The Politics of the Anthropogenic

Author(s): Nathan F. Sayre

Source: Annual Review of Anthropology , 2012, Vol. 41 (2012), pp. 57-70
Published by: Annual Reviews

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/23270698

REFERENCES
Linked references are available on JSTOR for this article:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23270698?seq=1&cid=pdf-
reference#references_tab_contents
You may need to log in to JSTOR to access the linked references.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual
Review of Anthropology

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 The Politics of the
Anthropogenic*
Nathan F. Sayre
Department of Geography, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720;
email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2012.41:57-70

Keywords
First published online as a Review in Advance on
Anthropocene, capitalism, climate change, climax theory, Earth
June 28, 2012
system science, global environment
The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at
anthro.annualreviews.org Abstract
This article's doi:
The term anthropogenic
anthropogenic takes
takes its
its meaning
meaning from
froman
animplied
impliedcontrast
contrasttoto
10.1146/annurev-anthro-092611-145846
an idealist notion
notion of
of nature
nature as
as separate
separate from
fromhumans
humansand
andendowed
endowedwith
with
Copyright ©2012 by Annual Reviews. a timeless or
or cyclical
cyclical equilibrium.
equilibrium. In
In recent
recentdecades,
decades,however,
however,scientists
scientists
All rights reserved
have concluded
concluded that
that human
human influences
influences now
now dominate
dominatenature
natureatatglobal
global
0084-6570/12/1021 -0057$20.00
and geological
geological scales,
scales, reflected
reflected in
in the
the contention
contentionthat
thatEarth
Earthhas
hasentered
entered
*This article is part of a special theme on a new epoch
epoch called
called the
the Anthropocene.
Anthropocene. Anthropogenic
Anthropogenicglobal
globalwarming
warming
Climate Change. For a list of other articles in is central to
to these
these developments,
developments, and
and the
the United
UnitedNations
NationsFramework
Framework
this theme, see this volume's Table of Contents.
Convention
Convention on
on Climate
Climate Change
Change obligates
obligates the
theinternational
internationalcommunity
community
of nations to
to "prevent
"prevent dangerous
dangerous anthropogenic
anthropogenicinterference
interferencewith
withthe
the
climate system."
system." Scientific
Scientific debates
debates surrounding
surroundinganthropogenic
anthropogenicimpacts
impacts
on the environment
environment have
have aa much
much longer
longer history,
history,however,
however,revealing
revealing
chronic empirical
empirical difficulties
difficulties with
with the
the human-nature
human-naturedualism
dualismcombined
combined
with an inability
inability to
to overcome
overcome it
it conceptually.
conceptually.Anthropologists
Anthropologistshave
havea a
key role to
to play
play in
in emerging
emerging transdisciplinary
transdisciplinaryefforts
effortsto
tounderstand
understandthe
the
anthropogenic
anthropogenic across
across scales
scales from
from the
the molecular
molecularto
tothe
theglobal.
global.

57

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 INTRODUCTION Change (UNFCCC), adopted in 1992, is to
"prevent dangerous anthropogenic interfer
The term anthropogenic dates to the 1920s,
ence with the climate system" (UNFCCC
UNFCCC: United but the dualism from which it gets its meaning
Nations Framework 1992, article 2). Exactly what this means and
is ancient. In his magisterial Traces on the
Convention on what it requires have since become highly
Rhodian Shore, Glacken (1967) summarized
Climate Change contentious scientific and political questions.
Western thought from the pre-Socratics to
The politics of the anthropogenic is not re
the end of the eighteenth century as sharing
ducible to climate change, however. Outside of
three persistent themes: Humans shape the
the UNFCCC, the political battles and public
environment, the environment shapes humans,
debates about climate change are rarely framed
and humans and environments are matched
in terms of the anthropogenic per se, with the
in ways that suggest harmony or divine will.
partial exception of a small but influential group
Today, however, scientists contend, "even on
of climate change skeptics who continue to in
the grandest scale, most aspects of the structure
sist, in direct defiance of the scientific consen
and functioning of Earth's ecosystems cannot
sus, that global warming is "natural" rather than
be understood without accounting for the
human caused. The politics of climate change
strong, often dominant influence of humanity"
is both too large to review here and only a sub
(Vitousek et al. 1997, p. 494). We have entered
set of the anthropogenic. The anthropology of
a new geological time period dubbed the An
climate change was ably reviewed in the pre
thropocene (Crutzen & Stoermer 2000). As this
vious volume of this journal (Crate 2011), and
harmonious relationship between humans and
climate change and island communities is dis
nature breaks down, the two poles of the dual
cussed elsewhere in this volume (Lazrus 2012,
ism become difficult to separate; they are not
in this volume). Here I take the politics of the
breaking up so much as they are merging into
anthropogenic to be a separate, if intersecting,
something unrecognizable, or uncognizable,
topic that is limited neither to anthropology nor
in terms of our inherited concepts.
to academia as a whole.
The demise of the human-nature dualism
and the tenacious hold it nonetheless maintains First, I review the topics and debates that
gave rise to the term anthropogenic early in the
are both strongly linked to industrial capital
twentieth century, when it denoted ecological
ism. In his brilliant essay "Ideas of Nature,"
forces distinct from soils and climate. Almost
Williams (1980) suggested that the Industrial
immediately, the problem of specifying the
Revolution strengthened an abstract, idealist
spatial and temporal limits of anthropogenic
notion of Nature as pristine and untouched
factors presented itself. Nonetheless, the
by humans, in part through the ideologies and
conceptual framework established at that time
activities of the enriched bourgeoisie, who re
continues to structure scholarship in a wide
treated from cities despoiled by their factories
range of fields. Curiously, almost everyone
to country estates and hunting reserves from
asserts that the nature-humans distinction is
which common people were excluded. For the
fundamentally flawed and must be transcended,
Nobel Prize-winning chemist Crutzen (2002)
but even saying so seems to make doing so more
and many others, meanwhile, the Industrial
difficult. For ecologists and environmentalists,
Revolution marks the beginning of the Anthro
the politics of the anthropogenic is fraught with
pocene, because Watt's dramatically improved
both practical and ideological complications.
steam engine enabled an ever-accelerating use
Second, I review the idea that Earth is now
of fossil fuels, releasing carbon that had been
in the Anthropocene. Discussions about the
sequestered over hundreds of millions of years
advent of a new geological epoch resemble
and thereby disrupting the energy balance of
earlier debates about the anthropogenic, with
Earth. The "ultimate objective" of the United
Nations Framework Convention on Climate the key difference that the term now encom
passes rather than contrasts with climate.

$8 Say re

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Anthropogenic climate change represents activities of man" [sic], Merriam-Webster's Dic
a global experiment around which virtually tionary defines it as "of, relating to, or resulting
every field of the biophysical sciences can from the influence of human beings on nature." .
™ c , . , . , , r AGW: anthropogenic
converge, as represented in a number of 1 he term was first used in this sense by the
emerging fields and scientific institutions such mous English botanist and ecologist Tansle
as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate (1923) in his textbook Practical Plant Ecolog
Change (2007) and the Millennium Ecosystem The need for the term arose from the proble
Assessment (2006). Opportunities abound for of accounting for change. Clements (1916) ha
anthropologists to engage these developments. famously theorized vegetation change as plan
Third, I survey the literature about (not of) succession, a universal process by which clima
climate science: its history, politics, and social and soil determined a single climax state fo
conditions of possibility. If the origins of an the plant community in any given site. Ta
thropogenic climate change lie in the Indus ley insisted that other factors could interfer
trial Revolution, detection and attribution— and hold vegetation in what Clements term
that is, perceiving its effects and confirm subclimaxes, not only arresting succession bu
ing it as anthropogenic—were made possible also modifying it more or less permanently
rather inadvertently by military science con these too, Tansley felt, should be considere
ducted during the Cold War. The authors who climaxes. Clements had worked out his the

have chronicled climate science for general au ory in the western United States, in landscapes
diences are attempting something similar to that he viewed (along with most other Euro
what Crate (2011) calls for: critical, collabo Americans) as pristine, wild, or untouched by
rative, and multisited "climate ethnography." humans. Tansley, by contrast, took his bearings
They have shown that the industries most re from the English countryside [for a full-length
sponsible for anthropogenic global warming study of this transatlantic contrast in environ
(AGW)—including oil, coal, electricity, and mental thought, see Hall (2005)]:
automobiles—have actively and intentionally
In a country like Great Britain, where man
stymied effective public response to the prob
has modified the spontaneous vegetation so
lem through a complex web of misinforma
that most of it is what we have called "semi
tion, lobbying, intimidation, and public rela
natural," we can rarely find those long series
tions. Why this effort has been so successful in
of stages of development from bare habitats to
fomenting "climate denialism," especially in the
the climatic climax... which we can study in
United States, is a question with rich anthropo
regions of the world approximating to the vir
logical potential.
gin condition. We find instead a patchwork of
Fourth and finally, I ask what these devel
communities... nearly all modified in various
opments portend for the politics of the an
ways by man or his animals... Where he has
thropogenic. I review some of the efforts social
introduced a more or less permanent modi
scientists have made to catch up with the bur
fying factor or set of factors, we have biotic
geoning biophysical scientific knowledge about
(anthropogenic) climaxes or some stage of de
climate change. In the Anthropocene, the ques
velopment towards them.
tion becomes not whether, but how much, an
(Tansley 1923, p. 48)
thropogenic change has occurred, and the pol
itics of the anthropogenic concerns who caused
Later, Tansley removed the parentheses and
which changes, with what impacts on whom.
referred directly to "anthropogenic climaxes."
He resorted to anthropological primitivism as
ORIGINS an explanation:

According to the Oxford English Dictionary,

Primitivean
man, just like any other animal, orig
thropogenic means "having its originsinally
in the
formed, and in some few parts of the

wmv.annualreviavs.org • The Politics of the Anthropogenic $(j

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 world still forms, a component, nicely adjusted Tansley (1923, 1939) and Sauer (1950), even if
to the system as a whole, of the ecosystems of the conclusions differ. Humans, climate, soils,
those regions which he inhabits. But with his and nonhuman biota are taken as conceptually
increasing control over "nature" the human distinct though empirically interactive; nature
animal became a unique agent of destruction is presumptively static or cyclical until proven
of the original ecosystems, as he cleared and otherwise; humans are the cause of change,
burned natural vegetation and replaced it with whether progressive or detrimental, incremen
his pastures, crops and buildings. tal or abrupt; and humans who do not have such
(Tansley 1939, p. 128) effects are (or were) ecologically no different
from animals. Science can challenge the con
He then offered a dramatic prediction that clusions drawn from this framework—whether
foresaw the coming Anthropocene: preindustrial societies were in equilibrium
with their environments, for example—but
Limited at first to the regions where civilisa it must do so through this basic conceptual
tion originally developed, this destructive ac scaffolding.
tivity has spread during recent centuries, and In general, Sauer (1950), too, now appears
at an increasing rate, all over the face of the prescient: Many of his claims have been
globe except where human life has notyet suc confirmed and elaborated by subsequent schol
ceeded in supporting itself. It seems likely that arship (not including his supposition of human
in less than another century none but the most presence in the Americas hundreds of thou
inhospitable regions—some of the more ex sands of years ago). Pyne (1982, 1991, 1995,
treme deserts, the high mountains and the arc 1997, 2007), for example, has documented the
tic tundra—will have escaped. Even these may coevolution of humans, fire, and vegetation
eventually come, partially if not completely, in every terrestrial corner of the planet;
under the human yoke. Antarctica is the exception that proves the
(Tansley 1939, p. 128) rule (Pyne 1986). Smith (1980) advanced the
theory that Amazonian black earth (terra preta)
Tansley was prescient, but human factors af is anthropogenic, a view now widely shared
fecting the environment could not be so easily and of enormous interest to climate scientists
confined to the recent or modern period. Sauer owing to the vast quantities of carbon that
(1950) shared Tansley's critique of Clementsian black earth could sequester if the techniques
climax theory, but he recognized climate vari of producing it could be rediscovered (Glaser
ability and discerned a human imprint stretch & Woods 2004). Cronon (1983) demonstrated
ing back hundreds of thousands of years. "Great the pervasive influence of Native Americans on
changes in climate have dominated the physical the ecology of New England, and Mann (2005)
world for at least the last million years... The assembled scholarly discoveries of precontact
second great agent of disturbance has been indigenous environmental management and
man [sic], an aggressive animal of perilous social impacts in the Americas as a whole. With in
habits, insufficiently appreciated as an ecologic creasingly powerful tools from remote sensing,
force and as modifier of the course of evolution"
isotopic and other chemical analysis, as well as
(Sauer 1950,p. 18). Through the use of fire, hu computer modeling, scholars are finding fur
mans had coevolved with vegetation, especially ther evidence of premodern humans' influence
grasses; even the soils of grassland areas were at over their environments; the anthropogenic
once natural and cultural.
and its classical opposites—climate, soils,
vegetation—structure this research (Metcalfe
CONTINUITIES FROM ECOLOGY
et al. 1989, Kirch 1996, Tilley et al. 2000,
The basic contours and concepts ofetmany
Veblen al. 2000, Fisher et al. 2003, Hecken
recent debates are identical to those found in berger et al. 2008, Gillison & Ekblom 2009).

6o Sayre

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Anthropologists have utilized this scaf 2006). Noting that "Earth is nowhere pristine,"
folding for decades, arguably reinforcing its they argued that "we can no longer accept a
relevance even when they appeared or sought hands-off approach to wilderness preservation"
to challenge it. Hames (2007) reviewed one (Donlan et al. 2005, pp. 913, 914). Instead,
such case—"The Ecologically Noble Savage they proposed introducing Old World large
Debate"—in the pages of this journal not mammals to the New World as evolutionary
long ago. Fisher & Feinman (2005, pp. 62 and ecological proxies for those lost following
63) convened a special issue of American the arrival of humans. Opponents of the
Anthropologist to explore "the total sweep of idea challenged it on scientific and practical
anthropogenic environmental change," noting grounds: "Resources would be better spent on
"a sea change in the way that the human preserving threatened organisms in their native
environment dialectic is perceived" and calling habitats and reintroducing them to places in
for "the collection of long-term socionatural their historical ranges from which they were
data" to understand current environmental only recently extirpated" (Rubenstein et al.
2006, p. 232). Caro (2007, p. 281) correctly
problems. Similarly, Headland (1997, p. 605)
noted that the "brouhaha" turned on "the
led a forum in Cultural Anthropology in which
conventional but arbitrary 1492 conservation
he promoted the emerging field of historical
benchmark (i.e., the date that Caucasians
ecology. "Historical ecologists emphasize not
arrived in the New World) to which conserva
only that environments have a history but that
the dichotomy between 'natural' and human tion biologists seek to restore North American
communities." Both sides of the debate were, in
influenced landscapes is a false one. They argue
effect, suggesting that nature without humans
that all ecosystems have been greatly modified
by humans for thousands of years." A reviewis, or was, more natural—they differed over
of historical ecology appeared in this journal
which group of humans (or absence thereof)
in 2006 (Balee 2006; see also Crumley 1994).to consider most relevant to conservation.
For the social scientists engaged in these Very similar arguments are now playing
debates, the concept of the anthropogenic out in the face of the Anthropocene. In Na
is useful and fairly uncontroversial, exceptture, Marris (2011) proclaimed "The End of
insofar as it is linked to more value-laden the Wild" and reported on the challenges that
climate change poses to the National Park
notions such as primitivism or ecological
Service's long-standing devotion to original
nobility. But among ecologists and especially
environmentalists, the idea of pervasive
or and
pristine conditions. In Conservation Biology,
Caro et al. (2011, p. 2) insisted that "some ar
long-standing anthropogenic impacts strikes
eas of the globe are still intact" and should
deep ideological chords. Without a pristine,
be protected
original nature untouched by humans, how is from human uses. "We fear that
one to define the environment to be protected
the concept of pervasive human-caused change
or preserved? Cronon (1996, p. 22) ignited a
may cultivate hopelessness in those dedicated
to conservation and may even be an impetus
storm in the inaugural issue of Environmental
History when he challenged wilderness asfor accelerated changes in land use motivated
a cul
by profit" (Caro et al. 2011, p. 1). Marris et al.
turally constructed myth: "Any way of looking
at nature that encourages us to believe that we
(2011, p. A31) provided a retort in the New York
Times-. "Yes, we live in the Anthropocene—but
are separate from nature—as wilderness tends
that does not mean we inhabit an ecological
to do—is likely to reinforce environmentally
hell." a
irresponsible behavior." More recently,
group of conservation biologists influencedThe
by conceptual scaffolding put in place
to define the anthropogenic some 80 years
Martin's (2005) Pleistocene-overkill hypothe
sis proposed a new conservation strategyago has proved remarkably tenacious. Many
called
Pleistocene rewilding (Donlan et al. scholars
2005, have criticized the human-nature

www.annualreviews.org • The Politics of the Anthropogenic 61

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 dichotomy embedded in the concept, but When Did It Begin?
even in so doing, they have had to employ it
Crutzen & Stoermer (2000) acknowledged tha
and, seemingly, to grant it continued de facto
specifying the start of the Anthropocene wa
conceptual purchase. There are signs that this
unavoidably arbitrary, and debates have swirle
may be changing, however, as the sheer weight
within the earth sciences about when, exactly
of evidence begins to exceed what the old
it began. Broadly, the problem is the same
scaffolding can support. The key difference,
one Sauer identified with regard to climax
compared with the time of Clements and Tans
plant communities: Humans have altered th
ley, is that climate has become anthropogenic
environment for as long as they have been
in measurable ways. And because climate is a
around. Steffen et al. (2007, p. 615) argued tha
global system influencing every place on Earth,
"[p]reindustrial societies could and did modify
the four distinct component concepts with
coastal and terrestrial ecosystems but they di
which the ecologists began—humans, climate, not have the numbers, social and economic o
soils, and nonhuman biota—have collapsed
ganisation, or technologies needed to equal o
into one another. Even Tansley's deserts,
dominate the great forces of Nature in mag
mountains, and tundra, as well as the oceans,
nitude or rate." Ruddiman (2003, 2005) cou
are now anthropogenic (Vitousek et al. 1997).
tered that humans, in fact, began to affect globa
Our technology, consciousness, concepts, and
atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations a
the material world combine to produce an "en
much as 8,000 years ago, through paddy-ric
vironmental globalism" in which "it is virtually
and domestic-livestock production, which h
impossible to disentangle the social and the nat
argues explains an otherwise anomalous ris
ural" (White 1999, p. 979). How, then, can we in methane concentrations. Crutzen & Steffen
think in ways that are adequate to this reality?
(2003, p. 253, emphases in original) respond
that, Ruddiman's claims notwithstanding, the
THE ANTHROPOCENE
"period of the Anthropocene since 1950 stands
Crutzen & Stoermer (2000) proposedout as that
the onethe
in which human activities rapidly
current geological epoch be namedchanged
the Anthro
from merely influencing the global en
pocene (meaning recent age of humankind).
vironment in some ways to dominating it in many
ways" This "Great Acceleration" (Steffen et al.
They suggested it began in the late-eighteenth
century, "because, during the past2007,two cen
p. 614) can be seen in population, urban
turies, the global effects of human
ization,
activities
dams, transportation, greenhouse gas
have become clearly noticeable" emissions,
(Crutzen &
surface temperatures, deforestation,
Stoermer 2000, p. 17). This was followed by a
fisheries exploitation, nitrogen deposition, and
extinctions.
series of further refinements of their argument
(Crutzen 2002, Steffen et al. 2007, Meanwhile,
Zalasiewicz"the Anthropocene" has caught
on and spread
et al. 2010), citing evidence of human domi widely both inside and outside
the academy.the
nation of basic biogeochemical processes: The Economist (2011b) made it a
carbon, sulfur, and nitrogen cycles;cover global
story with
at the subheadline "Humans have
mosphere; erosion and sedimentation;changedextinc
the way the world works. Now they
have topH.
tion rates; sea-level rise; and oceanic change
Allthe way they think about it,
too." Further
these factors will eventually be visible whereinside,
it the editors called it a real
"paradigm
matters most for geologists: in the shift" because "[fjor centuries, sci
sediments,
ence has
fossils, and rocks of the present period. In progressed
2008, by making people periph
eral"Geological
the Stratigraphy Commission of the {Economist 201 la, p. 81). Calls for integra
tion of
Society of London voted to consider social and biophysical sciences abound;
declaring
the Anthropocene a formal unit remarkably,
of geologicalthese calls are coming more loudly
time. from the biophysical side than from the social

62 Sayre

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
side (Vitousek et al. 1997, von Storch & Stehr data to map 18 "anthropogenic biomes of the
1997). world." They found that "most of 'nature' is
now embedded within anthropogenic mosaics
of land use and land cover" (Ellis & Ramankutty
What Does It Mean?
2008, p. 446). Anthropologists will surely ap
preciate the importance of classification sys
The key points to draw from the Anthropocene
have less to do with when it began than with
tems in shaping human perceptions and actions.
how it affects the underlying assumptions Studies
that of the political and social implications
scientists make about understanding the world.
of these new scientific practices—or Earth sys
tem
First, the ancient dichotomy of humans and na governmentality (Lovbrand et al. 2009)—
are urgently needed.
ture is now empirically false at the global scale:
The "Earth System includes humans, our soci
eties, and our activities; thus, humans are not
CLIMATE SCIENCE
an outside force perturbing an otherwise nat
ural system but rather an integral and inter
One of the most remarkable things about AGW
is that it has been detected at all, let alone
acting part of the Earth System itself" (Steffen
et al. 2007, p. 615). Second, although the explained
past and attributed to human activities.
Weather can be observed directly, but cli
can shed light on dynamics and key thresholds
of change, we cannot assume that the lessons
mate is the average of weather and can be dis
cerned only through prolonged accumulation
it reveals will continue to apply in the future:
of weather data. Global climate, in turn, re
"Earth is currently operating in a no-analogue
quires such data from around the world, all
state" (Crutzen & Steffen 2003, p. 253, empha
sis in original). standardized sufficiently to enable robust ag
The challenge is to rebuild our concep
gregation. Explanation and attribution involve
enormously complex analyses of these data in
tual scaffolding to reflect these novel realities.
Demands arising from social movements,relation
ex to physical and biochemical laws and
theories (Stott et al. 2000, Stott 2003, Lean &
pressed in terms such as "climate justice" (Bond
Rind 2008). I cannot here review the vast liter
2012), will likely do much of this work. Inside
the academy, the emergence of new fieldsature
and of climate science and policy; reasonably
accessible summaries are available (Cowie 2007,
institutions within the biophysical sciences—
such as Earth system science (Wainwright Houghton 2009, Blockstein & Wiegman 2010,
2009), land-change science (Turner 2009),Schneider
re et al. 2010), and a valuable com
mote sensing (Balzter 2009), global-change sci
pendium of landmark original scientific papers
ence, the Intergovernmental Panel onisCli
found in Archer & Pierrehumbert (2011).
mate Change, and the Millennium Ecosystem
Assessment—indicates some of the ways that
this rebuilding may take place. Sociology of Climate Science
One early example bears mentioning here The history of climate science is eloquently told
because it operationalizes an alternative by
ap Weart (2008). He highlights the profoundly
proach and speaks directly to the topic from
social nature of the achievement, resulting as
it did from the efforts of hundreds of scientists
which the concept of the anthropogenic arose.
Sauer (1950) noted that patterns of climate working on all manner of problems, in many
and vegetation could be—and often were— cases only inadvertently, or much later, con
tributing a piece to the huge, cumulative puz
used circularly to produce maps of purportedly
"natural" biomes. Ellis & Ramankutty (2008, zle. Another fact that becomes quite clear is
that the Cold War was, historically speaking,
p. 446), observing that biomes are still mapped
as though human influences were irrelevant, a contingent but critical condition of possibil
ity for the discovery of global warming. The
have used satellite imagery and a range of other

www.annualreviews.org • The Politics of the Anthropogeni

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 US military, looking for ways to track radioac audiences (Hillman et al. 2007, Hamilton 2010,
tive fallout from aboveground nuclear testing, Powell 2011).
almost accidentally developed the tools—and Many science journalists have produced
provoked scientists to ask the questions—that similar books. Kolbert (2006) adapted a series
made the discovery possible: "The U.S. Navy of excellent articles for the New Yorker into

had bought an answer to a question it had never Field Notes from a Catastrophe. A longer and
thought to ask" (Weart 2008, p. 30). more comprehensive treatment is provided
Conveying climate science to lay audiences by Flannery (2005). Lynas (2008) organized
requires a great deal of translation from highly his book into chapters of projected scenarios
technical to more accessible language. This is for each 1°C increase in global temperatures;
true of many scientific topics, but particularly so by the time he gets to six, the projections are
in this case because climate change spans scales highly uncertain but truly terrifying. Kunstler
of space and time whose vastness is unprece (2005) extended alarmism to near apocalypti
dented in human experience (Sayre 2010). A cism by twinning global warming with peak oil.
large literature combines expositions of the ba Motavelli (2004) assembled stories by a team of
sic findings of climate science, journalistic or bi reporters on climate change in various places
ographical narratives of scientists at work, and around the world. Parenti (2011) also toured
accounts of ordinary people confronting the va the world, with an eye to diagnosing wars and
garies of changing local climates. One theme other violence as products of climate change.
that emerges from these works is that the sci By contrast, Paskal (2010) deduced widespread
entists are deeply alarmed and truly scared of climate change-related warfare in the years
what is coming—even more so than environ to come from a macrogeopolitical analysis.
mental activists have often been about any num Kozloff (2010) and deBuys (2011) provided re
ber of issues—and that they struggle to contain gional analyses of climate change for the Ama
their concerns within the norms of scientific de zon basin and the U.S. Southwest, respectively.
meanor (see, e.g., Hunter 2003, Kolbert 2006).
Several prominent climate scientists have
Climate Denialism
written popular or crossover books aimed at
persuading the general public of the urgency Perhaps the most disturbing facet of this lit
of the issue, blending autobiography with sci erature concerns the politicization of climate
entific information and practical suggestions for science by those seeking to oppose the consen
addressing the problem. Hansen (2009) is at the sus view that global warming is, in fact, anthro
more alarmed end of the spectrum (the subti pogenic (Gelbspan 2004, Union of Concerned
tle is "The Truth about the Coming Climate Scientists 2007, Hoggan 2009, Dunlap &
Catastrophe and our Last Chance to Save Hu McCright 2010, Powell 2011). Oreskes (2004),
manity"). Broecker & Kunzig (2008) end with a who demonstrated the consensus in a widely
plea for rapid technological innovation. Hulme cited article in Science, subsequently published
(2009, p. 326) is more philosophical and cau a powerful book (Oreskes & Conway 2010) de
tiously optimistic: "I suggest we need to re tailing the activities of a small group of Cold
veal the creative psychological, ethical and spir War scientists who lent their authority to a se
itual work that climate change is doing for us." ries of efforts to "manufacture doubt" regarding
A recent variation is Bradley's (2011) account tobacco, DDT, acid rain, and climate change.
of being swept up in a Congressional inquiry Funded by corporate donations from Exxon
cum witch hunt for his role in producing the Mobil and other polluting industrial interests,
now-famous "hockey stick" figure of average funneled through conservative foundations and
temperatures over the past millennium (Mann think tanks and disseminated through white
et al. 1999). Scholars other than climate scien papers, public relations experts, and lobbying
tists have also weighed in with books for broad campaigns, these men adopted the strategy the

64 Sayre

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
tobacco industry had pioneered of confusing THE POLITICS OF THE
the public with repeated invocations of scien ANTHROPOGENIC?
tific uncertainty. Oreskes & Conway (2010)
Perhaps the only place where the anthro
interpreted their actions not merely as self
pogenic explicidy finds political expression is
interested, but also as ideologically motivated
in the UNFCCC (of which the United States
by a free-market fundamentalism that likens en
is a signatory). Defining "dangerous anthro
vironmental regulation to communism.
pogenic interference with the climate system"
Relatively little scholarship exists regarding
(UNFCCC 1992, article 2) cannot be consid
so-called climate denialism, especially in light
ered merely a scientific question; although if it
of the exposes provided by these authors.
were, the answer would appear to be that the
Boykoff & Boykoff (2004) documented the role
limit has already been passed and the UNFCCC
of the mainstream media, who lent credence
has failed (Kriegler 2007, Ramanathan & Feng
to the skeptics' views by routinely presenting
2008). As climate scientists recognize, however,
"both sides" of the climate change story, even
"Defining DAI [dangerous anthropogenic in
when one side had little or no scientific author
terference with the climate system] begs the
ity on the subject. Jacques et al. (2008) docu
question, for example, 'Dangerous to whom?'"
mented the importance of conservative think
(Mann et al. 2009, p. 4,065, emphasis in
tanks in fomenting skepticism in Washington,
original). The fundamental problem is that,
DC, and the public at large. Nerlich (2010)
although the atmosphere is a genuinely global
focused on the twisted logic and metaphors of
commons, both the sources of greenhouse
skeptics' arguments as revealed in the "Climate
gases and the effects of climate change are
gate" episode: how calls for "sound science"
profoundly unevenly distributed in space and
impute unsoundness to the views of actual sci
time; for both biophysical and socioeconomic
entists and how complete consensus among cli reasons, the areas that have contributed most to
mate scientists is taken as proof that their views
causing global warming are not the ones most
are religious rather than scientific. Levett
likely to suffer the soonest or the most (Parry
Olson (2010) considered skepticism in relation
et al. 2004). Achieving "atmospheric justice"
to religious worldviews. But more anthropo
requires wrestling with this core issue (Vander
logical treatments of climate denial are almost
heiden 2008). Although coundess initiatives
wholly lacking: Why do ordinary people doubt
are under way at smaller scales (Bailey 2007),
climate change, especially when the evidence
coordinated global action has been stymied,
of misinformation campaigns by the skeptics
principally by the United States (by far the
is readily available? Norgaard (2011) provided
largest source of cumulative historical emis
an exemplary study along these lines, based on
sions) and China (the largest current source).
research in a small town in Norway. Although
The Routledge Handbook of Climate Change
she theorizes her case more sociologically
and Society (Lever-Tracy 2010) and the Oxford
(and psychologically) than anthropologically,
Handbook of Climate Change and Society (Dryzek
Norgaard's approach is unmistakably ethno
et al. 2011) provide the best full overviews of
graphic; she also wove Gramscian political
the social scientific issues surrounding climate
economy elegantly into her analysis. She
change. As a first cut into the myriad dimen
found a kind of dual consciousness or double
sions of social change that are needed, Roberts
reality, in which the patterns of everyday
et al. (2003) regressed national greenhouse gas
life, collectively lived and reproduced in both
emissions rates against a range of variables and
thought and action, prevent knowledge of
found significant correlations with levels of na
climate change from resulting in concrete
tional debt, total exports, military spending,
actions to stop it. Anthropologists have a
population growth rates, nonunion labor, and
key role to play in exploring these issues
political repression.
further.

www.annualreviews.org • The Politics of the Anthropogenic 6

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Demeritt (2001) incisively analyzed the pol minimizing the impact on energy, materials
itics surrounding the failure to translate climate and land" (Urry 2011, p. 119). An "ensuring
science into policy. The best that science can do state" would regulate all aspects of the econ
is to make projections of future climate based omy and refuse to discount future generations
on extremely complex models validated against relative to present ones. "Perceptions, practices
past climate data. These models must neces and policies must develop fast and furiously
sarily simplify reality, and they cannot incor along the lines of a resource capitalism" if
porate thresholds or feedbacks that have never there is to be any capitalist solution to climate
occurred in the past—even though Earth is change (Urry 2011, p. 120).
already in a no-analogue state. There cannot A question arises, however: Would resource
be certainty about these models in any strong capitalism still be capitalism? Huber (2008,
sense. "Given the immensely contentious poli p. 106) theorized fossil energy as internal to
tics, it is tempting for politicians to argue that capitalism, calling for a "move from concep
climate policy must be based upon scientific tions that understand energy as a 'thing' or a
certainty. This absolves them of any respon 'resource' towards a conception of energy as a
sibility to exercise discretion and leadership" 'social relation' enmeshed in dense networks of
(Demeritt 2001, p. 328). power and socioecological change." Similar to
Giddens (2009, p. 4, emphasis in original) Urry (2011), Huber (2008, p. 113) recognized
went so far as to assert that "at present, we have that "energy issues are at the epicenter of
no politics of climate change." By this he means not only the geopolitics of empire and the
that a real, effective political engagement global climate crisis, but also the more banal,
with the issue has scarcely begun and will everyday reproduction of capitalist social life."
unavoidably be radically new. He provided a Even some very mainstream, establishment
useful overview of what is being done and what environmental advocates, such as Speth (2008),
remains to be done. Interestingly, the countries have begun to conclude that the fundamental
that have done the most are those that took the threat to the global environment is capitalism
1970s oil crisis seriously and began to reduceitself.
their dependence on oil for reasons other than
climate.
CONCLUSION
Urry (2011) began from the premise that
AGW is a fundamentally social issue for which In view of the historical correlation between
economics—the social science field that has industrial capitalism and fossil fuel combus
thus far had the most visible role in climate tion, it becomes evident that the problem with
policy debates—is wholly inadequate. the
He anthropogenic is that it is too abstract a
category. It treats humans transhistorically
grouped views of the problem into three types:
skepticism, gradualism, and catastrophism.
and thus cannot distinguish between different
societies over space and time. Even Tansley
His own views seem to fall into the gradualist
(1939, p. 128), who coined the term, recog
camp, while acknowledging that catastrophic
outcomes are possible and rapid changes nized
are something unique about the "destructive
urgently needed. He called for an end activity
to [that] has spread during recent cen
neoliberal (or disorganized) capitalism,turies,
to and at an increasing rate, all over the
be replaced by resource capitalism, in which
face of the globe," but he mistook it as a matter
"nature would not be regarded as separate from
of civilization versus primitivism, rather than a
function of the social and ecological relations
the economy and hence would not be available
of production unique to recent centuries.
for transformation through short-term profit
maximization... Overall, economies shift The
the corollary of a too-abstract concept of
measurement of success from that of GDP tothe anthropogenic is a too-abstract concept

66 Sayre

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
of nature: one that cannot abide any sign of changes, with what consequences to whom,
human influence and remain truly "natural." and demands a justice that is indistinguish
In the Anthropocene, both of these ab ably social and environmental at the same
stractions become impossible to sustain. The time.

question is not if, but how much anthropogenic The challenge for both scholarship and
change has occurred. Perhaps "[scientists are politics is to think, study, and act across the vast
coming to a sobering realization: There may spatial and temporal scales of climate change
be no such thing left on Earth as a natural and its complex web of causes and conse
forest" (Gillis 2011, p. A13). If so, then it quences. Even as climate denialists continue to
is equally true that attributing such facts to hold sway among elected officials in the United
humans is wholly inadequate. It is instructive to States and elsewhere, governments are pouring
consider a case in which the circumstances are resources into the science of the Anthropocene
to develop and refine technologies of high
reversed. Synthetic chemicals such as TCDD
resolution global data collection, modeling,
(dioxin) have always been assumed to be unique
combinations of elements not found in nature. and analysis. High-level policy prescriptions,
But as analytic equipment and methods have meanwhile, supported by scientific assessments
progressed, scientists can now detect naturally (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment 2006,
produced TCDD (Hoekstra et al. 1999). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
This has profound and direct implications for 2007), propound basically economistic ap
people suffering from complications resulting proaches to understanding and regulating the
from exposure to Agent Orange or other in global environment through enclosure and
dustrial pollutants, because if reasonable doubt commodification of the atmosphere and other
of the source can be established, chemical common resources. Even if such a system were
companies can argue, as many do, that the to become technologically and institutionally
pollution is not their fault. The politics of feasible, it cannot answer the underlying social
the anthropogenic must give way to a politics and ethical questions that are central to the
that identifies which people have caused which politics of the anthropogenic.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial hold
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author is grateful to Adam Romero for research assistance.

LITERATURE CITED

Archer D, Pierrehumbert R. 2011. The Warming Papers. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell

Bailey J. 2007. Lessons from the Pioneers: Tackling Global Warming at the Local Level. Minn
Self-Reliance

Balee W. 2006. The research program of historical ecology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 35:75-98
Balzter H. 2009. Remote sensing and earth observation. See Castree et al. 2009, pp. 315-35
Blockstein DE, Wiegman L. 2010. The Climate Solutions Consensus. Washington, DC: Island
Bond P. 2012. Politics of Climate Justice: Paralysis Above, Movement Below. Durban: Univ. KwaZulu-Natal Press
Boykoff MT, Boykoff
Boykoflf JM.
JM. 2004.
2004. Balance
Balance as
as bias:
bias: global
global warming
warming and
and the
the US
US prestige
prestige press.
press. Glob.
Glob. Environ.
Environ.
Change 14:125—36
Bradley RS. 2011. Global Warming and Political Intimidation. Amherst/Boston: Univ. Mass. Press

ww7v.annualreviews.org • The Politics of the Anthropogenic 6~j

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Broecker S, Kunzig R. 2008. Fixing Climate. New York: Hill & Wang
Caro T. 2007. The Pleistocene re-wilding gambit. Trends Ecol. Evol. 22(6):281—82
Caro T, Darwin J, Forrester T, Ledoux-Bloom C, Wells C. 2011. Conservation in the Anthropocene. Conserv.
Biol. 26:185-88

Castree N, Demeritt D, Liverman D, Rhoads B, eds. 2009. A Companion to Environmental Geography. Oxford:
Blackwell

Clements FE. 1916. Plant Succession. Washington, DC: Carnegie Inst. Wash.
Cowie J. 2007. Climate Change: Biological and Human Aspects. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Crate SA. 2011. Climate and culture: anthropology in the era of contemporary climate change. Annu. Rev.
Anthropol. 40:175-94
Cronon W. 1983. Changes in the Land. New York: Hill & Wang
Cronon W. 1996. The trouble with wilderness: or, getting back to the wrong nature. Environ. Hist. 1(1):7—28
Crumley CL. 1994. Historial Ecology. Santa Fe, NM: Sch. Am. Res. Press
Crutzen PJ. 2002. Geology of mankind. Nature 415:23
Crutzen PJ, Steffen W. 2003. How long have we been in the Anthropocene era? Clim. Change 61:251-57
Crutzen PJ, Stoermer EF. 2000. The "Anthropocene." IGBP Newsl. 41:17-18
deBuys W. 2011 .A Great Aridness: Climate Change ir the Future of the American Southwest. Oxford: Oxford
Univ. Press

Demeritt D. 2001. The construction of global warming and the politics of science. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr.
91(2):307—37
Donlan CJ, Berger J, Bock CE, Bock JH, Burney DA, et al. 2006. Pleistocene rewilding: an optimistic agenda
for twenty-first century conservation. Am. Nat. 168(5):660-81
Donlan CJ, Greene HW, Berger J, Bock CE, Bock JH, et al. 2005. Re-wilding North America. Nature
436:913-14

DryzekJS, Norgaard RB, Schlosberg D. 2011. Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford: Oxfor
Univ. Press

Dunlap RE, McCright AM. 2010. Climate change denial: sources, actors and strategies. See Lever-Tracy
2010, pp. 240-59
Economist. 201 la. A man-made world. The Economist 399:81-83

Economist. 2011b. Welcome to the Anthropocene. The Economist 399:13

Ellis EC, Ramankutty N. 2008. Putting people in the map: anthropogenic biomes of the world. Front. Ecol.
Environ. 6:439-47

Fisher CT, Feinman GM. 2005. Introduction to "Landscapes over Time." Am. Anthropol. 107(1):62—69
Fisher CT, Pollard HP, Israde-Alcantara H, Garduno-Monroy VH, Banerjee SK. 2003. A reexamination of
human-induced environmental change within the Lake Patzcuaro Basin, Michoacan, Mexico. Proc. Natl.
Acad. Sci. USA 100:4957-62

Flannery T. 2005. The Weather Makers. New York: Ad. Mon.

Gelbspan R. 2004. Boiling Point. New York: Basic Books
Giddens A. 2009. The Politics of Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Polity
GillisJ. 2011. The threats to a crucial canopy. New York Times, Oct. 1, pp. Al, A12-13
Gillison L, Ekblom A. 2009. Untangling anthropogenic and climatic influence in riverine forest in the Kruger
National Park, South Africa. Veg. Hist. Archeobot. 18:171-85
Glacken CJ. 1967. Traces on the Rhodian Shore. Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
Glaser B, Woods WI. 2004. Amazonian Dark Earths: Explorations in Space and Time. Dordrecht/London:
Springer
Hall M. 2005. Earth Repair: A Transatlantic History of Environmental Restoration. Charlottesville: Univ. Va.
Press

Hames R. 2007. The ecologically noble savage debate. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 36:177-90
Hamilton C. 2010. Requiem for a Species: Why We Resist the Truth about Climate Change. London: Earthscan
Hansen J. 2009. Storms of My Grandchildren. New York: Bloomsbury
Headland TN. 1997. Revisionism in ecological anthropology. Curr. Anthropol. 38(4):605—30
Heckenberger MJ, Russel JC, Fausto C, Toney JR, Schmidt MJ, et al. 2008. Pre-Columbian urbanism,
anthropogenic landscapes, and the future of the Amazon. Science 312:1214—17

68 Say re

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Hillman M, Fawcett T, Rajan SC. 2007. The Suicidal Planet. New York: Thomas Dunne
Hoekstra EJ, De Weerd H, De Leer EWB, Brinkman UAT. 1999. Natural formation of chlorinated phenols,
dihenzo-/)-dioxins, and dibenzofurans in soil of a Douglas fir forest. Environ. Sci. Toxicol. 33:2543-49
Hoggan J. 2009. Climate Cover-Up: The Crusade to Deny Global Warming. Vancouver: Greystone
Houghton J. 2009. Global Warming: The Complete Briefing. Cambridge, UK: Cambr. Univ. Press. 4th ed.
Huber MT. 2008. Energizing historical materialism: fossil fuels, space and the captitalist mode of production.
Geoforum 40:105-15
Hulme M. 2009. Why We Disagree about Climate Change. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hunter R. 2003. Thermageddon: Countdown to 2030. New York: Arcade
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report: Climate Change 2007
(AR4). Cambridge/New York: Cambr. Univ. Press
Jacques PJ, Dunlap RE, Freeman M. 2008. The organization of denial: conservative think tanks and environ
mental scepticism. Environ. Polit. 17:349—85
Kirch PV. 1996. Late Holocene human-induced modifications to a central Polynesian island ecosystem. Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 93:5296-300

Kolbert E. 2006. Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change. New York: Bloomsbury
Kozloff N. 2010. No Rain in the Amazon: How South America's Climate Change Affects the Entire Planet. New
York: Palgrave
Kriegler E. 2007. On the verge of dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system? Environ.
Res. Lett. 2:011001

Kunstler JH. 2 005. The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Catastrophes of the Twenty-First Century. New
York: Atl. Mon.

Lazrus H. 2012. Sea change: island communities and climate change. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 41:285-301
Lean JL, Rind DH. 2008. How natural and anthropogenic influences alter global and regional surface tem
peratures: 1889 to 2006. Geophys. Res. Lett. 35:L18701
Lever-Tracy C, ed. 2010. Routledge Handbook of Climate Change and Society. London: Routledge
Levett-Olson L. 2010. Religion, worldview and climate change. See Lever-Tracy 2010, pp. 230-39
Lovbrand E, Stripple J, Wiman B. 2009. Earth system governmentality: reflections on science in the Anthro
pocene. Glob. Environ. Change 19:7—13
Lynas M. 2008. Six Degrees: Our Future on a Hotter Planet. Washington, DC: Natl. Geogr.
Mann CC. 2005. 1491. New York: Vintage
Mann ME, Bradley RS, Hughes MK. 1999. Northern hemisphere temperatures during the past millennium:
inferences, uncertainties, and limitations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 26(6):759-62
Marris E. 2011. The end of the wild. Nature 469:150-52

Marris E, Kareiva P, Mascaro J, Ellis EC. 2011. Hope in the age of man. New York Times, Dec. 8, p. A31
Martin PS. 2005. Twilight of the Mammoths: Ice Age Extinctions and the Rewilding of America. Berkeley: Univ.
Calif. Press

Metcalfe SE, Street-Perrot FA, Brown RB, Hales PE, Perrot RA, Steininger FM. 1989. Late Holocene impact
on lake basins in central Mexico. Geoarcheology 4:119-41
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2006. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment synthesis reports. http://maweb.
org/en/Synthesis.aspx
Motavelli J, ed. 2004. Feeling the Heat: Dispatches from the Frontlines of Climate Change. New York: Routledge
Nerlich B. 2010. 'Climategate': paradoxical metaphors and political paralysis. Environ. Values 19:419^-2
Norgaard KM. 2011. Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press

Oreskes N. 2004. The scientific consensus on climate change. Science 306:1686

Oreskes N, Conway EM. 2010. Merchants of Doubt. New York: Bloomsbury
Parenti C. 2011. Tropic of Chaos: Climate Change and the New Geography of Violence. New York: Nation
Parry ML, Rosenzweig C, Iglesias A, Livermore M, Fischer G. 2004. Effects of climate change on global food
production under SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Glob. Environ. Change 14:53-67
Paskal C. 2010. Global Warring: How Environmental, Economic, and Political Crises Will Redraw the World Map.
New York: Palgrave

wvrw.annualreviews.org • The Politics of the Anthropogenic 69

This content downloaded from

103.79.168.211 on Thu, 21 Jul 2022 10:46:57 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Powell JL. 2011. The Inquisition of Climate Science. New York: Columbia Univ. Press
Pyne SJ. 1982. Fire in America. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press
Pyne SJ. 1986. The Ice: A Journey to Antarctica. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press
Pyne SJ. 1991. Burning Bush: A Fire History of Australia. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press
Pyne SJ. 1995. World Fire: The Culture of Fire on Earth. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press
Pyne SJ. 1997. Vestal Fire. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press
Pyne SJ. 2007. Awful Splendor: A Fire History of Canada. Vancouver: Univ. B.C. Press
Ramanathan V, Feng Y. 2008. On avoiding dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system:
formidable challenges ahead. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 105:14245-50
Roberts JT, Grimes PE, Manale JL. 2003. Social roots of global environmental change: a world-systems
analysis of carbon dioxide emissions. J. World-Syst. Res. 9(2):277—315
Rubenstein DR, Rubenstein DI, Sherman PW, Gavin TA. 2006. Pleistocene Park: Does re-wilding North
America represent sound conservation for the 21st century? Biol. Conserv. 132:232-38
Ruddiman WF. 2003. The anthropogenic greenhouse era began thousands of years ago. Clim. Change 61:261
93

Ruddiman WF. 2005. Plows, Plagues and Petroleum: How Humans Took Control of Climate. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton Univ. Press

Sauer CO. 1950. Grassland climax, fire, and man. J. Range Manag. 3(1): 16—21
Sayre NF. 2010. Climate change, scale, and devaluation: the challenge of our built environment. Wash. Lee J.
Energy Clim. Environ. 1:93-105
Schneider SH, Rosencranz A, Mastrandrea MD, Kuntz-Duriseti K. 2010. Climate Change Science and Policy.
Washington, DC: Island
Smith NJH. 1980. Anthrosols and human carrying capacity in Amazonia. Ann. Assoc. Am. Geogr. 70:553-66
Speth JG. 2008. The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing from Crisis to
Sustainability. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
Steffen W, Crutzen PJ, McNeil JR. 2007. The Anthropocene: Are humans now overwhelming the great forces
of nature? Ambio 36:614—21

Stott PA. 2003. Attribution of regional scale temperature changes to anthropogenic and natural causes. Geophys.
Res. Lett. 30(14): 1728
Stott PA, Tett SFB, Jones GS, Allen MR, Mitchell JFB, Jenkins GJ. 2000. External control of 20th century
temperature by natural and anthropogenic forcings. Science 290:2133-37
Tansley AG. 1923. Practical Plant Ecology. London: George Allen & Unwin
Tansley AG. 1939. The British Isles and Their Vegetation. Cambridge, UK: Cambr. Univ. Press
Tilley C, Hamilton S, Harrison S, Anderson E. 2000. Nature, culture, clitter: distinguishing between cultural
and geomorphological landscapes; the case of hilltop tors in South-West England. J. Mater. Cult. 5:197—
224

Turner BL II. 2009. Land change (systems) science. See Castree et al. 2009, pp. 168-80
Union of Concerned Scientists. 2007. Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics
to Manufacture Uncertainty on Climate Science. Cambridge, MA: Union Concern. Sci.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). 1992. United Nations Frame
work Convention on Climate Change. Bonn, Germ.: UNFCCC. http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/
conveng.pdf
Urry J. 2011. Climate Change and Society. Cambridge, UK: Polity
Vanderheiden S. 2008. Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
Veblen TT, Kitzberger T, Donnegan J. 2000. Climatic and human influences on fire regimes in Ponderosa
Pine forests in the Colorado Front Range. Ecol. Appl. 10(10): 1178—95
Vitousek PM, Mooney HA, Lubchenco J, Melillo JM. 1997. Human domination of Earth's ecosystems. Science
277:494-99
von Storch H, Stehr N. 1997. Climate research: the case for the social sciences. Ambio 26(1):66-71
Wainwright J. 2009. Earth-system science. See Castree et al. 2009, pp. 145-67
Weart SR. 2008. The Discovery of Global Warming. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press. Rev. ed.
White R. 1999. The nationalization of nature. J. Am. Hist. 86(3):976-86
Williams R. 1980. Ideas of nature. In Problems in Materialism and Ctilture, pp. 67-85. London: Verso
Zalasiewicz J, Williams M, Steffen W, Crutzen P. 2010. The new world of the Anthropocene. Environ. Sci.
Technol. 44:2228-31

7 o Sayre

This content downloaded from

103.fff:ffff:ffff:ffff:ffff on Thu, 01 Jan 1976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms