Book Review of Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist by Kate Raworth

Glen T. Martin

This is an extraordinary book. Among all the books I have read on climate change and our common human future, this book counts as one of the best. It provides a deeply informed and knowledgeable positive vision of how human beings can move beyond climate crisis and create a decent world for all human beings and a credible future for our planet. It is a vision filled out by hundreds of examples of what is being done right now worldwide to make these changes happen. The book reviews both the history and dynamics of economics, written by an informed economist and creative thinker. It is one of the few must-reads for all who care about the future of humanity.

In Part One of this review, I will describe the main points made by the book: that is, the seven ways that we need to be thinking like 21st century economists. The book is divided into chapters corresponding to the seven ways to think like a 21st century economist, and I will follow this order. In Part Two, I will critically relate the book to our corresponding need for political transformation of the world system and ratification of the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.

Part One

 First principle: Change the Goal from GDP to the Doughnut. In her introductory section Kate Raworth quotes Buckminster Fuller as saying “You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete” (p. 4). The introduction reviews the history of economics and the ways that it was built around one story, one image, and essentially one visual diagram of the way economies worked (or were supposed to work).

This worldview (this frame, this paradigm) became fixed in textbooks and the minds of economists worldwide. It was built around a linear model that essentially ignored our rootedness in the planetary biosphere and focused on growth. Growth became measured worldwide in terms of GDP (Gross Domestic Product). It ignored human rights as well as our planet’s ecology and focused single mindedly on worldwide growth.

It became institutionalized in immense systems like the World Bank and the World Trade Organization right down to the present. It either accepted or ignored ever widening inequality, vast poverty, and growing evidence of climate change. Raworth shows that economics cannot any longer be framed on a linear growth model of extraction to production to distribution to consumption to waste disposal, because this model ignores nature and our planetary boundaries. She records a recent declaration that states:

We are the first generation to know that we are undermining the ability of the Earth system to support human development. This is a profound new insight, and it is potentially very, very scary . . . It is also an enormous privilege because it means that we are the first generation to know that we now need to navigate a transformation to a globally sustainable future. (p. 47)

We need to change this dominant visual and theoretical model of GDP to a doughnut shape. The outer ring of the doughnut is composed of the “ecological ceiling” that can be expressed in terms of the nine planetary boundaries that climate scientists have identified as crucial not to violate if we want conditions on our planet to remain hospitable for future life. The nine, known worldwide today, are climate change, ozone layer depletion, air pollution, biodiversity loss, land conservation, freshwater withdrawals, nitrogen & phosphorus loading, chemical pollution and ocean acidification. Beyond these limits constitutes environmental overshoot. They form the “ecological ceiling” for doughnut economics. Economics focuses on how human beings can flourish within that inviolable ceiling.

The inner ring of the doughnut is comprised by the “social foundation” that provides the “safe and just space for humanity.” Just as economics fails when it goes beyond the ecological boundaries of the outer ring, it also fails when it does not provide for the well-being of human beings: when human beings go hungry or fall into poverty and homelessness. The inner ring of the doughnut is the social foundation comprised of income and work, education, health, food, water, energy, networks, housing, gender equality, social equity, political voice, as well as peace & justice. Economics must expand its mission from merely monetary wealth creation to concern for all these elements of human well-being.

Raworth links this social foundation with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals, “agreed to by 193 member countries in 2015—and the vast majority of these goals are to be achieved by 2030” (p. 39). “Together,” she writes, “the social foundation of human rights and the ecological ceiling of planetary boundaries create the inner and outer boundaries of the Doughnut” (p.42). We need to change the goal of economics from “the Cuckoo model” of endless growth of GDP to the model of thriving in balance: “human prosperity in a flourishing web of life” (p. 47).

Second principle: See the Big Picture—from self-contained market to embedded economy. The big picture. This chapter contrasts the “drama” of traditional economics with the new drama and new players of Doughnut Economics, illustrating the narrowness of the traditional model. Economics impacts everything, all dimensions of human life as well as the Earth that sustains us. She shows the multiple ways in which traditional economics simply ignored most of these dimensions and operated as a self-contained theoretical model that led to today’s disastrous consequences.

The Doughnut model brings in the whole of our human situation beginning with the Earth whose planetary boundaries must be respected. It includes:

Society, which is foundational—so nurture its connections

The Economy, which is diverse—so support all its systems

The Household, which is core—so embed it wisely

The Commons, which is creative—so unleash their potential

The State, which is essential—so make it serve wisely

Business, which is innovative—so give it purpose

Trade, which is double-edged—so make it fair

Power, which is purposive—so check its abuse (p. 63)

This chapter examines each of these dimensions, showing the ways in which each of them was either ignored or falsely conceived by traditional GDP economics. Traditional economics never spoke of “nurturing.” It never spoke of “wisdom,” nor of purpose (since economics was modeled on early-modern ideas of mechanistic science), nor of purposes for business and trade (beyond the mindless accumulation of wealth), nor of the abuse of power. She declares that “the Circular Flow diagram instead transforms the starting point of economic analysis. It ends the myth of the self-contained, self-sustaining market, replacing it by provisioning by the household, market, commons and state—all embedded within and dependent upon society, which in turn is embedded within the living world” (p. 79).

Third Principle: Nurture Human Nature—from rational economic man to social adaptable humans. This chapter examines the model of human nature embedded within traditional economic assumptions, the model of homo economicus in which each person (and by extension each business or company) was conceived atomistically as a rational calculator of individual self-interest and advantage. Not only was this a fundamental distortion of our complex human nature but it served as a social model for people in trade, banking, Wall Street, and business.

But the twenty-first century portrait of human nature is very different, making us realize that this classic model (simplistic assumptions necessary to make economic formulas mathematical and hence apparently scientific) was a major distortion, leading economists astray into their disastrous endless growth models. In the new model of human nature, we are “social and reciprocating” rather than narrowly self-interested. We have “fluid values” rather than a fixed economic nature. We are “interdependent,” not isolated atoms of self-interest. We act on “approximations,” not narrow calculations. And we are embedded in the web of life, “far from having dominion over nature” (p. 88).

The chapter explores the many ways that we can “nurture” and “nudge” people to do the right thing. Right behavior can be encouraged by the state, by communities, and economists. These include proper tax programs and other economic incentives, empowering cooperatives, making legally possible associations that work together for the common good, educating for ecological sensitivity and understanding, creating alternative currencies, recognizing the role of households in the economy, empowering women, promoting “generosity and public spirit” (p. 110). There are dozens of ways we can overcome the destructive stereotype of homo economicus and empower our ability to work together for the common good of humanity and our planetary biosphere.

Fourth Principle: Get Savvy with Systems—from mechanistic equilibrium to dynamic complexity. Under systems theory and “complexity science” that have emerged worldwide since the 1970s, systems theorists study “how relationships between the many parts of a system shape the behavior of the whole” (p. 117).  (I would add the corollary, which Raworth also recognizes, that the whole (the structure of a system) also shapes the behavior of the parts.)

Systems scientists are now understanding the ways in which natural systems, with their feedback loops and integration of many dynamic factors, operate according to complexity designs of dynamic balance and mutual integration. This chapter shows the ways in which traditional economics, by not including systems theory, created boom and bust bubbles and on-going financial instability, unable to move economic history out of “a rolling cycle of dynamic disequilibrium” (p. 126).

A similar failure has led to “the dynamics of inequality,” in which a tiny few individuals now own more than 50% of the world’s wealth, and the similar feedback loops that have allowed governments to be taken over by an “oligopoly” of the rich and powerful who direct law and institutions toward their own interests. She also recalls “the damage wrought by the shock policies of privatization and market liberalization implemented in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and the former Soviet Union during the 1980s and 1990s” (p. 137).

Similarly, today’s economy has ignored pollution and is bringing the world to the brink of ecological collapse: “pollution, which—unlike metals, minerals, and fossil fuels—typically carries no price and so generates no direct market feedback.” She concludes that “Today’s economy is divisive and degenerative by default. Tomorrow’s economy must be distributive and regenerative by design” (p. 133).

Economics can create “nested systems” that “serve the whole of which they are a part.” It can promote diversity and create a healthy resilience that can bound back from storms. It can create “open-source” design business models, find “leverage points” that help balance an entire system. And finally, if it is to be truly holistic, it can bring ethics into economics.

Traditionally, economics pretended to be a “science” and hence abjured ethics, but today we recognize our responsibilities to the common good and future generations. Ethically, an economist must act in the service of “prosperity within a flourishing web of life.” Secondly, economists should “respect autonomy” in the communities they serve. Third, we all need to “be prudential in policy-making,” minimizing risk and attending to the most vulnerable. Finally, we all should “work with humility,” recognizing the limitations and shortcomings of our models (p. 138).

Principle Five: Design to Distribute—from ‘growth will even it up again’ to distributive by design. A fundamental model of traditional economics, found in many textbooks, was the “Kuznets Curve,” a simple chart that showed increasing economic inequality (linked to endless GDP growth) that peaks at a certain point and then begins to descend toward ever more equality. She states, “It was a clever theory but it was wrong” (p. 142). This chapter reviews some of the data and leading economists showing that it was wrong.

Inequality was seen as an inescapable side-effect of the endless growth model, but its many negative effects were ignored, including the fact that it is destructive of democracy. It allows the few to distort not only the market but also politics. It does not help developing poor economies grow faster, and it promotes economic instability leading to recessions and depressions. Designing to distribute, on the other hand, looks at the economic world as a network of flows (just as ecology looks at the world as a dynamic network of interdependent flows of energy, air and water, nutrients, interdependent systems, etc.). A systems thinker will see the world as “a distributed network whose many nodes, larger and smaller, are interconnected in a web of flows” (p. 148).

This approach must re-examine wealth, how it is owned and distributed, and find ways to establish dynamic flows that benefit everyone, ways such as a wealth tax, maximum and minimum income rules, democratizing of ownership, reexamining property and land ownership laws, low-cost loans, fair intellectual property rules, or land-value taxes as were proposed by economist Henry George. We can also re-examine banking and money-creation which, until now, have largely been monopolies of private, profit making banks that create money as interest-bearing debt. In addition, we can ask why the lion’s share of money or created value should go to “investors” who most like never produce, manage, or even participate in the enterprises in which they invest.

But what determined each group’s respective share of earnings? Economic theory says that it is their relative productivity, but in practice, it has largely turned out to be their relative power. The rise of shareholder capitalism entrenched the culture of shareholder primacy, with the belief that the company’s primary obligation is to maximize returns for those for those who own its shares…. Employees, who turn up for work, day-in and day-out, are essentially cast as outsiders…. Shareholders, meanwhile, who probably never set foot on the company premises, are treated as the ultimate insiders. (p. 160)

This chapter cites many interesting examples of communities that have devised alternative ways of dealing with income, trade, and distribution, using such innovations as block-chain currencies to track and distribute value widely. Or by using “time-care credits” in which people accumulate credits for helping a community’s more needy elderly residents, thereby combining networking care with income distribution and community solidarity. Not for profit enterprises are spreading; community interest companies and cooperatives are thriving. In addition, the super profitable digital companies are being reexamined with an eye to how we can create a truly distributive knowledge commons for the world. Every person should have a stake in owning the robot technology (p. 164).

Principle Six: Create to Regenerate—from ‘growth will clean it up again’ to regenerative by design.

This chapter emphasizes so rightly that we should not be thinking only in terms of not exceeding environmental limits, for the world that we live in here and now, the one we have created from two centuries of industrial expansion, is a mess. Simply shifting around the present system does not solve any real problems. Individual countries may claim progress in reducing greenhouse gasses, but this is an illusion. They need to think in truly regenerative terms.

Raworth states that: “Recently complied international data reveal that when a nation’s global material footprint is taken into account—by adding up all of the biomass, fossil fuels, metal ores and construction minerals used worldwide to create the products that the country imports—then the success story seems to evaporate” (p. 179). Instead, we need paradigm-shift. A new, circular, regenerative paradigm will give rise to new goals.

All this requires that we reexamine both the role of the state and the idea of the commons. The famous image of the “tragedy of the commons” has been discredited. We can share the commons in multiple efficient and complementary ways, just as we can reexamine intellectual property rights laws with the goal of enhancing the knowledge commons. Business needs to move from a “do nothing” and “do what pays” orientation to a “do your fair share, do no harm,” and, ultimately, “be generous” model, helping us achieve a “circular economy” in which we restore (repair, reuse, refurbish, recycle) and regenerate (capturing value at each stage of decomposition) all the while using renewable materials and energy in harmony with ecosystem limits and minimizing lost matter and heat (p. 188).

Contemporary capitalism is still focused on attitudes that are “the opposite of generous.” They focus only on creating financial value “for just one interest group: shareholders” (p. 193). On the other hand, we have the Open Source Circular Economy (OSCE) movement striving the “unleash the full potential of circular manufacturing.” Such movements emphasize “modularity (making products with parts that are easy to assemble, disassemble, and rearrange); open standards (designing components to a common shape and size); open source (full information on the composition of materials and how to use them); and open data (documenting the location and availability of materials). In all this, transparency is the key” (pp. 195-96). We need a world of transparency in which human beings work together to create a decent planetary home for all. Such common practices will be the key to any economy that can truly regenerate and restore.

“The business of business is to contribute to a thriving world” (p. 198).  We need to understand that the economic system itself is causing the environmental crisis. “The global financial system as we know it needs to shrink, simplify, diversify and deleverage” (p. 199). And in all this, the state must act as a partner within the same new paradigm and its goals. Much of traditional economics claimed that the state must get out of the way of the “free market,” but now we know there is no such thing as a free market. Various regulations or incentives in the law give rise to a variety of results. The state must work with businesses, the market, the commons, and the citizens to establish a planetary network that regenerates and restores, inclusive of the common good of everyone.

Principle Seven: Be Agnostic About Growth—from growth addicted to growth agnostic.

This chapter involves an extended critique of the growth dogma (a critique that was also expressed in less sustained fashion in each of the previous chapters).  We must be agnostic about growth not only because the growth dogma is destroying the planet, creating ever greater inequality and ruining democracy everywhere on Earth.  But this does not mean that growth in certain sectors cannot be helpful, nor does it mean that we cannot redefine growth to include a wider definition of well-being and “progress” than traditional economics embodied.

But growth must clearly “decouple” from “resource use” as well as pollution and other damaging “externalities” of classical economics.  Raworth calls this “sufficient absolute decoupling” in which our planetary system moves back within the nine planetary boundaries established by climate scientists. The rapid growth of the past two centuries was largely due to the supply of cheap fossil fuels (coal, oil, natural gas). Even though we live on a planet daily flooded with clean solar, wind and water energy, the global economy is directly dependent on fossil fuels.  We must decouple the economy from this dependence. “Growth” can no longer mean using fossil fuels for producing more and more products—endless manufacturing, globalized transport, and ever-growing waste.

At present, “GDP brings both global market power and global military power.”  But we need “innovative thinkers in international relations to turn their attention to strategies that could help usher in a future of growth-agnostic global governance” (p. 238). The world, like economists, needs something to aspire to. Public relations, instead of focusing on getting people to by ever more of things they do not need, or on targeting children’s immature needs and wants, should be helping to nurture what is best in us toward a vision of a new human community.

The New Economics Foundation, for example, summarizes findings that are proven to promote human well-being: “connecting to people around us, being active in our bodies, taking notice of the world, learning new skills, and giving to others” (p. 240). In her conclusion, Kate Raworth declares: “Ours is the first generation to deeply understand the damage we have been doing to our planetary household, and probably the last generation with the chance to do something transformative about it. . . . Once we accept the economy’s inherent complexity, we can shape its ever-evolving dynamics through smart stewardship” (pp. 243-44).  We can frame a new story. Just as Gandhi said, “be the change you want to see in the world,” we also need to draw the change we want to see in the world. Frame things differently. Change our paradigm and our corresponding goals.

Part Two

I think there is an important first point to be made. While I appreciate the fact that this is a book written with a positive vision and affirmative spirit (“we can do it”), the book does minimize the severity of the climate collapse that is happening all around us. Previous books that I have reviewed on climate crisis (all found on my blog at www.oneworldrenaissance.com) focus on a severe crisis happening now.

For example, James Gustave Speth says we need a “bridge at the edge of the world” (because we are literally teetering on a cliff of disaster). Richard Heinberg says, not that we should be “agnostic” about growth, but that growth is effectively over and we need to deal with this fact immediately. David Wallace-Wells describes our rapidly approaching “uninhabitable Earth.” Bill McKibben sees our civilization at the point of “faltering.” Joseph Romm describes a rapidly approaching world significantly inhospitable to human life.

But my second point is the really fundamental one. As with the other thinkers cited in the preceding paragraph, Kate Raworth has made a great step forward with the Doughnut Model of economics, but she has not really followed Buckminster Fuller’s advice to change the model. Changing the model in economic textbooks is not going to succeed unless we concomitantly change the global political-economic system in fundamental ways that go far beyond these textbooks and beyond economics.

She declares that we have ignored the emerging science of systems thinking and systems analysis. But perhaps sitting in her cushy first world setting in the UK, surrounded by similarly caring well-educated, comfortable colleagues, distracts from the fact that the present world system is designed to defeat Doughnut Economics. This design of the global political system has put us in perpetual danger of nuclear holocaust wiping out civilization for the past 70 years. Here and there Raworth hints at this truth (of imperialism, nation-state warring, the secrecy and the corruption that this system breeds). However, she fails to recognize that these facts require changing the global political system along with its economic system.

Above we saw her state that, “Beyond merely rewriting macroeconomic models, however, this lock-in highlights the need for innovative thinkers in international relations to turn their attention to strategies that could help to usher in a future of growth-agnostic global governance” (p. 238).  International relations? Relations between militarized sovereign states recognizing no effective law above themselves? Not uniting humanity in a regenerative and restorative democratic world system?

Apparently, we are supposed to “get savvy about systems” but not that savvy. Buckminster Fuller, whom she quotes as saying we need a new model rather than fighting the old one, advocated a truly new model: “The synergistic effectiveness of a world-around integrated industrial process is inherently vastly greater than the confined synergistic effect of sovereignly operating separate systems. Ergo, only complete world desovereignization can permit the realization of an all humanity high standard support” (1972, p. 88).

Fuller advocated democratic world government. The world system goes way beyond a global economic system predicated on growth of GDP.  She appears to recognize this and says that we must integrate the market, the state, the commons, and the household as a regenerative and restorative community. However, this appears to mean that we can retain some 193 mostly militarized planetary nation-states with absolute territorial boundaries. Clearly we need more than “creative international relations” if we want to survive on this planet. This book is systematically (and I think intentionally) vague on this issue so as not to offend the powers that be and so as to appear affirmative and positive in its outlook.

She points out that we “nurture human nature” for better or worse through the kind of systems we create. She apparently wants to nurture human nature while retaining the system of militarized sovereign nation-states that overtly attempts to “nurture” their citizens into nationalism, patriotism, militarism, national competitive spirit, national security regimes, borders blocking immigration, and an “us versus them” orientation. It should be obvious that if we join the world join together politically, then human nature will be vastly more “nurtured” toward the common good of the entire planet than if they remain fragmented in waring, militarized nation-states.

In systems theory, the parts influence the character of the whole and the whole influences the behavior and character of the parts. A politically united Earth (the whole) would change the thinking and behavior of the parts sufficiently for Doughnut Economics to have a chance to save the planet. On the other hand, today’s world system is structured for economic and military rivalry among nations, economic rivalry among corporations, secrecy, manipulation and propaganda among rival religious and national ideologies, and entertainment-style non-news among gigantic profit-making news corporations, much of which is designed to cover up the planetary crisis and promote the existence and success of the profit-making, winner take all capitalist world system.

The alternative holistic and integrative economic thinking that the world needs so badly cannot succeed unless we take systems science seriously enough to realize that we must necessarily change the entire world system. Capitalism and the fragmented system of territorially bound, militarized nation-states are internally linked. You cannot change the one unless you also transform the other.

Despite the many fascinating examples that Raworth gives of groups and entrepreneurs thinking in these new terms, the immense trajectory of the present omnicidal world system appears unstoppable. It cannot be converted to a regenerative, non-growth, distributive, worldwide system through attempting to reform thought and practice within the framework of the present world system.

 The only thing that makes possible a total transformation of our planet from unsustainable disaster to truly creative and life-affirming sustainability is by uniting humanity under the Constitution for the Federation of Earth.  The combined trajectory of the global momentum is too immense to allow the “butterfly” of a transformed economic model to emerge from the “caterpillar” of destruction now engulfing the Earth.

She claims that the new system must be based on “transparency,” while the current world system is directly based on massive secrecy. However, the Earth Constitution puts transparency first.  It provides the necessary global medium for open standards, open source, and open data. It unites all humanity within a common legal framework dedicated to fostering the planetary common good of peace, reasonable equality, and sustainability.

It does not imagine (as Raworth appears to do) that somehow human beings will become suddenly like herself (caring, humanistic, generous, loving).  She correctly says we must “nurture human nature,” but ignores that the present system is designed to bring out the worst in human nature: competition, hate, fear, nationalism, exploitation, enforced inequality, corruption, endless weapons, secrecy, and the criminal malfeasance that secrecy engenders. It is the logic of the system, of the present world system, that brings out these horrible consequences. If we truly change the system, entirely different consequences will follow.

Ratifying the Earth Constitution is the only practical means that can make possible a Doughnut Economics orientation practiced everywhere on Earth with transparency, fairness, openness, and solidarity. As long as the present fragmented and fragmenting world system predominates, the wonderful vision of people like Raworth will remain unfulfilled.  She cites concerned financial experts who declare that “the global financial system as we know it needs to shrink, simplify, diversify and deleverage” (p. 199).

But that is exactly what Articles 4, 8, and many other articles of the Earth Constitution do for the planet.  What else is going provide this unity and vision for the planet when the present privatized global financial system is bigger and independent of any nation from Wall Street to Hong Kong to London?  The Earth Financial System under the Constitution establishes the simplicity of global public banking directed to humanity’s common good of sustainability, reasonable equality, and world peace.  It finances with minimal cost (without profit-making interest) all creative projects for a better, regenerative world, requiring no collateral or prior wealth to finance these projects.

There is no need to attract private investors to finance worthwhile regenerative projects. The “global financial system” now belongs to the people of Earth, not private, profit obsessed entrepreneurs who are often simply criminals dressed in suit and tie. The present global financial system attracts and encourages such people because it is structured for private monetary profit.  The one thing that could bring Doughnut Economics truly and rapidly to our world, Kate Raworth ignores.

She argues that state taxes and regulations must phase in the “use of life-friendly chemistry only, along with net-zero and net-positive industrial standards” (p. 202). How could this possibly be done without enforceable, democratic world laws? Twenty-five percent of the world’s nations today are not democracies, and an additional thirty-five percent protect only some of their citizens’ human rights. Even so-called “democratic” states are controlled by special interests.  In the USA, this is clearly the case, with an industrial-military-academic complex hell bent to dominate the world through wars, subversion, and economic exploitation. The world’s most powerful nation is an oligarchy run by special interests. Doughnut Economics does not have a chance unless we can unite the world within global democracy.

How is “the state” going to support a regenerative and restorative financial system and system of laws?  The sovereign nation-state cannot. If imperialism and empire were not the role of the USA, it will be some other power-hungry, oligarchic empire. “Sovereign” states can never represent the people of Earth, but only their own portion of the world’s citizens.  Only the Earth Constitution can give us a world where all nations are working for a living, equitable, and sustainable global economy. If we want a future for humanity on this planet, let us take our Doughnut Economics to the World Parliament!

Brief Bibliography

 Constitution for the Federation of Earth. Found on-line at www.earth-constitution.org.  Found at many website and in many editions, e.g. Constitution for the Federation of Earth: With an Introduction by Glen T. Martin. Appomattox, VA: Institute for Economic Democracy Press.

Daly, Herman E. (2014). From Uneconomic Growth to a Steady-State Economy. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Fuller, Buckminster (1972). Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth. New York: Pocket Books.

Heinberg, Richard (2011). The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality. Gabriola Island, BC: New Society Publishers.

Martin, Glen T. (2018). Global Democracy and Human Self-Transcendence: The Power of the Future for Planetary Transformation. London: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

McKibben, Bill (2019). Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out? New York: Henry Holt Publisher.

 Raworth, Kate (2017). Doughnut Economics: Seven Ways to Think Like a 21st Century Economist. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Romm, Joseph (2018). Climate Change: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Speth, James Gustave (2008). The Bridge at the Edge of the World. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Wallace-Wells, David (2019). The Uninhabitable Earth: Life After Warming. Crown Publishing Group.