first pass on cutting word count

1 files changed, 198 insertions, 285 deletions

diff --git a/chapter1.md b/chapter1.md
index 53f30e7..4926b27 100644
--- a/chapter1.md
+++ b/chapter1.md
@@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
 ## Chapter 1
 
-Since the 1990s, the green movement has been on the back foot. There have of
+Since the 1980s, the green movement has been on the back foot. There have of
 course been many green successes on the local scale. But, in stark contrast to
 the 1960s and 1970s, when the green lobby succeeded in delivering strong
 government legislation to protect clean air, water, and establish nature
-reserves, in the last thirty years, most of the key social-scale demands of the
+reserves, in the last few decades, most of the key social-scale demands of the
 green movement have not been met, and even some of those earlier successes have
 been partially rolled back.
 
@@ -39,7 +39,10 @@ and if the solution is to be credible, the rhetor will be best placed if they
 have accurately identified the root causes of the problem.
 
 There are problems with dominant green rhetoric from beginning to end of this
-process. First, green rhetoric mis-diagnoses the problem. Rhetors imply that the
+process: rhetors mis-diagnose the root causes of the problem, propose solutions
+which are not credible, and mis-identify their audience.
+
+First, green rhetoric mis-diagnoses the problem. Rhetors imply that the
 root cause of green evils is the combined choices, and particularly the
 consumption choices, of all the world's individuals.
 
@@ -47,17 +50,16 @@ So, when Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac come to recommend ten actions
 for their readers to take to fight climate change, coming in at number 4 (after
 'Let Go of the Old World,' 'Face Your Grief but Hold a Vision of the Future,'
 and 'Defend the Truth') is 'See Yourself as a Citizen – Not as a Consumer.' The
-problem is that we're consuming too much. The solution is to change the
-psychology which causes over-consumption.
+problem is that 'we' (that is, the universal human individual) are consuming too
+much. The solution is to change the psychology which causes over-consumption.
 
 > Much of what we buy is intended to enhance our sense of identity. Particular
 > brands of clothes, soap, cookies, televisions, and cars and designed with a
 > _tribe_ in mind, their attributes carefully cultivated by the consumer goods
-> companies that sell the products. Identity and consumption keep moving closer
-> together. In the UK, for example, the average person consumes more than 65
-> pounds of clothes every year, equivalent to about five loads of laundry. These
-> purchases are driven mainly by the fact that fashion trends change every
-> season. [@future-we-choose, p. 118]
+> companies that sell the products. \[…\] In the UK, for example, the average
+> person consumes more than 65 pounds of clothes every year, equivalent to about
+> five loads of laundry. These purchases are driven mainly by the fact that
+> fashion trends change every season. [@future-we-choose, p. 118]
 
 They're not alone in emphasising individual psychology as a root cause of
 climate change. For example, writing about climate change with TV co-host Chris
@@ -75,20 +77,19 @@ inviting people to think differently about a political issue like climate change
 can be perceived as a personal attack, preventing people from thinking
 rationally. [@back-to-nature, pp. 32-33]
 
-This analysis assumes that the problem is one for the universal individual
-human. It is 'our human reluctance' that has to be addressed. Having identified
-a psychological problem – why can't human beings like you and me act rationally
-when presented with the facts? – it's natural to seek a psychological solution.
-This only makes sense if, as soon as 'we' (whoever that is) start behaving
-sensibly, everyone else that matters will follow our lead.
+This analysis identifies a psychological problem – why can't human beings like
+you and me act rationally when presented with the facts? Having done so, it's
+natural to seek a psychological solution. But identifying the root cause in
+psychology only makes sense if, as soon as 'we' start behaving sensibly,
+everyone else that matters will follow our lead.
 
 > Remember, you're in the driving seat and the corporations and big companies
 > are your wheels. If you turn right, they will turn right too. Eventually.
 > [@back-to-nature, p. 95]
 
 Fellow nature writer Benedict Macdonald extends this idea, that green harms are
-driven by consumption, into a sweeping grand history of the human race from
-primeval time:
+driven by 'our' consumption, into a sweeping grand history of the human race
+from primeval time:
 
 > \[…] we became systematic, methodical and determined in our eradication of
 > some cornerstone species \[…] By the Middle Ages, our desire to tame the
@@ -103,42 +104,22 @@ primeval time:
 > movement was nascent \[…] it would take further decades before, at last, the
 > Ape Aware would emerge. [@cornerstones, pp. 200-202]
 
-In Macdonald's account, the reason 'we' – as if all humans have always had the
-same powers and interests – caused so much harm to the non-human world is
-because 'we' stole stuff to make 'us' richer: land, trees, food, water. Thus
-'our' consumption is what drives ecological catastrophe.
+In Macdonald's account, the reason 'we' caused so much harm to the non-human
+world is because 'we' stole stuff to make 'us' richer: land, trees, food, water.
+Thus 'our' consumption is what drives ecological catastrophe.
 
 The idea that green harms are driven by consumption is further reinforced with
 the language of 'carbon footprinting.' The idea seems innocuous enough: tot up
 the carbon emissions produced in the process of producing all the goods and
 services consumed by a person, and you've got their 'carbon footprint,' their
-personal contribution to global carbon dioxide emissions.
-
-WWF-UK offers a popular carbon footprint calculator on their website
-[@wwf-footprint-calculator]. I'm promised that although 'our world is in crisis
-\[…\] it's up to us to fix it' and I'm encouraged to 'take your first step with
-our UK based environmental footprint calculator.' With each question, it ekes on
-a little more guilt: how many flights did you take this year? How much did you
-spend in your car last week? When's the last time you bought large electricals?
-How much do you spend on clothes, or beauty products, in an average month? I did
-my best to max out on every question. At the end, I'd chocked up over 39 tonnes
-of CO~2~. I was duly informed that I was just under four times more evil than
-the UK average. Not to worry, I can install their My Footprint App.
-
-> We’ve seen the devastating impact that human activity can have on the natural
-> world, but it doesn’t have to be this way. We can build a better world by all
-> making small changes in our everyday lives. \[…\] WWF-UK’s My Footprint app is
-> your hub for positive change. Using this app is a step in the right direction
-> to help our planet and keep you motivated to make sustainable choices.
-> [@wwf-my-footprint]
-
-This rhetoric is clear: human beings (that's me) are wreaking havoc, and I am
-contributing more than my fair share to the mayhem. But if we all play our part,
-by following simple tips to change how we choose to consume goods and services,
-together we'll make a big difference. I just need to do my bit.
-
-By calling on people to reduce their 'carbon footprint,' the rhetor suggests
-that global carbon dioxide emissions are determined by the aggregation of every
+personal contribution to global carbon dioxide emissions. WWF publishes a free
+carbon calculator on their website and in the Apple and Google app stores
+[@wwf-footprint-calculator; wwf-my-footprint]. The concept was first popularised
+by an Effie-winning advertising campaign run by British Petroleum [@effies-2007;
+@kaufman-2020].
+
+By calling on people to reduce their 'carbon footprint,' rhetors suggest that
+global carbon dioxide emissions are determined by the aggregation of every
 individual's consumption choices, plus a bit extra for whatever can't be
 directly linked to consumption. This analysis acknowledges inequality, but only
 insofar as people have unequal spending power.
@@ -181,28 +162,80 @@ a day managing this industrial capitalist enterprise and only perhaps forty
 minutes commuting to work—so why do we only pay attention to the latter?'
 [@climate-change-class-war, p. 16]
 
-The idea that carbon footprinting shifts blame from producers to consumers isn't
-just a left-wing conspiracy theory. The fossil fuel industry thinks so, too, and
-has bet huge amounts of money on this very strategy. In the early 2000s, BP
-Petroleum spent hundreds of millions of dollars on their 'Beyond Petroleum' ad
-campaign, for which Madison Avenue moguls Ogilvie & Mathers won a gold Effie
-award. [@effies-2007] As part of this effort, they popularised the carbon
-footprint calculator, which had previously been an obscure concept.
-[@bp-carbon-calculator; @don-miller-bp; @safire-2008; @solman-2008;
-@supran-2021; @kaufman-2020]
+Taking an alternative approach, many green rhetors advocate for a simple
+programme: listen to the science, then act rationally. This call to action
+suggests that the root cause of the relevant problems is that some relevant
+actors are not responding rationally to the scientific evidence.
+
+This is a dialectic favoured by the star climate campaigner, Greta Thunberg. In
+February 2019, she spoke to a gathering of EU civil servants in Brussels:
+
+> We know that most politicians don't want to talk to us. Good, we don't want to
+> talk to them either. We want them to talk to the scientists instead.
+> [@no-one-is-too-small, pp. 53-54]
+
+In September of the same year, while the US government was halfway through the
+4-year process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, she spoke at the US
+Congress. In a speech which repeatedly referenced Martin Luther King Junior's 'I
+have a dream' speech, she pleaded with legislators:
+
+> Perhaps it is impossible. But looking at those numbers – looking at the
+> current best available science signed by every nation – then I think that is
+> precisely what we are up against. But you must not spend all of your time
+> dreaming, or see this as some political fight to win. And you must not gamble
+> your children's future on the flip of a coin. Instead, you must unite behind
+> the science. [@no-one-is-too-small, pp. 122-123]
+
+In their 1996 rationalist-environmentalist call to arms, _Betrayal of Science
+and Reason_, Paul and Anne Ehrlich were explicit about how they saw the link
+between science and government policy:
+
+> In short, people should have faith in their own judgment when they've taken
+> the time to examine different views of an issue and taken into account their
+> own predispositions and prejudices. Then they can become activists—devote as
+> much of their time as possible to improving the human condition. The
+> scientific community needs help in re-plotting humanity's trajectory toward a
+> sustainable future. [@betrayal-science-reason, p. 212]
+
+For such rhetors, the bogeyman is the 'science denier' or 'science fraudster'.
+Much of _Betrayal and Science and Reason_ is taken up with naming, exposing, and
+rebutting some of the authors' critics, whom they derogatively label
+'brownlashes.' In Thunberg's speeches, she has repeatedly proclaimed the
+narrative that 'we spoke the science and demanded that the people in power would
+listen to and act on the science, but our political leaders didn't listen'
+[@no-one-is-too-small, p. 134].
+
+However, there's no particular reason to think that the fossil fuel industry is
+scientifically incompetent or unable to act rationally. In fact, fossil fuel
+companies are if anything astonishingly capable of mustering scientific and
+technological resources to act rationally. Fossil fuel extraction makes
+intensive use of technological and scientific resources, from the geological
+surveying needed to identify reserves to the hydraulic engineering needed to
+pump gas and oil from underground or subsea reservoirs. Despite these
+technological and scientific challenges, fossil fuel companies among the world's
+profitable. Adding together the most recent annual profits from the five largest
+state-owned fossil fuel companies and the five largest public fossil fuel
+companies produces a number well over $500 billion [@energy-profits-jun-25].
 
-Thus, green rhetors, in targeting individual consumption, mis-diagnose the root
-cause of the problems they're trying to address.
+Even the production of so-called 'fake science' can be seen as the result of the
+fossil fuel industry acting rationally on the basis of the scientific evidence.
+As I'll explore in more detail in chapter 4, the fossil fuel industry is
+following the tobacco industry's strategies and even hiring the same PR
+consultants in their campaign to use science to influence public opinion. The
+problem for the world is not that people aren't listening to the science, but
+rather that fossil fuel companies, and other business lobbies, have an interest
+in poisoning the world, and powerful means of ensuring their interests are met.
+So again, the 'listen to the science' line mis-diagnoses the root causes of
+green issues, and thus fails to bring about change.
 
 Having mis-diagnosed the root causes of the problem, green rhetors too often go
 on to propose politically impossible solutions. The worst is simply to cut
-consumption. Since _The Limits to Growth_ was published for the Club of Rome in
-1972 [@limits-to-growth], bolstered by eco-classics such as _Small Is Beautiful_
-(1973) [@small-is-beautiful] and _The Population Bomb_ (1968)
+individual consumption. Since _The Limits to Growth_ was published for the Club
+of Rome in 1972 [@limits-to-growth], bolstered by eco-classics such as _Small Is
+Beautiful_ (1973) [@small-is-beautiful] and _The Population Bomb_ (1968)
 [@population-bomb], the green movement has frequently emphasised a message of
-austerity or 'de-growth,' echoing the austerity rhetoric which dominated the
-cost-of-living discourse in the 1970s and since that time
-[@climate-change-class-war, pp. 158-159].
+austerity, echoing the austerity rhetoric which dominated the cost-of-living
+discourse in the 1970s and since [@climate-change-class-war, pp. 158-159].
 
 So, in 2006, George Monbiot set out his manifesto for putting the UK through a
 90% cut in greenhouse gas emissions. While Monbiot acknowledged that austerity
@@ -223,11 +256,12 @@ ones to save the climate:
 > [@heat, p. 22]
 
 Two fans, Sharon Astyk and Miranda Edel, inspired by the book, set out in 2007
-to reduce their household consumption to 10% of the US average. In response to
-Monbiot's observation that 'people don't riot for austerity,' they called their
-personal austerity campaign a 'Riot for Austerity' and blogged about their
+to reduce their household carbon footprint to 10% of the US average. In response
+to Monbiot's observation that 'people don't riot for austerity,' they called
+their personal austerity campaign a 'Riot for Austerity' and blogged about their
 efforts online, finding hundreds of people from around the world joining them in
-their 'riot.' As Chris Rootes observed, in spite of their impressive efforts, the movement had very little impact.
+their 'riot.' As Chris Rootes observed, in spite of their impressive efforts,
+the movement had very little impact.
 
 > This action, interesting though it is, scarcely resembled a riot, or, indeed,
 > any other form of collective action. It was a series of individual efforts to
@@ -249,28 +283,10 @@ services. Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac implore their readers:
 
 'How will a working class that often struggles to pay for basic services like
 heat and electricity respond to such demands?' asks Matt Huber
-[@climate-change-class-war, p. 170]. According to the Trussel Trust, in 2024,
-10.4 million adults and 3.8 million children in the UK skimped on food or had no
-way to re-stock an empty cupboard [@hunger-uk-2024]. National Energy Action
-estimated that in 2023, 15.2% of UK households were setting their thermostat
-dangerously cold, more than double the rate from the year before
-[@nea-nov-2024].
-
-Millions more stand on the precipice of hardship. Citizens Advice reports that
-the mean UK household can only afford to set 5% of their income aside for
-savings – and that's the mean. The result is that since the advent of austerity
-in the early 2010s, households have been draining their savings, leaving them
-exposed to financial shocks, like not getting as many shifts as they hoped, or
-having to call the plumber out [@ca-thin-ice]. The Financial Conduct Authority
-classifies as quarter of UK households as having 'low financial resilience' and
-estimates that barely half have enough cash to make it 3 months without
-borrowing if their main source of income were cut off [@financial-lives-2024].
-
-For many, the call to 'buy less' is not 'liberating,' because it's the call of
-the bailiff. It's hardly surprising that the de-growth movement has
-remained largely academic, with little impact on politics, and indeed a vague
-grasp on what de-growth policy would actually mean in practice or who you could
-possibly convince to make it happen. [@vansintjan-2019; @cosme-2017]
+[@climate-change-class-war, p. 170]. Most consumption for most people is not
+discretionary even in the Global North, and this is even more true in the Global
+South. There is no feasible route to persuading people to impose voluntary
+austerity upon themselves en masse.
 
 Another favourite of green rhetors is to propose smart market-based policies,
 mainly taxing carbon, aimed at tweaking the incentives for private capital to
@@ -279,127 +295,33 @@ with eloquent experts like Sir Dieter Helm [@legacy] who argues that a
 sustainable economy must observe what he calls the 'polluter-pays principle.'
 However, too often, smart market tweaks are proposed which exacerbate market
 injustice, effectively levying the cost of economic transformation on those
-least able to pay. This is not politically sustainable.
+already squeezed by markets. This is not politically sustainable.
 
 In March 1993, for example, Norman Lamont announced a fuel price 'escalator',
 promising to gradually increase fuel duty, partly in order to reduce carbon
 dioxide emissions. A tobacco escalator followed in November. However, amidst
 criticism that the fuel duty was regressive and ineffective and protests from
 lorry drivers, Gordon Brown was forced in March 2000 to rescind the escalator
-and reduce fuel duty [@parl-fuel-escalator; @bbc-fuel-duty-cut]. In 2018, the
-'gilets jaunes' protest movement brought France to a standstill, the protests
-having been triggered by the annual implementation of a similar fuel price
-escalator scheme bequeathed to Emmanuel Macron by the previous government,
-similarly motivated by environmental concerns. Despite Macron's strong political
-position at the beginning of the protests, he was forced to roll back the tax
-increases alongside other concessions to the protesters [@bbc-gilets-jaune].
-
-So, while smart market fixes might work in theory, they are too often divorced
+and reduce fuel duty [@parl-fuel-escalator; @bbc-fuel-duty-cut]. In 2018,
+Emmanuel Macron suffered a huge loss to his political authority after a similar
+fuel duty policy bequeathed to him by a previous government sparked the 'gilets
+jaunes' civil disobedience movement [@bbc-gilets-jaunes].
+
+So, while smart market fixes might work on paper, they are too often divorced
 from any politically sustainable programme. Thus, here too, green rhetoric has
 failed to demonstrate to their audience that the change they advocate will be
 good for them, and thus their proposals are politically impossible.
 
-Taking another approach, many green rhetors advocate for a simple programme:
-listen to the science, then act rationally. This call to action suggests that
-the root cause of the relevant problems is that some relevant actors are not
-responding rationally to the scientific evidence.
-
-This is a dialectic favoured by the star climate campaigner, Greta Thunberg. In
-February 2019, she spoke to a gathering of EU civil servants in Brussels:
-
-> We know that most politicians don't want to talk to us. Good, we don't want to
-> talk to them either. We want them to talk to the scientists instead.
-> [@no-one-is-too-small, pp. 53-54]
-
-In September of the same year, while the US government was halfway through the
-4-year process of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement, she spoke at the US
-Congress. In a speech which repeatedly referenced Martin Luther King Junior's 'I
-have a dream' speech, she pleaded with legislators:
-
-> Perhaps it is impossible. But looking at those numbers – looking at the
-> current best available science signed by every nation – then I think that is
-> precisely what we are up against. But you must not spend all of your time
-> dreaming, or see this as some political fight to win. And you must not gamble
-> your children's future on the flip of a coin. Instead, you must unite behind
-> the science. [@no-one-is-too-small, pp. 122-123]
-
-In their 1996 rationalist-environmentalist call to arms, _Betrayal of Science
-and Reason_, Paul and Anne Ehrlich were explicit about how they saw the link
-between science and government policy:
-
-> In short, people should have faith in their own judgment when they've taken
-> the time to examine different views of an issue and taken into account their
-> own predispositions and prejudices. Then they can become activists—devote as
-> much of their time as possible to improving the human condition. The
-> scientific community needs help in re-plotting humanity's trajectory toward a
-> sustainable future. [@betrayal-science-reason, p. 212]
-
-The spectre of the 'science denier' or 'science fraudster' has traditionally
-served as the main scapegoat of green rhetoric. Much of _Betrayal and Science
-and Reason_ is taken up with naming, exposing, and rebutting some of their
-critics, whom they derogatively label 'brownlashes.' In Thunberg's speeches, she
-has repeatedly proclaimed the narrative that 'we spoke the science and demanded
-that the people in power would listen to and act on the science, but our
-political leaders didn't listen' [@no-one-is-too-small, p. 134]. Dale Jamieson,
-a philosopher at New York University, asked in 2014 why there had been so little
-social-scale action to address the problems of climate change, and concluded
-that the main factors were as follows:
-
-> We live in a society in which there is a cultural chasm between scientists and
-> policy-makers. Most of us, including scientists, are largely confused about
-> the relations between facts and values, and science and policy. Many of us are
-> scientifically ignorant, and large sums have been spent to further confuse and
-> misinform us. This has occurred against the background of rising cynicism,
-> eroding respect for Enlightenment values, and dysfunctional political systems.
-> Making things worse, climate change presents us with the largest collective
-> action problem that humanity has ever faced, one that is extended both in space
-> and time. It is not the sort of problem that Mother Nature raised us to solve
-> or even to notice. [@reason-dark-time, pp. 103-104]
-
-However, there's no particular reason to think that the fossil fuel industry is
-scientifically incompetent or unable to act rationally. In fact, fossil fuel
-companies are if anything astonishingly capable of mustering scientific and
-technological resources to act rationally. Fossil fuel extraction makes
-intensive use of technological and scientific resources, from the geological
-surveying needed to identify reserves to the hydraulic engineering needed to
-pump gas and oil from underground or subsea reservoirs. Despite these
-technological and scientific challenges, fossil fuel companies among the world's
-profitable. Adding together the most recent annual profits from the five largest
-state-owned fossil fuel companies and the five largest public fossil fuel
-companies produces a number well over $500 billion [@energy-profits-jun-25].
-
-Even the production of so-called 'fake science' can be seen as the result of the
-fossil fuel industry acting rationally on the basis of the scientific evidence.
-As has been pointed out time and time again, the fossil fuel industry is
-following the tobacco industry's strategies and even hiring the same PR
-consultants in their campaign to use science to influence public opinion. Their
-borrowed tactics include manufacturing uncertainty by funding contrarian
-scientific research, giving cash to scientists who publicly promote contrarian
-points of view in the media, calling for more research as a delaying tactic, and
-so-called 'information laundering' -- using secret donations to thinktanks with
-opaque financial models to hide their involvement in the production of
-information favourable to their bottom line [@smoke-mirrors-hot-air].
-
-The problem for the world is not that people aren't listening to the science,
-but rather that fossil fuel companies, and other business lobbies, have an
-interest in poisoning the world, and powerful means of ensuring their interests
-are met.
-
-\[TODO: how does 'listen to the science' lead to a practical call to action?\]
-
-So again, the 'listen to the science' line mis-diagnoses the root causes of
-green issues, and thus fails to bring about change.
-
 Finally, having mis-diagnosed the root causes of the issues and proposed
 solutions their audience cannot support, green rhetors fail to properly identify
 an audience that can make a difference.
 
 As I've already shown, green rhetors have a tendency to address an unspecified
-'we', suggesting a universal human citizen, implying that for all relevant
+'we,' suggesting a universal human individual, implying that for all relevant
 purposes, everyone has the same interests and powers. Thus Chris Packham and
-Megan McCubbin can talk about 'Ape Aware,' explicitly describing the
-environmental movement as the up-and-coming stage in human evolution
-[@cornerstones, p. 202].
+Megan McCubbin can announce the arrival of 'Ape Aware' [@cornerstones, p. 202],
+and Christiana Figueres and Tom Rivett-Carnac of 'the next phase of human
+evolution' [@future-we-choose, p. 62].
 
 The word 'Anthropocene' tells a similar story. The word was coined by Paul
 Crutzen in 2000 in order to propose that the International Geosphere-Biosphere
@@ -409,31 +331,30 @@ extended discussion, the IGBP rejected Crutzen's proposal, but the word has
 nevertheless obtained currency far beyond the discipline of geology
 [@meaning-of-anthropocene].
 
-For many critics in the humanities, the term 'Anthropocene' describes the
-present time as one characterised by human domination over the Earth. The choice
-of 'anthropos,' or 'human,' as the focus point, rather than 'animal' or
-'accountant,' implies that all humans take a roughly equal share of
-responsibility for recent changes to Earth's ecosystems. Some critics have
-proposed alternative terms such as 'Capitalocene' or 'Oligarchocene' so as to
-more fairly reflect the social texture of the changing relationship of human
-beings within Earth ecosystems [see e.g. @anthropocene-or-capitalocene, @blaser-2018]. But
-Anthropocene, by describing the shaping power over Earth's ecosystems as the
-undifferentiated 'anthropos', downplays the importance of the different powers
-and interests between different humans. Thus, when a green rhetor uses the word
-'Anthropocene', they suggest that you and I engage in environmental discourses
-as a universalised human, that our location in social systems is not relevant to
-our location in Earth ecosystems.
+For many scholars, in the world beyond the technical debates of geological
+technocrats, the term 'Anthropocene' describes the present time as one
+characterised by human domination over the Earth. The choice of 'anthropos,' or
+'human,' as the focus point, rather than 'animal' or 'accountant,' implies that
+responsibility for recent changes to Earth's ecosystems are shared roughly
+equally amongst all and only humans.
+
+Some critics have proposed alternative terms such as 'Capitalocene' or
+'Oligarchocene' so as to more fairly reflect the social texture of the changing
+relationship of human beings within Earth ecosystems [see e.g.
+@anthropocene-or-capitalocene, @blaser-2018]. But Anthropocene, by describing
+the shaping power over Earth's ecosystems as the undifferentiated 'anthropos',
+downplays the importance of the different powers and interests between different
+humans. Thus, when a green rhetor uses the word 'Anthropocene', they suggest
+that you and I engage in environmental discourses as a universalised human, that
+our location in social systems is not relevant to our location in Earth
+ecosystems.
 
 For example, Mike Berners-Lee uses the word 'Anthropocene' liberally in his
-public appearances. On his website, he offers to give private presentations
-titled 'Investment in the Anthropocene' and 'Education for the Anthropocene',
-and claims to have recently presented for clients including Microsoft, Shell,
-and British Gas [@mike-berners-lee]. In his popular book, _There Is No Planet B_,
-he describes the 'Anthropocene' as the time when ever-expanding human power comes
-to dominate Earth's systems [@no-planet-b, pp. 2-3].
-Notice how seamlessly
-Berners-Lee slips from talking about systems far larger than individuals into
-talking about individual psychology:
+public appearances. In his popular book, _There Is No Planet B_, he describes
+the 'Anthropocene' as the time when ever-expanding human power comes to dominate
+Earth's systems [@no-planet-b, pp. 2-3]. Notice how seamlessly Berners-Lee slips
+from talking about systems far larger than individuals into talking about
+individual psychology:
 
 > Some people I meet say energy has always gone up so it always must. Some say
 > it will come to a natural halt on its own. Some say our species will wipe
@@ -449,52 +370,44 @@ talking about individual psychology:
 > are generally talking about exceptionally nasty experiences).
 >
 > All this strikes me as determinism. I am not a determinist. I reject any
-> scientist telling me they can prove the absence of free will. I don’t actually
-> think anyone can prove it either way, and I don’t see much point in a long
-> discussion about it either. Like most people, I have at some point
-> contemplated the possibility that I’m a figment of my own imagination and, of
-> course, I can’t rule it out. However, my practical observation is that people
-> who live as if they have free will tend to have more positive lives. To put it
-> another way, determinism is a way of dodging the challenge of trying to do
-> things that are difficult.
+> scientist telling me they can prove the absence of free will.
 
 If the relevant problems are at the scale of global co-operation, energy
 systems, and the human species, it's not obvious that individual psychology is
 directly relevant. But in the 'Anthropocene' discourse, because it is the human
 that is at fault, it is easy to elide super-human social structures with the
-human individual. Thus green rhetors apparently address the universal human.
-
-In reality, green rhetoric is primarily addressed to the Western middle classes.
-This makes sense, since the green movement has historically been heavily
-dominated by large non-governmental organisations such as the RSPB, National
-Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, and WWF, to name but a few.
-Typically, such NGOs don't depend on grassroots mass mobilisation, and indeed,
-often struggle to mobilise their members on the rare occasions they try to do
-so. Their business model is one of raising funds from mass membership and
-corporate partnerships, even in more activist organisations like Greenpeace,
-which largely function as 'protest businesses' [@rootes-2012, pp. 47-53]. Thus,
-these NGOs are dominated by the Western middle classes who provide them with
-money by taking out membership subscriptions and signing off corporate
-partnerships.
-Meanwhile, working-class concerns are often seen as less important or relevant
-to environmentalism by the dominant NGOs [@working-class-env, p. 13].
+human individual.
+
+In reality, green rhetoric is primarily addressed not to an imaginary universal
+human individual, but to the Western middle classes. This makes sense, since the
+green movement has historically been heavily dominated by large non-governmental
+organisations such as the RSPB, National Audubon Society, Friends of the Earth,
+Greenpeace, and WWF, to name but a few. Typically, such NGOs don't depend on
+grassroots mass mobilisation, and indeed, often struggle to mobilise their
+members on the rare occasions they try to do so. Their business model is one of
+raising funds from mass membership, even in more activist organisations like
+Greenpeace, which largely function as 'protest businesses' [@rootes-2012, pp.
+47-53]. Thus, these NGOs are dominated by the Western middle classes who provide
+them with money by taking out membership subscriptions. Meanwhile, working-class
+concerns are often seen as less important or relevant to environmentalism by the
+dominant NGOs [@working-class-env, p. 13].
 
 But what change is it that Western professional middle classes are capable of
 bringing about? If it's not reducing your individual 'carbon footprint' – which,
 as I've already discussed, is not a proposal with legs – green rhetors have a
-tendency to propose actions which cannot be achieved by this audience, if they
-can be achieved by anyone at all.
-
-One possibility is an international agreement. Greta Thunberg has spent a great
-deal of her considerable campaigning energy attending international diplomatic
-summits, such as UN Climate Change Conferences of the Parties (COPs) and the
-World Economic Forum. _An Inconvenient Truth_, Al Gore's influential campaign
-film, was primarily motivated by the desire to see the US get back on board with
-the Kyoto agreement. Only in December, Fiona Harvey wrote a 10-year
-retrospective of the Paris Agreement for the Guardian, in which she lauded its
-achievements and declared, 'the question now is: can countries learn from the
-mistakes of the past decade, in order to keep the Paris agreement alive in the
-next?' [@harvey-2025-12-13]
+tendency to propose actions which could only be achieved by the imaginary
+universal human 'we,' and not by their actual audience.
+
+One common rallying cry is for an international agreement. Greta Thunberg has
+spent a great deal of her considerable campaigning energy attending
+international diplomatic summits, such as UN Climate Change Conferences of the
+Parties (COPs) and the World Economic Forum. _An Inconvenient Truth_, Al Gore's
+influential campaign film, was primarily motivated by the desire to see the US
+get back on board with the Kyoto agreement. Only in December, Fiona Harvey wrote
+a 10-year retrospective of the Paris Agreement for the Guardian, in which she
+lauded its achievements and declared, 'the question now is: can countries learn
+from the mistakes of the past decade, in order to keep the Paris agreement alive
+in the next?' [@harvey-2025-12-13]
 
 The economist Dieter Helm has brilliantly summarised his scepticism of any
 global agreement on reducing greenhouse gas emissions:
@@ -524,8 +437,11 @@ to default to activism, but this has no route to political success:
 > a call for street-level protests, invariably demanding that governments 'do
 > something' about climate change. [@or-something-worse, p. 111]
 
-The net result is little political change and feelings of betrayal, demonstrated,
-as eloquently as ever, by Thunberg:
+Sadly, despite the great excitement protests often generate, they typically have
+limited material impacts on governments. It is therefore easy for governments to
+pay lip service to some grand ideals and move on. The net result is little
+political change and feelings of betrayal, demonstrated, as eloquently as ever,
+by Thunberg:
 
 > You have taken away my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet
 > I'm one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire
@@ -538,29 +454,26 @@ is so. Green rhetoric mis-diagnoses the root causes of the relevant problems by
 putting harms down to individual consumption choices and science denial, whereas
 in fact, these factors play a relatively small role in explaining ecological
 harm, and other factors, such as industrial production decisions shaped by
-markets, may be much more significant. A mis-diagnosis of the problem leads to
-false solutions: austerity or 'de-growth', or 'smart' market fixes, neither of
-which are not politically sustainable. This in turn is due to green rhetors
-failing to take account of the powers and interests of their audience. Rhetors
-speak as if they are addressing a universal human collective capable of acting
-rationally in the universal human interest, asking them to take actions such as
-setting binding emissions targets or transferring wealth from 'rich nations' to
-'poor nations.' But in fact, green rhetors do not address the universal human
-collective, but rather the Western middle classes, who may not have the right
-powers and interests for such exhortations to be feasible.
-
-This begs the question: if green rhetoric is failing, how might it be fixed? In
-what follows, I will not be proposing a practical manifesto for transforming the
-green movement, but I will be engaging in blue-sky thinking, imagining what a
-more successful green rhetoric might look like.
-
-One common suggestion is that green rhetoric needs to be less catastrophic. Since
-apocalyptic language is often assumed to be more or less equivalent to catastrophic
-language, it is easy for commentators such as Frances Flannery to infer that
-successful green rhetoric should avoid apocalyptic language. In chapter 3, I'll
-argue that Flannery's argument ignores the possibilities of apocalyptic language,
-including, and going well beyond, its catastrophic aspects. Then, in chapter 4,
-I'll argue that green rhetors today must use John's rhetorical techniques in order
-to make change happen. But first, in the following chapter, I'll explore how
-catastrophism appears in contemporary green rhetoric, and why critics allege that
-catastrophic language is counter-productive in this context.
+markets, are much more significant. A mis-diagnosis of the problem leads to
+false solutions: austerity or 'smart' market fixes, neither of which are not
+politically sustainable. This in turn is due to green rhetors failing to take
+account of the powers and interests of their audience. Rhetors speak as if they
+are addressing an imaginary universal human 'we' capable of acting rationally in
+the universal human interest, asking them to take actions such as creating
+international agreements to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. But in fact, green
+rhetors do not address that imaginary 'we,' but rather the Western middle
+classes, who may not have the right powers and interests for such exhortations
+to be feasible.
+
+This begs the question: if green rhetoric is failing, how might it be fixed? One
+common suggestion is that green rhetoric needs to be less catastrophic. Since
+apocalyptic language is often assumed to be more or less equivalent to
+catastrophic language, it is easy for commentators such as Frances Flannery to
+infer that successful green rhetoric should avoid apocalyptic language. In
+chapter 3, I'll argue that such a conclusion ignores the possibilities of
+apocalyptic language, including, and going well beyond, its catastrophic
+aspects. Then, in chapter 4, I'll argue that green rhetors today must use John's
+apocalyptic rhetorical techniques in order to make change happen. But first, in
+the following chapter, I'll explore how catastrophism appears in contemporary
+green rhetoric, and why critics allege that catastrophic language is
+counter-productive in this context.