New Materialism: An Ontology for the Anthropocene

This article argues that the Anthropocene is not simply a new geologic epoch; it is an opportunity to embrace a new ontology. In it, we can reconfigure our orientation to the material world. The current, dominant ontology casts humans as villains responsible for mass extinctions, polluted oceans, and climate change. This ontology reinforces a familiar binary—one in which humans are separate from and doing things to nature. Humans are ruining the planet, causing it to fundamentally change in ways that are not “natural” precisely because humans are the agent of change. This view is perhaps best described by environmentalist Bill McKibben in his book The End of Nature in which he argues that “nature” is no longer anywhere because humans (via climate change) are now everywhere

Embracing panarchy, building resilience and integrating adaptive management through a rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act

Environmental law plays a key role in shaping policy for sustainability of socialeecological systems. In particular, the types of legal instruments, institutions, and the response of law to the inherent variability in socialeecological systems are critical. Sustainability likely must occur via the institutions we have in place, combined with alterations in policy and regulation within the context of these institutions. This ecosystem management arrangement can be characterized as a panarchy, with research on sustainability specific to the scale of interest. In this manuscript we examine an opportunity for integrating these concepts through a regulatory rebirth of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). NEPA currently requires federal agencies to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of proposed action. The original intent of NEPA, however, was more substantive and its provisions, while currently equilibrium based, may be reconfigured to embrace new understanding of the dynamics of socialeecological systems

Can We Manage for Resilience? The Integration of Resilience Thinking into Natural Resource Management in the United States

The concept of resilience is now frequently invoked by natural resource agencies in the US. This reflects growing trends within ecology, conservation biology, and other disciplines acknowledging that social–ecological systems require management approaches recognizing their complexity. In this paper, we examine the concept of resilience and the manner in which some legal and regulatory frameworks governing federal natural resource agencies have difficulty accommodating it. We then use the U.S. Forest Service’s employment of resilience as an illustration of the challenges ahead

The End of Sustainability

It is time to move past the concept of sustainability. The realities of the Anthropocene warrant this conclusion. They include unprecedented and irreversible rates of human-induced biodiversity loss, exponential increases in per-capita resource consumption, and global climate change. These factors combine to create an increasing likelihood of rapid, nonlinear, social and ecological regime changes. The recent failure of the Rio +20 provides an opportunity to collectively reexamine--and ultimately move past--the concept of sustainability as an environmental goal. We must face the impossibility of defining--let alone pursuing--a goal of sustainability in a world characterized by such extreme complexity, radical uncertainty and lack of stationarity. After briefly examining sustainability\u27s failure, we propose resilience thinking as one possible new orientation and point to the challenges associated with translating resilience theory into policy application

Replacing Sustainability

This Article argues that, from a policy perspective, we must face the impossibility of even defining—let alone pursuing—a goal of “sustainability” in a world characterized by such extreme complexity, radical uncertainty, and discomfiting loss of stationarity. Instead, we need new policy directions and orientations that provide the necessary capacity to deal with these “wicked problems” in a meaningful and equitable way. The realities of current and emerging SES dynamics warrant a new set of tools and approaches to governance of those systems. Part II of this Article provides a brief history of sustainability and sustainable development, including corollary emphases on preservation and restoration in contemporary U.S. natural resources and environmental law and policy. Part III examines in detail how climate change problematizes sustainability as a goal for natural resources management at anything but the most general of scales, warranting a search for a replacement paradigm. Part IV offers up resilience thinking as a candidate for that new paradigm. In particular, this Article argues, resilience thinking—unlike the stationarity-based sustainability— emphasizes that environmental regulation and natural resource management require a continuing effort to identify, manage, and adapt to continual change, making it a more useful paradigm for the climate change era. In addition, properly implemented, resilience thinking could demand even more from humans in terms of precautionary uses of resources than sustainability has yet managed, productively shattering the illusion that we can still “have it all.