More heat than life: The tangled roots of ecology, energy and economics (Review)

 

Jeremy Walker's book looks at the roots of ecology and economics. Despite the common 'eco' element his core argument is that they are divergent systems of thought. Ecology looks at the inter relationship of different species, economics is focussed on that which we can measure with money alone. 

In particular the growth imperative in modern economics is unsustainable. This has accelerated Walker argues with neoliberalism.

His suggestion, I think, is that 'economics' has more gravity in our society and tends to bend ecology, or at least ecological policy making, into market based solutions such as carbon trading.

There is much of interest in this book. The mention of fire ecology and the use fire by indigenous populations, particularly in Australia, suggests a system of sophisticated environmental management, much of which was destroyed by colonialism. A topic I was introduced to in my first degree in environmental archaeology in the 1980s, one I think I need to return to and read more about. Walker outlines some key sources on this.

While ecology is largely positively contrasted with economics, Walker notes that ecology as a science has been influenced both by colonialism and way, think of the cybernetics of the Rand corporation feeding into both academic and popular approaches.

Climate change is a key theme through out the book, which while it has a sharp polemical edge is an academic and well argued text.

One concept, the book introduce me too, and I am a great believer in the productivity of concepts (even when they are being used to challenge productivism), I picked up in the book was that of  'agnotology'. This is the opposite of 'epistemology'. Where as epistemology is the study of how knowledge is produced, agnotology is the study of how ignorance is produced and sustained.

I have long held via Althusser and Spinoza that silences must be studied. That which isn't spoken of is often significant.

I guess this brings me to one small criticism. The silence about Elinor Ostrom. The very different reasons why authors are silent about Elinor Ostrom, could fill a book (a library?). I guess she simply doesn't neatly fit in. Her lack of fit is one of the most important things about her, she certainly read both the ecology and the economics, often her research included teams of both natural and social scientists.

I guess Walker's criticism of the evolution of 'resilience' could be used as a criticism of her work. I think it is important, though, to see how concepts can be mobilised and taken in different directions. How we do this is an area worthy of discussion. Concepts rather than being 'essential' can mutate, perhaps everything if pushed far enough can evolve into its opposite. I guess to conclude that this book that discusses the trajectories of 'eco', is making this point.