Ecological Justice vs. The Neoliberal Machine
“It is no measure of health to be well-adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” –Jiddu Krishnamurti
The 26th UN Climate Change Conference (COP26) held in Glasgow from October 31-November 12, 2021, included trillions of dollars in financial commitments from the world’s most affluent nations, and is seen by many critics as a disaster [1]. California is the most aggressive state in the United States of America (US) on climate neutrality, and they are still far behind many Western European nations on carbon output [2]. The loudest proponents of climate justice in American leadership represent cities and states that are far behind most global (minimum) standards, as are their constituents. Even still, many believe progress is being made, and that we simply need more funding and less conservative opposition to reverse the tide and prevent apocalyptic crisis [3]. This work is an attempt to mete out the reasons for this disconnect by first arguing that neoliberalism limits access to relevant green solutions on a grand scale, followed by a potential path toward a sustainable future.
The issue with current legislative initiatives is one of direction – they are often not fixing the root causes of the climate crisis head on because they are entangled within the orphic mechanics of neoliberalism. Thus, those fighting for eco justice are often not themselves ecologically innocent. Leaders of countries with enough consumption to feed and fuel entire continents can’t stomach the idea that lowering consumption (rather than spending more on “better” consumption) could be the solution. More specifically, these leaders support methods that protect the economy, especially the businesses that already exist (i.e., those that pollute), in ways such as a cap-and-trade policy, subsidies for companies that diminish rather than obliterate (or, better yet, never had) pollution, and messages that support social norms and the status quo of consumption to keep the voter base relatively agreeable. They agree with the single bottom line, rather than the triple bottom line. This is true for almost every nation, and it is easy to see why – the single bottom line is cheaper, the negative externalities are external, and being the first mover toward sustainability is dangerous to one’s own economy.
Put similarly, each country is dependent upon the others to such an extent that it is dangerous to be more regulatory than other state powers, lest they be left with a comparative disadvantage in labor and manufacturing costs. Many coordination efforts are currently underway, but these are difficult to manage. Not only is it a game of “chicken” (in that each country is daring the other to make the first move and open themselves to greater financial risk), but there are currently very few regulatory bodies powerful enough at the global scale to enforce agreements or laws against countries that are not abiding by agreed upon standards.
In the political climate of the 2020’s, it may seem biased toward one party to speak against (hyper-capitalistic) neoliberalism. I would like to believe that this need not be the case - this is simply an economic system and should be treated that way. Of course, it should be acknowledged that both neoliberalism and capitalism have trickle down societal effects, a fact showcased brilliantly by Melinda Cooper’s book Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism [4]. In her revealing and impressionable text, she connects a multitudinous level of neoconservative societal norms – the preservation of the heterosexual “nuclear” family, access to contraception, reactions to health concerns like AIDS, and more – to the economics system of neoliberalism. Of course, a key notation she makes – indeed, it is likely the overarching thematic puzzle she is attempting to solve – is how the neoconservatives and neoliberals ever banded together in the first place. To her and many social scientists studying this phenomenon, this is an unlikely marriage that never had to occur. In this sense, it should not be considered partisan bias to discuss the subversive ways that hyper-capitalistic neoliberalism undercuts progress in environmental sustainability.
(Almost) all nations are now part of an outstretched capitalist system that requires a fresh political lens, telescopic foresight, and a sustainable vessel to host the pathfinders of this brave, new, green world. A great many modern political scientists have spoken at length about the inherent flaws in (unrestrained) capitalism. Some have even applied monikers to our current state of this economic experience (terms like “hypercapitalism,” “supercapitalism,” “monopolistic capitalism,” and “late-stage capitalism).” Critics such as David W. Harvey FBA, Richard D. Wolff, and Antonio Gramsci have defined their careers by denouncing America’s lust for the free market. While many of these great thinkers have provided an ample amount of quantifiable reasons to doubt our current economic system, little to no time at all is often dedicated to the solution. Even those who attempt this (admittedly) difficult feat often eschew their ideations to the final pages of a well-researched book rather than using solutions as the actual focus.
This may be due to the tenuous nature of such an undertaking – dealing more with solutions to a prevailing system of thought brings one to the razor’s edge of idealistic fiction, rather than within the more concrete foundations of ridiculing the present, verifiable issues. Bill McKibben’s Deep Economy [4] attempted this feat, though his background is journalism rather than political science, economics, or ecology, thus the possible veracity of his findings and solutions drew fire from each of these camps (as well as neoliberal opposition, naturally). Stepping even further from the mixed model used by McKibben and one will land themselves a title of “futurist” or – worse still – “utopian.”
It would be folly to ignore (some of) the previously influential thinkers who each used a rather scientific approach to tangibly transform our modern socioeconomic landscape – Adam Smith; Karl Marx; John Maynard Keynes, and Milton Friedman, the foremost and lattermost having developed the basis for free-market capitalism, and the middle two having provided the most widely practiced critiques against it. One could argue this is connected to superior intellect, good timing (luck), a focus on practicality, or otherwise. I like to think that the famous quote from Marx provides the most hope for change: “philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it [5].” That said, these eminent figures spoke little on the matter most currently pressing our global society – the destruction of our planet’s natural ecology, and the policies (or lack thereof) that made such an atrocity possible.
This background is helpful as one reads through the following topic. The issues at hand are multifaceted to an extent that many political legislators, academic leaders, social commentators, and otherwise choose to take stabs at the quagmire, rather than pushing boldly out of it. That is because our current world is ensnared in a web of wicked problems – those with many interdependent factors that seem impossible to solve [6].
While our task does include brief definitions of the germane issues and limited support of their existence, the real goal is to face the challenge that the very people and places most urgently promoting climate justice actively undermine it on a regular basis. After confronting this, the rest of this work is dedicated to solutions available for these inadvertently imprisoned individuals to break free. First, we must illuminate those tangled restraints.
This work begins with a comprehensive, minimized overview of neoliberalism, delving slightly further into its roots in colonialism, where it is found today, and how it affects ecological justice. It then expands into the global sphere, where we entertain the capacity of neoliberalism to support authoritarian regimes. This is brought back the United States, connecting the anti-regulated production across seas to the lack of ecologically friendly options developed by nations, or environmental sustainability deserts (ESDs). Extending further is the study of the ability for free-market neoliberalism to subvert the viability of sustainable initiatives through cost-effective undercutting. Taken to an extreme is the possibility that America is a single party, nigh-totalitarian state that denies both political and economic access through self-perpetuating market forces. Finally, we reach the destination – free-state ecocity development that relieves stress and prevalence of neoliberal hegemony.
Neoliberalism and Its Critics
It would be equally ostentatious as it would be impossible to believe that I could describe neoliberalism to a more complete extent than what Wendy Brown has done in Undoing the Demos. Thus, rather than hurdle us over the multitudinous intricacies and caveats that make neoliberalism such a fascinating topic to discuss and disseminate, I will offer a brief compendium of Brown’s work(s) and what it means for us. According to Brown, neoliberalism is the economization of everything (including animals, human and otherwise). This expands to the depoliticization of our very nature in favor of an economization of our every action. Brown speaks of the elastic, uncoordinated, amorphous nature of both the term and the system it describes [8]: neoliberalism is ever-changing, dissimilar in each location or populace, and pervasive to such an extent that it is generally better defined by its critics than by its adherents.
In Undoing the Demos, Brown argues that neoliberalism undermines democracy, insofar as transitioning our motives away from social continuity and freedom to follow our desire toward establishing ourselves as private enterprises – as social entrepreneurs – who are motivated by the collective shareholders of the economy and the return on investment we can provide for all involved. She asserts this alters our educational pathway, our relationship choices, our voting patterns, and even our ability to vote. This latter portion is expanded upon later [8].
A few other reputable scholars have added to the complexity of neoliberalism and its insidious effects: the aforementioned Melinda Cooper forged a connection between “new social conservatives” and economically minded neoliberals joining forces to reinvigorate the traditional, “Fordist” style of nuclear American family values [9]. David Harvey in 2005 wrote a brief history of neoliberalism, stating succinctly that neoliberals believe the role of the state “is to create and preserve an institutional framework that…liberates individual entrepreneurial freedoms” through “strong private property rights, free markets, and free trade [10].” He goes on, however, to criticize its “creative destruction,” stating that it challenges prior institutional frameworks (such as state sovereignty), “divisions of labor, social relations, welfare provisions, technological mixes, ways of life and thought, reproductive activities, attachments to the land and habits of the heart [10].” Anthropologists have weighed in as well, with John Gledhill stating that neoliberalization has produced both crises and counter movements, and that hope for a post-neoliberal evolution have been left largely unsatisfied [11], while Patrick Bond studied the strikes, pro-democracy struggles, and leftists social movements found in southern African nations who clashed with the ruling elites who promoted neoliberalism in their countries [12].
While these are great scholarly views on this modern phenomenon, the most recognizable example for the regular folk of the “developed West” is the socioeconomic values of Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, each of them basing their values on the work of Milton Friedman. As one may recall from Reaganomics, “government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.”
More elusive to the average voter are the views of Friedman himself, who believed that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” [13] and “he moves fastest, who moves alone.” While these are all catchy phrases, they have dangerous undertones that can form the basis of manufactured consent for negative externalities. This can furthermore be connected to an age-old practice that has recently developed a bad look for modern onlookers – colonialism.
Post Colonialist Market Structure and Its Nickname – Neoliberalism
Some people (even scholars) believe that it is a natural inclination, nigh – a propensity – for humans to destroy; that we are a virus. William Cronon et al. argue in Uncommon Ground that it is a colonialist ideal to destroy, consume, and eradicate without the plan or action to repair and regrow. It may be incontestable that humans must destroy (at least in so far as basic consumption of nutrients); the argument is over how much, and whether we can also replace.
The history of colonialism has no chance of being covered in depth in this work, though it is important to describe its effects briefly and establish the connection to our current neoliberal schematics. Distilled to its core, colonialism is “violence that disrupts human relationships with the environment [14].” While many colonialists worked as part of a larger team, there is an incessant us vs. them aspect to their practice. One could argue this is derived from an “I vs. we” perspective. This concentrated classification brings us back to Hayek’s “he moves fastest, who moves alone” statement, a frightening one indeed that is easily deconstructed by comparing the times of individual relay racers to those running alone [15].
In terms of ecological injustice, Vanessa Watts claims “the measure of colonial interaction with land has historically been one of violence… where land is to be accessed, not learned from or a part of [16].” In this way, colonialism was built off the same major systemic properties that later morphed into neoliberalism – the marketization of “free” land, the commoditization of (physical) human capital, and the manipulation/destruction of land, animals, and resources for short-term profits. None of these assertations should be striking on their face, though each should ring alarm bells for modern social critics:
Developed, neoliberal societies are currently marketizing numerous “free” land spaces, such as the Amazonian and southeast Asian rainforests, the Arctic, and other untapped, (possibly) oil-rich regions, as well as the South China Sea, where artificial islands are being built from imported sand to provide safe passage for mercantile and naval armadas.
Human labor (mental and physical) is quite obviously still exploited even if we stop short of Brown’s definition of homo economicus (the economized/depoliticized human) [8]. The wage gap in the US is as large as it has ever been functionally recorded, and the gap in gross domestic product (GDP) of this one country to the entirety of the African continent is staggering – the US pulls ten times the amount each year, accounting (on its own) for 24% of the global economy [17] [18].
(Hyper-capitalistic) Neoliberalism’s most atrocious act might be its anti-regulatory stance and complete adherence to the single bottom line. We are currently undergoing the sixth extinction, exploiting animals that we breed into whatever whims we concoct, extracting natural resources at alarming rates, all while de-wilding even our wildest places (the relative safety enjoyed by visitors to our National Parks is a complete detraction from its original, dangerous state).
Each of these examples are but a taste in both directions – colonialism is responsible for the mass cultural and physical genocide of at least three continents, the disembowelment of a superior agricultural system, the mass murder of thirty-three million American Bison, and the abandonment of entire colonies with no exit-strategy – places such as Haiti and Tasmania that were ravaged and forgotten. Meanwhile, neoliberalism spreads an even more insidious form of cultural hegemony than religion once did. It is responsible for devastating hundreds of ancient crop species/subspecies, promotes global trade routes that exaggerate already terrifying levels of biodiversity loss, and it abandons the markets/people that manufacture tangible goods, preferring the higher profits of financing, insurance, medicine, high-tech, and otherwise.
Possibly most frightening neoliberalism (as juxtaposed to colonialism) is the lack of violence or even obvious exertion needed to perpetuate neoliberal policy and practice. This mirrors a general shift noted by Michele Foucault in Crime and Punishment [19] – one that hides the ruler or punisher away from those who might revolt, protecting themselves in barricades of obfuscation. Herbert Marcuse takes this further still by suggesting that media and materialism in its modern form exists to distract and placate those who would otherwise resist [20]. Further in this work, I look to extend this again by asserting that there is an extra layer of protection built into the reconstruction of power – that intertwining business and jobs with those who perpetuate ecological violence makes it that much more difficult to criticize and detract from these offenders. Thinking from this perspective, read this description about the primary characteristics of colonialism [21]:
“The external domination of one people by another
The imposition of colonial ‘culture and customs onto the colonized’
The exploitation of the colonized (e.g., slavery, natural resource extraction and ‘misappropriation of cultural property’)”
It is not difficult to connect these traits to modern, non-violent (or, not overtly violent) actions leveraged by neoliberal actors of powerful states. As such, it could be entertained that modern neoliberalism is itself a non-violent form of historical colonialism. Even still, the preference toward non-violence does come with possible consequences, not least of which is the most obvious: the remaining population’s ability to turn survival into ingenuity, and thus usurp the (economic) oppressor by using the same methods of initial development in a separate, less privileged state. In our current geopolitical/global economic climate, this is most obvious in China’s approach to the “middle income trap” and its necessitated transition to outsourcing their low-wage labor. This is not simple divestment – it’s a restructuring maneuver from the production of tangible goods toward intangible services (financial and otherwise).
While this may not always be the method utilized, it is one of the major contributing factors for multiple ongoing transitions, and there is good reason to study this further. In this way, neoliberalism exists not only in the developed nations known for it, but also in the less regulated countries it relies on. It is from here that we study the capacity of neoliberalism to bolster (or even to catalyze) authoritarian regimes.
The Free Market Oasis of Authoritarian Rule
"Vulnerable Americans do not have the luxury of pursuing ideological purity over an inclusive victory." – Pete Buttigieg
Unlike the earlier statement provided by Hayek that “the social responsibility of business is to increase its profits,” and furthermore unlike his other quote that “many people want the government to protect the consumer; a much more urgent problem is to protect the consumer from the government,” business should not be exempt from social responsibility any more than a human (or set of humans) should be, particularly because a business is ran by human(s) and treated like such.
The neoliberal connection between a (group of) human(s) and a corporation had already been set on perpendicular trajectories, yet one may be able to witness their injunction point through the annals of Citizens United, a 2010 Supreme Court decision that provided unrivaled political and anthropic power to corporations, however “fictitious” the humanity of a corporation might be. The ruling allowed not for a corporation to vote, but to garner an unlimited amount of voter support for the candidate of their choosing through Super Political Action Committees (PACs), resulting in ads and campaign funds that are normally to $2,900 for citizen to have no discernible cap*.
Just how well protected is the consumer from the government? This question could expand into an entire career and will only be scratched at surface level herein (and later, at that). For the moment, consider Marx’s assertion (an extension of Jean Charles Léonard de Sismondi) that the impoverished proletariat wouldn’t be able to afford the goods they produced, leading to “under-consumption.” Although this prediction doesn’t perfectly apply in our contemporary state, this is not because the proletariat became wealthy – it is because the goods became ever cheaper. In this sense, consumers are protected from the costly interventions of the government, and thus consumption can commence.
How did Marx get this wrong? One possible explanation is the rise in disparity between states that industrialized and states that did not. At the time of his literary formulations, the industrial world could have been anyone’s game. It was not necessarily predicted that China et. al would take another century to standardize production. Expeditious means of intercontinental trade and travel had not been yet developed, and thus, industrialization was limited to local boundaries.
When the crises of capitalism that Marx did predict appeared in earnest, answers were given first by Keynes and later by Hayek. Keynes looked to resolve the under-consumption deficit inflated by the Great Depression through deficit financing by the state. This was, to be clear, a method to fix a problem, not a permanent foundation to rest an economy upon. Hayek also came at a time of economic crisis, that of the mass inflation in the West and the push for planned, “communist” economies in the East. He sought to clear the consumption disparity by freeing the markets and the actors within them.
Even if this sounds great on paper, it is important to note when his most worthy proponents exalted him to intellectual celebrity – after the regulations and demands from governments and unions came into popular view. Business did indeed enjoy a fantastic boom after returning from World War II. Yet the businesses already running as well as those that were then started (including the realm of the military industrial complex) cared little for the environment, and not much more than was required for their workers. As wages rose from union demands, so too did prices. It was around the same time that shareholders became prominent figures in the world of business leadership, leading to a shift in business models from working for the good of society to working for the return on investment.
If wages and operational costs were rising (for any number of reasons) and prices were rising with it, businesses had to ask where fat could be trimmed. Since wages were connected to the unions of American workers, and operational costs were connected to the regulations of national government, the answer was obvious – leave. Neoliberalism took hold as a functional concept for the future in the very notion that one could escape the natural crises of capitalist markets by moving the production away from the market. Why was this move effective, even with the lowered modern costs of global distribution?
Un(der)regulated production or extraction of goods has traditionally been less expensive than the alternative. This is for obvious reasons – most regulations call for the increased
*While it may be true that each side can use corporate funds to promote an advantageous political position, neoliberalism naturally allows for higher short-term profitability, leading to completely unbalanced scales in lobbying power and campaign financing (among other things). This is covered in more detail later, when we ask why one might wish to follow neoliberalism.
protections of humans and their environment, whether it be from pollution or long work hours, reasonable pay, or a (reasonable) minimum age of employment. All these protections raise the cost in production. If there is a place without these regulations, one can lower costs immediately by relocating.
Of course, this is a finite game. Un(der)regulated production or extraction of goods is so damaging to the environment and the biological life within it, that demos eventually lament for protectionary measures from the governing body. Unable to stomach enterprise as a total loss – and needing the production of goods to continue in some way – the developing nation looks for less regulated and less expensive labor elsewhere, perpetuating the cycle.
The same goes for labor costs – as workers find steady work through the increased efficiency of industrialization, they look to consume items never conceived before. Prices go up as value judgements and fetishism goes up, leading to education that further connects with demands for better working hours, better pay, better conditions, etc.
By refusing to internalize the negative externalities of un(de)regulated production and extraction, neoliberalism seeks out authoritarian states willing to turn a blind eye to the crimes of destructive manufacturing. Just enough money is poured in to get more money out, sometimes even coming directly from the coffers of the extorting government. It then traps these developing nations into deregulatory zones of procurement, until they have the power to speak for their own health needs and demands for advancement. These newly “improved” states then repeat the cycle, as we see going on now with China’s multi-trillion-dollar investment in Africa and the path leading to it. This global growth does make it more difficult to avoid the ever-reaching roots of this elusive system, an operation to be explored further in the text below.
Be that as it may, there are only so many nations left untethered to centralized government intervention, especially as global committees gather to intervene where governments choose not to. Until this limit is realized, authoritarian regimes and their ties to neoliberalism can be an expected presence on this planet. That is of course barring any direct interference from external forces, such as climate change, a unified world government body, an awakening of the proletariat and subsequent denouncement of neoliberal subversion, or otherwise.
Environmental Sustainability Deserts – Where Greenies Go to Die
“The people recognize themselves in their commodities; they find their soul in their automobile, hi-fi set, split-level home, kitchen equipment.” – Marcuse
Celebrities such as Leonardo DiCaprio, Jane Fonda, and Mark Ruffalo have been vocal advocates of climate justice, and they are joined by an ever-growing list of peers and supporters. Though for some this may be a ploy for social recognition and acceptance, many have put substantial amounts of money and time into a variety of projects generally related to their own personal focus. And yet, just as with the slandered political climate advocates from above, celebrities often draw criticism despite – and because of – their heightened platform. It could be that we as a society expect the best of the deified entities of entertainment, having built an altar for their worship provided they remain within our setlist of demands. It could also be because of their most obvious hypocrisies – the consumption needed for personal jets and literal palaces are at times difficult to justify whilst calling upon the fans for less consumption. More frustratingly, it could be a natural repercussion of such an egregious accumulation of wealth – must it only be spent on sustainable goods and services, especially if these are limited and often don’t agree with high-tier luxury living?
What these three notions share is the discrepancy between those who claim they care about the environment and what they actively do to protect it. What is commonly ignored is how difficult it would be to live a counterculture, “minimalist” lifestyle. A celebrity’s status in the limelight is not impossible to avoid, but it is difficult (names such as Viggo Mortensen and Francis McDormand are the exceptions, not the rule); a celebrity’s ability to address the demands of their fans for tours, award shows, public outreach, and otherwise are severely limited without the ability to travel quickly; obviously it is not entirely necessary for an individual to spend their money simply because they have earned it, though it would be admittedly difficult to contend properly in the realm of elites if one were to abandon all the pleasantries that such privilege inherently affords.
Regardless of these rebuttals, it is still worthy to acknowledge that living a minimalist lifestyle (or, at the least, one that is more eco-conscious) is not impossible, nor especially for one with the money to buy the best in sustainable goods and processes. In a Harvard Business Review aptly titled The Elusive Green Consumer, 65% of respondents “said they want to buy purpose-driven brands that advocate sustainability, yet only about 26% actually do so [22].” A similar study from the same journal states that products marketed as sustainable are growing in sales compared to their counterparts (from 14.3-16.6% in the 2013-18 span) [23]. The puzzle thus remains – what is stopping them beyond these weak and polemicist arguments? Taken further, what is stopping commoners from doing the same? In a word, ESDs.
An Environmental Sustainability Desert (ESDs) is a term I have created to describe the physical and even conceptual inaccessibility to sustainable goods and services. Generally this is due more so to the lack of funding available to sustainable startups than to the demand for such goods and services, though the indentured norms of disposability do play a major role. Postulating the existence of is of pressing concern – where does an eco-advocate turn to reduce their carbon footprint? This is a wicked problem of neoliberal societies – that ESDs do exist, and that fixing them would require a decidedly collaborative approach. Since before humans could write or even communicate on an advanced vocal level, collaboration was a key to expansive social change. No less is needed to address the disconnect between modern civilization and living better with nature.
To better understand currently recognized wicked problems, consider the well documented case of food deserts – particularly in low-income and/or rural neighborhoods [24]. Like most wicked problems, there are many factors involved that need to be approached concurrently. It requires (at minimum) better education on proper dieting (which itself requires a consensus of best practices in nutrition); ample resources for the neighborhood stakeholders to afford better food; updates to our grocery market to produce and supply more nutritious options; quantifiable demand for better nutrition, etc. While this is not a problem outside of the over-arching realm of ecological justice (unhealthy food has a propensity toward deplorable packaging, pesticidal, and animal treatment standards), the reference to food deserts is just a functional analogy. Environmental sustainability is already recognized as a wicked problem by several scholars [25] [26], leaving many proponents of ecological justice trapped in ESDs.
ESDs are a wicked problem in that they have many consequences and require a cornucopia of (somewhat) unrelated solutions. The simplest consequence of an ESD is the cognitive dissonance one feels within one: this could be from preaching a message of sustainability and having to purchase and live within a culture of disposability, or it could be about advocating for the environment whilst living in a concrete jungle, far removed from the natural wilderness of the planet. Beyond cognitive dissonance is the contribution these well-meaning folk inadvertently provide to the further pollution and destruction of our planetary health.
These consequences are not lost on many ecological advocates, though the reasons might be. In fact, they translate these consequences into documented psychological stress. Studies currently link ecological anxiety (often called climate anxiety, this is the trepidation and stress related to expected affronts to our planet’s ecosystems) and ecological grief (lingering sadness for what nature and organisms have already been lost) to our anthropocentric lifestyle and relative refusal to change [27]. Most of this is found in young people (defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as individuals aged 10–24 years) and youth (15–24 years) [28], though all ages have those experiencing these affects. Coinciding with this is a notable increase in online searches related to “eco anxiety” and “climate anxiety [27].” This should of course all be reasonably externalized on the neoliberal market, like most things, yet further research shows that it is affecting business, with professionals studied experiencing “burnout, anxiety, grief, and depression, with some choosing to leave the area of research [27].”
Extending even more into the effects this can have on society at large, scholars are linking this anxiety to growing (or, at best, stagnant) trends in substance abuse, escapism, suicide, radical activism, and a general malaise that shows itself as listless, pessimistic behavior. A substantial contributing factor to this foggy cloud of communal apathy is the recognition of barriers to change, limiting actors from feeling a sense of purpose or relief.
This is how we get back to the solutions portion of what makes ESDs a wicked problem – neoliberalism is so ubiquitous, so invasive, so omniscient as to fundamentally undermine the efforts of those wishing to reverse the tide, while remaining so effectively hidden from plain view that many don’t even know what caused their own retreat. Marcuse argued in One Dimensional Man that one must learn to exist – nay, to thrive – within capitalism in order face it head on, let alone defeat it [20]. As well as this can be applied as advocation for new business models like Certified B Corporation (B Corps) (companies that are graded on standards reflecting a triple bottom line) or those that otherwise follow the triple-bottom line, why don’t we see more of them? In the next section, the countervailing forces against ecological justice are explored.
Why Do Neoliberalism?
“A country is never as poor as when it seems filled with riches” -Lao Tzu/Laozi
The need for a multi-faceted approach to resolve the wicked problem of ESDs is at once simple and complex: defeat neoliberalism and disposable culture, replace it with creative democracy and sustainable culture; defeating neoliberalism is itself such an exhausting task as to have already devoured the lives of scholars, attorneys, politicians, and activists (by no means an exhaustive list). Rather than focus on the solutions at this moment (most of the work will later be dedicated to this task), let us question why neoliberalism has thus far prevailed and how it can continue to do so.
In short, neoliberalism prevails because it finds the most efficient method of extracting profits out of consumers, be it through low price, low pay, low regulation, or otherwise. The end goal is often said to be only the former – lower prices (and thus more power) for the consumer. This is a veil over the true motive, which is more power and return on investment (ROI) for the shareholder, whoever they may be. Better returns for shareholders often correlate to higher investments from those current and those now attracted to such an endowment.
What isn’t covered as well in the texts of neoliberal advocates, nor in this script (yet), are the darker undercutting methods sometimes justified for these lower prices. America has been taught through media sources that this is “not personal, just business,” and that this is natural. Alternatively, one could view this as a hyper-competitive (toxically masculine) form of corporate ethics is manufactured by the over-arching goals listed above- better returns for shareholders. Walmart is a well-documented example of aggressive tactics, involved in the consolidation of so many local businesses into one supermarket that underpays and under-employs the community it enters, while squeezing big-box competitors out through price gouging that originates with the manufacturer and is enjoyed by the consumer. An example of this would be their refusal to carry Dyson products unless Dyson lowered the cost, eventually leading to Dyson custom-designing less expensive (and less durable) parts to replace inside the otherwise replicated version of the original product. The consumer is not purposely made aware of this practice, and one wonders how often this happens in Walmart and the marketplace at large.
Neoliberal-based corporations set themselves apart fundamentally by refusing to internalize a given level of negative externalities. Rather than tackle issues such as pollution or pay that reflects inflation, single-bottom line employers avoid these responsibilities and keep operating costs at a minimum, regardless of the external cost. This has resulted in a remarkable decline in union membership, stagnant or even lowered wages, mercurial and even vanishing jobs, loss of benefits packed into the company portfolio, loss of bargaining rights, reductions in quality, outsourcing of labor, and privatization of goods or services that leave America a unique outlier to most developed nations – things like healthcare, pharmaceuticals, the prison-industrial complex, and education.
Since this reduction in cost to the business is so effective, it renders regular, morally stout businesses obsolete or struggling fringe-fighters that look for niches that neoliberalism overlooks or can’t effectively address. Crowding out the competition to such an effective degree as we’ve seen creates enormous barriers for ethically minded consumers, who must then pay higher prices or search much harder for items that might not even exist. Since many ecologically conscious individuals have begun to leave careers that support a neoliberal agenda, and since profits are higher in the neoliberal fold, many of these would-be ethical consumers are left with a dilemma – don’t consume, or consume poorly.
I thus ask you to consider the most frightening notion that you as a personal consumer are the cause for our collective plight. That our ghastly shadowselves (the neoliberal hungry ghost within all of us) live and thrive behind our delusional rationalities: which is to say that we must lie to ourselves about our level of regular consumption to adequately function as mortal beings. This is the idea of personal consumption growing person-by-person to an aggregate destructive power equivalent to an asteroid of trash hurtling toward our planet. Owning (a horrible term for animals) carnivorous pets is said to be an act of ecological malpractice- particularly if one incinerates their remains [29] [30]; electric vehicles, solar panels, and windmills have horrible waste properties associated with their production and operation [31] [32] [33]; switching from cow milk to almond milk eliminates the dependence on livestock but increases pressure on dairy farmers while using a similar amount of water in the process [34]; Americans constitute 5% of the world's population but consume 24% of the world's energy [35].
In his brief, charged essay Forget Shorter Showers, Derrick Jensen argues that it is a diversionary tactic purposely employed by the polluters to blame every-day proletariat consumers for the destruction caused by bourgeoise producers [36]. People are encouraged to decrease their shower time without being told of the percentage of water used by agriculture and manufacturing; we are subsidized toward an (expensive) electric car after decades of apathy from certain political leaders to push car manufacturers transition away on their own; citizens are encouraged to change their diets while Monsanto and co. push the hegemony of mono-crop agriculture and its end uses into the cars we drive and the foods we crave. With each of these disparities, even the loudest proponents of climate justice might struggle to engage in best practices, and it may hardly matter anyway.
The strategy of deflecting blame away from the neoliberal producers who push single-use disposable goods and other profitable yet destructive practices is not some accidental byproduct of their production process: oil giants such as Exxon and Chevron have admitted to lying about their own assurance that their plastic goods are recyclable; coal-based energy companies have admitted to hiring “activists” that purposely distribute dishonest pamphlets of the uselessness of solar energy; Apple has begrudgingly ended their suit against users with a feigned confession of planned (forced?) obsolescence. Producers are aware of the negative externalities – knowing might be half the battle, but a full battle requires an actual fight; neoliberal business leaders and supporters alike choose to disengage, deny, divert, and pass the buck, rather than draw defense lines and fight on level field. They are fighting a guerilla war with more funding, superior tactics, and home field advantage.
As such, Jensen goes on to speak against severely limiting one’s consumption – what he terms simple living – as a political act or message (though he encourages it for self-interest). This mirrors my decades-long argument against personal, detached anarchoprimitivism- an individual’s movement against consumption culture does nothing to change said culture; it is hardly a noticeable dent. Effective change must be collaborative.
America as a Single Party State
An additional barrier to defeating or even circumventing neoliberalism is the power that this system holds within government functions. The role of Super PACs that came out of the Citizens United decision is commonly referenced, since it gained notable resistance and was covered by many critics then and over a decade later. The power of this decision to influence voters and drive campaigns should not be understated, especially since an estimated 65% of Americans surveyed agree that politicians need a lot of money to win campaigns, and twenty percent more (85%) believe that elected officials return favors for those who contribute greatly to their campaigns [37]. For the eight years following the Citizens United ruling, republicans accounted for 70% of verified dark money contributions; in the 2018 election cycle, this flipped to a 54% contribution from liberal groups, and 31% from republican. Monetary values for the 2020 presidential campaign (just two candidates) reached $1.85 billion [38].
These are just the verified amounts of direct donations. Lobbying has nearly tripled in the last twenty years, rising from $1.56 billion in 2000 to $3.49 billion in 2020, an upward trend that dates back in earnest to the 1980s [39]. Former President Barack Obama received a $400,000 sum in 2017 for a speech given to Goldman Sachs within 100 days of leaving office [40]. The list is nearly endless, as are the effects – lower taxation on the rich, more economization of everything, lower regulation on companies, and more humanization of corporations.
Marcuse saw the formation of this trajectory decades ago in One Dimensional Man, arguing that our representative democracy is a largely unrecognized version of totalitarianism led by market forces [20]. This has been denounced by political scientists from many angles, particularly that the definition of totalitarian is rather narrow and must show direct government planning and implementation of indoctrination. My simplest rebuttal is to consider whether this distinction matters – should the idea of nearly invisible control over the most powerful nation’s subjects be ignored because of a literary technicality?
To be more forthcoming, Marcuse posits that the market system itself- the structure of modern shareholding business and the neoliberalism that drives it – is the ruling power of this country, ordering not only the way that each of us operate with coordinated motives, but indeed contributing vastly to the decisions of politicians as well. Throw in media control; privatization of prisons, healthcare, education, etc.; racist and sexist tendencies in business; price gouging; and massive lobbying that stretches away from business into moral quadrants (think Burwell v. Hobby Lobby in 2014) and one might get closer to understanding this point. The manufacturers are manufacturing consent, much like votes, and it undercuts our democratic liberty.
His idea is thus supported (at least mildly) by Brown and others in their pronouncement that neoliberalism undermines the political identity of the demos. I would like to argue further that the financial cost for entry into politics effectively leaves us with a single-party system democrats and republicans are considered two entirely separate parties, two of a (theoretically) unlimited amount. Yet, the cost for entry to campaign and to even garner support in a nation that defines success in terms of monetary authority leaves little room for the average citizen to engage. Every major political leader in recent history is above middle class by any measure; what matters is not necessarily which rich person is in charge (or what party they affiliate with), but rather that a rich person is in charge. We are the definition of a plutocratic oligarchy, stages that Plato warns lead democratic polities into tyranny.
An example of America business in place of government is our relationship with natural resources. In America and Canada only, natural resources are not often owned/operated by the state, but instead by private entities. Land can be bought and sold with (well-established and often limited) rights to the contents underneath or around it from one citizen to another. There is a growing amount of provocative literature on how authoritarian regimes handle their own natural resources (especially those falling into the “resource curse” or the “Dutch disease”), but seemingly little on the American alternative. The American owner/operators of these extraction firms collect dues from trading their resources and in turn misuse or hoard these earnings just as rentier states do with their constituents. Neither of these examples collect taxes, and both support trickle-down economic schemes to provide support (however vicarious) for those less fortunate, while denying access to those outside of direct ownership.
This mentality pervades throughout the American public as individualism, another trait rather unique to our country. Yet, as individualistic as we proport ourselves to be, the cultural hegemony of America is quite alarming. Distinct accents from different corners of our contiguous polity were once readily discernible but have since narrowed immensely in diversity; a rise in xenophobia and nationalism help keep “the American identity” locked into place; our wars based on socioeconomic idealism have defined the last sixty years of military (mis)adventure, promoting our hegemony indiscriminately to all who embrace or resist.
Possibly more frightening than our military might, however, is our hegemonic motives and our (possibly) totalitarian identity – brute force is hidden behind a luxurious, silk veil of financial opportunity. American business offers financial systems that trade land destruction for the short – term prosperity that allows for other countries to remain competitive; media companies placate average citizens into willing compliance; Monsanto decimates centuries-old Iranian grains for drought-resistant genetically modified organism (GMO) corn that fails within a decade.
The consequence to hegemony at such a broad scale is the stifling of innovation from what is deemed “counterculture” or “radical.” Displaying the powerful forces at hand serves as both a warning and a blueprint – running headfirst into the neoliberal trap is ill-advised. It should be clear now that this trap is set in financial, political, and social corridors. There is a dark history in our borders of stifling outliers- especially those concerned with economics. Nevertheless, running against the flow is exactly what I am advocating for, just not head-on.
The Call of The Wild
"They fear their higher self, because when it speaks, it speaks demandingly." -Nietzsche
I was both encouraged and dismayed to hear that Marc Lore (the billionaire Walmart ecommerce director and co-founder of Jet.com and Diapers.com) is interested in building an eco-city that he calls Telosa. It has been my intention to do so for at least five years now, and I find shortcomings within his design. Nevertheless, if executed properly, this can be an effective alternative to challenging neoliberalism on its own terms, on its own turf. Of course, it is much more complex than this, with ever-expanding justifications behind this task the further one pushes in. As aforementioned, most of this piece is dedicated to what I propose as our solution to the neoliberal machine. As such, this section is intentionally brief, and will focus more on the why instead of the how.
There are many arguments against such an undertaking – it is utopic, idyllic, cities grow organically, how do you deal with squalor/immigration/basic needs, etc. This is covered in detail further on. Admittedly, it is important to face these challenges with direct and open honesty rather than shy away from them, lest onlookers feel encouraged that your plans are unfinished and (even worse) chimeric. An incredibly brief outline of the most pressing concerns is included toward the end (Pg. 24).
The reasoning behind the construction of an ecocity (or, alternatively, the transformation of portions within an existing municipality, called Special Ecological Zones [SEZs]; more on this later) is one of political concern. As argued in the text above, the aim and effectiveness are so abhorrently relentless as to stifle the idealistic goals of those wishing to escape them. Moreover, and unfortunately untouched thus far, a combination of gerrymandering and urbanization has created a voting trap for progressives: local governments are reflective of their direct constituents, which have become increasingly divided between large swaths of rural red zones and densely packed cities of blue. This creates a nightmare for district allocation, a problem that is being leveraged en masse by republicans around the nation. Elected officials are still majority male, majority white, majority rich, and majority Christian. While some of these distinctions reflect the populace overall, some do not. One does not get to choose their citizenship, progressives are less and less able to choose their representatives, and even the “blue” candidates that are elected are still operating within a neoliberal mindset.
This is not to say that exceptions do not exist – B Corps are growing in number and influence; small wins on the far left like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez provide a window of hope for inclusivity; research is growing in ecological economics (such as donut economics [41], collectivism, community-first business, stakeholders over shareholders, and cooperatives [42]); cities (and California) are pushing legislation that goes beyond the national standards.
My argument is that these advancements are not enough – not only are they too little too late, but they also only scratch the surface. The development of ecocities – especially if they detach from national political restrictions – can serve as a beacon for sustainable eco-nomics. Much can be learned from pre-existing societies (particularly Scandinavia, Taiwan, Singapore, etc.) on how to operate from a place of inclusivity and economic self-dependency. Rather than engaging in open war with a conservative constitutionalist, a creative democracy can be called for, the likes of which John Dewey floated but never materialized – a concept for a way of life [43]. Dewey’s views on “manual training” in education would also be a healthy addition to a broken education system [44], but so too would inclusivity of tax collection to be spread out (more) evenly between districts.
Marx predicted that producers would detach from production if factories didn’t alter their mindset. A reset to modern working spaces with more stakeholder input, profit and expenditure transparency, not-for-profit financial structure, and increased horizontal/vertical mobility can address this concern. Businesses that think sustainably from their core mindset are shown to have better relationships with their communities and employees, leading to many investors becoming more interested in this mentality. A fresh start with an eye for compassion and sustainability can attract these investors and transform modern business.
Spartan culture, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, and Simone de Beauvoir each spoke of accessing our highest self by challenging the norms of a lazy, self-centered, and undisciplined society, choosing instead to follow a more deliberate path, and taking a rational leap of faith. The issue right now is – where would one leap? A fresh start would provide a space where like-minded eco-advocates could collaborate on lowering consumption, increasing time spent in nature, reducing their carbon footprint, and restoring desolate land spaces. In this way, vices common to our current culture would be reconsidered- fast food, palm oil, single-use plastic, petrol, pesticides, etc. This can lead to an enhanced culture and unlock individual’s “higher self.”
A new start would allow for cooperatives to exist from the beginning. B Corps and closed-loops would be the standard, not the exception, with cradle-to grave planning structured into a business abstract. Zero-waste initiatives would be encouraged, with subsidies for the finest examples. Agriculture can be shifted from monocrops, GMOs, pesticides, and livestock to more traditional planting and maintenance methods (like those promoted by the Savory Institute or in the Amazonian Basin). Transportation can be focused on public, high speed, and low-impact methods such as biking, rickshaws, monorails, bridged roadways over natural land, etc.
It could usher in sustainable culture and relieve some of the normative disposability of our current culture (an entirely separate paper is dedicated to this juxtaposition, whereby I expand beyond the typical material good that are disposed and elucidate on the deeper effects- relationships, language, time, ambitions, etc.). In this way, McKibben’s warning of lowered communicability and increased social atomization [4] can be reversed through planned community interactions based on innovative living spaces, workplaces, and activities.
Likewise, it could be a reasonable chance to have a fresh, secular liberal democracy, like that which Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s spoke of and lamented had “not yet existed [45].” Continuing with Rousseau, a polity separate from current boundaries could from a different relationship with the social contract, one which is signed by individuals. Much can be said on this topic (much will be), and criticism is expected. Even still, a modern contract, a modern constitution, and a modern form of revisionary democracy should be encouraged rather than insulted. Culture is not stationary, and few parts of morality escape this amorphous nature entirely.
In this vein of reformation, the pre-existing societies aforementioned (Scandinavia et. al.) can be looked to for inspiration on healthcare, taxation, legislation, rehabilitation over criminalization, education, and more. Research has been conducted (though more is needed) on carbon taxation- a method I align with closely. Indeed, a global carbon tax would be ideal, especially if used to fund carbon-negative projects (fining overproducers to aid under(developed) producers). Scholar Shmuel Nili has initiated some highly provocative research on this front, focusing on global taxation, global reform, and collective action (the title of one paper) [46], and the (cautious) call for a world state power [47]. Nili also speaks of natural resources, which and distributing these commodities more evenly throughout society at large. I imagine ecocities falling into an updated “Georgist” economic model, whereby citizens have set (but lowered) tax rates and they buy land (and its resources) from the governmental body. Lore’s Telosa falls into the latter portion, but few modern scholars seem to speak of Georgism.
This latter notion offers a window in the final topic of this section: how to survive within an economic island of sustainability, whilst being surrounded by neoliberalism. The largest danger to an ecocity is also its largest strength – trading only within its own borders, with companies certified under sustainability parameters, the ecocity can remain self-sufficient (much like Singapore, though there is no truly feasible example). The danger is to become stranded in a self-induced embargo. The possible solution, however, is to translate this island into an archipelago- ecocities worldwide connected via a singular, like-minded government body. I call this the Green Empyre, and I expect the alliance to be one of existing municipalities that reach certain environmentally sustain goals, or novel ecocities modeled after the first. Either way, this can be one step toward global governance, one with drastically updated standards on citizenship, ecology, and democracy.
Come Ye Detractors, Let Us Resolve Our Differences
There are many issues to resolve in this ultimately idyllic and possibly unrealistic outline. Not all must be addressed directly, and there are many issues not presented below. Nonetheless, the following list is preconceived and of most note:
A lack of funding or popular support.
Severe economic disparity between an economy of sustainability vs external neoliberalism.
Possible military or political intervention of external polities.
Ignorance toward best practices due to oversight, lack of complete talent, bad habits, technology conceived but not present, human error, and more.
Reliance on technology or ideas that are in testing phases
Especially the probability of obsolescence in a green market that is innovating faster than similar industrial sectors.
Governmental processes that are entirely new and untested.
Pre-existing societal norms that are counter-intuitive, require training, or stubborn.
New (dangerous) societal norms that are left unchecked and grow without foresight.
There may be massive temptation to flood money into the project, yet this can create natural disparities and costs of barrier that promote almost xenophobic exclusivity.
Demand for residency that overshoots the supply (squalor)
This would likely manifest in too much development being needed in too short a time span, which can hasten projects to the point of efficiency over effectiveness.
Squabbling over methods/ breakdown in cohesiveness.
Dependence on government interaction for standard processes, the tendency to resist regulation, and the slow pace of certifications, site reviews, etc.
Some of these problems seem nigh insurmountable, and this is far from an exhaustive list. Regardless of this, I believe that adequate planning and adherence to the core goals can overcome the obstacles here and not here. My apprehension, however (and that of millions of fellow Americans), is that this paper will be buried under the stack of countless other “radical” proclamations for the substantial redirection of our current trajectory; that we will march forever closer to the doom scientists agree exists on the other side of our misadventures.
I admit that ecocities aren’t the end-all-be-all; they would more aptly be a humble beginning to an expansive future of eco-consciousness, participatory democracy, and smart-cities. That said, without a beacon of hope inspiring those who feel that they must consume or be consumed, those who feel trapped under the all-encompassing specter of neoliberal forces may remain there for their entire lives. Let the ecocity be the Statue of Liberty for eco-advocates, the new world inside of the new world.
Special Ecological Zones
By and large, municipal economic developers are concerned with
References
[1] C. Caldwell, "Bankers Took Over the Climate Change Summit. That’s Bad For Democracy.," The New York Times, p. 20, 25 November 2021.
[2] L. D. H. Nguyen, "California’s carbon-offset disaster reveals why COP26 was a big disappointment," The Desert Sun, 27 November 2021.
[3] A. Frangoul, "China's Shock Climate Deal with U.S. Sparks Some Cautious Optimism," 11 November 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/11/cop26-us-china-declaration-on-climate-welcomed.html. [Accessed 29 November 2021].
[4] B. McKibben, Deep Economy, NYC: Henry Holt & Co., 2007.
[5] K. Marx, Theses on Feuerbach, Moscow: Institute of Marxism-Leninism, 1845.
[6] H. N. Ruth Defries, "Ecosystem Management as a Wicked Problem," Science, vol. 356, no. 6335, pp. 265-270, 2017.
[7] K. Marx, Communist Manifesto, London: Workers' Educational Association, 1848.
[8] W. Brown, Undoing The Demos, New York City: Zone Books, 2015.
[9] M. Cooper, Family Values: Between Neoliberalism and the New Social Conservatism, New York City: Zone Books, 2019.
[10] D. Harvey, A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.
[11] J. Gledhill, "Gledhill, J. (2018). Neoliberalism.. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118924396.wbiea2073," in In The International Encyclopedia of Anthropology, H. Callan (Ed.), Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2018.
[12] P. Bond, "Southern Africa, Popular Resistance to Neoliberalism, 1982–2007," in The International Encyclopedia of Revolution and Protest, Hoboken, New Jersey, John Wiley & Sons, 2009.
[13] F. Hayek, The Road to Serfdom, Oxfordshire, Englad: Routledge Press, 1944.
[14] K. Whyte, "Settler Colonialism, Ecology, and Environmental Injustice," Environment and Society: Advances in Research , vol. 9, p. 125–144, 2018.
[15] C. Roser, "Example of Problem Solving- Japanese Men's Relay Team Rio 2016," AllAboutLean, 13 November 2018. [Online]. Available: https://www.allaboutlean.com/japan-relay-2016/. [Accessed 29 November 2021].
[16] V. Watts, "Indigenous Place- Thought and Agency Amongst Humans and Non-Humans," Decolonization: Indigeneity, Eduction, and Society, vol. 2, pp. 20-34, 2013.
[17] "GDP of Africa," International Monetary Fund, 3 November 2021. [Online]. Available: https://statisticstimes.com/economy/africa-gdp.php. [Accessed 29 November 2021].
[18] "North American Companies by GDP," International Monetary Fund, 3 November 2021. [Online]. Available: https://statisticstimes.com/economy/north-american-countries-by-gdp.php. [Accessed 29 November 2021].
[19] M. Foucault, Discipline and Punish, New York: Vintage Books, 1995.
[20] H. Marcuse, One-Dimensional Man, Boston: Beacon Press, 1964.
[21] D. Butt, "Colonialism and Postcolonialism," in The International Encyclopedia of Ethics: LaFollette, H (ed.), Hoboken, NJ, Blackwell, 2013, p. 892–898.
[22] D. H. R. H. Katherine White, "The Elusive Green Consumer," Harvard Business Review, no. July-August, pp. 124-133, 2019.
[23] R. K.-S. Tensie Whelan, "Research: Actually, Consumers Do Buy Sustainable Products," Harvard Business Review, no. June-August, 2019.
[24] J. G. P. R. Neil Reid, "Toward a Relational Geography of Local Food Systems: Or Wicked Food Problems Without Quick Spatial Fixes," in Toward a Relational Geography of Local Food Systems, London, Routledge, 2012, pp. 251-261.
[25] C. S. Jonathan Pryshlakivsky, "Sustainable Developmnet as a Wicked Problem," in Managing and Engineering in Complex Situations, New York City, Springer, 2013, pp. 109-128.
[26] H. N. Ruth Defries, "Ecosystem Management as a Wicked Problem," Science, vol. 56, no. 6335, pp. 265-270, 2017.
[27] S. H. K. M. K. H. K. W. C. H. Ashlee Cunsolo, "Ecological Grief and Anxiety: the start of a healthy response to climate change?," The Lancet- Planetary Health, vol. 4, no. 7, pp. 261-263, 2020.
[28] G. S. H. S. Judy Wu, "Climate Anxiety in Young People: A Call to Action," The Lancet- Planetary Health, vol. 4, no. 10, pp. 435-436, 2020.
[29] B. S. S. D. Pim Martens, " The Ecological Paw Print of Companion Dogs and Cats," BioScience, vol. 69, no. 6, p. 467–474, 2019.
[30] P. Marra, "The Ecological Cost of Pets," Current Biology Magazine, vol. 29, pp. 995-996, 2019.
[31] T. S. B. M.-B. G. a. S. A. Hawkins, "Comparative Environmental Life Cycle Assessment of Conventional and Electric Vehicles," Journal of Industrial Ecology, vol. 17, pp. 53-64, 2013.
[32] M. R. C. S. E. G. H. Jan Weinzettel, "Life cycle assessment of a floating offshore wind turbine," Renewable Energy, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 742-747, 2009.
[33] R. C. J. G. O. &. G. J. Taylor, "Potential ecological impacts of groundmounted photovoltaic solar panels," BSG Ecology, Newport, Wales, 2019.
[34] K. M.-S. I. K. A. e. a. Winans, "Life cycle assessment of California unsweetened almond milk," International Journal of Life Cycle Assessment, vol. 25, p. 577–587, 2020.
[35] M. Reed, "Consumption by the United States," Associated Press, 2008. [Online]. Available: https://public.wsu.edu/~mreed/380American%20Consumption.htm. [Accessed 2021].
[36] D. Jensen, "Forget Shorter Showers," 7 July 2009. [Online]. Available: https://orionmagazine.org/article/forget-shorter-showers/.
[37] C. Jackson, "Americans report a bipartisan desire for transparent political financing laws," 18 February 2019. [Online]. Available: https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/americans-report-a-bipartisan-desire-for-transparent-political-financing-laws. [Accessed 2021].
[38] "Presidential election campaign finance, 2020," Ballotopedia, 2021. [Online]. Available: https://ballotpedia.org/Presidential_election_campaign_finance,_2020.
[39] E. Duffin, "Total Lobbying Spending U.S. 1998-2020," Statista, 4 March 2021. [Online]. Available: https://www.statista.com/statistics/257337/total-lobbying-spending-in-the-us/. [Accessed 29 November 2021].
[40] M. Rozsa, "Barack Obama's $400,000 Speech to Wall St Sparks Liberal Blowback," Salon, 26 April 2017. [Online]. Available: https://www.salon.com/2017/04/26/barack-obamas-400000-speech-to-wall-street-sparks-liberal-blowback/. [Accessed 29 November 2021].
[41] K. Raworth, Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st-Century Economist, Chelsea, Vermont: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018.
[42] M. Scanlan, Prosperity in the Fossil-Free Economy: Cooperatives and the Design of Sustainable Businesses, New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2021.
[43] J . Dewey, Freedom and Culture, London: George Allen & Unwin Ltd, 1939.
[44] J. Dewey, Democracy and Education, New York City: The MacMillon Company, 1916.
[45] J.-J. Rousseau, The Social Contract, London: Penguin Books, 1974.
[46] S. Nili, "Global taxation, global reform, and collective action," Moral Philosophy and Politics, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 83-103., 2014.
[47] S. Nili, "Who’s afraid of a world state? A global sovereign and the statist-cosmopolitan debate," Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 241-263, 2015.
