Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain
the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in
Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles
and JavaScript.
David Orr explains how two environmentalists' manifestos bracket the debate on climate change — one favouring technological solutions, the other local interventions.
Enjoying our latest content?
Log in or create an account to continue
Access the most recent journalism from Nature's award-winning team
Explore the latest features & opinion covering groundbreaking research
David Orr is Paul Sears Distinguished Professor at Oberlin College in Oberlin, Ohio 44074, USA. He is author of Down to the Wire: Confronting Climate Collapse. david.orr@oberlin.edu ,
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Comments
Commenting on this article is now closed.
Mark Thompson
I read Steward Brand's book, but I have yet to read Bill McKibben's book. I am also impressed, however, with some of David Orr's own published work on these matters. After reading Brand's book I wrote him a letter outlining some of the problems I see with his reasoning. I got a short one sentence response accepting that pesticides in wetlands are a problem, but this was the end of it – seems to be a trend in his way of presenting his argument. Brand does not go into the type of depth that is needed to fully flush out the arguments, he has put the blinders on and suggests that you do so as well. As a fellow ecologist I was surprised by the stance taken by Brand and think he is repeating many of the same mistakes he self identifies from his past. Foremost, his promotion of glyphosate as an environmentally friendly way of growing more crops is highly questionable and shocking to say the least. He makes no mention of the known ecological effects on wetlands and damage that is done to amphibian ecology, for example. There are also reports that pesticide use reduces mutualistic coupling in nitrogen fixing bacteria that reduces crop yield over the long term. Brand's so called ecological credentials seem highly questionable given the details and science that he glances over.
In his sweeping push or environmental stamp of approval on GMO's he completely neglects the ecological consequences for doing so. I'm not talking about the straw-man arguments that Brand presents, such as 'Frankenfood' or genetic experiments escaping into the real world. I'm talking about the work done on the bench and in the lab. I work in a genetics lab and I can say with certainty that the work we do is not ecological benign. From the sterile plastic tips, hazardous waste to the network of systems that are in place to sustain the laboratory infrastructure, to engineer is human and by way of investment in these activities we are engineering an ecological footprint that far exceeds the biocapacity of the Earth. Brand suggests we need to think like earthworms to ecologically engineer our planet, but he seems to forget about ecosystems all together and thinks more like a technologist than an ecologist.
Brand completely ignores the conservation psychology of urban dwellings and paints a Utopian view of cities. David Orr hit the nail on the head: "Buried in the euphoria are a few caveats about the dangers, but they are only whispered." More of a whimper than a whisper. Brand fails to mention the oppression via prostitution, slavery and war that runs rampant in human settlements around the globe. Nature experience and ecoliteracy is completely overlooked in Brand's self-delusional technological environmental Utopia which has no basis in social reality. The type of solutions that Brand offers, including global geoengineering, are reckless and narrow in scope. It is surprising that the book comes from the mind of an ecologist. Although the book is well-written, the ideas that Brand proposes are a disaster and lack the type of deep-thinking that is needed in these times. From the sounds of things, McKibben's book sounds like a much better read.
Mark Thompson
Thought I would follow-up with a few citations that should quickly ground Brand's technological euphoria.
First, the role of pesticides in agriculture (many of us are already aware of the problem here, but thought I would throw in one citation that runs contrary to the views given by Brand):
Fox et al. (2007). Pesticides reduce symbiotic efficiency of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia and host plants. PNAS, http://www.pnas.org/content...
Conclusion:
"The environmental consequences of synthetic chemicals compromising symbiotic nitrogen fixation are increased dependence on synthetic nitrogenous fertilizer, reduced soil fertility, and unsustainable long-term crop yields."
Second, Brand revels in GE herbicide resistant crops and claims that glyphosate is an ecological miracle chemical:
Relyea, R. A. (2005). The lethal impact of roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecological Applications, http://4ccr.pgr.mpf.gov.br/...
Chen et al. (2009). Multiple stress effects of Vision® herbicide, pH, and food on zooplankton and larval amphibian species from forest wetlands. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, http://www3.interscience.wi...
The list of published papers reporting on the negative non-target ecological impacts of glyphosate use is huge and goes well beyond amphibians, my area of expertise. How could any ecologist of sound mind ignore these critical links?
Brand claims that densely concentrated cities are 'green', but fails to consider the psychological impact. For example,
The second paper titled: 'The Impact of Nature Experience on Willingness to Support Conservation' drives home the message that ecological apartheid cannot nurture an ecologically sustainable culture. There are other papers on the topic of green space, global equity and health care. Brand feels that we need nuclear energy to meet our demands, but at what cost? Most of the power generation is going toward useless and wasteful applications that are infused by a culturally based euphoria over technological wizardry rather than ecological know-how. If we have an unlimited supply of power that does not release greenhouse gases, how will this stem our greed for items that lead to further accumulation of waste, e.g., http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs... (see also: http://www.youtube.com/watc... As an ecologist, Brand seems to have completely forgotten or ignored the type of 'linking' or 'systems' thinking that is a hallmark of this discipline. There is scant mention of ecosystem services and the little that he does mention about natural capitalism leaves little to the imagination.
I'm very concerned about Brand's book, because it seems to have the eyes and ears of the US administration and some influential thinkers. For example, the book has been reviewed by E. O. Wilson (one of my great heroes):
"This is a very scary book by a very bright man, offering a picture of humanity?s future that is both ominous and exhilarating. I believe the world must have, and soon, a series of debates on the many inconvenient challenges facing us, employing a small number of intelligent, provocative texts at the core and this should be one of them."
How could things have gone so wrong? My only hope is that Wilson's message was more of a warning that this scary book is a recipe on how not to proceed.
Mark Thompson
I read Steward Brand's book, but I have yet to read Bill McKibben's book. I am also impressed, however, with some of David Orr's own published work on these matters. After reading Brand's book I wrote him a letter outlining some of the problems I see with his reasoning. I got a short one sentence response accepting that pesticides in wetlands are a problem, but this was the end of it – seems to be a trend in his way of presenting his argument. Brand does not go into the type of depth that is needed to fully flush out the arguments, he has put the blinders on and suggests that you do so as well. As a fellow ecologist I was surprised by the stance taken by Brand and think he is repeating many of the same mistakes he self identifies from his past. Foremost, his promotion of glyphosate as an environmentally friendly way of growing more crops is highly questionable and shocking to say the least. He makes no mention of the known ecological effects on wetlands and damage that is done to amphibian ecology, for example. There are also reports that pesticide use reduces mutualistic coupling in nitrogen fixing bacteria that reduces crop yield over the long term. Brand's so called ecological credentials seem highly questionable given the details and science that he glances over.
In his sweeping push or environmental stamp of approval on GMO's he completely neglects the ecological consequences for doing so. I'm not talking about the straw-man arguments that Brand presents, such as 'Frankenfood' or genetic experiments escaping into the real world. I'm talking about the work done on the bench and in the lab. I work in a genetics lab and I can say with certainty that the work we do is not ecological benign. From the sterile plastic tips, hazardous waste to the network of systems that are in place to sustain the laboratory infrastructure, to engineer is human and by way of investment in these activities we are engineering an ecological footprint that far exceeds the biocapacity of the Earth. Brand suggests we need to think like earthworms to ecologically engineer our planet, but he seems to forget about ecosystems all together and thinks more like a technologist than an ecologist.
Brand completely ignores the conservation psychology of urban dwellings and paints a Utopian view of cities. David Orr hit the nail on the head: "Buried in the euphoria are a few caveats about the dangers, but they are only whispered." More of a whimper than a whisper. Brand fails to mention the oppression via prostitution, slavery and war that runs rampant in human settlements around the globe. Nature experience and ecoliteracy is completely overlooked in Brand's self-delusional technological environmental Utopia which has no basis in social reality. The type of solutions that Brand offers, including global geoengineering, are reckless and narrow in scope. It is surprising that the book comes from the mind of an ecologist. Although the book is well-written, the ideas that Brand proposes are a disaster and lack the type of deep-thinking that is needed in these times. From the sounds of things, McKibben's book sounds like a much better read.
Mark Thompson
Thought I would follow-up with a few citations that should quickly ground Brand's technological euphoria.
First, the role of pesticides in agriculture (many of us are already aware of the problem here, but thought I would throw in one citation that runs contrary to the views given by Brand):
Fox et al. (2007). Pesticides reduce symbiotic efficiency of nitrogen-fixing rhizobia and host plants. PNAS, http://www.pnas.org/content...
Conclusion:
"The environmental consequences of synthetic chemicals compromising symbiotic nitrogen fixation are increased dependence on synthetic nitrogenous fertilizer, reduced soil fertility, and unsustainable long-term crop yields."
Second, Brand revels in GE herbicide resistant crops and claims that glyphosate is an ecological miracle chemical:
Relyea, R. A. (2005). The lethal impact of roundup on aquatic and terrestrial amphibians. Ecological Applications, http://4ccr.pgr.mpf.gov.br/...
Chen et al. (2009). Multiple stress effects of Vision® herbicide, pH, and food on zooplankton and larval amphibian species from forest wetlands. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, http://www3.interscience.wi...
The list of published papers reporting on the negative non-target ecological impacts of glyphosate use is huge and goes well beyond amphibians, my area of expertise. How could any ecologist of sound mind ignore these critical links?
Brand claims that densely concentrated cities are 'green', but fails to consider the psychological impact. For example,
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs...
http://www.plosone.org/arti...
The second paper titled: 'The Impact of Nature Experience on Willingness to Support Conservation' drives home the message that ecological apartheid cannot nurture an ecologically sustainable culture. There are other papers on the topic of green space, global equity and health care. Brand feels that we need nuclear energy to meet our demands, but at what cost? Most of the power generation is going toward useless and wasteful applications that are infused by a culturally based euphoria over technological wizardry rather than ecological know-how. If we have an unlimited supply of power that does not release greenhouse gases, how will this stem our greed for items that lead to further accumulation of waste, e.g., http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs... (see also: http://www.youtube.com/watc... As an ecologist, Brand seems to have completely forgotten or ignored the type of 'linking' or 'systems' thinking that is a hallmark of this discipline. There is scant mention of ecosystem services and the little that he does mention about natural capitalism leaves little to the imagination.
I'm very concerned about Brand's book, because it seems to have the eyes and ears of the US administration and some influential thinkers. For example, the book has been reviewed by E. O. Wilson (one of my great heroes):
"This is a very scary book by a very bright man, offering a picture of humanity?s future that is both ominous and exhilarating. I believe the world must have, and soon, a series of debates on the many inconvenient challenges facing us, employing a small number of intelligent, provocative texts at the core and this should be one of them."
How could things have gone so wrong? My only hope is that Wilson's message was more of a warning that this scary book is a recipe on how not to proceed.