Gorbachev-Bush Artificial Clouds Institute @NewRuskinCollege.com
Remediation: Bio Technology
Home
Report 2-10-2015
The Gorbachev-Bush Artificial Clouds Letters
Moynihan
Royal Society
Congress Listens
Dr. Hansen Says Yes!
Climate Engineers
Dr. Nathan Myhrvold says yes!
Dr. Teller's Paper on Artificial Clouds
Dr. Teller's 2nd Paper
Dr. Crutzen's and Dr. Wigley's Papers on Artificial Clouds
SuperFreakenomics
Dr. Ken Caldeira's Papers on Artificial Clouds & Carbon Mgmt.
Dr. Gregory Benford's Paper on Artificial Clouds
Clouds
SUN, COSMIC RAYS, & CLIMATE CHANGE
Earths Bio Response
Abrupt Climate Change: Oceans
Abrupt Climate Change: Permafrost
Macro Engineering: Climate
Remediation: Artificial Clouds
Remediation: Nuclear Power
Remediation: Forests, Plankton, Sequestration
Remediation: Bio Technology
Politics and Technology
Ethanol Fraud
Geo Engineering: Venice
Geo Engineering: Mississippi Delta
Geo Engineering: ! Save Earth!

october.jpg

Nanotechnology: the promise of a new ecological utopia

From:

(http://www.newruskincollege.com/maxweber/id13.html)

06-29-2004

Correction Number Two:

The enormous benefits of biotechnology: 

Desert Reclamation.

 

We have perhaps spent too much time discussing the dangers of biotechnology.

 

Some may now wonder if it is worth the risk. First of all, for reasons provided elsewhere in New Ruskin College, there is no alternative.  The technology is unavoidable.

 

Secondly, the period of terror risk is greatest now and will decline as our knowledge increases, and that knowledge will allow us to increase our defenses against bio attacks.  (Of course the technology will transform human kind and the world but unlike many commentators we here at New Ruskin College welcome everyone of these changes, we hold no sentimental attachment for the human race as we have known it.  As for Mother Earth, we look forward to improving her.)

 

As an example of what can be done with this new technology consider desert reclamation.  For all of our existence we have had to fight for our survival.  The universe was not engineered for our benefit.  We are about to change this.  Mother Nature proceeds by an entirely different route from our own engineering.  For one thing, Mother Nature, is satisfied, is delighted, by whatever she produces.  We on the other hand have certain standards that our creations must meet.  They must be beneficial for us.  Therefore our creative process is more constrained than is Mother Nature’s.

 

However, we do not have to try a billion different combinations in order to find the desired outcome.  Mother Nature from our perspective is wasteful, where as we can go from step to step just covering what is required to achieve our desired results.  We are more efficient.

 

Deserts are an example of waste.  Mother Nature does not so regard them but we do.  Deserts are just one example of waste in the natural order.  What is the carrying capacity of the planet Earth?  All of our estimates, all of our thinking, is based on our history, our experience.  But this is just the point.  We do not have experience with bio technology.  What we regard as the natural limits are about to be blown away.

 

Nothing has prepared us for the bounty we are about to experience.  What is the carrying capacity of a square mile of South Pacific Ocean?  How much plankton can it contain.  How many fish?  We have no idea.  The Southern Oceans are a kind of desert.  We will very soon be able to engineer the entire biosphere, algae to whales.  There are no limits.

 

Unlike Mother Nature we can skip all the intermediate unwanted states and move directly to the optimal.  For example, recently a Salmon has been designed with a gene that allows it to produce a protein that can be metabolized more efficiently.  The Salmon grows faster.  Same fish, same ocean, same amount of sun light, same inputs (as the engineers say), but a higher output.  We have a word for this:  ef-fi-cien-cy.  

 

Now think, not just one gene in one fish. How much life can a square mile of ocean hold?  There are no limits.

 

Consider the Sahara Desert.  First we design a grass that devotes most of its energy to developing roots. Spread it during the rainy season.  Seed the clouds with it.  We thus develop a matrix of roots.  The seeds go dormant in the summer and start again with the next rain.  A layer of bio material develops, grows on its own,  all across the Sahara.  Each season a newly engineered seed.  For example, tubers that devote their energy to absorbing water and holding it inside far months into the summer.  Other grasses develop stalks and die off in the summer only to regrow from those stalks in the next rains.  Like tree trunks the stalks grow a new ring each rainy season.  All the plants are engineered to live with little or no water for most of the year. 

 

With time, the sand storms subside under this growing blanket of biomass.  Walk on the desert now and it crunches under your feet. Tubers burst with fresh mushy water.  More seasons pass, more grasses are developed, engineered, and behold: savannah.

 

Place the Sahara under a bank of North South oriented artificial clouds, high up in orbit above the atmosphere, and the heat moderates, the rains come sooner and stay longer.  The artificial clouds are a mile wide and 1,000 miles long, each separated from the other by  5 miles, stretching out across the continent of Africa from the Nile to the Atlantic.  They cast shadows down on the desert like a giant venetian blind, alternating sun and shadow, moderating the environment.  Now after 10 years the Sahara has a top soil base of one to eight feet thick.

 

Now tell me what is the carrying capacity of the Sahara Desert?  The planet Earth?

 

We have no idea.  We have no way of judging this.  We have not inhabited such a world since the Garden of Eden.    

 

Next consider man . . .

 

ARCHITECTURAL ECOLOGY: A TENTATIVE SAHARA RESTORATION
RB CATHCART, V BADESCU - International Journal of Environmental Studies, 2004 - taylorandfrancis.metapress.com
... reconstruction of the “whole site at once” hallmarks macro-engineering’s space ... a
spin-off improvement from another anti-global warming macroproject plan ...
Web Search - ingenta.com

 

 

July 03,  2005

Biotech Fights Pollution With Plants
On the site of a former hat factory in Danbury, Conn., a stand of genetically altered cottonwood trees sucks mercury from the contaminated soil.

Across the continent in California, researchers use transgenic Indian mustard plants to soak up dangerously high selenium deposits caused by irrigation of the nation's bread basket.
 
Still others are engineering trees to retain more carbon and thus combat global warming.

The gene jockeys conducting these exotic experiments envision a future in which plants can be used as an inexpensive, safer and more effective way of disposing of pollution.

"Trees are really made for this ... we just have to trick them to do what we want them to do," said Richard Meagher, whose University of Georgia students went to Danbury in 2003 as part of the most advanced, open-air experiment in the United States involving trees genetically engineered to eat pollution.

Biologists for decades have been trying to exploit the genetic mechanisms that let microscopic bugs survive in polluted places where most living things die.

Indeed, the 1980 landmark U.S. Supreme Court case that allowed the so-called "patenting of life" that launched the biotechnology industry centered on bacteria genetically engineered to clean oil spills.

But simply dumping engineered bugs on polluted sites has its dangers and drawbacks. Elements like mercury can't be broken down into harmless bits like oil, so researchers have turned to engineering plants to draw pollutants out of the ground.

Meagher uses genes from E. coli that enable the common bacterium to live amid mercury. He's spliced them into a variety of plants in the laboratory, where he says his results are dramatically positive.

But proving genetic engineered plants work outside the lab is the real challenge -- and Danbury, which at the turn of the last century reigned as the hat-making capital of the world, was a natural destination for his team.

Animal pelts in the town's many factories were softened in mercury baths, and the resulting waste was dumped outside. Only later did residents understand how mercury attacks the central nervous system. By then, many longtime factory workers had suffered from the "Danbury shakes."

Meagher's team planted about 45 engineered cottonwood trees in a polluted lot. The trees are expected to treat the mercury as a nutrient and draw the toxic element for the soil with their roots.

Some of the mercury is expected to vaporize into the air while most is stored in the tree. After several years of growth, the trees will be cut down and incinerated.

Meagher expects to see results from the Danbury experiment later this year. He figures hundreds of trees per acre would need to be planted to be effective. But if his removal method works, the cost of cleaning an acre of mercury-laced soil will plummet from about $2 million to $200,000, Meagher estimates.

Meagher agrees with critics who argue that his solution isn't ideal -- but he says the trees beat the current clean-up method of digging out contaminated sites and dumping the tainted soil in toxic dumps.

Meagher said he's also hoping to someday deploy genetic engineered trees in northern India and Bangladesh where arsenic poisoning is rampant. Drinking water throughout the region has been contaminated by soils polluted naturally and by spills and drainage from factories.

Still, some potential allies are wary.

The Sierra Club and others fret that grime-busting plants and their unnatural, industrial-strength cleaning genes will contaminate naturally growing relatives. Promises that researchers are engineering sterility into trees don't calm their concerns.

"I'm a pediatrician and I can tell you birth control doesn't work 100 percent of the time," said Dr. Jim Diamond, the Sierra Club's biotechnology expert. "I don't see it working in trees either."

The criticism sows seeds of public uncertainty and makes it difficult for researchers to fund and apply their work. Meagher is operating on about $1 million in grants, mostly from the Department of Energy, which is saddled with polluted weapons sites.

Meagher also says he's hindered by political apathy and commercial disinterest. A company he helped launched to bring his technology to market is struggling for financing.

"It's not as sexy as trying to cure cancer or give you an erection," Meagher said.

Nonetheless, scientists are increasingly joining this once obscure branch of biotechnology.

Researchers at Purdue University are engineering trees to retain more carbon in an effort to combat global warming. Applied PhytoGenetics Inc., the biotech company Meagher helped launch, also has planted its modified trees at a polluted site in Alabama.

Another example is the work of University of California-Berkeley researchers who are tweaking the genes of the Indian mustard plant to clean up selenium deposits in the California's Central Valley. They've planted small plots of their creations near Fresno last year, and say the results are promising.

Selenium is naturally occurring but becomes toxic when high-density pockets form because of water flow. Selenium poisoning can stunt growth and cause brain disorders, among other health risks.

"This is a really good way to bring new resources to solve environmental problems," said Berkeley scientist Danika LeDuc. "But first, we do have to increase public confidence in the technology."

*

On the Net:

Meagher's lab:
http://www.genetics.uga.edu/rbmlab/



 

Dr. R. B. Meagher:

 

116. Bizily, S., Kim, T., Kandasamy, M. K., and Meagher, R. B. (2003). Subcellular targeting of methylmercury lyase enhances its specific activity for organic mercury detoxification in plants. Plant Physiol 131, 463-471.

 

113. Heaton, A., Rugh, C., Kim, R., Wang, J., and Meagher, R. (2003). Toward detoxifying mercury-polluted aquatic sediments using rice genetically-engineered for mercury resistance. Env Tox & Chem In press.

 

111. Dhankher, O. P., Li, Y., Rosen, B. P., Shi, J., Salt, D., Senecoff, J. F., Sashti, N. A., and Meagher, R. B. (2002). Engineering tolerance and hyperaccumulation of arsenic in plants by combining arsenate reductase and gamma-glutamylcysteine synthetase expression. Nat Biotechnol 20, 1140-1145.

 

110. Gilliland, L. U., Pawloski, L., Kandasamy, M. K., and Meagher, R. B. (2002a). The Arabidopsis actin isovariant, ACT7, plays a vital role in germintion and root growth. Plant J, In press.

 

98. Bizily, S. P., Rugh, C. L., and Meagher, R. B. (2000b). Phytodetoxification of hazardous organomercurials by genetically engineered plants. Nat Biotechnol 18, 213-217.


97. Meagher, R. B. (2000). Phytoremediation of toxic elemental and organic pollutants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 3, 153-162.

 

92. Rugh, C. L., Bizily, S. P., and Meagher, R. B. (2000). Phytoremediation of environmental mercury pollution. In Phytoremediation of toxic metals: Using plants to clean-up the environment, B. Ensley, and I. Raskin, eds. (New York, Wiley and Sons), pp. 151-169.


91. Bizily, S., Rugh, C. L., Summers, A. O., and Meagher, R. B. (1999). Phytoremediation of methylmercury pollution: merB expression in Arabidopsis thaliana confers resistance to organomercurials. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96, 6808-6813.

 

 

 
 
 
Date:  
 
 
 
2005-06-14

How Bacteria Appear To Affect Arsenic Concentrations In Groundwater

Arsenic is a toxic, naturally occurring element that is sometimes found at high concentrations in well water. High arsenic concentrations can occur even in areas without a pollution source when the bedrock or soil that is in contact with the ground water releases arsenic as the water flows over the surfaces.

To see if bacteria affect arsenic concentration, groundwater samples were taken from two high-arsenic areas in Maine, and water chemistry and two bacterial populations were measured. Wells with high total arsenic concentrations had a higher proportion of iron-reducing bacteria than wells with lower arsenic.

Iron reducing bacteria, such as members of the genus Geobacter, grow in the absence of oxygen and can transform solid phase iron (Fe(III)) into Fe(II), which is soluble in water. Solid phase Fe(III) can bind to arsenic, immobilizing it on the surface of the solid. When bedrock or soil Fe(III) is transformed into Fe(II), any bound arsenic would also be released into the groundwater. Arsenic (As) also has two commonly occurring forms in groundwater: As(III) and As(V).

The prevalence of NP4, a microbe from the genus Sulfurospirillum that can transform As(V) to As(III), which is the more toxic form of As, was also measured. NP4 was more abundant in water samples with higher As(III) concentrations. Thus it appears that iron reducing bacteria affect the overall arsenic concentration, and that arsenic reducing bacteria (NP4) control its form, and thus toxicity, in these regions of Maine.

This work was completed at the University of Maine by Ph.D. candidate Jennifer Weldon under the supervision of Dr. Jean MacRae. The project, funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) Career program (Bioengineering and Environmental Systems), is being presented at the General Meeting of the American Society of Microbiology (ASM), June 8th 2005 in Atlanta, GA.

The 15 groundwater samples used in the study were examined using fluorescence in-situ hybridization (FISH). This technique allowed the target populations, Geobacter and NP4, to be distinguished from other bacteria. The number of each type of microorganism was compared to the total number of microorganisms in the sample. Geobacter ranged from 1-35% and NP4 from 0-17% of the total suspended bacterial population. Metals were measured by inductively coupled plasma atomic emission absorption (ICP-AES), and arsenic speciation was obtained by passing a sample through an ion exchange resin in the field to obtain As(III). Total arsenic concentrations ranged from less than 2 parts per billion (ppb) to 2000 ppb, which is 200 times higher than the EPA's water quality limit of 10 ppb. As(III) ranged from <2 ppb to 1100 ppb. We hope that by learning more about the arsenic release mechanisms, we will be able to target high-risk areas for testing and develop management options to minimize arsenic concentrations.

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found here.


This story has been adapted from a news release issued by American Society For Microbiology.

 

From:  http://www.malaya.com.ph/apr30/envi1.htm

Bioremediation: Aiding environment amid mining activities


BY ARISTOTLE CARANDANG

The past decade or so witnessed the big slump in the Philippine mining industry. It used to be one of the more lucrative dollar-earning business sector prior to the dawning of environmental awareness among the people

With the expected resurgence of large-scale mining activity in the country, various concerned groups have started to identify measures so that any disastrous effect of mining activities on the environment can be avoided in the future.

One technology that gives promise to the mining industry is bioremediation. It is a process using biological organisms to solve an environmental problem such as contaminated soil or groundwater.

In a non-polluted environment, bacteria, fungi and other microorganisms are constantly working to break down organic matter. In an environment where organic pollutant such as oil is present, some of the microorganisms die. Other microorganisms that are capable of eating the organic pollution would survive.

Bioremediation works by providing these pollution-eating organisms with fertilizer, oxygen, and other conditions that encourage their rapid growth. These organisms would then be able to break down the organic pollutant at a correspondingly faster rate. In fact, bioremediation is often used to help clean up oil spills. A good example was the fuel contamination in Hanahan, South Carolina in 1985. By the end of 1993 contamination in the area was reduced by 75%.

Bioremediation of a contaminated site typically works in one of two ways.

In cases where there are pollution-eating microbes already living at the contaminated site, ways are adopted to enhance the growth of these microbes. In less common cases, specialized microbes are added to degrade the contaminants.

Depending on the site and its contaminants, bioremediation may be safer and less expensive than alternative solutions such as incineration or landfilling of the contaminated materials. It also has the advantage of treating the contamination in place so that large quantities of soil, sediment or water do not have to be dug up or pumped out of the ground for treatment.

The country’s sad experiences in different polluted sites like the Boac River in Marinduque and Mts. Diwata and Diwalwal in Compostela Valley have continued to send signals about the dangers posed by mining activities. This also includes the former US Base in Clark, although not a result of mining but of dumping.

Studies conducted by various groups have also established the seriousness of the problems posed by toxic and hazardous wastes not only to the people in affected areas but also to the economy and the environment.

To address the issues surrounding mining, a roundtable discussion (RTD) on bioremediation of mining wastes was held last April 7 where the country’s top scientists and other experts faced big companies from the Philippine mining industry. The RTD was an offshoot of the Seminar-Workshop on Toxic and Hazardous Wastes conducted in March 2004.

Issues addressed during the RTD included the need to identify and distinguish responsible mining companies from irresponsible ones.

Mining industry pointed out that some of the issues were often overblown, and that most mining companies have adequate, modern waste treatment systems which do not pollute the environment. Past mining disasters, according to the Chamber of Mines, were considered isolated incidents.

As a result, the mining companies pledged to cooperate and would partner with the Bioremediation Task Force in developing technologies that would benefit even the small miners.

DOST Secretary Estrella F. Alabastro said that they would accept proposals for research projects and would consider funding appropriate projects.

Marinduque Rep. Edmundo Reyes proposed possible legislation and solutions.

The proactive stance of the Bioremediation Task Force, headed by Asuncion K. Raymundo, director of the Institute of Biological Sciences-University of the Philippines Los Baños, helped set the direction of the Task Force. It was created by the National Academy of Science and Technology, the country’s premier advisory body on science and technology matters.

Representatives from the mining industry, government policy makers, scientists and other stakeholders discussed bioremediation techniques of mining wastes. The gathering focused on possible developments in mining operations, minimizing pollution and other problems that would allow profitable use of mining by-products. It also explored areas on how to maximize the benefits from the industry to society and the economy while minimizing any environmental problem.

According to the group, the rationale for conducting the RTD was the urgency to address some of the concerns of the mining industry that also affect other sectors. The Task Force said, "while the interest shown in the mining industry is encouraging, there is a need to consider a number of factors. These include the availability of funding agencies, as well as the participation of concerned government agencies like the DENR and the Bureau of Mines. There is a need to get together to incorporate inputs from all the stakeholders and experts in order to come up with plausible strategies which are safe, workable, cost-effective, scientifically sound, environment-friendly, and acceptable to all parties concerned."

The Task Force on Bioremediation has become so actively involved in finding various ways and means to address the problems on both toxic and hazardous wastes. The Task Force has already visited sites in the country’s major island groups to investigate the extent of pollution from toxic substances in different parts of the country. To fortify the actions it has started, the task force has been making consultations and meetings with various stakeholders. Task Force members are experts from the NAST, University of the Philippines-Los Baños and Diliman, and Ateneo De Manila University.

 
 

Cow-free Beef Proposed

By Bjorn Carey
LiveScience Staff Writer
posted: 07 July 2005
01:54 pm ET

 

Scientists have proposed two new techniques for growing meat in a lab by a process that could one day make beef cows obsolete.

Don't toss out those beef steaks just yet, however. The technology is in its infant stages and it is not clear whether large-scale production will work. It's not known, for example, how to exercise an animal that doesn't exist, in order to give lab meat the full range of cow-like qualities.

Currently, small amounts of edible fish can be created in the lab. But University of Maryland doctoral student Jason Matheny says that this process could be adapted on an industrial scale -- whole factories producing fish sticks without the fish or chicken nuggets without the real birds.

"With a single cell, you could theoretically produce the world's annual meat supply," Matheny says. "And you could do it in a way that's better for the environment and human health. In the long run, this is a very feasible idea."

Health benefits

Lab-grown meats could be designed to be healthier too.

"For one thing, you could control the nutrients," Matheny says. "For example, most meats are high in the fatty acid Omega 6, which can cause high cholesterol and other health problems. With in vitro meat, you could replace that with Omega 3, which is a healthy fat."

Cultured meats would reduce the environmental burden that comes from raising livestock. Also, it wouldn't need to be treated with antibiotics and other drugs that are common in the industry.

Scientists have already demonstrated that a single muscle cell from a cow or chicken can be turned into thousands in the lab. But so far, these experiments haven't gone large scale.

The methods

To grow meat on large scale, Matheny suggests two methods. One is to grow muscle cells on long, flat membranes. Once the cells are mature, the tissue would be stretched off the membrane and stacked so the product better resembled the real thing.

The other option would be to grow cells on small, three-dimensional beads that stretch with temperature changes. The cells could be scraped off and turned into processed meat like chicken nuggets or ground beef.

The trick, however, is to grow something that tastes like real meat. That means growing not just muscle cells, but other types of tissue -- like fat -- as well. Once the taste is good, the texture has to be just right for consumers to buy into the idea.

"We have to figure out how to 'exercise' the cells. For the right texture, you have to stretch the tissue, like a live animal would," Matheny says.

Matheny's paper was published in the June 29 issue of the journal Tissue Engineering.

 

 

International Journal of Environmental Studies

 

Publisher: 

Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group

 

Issue: 

Volume 61, Number 2 / April 2004

 

Pages: 

145 - 160

 

URL: 

Linking Options

 

DOI: 

10.1080/0020723032000087961

 

ARCHITECTURAL ECOLOGY: A TENTATIVE SAHARA RESTORATION


RICHARD BROOK CATHCART A1 and VIOREL BADESCU A2

A1 Geographos Glendale CA 91205-1524 USA
A2 Candida Oancea Institute of Solar Energy, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering Polytechnic University of Bucharest Spl Independentei 313 Bucharest 79590 Romania

Abstract:

Visionary 19th and 20th century macroengineers have dreamt about transformations of North Africa's large contiguous arid landscape. Their most vital macroprojects plans are reviewed here, with the intent of promoting the early 21st century construction of the Sahara Tent Greenbelt + "insol" building. Pneumatic tenting of ∼ 3.5 million square kilometres of desert prototypes a late 21st century distended building for Mars' terraformation, which is ∼ 35 times greater in area than the proposed STG. Covering 50% of the Sahara leaves other people to dream, while calculations for the whole of the region indicate the potential impact of a first try.

Keywords:

Tent Greenbelt, Insol, Climatic Change

The references of this article are secured to subscribers.

 

 

An agronomy professor from Kansas State University, Charles Rice, says that farmers could use genetically modified plants that are already being used to help slow global warming, such as plants designed to withstand wind, therefore sequester more carbon into soils. Corn that is engineered to grow thicker, woodier stalks uses more carbon so it can make all the woody lignin and cellulose that makes them thicker and stiffer. Those two elements are slow to decompose in soil, so the more biomass that is produced, the more carbon that is put into the soil. Scientists say that they are finding new ways of farming rice so that it can curb global warming as well as produce higher yields. Fields of rice are among the worlds highest producers of methane, about 10 percent of global emissions. Scientists from the Netherlands, Germany and the Philippines have been devising experiments inside greenhouses. They found that the crucial factor is the number of spikelets a plant contains. A spikelet is a structure which holds a number of flowers, and later, grain.

Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
Publisher: Springer-Verlag GmbH
ISSN: 0175-7598 (Paper) 1432-0614 (Online)
DOI: 10.1007/s00253-003-1411-7
Issue:  Volume 63, Number 5
Date:  May 2004
Pages: 477 - 494

Mini-Review

Biotechnology in the wood industry

C. Mai1, U. Kües2 and H. Militz1

(1)  Institute of Wood Biology and Technology, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Büsgenweg 4, 37077 Göttingen, Germany
(2)  Molecular Wood Biotechnology Section, Institute for Forest Botany, Georg-August-University Göttingen, Büsgenweg 2, 37077 Göttingen, Germany

C. Mai
Email:
cmai@gwdg.de
Phone: +49-551-392051
Fax: +49-551-399646

Received: 17 March 2003  Revised: 25 June 2003  Accepted: 28 June 2003  Published online: 21 August 2003

Abstract   Wood is a natural, biodegradable and renewable raw material, used in construction and as a feedstock in the paper and wood product industries and in fuel production. Traditionally, biotechnology found little attention in the wood product industries, apart from in paper manufacture. Now, due to growing environmental concern and increasing scientific knowledge, legal restrictions to conventional processes have altered the situation. Biotechnological approaches in the area of wood protection aim at enhancing the treatability of wood with preservatives and replacing chemicals with biological control agents. The substitution of conventional chemical glues in the manufacturing of board materials is achieved through the application of fungal cultures and isolated fungal enzymes. Moreover, biotechnology plays an important role in the waste remediation of preservative-treated waste wood.

Review of International Political Economy
  Publisher:  Routledge, part of the Taylor & Francis Group
  Issue:  Volume 11, Number 5 / December 2004
  Pages:  926 - 952
  URL:  Linking Options
  DOI:  10.1080/0969229042000313082

Capitalism and ecological sustainability: the shaping of environmental policies

Andriana Vlachou A1

A1 Department of Economics, Athens University of Economics and Business

Abstract:

Detailed analyses of environmental policies and their implications for the ecological sustainability of capitalism are missing from the eco-Marxist literature. Moreover, environmental policies have been often dismissed by several eco-Marxists on the ground that they are shaped on capital's terms. It is the objective of this paper to theorize the shaping of environmental regulation from a value-theoretic and class struggle perspective. It is argued that the negative economic impacts of pollution and resource depletion, captured by prices and rents, instigate various class and environmental conflicts and struggles which reshape the interchange between capitalism and nature. The state as a social site becomes an arena of these struggles. The state is called upon by the many different competing agents to mediate their access to nature. Evidence from many concrete cases shows that environmental policies and adjustments have been the outcome of this complex social interaction. However, the emerging ecological restructuring of capitalism can not guarantee its ecological sustainability. In particular, it gives rise to new problems and contradictions rendering ecological sustainability of capitalism uncertain.

 
 
 
                copyright 2010 NewRuskinCollege