,
7 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
This is an excellent article on eco-fascism and far-right terrorism. But @jason_a_w's concluding call for a "democratic, just, and global response to climate change" that leaves no room for fascism also points to a bigger question? 1/7
What happens when the more 'mainstream' ethno-nationalist right takes climate change seriously? One possibility is global apartheid, militarised borders, and state control of women's reproductive rights, via @CaseyWillyums jewishcurrents.org/what-happens-w… 2/7
There's even an argument that Trump's border-wall "national-emergency" is itself a militarist response to climate-linked migration - via @BenEhrenreich thenation.com/article/walls-… 3/7
We've been here before. Garrett Hardin and Paul Ehrlich once promoted life-boat ethics & eugenicist foreign policies. Millions were sterilised, often involuntarily, before developing world governments fought back. see Betsy Hartmann journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.219… 4/7
As @vijayprashad explained Ehrlich’s 'Population Bomb' “received such tremendous acclaim in the First World because its neo-Malthusian ideas had already become commonplace: that the reason for hunger in the world had more to do with overpopulation than with imperialism”. 5/7
Since the 1980s the environmental movement has expelled these demons and allied with the left. Anti-immigrant eco-nationalism and overpopulation scares are now a distant memory. But the danger remains. 6/7
A Malthusian politics emphasising hard ecological-limits will always be compatible with ethno-nationalism, militarism and enforced austerity. This is why I'm with @MazzucatoM. Collective investments in technological innovation must be central to a progressive green politics.
