1. Social-ecology
Dr. Éloi LAURENT (OFCE/FNSP, Stanford U)
eloi.laurent@sciences-po.fr
Sustainable prosperity
University of Ottawa, 19 April 2011.

2. Outline
 The ideas in the book;
 Acceleration of ecological time/Human domination on Earth;
 The illusions of the “Environmental Kuznets curve”;
 Poverty as an ecological curse;
 Inequality and ecological crises;
 The era of environmental inequalities;
 The era of social-ecological disasters ;
 Why green dictatorship is not the answer;
 Four political paths.

3. The ideas in the book
 The “guilt/responsibility paradox”;
 Ecological crises are accelerating and mankind is rightly indicted
in this process: “Global anthropogenic Environmental Change”;
 Yet fatalism is simultaneously growing about the human capacity
to resolve these crises: we are guilty but not responsible;
 Thesis of the book: ecological crises really are social issues, we
have to look into the reason for the human success on Earth –
social cooperation that promotes collective intelligence – to find
causes and solutions to our environmental crises ;
 Causes: unsustainable inequalities; solution: more democracy;

4. The ideas in the book
 Analytical consequence: social sciences hold the key to
the issues revealed by hard sciences; “social-ecology” as
a new way of thinking about our precarious world;
 Political consequence: it is by embedding ecological
issues in social ones that we can reconcile citizens with
ecology and avoid the illusion of the environmental-
social trade-off: social-ecology as a new political
horizon;

5. The ideas in the book
 Alternative analysis: matters of distribution, equality or
democracy are secondary when one considers the pathological
economic development of our societies based on an irrepressible
propensity to innovate and a political economy of capitalism that
condemns us to ecological over-consumption;
 But technical progress or economic development alone are
neither the sole cause, nor the unambiguous solution to our
problems: the key is the principle of justice;
 We must not only change our technological model or growth
strategy, but our model of society.

6. The acceleration of ecological time
 Earth created 4.5 bn years ago; life on earth: 3.5bn (extra-
terrestrial);
 Manlike creatures appear on earth: 7 mil years ago (mammals
thrive because Dinosaurs die 65m BC, again extra-terrestrial
intervention!);
 Homo sapiens sapiens appear: - 200 000;
 Agriculture is developed: - 10 000 BC;
 Industrial revolution: 1820;
 Industrial growth: 1950. Acceleration of human domination on
Earth and of life on Earth that has been going one for two
centuries.
 1969: landing on the moon/”discovery” of the vulnerability of
the Earth.

7. Human Domination of Earth's Ecosystems and the
Anthropocene
Peter Vitousek et al. 1997, Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000
« It is clear that we control much of Earth, and
that our activities affect the rest. In a very real
sense, the world is in our hands—and how we
handle it will determine its composition
and dynamics, and our fate. »
(Vitousek et al, 1997)
“During the past two centuries, the global effects of
human activities have become clearly noticeable. This is
the period when data retrieved from glacial ice cores show
the beginning of a growth in the atmospheric
concentrations of several 'greenhouse gases", in particular
C02 and CH4. Such a starting date also coincides with
James Watt's invention of the steam engine in 1784.”
(Crutzen and Stoermer, 2000)
+ 2°-6° -30% 60%

8. Biomes and Anthromes
In 1700, nearly half of the terrestrial
biosphere was wild, without human
settlements or substantial land use.
Most of the remainder was in a
seminatural state (45%) having only
minor use for agriculture and
settlements.
By 2000, the opposite was true,
with the majority of the biosphere in
agricultural and settled anthromes,
less than 20% seminatural and only a
quarter left wild.

9. Crossing planetary boundaries
Source: Rockström J et al, “A safe operating space for humanity”, Nature. 2009 Sep 24 ;461(7263):472-5.

10. The Environmental Kuznets curve
(EKC), 1955, 1992
A « bell curve » shaped relationship
between environmental quality and
per capita GDP level
World Bank (1992) : “The view that
greater economic activity inevitably
hurts the environment is based on static
assumptions about technology, tastes
and environmental investments” ; “As
incomes rise, the demand for
improvements in environmental quality
will increase, as will the resources
available for investment”

11. Development and the environment
Lack of access to Lack of access to
clean water sanitary
Urban pollution SO2
emissions
Waste CO2
emissions
Source: Criqui, 2006.

12. Poverty as an ecological curse, good
institutions as a lasting solution
 Environmental Kuznets curve: solution to ecological crises is simply more economic
development (basis of the Lomborg fallacy);
 Some truth to that argument (some pollutions recede with development);
 But poverty is a also an ecological curse : social-environmental spiral in which
poverty pressures individuals to consume natural capital (Haïti, indoor cooking);
 Neither more or less economic development will do. Real Problem: lack of good
institutions and good governance.
 Absence of clearly defined and secure property rights, lack of clear environmental
policy goals, poor enforcement of existing regulation, corruption, lack of political
will and lack of institutional capacity = examples of failing governance that leads to
ecosystem degradation.
 The question of good institutions and governance in common natural resources
management is crucial; “tragedy of the commons” can be avoided without
privatization or centralization but with implementing just principles (E. Ostrom).
 Natural resources = common goods = social relations;

13. The Xingu River
watershed and the
Xingu Indigenous
Park, deforestation
1994–2005.
Source: Deforestation
1994–2005 maps
prepared by the
Instituto
Socioambiental
Source: Ostrom et al,
2010.

14. Inequality and ecological crises
 Boyce: Economic activities that degrade the environment generally yield winners and
losers. Without winners - people who derive net benefit from the activity, or at least think
that they do - the environmentally degrading activities would not occur. Without losers -
people who bear net costs - they would not matter in terms of human well-being.
 Why are the winners able to impose costs on the losers? the losers do not yet exist. They
belong to future generations, and so are not here to defend themselves. The losers already
exist, but they do not know it. They lack information about the costs of environmental
degradation. The third possibility is that the losers exist and know it, but they lack the
power to prevent the winners from imposing costs on them.
 Not only different environmental impacts depending on level of income (the 20% richest
pollute 2.5 times than the 20% poorest in France) but also dynamic view of inequality: the
ability of the rich to impose environmental cost to the poors (individuals and countries);
 False virtue of the rich: reversal of the argument of Mancur Olson on "green elite“ that
would be environmentally beneficial to all because it would have a greater preference for
the environment. In reality, inequality increases ecological irresponsibility of the rich, the
demand for economic growth of the rest of the population and hampers the ability to
organize effectively to preserve natural capital.
 Inequality pollutes our planet.

15. The era of environmental
inequality
 Environmental justice and inequality: USA, 1987;
 2007 Report: “Over nine million people are estimated to live within
three kilometers (1.8 miles) of the nation's 413 commercial
hazardous waste facilities…percentages of people of color as a
whole are 1.9 times greater in host neighborhoods than in non-
host areas…poverty rates in the host neighborhoods are 1.5 times
greater than those in non-host areas (18% vs. 12%) and mean annual
household incomes in host neighborhoods are 15% lower ($ 48,234
vs. $ 56,912).”
 Different types of environmental inequalities: exposure and access
inequalities; Policy effect inequalities; Impact inequalities; Policy-
making inequalities.

16. Environmental inequality in Montréal
Source: Morency et al, 2009 (DSPM).

17. The era of social-ecological
disasters
 "The Gods’ anger does not exist": the natural fate plays a limited role in social-
ecological disaster whose impact depends on the degree of democracy and
inequality of the society that faces them;
 The Japanese tragedy illustrates this idea: at each step of the disastrous spiral
inequality and democracy have been decisive;
 The earthquake has made "only" a few tens of casualties due to earthquake
standards (that of 1923 had caused 150,000 deaths, including 40,000 in
burning slums, the one in Haiti, about 300 000); international inequaly;
Development factor: Since 1923, « only » 30 000 deaths in Japan, that faced
190 earthquakes with magnitude > 6;
 The tsunami may have killed up to 25,000 people (the 2004 Asian tsunami has
cost 250,000 lives): sea walls, a few feet too short, have probably saved tens
of thousands of lives by slowing down for a few minutes the water;
 Finally, the nuclear threat was not only ill-estimated, but mostly hidden from
the public: it is a democratic failure;

18. The era of social-ecological
disasters
 Role of Governance: Comparing Haiti and Dominican
Republic in the 2000s: the number of victims killed or
affected is sixteen times higher in Haiti than in the
Dominican Republic, the number of people affected three
times greater;
 Role of social inequality in disasters affecting rich
countries: heatwave in France (2003) and Katrina (2005);
 More social-ecological disasters to come...

19. Why green dictatorship is not the
answer
 Argument developed since Hans Jonas (1979) and Garett Hardin (1968):
Democracy leads to ecological ruin, we must "dispense with the consent of
citizens" if we want to get out of ecological crises in time;
 Three criticisms of democracy, ethical (liberalism), institutional (paralysis,
short-termism), economic (smoke screen for capitalism);
 In reality, democracy is the system of “ecological alterness”: free information,
responsiveness, free knowledge sharing (government by discussion / public
reasoning), hospitality for "institutional diversity" (Ostrom), fight against
inequality;
 Examples: USSR, China and USA + empirical studies.

20. Four political paths
 Building social-ecological resilience (democratic and non-
Darwinian adaptation to environmental crises: building social-
ecological collective protections, example of the heatwave plan
after 2003 in France);
 Mobilizing for environmental justice: inventing a “social-
ecological welfare state” which addresses the issue of
environmental inequalities (= 13% of fuel poor households in
France, 16% in the UK) and develops social-ecological policies
(tax, urban renovation, collective transports);
 Enriching the Green Economy: grow eco-industries, develop
circular / functional economy, build and use new development
indicators (Sen-Stiglitz Report Fitoussi);
 Aknowledging ecological debt/promoting global solidarity;

21. Global environmental governance
and ecological crises
1,4
Stockholm, 1972 Rio, 1992
1,3
Carbon footprint
1,2
1,1
1
0,9 Living planet index
0,8
0,7
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Source: Laurent, 2011.

22. Why is the Montreal Protocol
a success story?
 Signed by 24 countries and EEC in Sept. 1987
 Undisputable science = satellite photos of ozone layer depletion (problems of
UV rays);
 Brilliant diplomacy:
 Extension to every country = only universal treaty (196 parties) since Sept 2009;
 Quantitative and transparent targets;
 For developed and developing countries;
 Taking into account national production and imports and exports (difficult to
cheat);
 Financial transfers between rich and poor countries;
 Flexibility : revision of targets according to science and results;
 Flexibility : panel of experts can decide partial or temporary exemptions;
 Result = 97% of ODS have been eliminated and ozone layer is in the process of
restoration!

23. Consumption of ODS and ozone hole
Source: WRI.

24. Climate negotiations:
the global chiasm
Co2 emissions from fossil fuels between 1990 and 2008: + 41%
Source: Le Quéré C, Raupach MR, Canadell JG, Marland G et al. (2009)
Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide. Nature geosciences.

25. What we should do in Durban:
the twin curves
- 5%
- 30%
Source: HDR 08.