{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.033544539694371975, 'fraction_numerical': 0.01006336190831159, 'mean_word_length': 5.285714285714286, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Book Review: Steve Vanderheiden (Ed.) Political Theory and Climate Change Boston: MIT Press, 2008

neoliberal tropes or narratives, namely, that which presents environmental pollution and harm, labour inequality, and poor public infrastructure as a perfectly “normal” stage in the economic growth process. He focuses on what he calls the “‘golden’ trope of sacrifice/reward that neoliberal defenders use to assure Third World nations that, despite short-term hardships, both economic and environmental benefits will eventually materialize” (pp. 226-227). While one could quibble about terms—“golden bullshit” would seem more accurate—Schwarze’s chapter is a powerful critique of the soothing snake oil sales patter of the neoliberal economic globalisation promoters. He delivers a knockout punch to one of the main empirical arguments for this “golden trope,” namely, the Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC) thesis, which holds that as incomes and economic growth increase, after a threshold point is reached (around $8,000 per capita), so does environmental quality. However, not only does the EKC hold empirically (if at all) only for a few urban air pollutants (p. 238) it also does not factor in CO 2 , for example, but it turns out that the real cause of improved environmental quality is not economic growth or per capita income but proactive policy responses and old-fashioned state regulation. As Schwarze explains, “as nations regulate more strictly, environmental quality rises . . . regulation is the dominant factor in explaining the decline in pollution as countries grow beyond middle-income status” (pp. 239-240; italics added). Pezzullo and Sandler’s concluding chapter begins and ends by assuming that irreconcilable differences exist between EJ and environmentalism but that through specific campaigns these can be managed. Their position is that to work together the environmental movement needs to recognise it is a reflection of a larger racist society and therefore not immune to racism. Yet, with a nod in DeLuca’s direction, little seems to be demanded by way of change in the EJ position, for example, in how it integrates ethical responsibilities towards the nonhuman within an expanded conceptualisation of EJ. However, they end this excellent volume by noting that “the discourses, goals, and practices of the environmental justice and environmental movements still do not exhaust all the current possibilities of what social and political struggles in relation to the environment may involve” (p. 318), leaving open imaginative and creative possibilities for future hybridisation, as well as a more informed ongoing cooperation between these two movements.