Breakthrough Dialogue 2017: Democracy in the Anthropocene will take place on June 21 – 23, 2017
In a world in which humans have become the dominant ecological force on the planet, good outcomes for people and the environment increasingly depend upon the decisions we collectively make. How we grow food, produce energy, utilize natural resources, and organize human settlements and economic enterprises will largely determine what kind of planet we leave to future generations. Depending upon those many decisions, the future earth could be hotter or cooler; host more or less biodiversity; be more or less urbanized, connected, and cosmopolitan; and be characterized by vast tracts of wild lands, where human influences are limited, or virtually none at all.
If the promise of the Anthropocene is, to paraphrase Stewart Brand’s famous coinage, that “we are as gods,” and might get good at it, the risk is that we are not very good at it and might be getting worse. A “Good Anthropocene” will require foresight, planning, and well-managed institutions. But what happens when the planners and institutions lose their social license? When utopian civil society ideals conflict with practical measures needed to assure better outcomes for people and the environment? When the large-scale and long-term social and economic transformations associated with ecological modernization fail to accommodate the losers in those processes in a just and equitable manner?
If the enormous global ecological challenges that human societies face today profoundly challenge small-is-beautiful, soft energy, and romantic agrarian environmentalism, the checkered history of top-down technocratic modernization challenges its ecomodern alternative. It is easy enough to advocate that everybody live in cities, much harder to achieve that transition in fair and non-coercive fashion. Nuclear energy has mostly been successfully deployed by state fiat. It is less clear that it can succeed in a world that has increasingly liberalized economically and decentralized politically. Global conservation efforts have become expert at mapping biodiversity hotspots but still struggle to reconcile global conservation objectives with local priorities, diverse stakeholders, and development imperatives in poor economies. Rich-world prejudices about food and agricultural systems, meanwhile, frequently undermine agricultural modernization in the poor world.
Where contemporary environmentalism was borne of civil society reaction to the unintended consequences of industrialization and modernity, the great environmental accomplishments of modernity—the Green Revolution, the development and deployment of a global nuclear energy fleet, the rewilding and reforestation of vast areas thanks to energy transitions, and rising agricultural productivity—proceeded either out of view or over the objections of civil society environmental discourse. Today, the Green Revolution, nuclear energy, and the transition from biomass to fossil energy are broadly viewed as ecological disasters in many quarters, despite their not insignificant environmental benefits.
This year at the Breakthrough Dialogue, we tackle those questions head-on. Attitudes towards urbanization, nuclear energy, GMOs, and agricultural modernization are beginning to shift, as the magnitude of change needed to reconcile ecological concerns with global development imperatives has begun to come fully into view. Can a Good Anthropocene be achieved in bottom-up, decentralized fashion? Can there be a robust and vocal civil society constituency for ecomodernization? What should we do when nnaot everyone wants to be modern, and what is to be done when political identities and ideological commitments trump facts on the ground? If it turns out, in short, that we’re not very good at being gods, is it possible to get better at it?
Democracy and Ecomodernism
Civil society environmental discourse has been characterized simultaneously by protest against the industrial arrangements of the present and appeals to utopian alternatives for the future. Debates about nuclear power, industrial agriculture, and GMOs have mostly been waged between civil society environmental groups on one side and industry and government on the other. But recently some civil society voices have begun to advocate for those technologies on environmental grounds. Can there be civil society movements for practical environmental solutions? For centralized, high tech, large scale technologies? Can ecomodernist solutions be pursued bottom up instead of top down? Or is the real contribution of civil society activism to define the agenda for policy-makers to address and provide democratic accountability to solutions that will, inevitably, require technocratic solutions?
- Ted Nordhaus, cofounder and executive director, Breakthrough Institute
Steven Pinker, author, The Better Angels of Our Nature
Moderator: Oliver Morton, briefings editor, The Economist
When Is Big Beautiful?
The failure of systems and institutions that are too big to fail has become a cautionary tale for our age: of systems too complex and large scale to manage, authority too remote to account for local conditions or incorporate local knowledge, and technocrats too swept up in their own overweening ambitions. Stoked by Hayekian fears of collectivization on the Right and Schumacherian dreams of localized economies on the Left, we have talked small across the political spectrum for the last half century even as the breadth and scope of human enterprises, the complexity of our technological systems, and the scale of political institutions necessary to manage both has only grown. Few voices have been willing to defend bigness. But on a planet of seven going on nine billion people, is big inevitable? The long term shift toward greater centralization – mega-cities, centralized electrical grids, industrial agriculture – has brought not insignificant benefits alongside the high profile risks and failures that so much contemporary debate seems obsessed about. How should we balance our desires for greater control and “small d” democracy with the increasing scale of social organization in the Anthropocene?
- Rob Atkinson, president, ITIF
Luis Bettencourt, professor, Santa Fe Institute
Susanna Hecht, professor of urban planning, UCLA
Moderator: Alex Trembath, communications director, Breakthrough Institute
The Ecomodern Economy
Ecomodernism envisions a dematerializing economy that makes fewer demands upon natural resources and ecosystems. Promising trends suggest such a future might be possible. Population growth is slowing and is flat or even falling in many parts of the world. Material consumption for many goods and services is saturating in developed economies. Rising resource productivity has enabled us to produce greater material output with less material input. But what are the consequences of these developments for the economy? Slowing population growth and saturating demand for goods and services has brought slower economic growth. Rising resource productivity has been closely coupled with rising labor productivity. The dark side of slowing economic growth, demand saturation, and rising resource and labor productivity could be secular stagnation, the jobless recovery, and rising inequality. What will be necessary to assure that a resource efficient, decoupled global economy will be a prosperous or equitable one? Could nature liberating technological change be as great a threat to shared economic prosperity as efforts to restrict economic activity in the name of the environment?
Erik Brynjolfsson, co-author, The Second Machine Age
Andrew McAfee, co-author, The Second Machine Age
The last decade has seen growing attention to the sustainability of food systems, with much of the discussion led by prominent chefs, food critics, and journalists. Based on romantic ideas about farming, the basic argument has been that food that is organic, local, grass-fed, and wild is more sustainable than that produced through the large-scale, industrial systems that dominate food production today. However, in recent years a number of careful studies have begun to suggest that the sustainable choice might not be so obvious. Humans use roughly 40% of the ice-free land on the planet to grow food and raise livestock, comprising the vast majority of our direct land footprint, and the expansion of cropland and pasture is the biggest driver of biodiversity loss. In this panel, we take a hard look at what kind of farming systems might practically bring the best outcomes for both people and the environment. Do the largely arbitrary definitions of ‘organic” and “conventional serve us? How might we apply the best attributes of industrial and organic production systems in order to produce more and healthier food with lower attendant impacts on the environment?
Jayson Lusk, professor of agricultural economics, Oklahoma State University
Danielle Nierenberg, president, Food Tank: The Food Think Tank
Pedro Sanchez, professor, Institute for Sustainable Food Systems at University of Florida
Moderator: Tamar Haspel, food and science journalist, The Washington Post
Democracy and Conservation
The historic legacy of conservation has often been characterized by the displacement of people, truncation of rights, and blaming of victims. The litany of confusions and tragedies that have arisen from well intentioned conservation efforts is long and ongoing. What would a progressive pro-people conservation look like? How might win-win conservation strategies facilitate the movement of people out of conservation zones while assuring them better land, water, living conditions, and accelerate land sparing modernization and access to markets and infrastructure.
Krithi Karanth, conservation scientist, Wildlife Conservation Society
Stephanie Romañach, research ecologist, USGS
Jamie Lorimer, associate professor in human geography, Oxford University
Moderator: Paul Robbins, professor of environmental studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Concurrent Session Topics:
Decarbonization Beyond the Power Sector
While much of the focus on global decarbonization focuses on electricity, the power sector is only responsible for about a quarter of global greenhouse gas emissions. In comparison to other sectors, reducing emissions in the power sector seems easy. In this session we’ll explore the options and challenges for decarbonizing heavy industry, transportation, and agriculture.
Science of Communication
Disagreements around scientific issues seem to be growing as a source of contention in political discourse. A lack of science literacy is blamed for a lack of action on a range of environmental and public health issues. Many advocates are calling for more science education, better science communication, and demanding respect for the field of science and their expertise. But how we communicate is also a science, with a dynamic and growing understanding of the best ways to engage the public on complex technical issues. In this session we’ll explore what the latest science says about how best to communicate around these issues.
Climate Policy Beyond Two Degrees
Sometime later this century, global carbon emissions will push atmospheric temperatures above the international target of 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Ignoring this basic reality has allowed experts to craft goals and policies that do not consider a post-2°C world. That is the work of this panel. What sorts of social and economic impacts can be expected with warming above this target? How can climate policy shift to embrace a more pragmatic approach to resilience and adaptation on a hotter planet? Should we adopt a new target—2.5°C? 3°C?—or abandon targets and timetables altogether?
Emerging Nuclear Economies
There are over forty countries interested in starting commercial nuclear power programs around the world. These countries come from a broad range of geographies, economies, and governing structures. As the United Arab Emirates sets to open its first commercial reactor this year, which country will be next and what challenges will they face? On this panel we’ll explore why new countries are interested in developing nuclear power and what are the biggest challenges they face.
What’s the Next Wave of the Energy Access Push in Africa?
Energy is central to modern life, yet Africans consume just a tiny fraction of the energy used by citizens of wealthier regions. Demand for affordable and reliable access to energy is growing rapidly across the continent, driven by both economics and politics. In both Nigeria and Ghana, for instance, electricity has become a visible and powerful signal of the government's ability (or not) to deliver jobs and a better life. In both countries, the current government won recent elections, in part on the back of frustration at blackouts and slow progress on electrification. Our panel will consider different future energy paths for African countries and the linkages to job creation, public expectations, and democratic accountability.
YIMBY (Yes In My Backyard)
The world's population is continuing to grow and urbanize, and the need for strong cities has never been greater. The way we build cities has profound economic, environmental, and social implications. As ecomodernists, we recognize the centrality of cities in conservation, innovation, and human prosperity.
The cost of renting and home-buying continues to escalate, leading to an affordability crisis in many cities around the world, especially hot markets such as San Francisco and New York City. The YIMBY movement believes the problem is that cities have too little housing and the solution is to build more housing. But is it really that simple? Our panel of experts will discuss the political and economic challenges surrounding the housing market. They will address whether we can build enough housing to meet demand without unacceptably impinging on the needs and desires of established residents.
Biotech and Conservation
To-date, biotechnology has mostly been deployed in the agriculture sector, but now the same genetic tools are being harnessed for conservation outcomes. Scientists are working on novel applications of gene editing to improve the natural world’s resilience to human threats, for example by altering genes to improve genetic diversity in endangered species. New techniques like gene drive also open the door to radical ecosystem interventions like killing off rodents that threaten native bird species, or eliminating the mosquitoes that spread Zika virus. “Genetic rescue” even offers the possibility of bringing back extinct species like the passenger pigeon or woolly mammoth. The pace of new genetic developments is occurring faster than the conservation community can debate them. Should humans intervene at the DNA level to preserve biodiversity, or leave nature alone? What is the state of the art with these cutting-edge technologies, and how should we understand the ethical and environmental debates that rage around them?
What Green can Learn from Pink: 5 Lesson from the success of the Gay Rights Movement for the Environmental Movement.
In the early 1990's LGBT equality faced what seemed an impossible challenge. AIDS was ravaging the gay community. The Christian Right was on the rise in the GOP fueled by anti-gay rhetoric and gay marriage was supported by only 14% of the American population.
During that same period, environmentalism was incredibly popular and trending upward. Polling for environmental causes showed widespread support across both political parties. The concept of a carbon tax was gain bipartisan support. Alternative energy sources were gaining mainstream interest.
Over the next two decades, LGBT rights would become mainstream and gay marriage would become legal across the nation. Candidate Donald Trump made history when he implored Republicans at the GOP convention to support gay rights. He even went off script to thank them for their applause.
The environmental movement would see just the opposite. After a series of defeats, environmental policies and the issue of Climate Change has become a victim of hyper-partisanship. Leaders of the Republican Party now see environmental issues as Democrat talking points and question the underlying science.
How did LGBT rights win, while environmentalist have lost ground? What practical lessons can the next generation of environmentalists learn from the amazing success of the LGBT movement?