Analyze

Howey and Neale’s concept of “divisible governance” (2022) enables of critical understanding of how Austin’s environmental vulnerabilities have been produced in tandem with fossil-fueled, racial-capitalist assemblages. One of the key strategies of divisible governance that these authors identify is the fragmentation and organization of space, time, and jurisdiction to obscure unjust distributions of risk and benefit across populations and scales. In Austin, Texas, contemporary efforts of organizing energy justice around energy transition are both powered by and inseparable from racial capitalism and fossil capital, or what I shall call, following Luke and Heynan (2020), petro-racial capitalism. The same logics of exclusion, marginalization, appropriation, sacrifice, and displacement that characterized and enabled the Texas oil booms and busts, and that are embedded in the state’s social, legal, and technological infrastructures, are being put towards Austin’s renewable energy transition, with unintended consequences. Even those who are explicitly critical of petro-racial capitalism find it hard to recognize and excise these logics, as they become written into the social cycles and rhythms of city life, into our forms of knowledge and self-reflection, into our bodily habits and sensitivities.

The demographic patterns that characterize Austin's contemporary racial geography were largely set into motion with the City's 1928 master plan, which designated Austin's eastern corridor as the city's industrial park as well as the segregated district for the city's Black and Brown communities. This established the legal infrastructure that would enable and justify decades of environmental racism, as the blind eye towards East Austin's racial and environmental injustices persisted throughout the 20th century. Even as more elite, white communities started to organize around the protection of locally vulnerable ecologies, green spaces, and species, since these spaces were predominantly located in west Austin, above the vulnerable Edwards Aquifer, sacrificing the health of the less charismatic Blackland Prarie to the East was seen as an acceptable, if also regrettable, compromise (Walsh 2007). It wasn't until the 1990's, when East Austin's own communities learned of the toxins their communities had been exposed to on a daily basis that this began to change. PODER (People Organized in Defense of Earth's Resources) formed soon after, and worked to rid their communities of these risks as well as to rezone their communities to prevent further exposures in the future.

On top from local pollutants, East Austin's environmental vulnerability is also related to infrastructural inequality. For instance, during the 2021 Texas Power Crisis, which ensued in the wake of winter storm Uri, East Austin was subjected to a disproportionate number and duration of outages, when compared to areas of the city. Following up on numerous reports of this kind of racially biased distributions of risk during the blackouts, a study by Carvallo and colleagues provides empirical evidence of the degree to which people of color were disadvantaged (Carvallo et al. 2021). The authors identify a general lack of publicly available data on the locations of blackouts, especially at a granularity that would allow scholars, activists, and other interested persons to make correlations to the racial makeup of these communities, or other important demographic factors. Mirroring the argument of Howey and Neale (2022), the authors argue that this lack of data and lack of access to data plays an important role in mystifying--and therefore reproducing--the material conditions that underwrite structural racism in the United States. Controlling for both income level and the presence/absence of critical infrastructure, they found that communities of color were four times as likely to experience an outage than predominantly white communities. Furthermore, they argue that current rationales for explaining the locations and distributions of blackouts cannot account for this finding, suggesting the need for further research into how and where racial bias has been baked into the energy system and its methods and strategies of emergency response.

The Texas Power Crisis also points back to deeper seated issues related to the structure and operation of Texas' power grid and energy market, which was designed operate at the brink of failure, in order to keep average costs low and maximize the potential for profits during high "pricing events." Unlike many other Independent System Operators (ISO), which often combine energy markets with capacity markets to ensure greater grid reliability, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) uses the price signals of the energy market alone to manage grid reliability. For instance, PJM (another ISO, operating in the northeastern US) has a capacity market that projects and procures the projected amount of energy needed three years in advance of the day it will be delivered. In doing so, they are typically over-budget by about 21%, creating a substantial safety reserve. The costs of this reserve are then recovered through the charges made to ratepayers through their monthly bills.

In Texas, there is no such capacity market. Instead, Texas manages it's marginal reserve by taking the full capacity for energy production in the state and subtracting the projected "peak demand." This "energy only" market, as it is often called, means that energy operators are only paid for the energy they put into the market at the price reflected by the energy demand at that precise time. This creates a volatile market in which energy prices fluctuate wildly, with the final cap set at a whopping $9,000 per kilowatt hour (for comparison, the average price is about $28 per kWh). Accordingly, this creates a supremely tough environment for planning in to the future at all, especially in regard to the timing of new construction projects, facility maintenance, and other such investments. By contrast, capacity markets allow for a steady, fixed stream of income from ratepayers that can be budgeted and invested over an extended period. Thus, there is a real sense in which the Texas energy market dissuades power generators from attending to maintenance issues or for investing in things like winter weatherization, which will be expensive, hard to recoup, and (especially for many Texas generators) only necessary for a handful of days every few years.

Usually, Texas' reserve hovers at about 12-15%, which is about the same as ERCOT's neighboring ISOs. However, there is another marked difference between Texas and these other ISOs: a notable lack of interconnections. For instance, in an emergency or a power shortage of some kind, both the Southwest Power Pool and Midcontinent ISO have substantial capacity for electricity to flow between these otherwise independent control areas. ERCOT, by contrast has only a handful of DC ties to other systems, with very limited capacity to bring in or send out energy across these interconnections. In that sense, the Texas grid operates more like an "island system," like Hawaii, or New Zealand, which do not have the option of bringing in power from elsewhere. This forces these island control areas to operate with a substantial reserve, almost double that of Texas' 12-15%.

So, why doesn't Texas interconnect? Well, that has to do with the long-held value for independence. Because, by limiting these cross-state interconnections, Texas has been able to avoid federal oversight, offering the state an impressive amount of political autonomy over its power system. However, in a paradoxical way, this very "Texan" desire for autonomy at the federal level, to be even "more autonomous" than the rest, combined with the emphatic preference to govern through market in order to keep prices low, has actually restricted Texas capacity, at the state level and below, to ensure safe, affordable, and especially equitable access to electricity; a fact made most evident during the 2021 crisis. 

Within the ERCOT's "island" grid and energy market, Austin Energy serves as another, different kind of "island." That is, unlike many competitive regions in Texas, Austin's utility is municipally owned and operated. This effectively means that Austin Energy has a monopoly on electricity provision within their service area, which they are in charge of managing under the direction of Austin's City Council. This structure enables Austin more democratic control over the way they produce, distribute, and consume electricity, allowing for planning processes like the Resource Generation and Climate Protection Plan, which generates goals and guidelines for the utility to follow in performing the city's transition to renewable energy.

However, despite this democratic control at the retail level, Austin Energy must still operate within the ERCOT market at the "wholesale" level. That is, first and foremost, Austin Energy produces and sells electricity into the ERCOT market at the current market price. They then buy this electricity back from ERCOT in order to finally sell this electricity to their customers. Because of this, there is only a round-about, and somewhat fictitious sense in which Austin produces its own electricity. And, importantly, it also means that Austin Energy, like all power generators in ERCOT, are subjected to the Texas energy market's renowned price volatility, increasing the financial risks of investing in new infrastructure, like renewable energy. Thus, there is a very real sense in which the utility and, by proxy, City Council are forced to adopt or at least factor in capitalist logics and strategies into their energy transition planning.

As a result, even superficially democratic energy transition planning processes end up being overly technocratic. Take, for example, the Resource Planning Working Group, which brings in appointed "representatives" of the Austin community to discuss various transition goals, strategies, and scenarios in order to settle on a set of recommended updates to the City's ten-year Resource Generation and Climate Protection plan. While this group proudly operated by what they referred to as “consensus,” this largely translated into the use of the market as the dominant logic for resolving any differences in values or perspective back to identity, back to “the bottom line” if you will. See, for example, this discussion taken from my field notes during one of the Resource Planning Working Group meetings, in which participants were debating the pros and cons of a new, market-based approach to carbon reduction:

Charles (CFO of Austin Energy): If the scenario does what it says, what is the push for the other scenarios? Because this scenario removes carbon faster than all the others, and it does so safely and affordably.
...
Cary (Chair of the RPWG): Kaiba, I think if you massage it and understand this plan a little better, you’ll like it.
Kaiba (Local environmentalist): "Massage it, or understand it? Because I could massage it into something better... My point is that you do not have a column, or rating system for local economic benefits besides PSA [i.e. the costs forwarded to ratepayers] and for establishing an energy democracy. I understand that is not the priority of the utility, but it is for us. There are values that are not being reflected here."
...
Charles: On social benefits and detriments... Some of the things proposed, the low-income people are not going to be able to handle this. People who rent can’t add solar. Those things, as the models show, are not the best for … [in a more frustrated tone] What we are trying to do here? Are we trying to advance solar, or are we trying to decrease carbon? If we are trying to decrease carbon, this plan does that, and it does it affordably. It is not doing it through added solar or DR [demand response]; it is doing it though.

One notable feature of this discourse is that, even as it pertains to equity, the discussion focuses on the producers and the consumers of energy, rather than the victims of the environmental injustices engendered through this energy production. This particular feature of energy transition planning discourse relates to what Cohn has called "technostrategic language." First used to describe the language and thought of nuclear defense strategists, “technostrategic languages” represent a mode of speaking/articulation, developed alongside certain technologies, that is structured in such a way as to inhibit technocratic experts from being able to recognize and/or consider the unexpected or the wider implications of that technology and their use of it:

“Structurally, speaking technostrategic language removes [the speaker] from the position of victim and puts them in the position of the planner, the user, the actor. From that position, there is neither need nor way to see oneself as a victim; no matter what one deeply knows or believes about the likelihood of nuclear war, and no matter what sort of terror or despair the knowledge of nuclear war's reality might inspire, the speakers of technostrategic language are positionally allowed, even forced, to escape that awareness, to escape viewing nuclear war from the position of the victim, by virtue of their linguistic stance as users, rather than victims, of nuclear weapone” (Cohn 1987, 706).

The language used in the Working Group discussion similarly positions the planners as the users of fossil fuels (and/or renewables), rather than those who were dealing with the pollution they produce, rather than those who deal with climate change. Even when they considered "equity," it was in equitable "use" of the fossil fuels, or making sure you could access this energy at an equitable price. There wasn't a consideration for which of Austin Energy's assets were harming local ecologies and populations the most. It was only ever some vague sense that carbon is causing climate change and more extreme weather "for all of us."

In a later moment, during a discussion of "asset substitution," or, the very real problem that, due to the structure of the Texas market, if Austin Energy shuts down one of their dirtiest facilities, it may bring an even dirtier facility online elsewhere, resulting in a "net" loss for carbon reduction in Texas. To this, Kaiba responded by suggesting that it might still "send a market signal," which could end up greening the grid over time. That's not a bad play, in this context. But, once again, it is evidence of the technostrategic language at work. Kaiba, who is an astute environmental justice advocate, adopted a way of thinking and speaking that focused on the producers and the consumers of fossil fuel and renewable energy, rather than recentering the conversation to the people of La Grange or those living near Decker Creek who have had to deal with decades of coal ash and toxic smoke, and who bear the most weight of Austin Energy’s worst polluting energy facilities.

This discussion of "technostrategic language" paves the way for one last "scale" of action/activity, affected by divisible governance, that plays into Austin's environmental vulnerability: the scale of subjectivity. In particular, certain tactics of power, like technostrategic language (Cohn 1987), keep separate the otherwise tangled and multi-dimensional fragments of our subjectivities and ethics. Take, for example, this quote by Katie Coyn, who was one of the co-chairs of Austin's Climate Equity Plan's Steering Committee.

"I just wanted to quickly talk about one more thing. I think it is important to talk about the hard points. Here is just a little anecdote. Most of our steering committee meetings I was a facilitator, trying to frame conversations. As an example of how much white supremacy culture is ingrained even in the way that I think, in the way we have been taught to think about efficiency. After George Floyd was murdered, we had a steering committee meeting the next week, and we got on, we made space at the beginning for black members to talk. And... the amount of trauma that we unpacked and listened to... was so vital for everyone to hear. But at the time, I had so much discomfort letting go of the idea that I had to get the meeting moving along. And that’s coming from someone who really cares about being empathetic to people and wanting to hear those stories. And even knowing that, I was so uncomfortable with the idea that we ended up using that entire two-hour meeting to unpack that trauma. And, I don’t know... for me that was so revealing that, you know, I think I am mindful of all these things, and I still could feel my body, uncomfortable with doing things that way."

Identifying as a politically active member of Austin's LGBTQ community, Katie sees herself as empathic, as a feminist, and a trained and committed anti-racist ally. And, in my experience, she does quite well in these regards. And yet, in this particular context, she felt the conflict, viscerally, between the demand to keep separate the time and space for grief, and the time and space for planning. She felt the pull of divisible governance, urging her to keep her identity as a feminist, her role as a ally, separate from her identity and role as a Steering Committee co-chair.

This evidences the way that divisible governance works, not only on juridical divisions, but also the way that we distinguish and purify our professional lives from our personal lives, the way critical academics take a blind eye to the problematic dynamics of their departments and universities, the way we keep our professional ethics separate from our ethical sense as a sister, an aunt, a grandmother, by keeping our training in the scientific method separate and purified from our love of literature, or of music, or philosophy, or what have you. In this way, in addition to being a technique for the production of space and time, divisible governance also produces ethics; it influences the location of the fault lines that define the contours of our ethical plateaus. The location of the lines that distinguish the categories of experience that ebable the specificity of our ethical sense, shaping the ways such plateaus align, overtake, and resist each other, producing the ethical double binds and contradictory obligations, incentives, and opportunities of energy transitions.

From its earliest settlement on through to more recent demographic booms, Austin's developers and city planners have tended to recognize the bucolic landscape surrounding the city as a significant draw that should be preserved. For this reason (along with the relative lack of mineral resources), Austinites have managed to stave off the "smokestack" approach to development, and preserve its unique ecologies, green spaces, and relatively clean air and water resources.

Despite this fact, however, not all of Austin's citizens have had equal access to these clean and green spaces. Austin's eastern corridor has long served as the city's official sacrifice zone. The City's first Master Plan in 1928 established East Austin as mixed use, serving as the zone for the city's industrial development as well as the segregated district for all of Austin's communities of color. Despite legal segregation ending with Brown v. Board in 1954, the vast majority of Austin's black and brown residents continue to live in this formerly segregated district. And the blatantly unjust mixture of industrial and residential zoning in East Austin had also persisted long after de jure segregation had ended. Thus, I would argue that Austin's environmental liberalism is, itself, and environmental hazard, as Austin's reputation for climate and ecological consiousness has masked the environmental injustices long perpetuated in the city and by the City.

Since the early 1990's, however, environmental justice groups have pressured the City to recognize and address this text-book example of environmental racism, with People Organized in Defense of Earth's Resources (PODER) being a notable leader on this front. Some significant victories include the relocation of a bulk fuel storage facility known as the "Tank Farms," a metal foundry, a waste management facility, and eventually, the re-zoning of East Austin's neighborhoods to prevent further industrial development. A few years later, PODER also successfully pressured the city to close the Holly Street Power plant which, for decades, had produced considerable noise pollution, caused local fires, and emitted high rates of nitrogen oxide that contributed to ozone. Decker Creek Power station, which is located at eastern edge of Austin's city limits, runs on natural gas, has long been a target for closure by local environmental and environmental justice organizations. This video shows an interesting look at the power plant, using different filters to render otherwise invisble pollution more legible, providing a composite picture of pollution at this site. Though, the viewer's understanding the video is hampered due to the lack of any commentary or explanation of the filters used and what they might mean. This plant was scheduled for closure in March of 2022, but there have been no updates on this closure at this time of this annotation (Nov 2022).

At a grander scale, but also much like how Austin relegated the city's environmental risks to its eastern cooridor, the City of Austin has produced environmental hazards that are more displaced from Austin's residents and cherished local landscapes and ecologies. For instance, the vast oil and gas resources controlled by UT Austin, the flagship university of the University of Texas system, have long been deployed to aquire or develop infrastructure to attract high-tech industry to the city. And the map of these oil and gas leases correlates strongly with the highest rates of cancer risk due to air pollution in the state. The City's public utilty, Austin Energy (AE) also owns ecologically destructive assets that compromise public health in well-removed places. For example, AE's dirtiest energy asset, the Fayette Power Plant (FPP), is located 64 miles away in La Grange, Texas. This coal plant is the 16th largest polluting facility in the state of Texas, emitting mercury, lead, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and other pollutants that are associated with ecological destruction, cancer, and other serious health conditions. In 2004, the Clean Air Task Force conducted a study that estimated econmoic damages related to the ecological and public health impacts from FPP's pollution at $5.6 million annually. After decades long battle, AE's share of the FPP (AE owns 1/3 of the plant, the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) owns the other 2/3) was slated for closure in 2022, according to the 2017 Resource Generation and Climate Protection Plan. In november of 2021, however, it was announced that negotiations with LCRA broke down, and Austin Energy's share of the plant is no longer expected to close any time soon.

Aside from these pollutive industries, the City of Austin (along with Central Texas more generally) is notoriously flood prone. In just five years, between 2013 and 2018, Austin experienced three 100-year floods, resulting in extensive financial and infrastructural damage as well as significant loss of life. In 2018, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Atlas 14 detailed the flood risks in central Texas, which were considerably higher than previously thought. The shock induced by this study provoked ATX Floodplains, Austin's a 5-year project to re-assess and remap Austin's floodplains and adjust insurance requirements/premiums and emergency planning accordingly.

In much of both the academic and popular writing about Austin, one of its most frequently remarked features is the abundance of natural beauty. This is due in part to the fact that Austin is located at a nexus of different geological formations, which supply the city and its surrounding areas with rich and diverse landscapes, flora, and fauna. In fact, when Robert T. Hill—UT Austin’s first professor of Geology—first arrived at Austin, he noted that the city was a prime location for the study of geology, as there is such a great diversity of formations and deposits from a wide range of geological ages (Student Geology Society 1977).
Austin’s position at the intersection of diverse geological formations creates a rich and peculiar landscape that supports a comparably unique ecology. Indeed, many of Austin’s more charismatic species live in extremely niche habitats and can’t be found anywhere else on the planet. Historians of the city often remark on the way that this landscape and the forms of plant and animal life it supports have shaped ideas for the city’s future, particularly concerning its economic and cultural development. William Swearingen argues that it was the environmentalists’ ability to enroll the elite Austinites’ appreciation of the area’s natural beauty that gave them the political power to quell the most ecologically harmful forms of development. This unique breed of environmentalism, based in part on ensuring the elite’s desired quality of life, helped to cajole Austin’s growth machine into “build[ing] the natural into the urban rather than plowing it under the urban” (Swearingen 2010, 189).
Less panglossian histories, however, have exposed the darker side of Austin’s development. Despite the negligible mineral resources within Austin, the city’s social spatial production was ultimately financed by the rise of the Texas oil industry and the development of polluting industries elsewhere (Tretter 2016, Robbins 2003). Furthermore, even the preservation of Austin’s local nature wasn’t equally guaranteed for everyone (Walsh 2007). Austin’s city planning processes both systematically reduced local racial minorities’ access to Austin’s preserved green spaces while also choosing black and brown neighborhoods as the location of the city’s polluting industries (Busch 2017). Thus, despite Austin’s remarkable record of environmental victories and glowing inter/national reputation as a ideal place to live, its “weird” forms of life were founded on logics of settler colonialism and developed through the differential valuations and investments in land, bodies, and technologies that operated according to capitalist logics of progress and sacrifice.

This text builds from earlier conceptions of the term “land dispossession” and “land grab”. As defined by the 2011 International Land Coalition, land grabbing specifically refers to large scale land acquisitions that are “ in violation of human rights, without prior consent of the preexisting land users, and with no consideration of social and environmental impacts”. Characterization of land grabs and their resulting harms most commonly considers the effect of physical displacement and harms within the articulated “grabbed” area (Nyantakyi-Frimpong, 2017;Ogwand, 2018;  huaserman, 2018). Li and Pan seek to expand the frame of analysis for land grabs beyond the site of grabbed land to consider the full extent of harms associated with land grabs both geographically (via pollution spillover to areas outside of “grabbed land”) and temporally (via latent “expulsion by pollution). 

 “While the villagers are not passive victims and have adopted various resistance strategies, the space for them to struggle and achieve success is confined and shaped by the existing power asymmetry in which local villagers, capital and local government are embedded.”  (Li and Pan, 2021, p 418). 

“...this framing of land dispossession is problematic in two aspects. Firstly, it obscures an invisible form of land dispossession in which people still maintain control of their land but its use value is damaged by pollution. This kind of indirect land dispossession could lead to expulsion, not due to the direct loss of control over land but by it being rendered useless by pollution.” Li and Pan, 2021, p 409). 

 This text employs a case study approach to characterize how villagers in a village in China have been displaced “in-place” as a result of new industrial activities within the area  (all specific details have been hidden within the publication, wherein the names of villager groups and the site of study itself is referenced only by coded letters). The scale of analysis primarily centers at the village level, though analysis of the case study itself extends towards the country level specifically when analysis of state actors are involved. 

Authors Hua Li and Lu Pan are scholars from China. Li is  affiliated with the College of Humanities and Law at Taiyuan University of Technology, wherein her research focuses specifically on water politics, environmental justice, and rural development and agrarian change. Pan is affiliated with the College of Humanities and Development at China Agricultural University. Her research interests include marginalized communities, rural development, and agrarian change.

Page 157: ".. it is much easier to develop an anticapitalist critique of climate change than it is to develop a theoretical and practical vision of postcapitalist social relations that might be adequate to the warmer planet on which we will have no choice but to live."

Page 158: "Similarly, our contradictory yes-but-no stance regarding global climate politics—structured entirely on the basis of sovereign territorial nation-states, which are taken as the natural and only viable building block for the struggle— has prevented us from taking on the nation-state, both analytically and practically. Of course, movements for climate justice all over the world have bravely confronted particular nation-states’ elites and institutions of governance. But the question of the legitimacy and naturalness of the modern nation-state as the base unit of global political life is rarely raised, at least way to sustain a livable planet. Beyond some “realist” argument based in path dependency, however, there is no reason to think so, and many more reasons to suggest that the state is likely one of our biggest obstacles…. “But the question of the legitimacy and naturalness of the modern nation-state as the base unit of global political life is rarely raised, at least partly because we too are convinced that (at least at present) interstate “global cooperation” is the only way to sustain a livable planet.”

Page 162-3: "In other words, as Horkheimer says, we cannot leave open the question of what we believe in with the mute hope that it will get worked out as the movement progresses. Neither, as Adorno cautions, can we paint a picture of a positive utopia, the unworldliness of which is no more helpful than when Marx and Engels admonished against it in the original manifesto more than a century and a half ago. Adorno suggests that what is required is not an account of a perfect world we can hold in our minds like a dream that can be realized merely because we can dream it, but instead an account of the possible (futures we can come to identify as potential outcomes of our present) in which things can (not will) “come right in the end.” Adorno seems to think this will entail the emergence of a radically new form of political authority, for which we might attempt to “formulate some guiding political principles.” We propose at least three such principles as fundamental to any presently emergent or future Climate X. The first is equality….  This leads to the second guiding political principle: the inclusion and dignity of all. This is a critique of capitalist sovereignty and the thin form of democracy upon which it has come to rely. Democracy is not majority rule and has little to do with the vote. Rather, democracy exists in a society to the extent that anyone and everyone could rule, could shape collective answers to collective questions. No nation-state today meets this criterion. This demands a struggle for inclusion The third principle is solidarity in composing a world of many worlds. Against planetary sovereignty, we need a planetary vision without sovereignty.”

Climate Leviathan is largely a critical discussion of various ways of envisioning and organizing the Macro level including sovereignty, the nation-state, capitalisms, geopolitics, the world system, geo-engineering, etc. However, by rooting the discussion in “the political,” besides the obvious recognition of carbon emissions (and a few others) as toxic, the primary toxin discussed in this text is all the way down at the Nano level of ideology. The main problem isn’t fossil fuels, our dependency on them, or the corruption of the politicians in their pockets, it is in our incapacity to recognize how the tools we resort to (capitalism and the nation-state) are fully incapable of addressing the problem at hand. Indeed, they argue that addressing climate change without a critical theory of both capitalism and the state “would be like trying to model hurricanes without a theory of thermodynamics or an understanding of the effects of changing ocean temperatures on cyclone dynamics” (2018, 66).

Their “cure” to ideology is a Gramscian strain of absolute historicism. Take for example their discussion of progress. They quote Gramsci:

“‘…progress has been a democratic ideology.’ … [However] Progress has lost its democratic aspect because ‘the official ‘standard bearers’ of progress’ (the bourgeoisie) have ‘brought into being in the present destructive forces like crises and unemployment, etc., every bit as dangerous and terrifying as those of the past,’ and it is clear that these forces are as much a result of ‘progress’ as technology and scientific knowledge.” (2018, 94).

In this discussion, progress transforms from ideological tonic to ideological toxin based upon its associated deployments within a new historical context. Under the rule of monarchy, the ideology of progress enabled the establishment of liberal democracies. But under liberal capitalism, this ideology underwrote the “production of a separation in the social world between the political and the rest and a consequent neutralizing onslaught on the political that attempts to proceduralize and depoliticize domination, that is, the continual production of freedom for some and unfreedom for others” (2018, 83). These facts notwithstanding, the authors do not recommend an outright denial of progress: “A blanket rejection of progress confuses the idea and its standard bearers, who are now in fact part of the ‘natural order’ in crisis” (2018, 95). The same goes for the current stand-in for the ideology of progress, adaptation: “adaptation is becoming the “progress” of our time. Adaptation is to the ideology of Climate Leviathan what progress was to bourgeois liberalism in the nineteenth century” (2018, 95). Which, once again, does not mean we are to get rid of the concept of adaptation “as if a revolutionary social movement for climate justice can somehow decide against adaptation. The question, rather, is how—how to reshape a conception of the political in a very hot world.” (2018, 95).

What this discussion suggests is that it is that toxicity, as it pertains to ideology and social structure, is not a simple binary relation. To argue this would amount to “blanket rejection” of the ideology of progress as toxic to democracy. Rather, the authors’ example demonstrates how toxicity entails a triadic relation to a relation. It is how the ideology of progress relates to the historically evolving relationship between the dominant and the dominated that determines whether or not the ideology of progress is toxic to democracy or not.

The political and economic fallout that has emerged with the COVID-19 pandemic fits the criteria of events that Mann and Wainwright specify as likely to engender the planetary Leviathan: “Processes are more likely to drive the creation of Leviathan if [a] they present an existential threat; [b] they are large scale (global); and [c] they pose challenges for the existing political order” (2018., 142). However, the history enfolding before our eyes doesn’t look like the birth of a new global sovereignty. Given that nothing close to either a Leviathan or Climate X alternative to the nation-state presented itself, citizens are left with no choice than but to rely on adapting extant public institutions, infrastructures, and state directives. At the national level, the US government responded by blaming the symbol of global public health, the World Health Organization, among its other political rivals, China and Iran. This is in keeping with the “Western” world’s tactic of pointing the carbon-emission finger elsewhere as well:

“Unfortunately, in discussions of climate politics, China is usually considered only a problem, an amoral polluter. How often are we in North America or western Europe told our efforts to slow climate change are meaningless because whatever ‘good’ we do, ‘China’ will ultimately render it futile? Sometimes this is a product of ignorance, sometimes of racist Eurocentrism, sometimes both” (Wainwright and Mann 2018, 116).

Both the Chinese and Iranian governments have returned condemnations along with supporting conspiracies. Thus, rather than leviathan, we seem to be witnessing a Behemoth scenario in which “one or more of these competing powers will continue to compete with the United States” (Wainwright and Mann 2018, 143). And perhaps we should take heed the warning that “History would seem to suggest this will lead to war, and it may well” (2018, 143). Currently these Behemoth-like counter hegemonies are merely struggling to win a rhetorical war of self-righteousness and self-preservation. What is uncertain is whether or not these responses to COVID-19 are indicative of a schismogenetic pattern developing in the contemporary geopolitical order. As Wainwright and Mann comment:

“The implication is that the management of the planet would unfold in the context of a world system that is neither democratic (since the vast majority of nation-states and peoples would have no real involvement in the important decisions about the Earth’s management) nor clearly dominated by one hegemonic power. Planetary governance would unroll on a lumpy, conflictual geopolitical terrain upon which elites continue to seek “adaptations” that meet their needs—political stability, continued accumulation, and so on” (2018, 143).