Sentences with phrase «of ecomodernists»

Latour offered a rollicking critique of ecomodernists and their manifesto, kicking off a discussion among the other panelists and participants about what it means to be human and the division between nature and society.

In the hands of the ecomodernists, optimism isn't used as a torch to light the way forward, but rather as a cudgel with which to beat intellectual opponents into submission — because, especially in the United States, to be less than optimistic is to be, in a way, un-American.

The rhetoric of the ecomodernist manifesto boils down to the simple proposition that we can as a species manage both economic development and ecological conservation.

In late June, around 170 scholars, policy makers, philanthropists, friends, and allies of Breakthrough Institute gathered in Sausalito to pose tough questions of the ecomodernist project and its stated goals.

One of their ecomodernist peers, journalist Will Boisvert, recently pondered in a piece, «How bad will climate change be?»

Not exact matches

Instead of final proof of the damage done by techno - industrial hubris, the «ecomodernists» welcome the new epoch as a sign of man's ability to transform and control nature.

Without substantially changing the substance, I wonder if the ecomodernist manifesto could have won over people such as George Monbiot, simply by better explanation and a change of emphasis?

Although I greatly respect the concepts behind the ecomodernist manifesto, I feel it does a poor job of engaging many traditional environmentalists.

... to the extent that the ecomodernist manifesto does not take account of the real - world obstacles to that goal, it ducks the very question it claims to be addressing.

In calculations for Slate, Michael Shellenberger, one of the founders of the «ecomodernist» philosophy that advocates for a technology - focused approach to tackling climate change that includes support for nuclear power, figured out that «under Sanders» proposal to not re-license nuclear plants, U.S. carbon emissions would increase by a minimum of 2 billion tons, about the same amount as the U.S. produces each year making electricity.»

And we supported the creation of three new ecomodernist organizations — Mothers for Nuclear, Generation Atomic, to organize pro-nuclear students, and Environmental Hope and Justice, a new, pro-nuclear environmental justice organization that will launch next year.

How should ecomodernists think about markets, prices, modernization processes, governance, and the role of the state?

The Breakthrough Paradigm Award 2015 was bestowed to Ruth DeFries, a visionary ecomodernist scholar and Denning Family Professor of Sustainable Development at Columbia University.

Should ecomodernists return to the earlier, place - based view of multiple natures?

Over the last few years, ecomodernist thinkers have articulated a vision of a «good Anthropocene,» one where humans use our extraordinary powers to shrink humankind's negative impacts on nature.

For instance, in Nisbet's typology, «ecological activists» such as Bill McKibben and Naomi Klein frame climate change as a product of the global capitalist system, «smart growth reformers» such as Al Gore and Nicholas Stern diagnose climate change as a market failure that can be corrected with more efficient price signals, and «ecomodernists» such as Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger believe climate change has been misdiagnosed as an environmental problem and should be reframed as a resilience and innovation challenge.

The past 10 years has seen the fragmentation and proliferation of new discourses about the environment, from those of deep greens to «smart - growth reformers» to ecomodernists.

A concurrent session at Breakthrough Dialogue debated different economic schools of thought with respect to how ecomodernists think about growth, innovation, and the environment.

In contrast to the «one - dimensional paradigm» of technocratic domination that concerns Pope Francis, the ecomodernists propose what might be described as a two - dimensional paradigm.

Meanwhile, the «ecomodernists» behind the manifesto — a cadre of environmentalists, many of whom are associated with the Breakthrough Institute, a center - left think tank — have faced accusations of apostasy from their liberal and environmentalist brethren for endorsing nuclear power, criticizing the idea that we can live in harmony with nature, and generally rejecting the ecological orthodoxy that we need limits on growth.

The ecomodernists and Pope Francis approach our ecological problems in very different ways, the former emphasizing growth, technology, and separation from nature, the latter emphasizing restraint, charity, and the interconnectedness of all things.

But, unlike those environmentalists in wealthy countries who denounce the modern world while enjoying its blessings, the ecomodernists recognize that, though with today's technology it is impossible to lift the world's poorest out of poverty without destroying the environment, with the technologies of the future — next - generation nuclear and solar power, carbon capture and storage, high - intensity agriculture and aquaculture, and others — all things are possible.

Where the encyclical rebukes the modern world for its crass materialism and obsession with technology, the ecomodernists offer a full - throated endorsement of the modern project of technological progress and economic growth.

In addition to their enthusiasm for technology, the ecomodernists are different from many other greens in their forceful rejection of the Malthusian argument that we must limit economic growth, recognizing that environmental policies that require curtailing economic growth are politically impractical in rich countries, and are both impractical and morally unjustifiable in poor countries.

Judging from their manifesto, the ecomodernists could be described as people who heard from the prophets of doom that it would be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for the poor of the Earth to enter the kingdom of modernity and prosperity.

The idea of «substitution» looms large in the ecomodernist agenda — developing technologies that can replace environmentally destructive practices.

And where Pope Francis tells us we need a widespread moral transformation toward asceticism and charity, the ecomodernists take for granted that consuming more energy and more material goods will improve the lot of most human beings, and that we need technologies that will allow all to enjoy prosperity without unduly harming the natural world.

Where the ecomodernists argue that we must develop new and better technologies, especially energy technologies, if we are to solve environmental problems, in Laudato Si» we are told that «to seek only a technical remedy to each environmental problem which comes up is to separate what is in reality interconnected and to mask the true and deepest problems of the global system.»

Instead of seeking to «harmonize with nature to avoid economic and ecological collapse,» the ecomodernists would have us develop technologies that give human societies greater independence from nature, since «nature unused is nature spared.»