What do you think?
Rate this book
Eco-Imperialism: Green Power Black Death
Reveals a dark secret of the ideological environmental movement. The movement imposes the views of mostly wealthy, comfortable Americans and Europeans on mostly poor, desperate Africans, Asians and Latin Americans. It violates these people's most basic human rights, denying them economic opportunities, the chance for better lives, the right to rid their countries of diseases that were vanquished long ago in Europe and the United States.
192 pages, Paperback
First published September 1, 2003
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews
September 17, 2019
Things to know before reading this book:
The author is a climate change denialist, ardent pro-global capitalist, and has cherry-picked his evidence from people who share his views.
This book is deeply problematic. The first 35 or so pages are good. He criticizes the activities of big, Western corporations that hide dubious business activity under the guise of environmentalism, per the corporate social responsibility doctrine.
What follows is politicized critique on environmentalism. This is all fine and well, but Driessen presents a flawed analysis. He praises biotech and DDT, including companies like Tyson. He also defends sweatshops in developing nations. He believes that sweatshops are the only defense between young women and prostitution and that sweatshop wages increase the quality of life for these laborers.
The first two chapters are good, but you should put the book down.
Also, his claim that he pioneered the term Eco-Imperialism is just plain wrong. Driessen never mentions the work of Alfred Crosby.
The author is a climate change denialist, ardent pro-global capitalist, and has cherry-picked his evidence from people who share his views.
This book is deeply problematic. The first 35 or so pages are good. He criticizes the activities of big, Western corporations that hide dubious business activity under the guise of environmentalism, per the corporate social responsibility doctrine.
What follows is politicized critique on environmentalism. This is all fine and well, but Driessen presents a flawed analysis. He praises biotech and DDT, including companies like Tyson. He also defends sweatshops in developing nations. He believes that sweatshops are the only defense between young women and prostitution and that sweatshop wages increase the quality of life for these laborers.
The first two chapters are good, but you should put the book down.
Also, his claim that he pioneered the term Eco-Imperialism is just plain wrong. Driessen never mentions the work of Alfred Crosby.
July 13, 2009
May be more like two stars. This is a book to be skimmed rather than fully and carefully read. This can be done rather quickly.
It is a polemic that is neither all that theoretical nor all that nuanced. Its two strength's: it puts a rather needed dent in the ecological movement's self-righteousness. It does this by drawing comparisons between the strategies of, say, BP (the oil company) and, say the Nature Conservancy.
Second, and more important, it brings to the fore the actual short term tensions between the primarily white, suburban, upper middle class support of environmental causes and the needs of poor -- especially in the Third World. Chapter 3 argues that depriving third worlders of traditional sources of energy condemns them to living in huts; chapter 4 that disallowing genetically modified foods to the Third World, increases their starvation; chapter 5 that pesticides are necessary to fight mosquitoes and that banning pesticides leaves the poor with nothing to fend off malaria; and chapter 6 that jobs for young women in sweatshops are better for them than their other likely occupation -- prostitution. In sum, the argument is that the "gains" or "progress" already brought to the First World through science and capitalism must also be allowed to the rest of the world. Not doing so is paternalistic and imperialistic.
Driessen's arguments are not all that compelling. Primarily because he aims to merely present his views rather than to defend them. But what I find interesting is that he at least brings these tensions to the fore.
The problem with this book is that it falls for the trap of dichotomy and therefore fails to harbor the idea that one can reject the paternalism of the ecologist as well as the imperialism of the market. Against Eco-imperialism, Driessen offers the imperialism of the market and modernity. And, most important, Driessen fails to see that both forms of imperialism (eco-imperialism and market imperialism) are actually one and the same: a failure to see the limits of markets society and modernity turn his presentation into a sales pitch for market economics. And this makes the book easy to negate.
Likewise, for ecologists, a failure to see the benefits of capitalism and modernity allows them to avoid the hard ethical and political issues that are the center of the global paradox.
What is that paradox? Third world peoples wish (I believe Driessen has this right) for the basic elements of a first world middle class existence: running clean water, flowing electricity, variety in food, sanitation system, easy and inexpensive communication with the rest of the world, entertainment, transportation, and schooling for their children. Ecologists claim that these "first world desires" will overload the world's resources and threaten human and other species lives on this planet. But how can first worlder's deny to the third world what the first world already has in such vast abundance? On the other hand, how can third world people's desire for such basics not threaten planetary ecology?
This book is willing to face this paradox, albeit in a manner that still manages to evade its difficulty and impossibility. This evasion belongs also to the the typical ecologist -- in my view.
If you fancy yourself an ecologist and wish to see how this movement can be seen as a form of imperialism, then this quick is worth a skim.
It is a polemic that is neither all that theoretical nor all that nuanced. Its two strength's: it puts a rather needed dent in the ecological movement's self-righteousness. It does this by drawing comparisons between the strategies of, say, BP (the oil company) and, say the Nature Conservancy.
Second, and more important, it brings to the fore the actual short term tensions between the primarily white, suburban, upper middle class support of environmental causes and the needs of poor -- especially in the Third World. Chapter 3 argues that depriving third worlders of traditional sources of energy condemns them to living in huts; chapter 4 that disallowing genetically modified foods to the Third World, increases their starvation; chapter 5 that pesticides are necessary to fight mosquitoes and that banning pesticides leaves the poor with nothing to fend off malaria; and chapter 6 that jobs for young women in sweatshops are better for them than their other likely occupation -- prostitution. In sum, the argument is that the "gains" or "progress" already brought to the First World through science and capitalism must also be allowed to the rest of the world. Not doing so is paternalistic and imperialistic.
Driessen's arguments are not all that compelling. Primarily because he aims to merely present his views rather than to defend them. But what I find interesting is that he at least brings these tensions to the fore.
The problem with this book is that it falls for the trap of dichotomy and therefore fails to harbor the idea that one can reject the paternalism of the ecologist as well as the imperialism of the market. Against Eco-imperialism, Driessen offers the imperialism of the market and modernity. And, most important, Driessen fails to see that both forms of imperialism (eco-imperialism and market imperialism) are actually one and the same: a failure to see the limits of markets society and modernity turn his presentation into a sales pitch for market economics. And this makes the book easy to negate.
Likewise, for ecologists, a failure to see the benefits of capitalism and modernity allows them to avoid the hard ethical and political issues that are the center of the global paradox.
What is that paradox? Third world peoples wish (I believe Driessen has this right) for the basic elements of a first world middle class existence: running clean water, flowing electricity, variety in food, sanitation system, easy and inexpensive communication with the rest of the world, entertainment, transportation, and schooling for their children. Ecologists claim that these "first world desires" will overload the world's resources and threaten human and other species lives on this planet. But how can first worlder's deny to the third world what the first world already has in such vast abundance? On the other hand, how can third world people's desire for such basics not threaten planetary ecology?
This book is willing to face this paradox, albeit in a manner that still manages to evade its difficulty and impossibility. This evasion belongs also to the the typical ecologist -- in my view.
If you fancy yourself an ecologist and wish to see how this movement can be seen as a form of imperialism, then this quick is worth a skim.
August 5, 2011
A book that looks at "The Other Side" of the Pro-Environmentalism Movement. A must-read for all pro-environmentalists because hey!how can you defend something unless you know what the "other side" is saying!! The book introduces a lot of thinking points ... how much of what we hear is propaganda?? ...whose interests are being served in the process??... makes the reader re-evaluate existing beliefs and assumptions!!
I would highly recommend it to everyone involved in environmental NGOs ... its good to be a Questioner!!
I would highly recommend it to everyone involved in environmental NGOs ... its good to be a Questioner!!
March 7, 2020
This is a great book that changed my opinion. Ponder this: the developing world is being blocked from using cheap energy and technology to develop itself. This is after we have used cheap energy and technology to develop ourselves. What hypocrites the developed world is. The green eco-nazis are basically killing third world children on hypothetical grounds based on junk science in order to feel better about ourselves. What hypocrites. The definition of racism is that you would rather have brown children die than release CO2.
October 16, 2019
Randroid garbage that doesn't really tackle who owns, profits and directs global development or why corporate research is trustworthy. Maybe actually existing "corporate responsibility" is just ideological pressure groups and PR but maximizing shareholder value isn't an anti-imperialist strategy.
June 30, 2013
This book had the potential to be quite good. A critique of extreme environmentalism's human costs is sorely needed. Alas this is not that book. The author's libertarian ideology seems to cloud his judgement at times and make him a less than believable advocate for those oppressed by the excesses of environmentalism, which is a shame.
Currently Reading
October 8, 2008Met Paul at showing of Mine Your Own Business a movie on the economic impact environmentalist are having around the world. Can't wait to have time to dive into this. Only time to read a few pages so far.
Displaying 1 - 7 of 7 reviews