to meet restrictions or pay fines to an international monetary organization that could use those fines to promote ecological sustainable practices that would lead to the greatest reduction in ecological harm. How exactly such a system would be constructed is beyond the scope of the present analysis, but there are a number of international treaties that identify and enforce ecological crime statutes which could serve as preliminary examples. The standards for such international laws, however, could be derived scientifically following the planetary boundary guidelines offered by Rockstrom et al. The problem, again, would be creating legal rules that are consistent with these scientifically derived planetary boundary guidelines and unaffected by economic or political interests. Nevertheless, despite the nature of political and economic influence on the shaping of international environmental law, it remains useful to consider the empirical nature of planetary boundary analysis. Rockstrom et al.’s planetary boundary analysis uses scientific data and modeling to establish thresholds for given forms of ecological disorganization at the global level. These standards were reviewed in greater detail in Chap. 2, and here we simply summarize those indicators to refresh the reader’s memory.

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

177

1. A measure of carbon dioxide concentration is set to 350 parts per million atmospheric concentration (or alternatively, a radiative forcing measure of 1 Wm-2, watts per square meter of earth surface; see IPCC 2001). 2. A measure of ocean acidification is set to 80% of the preindustrial value (Ωarag of 3.44). 3. A measure of stratospheric ozone depletion measured as a 5% reduction in ozone relative to values from 1964 to 1980. 4. Indicators of the global phosphorous and nitrogen cycles. For nitrogen, this measure is set to “25% of its current value, or to about 35 Mt N yr-1.” For phosphorus, the planetary boundary is ten times the natural background rate of 1 Mt P yr-1. 5. A measure of biodiversity loss of ten extinctions per million species years (10 E/MSY). 6. An indicator of global fresh water use focused on blue water (groundwater, streams, rivers) flows. The planetary boundary estimate is based on blue water flow use, and is set at 4000 km3 yr-1. 7. A measure of land system change which suggests that no more than 15% of ice-free land should be converted to agricultural use. As noted earlier, the planetary boundary recommendations reviewed above can be converted to legally binding rules through international law and treaties. These rules have a relationship to issues of metabolic rift and the exploitation of nature that also have environmental and ecological justice ramifications as we argue below.

 cological Justice, the Metabolic Rift E and Planetary Boundaries As noted, the concept of metabolic rift is related to the exploitation and destruction of the global ecological system, but also applies on regional and local scales as well. Indeed, a key dimension of metabolic rift is its relationship to the unequal distribution of economic activity, production, consumption and accumulation in the capitalist world system (Moore 2000). The unequal distribution of metabolic rift in the world

178 

M. J. Lynch et al.

system affects the extraction of resources from developing/underdeveloped nations, and the use of those materials to feed the productive machinery and consumptive tendencies of capitalist core nations. As Foster and Clark (2004: 187) suggest, Ecological degradation at this universal level is related to the divisions within the capitalist world system, arising from the fact that a single world economy is nevertheless divided into numerous nation-states, competing with each other directly and via their corporations. It is also divided hierarchically into centre and periphery, with nations occupying fundamentally different positions in the international division of labor, and in a world system of dominance and dependency.

One of the indicators of the metabolic rift that can be employed to illustrate its unequal distribution is the ecological footprint (see various studies by Jorgenson as examples of the empirical use of ecological footprints). While the ecological footprint measures the association between consumption and the distribution of ecological resources across nations and is not solely a measure of metabolic rift, the ecological footprint captures some dimensions of metabolic rift. The current ecological footprint is the result of a long-term historical process associated with the development of the capitalist world system and its redistribution and abuse of the ecological system in various ways in different parts of the world. On this point, for example, Foster and Clark (2004: 189) note, “British ‘high farming’—or early industrial agriculture—robbed the soil of England of its nutrients, and then sought to compensate for this by robbing other countries of the means to replace them” (see also Clark and Foster 2009 for an expanded discussion). In this sense, global capitalism contributed to metabolic rift by transferring resources from underdeveloped nations to core nations to enhance productivity in the core and maintain the consumption of energy required to fuel the working class and the expansion of capitalism. In this global approach to metabolic rift, one can see that underdeveloped areas provided the ecological resources that would be exploited to benefit the core and expand consumption and the economic power of core nations. This one-way transfer of raw materials creates an historical process of impov-

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

179

erishment of the periphery for the advantage of the core that continues into the present day. This one-way flow of energy from the underdeveloped to developed nations constitutes one of the eco-injustices produced by metabolic rift in the capitalist world system. If we examine the ecological footprints of nations, we can see the impacts of this process. The United States, long recognized as the dominate force in the capitalist world system, has an ecological footprint of about 7.1 hectares (17.5 acres) per person (see Global Footprint Network 2013). This figure also indicates that in the aggregate, the United States consumes seven times its available biocapacity and must therefore extract the additional biocapacity it consumes from other nations. That excess consumable biocapacity must come from outside the United States. This is an essential aspect of metabolic rift across nations and part, we suggest, of the ways in which eco-injustice is produced in the contemporary world. It is in this sense that the United States, among other core capitalist nations, consumes and destroys the biocapacity of other nations through excessive consumption. This form of excessive consumption and ecological destruction includes the consumption of the local/national biocapacity of other nations and the transfer of nutrients from the periphery’s biocapacity availability to the core as consumable foodstuff and commodities. It can be argued that this destruction of ecological resources in underdeveloped/developing nations facilitated by the over-­ consumption tendencies of the core produces a global form of eco-­ injustice that has differential impacts for human and nonhuman species located in different regions of the world. It is in this sense, then, that metabolic rift generates eco-injustice. In this view, the economic structure of the world system along with its unequal trade patterns generates a metabolic rift pattern across nations (Jorgenson and Clark 2010, 2011; Jorgenson et  al. 2010). The exact nature of that distribution is an empirical question. In producing this unequal ecological distribution in metabolic rift, capitalism also produces environmental and ecological injustice. By environmental injustice, we mean the uneven distribution of harmful outcomes associated with global capitalism related to the generation of waste and reduced access to ecological resources associated with production. By ecological justice, we mean the uneven destruction of ecological resources associated with the

180 

M. J. Lynch et al.

extraction and redistribution of raw materials. Given the nature of the capitalist world system, both processes place the peoples of the periphery at a disadvantage as their ecological systems are destroyed by pollution and raw material extraction to further the process of accumulation in developed nations and the overall expansionary tendencies of capitalism. It should not be overlooked that this same process has unequal and hence injustice effects for nonhuman species as well. It is not our intention, however, to specify how this process works across species or for species in nations located in different world system positions at this point, but to suggest that future research on this subject can address that unique problem. Foster and Clark (2004) refer to the capitalist world system process that generates these negative kinds of outcomes as ecological imperialism. In Foster and Clark’s view, ecological imperialism has a political economic dimension, and has to do with the economic and ecological domination of the peripheral nations by core nations in the world system. That form of domination includes the creation of a metabolic rift between the core and periphery with a nearly one-way flow of metabolic and ecological materials from the periphery to the core, in the most extreme cases of ecological imperialism. This process of ecological imperialism, we would argue, when coupled with the ordinary process of economic development in the capitalist world system generates an ecological debt owed by core/ developed nations to peripheral/underdeveloped nations. Ecological imperialism allows the creation of a metabolic rift through which ecological resources are unevenly transferred to the core from the periphery, and which over time allows core nations to consume beyond the levels that the native biocapacity can support. In other words, that ecological debt is also a form of metabolic debt through which the capitalist core nations consume the ecological resources of underdeveloped nations contributing to uneven development (Moore 2000). This idea of ecological debt and metabolic debt coupled with concepts such as uneven development and ecologically unequal exchange creates the background for an argument that this system, by establishing ecologically unequal exchange, also promotes the development of a system of eco-­injustice across nations. Indeed, the forms of injustice associated with the capitalist world system are now so widely recognized that social ­movements have arisen to challenge this process (Foster and Clark 2004:

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

181

193). Yet, no similar, global concept or analysis of eco-justice concerns has emerged in green criminology to describe the widespread forms of ecological injustice being experienced by Third World nations and their responses to it (see also discussion in Chap. 4). Here, too, Foster and Clark (2004: 193) note that Third World people and organizations have come to identify a wide range of ecological debts that the core’s ecological demands have produced. In this way, peripheral nations recognize that metabolic rift generates advantages for core nations, and in protesting the existence of those advantages, it endeavors to respond to the various forms of ecological injustice this creates for the periphery. As Foster and Clark suggest, this includes the following forms of ecological injustice experienced by the citizens of peripheral nations as a consequence of ecological imperialism and the metabolic rift: the extraction of natural resources; unequal terms of trade; degradation of land and soil for export crops; other unrecognized environmental damage and pollution caused by extractive and productive processes; appropriation of ancestral knowledge; loss of biodiversity; contamination of the atmosphere and oceans; the introduction of toxic chemicals and dangerous weapons; and the dumping of hazardous waste in the periphery.

For green criminology concepts such as metabolic rift, planetary boundaries, ecological imperialism, ecological debt, ecological exploitation and their connection to global ecological injustice ought to be core concerns, especially in light of Third World and international ecological justice movements that have framed these issues with respect to the exploitative relationships between the global North and South (Buttel and Gould 2004). While some empirical studies of environmental justice have been produced by green criminologists, it must be acknowledged that these studies have only addressed the context of that form of injustice primarily within the United States (Kosmicki and Long 2016; Lynch and Stretesky 2013; Lynch et al. 2004a, b; Stretesky and Lynch 1999a, 1999b, 2002, 2011; for an exception, see Stretesky and Lynch 2009) and have largely ignored its global context. In this context of global ecological exploitation, green criminologists could examine an extraordinarily wide range of harms in relation to the global political

182 

M. J. Lynch et al.

economy of capitalism and its ecological effects. For example, one might imagine green criminological studies of animal harms that take extinction as an issue, and that measures planetary boundary risks that can be linked as well to the metabolic rift as the point of departure for both theoretical and empirical explorations of the intersection of animal harms, ecological justice and global capitalism. Such an approach could be extended toward other large-scale studies of animal harms such as trafficking and poaching as global ecological justice concerns tied to the exploitation of Third World resources and the attenuation of minimally necessary ecosystem conditions generated by the capitalist world system. In this way, the planetary boundaries argument can be incorporated into the criminological literature, acknowledging the debt green criminology has to scientific analyses of ecological issues while also making use of political economic arguments suggested in the ecological Marxism literature. In this sense, and to create a well-grounded argument concerning eco-justice, green criminology must also acknowledge that green crime is not merely a social construction or cultural phenomena, but has a real, materialist basis in the world of nature and in the life of the global and local ecosystems. Absent this large view and critique of green crime, there is the potential for green criminology to fall prey to subjectivist interpretation of green crime and injustice and to move toward relativistic cultural arguments where broader, ecological situated analysis is required (for discussion of this issue, see Foster and Clark 2004). Green criminologists have also not approached the concept of the metabolic rift as a form of ecological injustice. Given the processes associated with global capitalism, prior analysis discussed above has illustrated that metabolic rift is unequally distributed across and within the nations of the world and that the forms of inequality inherently embedded in capitalism and the capitalist world system of production and consumption lead to the extraction of metabolically rich materials from the periphery and their use in core nations. This form of global imbalance in resource use has clear ecological justice concerns attached. While here we have referred specifically to the need for green criminology to expand its scope to address such issues, it is not our intention to imply that ecological justice has no relevance to mainstream criminology.

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

183

Indeed, mainstream criminology could learn much about the basic nature of the concept of justice and its expansion beyond the confined limits of the anthropocentric grounding of the concept of justice in traditional criminal justice studies, which seem to have no idea that there are broader concepts of justice or entire literatures relevant to the study of justice beyond its doorstep. The quite narrow view of justice and injustice found in the criminological literature would certainly benefit from exposure to concepts such as environmental and ecological justice, and could do much to improve the tried and limited idea of justice found in the criminal justice literature. This would open for examination even the only form of ecology known to criminology, urban geography, for more extended analysis related to ecological injustice. The world only contains a finite quantity of materials and energy, and the unequal use of those materials is clearly both a social and an eco-­ injustice concern that, in addition to its human impacts, also impede the ability of nature to function in its normal reproductive state, one which sustains the ecological system. In this sense, the concept of ecological injustice applies to: (1) metabolic rift injustices (which can also be framed as environmental injustice) associated with the redistribution of energy from the periphery to the core; (2) the ecological harms produced by the extraction and processing of raw materials from the periphery to serve core consumption and economic growth interests and from the rural to benefit the urban; and (3) the forms of harm such processes do to species and to nature itself by limiting nature’s ecological reproductive capacity. The encroachment on and crossing of planetary boundaries are also forms of ecological injustice related to the forms of ecosystem damage planetary boundary assaults entail that are relevant to metabolic rift and political economic analysis. The harms associated with crossing planetary boundaries, as well as the harm created while moving toward the encroachment of those boundaries, are unequally distributed, and cause forms of environmental and ecological injustice that are unequally distributed to emerge and expand. The global and local unequal distribution of the forms of environmental and ecological injustice generated by encroachment on planetary boundaries forms another area of inquiry open to green criminology.

184 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Conclusion Above, we have argued that theoretical and empirical concepts related to metabolic rift and planetary boundaries can play an important role in shaping green criminology, expanding its scope, generating testable hypotheses and enhancing its definitions of green crime and (in)justice. Orthodox or traditional forms of criminology which have failed to appreciate the importance and use of ecologically anchored analysis can also benefit from such discussions, which would dramatically change its concept of crime and its philosophical assumptions concerning the concept it refers to as “justice.” Scientific research in a number of fields has pointed toward the empirical realities of a great expansion of environmentally destructive behaviors over the course of the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century. As these scientific/empirical studies suggest, planetary boundaries have been crossed and others are in danger of being crossed, and once crossed, there is little hope that a habitable world as we know it survives. These are the most pressing issues of our time, issues the field of orthodox criminology appears unwilling to explore. Yet, despite the neglect of environmental issues by the criminological mainstream, there is little doubt from a scientific perspective that the forms of crime and injustice ecological destruction brings require greater attention and the input from researchers in numerous field to solve. Criminologists can stand around while others solve those problems, or become more involved in fighting ecological injustice and contributing to work that has the potential to save the world from destruction.

References Barnosky, Anthony D., Nicholas Matzke, Susumu Tomiya, Guinevere O.U.  Wogan, Brian Swartz, Tiago B.  Quental, Charles Marshall, Jenny McGuire, Emily L. Lindsey, Katlin C. Mcguire, Ben Mersey, and Elizabeth S.  Ferrer. 2011. Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived? Nature 471 (7336): 51–57. Beirne, Piers. 1999. For a Nonspeciesist Criminology: Animal Abuse as an Object of Study. Criminology 37 (1): 117–148.

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

185

Burgert, Sinje, Ralf B. Schäfer, Kaarina Foit, Mira Kattwinkel, Leon Metzeling, Richard MacEwan, Ben J.  Kefford, and Matthias Liess. 2011. Modelling Aquatic Exposure and Effects of Insecticides—Application to South-eastern Australia. Science of the Total Environment 409 (14): 2807–2814. Buttel, Frederick H., and Kenneth A. Gould. 2004. Global Social Movement(s) at the Crossroads: Some Observations on the Trajectory of the Anti-Corporate Globalization Movement. Journal of World-Systems Research 10 (1): 37–66. Cairns, John. 2004. Eco-ethical Issues: Self-Regulating Versus Subsidized Ecosystems. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 11 (1): 36–47. Clark, Brett, and Rebecca Clausen. 2008. The Oceanic Crisis: Capitalism and the Degradation of Marine Ecosystems. Monthly Review 60 (3): 91–111. Clark, Brett, and John Bellamy Foster. 2009. Ecological Imperialism and the Global Metabolic Rift Unequal Exchange and the Guano/Nitrates Trade. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 311–334. Clark, Brett, and Richard York. 2005. Carbon Metabolism: Global Capitalism, Climate Change, and the Biospheric Rift. Theory and Society 34 (4): 391–428. Clarke, Ronald V., and A. Rolf. 2013. Poaching, Habitat Loss and the Decline of Neotropical Parrots: A Comparative Spatial Analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology 9 (3): 333–353. Clausen, Rebecca, and Brett Clark. 2005. The Metabolic Rift and Marine Ecology: An Analysis of the Oceanic Crisis Within Capitalist Production. Organization & Environment 18 (4): 422–444. Crow, Matthew S., Tara O’Connor Shelley, and Paul B.  Stretesky. 2013. Camouflage Collar Crime: An Examination of Wildlife Crime and Characteristics of Offenders in Florida. Deviant Behavior 34 (8): 635–652. Daly, Herman E. 1991. Steady-state Economics: With New Essays. Washington, DC: Island Press. Damásio, Joana, Alícia Navarro-Ortega, Romà Tauler, Silvia Lacorte, Damià Barceló, Amadeu M.V.M. Soares, Miguel Angel López, Mari Carmen Riva, and Carlos Barata. 2010. Identifying Major Pesticides Affecting Bivalve Species Exposed to Agricultural Pollution Using Multi-biomarker and Multivariate Methods. Ecotoxicology 19 (6): 1084–1094. Derezinski, Dan D., Michael G. Lacy, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2003. Chemical Accidents in the United States, 1990–1996. Social Science Quarterly 84 (1): 122–143. Dickens, Peter. 2004. Society and Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press.

186 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Ding, Yuping, Amanda D. Harwood, Heather M. Foslund, and Michael J. Lydy. 2010. Distribution and Toxicity of Sediment-associated Pesticides in Urban and Agricultural Waterways from Illinois, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29 (1): 149–157. Foster, John Bellamy. 1992. The Absolute General Law of Environmental Degradation Under Capitalism. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 3 (3): 77–82. ———. 1994. The Vulnerable Planet: A Short Economic History of the Environment. New York: Monthly Review Press. ———. 1997. The Crisis of the Earth: Marx’s Theory of Ecological Sustainability as a Nature-Imposed Necessity for Human Production. Organization & Environment 10 (3): 278–295. ———. 1999. Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 105 (2): 366–405. ———. 2000. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New  York: Monthly Review Press. Foster, John Bellamy, and Brett Clark. 2004. Ecological Imperialism: The Curse of Capitalism. Socialist Register 40: 186–201. Foster, John Bellamy, Brett Clark, and Richard York. 2010. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth. New York: New York University Press. Frank, Nancy, and Michael J. Lynch. 1992. Corporate Crime, Corporate Violence. Albany, NY: Harrow & Heston. Geiger, Flavia, Jan Bengtsson, Frank Berendse, Wolfgang W.  Weisser, Mark Emmerson, Manuel B. Morales, Piotr Ceryngier, Jaan Liira, Teja Tscharntke, Camilla Winqvist, Sonke Eggers, Riccardo Bommarco, Tomas Part, Vincent Bretagnolle, Mauel Plantegenest, Lars W.  Clement, Christopher Dennis, Catherine Palmer, Juan J.  Onate, Irene Guerrero, Violetta Hawro, Tsipe Aavik, Carsten Thies, Andreas Flohre, Sebastian Hanke, Christina Fischer, Paul W. Goedhart, and Pablo Inchausti. 2010. Persistent Negative Effects of Pesticides on Biodiversity and Biological Control Potential on European Farmland. Basic and Applied Ecology 11 (2): 97–105. Götz, Rainer, Volker Sokollek, and Roland Weber. 2013. The Dioxin/POPs Legacy of Pesticide Production in Hamburg: Part 2—Waste Deposits and Remediation of Georgswerder Landfill. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 20 (4): 1925–1936. Gould, K.A., D.N. Pellow, and A. Schnaiberg. 2008. The Treadmill of Production. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Goyes, David Rodríguez, and Nigel South. 2017. Green Criminology Before ‘Green Criminology’: Amnesia and Absences. Critical Criminology 25 (2): 165–181.

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

187

Hohl, Andreas, and Clement Allan Tisdell. 1992. How Useful are Environmental Safety Standards in Economics?: The Example of Safe Minimum Standards for Protection of Species. University of Queensland, Department of Economics. International Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Radiative Forcing. Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_ tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/214.htm#611. Accessed Sep 2013. Jorgenson, Andrew K. 2003. Consumption and Environmental Degradation: A Cross-national Analysis of the Ecological Footprint. Social Problems 50 (3): 374–394. ———. 2006a. Unequal Ecological Exchange and Environmental Degradation: A Theoretical Proposition and Cross-National Study of Deforestation, 1990–2000. Rural Sociology 71 (4): 685–712. ———. 2006b. Global Warming and the Neglected Greenhouse Gas: A Cross-­ national Study of the Social Causes of Methane Emissions Intensity, 1995. Social Forces 84 (3): 1779–1798. ———. 2007. Foreign Direct Investment and Pesticide Use Intensity in Less-­ Developed Countries: A Quantitative Investigation. Society and Natural Resources 20: 73–83. ———. 2011. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Central and Eastern European Nations, 1992–2005: A Test of Ecologically Unequal Exchange Theory. Human Ecology Review 18 (2): 105–114. Jorgenson, Andrew K., Kelly Austin, and Christopher Dick. 2009. Ecologically Unequal Exchange and the Resource Consumption/Environmental Degradation Paradox A Panel Study of Less-Developed Countries, 1970— 2000. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 263–284. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Brett Clark. 2011. Societies Consuming Nature: A Panel Study of the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1960–2003. Social Science Research 40 (1): 226–244. ———. 2010. Assessing the Temporal Stability of the Population/environment Relationship in Comparative Perspective: A Cross-National Panel Study of Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1960–2005. Population and Environment 32 (1): 27–41. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and James Rice. 2005. Structural Dynamics of International Trade and Material Consumption: A Cross-national Study of the Ecological Footprints of Less-developed Countries. Journal of World-­ Systems Research 11 (1): 57–77. Jorgenson, Andrew K., James Rice, and Brett Clark. 2010. Cities, Slums, and Energy Consumption in Less Developed Countries, 1990 to 2005. Organization & Environment 23 (2): 189–204.

188 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Jorgenson, Andrew, Juliet Schor, and Xiaorui Huang. 2017. Income Inequality and Carbon Emissions in the United States: A State-level Analysis, 1997–2012. Ecological Economics 134: 40–48. Jorgenson, Andrew K., Juliet B.  Schor, Kyle W.  Knight, and Xiaorui Huang. 2016. Domestic Inequality and Carbon Emissions in Comparative Perspective. Sociological Forum 31 (S1): 770–786. Kosmicki, Sarah, and Michael A.  Long. 2016. Exploring Environmental Inequality within US Communities Containing Coal and Nuclear Power Plants. In Hazardous Waste and Pollution: Detecting and Preventing Green Crimes, ed. T. Wyatt, 79–100. New York: Springer. Krugman, Paul. 1981. Trade, Accumulation, and Uneven Development. Journal of Development Economics 8 (2): 149–161. Lemieux, Andrew M., and Ronald V. Clarke. 2009. The International Ban on Ivory Sales and Its Effects on Elephant Poaching in Africa. British Journal of Criminology 49 (4): 451–471. Long, Michael A., Paul B. Stretesky, and Michael J. Lynch. 2017. Foreign Direct Investment, Ecological Withdrawals and Natural Resource Dependent Economies. Society & Natural Resources 30 (10): 1261–1276. Long, Michael A., Paul B.  Stretesky, Michael J.  Lynch, and Emily Fenwick. 2012. Crime in the Coal Industry: Implications for Green Criminology and Treadmill of Production Theory. Organization & Environment 25 (3): 299–316. Lynch, Michael J. 1990. The Greening of Criminology: A Perspective for the 1990s. The Critical Criminologist 2 (3): 3–4–11–12. Lynch, Michael J., Kimberly L. Barrett, Paul B. Stretesky, and Michael A. Long. 2017. The Neglect of Quantitative Research in Green Criminology and its Consequences. Critical Criminology 25 (2): 183–198. Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B. Stretesky. 2003. The Meaning of Green: Contrasting Criminological Perspectives. Theoretical Criminology. 7 (2): 217–238. ———. 2013. The Distribution of Water-Monitoring Organizations Across States: Implications for Community Policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 36 (1): 6–26. ———. 2014. Exploring Green Criminology: Toward a Green Revolution in Criminology. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky, and Ronald G. Burns. 2004a. Determinants of Environmental Law Violation Fines Against Oil Refineries: Race, Ethnicity, Income and Aggregation Effects. Society and Natural Resources. 17 (4): 333–347.

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

189

———. 2004b. Slippery Business: Race, Class and Legal Determinants of Penalties Against Petroleum Refineries. Journal of Black Studies 34 (3): 421–440. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky, and Michael A. Long. 2015. Defining Crime: A Critique of Criminology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2016. A Proposal for the Political Economy of Green Criminology: Capitalism and the Case of the Alberta Tar Sands. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 58 (2): 137–160. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, Kimberly L. Barrett, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2013. Is It a Crime to Produce Ecological Disorganization? Why Green Criminology and Political Economy Matter in the Analysis of Global Ecological Harms. British Journal of Criminology 55 (3): 997–1016. Meadows, Donella, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows. 2004. Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing. Mercer, Edwina V., Theresa G. Mercer, and Alexander K. Sayok. 2013. Effects of Forest Conversions to Oil Palm Plantations on Freshwater Macroinvertebrates: A Case Study from Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of Land Use Science 8 (4): 227–245. Moore, Jason W. 2000. Environmental Crises and the Metabolic Rift in World-­ Historical Perspective. Organization & Environment 13: 123–158. ———. 2001. Marx’s Ecology and the Environmental History of World Capitalism. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 12 (3): 134–139. ———. 2002. The Crisis of Feudalism: An Environmental History. Organization & Environment 15 (3): 296–317. ———. 2003. The Modern World-System as Environmental History: Ecology and the Rise of Capitalism. Theory and Society 32 (3): 307–377. ———. 2011. Transcending the Metabolic Rift: Towards a Theory of Crises in the Capitalist World-Ecology. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (1): 1–46. Ozymy, Joshua, and Melissa L. Jarrell. 2015. Wielding the Green Stick: Criminal Enforcement at the EPA Under Bush and Obama. Environmental Politics. 24 (1): 38–56. Petrossian, Gohar A., Nerea Marteache, and Julie Viollaz. 2015a. Where Do ‘Undocumented’ Fish Land? An Empirical Study of Port Characteristics for IUU Fishing. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10610-014-9267-1. Petrossian, Gohar, Judith S. Weis, and Stephen F. Pires. 2015b. Factors Affecting Crab and Lobster Species Subject to IUU Fishing. Ocean & Coastal Management 106: 29–34.

190 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Petrossian, Gohar A., and Ronald V. Clarke. 2014. Explaining and Controlling Illegal Commercial Fishing: An Application of the CRAVED Theft Model. British Journal of Criminology 54 (1): 73–90. Pimentel, David. 2005. Environmental and Economic Costs of the Application of Pesticides Primarily in the United States. Environment, Development and Sustainability 7 (2): 229–252. Pires, Stephen F. 2015. The Heterogeneity of Illegal Parrot Markets: An Analysis of Seven Neo-tropical Open Air Markets. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. 21 (1): 151–166. Pires, Stephen F., and Gohar A.  Petrossian. 2015. Understanding Parrott Trafficking Between Illicit Markets in Bolivia: An Application of the CRAVE Model. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2015.1028951. Pires, Stephen F., and Ronald V. Clarke. 2011. Sequential Foraging, Itinerant Fences and Parrot Poaching in Bolivia. British Journal of Criminology 51 (2): 314–335. ———. 2012. Are Parrots CRAVED? An Analysis of Parrot Poaching in Mexico. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49 (1): 122–146. Rockstrom, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin III, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Björn Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin, Peter K.  Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert W. Corell, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, and Jonathan A. Foley. 2009a. A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature 461: 472–475. Rockstrom, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Perrson Asa, F. Stuart Chapin, Eric Lambin, Timothy M.  Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Bjorn Nykvst, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sorlin, Peter K.  Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falekmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert W. Corell, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hanson, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, and Jonathan Foley. 2009b. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14 (2): 32–47. Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press.

7  Metabolic Rift and Eco-justice 

191

Snyder, C.S., T.W.  Bruulsema, T.L.  Jensen, and P.E.  Fixen. 2009. Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Crop Production Systems and Fertilizer Management Effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 133 (3): 247–266. Steffen, Will, Paul J. Crutzen, and John R. McNeill. 2007. The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 36 (8): 614–621. Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeill. 2011. The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (1938): 842–867. Stretesky, Paul B. 2006. Corporate Self-policing and the Environment. Criminology 44 (3): 671–708. Stretesky, Paul B., and Jackie Gabriel. 2005. Self-policing and the Environment: Predicting Self-disclosure of Clean Air Act Violations Under the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency’s Audit Policy. Society and Natural Resources 18 (10): 871–887. Stretesky, Paul B., Michael A. Long, and Michael J. Lynch. 2013a. The Treadmill of Crime: Political Economy and Green Criminology. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. ———. 2013b. Does Environmental Enforcement Slow the Treadmill of Production? The Relationship Between Large Monetary Penalties, Ecological Disorganization and Toxic Releases within Offending Corporations. Journal of Crime and Justice 36 (2): 235–249. Stretesky, Paul B., Michael J. Lynch, Michael A. Long, and Kimberly L. Barrett. 2017. Does the Modernization of Environmental Enforcement Reduce Toxic Releases? An Examination of Self-policing, Criminal Prosecutions and Toxic Releases in the United States, 1988–2012. Sociological Spectrum 37 (1): 48–62. Stretesky, Paul B., and Michael J. Lynch. 1999. Environmental Justice and the Prediction of Distance to Accidental Chemical Releases in Hillsborough County, Florida. Social Science Quarterly 80 (4): 830–846. ———. 2002. Environmental Hazards and School Segregation in Hillsborough, 1987–1999. The Sociological Quarterly 43 (4): 553–573. ———. 2009a. Does Self-Policing Reduce Chemical Emissions? A Further Test of the EPA Self Audit Policy. The Social Science Journal 46 (3): 459–473. ———. 2009b. A Cross-National Study of the Association Between Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Exports to the United States. Social Science Research 38: 239–250. ———. 2011. Coal Strip Mining, Mountain Top Removal and the Distribution of Environmental Violations Across the United States, 2002–2008. Landscape Research 36 (2): 209–230.

192 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Tilman, David. 1999. Global Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Expansion: The Need for Sustainable and Efficient Practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (11): 5995–6000. Torres, J.P.M., C.I.R. Fróes-Asmus, Roland Weber, and J.M.H. Vijgen. 2013. HCH Contamination from Former Pesticide Production in Brazil—a Challenge for the Stockholm Convention Implementation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 20 (4): 1951–1957. Walker, Richard A. 1978. Two Sources of Uneven Development Under Advanced Capitalism: Spatial Differentiation and Capital Mobility. Review of Radical Political Economics 10 (3): 28–38. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Weeks, John. 2001. The Expansion of Capital and Uneven Development on a World Scale. Capital & Class 25 (2): 9–30. White, Rob. 2003. Environmental Issues and the Criminological Imagination. Theoretical Criminology 7 (4): 483–506. Xu, Z.X., K.  Takeuchi, H.  Ishidaira, and X.W.  Zhang. 2002. Sustainability Analysis for Yellow River Water Resources Using the System Dynamics Approach. Water Resources Management 16 (3): 239–261. Yohe, Gary W. 1997. Uncertainty, Short-term Hedging and the Tolerable Window Approach. Global Environmental Change 7 (4): 303–315. York, Richard, Eugene A.  Rosa, and Thomas Dietz. 2003. Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity. American Sociological Review 68: 279–300.

8 Political Economy, Food and Eco-justice

This chapter examines a dimension of eco-justice that has yet to be explored fully within the green criminological literature from a political economic perspective: food justice. To be sure, some green criminologists have addressed some of the concerns associated with various aspects of food justice (Walters 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010; Johnson and Walters 2014). There is also a considerable sociological literature on this subject. In our view, food justice is a complex issue but involves the distribution of food in relation to the production and consumption of food in the capitalist marketplace within and across nations. As noted, this involves a complex set of relationships including the industrialization of food production and agriculture, and related problems such as the intersection of the food market and forms of ecological destruction associated with the fertilizer, pesticide and herbicide trade, how that market is impacted by metabolic rift, the effects and distribution of food insecurity, and related food justice concerns that have been explored within green criminology (Walters 2004, 2006, 2007, 2010). The United Nations (UN) has declared that access to a sufficient amount of healthy food is a basic human right, “which is critical to adequate health and wellbeing, and central to human dignity” (Graham © The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9_8

193

194 

M. J. Lynch et al.

et al. 2016; see also UN 1948, 1999). At the same time, however, the UN World Food Programme (WFP) has recently estimated that there are 795  million hungry people throughout the world (UN WFP 2017). According to the World Population Clock (http://www.worldometers. info/world-population/), as of November 2017, there were 7.6  billion people in the world; therefore, over 10% of people are currently being denied their basic human right of access to sufficient and healthy food. This is not the result of too little food for the existing number of people; rather food is wasted in very large amounts. For instance, estimates place the amount of food wasted to be between 30% (REFRESH 2017) and 50% (Lundqvist et al. 2008; Parfitt et al. 2010) throughout the supply chain. Elsewhere we have argued that this constitutes a crime against the poor (Long and Lynch 2018). To unpack the second reason that there are almost a billion hungry people in a world that has the resources to adequately feed everyone, we need to turn to a discussion of the political economy of the world food system. This chapter will focus on the political economy of food, how that contributes to the unequal distribution of food throughout the world and related ecological disorganization issues, and therefore produces eco-injustice for humans, nonhuman species and Gaia.

F ood Regimes and the Political Economy of Food A discussion of the political economy of food needs to begin with an overview of the concept of “food regimes.” Harriet Friedmann (1993) and Philip McMichael (2009) have introduced and developed the idea of food regimes as a way to understand the global political economy of food, focusing in particular on how international capitalism has greatly influenced how, where and why food is produced and consumed. In capitalism, food, like everything else that is produced, is done so for profit and accumulation purposes (i.e., in Marxism terms, its exchange value), not necessarily to feed people (its use value). Therefore, food production, ­distribution and consumption need to be understood against this back-

8  Political Economy, Food and Eco-justice 

195

drop. Food regime analysis helps this process. As McMichael (2009: 140) notes: The ‘food regime’ concept historicised the global food system: problematising linear representations of agricultural modernization, underlining the pivotal role of food in particular food regimes that produce crisis, transformation and transition. In this sense, food regime analysis brings a structured perspective to the understanding of agriculture and food’s role in capital accumulation across time and space…[food regime analysis] prioritises the ways in which forms of capital accumulation in agriculture constitute global power arrangements, as expressed through patterns of circulation of food.

According to food regime analysis, which draws on political economic theory, the two most defined food regimes in the history of global capitalism occurred during the periods 1870–1930s (the first food regime) and 1950–1970s (the second food regime) (McMichael 2009). The first food regime was characterized by low-cost food imports from colonial areas to the United Kingdom, thereby helping solidify the United Kingdom’s dominance in the world system during this time. The second food regime helped establish the United States as a global hegemonic power during the Cold War by dumping surplus US-produced food on developing countries in the form of aid, in return for assurances from those countries that they would not adopt communism and support the USSR (McMichael 2009). The United States had an enormous amount of surplus wheat and grain because the US government was subsidizing US farmers for growing it, and the surplus produced through this arrangement far exceeded the domestic and trade markets. This excess food became a geopolitical tool for the United States in its global war on communism and the opening up of international commodity markets. Food regime analysis highlights the importance of food and agriculture in shaping the world economy. Or as McMichael (2009: 145) suggests, “the food regime concept offered an interpretation not only of the agrarian basis of world hegemonies, but also a historicised understanding of the evolution of models of development that expressed and legitimized those power relations.” Those models of development are versions of the same

196 

M. J. Lynch et al.

overall approach: international capitalism, where food as commodity has taken precedence over food as a use value. Beginning with the industrial revolution in the United Kingdom and solidified during the first and second food regime periods, the form of capitalism that has come to dominate world food production is highly industrial and international in nature. In other words, the industrialization of food production and the transnational organization of food production are two central issues to the current political economy of food and global food and eco-justice issues. We now turn to a discussion of these two issues in the sections that follow.

Industrialization of Food Production Since the industrial revolution in the middle of the nineteenth century, the vast amount of agricultural food production has used industrial methods. Industrial agriculture, as it is often referred to, is described by Longo and York (2008: 82) as: the ‘conventional’ system of [agricultural] production in the world today— [and] can be defined as producing food and fiber in a way that is consistent with practices used in the realm of manufacturing and industry. It is a rationalized system of food production, which is characterized by mechanization, the application of science and technology to control natural processes, high levels of capital investment, growth in the scale of production, high division of labor and specialization of production.

The implications for industrialized agriculture on global capitalism are clear from Longo and York’s definition—increased production. Increased production of food commodities increases profits and accumulation for the large agribusinesses that are able to compete in the industrial agriculture sector which necessitates large amounts of capital and technological investment to be competitive. Food is produced for its exchange value, rather than its use value. In Chap. 7, we outlined the ecological Marxist concept of metabolic rift. Foster (1999) has argued that the metabolic rift originated during

8  Political Economy, Food and Eco-justice 

197

the industrial revolution as a result of the drive to make agricultural production more intensive. This was done through the industrialization of the agricultural production process. The intensification of agricultural production robbed the soil of its nutrients necessitating the search for fertilizers that could replace those nutrients so production could continue unabated. Clark and Foster (2009) detail how the farming sector in the United Kingdom and other areas of Europe turned to importing Peruvian guano to replenish the soil’s nutrients. The use of natural fertilizers, like guano, and synthetic fertilizers to increase production has increased since the industrial revolution to increase production while compensating for the degraded nature of the soil that results from industrial agricultural production. In addition to fertilizer use, industrial agriculture also makes liberal use of pesticides to protect crops from diseases and animals that can decrease yield. While we detail the negative side-­ effects of fertilizer and pesticide use a bit later, their use, coupled with the other aspects of the industrialization of agriculture, had the desired effect of drastically increasing food production in the last century and a half. A third area aspect of the industrialization of food production involves the use of biotechnology, or the genetic modification of food. Beginning in the 1990s, agribusinesses began exploring the creation and sale of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) in the food sector. Hailed by proponents as a way to end hunger throughout the globe, GMOs are food items that have had alterations made to their DNA for various reasons including, to make the item grow/mature faster, to make the item larger and to be resistant to diseases. However, a host of scientific research suggests that GMOs have a number of health and safety risk to humans (Dona and Arvanitoyannis 2009). The United States and US-based multinational agribusinesses, however, have for the most part championed the use of genetic modification of crops and livestock, despite the potential serious negative consequences. One result of the dramatic increase in food production in the United States was discussed earlier, the dumping of excess food in the developing world as a form of aid. Driven by the US governments’ desire to assist domestic farmers, agricultural production has been highly subsidized for most of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. This has consistently produced an excess of US crops, particularly wheat, far more than the

198 

M. J. Lynch et al.

domestic and trade markets can handle. Since the 1950s, the United States has donated large amounts of this surplus to developing countries. We have detailed earlier how this aid has been used as a geopolitical tool; however more recently, a new issue, linked to GMOs, has arisen with this practice. In a series of publications, Walters (2004, 2006, 2008, 2010) has detailed how much of the food aid the United States has offered and sent to the developing world has contained GMOs. While this food can be used to help feed hungry people, the United States is also exporting the GMO-related health and safety risks to humans, nonhuman species and the ecosystem of these countries. In some cases, recipient countries have refused to accept the aid because they are concerned with what the GMOs may do to their domestic crops. In his study on Zambia, Walters (2006: 28) notes that maize is the staple food of the country, both for consumption as well as having considerable social and political value. When the United States attempted to donate genetically modified maize to Zambia in the form of aid, the Zambian president refused, calling it “poison.” The president, along with the majority of Zambians, was afraid that the GM maize would infect the crops of non-GMO Zambian maize, thereby altering the country’s supply of its staple crop. While most would argue that it should be up to a country whether they accept certain types of food aid, the US government, in this and other similar cases, disagreed. Consequently, in May 2003, the United States brought a case against the European Commission (EC) to the World Trade Organization (WTO) for its anti-GMOs stance. While the case was formally against the EC, because many countries in the developing world trade extensively with the European Union (EU), Walters (2006: 32) noted that “the US Government has argued that the EU moratorium on GM food was not only harming international trade, but was also preventing developing countries from importing biotechnology. The United States sought an international ruling that would force countries to accept GM food and its associated biotechnology products.” The United States eventually won the WTO case and was therefore able to continue to export GM food aid, along with the health and safety concerns that it carries with it. In sum, the industrialization of agriculture and food production that began during the industrial revolution in the United Kingdom had its intended effect, and it dramatically increased the amount of food

8  Political Economy, Food and Eco-justice 

199

­ roduced, first in Europe, then in the United States. That increased prop duction has come with costs, however, including increased use of fertilizers, pesticides and genetic engineering that contributes to the ecological rift, pushes us closer to planetary boundaries and increases ecological disorganization and potential eco-injustices for humans, nonhuman species and ecosystems. These eco-justice concerns are amplified as a large amount of the ecological disorganization is shifted to the developing world. We will turn our attention to the eco-justice concerns later in the chapter; first however, we need to discuss another, related aspect of the political economy of food and agriculture, the transnational organization of production.

Transnational Organization of Production In earlier chapters we have reviewed world system theory (WST; Wallerstein 1974). Recall that WST argues that the world should be the unit of analysis when analyzing capitalism because virtually all the nations of the world take part in the international capitalist economy, regardless of their domestic economic system. These nations are divided into three categories, the advanced capitalist or “core” countries, the developing countries or “semi-periphery,” and the underdeveloped countries or the “periphery.” The nature of the world system is the exploitation of the periphery, and to a lesser extent, the semi-periphery, by the core. This is most evident in trade relationships, where the core exports relatively low-­ cost natural resources and related products to the semi-periphery and the core, while the core and semi-periphery export more expensive manufactured and finished projects back to the periphery. These so-called unequal terms of trade continue to disadvantage the periphery, keeping those countries at low stages of development. One of the ways that this process has been institutionalized at the international level is through structural adjustment loans from international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF). When countries are in financial trouble and/or desperately need to fund development projects, they often turn to the IMF or the World Bank for funding. These institutions provide loans, often with high

200 

M. J. Lynch et al.

i­nterest rates, to countries in need. Attached to these loans, however, are economic restructuring requirements that the receiving country must agree to before receiving the loan. The IMF and World Bank are guided by neoliberal economic principles, including the theory of comparative advantage, and therefore require countries to reorient their economies to export-oriented strategies. This is done through a combination of measures that include “currency devaluation, the removal/reduction of the state from the workings of the economy, the elimination of subsidies in an attempt to reduce expenditures, and trade liberalisation” (Riddell 1992). While neoliberal economics argues that this process will eventually help poor countries earn income on the international market and lift their citizens out of poverty, WST suggests the opposite will happen. That is, countries that receive loans from international financial institutions will remain at low levels of development for two main reasons. First, they will struggle to pay off the loans because of the high interest rates, which will cause the country to have to borrow more money. This cycle continues, until it become unsustainable and the country defaults on its loans. Second, the economic restructuring along neoliberal lines further entrenches the unequal terms of trade between the core and periphery, creating a dependency relationship (Frank 1979) where core countries keep periphery countries at low stages of development in order to continue to exploit them for their low-cost natural resources and other products, including food. We noted earlier that the “principle of comparative advantage” underpins much of the economic restructuring of structural adjustment loans and neoliberal economics in general. The theory of comparative advantage was originated by the classical economist, David Ricardo, in the early nineteenth century and has been subsequently adopted by many neoclassical economists. The basic argument of the theory is that every country in the world has a “comparative advantage” in producing a few products. In other words, each country of the world has the right combination of materials and labor to produce a handful of projects more efficiently (i.e., cheaper) than the majority of other countries in the world. Therefore, Ricardo argued that each country should focus their economic activities on the production of those goods that they have a comparative advantage on and then trade for all other items they need on the world

8  Political Economy, Food and Eco-justice 

201

market. If all countries follow this process, theoretically, all goods will be produced as efficiently as possible, and the economic exchanges on the world market will produce economic growth for all countries. For many countries in the periphery, those goods in which they have comparative advantages on are food and agricultural products. Therefore, when less-developed countries apply for loans from the IMF and World Bank, the austerity measures they have to agree to often require them to restructure their agriculture sector away from one that produces a wide variety of crops for the purpose of feeding the country’s citizens, to a monocultural production approach where they specialize in one or a few products in which they have a comparative advantage. The limited numbers of crops produced through comparative advantage are then grown extensively for export, rather than to feed the country’s citizens. The emphasis on comparative advantage leads countries to pursue monoculture as a form of agricultural production has numerous adverse consequences. First, many countries that are forced to restructure their economies by the IMF and the World Bank have large numbers of hungry citizens. The focus on comparative advantage means that countries often give up growing staple food crops to feed their citizens and, instead, grow luxury crops such as coffee and tropical fruits for trade and export. Second, since these food products are mainly commodities produced for sale, growing as much and as quickly as possible is paramount. This demand for quick harvests and “healthy” looking fruits that will sell in the market often requires the liberal use of pesticides and GMO technology such as pesticide and herbicide-resistant plants. These agricultural methods are likely to increase health and safety risks associated with producing and consuming this food. Finally, intensive production of only a few commodities as is the case with monoculture robs the soil of nutrients very quickly, hastening the metabolic rift, which in turn necessitates the application of more and more nitrogen fertilizer to the soil which pushes us yet further across the planetary boundary that regulates important biochemical flows. We have now provided an overview of the political economy of food and agriculture focusing on the importance of food regimes and the industrialization and transnational organization of agricultural production. This overview highlights how international capitalism transforms

202 

M. J. Lynch et al.

food, a basic human right, into a commodity used to generate profit and facilitate capital accumulation. We now turn to a discussion of how these issues relate to our three stands of eco-justice we posit in this book, HSEJ, NHEJ and Gaia justice.

Eco-justice and Food So far in this chapter we have alluded to numerous food-related eco-­ justice issues, without clearly making the link to our three dimensions of eco-justice, HSEJ, NHEJ and Gaia Justice. We now turn to an elaboration of how the political economy of food and agriculture intersects with eco-justice concerns. As we noted earlier, the UN has declared that an adequate supply of nutritious food is a basic human right. Given that there are almost a billion people in the world that are hungry and are therefore being denied their basic human right to food is a clear HSEJ issue. This is made worse by the fact that there is enough food produced in the world to feed all 7.6 billion people on earth. However, the current political economy of food and agriculture, as detailed above, privileges the exchange value of food over its use value. The domination of food production by large agribusinesses has transformed the food and agriculture sector to one that is focused on profit generation and accumulation, rather than helping to guarantee that every person in the world gets enough food to eat. Further, as Friedmann (1993) and McMichael (2009) have shown through food regime analysis, food has been used as a geopolitical tool to help developed countries, like the United States, further their economic and political agendas. These all constitute HSEJ concerns by placing commodity production, profit and the whims of capitalism above the most basic of human rights—access to food. Global capitalism has further exacerbated these eco-injustice issues though top-down neoliberal economic restructuring that has fundamentally altered the purpose of many developing countries’ food and agricultural sectors. Historically, countries produce food to feed their own citizens. However, as noted above, when countries are in need of development capital and turn to the IMF and World Bank for loans, they are

8  Political Economy, Food and Eco-justice 

203

often required to restructure their agricultural sectors to become more export oriented. This often means that countries no longer produce their staple foods used to feed themselves, rather they are now growing luxury items (e.g., coffee and tropical fruits) for export. It is not unusual for countries to rely heavily on their agricultural sector for most of their Gross Domestic Product, however, but simultaneously not have enough food to feed their citizens because the vast majority of the food grown in the country is sent elsewhere. The neoliberal treadmill of production and its need to expand place profits ahead of feeding people, thereby creates food insecurity and eco-injustice throughout much of the world. This increase in agricultural exports is meant to be the comparative advantage of these countries in the global capitalist economy. These products are then (at least in theory) traded on the international market for the other goods that citizens of these countries need. However, in most trading relationships with core countries, the periphery countries are exporting agricultural products to the core and are also importing higher cost manufactured and luxury items back to the periphery. This process of unequal exchange (Emmanuel 1972; Bunker 1984) leads to further HSEJ issues for periphery countries. They continue to lose money and essentially become supply depots for core countries. In other words, periphery countries and their low standards of living subsidize the high cost of living and high consumption lifestyles of wealthy core countries. Another aspect of the political economy of food and agriculture where there are HSEJ, NHEJ and Gaia justice concerns comes from the industrialization of agricultural production and the unequal exposure to its negative side-effects. Research in environmental sociology supports this position. For example, Longo and York (2008) found that increases in agricultural exports were associated with increases in pesticide and fertilizer use within countries. In two studies on the impact of foreign direct investment (FDI) on pesticide use and intensity (Jorgenson 2007) and pesticide and fertilizer use in less-developed countries (Jorgenson and Kuykendall 2008), Andrew Jorgenson found that countries with higher levels of inward FDI in the agricultural sector also use pesticides and fertilizers in greater amounts. These findings are notable given that FDI is one measure of how wealthy core countries and businesses impact and control the economies of poor peripheral countries. In this case, more

204 

M. J. Lynch et al.

foreign control of the agricultural sector leads to the application of more pesticides and fertilizers, which Jorgenson and Kuykendall (2008) link to numerous human health and environmental problems. In other words, foreign capital increases the level of HSEJ, NHEJ and Gaia justice concerns in less-developed countries. These countries are being forced to grow food for export, using methods that are harmful to humans, nonhuman species and the entire world ecosystem, Gaia. This is another instance of ecologically unequal exchange (Rice 2007), displacing ecological disorganization that benefits the core onto less-developed countries. Finally, the metabolic rift is partly a result of the industrialization of agricultural production. As agricultural production became more and more intensive beginning in the Industrial Revolution in England during the nineteenth century, soil was robbed of its nutrients in many locations. To solve this problem, fertilizers were brought from far away and applied to the soil of Europe. This process has fundamentally altered the make-up of the world ecosystem, Gaia, by moving the earth’s metabolic material over long distances, making it more difficult for the world to maintain and repair itself. This represents an injustice against Gaia.

Conclusion In this chapter we focused on the relationship between the political economy of agricultural and food and issues of eco-justice. We began by tracing the political economy of food and agriculture beginning with the Industrial Revolution and highlighted the importance of the food regime concept. We next reviewed the industrialization and transnational organization of agricultural and food production, noting how these processes increased the use of pesticides, fertilizers and genetic modification of food crops. These processes—associated with the political economic organization of capitalism, and explicable from a political economic view point— have also contributed to the metabolic rift. We finished the chapter by focusing on how the political economy of food has created a number of HSEJ, NHEJ and Gaia justice concerns throughout the world.

8  Political Economy, Food and Eco-justice 

205

References Bunker, Stephen G. 1984. Modes of Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Progressive Underdevelopment of an Extreme Periphery: The Brazilian Amazon, 1600–1980. American Journal of Sociology 89 (5): 1017–1064. Clark, Brett, and John Bellamy Foster. 2009. Ecological Imperialism and the Global Metabolic Rift Unequal Exchange and the Guano/Nitrates Trade. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 311–334. Dona, Artemis, and Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis. 2009. Health Risks of Genetically Modified Food. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 49 (2): 164–175. Emmanuel, Arghiri. 1972. Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. New York: Monthly Review Press. Foster, John Bellamy. 1999. Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 105 (2): 366–405. Frank, Andre Gunder. 1979. Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment. New York: Monthly Review Press. Friedmann, Harriet. 1993. The Political Economy of Food: A Global Crisis. New Left Review 197: 29–57. Graham, Pamela Louise, Eilish Crilley, Paul B. Stretesky, Michael A. Long, Katie Jane Palmer, Eileen Steinbock, and Margaret Anne Defeyter. 2016. Holiday Clubs in the UK: A Qualitative Investigation of Needs, Benefits and Potential Development. Frontiers in Public Health 4: 172. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpubh.2016.00172. Johnson, Hope, and Reece Walters. 2014. Food Security. In The Handbook of Security, ed. M. Gill’s, 404–426. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jorgenson, Andrew K. 2007. Foreign Direct Investment and Pesticide Use Intensity in Less-Developed Countries: A Quantitative Investigation. Society and Natural Resources 20: 73–83. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Kennon A.  Kuykendall. 2008. Globalization, Foreign Investment Dependence and Agriculture Production: Pesticide and Fertilizer Use in Less-developed Countries, 1990–2000. Social Forces 87 (1): 529–560. Long, Michael A., and Michael J. Lynch. 2018. Food Waste (Non)Regulation. In A Handbook of Food Crime: Immoral and Illegal Practices in the Food Industry and What to Do About Them, ed. Allison Gray and Ron Hinch. Bristol: Policy Press.

206 

M. J. Lynch et al.

Longo, Stefano, and Richard York. 2008. Agricultural Exports and the Environment: A Cross-national Study of Fertilizer and Pesticide Consumption. Rural Sociology 73 (1): 82–104. Lundqvist, J., C. de Fraiture, and D. Molden. 2008. Saving Water: From Field to Fork  – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. Stockholm, Sweden: SIWI. McMichael, Philip. 2009. A Food Regime Genealogy. Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1): 139–169. Parfitt, J., M. Barthel, and S. Macnaughton. 2010. Food Waste Within Food Supply Chains: Quantification and Potential for Change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365: 3065–3081. REFRESH (Resource Efficient Food and dRink for the Entire Supply cHain). 2017. Background. http://eu-refresh.org/about-refresh#about-the-project. Rice, James. 2007. Ecological Unequal Exchange: International Trade and Uneven Utilization of Environmental Space in the World. Social Forces 85 (3): 1369–1392. Riddell, J.B. 1992. Things Fall Apart Again: Structural Adjustment Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies 30 (1): 53–68. UN (United Nations). 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. www. un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a14. ———. 1999. Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant On Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General Comment 12. www.fao.ord/fileadmin/templates/righttofood/documents/RTF_publications/EN?General_Comment_12_EN.pdf. UN WFP (United Nations World Food Programme). 2017. Hunger Statistics. www.wtf.org/hunger/stats. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Walters, Reece. 2004. Criminology and Genetically Modified Food. British Journal of Criminology 44: 151–167. ———. 2006. Crime, Bio-agriculture and the Exploitation of Hunger. British Journal of Criminology 46 (1): 26–45. ———. 2007. Food Crime, Regulation and the Biotech Harvest. European Journal of Criminology 4 (2): 217–235. ———. 2010. Crime, Political Economy and Genetically Modified Food. Oxford: Routledge.

9 Conclusion

In the preceding chapters we offered several different but related political economic analyses of eco-justice in an effort to contribute to a more extensive theoretical analysis of justice concerns relevant to green criminology. It should be noted that one limitation of the approach we have taken is that we have only paid attention specifically to green eco-justice theories that can be anchored in political economic theory. This was a purposeful choice. As we noted in the preface and introduction, this book was not intended as a discussion of green theories of justice in general, and has not offered a more general philosophical or moral discussion of green justice. Rather, here we purposefully did not take up any philosophical arguments about the nature of green justice or injustice, nor was it our intent to summarize and comment upon or criticize any of the approaches to conceptualizing the concept of green justice that green criminologists have proposed in the extant literature, the majority of which have been grounded on or attached to philosophical arguments. That task—a critique of green criminological theories of justice—is outside of the scope of the political economic analysis we have taken here. Some may suggest that this narrow view of eco-justice we have taken, which is only expressed in relation to political economic theory, is one of © The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9_9

207

208 

M. J. Lynch et al.

the limitations of this work. We acknowledge that this criticism can be made. But, in or view, the issue is not whether we have laid out the full scope of various approaches to green justice—since this was not our intent in the first place—but whether the political economic arguments about eco-justice we have pursued make sense and appear relevant to assessing various eco-justice issues. For those interested in a more philosophical yet materialist/political economic analysis of capitalism and its connection to oppression, particular of Third World nations and peoples, and issues related to eco-justice, we recommend the work of Paulo Freire (1968) and Bowers’ (2001) critique of Freire. We limited our discussions to political economic views because we believe that it is important to understand the current dimensions of eco-­ justice and green crime within the material context of the world around us—which is being dismantled, remade, physically deconstructed and physically reconstructed in a deteriorated form (i.e., through pollution, deforestation, mining and metabolically, including the increased production of entropy). These outcomes, in the view we have taken, occur to facilitate the expansion of capitalism, its extraction of resources, production, sale and consumption of commodities, and its exploitative class and human-nature interactions and relationships. In our view, understanding green justice and injustice requires coming to grips with these basic physical/political economic relationships and global/local forms of social and economic organization. In taking up that political economic view, we have emphasized the role capitalism plays in generating ecosystem harms and producing negative ecologically related impacts (i.e., ecological disorganization) that facilitate the emergence of forms of eco-injustice. Again, we take a political economic view, and draw on literature relevant to political economic analysis in the contemporary era. In this era, the world is organized around the political economic structure of capitalism, which includes capitalist ownership, class, productive and exchange relationships. In that context, we have specifically detailed how capitalism and the local and global treadmill of production influence eco-justice, and how political economic theory helps us understand that fact, and can be employed to explain the ways in which eco-justice can and, we would suggest, should be conceptualized, examined and known. We make no

9 Conclusion 

209

apologies for taking this approach, and clearly, we can be criticized for solely taking up this style of argument and omitting other perspectives. But again, taking up those other nonpolitical economic approaches was not the purpose of this book, and we believe that the contribution this book makes is in providing an alternative to or supplement to the ways in which green criminologists have tended to conceptualize and address eco-justice from nonpolitical economic approaches. As we have illustrated in these chapters, capitalism not only produces—and indeed, as we have argued drawing upon environmental sociology and ecological Marxism, must produce—ecological harm and disorganization; it also generates those harms in ways that cause those harms to be unevenly distributed globally and locally. As ecological Marxists such as John Bellamy Foster and Paul Burkett have argued, capitalism and nature are in contradiction or conflict with one another, and the expansion of capitalism must result in ecological destruction and disorganization, a view that green criminologists have also applied to discuss ecological disorganization as crime (Lynch et al. 2013). One point of taking up a political economic analysis of ecological disorganization and its relationship to eco-justice is to expose the unequal distribution of the ecological harms of capitalism imposes. Understanding the global system of capitalism and the nature of the treadmill of production also allows us to expose and understand how those processes—how the very organization of capitalism—create a geography of eco-(in)justice that enhances the impact of those ecological harms more so in some locations than in others, and redistributes ecological goods and services unequally across the nations (and peoples) of the world order of capitalism. The unequal distribution of green goods and services; the unequal exploitation of ecosystems; the unequal impacts of these process on different nations and people—this is all a central part of the inequality in exposure to ecological harms capitalism brings, and is, inherently, part of understanding the issue of green justice and injustice under capitalism, both locally and globally. Our approach suggests that absent a political economic approach, these issues cannot be truly understood, explored and explained. Here, our point is similar to the argument Marx made in the Eleventh Thesis on Feuerbach. There, Marx wrote, “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to

210 

M. J. Lynch et al.

change it.” While there has been much debate about what Marx meant, our interpretation is as follows. He was suggesting that one can see the world around us in many ways, but that the most relevant was not the philosophical, which he had criticized elsewhere (i.e., his criticism of Hegel, and what Marx viewed as Hegel’s “upside down” philosophical world view). Once one takes up the physical view of the world, and attaches that to an anchor in economic relationships, the world is now comprehended in a way that also points toward pathways of action that can change the world and the forms of exploitation and harms that exist. This view is historical as well to the extent that the physical-political economic relationships exist in a specific way at a particular point in time, and those conditions are not abstract generalizations that exist everywhere and always. In this view, or in political economic terms, unequal exposure to the deleterious ecological effects of capitalism illustrates that not only some places but some peoples and some nonhuman species experience elevated exposure to levels of environmental harm. This geographic differential is not simply a difference in specific, particularly dichotomous, exposure differentials such as differences within cities across different kinds of neighborhoods; or across urban and rural areas; or across nations treated in generic terms defined solely in the abstract by their boundaries; or by general divisions of the world into South-North and so on. All of these different forms of ecological exploitation variation matter, and explaining them requires a theoretical perspective capable of including all these different levels of geographic analysis and difference as they relate to one another within the current political economic context. In a political economic view, one of the connecting issues that links what appear as unique geographic places together is their connection to the political economic system of capitalism. Geography, in other words, can be conceptualized abstractly, as a boundary, drawn by whatever means one chooses (e.g., politically at the country, state, province, etc., level; or sociologically at the neighborhood, block, census, etc., levels). But those constructions of geography are not necessarily real in their consequences from a political economic perspective, where geography is conceptualized from the political economic perspective—which one might be tempted to argue is tautological. But, in the political economic view,

9 Conclusion 

211

geography is an expression of political economic relationships, and this cannot be understood outside of political economy. Geography is, in other words, intimately embedded within political economy, and this is not a tautological relationship, but part of the whole of the political economic relation. There is, in this view, not political economy, on the one hand, and geography on the other hand. Rather, there is only a political economic geography where these ideas, often assumed to or conceptualized as separate entities, are one and the same thing. And in this view, one of the things within the political economic system of capitalism that links places together is how they relate to capitalism’s class structure and ownership patterns, and its systems for exploiting both the labor of humans and the labor of nature. In that view, then, it is important to call attention to how exposure to green harms and the production of green injustice must be explained in relationship to class, and how class relations, both at the global and local levels, influence the generation of green harms/injustice (e.g., as, for example, environmental justice studies indicate). These class effects are an important form of eco-injustice we have taken up elsewhere, as noted in the introduction to this book. In our view, environmental injustice, as an example of eco-­ justice/injustice, must include an analysis of how the political economic organization of capitalism generates the conditions that produce an unequal distribution of environmental harms and the differential effects of those harms in various locations: within urban and rural areas; or as those eco-injustices affect Native and Indigenous peoples as well (Lynch and Stretesky 2012). These observations imply the need to examine these kinds of eco-justice issues—whether they occur in urban or rural areas; whether they impact people in developed or less-developed nations; whether they affect the groups most marginalized by capitalism, native/ indigenous peoples—from a political economic perspective. With respect to HSEJ, then, we suggest a need to attend to the political economic origins of injustice for any identified group of people—since, in a contextualized political economic analysis, no group of people can be separated from their connection to the influence, economic, social and political organization of capitalism, both at the local and global levels. Globally, class and inequality matter in the distribution of eco-justices. This affects the access to and the use of nature. There is also a need to

212 

M. J. Lynch et al.

consider eco-injustice, or the limiting of access to and limiting the use of nature, and the production of the uneven destruction of nature. All of this involves the political economic construction of the geography of nature. Today, according to the World Bank, 10.7% of the world’s population lives in extreme poverty, living on less than US$1.90 a day. For many of those people, access to nature, which could support other lifestyles and enhance quality of life, has been suppressed and erased by the efforts of capital to control and invest in foreign land ownership and management, turning people away from sustainable lifestyles that intertwine with local environments, transforming them into the working poor in the global economy. This is an issue green criminology has not explored adequately (for part of our view on this issue, see Lynch et  al. 2017; Lynch, Stretesky and Long 2018). With respect to the above, this means that the political economy of capitalism promotes eco-justice and injustice differentially in a geography sense. The forms of eco-injustice capitalism produces are widespread, and certainly impact various groups of peoples in different locations in similar ways. At the same time, the appearance of eco-injustice is not wholly monolithic—though the similarities in eco-injustice across time, space and peoples should not be overlooked in a political economic approach given the universal importance of the capitalist world system and its global nature and effects. In this view, the dispersion of eco-justice/injustice is not a philosophical matter but a political economic one. Moreover, as we have argued, important dimensions of eco-justice have objectively or scientifically definable boundaries, which include the ability to measure the ways in which ecological disorganization appears in general terms, as well as in specific locations and with respect to their justice impacts on different peoples and species. There are, in other words, aspects of eco-justice that can be understood and conceptualized simultaneously from a political economic and a scientific perspective. Some of these can, in fact, be described in fairly precise scientific terms, such as the volume of emissions, particle and chemical concentrations, measures of disease prevalence and incidence, ecological footprints and so forth. In effect, the ideas we have examined here require a more extensive reconceptualized political economy of justice beyond what we have laid out in the preceding chapters. What is required is the development of a political economic geography of green justice and injustice, a perceptive

9 Conclusion 

213

toward which green criminologist should move to better conceptualize the intersections between political economy, green justice, green crime (including environmental destruction, use, redistribution, exploitation) and geography, and how, as well, those concepts intersect with natural geography or the distribution of resources (e.g., minerals, water) and beings (e.g., plants, animals). We should not overlook the fact that this unequal distribution of ecological harm can also be illustrated with respect to nonhuman species. There are empirical measures of this form of ecological harm and eco-­ injustice as we have illustrated in the preceding chapters. These measures can also include chemical concentrations of pollutants to which nonhuman species are exposed, rates of deforestation and even species extinction among other indicators. It is not necessarily popular within green criminology to think of harms to nonhuman species in political economic terms, and limited discussion of how to conceptualize and study the political economic harm to nonhuman animals is currently one of the limitations in the green criminological literature (see Stretesky et  al. 2013; Stretesky et al. 2018). In the environmental sociology literature, however, one can see how a political economic approach to nonhuman animal harm can be grounded (Brennan and Kalsi 2015; Clark and Clausen 2008; Clausen and Clark 2005; Clausen and York 2008; Hoffmann 2004; McKinney et al. 2010; Shandra et al. 2009, 2010), and this relevant literature, which is both theoretical and empirical, has not been usefully integrated into the green criminological literature to understand harms against nonhuman animals from a political economic perspective. We have argued in this book for a concept of eco-justice that extends to human, nonhuman animals, ecosystems and Gaia. This is quite different than the more traditional notions of justice that many citizens and public policy makers currently hold that privileges justice for humans above all else. If the political economic version of eco-justice that we have detailed is to be adopted in the future, major changes in public policy will have to occur, policy changes that drastically reduce ecological disorganization throughout the world. This also requires that policy makers recognize that capitalism is the true cause of widespread ecological disorganization. This will be no easy task; however, it is a necessary one if

214 

M. J. Lynch et al.

we are to see justice for all living things on the planet. Citizen action is necessary to demonstrate to policy makers that eco-justice is a desirable end goal. This action will have to make capitalism and its growth imperative the target to have any chance of long-lasting change. The eco-justice perspective allows us to understand how much ecological destruction occurs on a daily, routine basis and what is the cause. The eco-injustice concerns described throughout the previous chapters are serious and important for many different reasons. In the first place, in order for contemporary forms of eco-justice to emerge under capitalism, ecological destruction must also be taking place. And one can argue that the degree of ecological destruction is also a measure of the extent to which eco-justice must also be occurring. This situation must, as ecological Marxism has described, be occurring because capitalism and nature are in conflict with one another, and capitalism can only expand significantly by consuming, destroying and disorganizing nature. Given the current extent of ecological destruction and disorganization, the extent of eco-injustice that must also be occurring is enormous, especially since, as the scientific literature has established, the health of Gaia itself is under attack. And wherever Gaia suffers eco-­ injustice, the species that inhabit Gaia—whether human or nonhuman—must also be suffering eco-injustice. Second, as various indicators of eco-justice and ecological harm demonstrate, the problem of ecosystem disorganization is quite widespread affecting, for example, the health of all species—human and nonhuman, plant and animal, insects and so on—in numerous locations around the world. At the same time, if we map outcomes such as extinctions geographically, we would see that they are unequally distributed, and that unequal distribution is part of the evidence that ecological destruction, while important globally, has increased adverse effects and hence elevated eco-injustice in some locations more than others, affecting species differentially. Since the process creating that unequal distribution of harms, capitalism, is at the same time enriching some nations over others, the intersection of global economic inequality and global eco-injustice becomes an additional dimension of the problem of eco-justice analysis that has not been addressed. That particular problem, however, can be addressed from the perspective of political economic theory which is

9 Conclusion 

215

capable of explaining both the global distribution of ecological destruction and the distribution of global inequality. Again, this is part of the nature of capitalism and the forms of oppression it generates, which have also unfortunately been reproduced within the discipline of criminology (Lynch 2000, 2015). The connection between the negative ecological effects and negative forms of eco-justice capitalism creates, which we have illustrated in the chapters of this book, also has important consequences for the course of development that discussions of eco-justice and injustice should take within the green criminological literature. In those chapters we have illustrated not only how the political economy of capitalism relates to ecological destruction/disorganization but also to eco-injustice. But, more than that, we have shown that this connection involves a structural relationship, one that is unequal in its origins and its effects and embedded in the very essence of capitalism. Taken together, that analysis indicates that there is a pattern to eco-injustice and ecological disorganization and that further attention must be directed toward that pattern. In research terms, these observations indicate the need for the green criminology literature to move away from the kinds of case study approaches that have characterized green criminological research. Where case study approaches remain important, it is also, therefore, incumbent upon researchers to incorporate theoretical explanations into those case studies grounded in political economic analysis that allow researchers to demonstrate how the evidence from case studies fits together and contributes to this broader political economic analysis of ecological destruction, disorganization and eco-injustice. In the previous chapters, it was not our intent to discuss all the possible environmental problems that illustrate the existence of the various forms of eco-justice/injustice we have described. Rather, our goal here was to outline, in some places in more detail than in others, how a political economic green criminological approach can draw upon existing political economic theory and research in other disciplines to formulate political economic analyses of eco-injustice/crime/harm. We believe it is important to do so to better connect green criminological research to other areas of research—in particular environmental sociology and ecological Marxism—which have offered extensive theoretical elaborations of how

216 

M. J. Lynch et al.

the political economic of capitalism generates ecological destruction/ecological injustice. That literature also contains important empirical works demonstrating the utility of those theoretical arguments, and it is essential that the knowledge of eco-injustice/ecological disorganization generated in those views becomes more widely incorporated into the green criminological literature. In our view, that literature can expand the ways in which green criminologists understand, explain and explore eco-justice. With respect to the above, our observations mean, as well, that there is an extraordinary array of research awaiting the application of such a political economic green criminological approach for conceptualizing, understanding and explaining eco-justice. It is beyond the scope of this book and this conclusion to even outline these areas of research, since they are many and varied, and beyond our ability to fully list and detail. Such a view needs further elaboration and integration into the green criminological literature to supplement the approaches toward green justice criminologists have already employed.

References Bowers, Chet A. 2001. Educating for Eco-justice and Community. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Brennan, Andrew John, and Jaslin Kaur Kalsi. 2015. Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trafficking Problems in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Application of O’Hara’s Principles of Political Economy. Ecological Economics 120: 312–337. Clark, Brett, and Rebecca Clausen. 2008. The Oceanic Crisis: Capitalism and the Degradation of Marine Ecosystems. Monthly Review 60 (3): 91–111. Clausen, Rebecca, and Brett Clark. 2005. The Metabolic Rift and Marine Ecology: An Analysis of the Oceanic Crisis Within Capitalist Production. Organization & Environment 18 (4): 422–444. Clausen, Rebecca, and Richard York. 2008. Global Biodiversity Decline of Marine and Freshwater Fish: A Cross-national Analysis of Economic, Demographic, and Ecological Influences. Social Science Research 37 (4): 1310–1320. Freire, Paulo. 1968. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Hoffmann, John P. 2004. Social and Environmental Influences on Endangered Species: A Cross-national Study. Sociological Perspectives 47 (1): 79–107.

9 Conclusion 

217

Lynch, Michael J. 2000. The Power of Oppression: Toward Understanding The History of Criminology as a Science of Oppression. Critical Criminology 9 (1–2): 144–152. ———. 2015. The Classless State of Criminology and Why Criminology without Class Is Rather Meaningless. Crime, Law and Social Change 63 (1): 65–90. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, Kimberly L. Barrett, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2013. Is It a Crime to Produce Ecological Disorganization? Why Green Criminology and Political Economy Matter in the Analysis of Global Ecological Harms. British Journal of Criminology 55 (3): 997–1016. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, Paul B. Stretesky, and Kimberly A. Barrett. 2017. Green Criminology: Crime, Justice and the Environment. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B. Stretesky. 2012. Native Americans, Social and Environmental Justice: Implications for Criminology. Social Justice 38 (3): 34–54. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky, and Michael A. Long. 2018. Blaming the Poor for Biodiversity Loss: Environmental Justice and the Study of Poaching and Wildlife Trafficking. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 25 (3): 263–275. McKinney, Laura A., Edward L. Kick, and Gregory M. Fulkerson. 2010. World System, Anthropogenic, and Ecological Threats to Bird and Mammal Species: A Structural Equation Analysis of Biodiversity Loss. Organization & Environment 23 (1): 3–31. Shandra, John M., Christopher Leckband, Laura A.  McKinney, and Bruce London. 2009. Ecologically Unequal Exchange, World Polity, and Biodiversity Loss a Cross-national Analysis of Threatened Mammals. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 285–310. Shandra, John M., Laura A.  McKinney, Christopher Leckband, and Bruce London. 2010. Debt, Structural Adjustment, and Biodiversity Loss: A Cross-­ national Analysis of Threatened Mammals and Birds. Human Ecology Review 17 (1): 18–33. Stretesky, Paul B., Michael A. Long, and Michael J. Lynch. 2013. The Treadmill of Crime: Political Economy and Green Criminology. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. Stretesky, Paul B., Ruth E.  McKie, Michael J.  Lynch, Michael A.  Long, and Kimberly L. Barrett. 2018. Where Have All the Falcons Gone? Saker Falcon (falco cherrug) Exports in a Global Economy. Global Ecology and Conservation 13: e00372.

References

Ackerly, D.D., and F.A. Bazzaz. 1995. Plant Growth and Reproduction Along CO2 Gradients: Non-linear Responses and Implications for Community Change. Global Change Biology 1 (3): 199–207. Al Sayed, Ahmad R.M., and Siok Kun Sek. 2013. Environmental Kuznets Curve. Evidences from Applied Mathematical Sciences 7 (22): 1081–1092. Andraea, Meinrat O. 2007. Atmospheric Aerosols Versus Green House Gases in the 21st Century. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Part A 365 (1856): 1915–1923. Attfield, Robin. 2012. Biocentrism and Artificial Life. Environmental Values 21 (1): 83–94. Austin, Kelly F. 2010a. The “Hamburger Connection” as Ecologically Unequal Exchange: A Cross-National Investigation of Beef Exports and Deforestation in Less-Developed Countries. Rural Sociology 75 (2): 270–299. ———. 2010b. Soybean Exports and Deforestation from a World-Systems Perspective: A Cross-National Investigation of Comparative Disadvantage. The Sociological Quarterly 51 (3): 511–536. ———. 2012. Coffee Exports as Ecological, Social, and Physical Unequal Exchange: A Cross-national Investigation of the Java Trade. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 53 (3): 155–180. Azar, Christian, and Henning Rodhe. 1997. Targets for Stabilization of Atmospheric CO2. Science 276 (5320): 1818–1819. © The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9

219

220 References

Babu, Swati Sinha, and Soumyendra Kishore Datta. 2013. The Relevance of Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) in a Framework of Broad-based Environmental Degradation and Modified Measure of Growth–a Pooled Data Analysis. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 20 (4): 309–316. Baer, Hans. 2008. Global Warming as a By-product of the Capitalist Treadmill of Production and Consumption—The Need for an Alternative Global System. The Australian Journal of Anthropology 19 (1): 58–62. Baran, Paul A., and Paul M. Sweezy. 1966. Monopoly Capitalism: An Essay on the American Economic and Social Order. New York: Monthly Review Press. Barnett, Harold. 1999. The Land Ethic and Environmental Criminology. Criminal Justice Policy Review 10 (2): 161–191. Barnosky, Anthony D., Nicholas Matzke, Susumu Tomiya, Guinevere O.U.  Wogan, Brian Swartz, Tiago B.  Quental, Charles Marshall, Jenny McGuire, Emily L. Lindsey, Katlin C. Mcguire, Ben Mersey, and Elizabeth S.  Ferrer. 2011. Has the Earth’s Sixth Mass Extinction Already Arrived? Nature 471 (7336): 51–57. Barrett, Kimberly L., Michael J. Lynch, Michael A. Long, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2018. Do Fines Deter? Monetary Penalties and Compliance with Environmental Laws. American Journal of Criminal Justice 43 (3): 530–550. Barrett, Kimberly L., Michael J.  Lynch, and Paul B.  Stretesky. 2016. Green Criminology and the Reconceptualization of School Violence: Comparing Green School Violence and Traditional Forms of School Violence for School Children. Critical Criminology 24 (1): 19–37. Beever, Erik A., Chris Ray, Jenifer L. Wilkening, Peter F. Brussard, and Philip W. Mote. 2011. Contemporary Climate Change Alters the Pace and Drivers of Extinction. Global Change Biology 17 (6): 2054–2070. Beirne, Piers. 1999. For a Nonspeciesist Criminology: Animal Abuse as an Object of Study. Criminology 37 (1): 117–148. ———. 2002. Criminology and Animal Studies: A Sociological View. Society and Animals 10 (4): 381–386. ———. 2007. Animal Rights, animal abuse and green criminology. In Issues in Green Criminology, ed. P. Beirne and N. South, 55–86. Devon, UK: Willan. ———. 2009. Confronting Animal Abuse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Beirne, Piers, and Nigel South, eds. 2007. Issues in Green Criminology. Devon, UK: Willan. Bennear, Lori S. 2008. What Do We Really Know? The Effect of Reporting Thresholds on Inferences Using Environmental Right-to-know Data. Regulation & Governance 2: 293–315.

 References 

221

Benton, Ted. 1998. Rights and Justice on a Shared Planet. Theoretical Criminology 2 (2): 149–175. Bernhardt, Emily S., and Margaret A. Palmer. 2011. The Environmental Costs of Mountaintop Mining Valley Fill Operations for Aquatic Ecosystems of the Central Appalachians. Annals of the New  York Academy of Sciences 1223 (1): 39–57. Bisschop, Lieselot. 2012. Out of the Woods: The Illegal Trade in Tropical Timber and a European Trade Hub. Global Crime 13 (3): 191–212. Blasing, T.J. 2014. Recent greenhouse gas concentrations. Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. http://cdiac.ornl.gov/pns/current_ghg.html. Accessed 15 April 2014. Blaustein, Andrew R., Susan C.  Walls, Betsy A.  Bancroft, Joshua J.  Lawler, Catherine L.  Searle, and Stephanie S.  Gervasi. 2010. Direct and Indirect Effects of Climate Change on Amphibian Populations. Diversity 2 (2): 281–313. Bookchin, Murray. 1988. Social Ecology Versus Deep Ecology. Socialist Review 18 (3): 9–29. Bowers, Chet A. 2001. Educating for Eco-justice and Community. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. ———. 2002. Toward an Eco-justice Pedagogy. Environmental Education Research 8 (1): 21–34. Boyce, James K. 2002. The Political Economy of the Environment. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Brennan, Andrew John, and Jaslin Kaur Kalsi. 2015. Elephant Poaching & Ivory Trafficking Problems in Sub-Saharan Africa: An Application of O’Hara’s Principles of Political Economy. Ecological Economics 120: 312–337. Brook, Barry W., Navjot S. Sodhi, and Corey J.A. Bradshaw. 2008. Synergies Among Extinction Drivers Under Global Change. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 23 (8): 453–460. Brook, Barry W., Navjot S.  Sodhi, and Peter K.L.  Ng. 2003. Catastrophic Extinctions Follow Deforestation in Singapore. Nature 424 (6947): 420–426. Brown, Paul M., and Linda D. Cameron. 2000. What Can Be Done to Reduce Overconsumption? Ecological Economics 32 (1): 27–41. Brown, A.  Ross, David J.  Hosken, François Balloux, Lisa K.  Bickley, Gareth LePage, Stewart F.  Owen, Malcolm J.  Hetheridge, and Charles R.  Tyler. 2009. Genetic Variation, Inbreeding and Chemical Exposure—Combined Effects in Wildlife and Critical Considerations for Ecotoxicology. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1534): 3377–3390.

222 References

Brulle, Robert J., and David N. Pellow. 2006. Environmental Justice: Human Health and Environmental Inequalities. Annual Review of Public Health 27: 103–124. Bunker, Stephen G. 1984. Modes of Extraction, Unequal Exchange, and the Progressive Underdevelopment of an Extreme Periphery: The Brazilian Amazon, 1600–1980. American Journal of Sociology 89 (5): 1017–1064. Burgert, Sinje, Ralf B. Schäfer, Kaarina Foit, Mira Kattwinkel, Leon Metzeling, Richard MacEwan, Ben J.  Kefford, and Matthias Liess. 2011. Modelling Aquatic Exposure and Effects of Insecticides—Application to South-eastern Australia. Science of the Total Environment 409 (14): 2807–2814. Burkett, Paul. 2008. Marxism and Ecological Economics: Toward a Red and Green Political Economy. Chicago: Haymarket Books. Burkett, Paul, and John Bellamy Foster. 2006. Metabolism, Energy, and Entropy in Marx’s Critique of Political Economy: Beyond the Podolinsky Myth. Theory and Society 35 (1): 109–156. Burns, Thomas J., Byron L. Davis, and Edward L. Kick. 1997. Position in the World System and National Emissions of Greenhouse Gases. Journal of World Systems Research III: 432–466. Burns, Ronald G., Michael J. Lynch, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2008. Environmental Law, Crime and Justice. New York: LFB Scholarly. Buttel, Frederick H. 2004. The Treadmill of Production: An Appreciation, Assessment, and Agenda for Research. Organization & Environment 17 (3): 323–336. Buttel, Frederick H., and Kenneth A. Gould. 2004. Global Social Movement(s) at the Crossroads: Some Observations on the Trajectory of the Anti-Corporate Globalization Movement. Journal of World-Systems Research 10 (1): 37–66. Cairns, John. 2004. Eco-ethical Issues: Self-Regulating Versus Subsidized Ecosystems. The International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 11 (1): 36–47. Cano Pecharroman, Lidia. 2018. Rights of Nature: Rivers That Can Stand in Court. Resources 7 (1): 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/resources7010013. Cardillo, Marcel, Georgina M.  Mace, Kate E.  Jones, Jon Bielby, Olaf R.P. Bininda-Emonds, Wes Sechrest, C. David L. Orme, and Andy Purvis. 2005. Multiple Causes of High Extinction Risk in Large Mammal Species. Science 309 (5738): 1239–1241. Carpenter, Stephen R. 2005. Eutrophication of Aquatic Ecosystems: Biostability and Soil Phosphorus. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 102 (29): 10002–10005.

 References 

223

Carpenter, Kent E., Muhammad Abrar, Greta Aeby, Richard B. Aronson, Stuart Banks, Andrew Bruckner, Angel Chiriboga, et al. 2008. One-Third of ReefBuilding Corals Face Elevated Extinction Risk from Climate Change and Local Impacts. Science 321 (5888): 560–563. Castree, Noel. 2000. Marxism and the Production of Nature. Capital & Class 24 (3): 5–36. ———. 2002. False Antitheses? Marxism, Nature and Actor-networks. Antipode 34 (1): 111–146. ———. 2003. Commodifying What Nature? Progress in Human Geography 27 (3): 273–297. Catton, Wiliam R., and Riley E. Dunlap. 1978. Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm. The American Sociologist 13: 41–49. Cazaux, Geertrui. 1998. Legitimating the Entry of ‘The Animals Issue’ into (Critical) Criminology. Humanity & Society 22 (4): 365–385. ———. 1999. Beauty and the Beast: Animal Abuse from a Non-speciesist Criminological Perspective. Crime, Law and Social Change 31 (2): 105–125. Chesebro, James W. 2003. The Rhetoric of Economics: Exploring the Link Between Communication Technologies and Political Economies–eBay as Symbolic Prototype of Digital Capitalism. Paper presented at the Speech Communication Association of Puerto Rico (SCAPR), San Juan. Chevin, L.M., R.  Lande, and G.M.  Mace. 2010. Adaptation, Plasticity, and Extinction in a Changing Environment: Towards a Predictive Theory. PLoS Biology 8 (4): e1000357. Choumert, Johanna, Pascale Combes Motel, and Hervé K. Dakpo. 2013. Is the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Deforestation a Threatened Theory? A Meta-analysis of the Literature. Ecological Economics 90: 19–28. Clark, Brett, and Rebecca Clausen. 2008. The Oceanic Crisis: Capitalism and the Degradation of Marine Ecosystems. Monthly Review 60 (3): 91–111. Clark, Brett, and John Bellamy Foster. 2001. William Stanley Jevons and the Coal Question: An Introduction to Jevons’s ‘Of the Economy of Fuel. Organization & Environment 14 (1): 93–98. ———. 2009. Ecological Imperialism and the Global Metabolic Rift Unequal Exchange and the Guano/Nitrates Trade. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 311–334. ———. 2010. Marx’s Ecology in the 21st Century. World Review of Political Economy 1 (1): 142–156. Clark, Brett, and Richard York. 2005. Carbon Metabolism: Global Capitalism, Climate Change, and the Biospheric Rift. Theory and Society 34 (4): 391–428.

224 References

———. 2008. Rifts and Shifts: Getting to the Root of Environmental Crises. Monthly Review 60 (6): 13–24. Clarke, Bruce. 2010. Neocybernetics of Gaia: The Emergence of Second-Order Gaia Theory. In Gaia in Turmoil: Climate Change, Biodepletion, and Earth Ethics in an Age of Crisis, ed. B. Crist and H.B. Rinker, 293–314. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Clarke, Ronald V., and A. Rolf. 2013. Poaching, Habitat Loss and the Decline of Neotropical Parrots: A Comparative Spatial Analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology 9 (3): 333–353. Clausen, Rebecca, and Brett Clark. 2005. The Metabolic Rift and Marine Ecology: An Analysis of the Oceanic Crisis Within Capitalist Production. Organization & Environment 18 (4): 422–444. Clausen, Rebecca, and Richard York. 2008. Global Biodiversity Decline of Marine and Freshwater Fish: A Cross-national Analysis of Economic, Demographic, and Ecological Influences. Social Science Research 37 (4): 1310–1320. Clement, Matthew Thomas. 2011. The Jevons Paradox and Anthropogenic Global Warming: A Panel Analysis of State-level Carbon Emissions in the United States, 1963–1997. Society & Natural Resources 24 (9): 951–961. Cochran, Josh, Michael J. Lynch, Elisa Toman, and Ryan Shields. 2018. Court Sentencing Patterns for Environmental Crimes: Is There a “Green” Gap? Journal of Quantitative Criminology 34 (1): 37–66. Cohen, Andrew S., Roger Bills, Christine Z. Cocquyt, and A.G. Caljon. 1993. The Impact of Sediment Pollution on Biodiversity in Lake Tanganyika. Conservation Biology 7 (3): 667–677. Collins, James P. 2010. Amphibian Decline and Extinction: What We Know and What We Need to Learn. Diseases of Aquatic Organisms 92 (2–3): 93–99. Collins, James P., Martha L.  Crump, and Thomas E.  Lovejoy III. 2009. Extinction in our times: Global amphibian decline. New  York: Oxford University Press. Commons, John R. 1924 [2007]. Legal Foundations of Capitalism. New York: Macmillan. Cooke, Steven J. 2008. Biotelemetry and Biologging in Endangered Species Research and Animal Conservation: Relevance to Regional, National, and IUCN Red List Threat Assessments. Endangered Species Research 4 (1–2): 165–185. Costanza, Robert, Ralph d’Arge, Rudolf De Groot, Stephen Farber, Monica Grasso, Bruce Hannon, Karin Limburg, Shahid Naeem, Robert V. O’Neill, Jose Paruelo, Robert G. Raskin, Paul Sutton, and Marjan van den Belt. 1997. The Value of the World’s Ecosystem Services and Natural Capital. Nature 387 (6630): 253–260.

 References 

225

Crook, Martin, and Damien Short. 2014. Marx, Lemkin and the Genocide– ecocide Nexus. The International Journal of Human Rights 18 (3): 298–319. Crook, Martin, Damien Short, and Nigel South. 2018. Ecocide, Genocide, Capitalism and Colonialism: Consequences for Indigenous Peoples and Global Ecosystems Environments. Theoretical Criminology 22 (3): 298–317. Crow, Matthew S., Tara O’Connor Shelley, and Paul B.  Stretesky. 2013. Camouflage Collar Crime: An Examination of Wildlife Crime and Characteristics of Offenders in Florida. Deviant Behavior 34 (8): 635–652. Crutchfield, James P. 2012. Between Order and Chaos. Nature Physics 8 (1): 17–24. Daly, Herman E. 1991. Steady-state Economics: With New Essays. Washington, DC: Island Press. Damásio, Joana, Alícia Navarro-Ortega, Romà Tauler, Silvia Lacorte, Damià Barceló, Amadeu M.V.M. Soares, Miguel Angel López, Mari Carmen Riva, and Carlos Barata. 2010. Identifying Major Pesticides Affecting Bivalve Species Exposed to Agricultural Pollution Using Multi-biomarker and Multivariate Methods. Ecotoxicology 19 (6): 1084–1094. Dasgupta, Susmita, Benoit Laplante, Craig Meisner, David Wheeler, and Jianping Yan. 2009. The Impact of Sea Level Rise on Developing Countries: A Comparative Analysis. Climatic Change 93 (3–4): 379–388. Derezinski, Dan D., Michael G. Lacy, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2003. Chemical Accidents in the United States, 1990–1996. Social Science Quarterly 84 (1): 122–143. Devall, Bill. 1980. The Deep Ecology Movement. Natural Resources Journal 20 (April): 299–322. ———. 1991. Deep Ecology and Radical Environmentalism. Society & Natural Resources 4 (3): 247–258. de Wit, Cynthia A., Dorte Herzke, and Katrin Vorkamp. 2010. Brominated Flame Retardants in the Arctic Environment—Trends and New Candidates. Science of the Total Environment 408 (15): 2885–2918. Dickens, Peter. 2004. Society and Nature. Cambridge: Polity Press. Dinda, Soumyananda. 2004. Environmental Kuznets Curve Hypothesis: A Survey. Ecological Economics 49: 431–455. Ding, Yuping, Amanda D. Harwood, Heather M. Foslund, and Michael J. Lydy. 2010. Distribution and Toxicity of Sediment-associated Pesticides in Urban and Agricultural Waterways from Illinois, USA. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 29 (1): 149–157. Dona, Artemis, and Ioannis S. Arvanitoyannis. 2009. Health Risks of Genetically Modified Food. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 49 (2): 164–175.

226 References

Dorenbosch, M., W.C.E.P.  Verberk, I.  Nagelkerken, and G.  Van der Velde. 2007. Influence of Habitat Configuration on Connectivity Between Fish Assemblages of Caribbean Seagrass Beds, Mangroves and Coral Reefs. Marine Ecology Progress Series 334: 103–116. Doubleday, Nancy C. 1988. Aboriginal Subsistence Whaling: The Right of Inuit To Hunt Whales and Implications for International Environmental Law. Denver Journal of International Law and Policy 17: 373–394. Dunlap, Riley E. 1997. The Evolution of Environmental Sociology: A Brief History and Assessment of the American Experience. In The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, ed. M.  Redclift and G.  Woodgate’s, 21–39. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar. Durland, Karann. 2008. The Prospects of a Viable Biocentric Egalitarianism. Environmental Ethics 30 (4): 401–416. Eliason, Stephen. 2012. From the King’s Deer to a Capitalist Commodity: A Social Historical Analysis of the Poaching Law. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 36 (2): 133–148. Emmanuel, Arghiri. 1972. Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade. New York: Monthly Review Press. Faber, Daniel J., ed. 1998. The Struggle for Ecological Democracy: Environmental Justice Movements in the United States. New York: Guilford Press. Feely, Richard A., Scott C.  Doney, and Sarah R.  Cooley. 2009. Ocean Acidification: Present Conditions and Future Changes in a High-CO2 World. Oceanography 22 (4): 36–47. Field, Rodger C. 1997. Risk and Justice: Capitalist Production and the Environment. Capitalism Nature Socialism 8 (2): 69–94. Firestone, Jeremy, Jonathan Lilley, and Isabel Torres de Noronha. 2004. Cultural Diversity, Human Rights, and the Emergence of Indigenous Peoples in International and Comparative Environmental Law. American University International Law Review 20: 219–230. Fordham, Damien A., H. Resit Akçakaya, Miguel B. Araújo, Jane Elith, David A. Keith, Richard Pearson, Tony D. Auld, Camille Mellin, John W. Morgan, Tracey J.  Regan, Mark Tozer, Michael J.  Watts, Matthew White, Brendan A.  Wintle, Colin Yates, and Barry W.  Brook. 2012. Plant Extinction Risk Under Climate Change: Are Forecast Range Shifts Alone a Good Indicator of Species Vulnerability to Global Warming? Global Change Biology 18 (4): 1357–1371. Foster, John Bellamy. 1992. The Absolute General Law of Environmental Degradation Under Capitalism. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 3 (3): 77–82.

 References 

227

———. 1994. The Vulnerable Planet: A Short Economic History of the Environment. New York: Monthly Review Press. ———. 1997. The Crisis of the Earth: Marx’s Theory of Ecological Sustainability as a Nature-Imposed Necessity for Human Production. Organization & Environment 10 (3): 278–295. ———. 1999. Marx’s Theory of Metabolic Rift: Classical Foundations for Environmental Sociology. American Journal of Sociology 105 (2): 366–405. ———. 2000. Marx’s Ecology: Materialism and Nature. New  York: Monthly Review Press. ———. 2002. Marx’s Ecology in Historical Perspective. International Socialism 96: 71–86. ———. 2012. The Planetary Rift and the New Human Exemptionalism: A Political-Economic Critique of Ecological Modernization Theory. Organization & Environment 25 (3): 211–237. Foster, John Bellamy, and Paul Burkett. 2008. Classical Marxism and the Second Law of Thermodynamics: Marx/Engels, the Heat Death of the Universe Hypothesis, and the Origins of Ecological Economics. Organization & Environment 21 (1): 3–37. Foster, John Bellamy, and Brett Clark. 2004. Ecological Imperialism: The Curse of Capitalism. Socialist Register 40: 186–201. Foster, John Bellamy, Brett Clark, and Richard York. 2010a. The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth. New York: New York University Press. ———. 2010b. Capitalism and the Curse of Energy Efficiency: The Return of the Jevons Paradox. Monthly Review 62 (6): 1–12. Foster, John Bellamy, and Hannah Holleman. 2014. The Theory of Unequal Ecological Exchange: A Marx-Odum Dialectic. Journal of Peasant Studies 41 (2): 199–233. Frank, Andre Gunder. 1979. Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment. New York: Monthly Review Press. Frank, Nancy, and Michael J. Lynch. 1992. Corporate Crime, Corporate Violence. Albany, NY: Harrow & Heston. Freire, Paulo. 1968. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum. Frey, R. Scott. 2003. The Transfer of Core-based Hazardous Production Processes to the Export Processing Zones of the Periphery: The Maquiladora Centers of Northern Mexico. Journal of World-Systems Research 9 (2): 317–354. Friedmann, Harriet. 1993. The Political Economy of Food: A Global Crisis. New Left Review 197: 29–57. Gedicks, Al. 2003. Resource Wars Against Native Peoples in Colombia. Capitalism Nature Socialism 14 (2): 85–111.

228 References

Geiger, Flavia, Jan Bengtsson, Frank Berendse, Wolfgang W.  Weisser, Mark Emmerson, Manuel B. Morales, Piotr Ceryngier, Jaan Liira, Teja Tscharntke, Camilla Winqvist, Sonke Eggers, Riccardo Bommarco, Tomas Part, Vincent Bretagnolle, Mauel Plantegenest, Lars W.  Clement, Christopher Dennis, Catherine Palmer, Juan J.  Onate, Irene Guerrero, Violetta Hawro, Tsipe Aavik, Carsten Thies, Andreas Flohre, Sebastian Hanke, Christina Fischer, Paul W. Goedhart, and Pablo Inchausti. 2010. Persistent Negative Effects of Pesticides on Biodiversity and Biological Control Potential on European Farmland. Basic and Applied Ecology 11 (2): 97–105. Gibson, William E., ed. 2004. Eco-justice--the Unfinished Journey. Albany, NY: SUNY Press. Giljum, Stefan, and Nina Eisenmenger. 2004. North-South Trade and the Distribution of Environmental Goods and Burdens: A Biophysical Perspective. The Journal of Environment & Development 13 (1): 73–100. Godley, B.J., J.M.  Blumenthal, A.C.  Broderick, M.S.  Coyne, M.H.  Godfrey, L.A. Hawkes, and M.J. Witt. 2008. Satellite Tracking of Sea Turtles: Where Have We Been and Where Do We Go Next. Endangered Species Research 4 (1–2): 3–22. Goldman, Michael, and Rachel A. Schuman. 2000. Closing the ‘Great Divide’: New Social Theory on Nature and Society. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 563–584. Goldstein, Gregg. 2004. Legal System and Wildlife Conservation: History and the Law’s Effect on Indigenous People and Community Conservation in Tanzania. Georgetown International Environmental Law Review 17: 481–515. Golley, Frank B. 1987. Deep Ecology from the Perspective of Environmental Science. Environmental Ethics 9 (1): 45–55. Götz, Rainer, Volker Sokollek, and Roland Weber. 2013. The Dioxin/POPs Legacy of Pesticide Production in Hamburg: Part 2—Waste Deposits and Remediation of Georgswerder Landfill. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 20 (4): 1925–1936. Gould, K.A., D.N. Pellow, and A. Schnaiberg. 2008. The Treadmill of Production. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Goyes, David Rodríguez, and Nigel South. 2017. Green Criminology Before ‘Green Criminology’: Amnesia and Absences. Critical Criminology 25 (2): 165–181. Graham, N.A.J., N.K.  Dulvy, S.  Jennings, and N.V.C.  Polunin. 2005. SizeSpectra as Indicators of the Effects of Fishing on Coral Reef Fish Assemblages. Coral Reefs 24 (1): 118–124.

 References 

229

Graham, Nicholas A.J., Pascale Chabanet, Richard D. Evans, Simon Jennings, Letourneur Yves, M.  Aaron MacNeil, Tim R.  McClanahan, Marcus C. Öhman, Nicholas V.C.  Polunin, and Shaun K.  Wilson. 2011. Extinction Vulnerability of Coral Reef Fishes. Ecology Letters 14 (4): 341–348. Graham, Pamela Louise, Eilish Crilley, Paul B. Stretesky, Michael A. Long, Katie Jane Palmer, Eileen Steinbock, and Margaret Anne Defeyter. 2016. Holiday Clubs in the UK: A Qualitative Investigation of Needs, Benefits and Potential Development. Frontiers in Public Health 4: 172. https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpubh.2016.00172. Gray, John S. 1997. Marine Biodiversity: Patterns, Threats and Conservation Needs. Biodiversity & Conservation 6 (1): 153–175. Green, Penny, Tony Ward, and Kirsten McConnachie. 2007. Logging and Legality: Environmental Crime, Civil Society, and the State. Social Justice 34 (2): 94–110. Grimes, Peter E., and Jeffrey Kentor. 2003. Exploring the Greenhouse: Foreign Capital Penetration and CO2 Emissions, 1980–1996. Journal of World Systems Research IX (2): 261–275. Grossman, Gene M., and Alan B.  Krueger. 1991. Environmental Impact of a North American Free Trade Agreement. Working Paper 3914. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/ w3914. Accessed 7 April 2014. ———. 1995. Economic Growth and the Environment. Quarterly Journal of Economics 60: 353–377. Guarino, Ben. 2016. Thousands of Montana Snow Geese Die after Landing in Toxic, Acid Mine Pit. The Washington Post. December 7. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/12/07/montana-snowgeese-searching-for-pond-land-in-toxic-mine-pit-thousands-die/?utm_ term=.87db1b0927bc. Gutiérrez-Gómez, Laura. 2017. Mining in Colombia: Tracing the Harm of Neoliberal Policies and Practices. In Environmental Crime in Latin America: The Theft of Nature and the Poisoning of the Land, ed. D.R. Goyes, H. Mole, A. Brisman, and N. South, 85–113. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Gunderson, Ryan. 2011. Marx’s Comments on Animal Welfare. Rethinking Marxism 23 (4): 543–548. ———. 2013. From Cattle to Capital: Exchange Value, Animal Commodification, and Barbarism. Critical Sociology 39 (2): 259–275. Haines, Andy, R.  Sari Kovats, Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, and Carlos Corvalán. 2006. Climate Change and Human Health: Impacts, Vulnerability and Public Health. Public Health 120 (7): 585–596.

230 References

Hall, Thomas D., and James V.  Fenelon. 2015. Indigenous Peoples and Globalization: Resistance and Revitalization. London: Routledge. Halsey, Mark. 2004. Against ‘Green’ Criminology. British Journal of Criminology 44 (6): 833–853. Hames, Ralph S., Kenneth V. Rosenberg, James D. Lowe, Sara E. Barker, and André A. Dhondt. 2002. Adverse Effects of Acid Rain on the Distribution of the Wood Thrush Hylocichla Mustelina in North America. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99 (17): 11235–11240. Hansen, Christian Pilegaard, and Thorsten Treue. 2008. Assessing Illegal Logging in Ghana. International Forestry Review 10 (4): 573–590. Hansen, James, Makiko Sato, Pushker Kharecha, David Beerling, Robert Berner, Valerie Masson-Delmotte, Mark Pagani, Maureen Raymo, Dana L. Royer, and James C.  Zachos. 2008. Target Atmospheric CO2: Where Should Humanity Aim? Atmospheric and Oceanic Physics 2: 217–231. Hiskes, Richard P. 2005. The Right to a Green Future: Human Rights, Environmentalism and Intergenerational Justice. Human Rights Quarterly 27: 1346–1354. Hitchcock, Robert K. 1994. International Human Rights, the Environment, and Indigenous Peoples. Colorado Journal of International Environmental Law and Policy 5: 1–22. Hoegh-Guldberg, Ove, and John F.  Bruno. 2010. The Impact of Climate Change on the World’s Marine Ecosystems. Science 328 (5985): 1523–1528. Hoegh-Guldberg, O., P.J.  Mumby, A.J.  Hooten, R.S.  Steneck, P.  Greenfield, E. Gomez, C.D. Harvell, P.F. Sale, A.J. Edwards, K. Caldeira, N. Knowlton, C.M. Eakin, R. Iglesias-Prieto, N. Muthiga, R.H. Bradbury, A. Dubi, and M.E. Hatziolos. 2007. Coral Reefs Under Rapid Climate Change and Ocean Acidification. Science 318 (5857): 1737–1742. Hoffmann, John P. 2004. Social and Environmental Influences on Endangered Species: A Cross-national Study. Sociological Perspectives 47 (1): 79–107. Hohl, Andreas, and Clement Allan Tisdell. 1992. How Useful are Environmental Safety Standards in Economics?: The Example of Safe Minimum Standards for Protection of Species. University of Queensland, Department of Economics. ———. 1993. How Useful Are Environmental Safety Standards in Economics?—The Example of Safe Minimum Standards for Protection of Species. Biodiversity & Conservation 2 (2): 168–181. Holdaway, R.N., and C. Jacomb. 2000. Rapid Extinction of the Moas (Aves: Dinornithiformes): Model, Tests and Implications. Science 287 (5461): 2250–2254.

 References 

231

Holland, Tim G., Garry D. Peterson, and Andrew Gonzalez. 2009. A CrossNational Analysis of How Economic Inequality Predicts Biodiversity Loss. Conservation Biology 23 (5): 1304–1313. Hornborg, Alf. 1998. Towards an Ecological Theory of Unequal Exchange: Articulating World System Theory and Ecological Economics. Ecological Economics 25 (1): 127–136. ———. 2006. Footprints in the Cotton Fields: The Industrial Revolution as Time–space Appropriation and Environmental Load Displacement. Ecological Economics 59 (1): 74–81. ———. 2009. Zero-sum World: Challenges in Conceptualizing Environmental Load Displacement and Ecologically Unequal Exchange in the World-system. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3-4): 237–262. ———. 2014. Ecological Economics, Marxism, and Technological Progress: Some Explorations of the Conceptual Foundations of Theories of Ecologically Unequal Exchange. Ecological Economics 105: 11–18. Huey, Raymond B., Jonathan B. Losos, and Craig Mortiz. 2010. Are Lizards Toast? Science 328 (5980): 832–833. Hunter, Christine M., Hal Caswell, Michael C. Runge, Eric V. Regehr, Steve C. Amstrup, and Ian Stirling. 2010. Climate Change Threatens Polar Bear Populations: A Stochastic Demographic Analysis. Ecology 91 (10): 2883–2897. International Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Radiative Forcing. Working Group I: The Scientific Basis. http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_ tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/214.htm#611. Accessed Sep 2013. Jablonski, D. 1995. Extinctions in the Fossil Record. In Extinction Rates, ed. J.H. Lawton and R.M. May’a, 25–44. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jantz, Samuel M., Brian Barker, Thomas M. Brooks, Louise P. Chini, Qiongyu Huang, Rachel M. Moore, Jacob Noel, and George C. Hurtt. 2015. Future Habitat Loss and Extinctions Driven by Land-use Change in Biodiversity Hotspots Under Four Scenarios of Climate-change Mitigation. Conservation Biology 29 (4): 1122–1131. Jevons, W. Stanley. 1866 [1906]. The Coal Question: An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal-mines. New York: Macmillan. Johnson, Hope, and Reece Walters. 2014. Food Security. In The Handbook of Security, ed. M. Gill’s, 404–426. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Jorgenson, Andrew K. 2003. Consumption and Environmental Degradation: A Cross-national Analysis of the Ecological Footprint. Social Problems 50 (3): 374–394.

232 References

———. 2006a. Unequal Ecological Exchange and Environmental Degradation: A Theoretical Proposition and Cross-National Study of Deforestation, 1990– 2000. Rural Sociology 71 (4): 685–712. ———. 2006b. Global Warming and the Neglected Greenhouse Gas: A Crossnational Study of the Social Causes of Methane Emissions Intensity, 1995. Social Forces 84 (3): 1779–1798. ———. 2007. Foreign Direct Investment and Pesticide Use Intensity in LessDeveloped Countries: A Quantitative Investigation. Society and Natural Resources 20: 73–83. ———. 2011. Carbon Dioxide Emissions in Central and Eastern European Nations, 1992–2005: A Test of Ecologically Unequal Exchange Theory. Human Ecology Review 18 (2): 105–114. Jorgenson, Andrew K., Kelly Austin, and Christopher Dick. 2009. Ecologically Unequal Exchange and the Resource Consumption/Environmental Degradation Paradox A Panel Study of Less-Developed Countries, 1970— 2000. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 263–284. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Thomas J.  Burns. 2007. The Political-economic Causes of Change in the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1991–2001: A Quantitative Investigation. Social Science Research 36 (2): 834–853. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Brett Clark. 2010. Assessing the Temporal Stability of the Population/environment Relationship in Comparative Perspective: A Cross-National Panel Study of Carbon Dioxide Emissions, 1960–2005. Population and Environment 32 (1): 27–41. ———. 2011. Societies Consuming Nature: A Panel Study of the Ecological Footprints of Nations, 1960–2003. Social Science Research 40 (1): 226–244. ———. 2012. Are the Economy and the Environment Decoupling? A Comparative International Study, 1960–20051. American Journal of Sociology 118 (1): 1–44. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and Kennon A.  Kuykendall. 2008. Globalization, Foreign Investment Dependence and Agriculture Production: Pesticide and Fertilizer Use in Less-developed Countries, 1990–2000. Social Forces 87 (1): 529–560. Jorgenson, Andrew K., and James Rice. 2005. Structural Dynamics of International Trade and Material Consumption: A Cross-national Study of the Ecological Footprints of Less-developed Countries. Journal of WorldSystems Research 11 (1): 57–77. Jorgenson, Andrew K., James Rice, and Brett Clark. 2010. Cities, Slums, and Energy Consumption in Less Developed Countries, 1990 to 2005. Organization & Environment 23 (2): 189–204.

 References 

233

Jorgenson, Andrew, Juliet Schor, and Xiaorui Huang. 2017. Income Inequality and Carbon Emissions in the United States: A State-level Analysis, 1997– 2012. Ecological Economics 134: 40–48. Jorgenson, Andrew K., Juliet B.  Schor, Kyle W.  Knight, and Xiaorui Huang. 2016. Domestic Inequality and Carbon Emissions in Comparative Perspective. Sociological Forum 31 (S1): 770–786. Kaika, Dimitra, and Efthimios Zervas. 2013a. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Theory—Part A: Concept, Causes and the CO2 Emissions Case. Energy Policy 62: 1392–1402. ———. 2013b. The Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) Theory. Part B: Critical Issues. Energy Policy 62: 1403–1411. Kalantzakos, Sophia. 2017. River Rights and the Rights of Rivers. RCC Perspectives 6: 45–52. Kearns, Laurel. 1996. Saving the Creation: Christian Environmentalism in the United States. Sociology of Religion 57 (1): 55–70. Kentor, Jeffrey, and Andrew K.  Jorgenson. 2010. Foreign Investment and Development: An Organizational Perspective. International Sociology 25 (3): 419–441. Kiessling, Wolfgang, Martin Aberhan, Benjamin Brenneis, and Peter J. Wagner. 2007. Extinction Trajectories of Benthic Organisms Across the Triassic– Jurassic Boundary. Palaeogeography, Palaeoclimatology, Palaeoecology 244 (1): 201–222. Kim, Jungkon, Jeongim Park, Pan-Gyi Kim, Chulwoo Lee, Kyunghee Choi, and Kyungho Choi. 2010. Implication of Global Environmental Changes on Chemical Toxicity-effect of Water Temperature, pH, and Ultraviolet B Irradiation on Acute Toxicity of Several Pharmaceuticals in Daphnia Magna. Ecotoxicology 19 (4): 662–669. Kirchner, James W. 2002. The Gaia Hypothesis: Fact, Theory, and Wishful Thinking. Climatic Change 52 (4): 391–408. ———. 2003. The Gaia Hypothesis: Conjectures and Refutations. Climatic Change 58 (1-2): 21–45. Kohlberg, Lawrence. 1970. Stages of Moral Development. In Moral Education, ed. T. Lickona, 23–92. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Kosmicki, Sarah, and Michael A.  Long. 2016. Exploring Environmental Inequality within US Communities Containing Coal and Nuclear Power Plants. In Hazardous Waste and Pollution: Detecting and Preventing Green Crimes, ed. T. Wyatt, 79–100. New York: Springer.

234 References

Krausmann, Fridolin, and Helmut Haberl. 2002. The Process of Industrialization from the Perspective of Energetic Metabolism: Socioeconomic Energy Flows in Austria 1830–1995. Ecological Economics 41 (2): 177–201. Krugman, Paul. 1981. Trade, Accumulation, and Uneven Development. Journal of Development Economics 8 (2): 149–161. Lammer, Helmut, J.H.  Bredehöft, A.  Coustenis, M.L.  Khodachenko, L.  Kaltenegger, O.  Grasset, D.  Prieuret, F.  Raulin, P.  Ehrenfreund, M. Yamauchi, J.E. Wahlund, J.M. Grebmeier, G. Stangl, C.S. Cockell, Yu N.  Kulikov, J.L.  Grenfell, and H.  Rauer. 2009. What Makes a Planet Habitable? The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 17 (2): 181–249. Lau, Lin-Sea, Chee-Keong Choong, and Yoke-Kee Eng. 2014. Investigation of the Environmental Kuznets Curve for Carbon Emissions in Malaysia: Do Foreign Direct Investment and Trade Matter? Energy Policy 68: 490–497. Layfield, David. 2008. Marxism and Environmental Crises. Bury Street Edmunds, UK: Arena Books. LeCain, Timothy James. 2013. An Impure Nature: Memory and the NeoMaterialist Flip at America’s Biggest Toxic Superfund Site. Global Environment 6 (11): 16–41. Lee, Tien Ming, and Walter Jetz. 2011. Unravelling the Structure of Species Extinction Risk for Predictive Conservation Science. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 278 (1710): 1329–1338. Leech, Brian James. 2018. The City That Ate Itself: Butte, Montana and Its Expanding Berkeley Pit. Las Vegas: University of Nevada Press. Lemieux, Andrew M., and Ronald V. Clarke. 2009. The International Ban on Ivory Sales and Its Effects on Elephant Poaching in Africa. British Journal of Criminology 49 (4): 451–471. Lemly, A. Dennis, and Joseph P. Skorupa. 2012. Wildlife and the Coal Waste Policy Debate: Proposed Rules for Coal Waste Disposal Ignore Lessons from 45 Years of Wildlife Poisoning. Environmental Science & Technology 46 (16): 8595–8600. Lenton, Timothy M. 2002. Testing Gaia: The Effect of Life on Earth’s Habitability and Regulation. Climatic Change 52 (4): 409–422. Lenton, Timothy M., and James E. Lovelock. 2000. Daisyworld Is Darwinian: Constraints on Adaptation Are Important for Planetary Self-regulation. Journal of Theoretical Biology 206 (1): 109–114. Lenton, Timothy M., and Marcel van Oijen. 2002a. Gaia as a Complex Adaptive System. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 357 (1421): 683–695. ———. 2002b. Gaia as a Complex Adaptive System. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences 357 (1421): 683–695.

 References 

235

Letcher, Robert J., Jan Ove Bustnes, Rune Dietz, Bjørn M.  Jenssen, Even H. Jørgensen, Christian Sonne, Jonathan Verreault, Mathilakath M. Vijayan, and Geir W. Gabrielsen. 2010. Exposure and Effects Assessment of Persistent Organohalogen Contaminants in Arctic Wildlife and Fish. Science of the Total Environment 408 (15): 2995–3043. Lighty, JoAnn, John M.  Vernth, and Adel F.  Sarofin. 2000. Combustion Aerosols: Factors Governing Their Size, and Composition and Implication to Human Health. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 50 (9): 1565–1618. Liu, Yi, Gara Villalba, Robert U.  Ayres, and Hans Schroder. 2008. Global Phosphorous Flows and Environmental Impacts from a Consumption Perspective. Journal of Industrial Ecology 12 (2): 229–247. Llacuna, S., A. Gorriz, M. Durfort, and J. Nadal. 1993. Effects of Air Pollution on Passerine Birds and Small Mammals. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 24 (1): 59–66. Lomolino, Mark V., Rob Channell, David R. Perault, and Gregory A. Smith. 2001. Downsizing Nature: Anthropogenic Dwarfing of Species and Ecosystems. In Biotic Homogenization, ed. J. Lockwood and M. McKinney’s, 223–243. New York: Springer. Long, Michael A., and Michael J. Lynch. 2018. Food Waste (Non)Regulation. In A Handbook of Food Crime: Immoral and Illegal Practices in the Food Industry and What to Do About Them, ed. Allison Gray and Ron Hinch. Bristol: Policy Press. Long, Michael A., Michael J.  Lynch, and Paul B.  Stretesky. 2018. The Great Recession, the Treadmill of Production and Ecological Disorganization: Did the Recession Affect Ecological Disorganization Across US States, 2005– 2014? Ecological Economics 146: 184–192. Long, Michael A., Paul B. Stretesky, and Michael J. Lynch. 2014. The Treadmill of Production, Planetary Boundaries and Green Criminology. In Environmental Crime and Its Victims, ed. T.  Sapiens, Rob White, and M. Kluin’s. Devon, UK: Ashgate. ———. 2017. Foreign Direct Investment, Ecological Withdrawals and Natural Resource Dependent Economies. Society & Natural Resources 30 (10): 1261–1276. Long, Michael A., Paul B.  Stretesky, Michael J.  Lynch, and Emily Fenwick. 2012. Crime in the Coal Industry: Implications for Green Criminology and Treadmill of Production Theory. Organization & Environment 25 (3): 299–316.

236 References

Longo, Stefano, and Richard York. 2008. Agricultural Exports and the Environment: A Cross-national Study of Fertilizer and Pesticide Consumption. Rural Sociology 73 (1): 82–104. Lovelock, James. 2006. The Revenge of Gaia: Earth’s Climate Crisis & the Fate of Humanity. New York: Basic Books. ———. 2009. The Vanishing Face of Gaia. New York: Basic Books. Lovelock, James E., and Lynn Margulis. 1974. Atmospheric Homeostasis by and for the Biosphere: The Gaia Hypothesis. Tellus 26 (1–2): 2–10. Lovett, Gary M., Timothy H. Tear, David C. Evers, Stuart E.G. Findlay, B. Jack Cosby, Judy K. Dunscomb, Charles T. Driscoll, and Kathleen C. Weathers. 2009. Effects of Airpollution on Ecosystems and Biological Diversity in the Eastern United States. Annals of the New  York Academy of Sciences 1162 (1): 99–135. Lundqvist, J., C. de Fraiture, and D. Molden. 2008. Saving Water: From Field to Fork  – Curbing Losses and Wastage in the Food Chain. SIWI Policy Brief. Stockholm, Sweden: SIWI. Lynch, Michael J. 1990. The Greening of Criminology: A Perspective for the 1990s. The Critical Criminologist 2 (3): 3–4–11–12. ———. 2000. The Power of Oppression: Toward Understanding The History of Criminology as a Science of Oppression. Critical Criminology. 9 (1–2): 144–152. ———. 2013. Reflecting on Green Criminology and Its Boundaries: Comparing Environmental and Criminal Victimization and Considering Crime from an Eco-City Perspective. In The Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology, ed. N. South and A. Brisman, 43–57. London: Routledge. ———. 2015. The Classless State of Criminology and Why Criminology without Class Is Rather Meaningless. Crime, Law and Social Change. 63 (1): 65–90. ———. 2016a. A Marxian Interpretation of the Environmental Kuznets Curve: Global Capitalism and the Rise, Fall (and rise) of Pollution. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 27 (4): 77–95. ———. 2016b. Green Criminology and Social Justice: A Reexamination of the Lynemouth Plant Closing and the Political Economic Causes of Environmental and Social Injustice. Critical Sociology. 43 (3): 449–464. ———. 2016c. The Ecological Distribution of Community Advantage and Disadvantage: Power Structures, Political Economy, Communities, and Green-state Crime and Justice. Critical Criminology. 24 (2): 247–262. Lynch, Michael J., Kimberly L. Barrett, Paul B. Stretesky, and Michael A. Long. 2017a. The Neglect of Quantitative Research in Green Criminology and its Consequences. Critical Criminology 25 (2): 183–198.

 References 

237

Lynch, Michael J., and Lyndsay N. Boggess. 2015. Ecocities, Crime and Justice: The Implication of Ecocity Theory for Social Disorganization Theory and Green Criminology. Sociological Spectrum 35: 309–328. ———. 2016. A Radical Grounding for Social Disorganization Theory: Investigating the Causes of Poverty and Inequality. Radical Criminology 6: 11–69. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, Kimberly L. Barrett, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2013. Is It a Crime to Produce Ecological Disorganization? Why Green Criminology and Political Economy Matter in the Analysis of Global Ecological Harms. British Journal of Criminology 55 (3): 997–1016. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, and Paul B. Stretesky. 2015. Anthropogenic Development Drives Species to be Endangered: Capitalism and the Decline of Species. In Green Harms and Crimes: Critical Criminology in a Changing World, ed. R.A. Sollund, 117–146. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Lynch, Michael J., Michael A. Long, Paul B. Stretesky, and Kimberly A. Barrett. 2017b. Green Criminology: Crime, Justice and the Environment. Oakland, CA: University of California Press. Lynch, Michael J., Mahesh K. Nalla, and Keith W. Miller. 1989. Cross Cultural Perceptions of Deviance: The Case of Bhopal. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 26 (1): 7–35. Lynch, Michael J., and Paul B. Stretesky. 1998. Uniting Class and Race with Criticism Through the Study of Environmental Justice. The Critical Criminologist 1 (Fall): 4–7. ———. 1999. Clarifying the Analysis of Environmental Justice: Further Thoughts on the Critical Analysis of Environmental Justice Issues. The Critical Criminologist 9 (3): 5–8. ———. 2003. The Meaning of Green: Contrasting Criminological Perspectives. Theoretical Criminology. 7 (2): 217–238. ———. 2010. Global Warming, Global Crime: A Green Criminological Analysis. In Global Environmental Harm and the Greening of Criminology, ed. R. White, 62–86. Cullompton, Devon, UK: Willan Publishing. ———. 2012a. Native Americans, Social and Environmental Justice: Implications for Criminology. Social Justice 38 (3): 34–54. ———. 2012b. A Proposal for a New Vehicle Based Carbon Tax: Vehicle Based Global Warming and Criminology. In Climate Change from a Criminological Perspective, ed. R. White’s. New York: Springer. ———. 2013a. The Distribution of Water-Monitoring Organizations Across States: Implications for Community Policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 36 (1): 6–26.

238 References

———. 2013b. Native Americans, Environmental Harms and Justice. In Handbook: American-Indians at Risk, ed. J.I.  Ross. Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO-Greenwood. ———. 2014. Exploring Green Criminology: Toward a Green Revolution in Criminology. Farnham, Surrey, UK: Ashgate. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky, and Ronald G. Burns. 2004a. Determinants of Environmental Law Violation Fines Against Oil Refineries: Race, Ethnicity, Income and Aggregation Effects. Society and Natural Resources. 17 (4): 333–347. ———. 2004b. Slippery Business: Race, Class and Legal Determinants of Penalties Against Petroleum Refineries. Journal of Black Studies 34 (3): 421–440. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B. Stretesky, and Paul Hammond. 2000. Media Coverage of Chemical Crimes: Hillsborough County, Florida, 1987–1997. British Journal of Criminology. 40 (1): 112–126. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B.  Stretesky, and Michael A.  Long. 2015a. Defining Crime: A Critique of Criminology. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ———. 2015b. Environmental Justice: A Criminological Perspective. Environmental Research Letters 10 (8): 085008. ———. 2016. A Proposal for the Political Economy of Green Criminology: Capitalism and the Case of the Alberta Tar Sands. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice 58 (2): 137–160. ———. 2018a. Green Criminology and Indigenous/Native Peoples: The Treadmill of Production and the Killing of Indigenous Environmental Activists. Theoretical Criminology 22 (3): 318–341. ———. 2018b. Blaming the Poor for Biodiversity Loss: Environmental Justice and the Study of Poaching and Wildlife Trafficking. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice 25 (3): 263–275. Lynch, Michael J., Paul B.  Stretesky, and Danielle McGurrin. 2001. Toxic Crimes and Environmental Justice. In Controversies in White Collar Crime, ed. G. Potter’s. Cincinnati: Anderson. Lynch, Michael J., Ronald G.  Burns, and Paul B.  Stretesky. 2010. Global Warming as a State-Corporate Crime: The Politicalization of Global Warming During the Bush Administration. Crime, Law and Social Change 54 (3): 213–239. Macleod, N., P.F.  Rawson, P.L.  Forey, F.T.  Banner, M.K.  Boudagher-Fadel, P.R.  Bown, J.A.  Burnett, P.  Chambers, S.  Culver, S.E.  Evans, C.  Jeffery,

 References 

239

M.A. Kaminski, A.R. Lord, A.C. Milner, A.R. Milner, N. Morris, E. Owen, B.R. Rosen, A.B. Smith, P.D. Taylor, E. Urquhart, and J.R. Young. 1997. The Cretaceous-Tertiary biotic transition. Journal of the Geological Society 154 (2): 265–292. Martin, Lynn B., William A. Hopkins, Laura D. Mydlarz, and Jason R. Rohr. 2010. The effects of anthropogenic global changes on immune functions and disease resistance. Annals of the New  York Academy of Sciences 1195 (1): 129–148. Marx, Karl. 1842. Debates on the Law on Theft of Wood, Rheinische Zeitung, 298, 300, 303, 305 and 307. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/ download/Marx_Rheinishe_Zeitung.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2018. McCallum, Malcolm L. 2007. Amphibian Decline or Extinction? Current Declines Dwarf Background Extinction Rate. Journal of Herpetology 41 (3): 483–491. McElwain, J.C., and S.W. Punyasena. 2007. Mass Extinction Events and the Plant Fossil Record. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 22 (10): 548–557. McGhee, George R. 1996. The Late Devonian Mass Extinctions: The Frasnian/ Famennian Crisis. New York: Columbia University Press. McKinney, Laura A., Edward L. Kick, and Gregory M. Fulkerson. 2010. World System, Anthropogenic, and Ecological Threats to Bird and Mammal Species: A Structural Equation Analysis of Biodiversity Loss. Organization & Environment 23 (1): 3–31. McKinney, Melissa A., Elizabeth Peacock, and Robert J. Letcher. 2009. Sea Iceassociated Diet Change Increases the Levels of Chlorinated and Brominated Contaminants in Polar Bears. Environmental Science & Technology 43 (12): 4334–4339. McLaughlin, S.B., R.K. McConathy, D. Duvick, and L.K. Mann. 1982. Effects of Chronic Air Pollution Stress on Photosynthesis, Carbon Allocation, and Growth of White Pine Trees. Forest Science 28 (1): 60–70. McMichael, Philip. 2009. A Food Regime Genealogy. Journal of Peasant Studies 36 (1): 139–169. McNeely, Jeffrey A. 1992. The Sinking Ark: Pollution and the Worldwide Loss of Biodiversity. Biodiversity & Conservation 1 (1): 2–18. Meadows, Donella, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows. 2004. Limits to Growth: The 30-year Update. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

240 References

Mendelsohn, Robert, Ariel Dinar, and Larry Williams. 2006. The Distributional Impact of Climate Change on Rich and Poor Countries. Environment and Development Economics 11 (2): 159–178. Mercer, Edwina V., Theresa G. Mercer, and Alexander K. Sayok. 2013. Effects of Forest Conversions to Oil Palm Plantations on Freshwater Macroinvertebrates: A Case Study from Sarawak, Malaysia. Journal of Land Use Science 8 (4): 227–245. Merchant, Carolyn. 2005. Radical Ecology: The Search for a Livable World. New York: Routledge. Mills, C.  Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New  York: Oxford University Press. Mohai, Paul, David Pellow, and J.  Timmons Roberts. 2009. Environmental Justice. Annual Review of Environment and Resources 34: 405–430. Mol, Hanneke. 2017. Agro-Industry Expansion Through “Strategic Alliances”: The Shifting Dynamics of Palm Oil-Related Dispossession. In Environmental Crime in Latin America: The Theft of Nature and the Poisoning of the Land, ed. D.R.  Goyes, H.  Mole, A.  Brisman, and N.  South, 163–186. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Moloney, Christopher J., and William J.  Chambliss. 2014. Slaughtering the Bison, Controlling Native Americans: A State Crime and Green Criminology Synthesis. Critical Criminology 22 (3): 319–338. Monfreda, Chad, Mathis Wackernagel, and Diana Deumling. 2004. Establishing National Natural Capital Accounts Based on Detailed Ecological Footprint and Biological Capacity Assessments. Land Use Policy 21 (3): 231–246. Moore, Jason W. 2000. Environmental Crises and the Metabolic Rift in World-­ Historical Perspective. Organization & Environment 13: 123–158. ———. 2001. Marx’s Ecology and the Environmental History of World Capitalism. Capitalism, Nature, Socialism 12 (3): 134–139. ———. 2002. The Crisis of Feudalism: An Environmental History. Organization & Environment 15 (3): 296–317. ———. 2003. The Modern World-System as Environmental History: Ecology and the Rise of Capitalism. Theory and Society 32 (3): 307–377. ———. 2011. Transcending the Metabolic Rift: Towards a Theory of Crises in the Capitalist World-Ecology. Journal of Peasant Studies 38 (1): 1–46. Moran, D.D., M.C. Wackernagel, J.A. Kitzes, B.W. Heumann, D. Phan, and S.H.  Goldfinger. 2008. Trading Spaces: Calculating Embodied Ecological Footprints in International Trade Using a Product Land Use Matrix (PLUM). Ecological Economics 68: 1938–1951.

 References 

241

Naess, Arne. 1973. The Shallow and the Deep, Long-range Ecology Movement. A Summary. Inquiry 16 (1–4): 95–100. Ngoc, Anh Cao, and Tanya Wyatt. 2013. A Green Criminological Exploration of Illegal Wildlife Trade in Vietnam. Asian Journal of Criminology 8 (2): 1–14. Noyes, Pamela D., Matthew K. McElwee, Hilary D. Miller, Bryan W. Clark, Lindsey A. Van Tiem, Kia C. Walcott, Kyle N. Erwin, and Edward D. Levin. 2009. The Toxicology of Climate Change: Environmental Contaminants in a Warming World. Environment International 35 (6): 971–986. Nurse, Angus. 2016. Beyond the Property Debate: Animal Welfare as a Public Good. Contemporary Justice Review 19 (2): 174–187. O’Connor, James R. 1998. Natural causes: Essays in Ecological Marxism. New York: Guilford Press. O’Donnell, Erin L. 2018. At the Intersection of the Sacred and the Legal: Rights for Nature in Uttarakhand, India. Journal of Environmental Law 30 (1): 135–144. O’Neill, Catherine A. 2000. Variable Justice: Environmental Standards, Contaminated Fish, and Acceptable Risk to Native Peoples. Stanford Environmental Law Journal 19: 3–32. Oehlmann, Jörg, Ulrike Schulte-Oehlmann, Werner Kloas, Oana Jagnytsch, Ilka Lutz, Kresten O. Kusk, Leah Wollenberger, Eduarda M. Santos, Gregory Paull, Katrien J.W. Van Look, and Charles R. Tyler. 2009. A Critical Analysis of the Biological Impacts of Plasticizers on Wildlife. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 364 (1526): 2047–2062. Olson, Valerie, and Lisa Messeri. 2015. Beyond the Anthropocene: Un-Earthing an Epoch. Environment and Society: Advances in Research 6 (1): 28–47. Opotow, Susan, and Susan Clayton. 1994. Green Justice: Conceptions of Fairness and the Natural World. Journal of Social Issues 50 (3): 1–11. Orr, James C., Victoria J. Fabry, Olivier Aumont, Laurent Bopp, Scott C. Doney, Richard A.  Feely, Anand Gnanadesikan, Nicolas Gruber, Akio Ishida, Fortunat Joos, Robert M. Key, Keith Lindsay, Ernst Maier-Reimer, Richard Matear, Patrick Monfray, Anne Mouchet, Raymond G. Najjar, Gian-Kasper Plattner, Keith B. Rodgers, Christopher L. Sabine, Jorge L. Sarmiento, Reiner Schlitzer, Richard D. Slater, Ian J. Totterdell, Marie-France Weirig, Yasuhiro Yamanaka, and Andrew Yool. 2005. Anthropogenic Ocean Acidification Over the Twenty-first Century and Its Impact on Calcifying Organisms. Nature 437 (7059): 681–686. Orton, David. 2014a [1998]. Left Biocentrism Primer. http://home.ca.inter. net/~greenweb/lbprimer.htm. Accessed 15 Jan 2014.

242 References

———. 2014b [1994]. Envirosocialism: Contradiction or Promise? http:// home.ca.inter.net/~greenweb/Envirosocialism.html and/or http://ecotopianetwork.wordpress.com/2010/06/25/a-left-biocentrism-primer-mypath-to-left-biocentrism-part-1-by-david-orton/. Accessed 15 Jan 2014. Ozymy, Joshua, and Melissa L. Jarrell. 2015. Wielding the Green Stick: Criminal Enforcement at the EPA Under Bush and Obama. Environmental Politics. 24 (1): 38–56. Paoletti, E., M.  Schaub, R.  Matyssek, G.  Wieser, A.  Augustaitis, A.M.  Bastrup-Birk, A.  Bytnerowicz, M.S.  Günthardt-Goerg, G.  Müller-­ Starck, and Y. Serengil. 2010. Advances of Air Pollution Science: From Forest Decline to Multiple-stress Effects on Forest Ecosystem Services. Environmental Pollution 158 (6): 1986–1989. Parfitt, J., M. Barthel, and S. Macnaughton. 2010. Food Waste Within Food Supply Chains: Quantification and Potential for Change to 2050. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B 365: 3065–3081. Perfecto, Ivette, and John Vandermeer. 2010. The Agroecological Matrix as Alternative to the Land-sparing/Agriculture Intensification Model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107 (13): 5786–5791. Perlo, Katherine. 2002. Marxism and the Underdog. Society and Animals 10 (3): 303–318. Petrossian, Gohar A., and Ronald V. Clarke. 2014. Explaining and Controlling Illegal Commercial Fishing: An Application of the CRAVED Theft Model. British Journal of Criminology 54 (1): 73–90. Petrossian, Gohar A., Nerea Marteache, and Julie Viollaz. 2015a. Where Do ‘Undocumented’ Fish Land? An Empirical Study of Port Characteristics for IUU Fishing. European Journal of Criminal Policy Research. https://doi. org/10.1007/s10610-014-9267-1. Petrossian, Gohar, Judith S. Weis, and Stephen F. Pires. 2015b. Factors Affecting Crab and Lobster Species Subject to IUU Fishing. Ocean & Coastal Management 106: 29–34. Pimentel, David. 2005. Environmental and Economic Costs of the Application of Pesticides Primarily in the United States. Environment, Development and Sustainability 7 (2): 229–252. Pimm, Stuart, Peter Raven, Alan Peterson, Çağan H. Şekercioğlu, and Paul R.  Ehrlich. 2006. Human Impacts on the Rates of Recent, Present, and Future Bird Extinctions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103 (29): 10941–10946.

 References 

243

Pires, Stephen F. 2015. The Heterogeneity of Illegal Parrot Markets: An Analysis of Seven Neo-tropical Open Air Markets. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research. 21 (1): 151–166. Pires, Stephen F., and Ronald V. Clarke. 2011. Sequential Foraging, Itinerant Fences and Parrot Poaching in Bolivia. British Journal of Criminology 51 (2): 314–335. ———. 2012. Are Parrots CRAVED? An Analysis of Parrot Poaching in Mexico. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 49 (1): 122–146. Pires, Stephen F., and Gohar A.  Petrossian. 2015. Understanding Parrott Trafficking Between Illicit Markets in Bolivia: An Application of the CRAVE Model. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036.2015.1028951. Pope, Carl Arden, and Douglas W.  Dockery. 2006. Health Effects of Fine Particle Air Pollution: Lines that Connect. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association 56 (6): 709–742. Prebisch, Raul. 1950. The Economic Development of Latin America and Its Principle Problems. New York: United Nations. Pritchett, Lant. 1997. Divergence, Big Time. Journal of Economic Perspectives 11: 3–18. Rathore, C.S., and R.  Wright. 1993. Monitoring Environmental Impacts of Surface Coal Mining. International Journal of Remote Sensing 14 (6): 1021–1042. Raymond, Hames. 2007. The Ecologically Noble Savage Debate. Annual Review of Anthropology 36: 177–190. Rees, William, and Mathis Wackernagel. 2008. Urban Ecological Footprints: Why Cities Cannot Be Sustainable—and Why They Are a Key to Sustainability. In Urban Ecology, ed. J.M.  Marluff et  al., 537–555. Boston: Springer. REFRESH (Resource Efficient Food and dRink for the Entire Supply cHain). 2017. Background. http://eu-refresh.org/about-refresh#about-the-project. Rial, José A., Roger A.  Pielke, Martin Beniston Sr, Martin Claussen, Josep Canadell, Peter Cox, Hermann Held, Nathalie De Noblet-Ducoudre, Ronald Prinn, James F. Reynolds, and Jose D. Salas. 2004. Nonlinearities, Feedbacks and Critical Thresholds Within the Earth’s Climate System. Climatic Change 65 (1–2): 11–38. Ricciardi, Anthony, Richard J.  Neves, and Joseph B.  Rasmussen. 1998. Impending Extinctions of North American Freshwater Mussels (Unionoida) Following the Zebra Mussel (Dreissena Polymorpha) Invasion. Journal of Animal Ecology 67 (4): 613–619.

244 References

Ricciardi, Anthony, and Joseph B. Rasmussen. 1999. Extinction Rates of North American Freshwater Fauna. Conservation Biology 13 (5): 1220–1222. Rice, James. 2007a. Ecological Unequal Exchange: International Trade and Uneven Utilization of Environmental Space in the World. Social Forces 85 (3): 1369–1392. ———. 2007b. Ecological Unequal Exchange: Consumption, Equity, and Unsustainable Structural Relationships within the Global Economy. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 48 (1): 43–72. ———. 2009. The Transnational Organization of Production and Uneven Environmental Degradation and Change in the World Economy. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3-4): 215–236. Riddell, J.B. 1992. Things Fall Apart Again: Structural Adjustment Programmes in Sub-Saharan Africa. The Journal of Modern African Studies 30 (1): 53–68. Roberts, J. Timmons, Peter E. Grimes, and Jodie L. Manale. 2003. Social Roots of Global Environmental Change: A World Systems Analysis. Journal of World Systems Research IX (2): 277–315. Rockstrom, Johan, Will Steffen, Kevin Noone, Åsa Persson, F. Stuart Chapin III, Eric F. Lambin, Timothy M. Lenton, Marten Scheffer, Carl Folke, Hans Joachim Schellnhuber, Björn Nykvist, Cynthia A. de Wit, Terry Hughes, Sander van der Leeuw, Henning Rodhe, Sverker Sörlin, Peter K.  Snyder, Robert Costanza, Uno Svedin, Malin Falkenmark, Louise Karlberg, Robert W. Corell, Victoria J. Fabry, James Hansen, Brian Walker, Diana Liverman, Katherine Richardson, Paul Crutzen, and Jonathan A. Foley. 2009a. A Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Nature 461: 472–475. ———. 2009b. Planetary Boundaries: Exploring the Safe Operating Space for Humanity. Ecology and Society 14 (2): 32–47. Rojas-Paez, Gustavo. 2017. Understanding Environmental Harm and Justice Claims in the Global South: Crime of the Powerful and Peoples’ Resistance. In Environmental Crime in Latin America, ed. D.R.  Goyes, H.  Mol, A. Brisman, and N. South, 57–83. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Rothenberg, David. 1987. A Platform of Deep Ecology. Environmentalist 7 (3): 185–190. Ruggiero, Vincenzo, and Nigel South. 2013. Green Criminology and Crimes of the Economy: Theory, Research and Praxis. Critical Criminology 21 (3): 359–373. Saboori, Behnaz, and Jamalludin Sulaiman. 2013. Environmental Degradation, Economic Growth and Energy Consumption: Evidence of the Environmental Kuznets Curve in Malaysia. Energy Policy 60: 892–905.

 References 

245

Schandl, Heinz, and Niels Schulz. 2002. Changes in the United Kingdom’s Natural Relations in Terms of Society’s Metabolism and Land-use from 1850 to the Present Day. Ecological Economics 41 (2): 203–221. Schipper, Jan, Janice S.  Chanson, Federica Chiozza, Neil A.  Cox, Michael Hoffmann, Vineet Katariya, John Lamoreux, et al. 2008. The Status of the World’s Land and Marine Mammals: Diversity, Threat, and Knowledge. Science 322 (5899): 225–230. Schlenker, Wolfram, and Michael J.  Roberts. 2009. Nonlinear Temperature Effects Indicate Severe Damages to US Crop Yields Under Climate Change. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 106 (37): 15594–15598. Schnaiberg, Allan. 1980. The Environment: From Surplus to Scarcity. New York: Oxford University Press. Schneider, Stephen H. 2004. Abrupt Non-linear Climate Change, Irreversibility and Surprise. Global Environmental Change 14 (3): 245–258. Schofield, Gail, Charles M.  Bishop, Grant MacLean, Peter Brown, Martyn Baker, Kostas A.  Katselidis, Panayotis Dimopoulos, John D.  Pantis, and Graeme C.  Hays. 2007. Novel GPS Tracking of Sea Turtles as a Tool for Conservation Management. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 347 (1): 58–68. Schwartzman, David. 2002. Life Temperature and the Earth: The Self-Organizing Biosphere. New York: Columbia University Press. Schweitzer, Alfred. 2002. Reverence for Life: The Ethics of Albert Schweitzer for the Twenty First Century. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. Shandra, John M., Christopher Leckband, Laura A.  McKinney, and Bruce London. 2009. Ecologically Unequal Exchange, World Polity, and Biodiversity Loss a Cross-national Analysis of Threatened Mammals. International Journal of Comparative Sociology 50 (3–4): 285–310. Shandra, John M., Laura A.  McKinney, Christopher Leckband, and Bruce London. 2010. Debt, Structural Adjustment, and Biodiversity Loss: A Cross-­ national Analysis of Threatened Mammals and Birds. Human Ecology Review 17 (1): 18–33. Sheehan, Peter M. 2001. The Late Ordovician Mass Extinction. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 29 (1): 331–364. Smith, William H. 1970. Air Pollution—Effects on the Structure and Function of the Temperate Forest Ecosystem. Environmental Pollution 6 (2): 111–129. Smith, Val H., G. David Tilman, and Jeffery C. Nekola. 1999. Eutrophication: Impacts of Excess Nutrient Inputs on Freshwater, Marine, and Terrestrial Ecosystems. Environmental Pollution 100 (1): 179–196.

246 References

Snyder, C.S., T.W.  Bruulsema, T.L.  Jensen, and P.E.  Fixen. 2009. Review of Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Crop Production Systems and Fertilizer Management Effects. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 133 (3): 247–266. Sollund, Ragnhild. 2011. Expressions of Speciesism: The Effects of Keeping Companion Animals on Animal Abuse, Animal Trafficking and Species Decline. Crime, Law and Social Change 55 (5): 437–451. South, Nigel, and Piers Beirne, eds. 2006. Green criminology. Surrey, UK: Ashgate. South, Nigel, and Avi Brisman, eds. 2013. Routledge International Handbook of Green Criminology. New York: Routledge. Sovacool, Benjamin K. 2012. The Avian and Wildlife Costs of Fossil Fuels and Nuclear Power. Journal of Integrative Environmental Sciences 9 (4): 255–278. Steffen, Will, Paul J. Crutzen, and John R. McNeill. 2007. The Anthropocene: Are Humans Now Overwhelming the Great Forces of Nature. Ambio: A Journal of the Human Environment 36 (8): 614–621. Steffen, Will, Jacques Grinevald, Paul Crutzen, and John McNeill. 2011. The Anthropocene: Conceptual and Historical Perspectives. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 369 (1938): 842–867. Stern, David I. 2004. The Rise and Fall of the Environmental Kuznets Curve. World Development 32 (8): 1419–1439. Stork, Nigel E. 2010. Re-assessing Current Extinction Rates. Biodiversity and Conservation 19 (2): 357–371. Stretesky, Paul B. 2006. Corporate Self-policing and the Environment. Criminology 44 (3): 671–708. Stretesky, Paul B., and Jackie Gabriel. 2005. Self-policing and the Environment: Predicting Self-disclosure of Clean Air Act Violations Under the U.S.  Environmental Protection Agency’s Audit Policy. Society and Natural Resources 18 (10): 871–887. Stretesky, Paul B., Michael A. Long, and Michael J. Lynch. 2017. Trends in the formation of Environmental Enforcement International Non-Governmental Organizations, 1950 to 2010. Globalizations 14 (4): 627–642. Stretesky, Paul, Sheila Huss, and Michael J. Lynch. 2012. Density Dependence and Specialized Environmental Justice Organizations, 1970–2008. The Social Science Journal 49 (3): 343–351. Stretesky, Paul B., Shelia Huss, Michael J.  Lynch, Sammy Zahran, and Bob Childs. 2011. The Founding of Environmental Justice Organizations Across US Counties During the 1990s and 2000s: Civil Rights and Environmental Movement Cross Effects. Social Problems 58 (3): 330–360.

 References 

247

Stretesky, Paul B., Michael A. Long, and Michael J. Lynch. 2013a. The Treadmill of Crime: Political Economy and Green Criminology. Abingdon, UK: Routledge. ———. 2013b. Does Environmental Enforcement Slow the Treadmill of Production? The Relationship Between Large Monetary Penalties, Ecological Disorganization and Toxic Releases within Offending Corporations. Journal of Crime and Justice 36 (2): 235–249. ———. 2017a. The Cross National Association Between Natural Resource Rents and Homicide, 2000–2010. European Journal of Criminology 14 (4): 393–414. Stretesky, Paul B., and Michael J. Lynch. 1998. Corporate Environmental Violence and Racism. Crime, Law and Social Change 30 (2): 163–184. ———. 1999. Environmental Justice and the Prediction of Distance to Accidental Chemical Releases in Hillsborough County, Florida. Social Science Quarterly 80 (4): 830–846. ———. 2002. Environmental Hazards and School Segregation in Hillsborough, 1987–1999. The Sociological Quarterly 43 (4): 553–573. ———. 2009a. Does Self-Policing Reduce Chemical Emissions? A Further Test of the EPA Self Audit Policy. The Social Science Journal 46 (3): 459–473. ———. 2009b. A Cross-National Study of the Association Between Per Capita Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Exports to the United States. Social Science Research 38: 239–250. ———. 2011. Coal Strip Mining, Mountain Top Removal and the Distribution of Environmental Violations Across the United States, 2002–2008. Landscape Research 36 (2): 209–230. Stretesky, Paul B., Michael J. Lynch, Michael A. Long, and Kimberly L. Barrett. 2017b. Does the Modernization of Environmental Enforcement Reduce Toxic Releases? An Examination of Self-policing, Criminal Prosecutions and Toxic Releases in the United States, 1988–2012. Sociological Spectrum 37 (1): 48–62. Stretesky, Paul B., Ruth E.  McKie, Michael J.  Lynch, Michael A.  Long, and Kimberly L. Barrett. 2018. Where Have All the Falcons Gone? Saker Falcon (falco cherrug) Exports in a Global Economy. Global Ecology and Conservation 13: e00372. Taylor, Prudence. 1997. From Environmental to Ecological Human Rights: A New Dynamic in International Law. Georgetown International Law Review 10: 309–397. Thomas, C.D., A.  Cameron, R.E.  Green, M.  Bakkenes, and L.J.  Beaumont. 2004. Extinction Risk from Climate Change. Nature 427: 145–148.

248 References

Tillotson, James E. 2004. America’s Obesity: Conflicting Public Policies, Industrial Economic Development, and Unintended Human Consequences. Annual Review of Nutrition 24: 617–643. Tilman, David. 1999. Global Environmental Impacts of Agricultural Expansion: The Need for Sustainable and Efficient Practices. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 96 (11): 5995–6000. Tongson, Edgardo, and Marisel Dino. 2004. Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas: The Case of Sibuyan Mangyan Tagabukid, Philippines. In Getting Biodiversity Projects to Work, ed. T.O.  McShane and M.P.  Wells, 181–207. New York: Columbia University Press. Tooney, David E. 2012. Indigenous People, Environmental Groups, Networks and the Political Economy of Rainforest Destruction in Brazil. International Journal of Peace Studies 17 (1): 73–97. Torres, J.P.M., C.I.R. Fróes-Asmus, Roland Weber, and J.M.H. Vijgen. 2013. HCH Contamination from Former Pesticide Production in Brazil—a Challenge for the Stockholm Convention Implementation. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 20 (4): 1951–1957. UN (United Nations). 1948. Universal Declaration of Human Rights. www. un.org/en/documents/udhr/index.shtml#a14. ———. 1999. Substantive Issues Arising in the Implementation of the International Covenant On Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: General Comment 12. www.fao.ord/fileadmin/templates/righttofood/documents/RTF_publications/EN?General_Comment_12_EN.pdf. UN WFP (United Nations World Food Programme). 2017. Hunger Statistics. www.wtf.org/hunger/stats. Valavanidis, Athansois, Konstantinos Fiotaskis, and Thomais Vlachogianni. 2008. Airborne Particle Matter and Human Health: Toxicological Assessment and Importance of Size and Composition of Particles for Oxidative Damage and Carcinogenic Mechanisms. Journal of Environmental Science and Health, Part C 26 (4): 339–362. Wackernagel, Mathis, Dan Moran, Sahm White, and Michael Murray. 2006. Ecological Footprint Accounts for Advancing Sustainability: Measuring Human Demand on Nature. In Sustainable Development Indicators in Ecological Economics, ed. P. Lawn, 246–266. Northampton, MA: Edgar Elgar. Wackernagel, Mathis, Larry Onisto, Patricia Bello, Alejandro Callejas Linares, Ina Susana López Falfán, Jesus Méndez Garcı ́a, Ana Isabel Suárez Guerrero, and Ma Guadalupe Suárez Guerrero. 1999. National Natural Capital Accounting with the Ecological Footprint Concept. Ecological Economics 29 (3): 375–390.

 References 

249

Wackernagel, Mathis, and William E.  Rees. 1997. Perceptual and Structural Barriers to Investing in Natural Capital: Economics from an Ecological Footprint Perspective. Ecological Economics 20 (1): 3–24. Wadiwel, Dinesh Joseph. 2016. “Like One Who Is Bringing His Own Hide to Market”: Marx, Irigaray, Derrida and Animal Commodification. Angelaki 21 (2): 65–82. Wake, David B., and Vance T. Vredenburg. 2008. Are We in the Midst of the Sixth Mass Extinction? A View from the World of Amphibians. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 10 (S-1): 11466–11473. Walker, Richard A. 1978. Two Sources of Uneven Development Under Advanced Capitalism: Spatial Differentiation and Capital Mobility. Review of Radical Political Economics 10 (3): 28–38. Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1974. The Modern World-System I: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. Berkley, CA: University of California Press. Walters, Reece. 2004. Criminology and Genetically Modified Food. British Journal of Criminology 44: 151–167. ———. 2006. Crime, Bio-agriculture and the Exploitation of Hunger. British Journal of Criminology 46 (1): 26–45. ———. 2007. Food Crime, Regulation and the Biotech Harvest. European Journal of Criminology 4 (2): 217–235. ———. 2010. Crime, Political Economy and Genetically Modified Food. Oxford: Routledge. Wang, Laili, Xuemei Ding, and Xiongying Wu. 2014. Environmental Kuznets Curve for Pollutants Emissions in China’s Textile Industry: An Empirical Investigation. International Journal of Environmental Technology and Management 17 (1): 14–29. Watson, Richard A. 1983. A Critique of Anti-anthropocentric Biocentrism. Environmental Ethics 5 (3): 45–56. Weeks, John. 2001. The Expansion of Capital and Uneven Development on a World Scale. Capital & Class 25 (2): 9–30. White, Rob. 2003. Environmental Issues and the Criminological Imagination. Theoretical Criminology 7 (4): 483–506. ———. 2007. Green Criminology and the Pursuit of Social and Ecological Justice. In Issues in Green Criminology: Confronting Harms Against Environments, Humanity and other Animals, ed. P.  Beirne and N.  South, 32–54. Devon, UK: Willan. ———, ed. 2009. Environmental Crime: A Reader. Devon, UK: Willan.

250 References

———. 2013. Environmental Harm: An Eco-Justice Perspective. Bristol: Policy Press. Williams, S.E., E.E. Bolitho, and S. Fox. 2003. Climate Change in Australian Tropical Rainforests: An Impending Environmental Catastrophe. Proceeding of the Royal Society of London B 270: 1887–1892. Wissenberg, Mark. 1993. The Idea of Nature and the Nature of Distributive Justice. In The Politics of Nature: Explorations in Green Political Theory, ed. A. Dobson and P. Lucardie, 2–20. London: Routledge. Wyatt, Tanya. 2009. Exploring the Organization of Russia Far East’s Illegal Wildlife Trade: Two Case Studies of the Illegal Fur and Illegal Falcon Trades. Global Crime 10 (1–2): 144–154. ———. 2011. The Illegal Trade of Raptors in the Russian Federation. Contemporary Justice Review 14 (2): 103–123. ———. 2013. From the Cardamom Mountains of Southwest Cambodia to the Forests of the World: An Exploration of the Illegal Charcoal Trade. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice 37 (1): 15–29. ———. 2014. The Russian Far East’s Illegal Timber Trade: An Organized Crime? Crime, Law and Social Change 61 (1): 15–35. Xu, Z.X., K.  Takeuchi, H.  Ishidaira, and X.W.  Zhang. 2002. Sustainability Analysis for Yellow River Water Resources Using the System Dynamics Approach. Water Resources Management 16 (3): 239–261. Yang, Xiaoya, Senthold Asseng, Mike Ting Fook Wong, Qiang Yu, Jun Li, and Enmin Liu. 2013. Quantifying the Interactive Impacts of Global Dimming and Warming on Wheat Yield and Water Use in China. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 182: 342–351. Yohe, Gary W. 1997. Uncertainty, Short-term Hedging and the Tolerable Window Approach. Global Environmental Change 7 (4): 303–315. York, Richard, and Eugene A.  Rosa. 2003. Key Challenges to Ecological Modernization Theory. Organization & Environment 16: 273–288. York, Richard, Eugene A.  Rosa, and Thomas Dietz. 2003. Footprints on the Earth: The Environmental Consequences of Modernity. American Sociological Review 68: 279–300. ———. 2010. Ecological Modernization Theory: Theoretical and Empirical Challenges. In The International Handbook of Environmental Sociology, ed. M.R. Redclift and G. Woodgate, 77–90. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar. Zalasiewicz, Jan, Mark Williams, Will Steffen, and Paul Crutzen. 2010. The New World of the Anthropocene. Environmental Science & Technology 44 (7): 2228–2231.

Index

A

Alvord Cutthroat Trout species, 102 Amazon, 114 Animal commodification, 109 Ebay and treadmill of, 113–118 Anthropocene, 8, 13, 29, 98, 102, 103, 134, 136, 140, 159 Atmospheric aerosol concentrations, 30 B

Beirne, P., 5, 158 Bellamy, J., 6, 9, 10, 151, 209 Bennear, W., 71 Benton, T., 5 Berkeley Pit, 96, 97 Biocapacity of consumption, 78–79, 179, 180 Biocentrism, 46, 48

Biodiversity loss, 31, 108, 169, 177 of global ecosystem, 29 Biogeochemical availability, 28–29 Bowers, C.A., 208 Burkett, P., 6, 48, 209 C

Capital-centered theory of justice, 128, 138 Capital-centric human view, 137 Capitalist world system, 7, 8, 15, 51, 56, 63–67, 70, 76, 77, 83, 84, 86, 93, 98, 101, 102, 108, 153, 161, 177–180, 182, 212 connecting with, 71–75 consumption patterns in global, 78–81

© The Author(s) 2019 M. J. Lynch et al., Green Criminology and Green Theories of Justice, Palgrave Studies in Green Criminology, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-28573-9

251

252 Index

Carbon dioxide concentration, 168, 177 and radiative forcing, 26–27 Cardillo, M., 106 Castree, N., 49 Catton, W.R., 3 Clark, B., 151, 168, 178, 180, 181, 197 Clayton, S., 41, 42 Continental-scale systems, 26 Cook, S.J., 47 Cooperativism, 143, 144, 147 Cooper sulfides, extraction of, 95 Cowboy Squirrels, 115 D

Darwinian concept, 159 Darwinian evolutionary theory, 159 The Dialectics of Nature, 10 Dunlap, R.E., 3 E

Earth Policy Institute, 76 Ebay, and treadmill of animal commodification, 113–118 Eco-centric, vi, 42–44, 153, 157, 172, 174 Eco-centrism, 44 Eco-injustice, vi, 4, 7, 9, 44, 50, 67, 80, 86, 98, 99, 109, 114, 118, 129–131, 160–163, 165, 168, 179, 180, 183, 194, 199, 202, 203, 208, 211–216 capitalism and production of, 55–57 concept and implications of, 51–54

Eco-justice, vi–viii, 14–15, 21–35, 111 concept of, 50–51, 153 green theory of, 1–7 HSEJ and, 63–65 implications of, 51–54 issue of, 41–57 metabolic rift and, 151–184 political economic analyses of, 207–216 theory of, 127, 130, 144, 145 three dimension of, 193–204 Ecological decline connecting with, 21–35 indicators of, 24–32 Ecological exchange effects, 75–78 Ecological footprint, 1, 2, 7, 8, 24, 66, 67, 97, 102, 132, 178, 179, 212 human, 32–35, 51–54, 73, 160 over-consumption of, 32–35 relevance of, 78–82 Ecological injustice, 8, 15, 22, 24, 31, 34, 42, 50, 51, 63, 93, 94, 118, 128, 135, 140, 153, 169, 179, 181–184, 216 Ecological justice, 2, 4, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 22, 24, 31, 32, 41, 42, 46, 48–51, 55, 57, 138, 154, 169, 177–183 in global world capitalist system, 63–86 nonhuman, 93–118 Ecological Marxism, vii, 6, 48–51, 54, 56, 84, 135, 138, 144, 157, 182, 209, 214, 215 Ecological Marxist, 1, 6, 9, 10, 23, 49, 54, 56, 76, 94, 95, 97, 98, 113, 151, 158, 169, 196, 209

 Index 

Ecological modernization paradigm, 52, 53, 57 The Ecological Rift: Capitalism’s War on the Earth, 151 Ecological robbery, associated with metabolic rift, 163–164 Ecosystems, 1, 7–9, 12–15, 21, 24–26, 28–30, 32, 34, 63, 65, 69, 74, 81, 84, 95, 97, 99, 100, 103–105, 107, 111, 113, 118, 127, 134, 138, 140, 144, 151–153, 159, 162, 164, 165, 167–169, 172–175, 182, 183, 199, 204, 208, 213, 214 exploitation of, 209 orientation towards, 41–57 Ecosystem stability, 159, 168 empirical specification of, 175–177 Eisenmenger, N., 56 Engels, Friedrich, 161 Environmental justice, vi, 1, 3, 4, 6, 14, 15, 42, 181, 211 definition of, 5 Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) theory, 53, 70, 73–75 Epioblasma arcaeformis, 102 European Commission (EC), 198 European Union (EU), 198 F

Fertilizer industry, natural sources, 166 Food justice, 193–204 political economy of, 194–196 Food production, 193, 194, 202, 204 industrialization of, 196–199

253

Food regimes, 9, 201, 202, 204 concept of, 194–196 Food-related eco-justice issues, 202–204 Foreign direct investment (FDI), 203 Foster, J.B., 6, 10, 48, 52, 53, 110, 151, 152, 154–157, 159, 161–163, 168, 171, 178, 180, 181, 196, 197, 209 Freire, P., 208 Freshwater systems, 29–30, 169 Friedmann, H., 194, 202 G

Gaia-centered theory of justice, 128, 147 Gaia Justice (GJ), 8, 15, 22 dimension of eco-justice, 202–204 Gaianism, 139–141 Gaia theory, 1–15, 24, 25, 34, 42, 44, 45, 51, 57, 159, 202, 213, 214 harm and eco-injustice of, 131–135 implications and analysis of, 138–146 of justice, 127–147 relationship between human species and, 135–138 Gedicks, Al, 84 Genetically modified organisms (GMOs), 197, 198, 201 Giljum, S., 56 Global capitalism, 7, 54, 55, 77, 79, 84, 93, 176, 178, 179, 182, 195, 196, 202 Global capitalist economy, 76, 203

254 Index

Global capitalist world system, 7, 56, 65, 101 consumption patterns in, 75–78 Global Footprint Network, 32, 34, 179 Global South, 56, 77 Global treadmill of production, 23, 77, 114, 208, 209 GM food, 198 Goldman, M., 3 Gonzalez, A., 108 Green crime, v, 1, 4, 10, 22, 128, 152, 153, 158, 160, 169, 170, 175, 182, 184, 208, 213 metabolic rift of, 171–175 Green criminological literature, v– viii, 5, 46, 152, 158, 166, 193, 213, 215, 216 nonhuman ecological injustice in, 108–113 Green criminology, v, vii, 1–7, 10, 11, 22, 35, 43, 45, 49, 84, 85, 100, 146, 154, 157, 158, 168, 170, 171, 182–184, 193, 207, 212, 213, 215 concepts, 181 Green eco-justice theories, 207 Green justice, vi, vii, 2, 4, 5, 7, 10, 41, 42, 44, 85, 128, 129, 144, 152, 169, 207–209, 212, 213, 216 concept of, 46–50 in political economic approach, vi Green theory of eco-justice, 1–7 of justice, vi–vii, 1–15, 127–147 Gross Domestic Product, 164, 203 Gunderson, R., 49, 114

H

Hoffman, M., 105, 108 Holland, T.G., 108 Homo Sapiens, 131 Human ecological footprint, 32–35, 51–54, 78–82 Human economy, 146 difference between nature economy and, 145 Human-Gaia connection, 136 Human-Gaia interconnections, 136 Human social and ecological justice (HSEJ), 8–9, 22, 24, 202, 211 dimension of eco-justice, 202–204 Human social and environmental injustice, 63–86 capitalism, Native People and, 84–85 connection with capitalist world system, treadmill of production and, 71–75 and eco-justice, 63–65 ecological exchange effects, 75–78 treadmill of production and, 67–70 world system theory and, 65–67 Humans vs. nature, 10–14 I

Illegal animal trafficking, 109 Illegal logging, 108, 111 Indigenous/native peoples (INP), 22, 23 International laws, standards for, 176 International Monetary Fund (IMF), 199–202

 Index 

International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN), 57, 101–103 J

Jevons Paradox, 72, 73 Jorgenson, A.K., 6, 66, 77, 83, 166, 204 Justice concept of, 129–130 green theories of, 1–15

255

Marxism, vii, 6, 47, 50, 54, 56, 194, 209, 214, 215 Marxist concept of metabolic rift, 196 Marxists, 48, 50, 94, 95, 97, 98, 158 McMichael, P., 194, 195, 202 Metabolic rift aspect of green theory, 154–160 concept of, 160–167, 177–183 and eco-justice, 151–184 empirical dimensions of, 167–171 of green crime, 171–175 Mills, C. W., 78 Moran, D.D., 79, 80

K

Kohlberg, L., 143, 144 Kuykendall, K.A., 204 L

Land changes of natural ecosystems, 30 Left Biocentrism Primer, 47 Left-biocentrism, 46–51 Left eco-centrism, 46 Legal animal trafficking, 109 Local deforestation, 165 Lomolino, M.V., 106 Long, M.A., 72 Longo, S., 196, 203 Lovelock, J.E., 128 Lynch, M.J., 72, 81, 82, 85, 158 M

Margulis, L., 128 Marx, K., 49, 50, 66, 151, 152, 154–156, 159, 161, 162, 168, 209, 210

N

Native Americans, 4, 63, 84, 85 Native People, 77 global capitalism on, 84–85 Natural capital impacts, 82–83 Nature economy difference between human economy and, 145 Nature-human dialectic, 10–14 Nature-human interaction, 164 Nature vs. humans, 10–14 Neoliberal economics, 200, 202 Nonhuman eco-justice, 5, 22, 202 dimension of eco-justice, 202–204 Nonhuman ecological injustice, 93, 94 in extant green criminological literature, 108–113 Nonhuman ecological justice (NHEJ), 8–9, 93–118 political economic analysis of, 95–118

256 Index

Nonhuman species, 5, 9, 15, 31, 42, 44, 48, 51, 55, 56, 94, 99, 180, 194, 198, 199, 204, 213 concept of, 56 extinctions of, 100–108 Nonhuman species A, 99 Nonhuman species B, 99 O

Ocean acidification, 27, 168, 169, 177 O’Connor, J., 6 Open mining process, 97 Opotow, S., 41, 42 Orton, D., 46–49 P

Pearly Mussel (Epioblasma arcaeformis), 102 Persistent organic pollutants (POPs), 167 Peterson, G.A., 108 PEW research center, 74 Physical-political economic relationships, 209–211 Pimm, S., 104 Ping-pong ball, 97 Planetary boundaries, 51–54 of ecosystem, 177–183 empirical dimensions of, 175–177 measures, 26–31, 34 models, 176 Planetary-scale systems, 26 Political economy, 1–15 approaches, 3–4 of food, 194–196 theory, 207 Pollution, of ecological decline, 30–31

Q

Quietism, 140, 141 R

Radiative forcing measures, 26–27, 177 Rasmussen, J.B., 105 Red List, 57, 101, 103, 105, 106 Reverence for Life, 46 Ricardo, D., 200 Ricciardi, A., 105 Rice, J., 66, 80 Ripple effect, 29, 100 Robbery, 163, 164, 171 act of, 111 resources, 162 Rockstrom, J., 25, 27–32, 168, 172–174, 176 Rogue and novelty taxidermy (RANT), 114, 116, 117 Rural-urban transfer, of metabolic matter, 162 S

Schipper, J., 106 Schnaiberg, A., 68 Schuman, R.A., 3 Schweitzer, A., 46 Self-regulation, Gaia forms of, 130, 139, 140 Sinervo, Barry, 104 Southern Oceans, 27 Spiritual transformation, left-­ biocentrism for, 47–48 State of New Jersey, 72 Stratospheric ozone depletion, 28, 177

 Index 

Stretesky, P.B., 72, 81, 82, 85 Supply-demand approaches, 112

257

Unsustainable economic development, 93–118 US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 71

T

Taylor, P.D., 12 Third World, 181, 208 resources of, 182 Toxics Release Inventory (TRI), 71, 72, 74 Transformation of ecosystems, 107 Transnational organization, 9, 196, 204 of production, 199–202 Treadmill of production, 1, 4, 6, 8, 23, 57, 63–86, 97, 98, 102, 108, 114, 118, 135, 175, 203, 208, 209 HSEJ and, 67–70 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 27

V

Vredenburg , V.T., 105 W

Wake, D.B., 105 Wallerstein, I., 65 Walters, R., 198 White, R., 1, 43, 47 Wissenberg, M., 138–144 World Bank, 199–202, 212 World system theory (WST), 161, 199, 200 and HSEJ, 65–67 World Trade Organization (WTO), 198 World War II (WW II), 67, 68, 108

U

United States, 4, 68, 70–72, 74, 81, 82, 85, 95, 96, 102, 112, 164, 179, 181, 195, 197–199, 202

Y

York, R., 6, 151, 168, 196, 203