Search

In an era of mass extinction and biodiversity crisis, it is increasingly crucial to cultivate more just and inclusive multispecies futures. As mitigation and adaption efforts are formed in response to these crises, just transitions forward require intentional consideration of the hybrid entanglement of humans, human societies, and wider landscapes. We thus apply a critical hybridity framework to examine the entanglement of the pollinator crisis with the cultural and agricultural practice of hobbyist beekeeping. We draw on ethnographic engagements with Massachusetts beekeepers and find apiculture to be widely understood as a form of environmentalism-including as both a mitigation to and adaptation for the pollinator crisis. Illustrating how power-laden socioecological negotiations shape and reshape regional environments, we then discuss how this narrative relies on the capitalistic and instrumental logics characteristic of Capitalocene environmentalisms. These rationalities, which obscure the hybridity of landscapes, consequently increase the likelihood of problematic unintended consequences. Also present, however, is a deeper engagement with hybrid perspectives, with some beekeepers even offering pathways toward inclusive solutions. We conclude that if more just and biodiverse futures are to be realized, beekeeping communities must foster increasingly hybrid visions of apiculture as situated within socioecological and contested landscapes., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

While the Massachusetts cranberry industry is in many ways a quintessential "agricultural treadmill," recent decades have seen a shift in the industry toward adopting environmental concerns, beginning roughly with Rachel Carson and other influential scientists critical of unfettered chemical use in cranberry production. Sixty years after the publication of Silent Spring is an opportune moment to assess the impact of environmentalist pressures on the messaging of powerful organizational actors in the cranberry industry, especially the influential UMass Cranberry Station, an outreach program of UMass Extension. Using a mixed methods approach, we examine their Newsletter to evaluate its treatment of environmental topics and non-chemical growing methods over time. Additionally, we gathered survey data from over 90 growers and in-depth interview data from 17 of them to better understand how growers experience the agricultural treadmill, especially regarding synthetic agrichemical use. Newsletter data reveal that while Extension, in the area of cranberry production, has indeed increased its environmentally friendly discourse, statistical analysis of survey data shows that agrichemical use continues to expand, thus supporting the treadmill theory. In-depth interview data further document the cranberry industry as suffering from overproduction and reflecting a treadmill of both chemicals and pollination problems. We conclude that if the cranberry industry is to move away from agricultural treadmill tendencies, the UMass Extension Cranberry Station must provide stronger direction for growers seeking to create less input-dependent and more ecologically integrated cranberry systems. Given the chemical-intensive nature of the cranberry agricultural treadmill, however, this will likely be an uphill battle. • Analyze: 1) Extension newsletters; 2) semi-structured interviews with cranberry growers; 3) survey data of chemical use. • Due to environmentalist pressures Extension has augmented its usage of discourse to support the environment over time. • Growers experience the treadmill through overproduction, problems with chemical inputs, and the pollination treadmill. • Surveys suggest that agri-chemical usage has nonetheless increased despite increases in environmental discourse. • Extension should offer the socio-ecological expertise necessary to achieve meaningful agri-chemical use reductions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper incorporates world-systems perspectives into an analysis of global environmental politics, thus adjoining a political economic analysis of scale with studies of global environmental policy. It is the ability of some social groups and institutions to jump scale that determines how global environmental policies are shaped. The United States' carbon-intensive economy is seen to face larger short-term costs from global environmental agreements than many other countries in the core of the world-system, but what remains unexplored in the environmental politics literature is the question of why the United States sees its long-term economic condition hindered by these agreements. This analysis points to the ways industry actors intervene at multiple scales of global environmental negotiations to affect national policy positions as well as larger discourses about science and risk. The article reviews the methyl bromide controversy in the Montreal Protocol to explain why this agreement has recently failed to live up to expectations in removing ozone-depleting substances. The United States is particularly responsible for this impediment: rather than innovate in response to new information and changing international contexts, industry actors have drawn upon US hegemony to enforce their dominant market positions. As the parties to the Montreal Protocol remain polarized over questions of methyl bromide use, this analysis calls for attention to the ways capital, states, and other social institutions are embedded in international environmental agreements and how they use such arrangements to obstruct successful multilateral agreements. I conclude by suggesting that environmental and other social movements might strategize in two ways: 1) by helping support an emergent 'green hegemony' (most apparent in Chinese policy) as a counterhegemonic alternative, and 2) by developing strategies that account for the ways industry interests overlap with declining US hegemony in a shifting world-system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, a multilateral environmental agreement, has successfully eliminated the use of most ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons. As a result, a number of observers have pointed to the possibility of transferring successes-and even linking regulations-between the Montreal Protocol and Kyoto Protocol, the international but stalled climate-change agreement. We argue that there is need for caution on this issue. The Montreal and Kyoto protocols are the outcomes of vastly different political contexts, from public civil society approaches to what we call 'the private turn': the current loss of faith in state sovereignty, the rejection of multilateralism, and an embrace of private knowledge about economic damage over public knowledge about the protection of citizens and natural resources. From this broader perspective we show that the differences between the Montreal and Kyoto protocols are therefore more than `command-and-control' versus `market-based' solutions. These differences also reflect an even deeper divide over what `counts' as knowledge in political decision-making processes. We illustrate these points through a case study of the current knowledge controversies around the phase-out of methyl bromide under the Montreal Protocol. We explain how the methyl bromide phase-out has stalled because the phase-out approach is incompatible with the current political regime, thus supporting the argument that neoliberal forms of governance cannot solve global environmental problems. This case, therefore, shows us that the challenges we face are more than atmospheric: to save the Earth we must create new ways to govern ourselves. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]