sittin crooked on my chrome: 2007

Of the three main schools of environmental thought, Eco-Socialism provides the most functional and useful platform for achieving truly sustainable development. The joining of socialism and ecology represents the combining of forces that have often found themselves at odds. Combining these two theories allows for synthesis of Sustainable Development theory that concerns itself with all aspects of sustainability.

In this paper distinctions will be made between different groups of ecologists and their varying views on ecology, nature, and the role of humans in nature. Red green refers to anthropocentric ecologists who value social justice as well as direct democracy and who view environmental degradation as a result of hierarchy and domination. Blue-greens are mainstream environmentalists who believe in the action of markets and in the ability of technology to fix environmental problems.

A further distinction must be made among Red-greens themselves. The red-green group is comprised of two main constituents. Social Ecologists are one group. This group is a mix of anarchism, socialism, and ecology. The Eco-Socialists form the other group. This group is still involved with Neo-Marxist groups and still uses Marxist theory.

Murray Bookchin's 1971 book Post Scarcity Anarchism marked a split between Social Ecologists and Eco-Socialists. The most distinctive feature of Bookchin's social ecology is its claim that mistreatment of nature is a consequence of authoritarian, hierarchical social structures(Zimmerman 152). David Pepper quite eloquently describes the motives of social ecologists in his book Modern Environmentalism. Pepper states that social ecology is concerned with "hierarchy and domination, as expressed in state dominated and patriarchal society. Social Ecology's solution is to eliminate hierarchy and patriarchy, recreating a "natural" society, that is, an anarchist-communist one(pepper mod 31). Murray Bookchin saw the imbalances in nature as resulting from imbalances occurring socially. Bookchin situates this domination in a historical manner, tracing its history through time.(Bookchin 62-3 post). The argument continues by citing oversimplification of biotic as well as human nature as destroying the complex systems that have evolved over the millennia(bookchin post 64). This is discussed later. This text also marks the infusion of anarchism. Bookchin states that "It cannot be emphasized too strongly that the anarchist concepts of a balanced community, a face to face democracy, a humanistic technology, and a decentralized society-these rich libertarian conepts-are not only desirable, they are also necessary(bookchin post 69)." Solutions from a social ecology standpoint are thus based on a blending of what is termed first and second nature. "An anarchist society should be a decentralized society, not only to establish a lasting basis for the harmonization of man and nature, but also to add new dimensions to the harmonization of man and man(Bookchin post 79). Prevailing attitudes would fully acknowledge how nature shapes human economic, social, and cultural activity. But unlike deppecology, it would not overemphasize this. Social ecologists prefer to classify their beliefs as neither anthropocentric nor biocentric, working instead towards an ethic which fuses the two(pepper mod 31).

By contrast, eco-socialism is decidedly anthropocentric. Eco-socialism focuses on the structural features of capitalism to explain why there are ecological problems today. As they are socialists, ecological improvement comes with social improvement; Social improvement means establishing true socialism. Eco-socialists also tend to still hold on to Enlightenment promise of universal material progress, providing sustainable development and better living conditions for all. (pepper eco 33-34). Eco-socialists are of the belief that the way we related to nature as well as each other is strongly influenced by the way we organize production. Thus capitalist relations of production will influence inter-human as well as human-nature relationships(67-68 pep ecosoc).

For eco-socialists, simply moving from a capitalist to a planned socialist economy will not be enough. Eco-Socialist political action is based on the premise that there is a global ecological crises that cannot be resolved without a radical transformation of social relationships. Eco-socialists combine aspects of green and socialist thought to argue that capitalism is the cause of ecological crisis(wall 155). At the core of these relationships are capitalist production relationships. Left as they are, these relationships will yield economic crises which cannot be resolved without an equally radical transformation of capitalist production forces(O'Conner 163). Marxism would lead us to the conclusion that many current environmental problems are manifested through economic exploitation associated increasingly with urbanization and the exploitation associated with capitalist industrialization.(Pepper, Eco-Socialism, 63). Put simply, Eco-Socialists believe that if you fix humans you will fix humans's environment. True to their Marxist roots, exploitation of workers is at the center of Eco-Socialist theories. Whereas Deep Ecologists call the value of industry into question; Eco-socialists believe that it is capitalism's application of industry to produce for profit and not for need that causes problems(Dobson 180).

Despite their historical disparity, Socialism and Ecology are highly compatible disciplines. William Morris Carolyn Merchant cites the first mix of Socialism and Ecology as emerging from the Frankfurt School. Critical theory was developed by the Frankfurt school and drew on the humanist aspect of some of Marx's early works. Critical Theory explored the relationship between humans and nature, envisioning a just society that was free from pain and suffering. Adorno's writings stated the confrontation of humans with nature, which first produces the tendency to dominate nature, in turn results in the domination of men by other men. The domination of external nature therefore is a condition for the domination of human beings in a society(Merchant 4). Aside from Frankfurt School efforts, early Socialist responses to the environmental movement were generally hostile. Socialists tended to illustrate environmentalism as everything from a middle class fetish which distracted from Socialist goals to a plot devised to deter the fundamental battles still to be fought between capital and labor(Dobson 179). Recent decades have seen mainstream Socialism gradually accept and refine the points laid out by the Frankfurt School. Authors such as James O'Connor and David Pepper, both quoted here, have done a lot of the theoretical heavy lifting that has joined this political theory with environmental theory.

These differences aside, the focus now turns to the uniformity within red-greens as a movement. Red-greens are not concerned with environmentalism as currently understood. Environmentalism is a mainstream term and idea that refers to man's relationship with the non-human environment. Environmentalism views non-human nature as a passive habitat containing objects-plants, animals, minerals, and the like. These objects make up a resource sink of items which must be transformed to be of use to humans. Harmony between humans and nature is more of a truce negotiated using technology than a lasting and understanding equilibrium. Environmentalism also seeks to remedy solutions rather than solving problems. The societal motives which give rise to environmental problems are ignored, meaning that they will never truly be solved(bookchin 154-155 eco). Releasing both society and nature from oppression will allow both to reach their maximum social and natural diversity.

It is better to think of red-green beliefs as ecological ethics. Ecology deals with the dynamic balance of nature. Nature includes both living and non living elements. Humans are natural beings that warrant inclusion into ecology. Red-greens seek to work with nature. Desirable is the biotic variety that emerges from a spontaneous development of natural phenomena. This is achieved(bookchin 155-7 eco).

Red-Greens adopt a view of nature that is unique. Adopting a non-linear view of humans and nature is necessary to better understand the efforts on the red-greens part. Nature can be divided into two categories. The first is biotic nature or non-human nature. This nature should not be thought of as existing in a permanent, eternal state. Murray Bookchin compares this notion to a picture on a post card-static and unmoving. Biotic nature as perceived is the totality, but not the apex, of its evolution at the moment of observation. Biotic nature exists as a constantly changing and dynamic entity. Non-human nature, by increasing subjectivity and flexibility and by increasing differentiation that makes an organism more adaptable to new environmental challenges and opportunities and renders a living being more equipped to alter its environment to meet its own needs464-466(bookchin in other book). This immediately throws the notion of species being more or less evolved out the window.

Viewing biotic nature in this light influences the way in which humanity is viewed. Humans, like nature, are seen in context of their entire evolutionary existences. Human beings embody, at least potentially, attributes of non-human development that place them squarely within organic evolution. Humans are highly intelligent self conscious primates. This is to say that they have emerged, not diverged, from a long evolution of vertebrate life forms into mammalian, and finally primate forms. They are a product of patterns. This view helps shape the social ecologists' view. Humans experience a unique place in nature. They are not its rulers, as a blue green would assert. The earth is not theirs to conquer, its resources a pool to draw from as necessary. Humans are also not parasites, as green-greens such as gaianists would assert. The idea that humans are unwelcome on the very planet upon which they evolved is a logical impossibility. To view humans as separate from nature, as both of these views do, sets the natural world apart from humans. Human innovation, foresight, and creativity are not welcome.(bookchin other).

Second nature refers to the way in which humans human beings as flexible, highly intelligent primates inhabit the natural world. "Unnatural" aspects such as technology and symbolic communication are in reality the result of thousands of years of evolutionary activity. Human traits are enlargements of non human traits that are refined through the years. In this respect, second nature is no different from the environment that every animal, depending on its abilities, creates as well as adapts to, the biophysical circumstances in which it must live.(bookchin other book). Second nature should not be viewed as unnatural.

The red-green would not see a problem with second nature until it is put to capitalist use. As stated earlier, red-greens would generally agree that the way we relate to nature as well as each other is strongly influenced by the way we organize production. Red-greens would assert that capitalism is wrecking the conditions of production and creating more poverty, unemployment, inequality, and economic insecurity and marginalization. This production often results in fatally harming human health, urban and rural communities, and ecological systems. These negative effects would not be seen if second nature existed in a post capitalist system. It is logical that in a system where production for profit is the norm, second nature will be dedicated primarily to production for profit.

From a red-green point of view, globalization presents a problem as it leads to greater economic activity(Wall, 70). Greater economic activity leads to increased industrial production, which yields greater resource use and more pollution. Globalization, like the concept of second nature, is not inherently evil. Few red-greens would be against the concept of the exchange of goods and ideas with other cultures. Red-green critiques of globalization are based around the neo-liberal form of economic globalization currently occurring. This form of globalization is seen as the result of a crisis within capitalism. No longer able to sustain itself soley with domestic markets, owners of production seek to maintain profits by selling more and exploit labor to a greater extent. Globalization provides several benefits to sustain these capitalist relations. Expanding to new markets provides access to new consumers. Corporations can expect to enjoy cheaper labor when expanding production into previously untapped labor markets. The less industrialized the nation, the less a company can generally expect to pay for labor. Commons of all aspects can be exploited as cheap resources. Physical lands can be taken to use for private production(---). Vandana Shiva documents enclosing of cultural commons by private interests. She uses the example of Basmati rice in India to illustrate this example. Corporations patent genes in crops developed by local farmers over generations, taking ownership from those without the means to defend it(----). Social services can be privatized, requiring individuals to pay for services once funded completely or partially by the government.(----). These factors have the synergistic effect of the poor into a system in which all goods and services needed to survive become monetized.

The crisis of globalization is particularly bad in the global south. Capitalist, specifically neo liberal Economic policies designed by organizations such as the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization seek to foster globally the conditions needed for the spread of capitalism. Under these policies basic commodities are produced for export, taking water from subsistence agriculture, thus lessening their returns and increasing hunger. Commons are enclosed, eliminating options of resource gathering for many poor individuals. The poor become poorer as they are separated from their local means of productions(Wall 155-6). These populations typically have little choice but to comply.

This relationship illustrates the compatibility of socialism and ecology. Socialism needs ecology due to ecology's demands for site specificity and reciprocity, as well as the central importance of the material interchanges within nature and between society and nature. Ecology needs socialism because the latter stresses democratic planning, and the key role of the social interchanges between beings(O'Connor 168). Eliminating capitalism would insure that second nature exists in a very different light. Production, to the red-green, should occur to advance and promote human health and well being. Production should be

Critiques of alternative environmental ethics from an eco-socialist point of view help to clarify what the red-greens stand for. Of ecological ethics, blue-greens and green greens make up the difference.

Central to Deep Ecologists' views is their ecocentric designation of humans as a constituent of nature, not at the center or above nature. XXX Devall describes humanity as a member of the "Earth Household." Devall states the ultimate goal of ecocentrics is allowing non-human nature to follow its separate evolutionary destiny(devall eco 128). Placing humans equal to external nature logically bars humans from deciding what happens in nature(Peppers, Eco-Socialism, 49). .

Deep Ecologists typically incorporate spirituality in either an eastern or indigenous form. Eastern spirituality, broadly generalized, offers views different from the western tradition of the man/nature relationship. Deep ecologists analyze Native American and other indigenous beliefs in attempts to understand past ways of life and their ecological implications(devall 129 eco). There is also a strong sense of respect for nature in its own right, as well as for pragmatic systems reasons(pepper ecosocialism 33). Western philosophers outside the dominant paradigm also feature. These critical voices have often criticized and challenged dominant ideas(devall eco136). Deep ecology questions the fundamental premises of the dominant social paradigms. It can be generally stated that Deep Ecologists tend towards a postmodern deconstruction of culture that rejects the assumptions and aims of the modern period as the cause of rather than the cure for ecological crises (Pepper, Modern Environmentalism, 34).

Industrialism in many forms is rejected in favor of a romanticized view of primitive people as well as the construction of a nature free from human influence. This is not to say that technology is abhorred by the green-green. Technology can aide transitions from industrialized states to less industrial states, and after that can be used to meet human needs in ways which are not hierarchical.

When placed on the liberal to conservative environmental spectrum, Deep Ecologists fall to the conservative end. Green-greens often favor remedies David Pepper likes to call "future primitivism(Pepper, Modern Environmentalism, 33)," meaning fixing situations by attempting to return to an idealized vision of the past. Pepper implies that deep greens are out of touch with the basic realities of environmental crises. "A satisfactory relationship with nature together with spiritually, intellectually, and emotionally satisfying lifestyles-what all greens want-cannot happen until this basic level of development and social justice is attained(Modern Environmentalism, 34)." Statements made by deep ecologist Bill Devall reflect Pepper's critique. Devall says "given that the majority of humans who have lived on earth over the millennia have been hunter/gatherers, it is clear that ecocentrism has been the dominant human religious/philosophical perspective through time(sessions eco 140)." This statement is not false. Red-greens believe there is no environmental improvement until the largest actors upon the environment have been helped. To justify an environmental ethic as a good choice based on historical prevalence is not intellectually valid. Since Deep Ecology is based on an incorrect notion of how and why environmental issues exist, solutions tend to do little for issues of sustainability.

It should not be argued that deep ecologists have nothing to offer. Critically analyzing cultural paradigms is useful when examining hurdles to sustainability. Deep ecologists questioning of the notion of progress is one such example. Recognizing that value in nature exists outside of human use value is a useful idea. The red-green would agree with the green-green that preservation is a good idea. The motivations behind preservation would have a different scope. Ecologically sensitive lands would be preserved in the interest of insuring their continued function. Conservation of other spaces would be for human as well as natural use. Preservation of places due simply to their beauty would be fine as long as people all have an equal chance of experiencing and enjoying them. The questioning of cultural needs from an ecological perspective is also of value. Asking such questions would be the first step in determining how to raise those in need out of poverty.

Though it does have useful offerings, the ultimate strike against Deep Ecology is the reluctance to act upon human conditions. help humans makes it a difficult platform through which to achieve sustainability.

Shallow ecology, as a group called blue-greens, is currently the dominant ecological ethic. This incorporates current mainstream environmentalism. Green-green figure Arne Naess describes the shallow ecology movement as fighting against pollution and resource depletion and little else(Naess eco 120). Pepper’s definition of environmentalism cited earlier applies here. Blue-greens are environmentalists, viewing non-human nature as a passive habitat containing objects-plants, animals, minerals, and the like. Making use of these items to satisfy human wants and needs is normal and natural. Environmental concerns stretch only as far as degradation hinders the ability of markets to produce and distribute goods. Harmony between humans and nature is more of a truce negotiated using technology than a lasting and understanding equilibrium. Shallow ecologists are clearly anthropocentric, believing that humans have the power and right to manipulate their environment and assign value. They agree with some red-greens in the post Enlightenment modernist promise of universal material progress resulting in better living for all(Pepper, Modern Environmentalism, 34). However the result of these beliefs is quite different. Technocentric shallow ecologists recognize the presence of environmental problems and believe that the use of technology can alleviate environmental issues while simultaneously promoting economic growth(pepper eco 33).

Sustainable Development to the Shallow Ecologist generally refers to environmental efforts that are designed to create conditions that will allow for markets to continually grow. Steps may be taken to improve environmental conditions, but social and political interests may be deemed irrelevant to anyone other than those experiencing them. Shallow Ecology does have useful practices and ideas. It is very good at distilling efficient technologies that could be of great use in easing the environmental impact of humans while providing the type of material gains that increase well being. Pairing shallow ecology with capitalism also results in an admirably efficient system of production. Shallow Ecology is not a sound platform to address sustainability due to its want based production orientation and narrow scope of concern for sustainability.

Eco-socialists find several large problems with shallow ecologists. As with any socialists, a main critique would be of capitalist market systems. The technology brought forth by mainstream environmentalists works within the context of the power system in which it finds itself. The technology serves the aim of capitalists, not of the larger population.

Of the three main environmental ethics, the red-green camp’s beliefs work well towards achieving an environment ethic oriented towards sustainability. Implementing red-green ethics is a bit difficult. Misconceptions on all sides have hindered the adoption any form of red-green ideology as an ethic. On one side are the non-socialists where misconceptions abound. In the minds of most labor, community, and environmental leaders, socialism of any type and ecology remain contradictions in terms. Misunderstandings about anything considered socialist, Marxist, or anarchist abound. Pepper cites historical context for this. “Regimes which are dubbed Marxist-self styled or otherwise-are often gross perversions of the political philosophy of socialism to which Marxism is committed. This is not unusual: ‘National Socialism’ was in fact the antithesis of Socialism(pepper ecosoc 59).”

Greens are still often at odds with perceived socialist oriented theories. Many Green-greens still favor antiproductivism while thinking that socialism is an ideology which promotes growth without limit or end. Socialists are still largely seen as productivist, supporting production as the way to improve the human condition regardless of ecological conditions. The eco-centric/anthropocentric debate also comes into play between greens and reds. Green-greens value ecological egalitarianism which limits man’s role in nature. Red-greens tend to be anthropocentric, desiring to fix man first.

Mainstream environmentalism finds itself at odds with all sides. Belief in markets as well as capital production immediately put it at odds with socialist thoughts of exploitation and domination based on a capitalist system. Deep ecology’s belief in the inherent worth of nature and environmental egalitarianism contrast with the blue-green belief of nature as man’s dominion. As long as environmental issues are kept separate from social and labor issues, the divide and conquer cries of "jobs versus environment" will remain effective(o'connor 451 ob).

Issues among socialists prevent greater unity among reds and greens. Many socialists still see ecology as either an ideology of austerity, or as a way of ensuring amenities for middle and upper classes.

Until issues are framed differently, a disconnect will exist between two groups who need each other. Greens mu…………..

Deforestation is a useful example to compare possible solutions resulting from these ethics. Deep ecologists would tend to overlook the real human needs fueling deforestation in favor of preserving their ideal of nature untouched by humans. Preservation would be the immediate goal. While preservation of some areas may be achieved, greater harm may be done elsewhere as social conditions worsen and force people to take more drastic actions to insure survival. Shallow ecologists would tend to overlook long term sustainability. Solutions to deforestation would be technologically based and focused on insuring conservation and efficiency of use. Like Deep Ecologists they have not treated the cause of the problem; the social situation remains largely unchanged. Eco-socialists would see deforestation as the manifestation of human exploitation and would explore issues of exploitation. Inequitable land distribution can lead to slash and burn farming while structural poverty can produce periodic but highly damaging jungle gold rushes. Farmers who cannot afford to purchase enough land to sustainably produce a living will resort to ultimately destructive practices that may yield high short term returns. The problem to the eco-socialist is complex web of issues. Surveying the issues listed here as well as any others brings one to exploitation based poverty, which is not hard to find at the root of most environmental problems. An attack on poverty would be an attack on capitalism, and would therefore be a blow against the root cause of environmental decay(Dobson 182).

Deep ecology and mainstream environmentalism are both too narrow in their scopes to serve as sustainability platforms. Where the two perspectives fail, Eco-Socialism's complete full scope of intervention allows it to excel. It is clear to Eco-Socialists that issues relating to human freedom are at the core of the environmental issues humanity currently faces. Accepting the compatibility of socialism and ecology allows for the emergence of a highly functional environmental ethic. This ethic can then be applied to achieve true sustainability. As stated by James O'Connor, ecology brings the need for site specificity, reciprocity, and material interchange while socialism brings democracy and social interchanges(168). Eco-socialism makes the connections between environment and social structures necessary to create true sustainability.

Eco Socialism could be useful as resource depletion and population growth make sustainability a more pressing issue. Appalachia is no exception. Eco-socialist based sustainability would focus on liberating people as well as nature from domination while insuring that the basic needs of all are met.

Appalachia's natural features make it a natural destination for tourists. These same features attract companies seeking to exploit natural resources, such as loggers. Logging has the power to harm tourism. Tourism in turn can have to power to stop logging. These issues have been poorly balanced recently, typically finding themselves as binary opposites. Policy has illustrated the lack of sustainable balance in regional policy regarding logging and tourism. A sustainable balance will consider the needs of people and the environment, insuring that both are treated fairly.

An excellent example reflecting unsustainable policy was the recent Globe Road project in Blowing Rock. The aesthetic needs of wealthy homeowners were placed above the physical needs of local residents. Homeowner outcry was the force behind the Forest Service changing its plan to preserve views from Blowing Rock. Wealthy people who have homes overlooking this road were given preference over Residents in Steels Creek, Old House Gap, Maple Sally Road, and Little Fork who all lacked the political and financial influence to stop heavy logging in their areas. The people in these areas tend to be poor and in need of fertile common areas for hunting and other subsistence activities. An Eco-Socialist approach would strive to meet the needs of both tourists and residents. Democracy would be key. One possible resident-derived solution might have sought to use less intensive methods that spread the burden. Selective logging would be beneficial for the views of tourists as forests are thinned, thus promoting general health as trees that are left face less competition. The poor in the other areas would find the same methods valuable as underbrush flourishes. As the land would be a common area under and Eco-Socialist system, monies earned from logging would be reinvested in the community.

Tourists travel to Appalachia primarily for outdoor activities and cultural experiences. Tourism and the money it brings have had tremendous roles in changing the social landscape in some areas of Appalachia. Second home sales have exploded in some areas, forcing residents to sell their land as they can no longer pay their income tax. Frequent periods of vacancy eliminate much of the sense of community in some areas. This vacancy affects local businesses, who become dependant on the whims of tourist business. Current economic decisions regarding public and economic policy are being made assuming that people will always be able to access Boone by car, the predominant way it is currently accessed. There is minimal public transport infrastructure that allows people to reach Boone. This results in public lands that are generally only used by those with the money and time to access them. Policies in tourism minded areas of Appalachia have promoted tourism and economic growth while generally ignoring non-aesthetic environmental issues.

Other areas of Appalachia have not been as fortunate. Poverty is still abundant in many areas and is often exacerbated by the influx of wealth. In areas of abundance there are problems. People working in Boone often cannot afford to live there. This concentrates the poor in surrounding counties, magnifying their poverty. Property taxes in North Carolina form a portion of each county's school budget. Wealthy areas receive tremendous amounts of funding from valuable second homes while seeing a proportionately low number of students. Conditions like these result in further concentration of wealth. Children in Watauga county receive generous funding while those in Ashe and Avery counties receive less funding. 12 years spent in a highly funded education system will obviously put a student at an advantage.

Regarding tourism, Eco-Socialism based sustainable development would first seek to understand the wishes of residents in the tourist areas. It would need to be determined to what degree residents sought to boost Boone's status as a tourist town. From this, policy would be established.

If residents deem tourism a feature that they would like to promote there are numerous steps that could be taken. One option could be a limit placed on out of town property ownership. It is unacceptable for owners of land to be forced to sell the land they own outright simply because the taxes went up due to conditions beyond their control. Placing a cap on external ownership would localize markets in a fiscal as well as a physical sense. Re-establishing a mostly permanent community would benefit local business owners, who now have a more predictable and easier to cater to market of regular consumers. This would also lead to re-establishment of community. If people feel like they are part of a community they will generally be respectful stewards of their lands. Barring any sort of systemic overhaul,

America currently has an inadequate public transport system. Building efficient local, regional, national, and global mass transportation systems would open new options to those who currently do not have the means to access them. Lack of public transport combined with rising oil prices would be tremendously harmful for a tourist-based economy. This would have the bonus of allowing travel to occur with reduced environmental impact. Benefits of such a transit system encompass the entire area covered. Areas that previously were largely inaccessible would become available, distributing the tourist load and discouraging lengthy trips. Such areas would also now have the option of tourism at their disposal. Pricing of tickets could encourage residents to make tourist trips within their region.

Eco-socialists would be pleased to see low cost mass transport that provided people of all types with inexpensive access to public lands. Excepting ecologically important areas that are too delicate to handle heavy human traffic, lands owned by the public should be easily reached by the public. These public lands may also be put to use as is appropriate. Activities that can be conducted without altering the integrity of such sites should be encouraged. If mushrooms are naturally occurring and can be sustainably harvested, then properly trained individuals should be allowed to harvest them.

With regards to public lands themselves, care must be taken when designating public lands to insure that they are being designated in a manner that does not harm the interests of others. This means different things in different times and places. If land is of great enough importance to restrict the use then an agreement must be made that all involved find acceptable.

The steps listed here are all examples of possible applications of Eco-Socialist theory to sustainability issues present in Appalachia. These are not the only solutions or even solutions that be decided on by residents. True Eco-Socialist action would be impossible to predict as its very nature insures that it comes from those involved. Eco-Socialism's concern for humans as well as the environment provides the best basis for sustainability. Its broad scope of concern yields a version of sustainability that is truly useful.