Article by Duncan Cheung

Photo by Thomas Bormans on Unsplash

At the height of the Cold War, following tests of the H-bomb by both American and Soviet forces, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists set the Doomsday Clock to 2 minutes till midnight – the man-made end of the world. As of 2025, the Clock looms 89 seconds to midnight, the closest it’s ever been, in no small part due to climate change. Heat waves, droughts and floods ravage both developed and developing countries. Yet, the silver lining found by the Bulletin is that renewable energy is on the rise. That is not enough.

Since the late 18th century, humanity’s impact on the Earth is too much to ignore. Various concepts were tossed around such as the ‘Anthropozoic era’ or the ‘Noösphere’ but what stuck was the ‘Anthropocene’. Developed through the collaborations of biologist Eugene Stoermer and popularised by atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen, writing in Nature, the Anthropocene posits that since the development of the steam engine, industrialisation has caused a significant shift to the Earth’s biosphere. The fossil fuel industry especially contributes to the emission of greenhouse gasses which leads to a feedback loop of trapping radiation, rising temperatures, melting ice caps and permafrost, and the subsequent release of trapped greenhouse gasses.

But did you – personally – start the fossil fuel empire? Contrary to the notion of the Anthropocene, humanity as a whole did not contribute to rapid industrialisation, only a small subset of people did. Such is the argument of Andreas Malm and Alf Hornborg. Development and continued usage of fossil fuels is unequally distributed, reflecting an ‘intra-species inequality’ which puts a hole in the notion that collectively and naturally, Homo Sapiens caused the current ecological catastrophe. When the poorest 45% only contribute 7% of emissions, and the richest 7% contribute 50%, we must entertain the idea that climate change is the result of sociogenic (social) factors and not anthropogenic (human) factors, hence a ‘Sociocene’.

One aspect of social life within the developed world which we can highlight is the ‘high carbon mobility systems’. John Urry would suggest that the global North suffers a spreading ‘mobility complex’ where we view the ability to travel as integral to our structure of society. Our relation to the greater world is understood through movement. As did supermarkets localise varieties of goods, transport has localised our world as we can now shop for work, friends, commodities and entertainment bereft of distance. And predictably, this transport is not only very unequally distributed across the globe – with such freedom concentrated among the already wealthy – but indicative of our reliance on the fossil fuel industry.

Despite starry-eyed utopian dreams that we can both shift from the fossil fuel industry and afford a lifestyle of luxury for everyone, Terry Leahy breaks that this just isn’t possible – at least not without the freezing of Europe. To avoid the most catastrophic events of climate change (such as the blocking of the Gulf Stream which warms the climate of Northwestern Europe), Leahy advocates that we must reduce fossil fuel emissions by 92%. This ‘energy-scarce regime’ is undesirable but no alternative energy source can match our current output of fossil fuels. Alternatives such as wind turbines and solar energy are too unreliable for the whole year; nuclear power will quickly exhaust high-grade uranium ore; and biomass is a ‘sad joke’. We simply cannot surpass fossil fuels.

Hence the inherent contradictions of capitalism. The endless growth necessary for capitalism cannot mesh with finite resources on Earth. As Urry puts it “[t]his contradiction could result in a widespread reversal of many of the systems that constitute capitalism as it turns into its own gravedigger’. Yet if capitalism were to meet this fate it may already be too late to act.

Although the future may seem bleak, falling into an apathy spiral is of no use to anyone. On an individual level, shopping locally or taking public transit may help but it does not address systemic problems. To save the environment, we must have a widespread reasoned discussion between both environmental science and sociology – environmental sociology. Although what has been discussed is a brief introduction, we must collectively contribute to how we want to direct our societies, economies and environment; only when everyone has their say can we truly spur the Anthropocene. It’s not too late to act, there’s 89 seconds till midnight.

References:

Catton, W. and Dunlap, R. (1978). ‘Environmental Sociology: A New Paradigm’, The American Sociologist, 13 (1), pp. 41-49.

Crutzen, P. (2002). ‘Geology of mankind’, Nature, 415, pp. 23. https://doi.org/10.1038/415023a

John, M., ‘Closer than ever: It is now 89 seconds to midnight’, 2025 Doomsday Clock Statement, 28 January 2025. Available at: https://thebulletin.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-Doomsday-Clock-Statement.pdf (Accessed: 04 November 2025)

Leahy, T. (2008). ‘Discussion of ‘Global Warming and Sociology”, Current Sociology, 56 (3), pp. 475-484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392107088240

Malm, A. and Hornborg A. (2014). ‘Geology of mankind? A critique of the Anthropocene narrative’, The Anthropocene Review, 1 (1), pp. 62-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019613516291

Tomlinson, M. (2025), ‘Climate Change, Capitalism & Society’,, [PowerPoint presentation]. SOCY10461:Global Social Challenges. University of Manchester. Unpublished.

Urry, J. (2009). ‘Sociology and Climate Change’, The Sociological Review, 57 (2), pp. 84-100. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2010.01887.x

Related