Thousands protest canalisation of the Indus and coporate farming

Saturday 29 March 2025, by Farooq Tariq


Thousands of farmers gathered in Bhit Shah, Sindh, to protest against corporate farming initiatives and the proposed canal projects on river Indus. The conference, organized by the Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee with the support of three other members of PKRC from Sindh, saw participation from farmers’ leaders across Sindh, Punjab, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Balochistan, and the Saraiki region.

The attendees rejected the construction of six new canals and corporate farming projects, demanding an immediate halt to new canals and dams and the restoration of the Indus River’s natural flow.

The conference passed several resolutions, declaring the “Green Pakistan” initiative anti-farmer and opposing agricultural taxes, which were labelled as an attack on farmers. Leaders criticized the government for succumbing to IMF demands, accusing it of selling the country’s resources and compromising national integrity.

The 26th Constitutional Amendment and the PECA Amendment Bill were also rejected terming them as a move to silence dissenting voices. Leaders also rejected ARSA Act describing it as a move to sell Sindh’s water to foreign companies.

Speakers at the conference, including Awami Tehreek President Advocate Wassand Thari and Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee General Secretary Farooq Tariq, condemned the government’s policies, alleging that the “Green Pakistan” and “Agricultural Revolution” slogans were being used to displace farmers and sell their lands to foreign corporations. They accused the PPP of betraying Sindh by supporting these projects and criticized the current government for turning Sindh into a desert.

The conference also rejected the Cholistan and Greater Thal Canal projects, demanding that Sindh receive its rightful share of water. Leaders called for an international tribunal to investigate water theft from Sindh and compensate the province for its losses. They also demanded the return of lands seized for projects like Bahria Town, DHA City, and others, and the prosecution of those involved in these land grabs.

Cultural groups like the Sindhiyani Cultural Group performed at the conference, and national artists sang protest songs against the exploitation of the Indus River.
Key resolutions and demands:

 1.⁠ ⁠Rejection of Corporate Farming and New Canals:

The conference rejected corporate farming and the construction of six new canals, demanding an immediate halt to these projects.

 2.⁠ ⁠Restoration of Indus River’s Flow:

The conference called for the restoration of the Indus River’s natural flow and an end to the construction of new dams and canals.

 3.⁠ ⁠Land Reforms:

The conference demanded that over 4.8 million acres of land be distributed to landless farmers instead of being given to foreign investors or military-affiliated companies.

 4.⁠ ⁠Abolition of Anti-Farmer Laws:

The conference called for the repeal of the IRSA Act and PECA Act, labeling them as negative laws. [1]

 5.⁠ ⁠Compensation for Flood Victims:

The conference demanded immediate compensation of at least one million rupees for the 2022 flood victims.

 6.⁠ ⁠Environmental Justice:

The conference called for climate finance from wealthy nations to address the damage caused by climate change.

 7.⁠ ⁠Tax Reforms:

The conference demanded the imposition of a super tax on the wealthy and a reduction in direct taxes to 10%.

 8.⁠ ⁠Legal Rights for the Indus River:

Inspired by Canada’s Magpie River, the conference demanded that the Indus River be granted legal rights to flow freely and be protected from exploitation.

 9.⁠ ⁠Agricultural Support:

The conference called for affordable agricultural loans, modern machinery, and fair prices for crops like wheat, sugarcane, and rice.

10.⁠ ⁠Protection of Cultural Sites:

The conference demanded an end to the encroachment on Sindh’s historical and cultural sites, including Keenjhar Lake, Karonjhar Hills, and Manchar Lake.

The conference concluded with a call for unity among farmers across the country to resist corporate exploitation and protect their lands, water, and resources.

[2]

ESSF 17 Feb

Attached documentsthousands-protest-canalisation-of-the-indus-and-coporate_a8920.pdf (PDF - 899.9 KiB)
Extraction PDF [->article8920]

Footnotes


[1] https://pakistancode.gov.pk/pdffiles/administratorddefa532cd235246ebbdb8439d847510.pdf.


[2] Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee (PKRC)


Farooq Tariq
Farooq Tariq is General Secretary, Pakistan Kissan Rabita Committee.
and President Haqooq Khalq Party. He previously played leading roles Awami Workers’ Party and before that of Labour Party Pakistan.


International Viewpoint is published under the responsibility of the Bureau of the Fourth International. Signed articles do not necessarily reflect editorial policy. Articles can be reprinted with acknowledgement, and a live link if possible.

 

Losing forest carbon stocks could put climate goals out of reach

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBlueskyMessageWhatsAppEmail

In the past, intact forests absorbed 7.8 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually – about a fifth of all human emissions – but their carbon storage is increasingly at risk from climate change and human activities such as deforestation. A new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) shows that failing to account for the potentially decreasing ability of forests to absorb CO₂ could make reaching the Paris agreement targets significantly harder, if not impossible, and much more costly.

“Delaying action leads to disproportionately higher costs,” explains Michael Windisch, lead author of the study published in Nature Communications and PIK guest scientist. “Right now, our climate strategies bet on forests not only remaining intact, but even expanding,” Windisch says. “However, with escalating wildfires like in California, and continued deforestation in the Amazon, that’s a gamble. Climate change itself puts forests’ immense carbon stores at risk.” According to the study, postponing action to reduce emissions and to protect and monitor forests could jeopardise climate targets. “We must act immediately to safeguard the carbon stored in forests,” Windisch emphasises. “Otherwise, compensating for potential forest carbon losses through steeper emissions cuts in key emission sectors like energy, industry and transport will become increasingly expensive and possibly unattainable.”

Considering forest carbon losses in climate mitigation pathways

The study analysed how climate targets can be met despite forests’ reduced capacity for storing carbon. The authors used REMIND-MAgPIE - an integrated global land and water use modelling as well as an energy-economy modelling system - together with the global vegetation model LPJmL to evaluate how natural disturbances and human impacts on forests influence the feasibility of achieving climate mitigation goals. The research team compared a foresighted policy response with various delayed and myopic approaches.

Regardless of the assessed disturbance rate, the study revealed just how steep the price of inaction can be. Even a five-year delay in responding to forest carbon loss would lead to a roughly two-fold increase in both the stringency and overall cost of measures to offset that lost carbon, the authors find. Emission cuts in the energy sector, for instance, would have to be ramped up considerably, supported by a near-doubling of negative emissions capacity – which itself demands a corresponding expansion in land use. Ultimately, these extra efforts drive up overall costs, and result in GDP setbacks that are approximately double those of immediate action.

The study also highlights that current models may be overly optimistic about future forest carbon storage because they ignore disturbances, overvalue CO₂ fertilisation and underestimate deforestation. To mitigate climate impacts, safeguard carbon stocks and prevent escalating costs, the scientists recommend immediate action. “Forests are not an infinite resource, but need careful monitoring to detect reductions in carbon sinks early on,” explains Florian Humpenöder, PIK scientist and study author. He also stresses the need for stronger forest conservation, and faster decarbonisation. Forests may absorb less CO2 than expected, making realistic forest carbon projections essential.

“Staying below critical warming thresholds requires more than just hoping forests will remain intact,” concludes Alexander Popp, head of PIK’s Land Use Transition lab and author of the study. “Alongside protecting forests, it is essential to promote sustainable land use practices– not only to preserve biodiversity but also to avoid drastic economic consequences and to secure our climate future.”

Article: Michael G. Windisch, Florian Humpenöder, Leon Merfort, Nico Bauer, Gunnar Luderer, Jan Philipp Dietrich, Jens Heinke, Christoph Müller, Gabriel Abrahao, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Alexander Popp (2025): Hedging our bet on forest permanence for the economic viability of climate targets. Nature Communications. DOI: [10.1038/s41467-025-57607-x]

Weblink to the article, once published:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57607-x

---

Journal

Nature Communications

DOI

10.1038/s41467-025-57607-x 

Method of Research

Computational simulation/modeling

Article Title

Hedging our bet on forest permanence for the economic viability of climate targets.

Article Publication Date

27-Mar-2025

 

Losing forest carbon stocks could put climate goals out of reach

Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK)

Facebook

XLinkedInWeChatBluesky
Email

In the past, intact forests absorbed 7.8 billion tonnes of CO₂ annually – about a fifth of all human emissions – but their carbon storage is increasingly at risk from climate change and human activities such as deforestation. A new study from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (PIK) shows that failing to account for the potentially decreasing ability of forests to absorb CO₂ could make reaching the Paris agreement targets significantly harder, if not impossible, and much more costly.

“Delaying action leads to disproportionately higher costs,” explains Michael Windisch, lead author of the study published in Nature Communications and PIK guest scientist. “Right now, our climate strategies bet on forests not only remaining intact, but even expanding,” Windisch says. “However, with escalating wildfires like in California, and continued deforestation in the Amazon, that’s a gamble. Climate change itself puts forests’ immense carbon stores at risk.” According to the study, postponing action to reduce emissions and to protect and monitor forests could jeopardise climate targets. “We must act immediately to safeguard the carbon stored in forests,” Windisch emphasises. “Otherwise, compensating for potential forest carbon losses through steeper emissions cuts in key emission sectors like energy, industry and transport will become increasingly expensive and possibly unattainable.”

Considering forest carbon losses in climate mitigation pathways

The study analysed how climate targets can be met despite forests’ reduced capacity for storing carbon. The authors used REMIND-MAgPIE - an integrated global land and water use modelling as well as an energy-economy modelling system - together with the global vegetation model LPJmL to evaluate how natural disturbances and human impacts on forests influence the feasibility of achieving climate mitigation goals. The research team compared a foresighted policy response with various delayed and myopic approaches.

Regardless of the assessed disturbance rate, the study revealed just how steep the price of inaction can be. Even a five-year delay in responding to forest carbon loss would lead to a roughly two-fold increase in both the stringency and overall cost of measures to offset that lost carbon, the authors find. Emission cuts in the energy sector, for instance, would have to be ramped up considerably, supported by a near-doubling of negative emissions capacity – which itself demands a corresponding expansion in land use. Ultimately, these extra efforts drive up overall costs, and result in GDP setbacks that are approximately double those of immediate action.

The study also highlights that current models may be overly optimistic about future forest carbon storage because they ignore disturbances, overvalue CO₂ fertilisation and underestimate deforestation. To mitigate climate impacts, safeguard carbon stocks and prevent escalating costs, the scientists recommend immediate action. “Forests are not an infinite resource, but need careful monitoring to detect reductions in carbon sinks early on,” explains Florian Humpenöder, PIK scientist and study author. He also stresses the need for stronger forest conservation, and faster decarbonisation. Forests may absorb less CO2 than expected, making realistic forest carbon projections essential.

“Staying below critical warming thresholds requires more than just hoping forests will remain intact,” concludes Alexander Popp, head of PIK’s Land Use Transition lab and author of the study. “Alongside protecting forests, it is essential to promote sustainable land use practices– not only to preserve biodiversity but also to avoid drastic economic consequences and to secure our climate future.”

Article: Michael G. Windisch, Florian Humpenöder, Leon Merfort, Nico Bauer, Gunnar Luderer, Jan Philipp Dietrich, Jens Heinke, Christoph Müller, Gabriel Abrahao, Hermann Lotze-Campen, Alexander Popp (2025): Hedging our bet on forest permanence for the economic viability of climate targets. Nature Communications. DOI: [10.1038/s41467-025-57607-x]

Weblink to the article, once published:  https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-57607-x

---

Journal

Nature Communications

DOI

10.1038/s41467-025-57607-x 

Method of Research

Computational simulation/modeling

Article Title

Hedging our bet on forest permanence for the economic viability of climate targets.

Article Publication Date

27-Mar-2025

Capitalism’s Frankenstein Climate

Robert Hunziker

 February 21, 2025
Facebook

TwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Image by Mika Baumeister.

“Climate change is the monster we made. We are Victor Frankenstein.” (Climate Change: The Monster of our own Making, WashU, October 16, 2017, Michael Wysession, Professor Earth & Planetary Sciences, Washington University)

Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was inspired by the extreme weather of 1816, also known as the “Year Without a Summer.”

Today’s climate change is a product of capitalism. It’s the unprecedented version and society’s stuck with it. It is here; it’s now; it’s not going away. It’s the birth child of capitalism. Born 200 years ago, it’s now in late adolescence, about to enter early adulthood, unlike anything seen throughout 2.5 million years of human history

This spooky version of climate change overpowers its own creator, hitting capitalism’s pocketbook hard and harder, year by year. Climate change in years past never moved the needle on costly homeowner insurance or abandonment of insurance coverage. But that’s changed; now it’s a money grubber.

The evidence of climate destructiveness never witnessed before is found everywhere. Headlines spell out the truth: (a) The Mounting Cost of Climate for Insurers, S&P Global, Jan. 13, 2025 (b) How the Climate Crisis Became an Insurance Crisis, The New York Times, Oct. 19, 2024 (c) According to NOAA, in 2024, the US had 27 climate disasters each exceeding $1 billion for total costs of $183 billion, the costliest year on record for climate change-related damages. This is the Frankenstein climate in full living color.

The genesis of climate change is easily identified. A study of the period 1750 to 2017 by Colorado-based Climate Accountability Institute (est. 2011) discovered that 70% of greenhouse gases derived from just 103 fossil fuel companies. And since 1965, 20 of those 103 companies now contribute 1/3 of all emissions, e.g., Chevron and ExxonMobil. (Source: Why a Carbon-free World Isn’t Possible with Capitalism, Broadview, April/2024).

It’s scientific fact that too much atmospheric CO2 emitted from burning gasoline in your car’s engine creates too much planetary heat for survival, eventually. An example of what can happen with excessive levels of CO2 is found in the atmosphere of Earth’s sister planet Venus at 96% CO2. This greenhouse effect makes Venus roughly 700°F (390°C) hotter than it would be without the greenhouse effect. Your spaceship will melt before landing on its hot surface.

The causal relationship between CO2 and climate change is indisputable: “Based on the published evidence IPCC attributes temperature increase to the total increase in radiative forcing and asserts that this is primarily caused by the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO₂ during the last 200 years” (Adolf Stips, et al, On the Causal Structure Between CO2 and Global Temperature, Scientific Reports, Nature, 2016)

The concentration of high-end capitalism’s influence on climate change has been exposed in a study by Stockholm Environment Institute (est. 1989) finding that of 8 billion people, the wealthiest 1% contribute the same share of yearly emissions as the lower 2/3rds. Yet, “we’re so used to capitalism that we don’t necessarily even know it when we see it,’ says Emily Huddart Kennedy, a sociologist at the University of British Columbia,” Ibid. People need to start opening their eyes to who’s responsible, who should pay.

Consequences

If you create it, you own it and must care for it. Capitalism’s Frankenstein, which becomes more and more costly year by year, is not going away. If anything, with oil companies publicly stating intentions to crank up fossil fuels big time, consumers should brace themselves to pay an arm and a leg for property insurance. It’ll assuredly be hitting new all-time highs. This could crush the backbone of capitalism.

Homeowner Insurance Imbroglio

Property insurance is a big question mark: When will American homeowners wake up to reality and rebel against the abject, dishonorable failure of politicians to address the massively destructive climate system that’s starting to crush home values? It’s happening everywhere, to wit:

Move Over, Florida, Retirees are Making New Plans as Climate Change Raises Costs, Barron’s, Feb. 13, 2025: “Beth McCormack recently called off her search to buy a home in Florida. The Chicago attorney decided that prices were too high, especially given the expensive homeowner’s insurance she would need to buy.”

Climate Change to Obliterate $1.5 Trillion in U.S. Home Values, Study Finds, CBS News, Feb. 4, 2025

Real Estate Confronts Climate Change, American Meteorological Society, Jan. 13, 2025

How Climate Change Could Upend the American Dream, ProPublica, Feb. 3, 2025

Zillow Will Begin Showing Climate Risks for US Properties in Early 2025, Reddit, Jan. 2025

More Americans, Risking Ruin, Drop Their Home Insurance, The New York Times, Jan. 16, 2025

California Isn’t the Only Place Where Insurers are Dropping Homeowners, The Washington Post, January 15, 2025.

Map Shows Where House Prices Risk Falling Due to Climate Change, Newsweek, Feb. 10, 2025

Why Renters Suffer After Hurricanes, Floods, and Wildfires, NPR, July 31, 2024

That Giant Sucking Sound? It’s Climate Change Devouring Your Home’s Value, The New York Times, Feb. 3, 2025

Climate Change Should Make You Rethink Homeownership, The New York Times, Feb. 9, 2025

How to stop bleeding headlines about home values clobbered by climate change: Stop fossil fuels. Start renewables. And throw billions of dollars at worldwide coordination to remove billions of tons of CO2 from the atmosphere, much bigger than the WWII Marshall Plan, e.g., New Report States 7-9 Billion Tonnes of CO2 Must be Sustainably Removed Per Year to Hit Climate Targets, University of Oxford, June 5, 2024. It can be done, but removing human-generated CO2 from the atmosphere is a very costly challenging uphill battle. Carbon Capture Has a Long History of Failure, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, September 1, 2022.

According to the International Energy Agency: Direct air capture (DAC) technologies extract CO₂ directly from the atmosphere for CO₂ storage or utilization. Twenty-seven DAC plants have been commissioned to date worldwide, capturing almost 0.01 Mt CO₂/year. That’s a ridiculously meager amount: “We’ve maybe at most removed a few seconds of the world’s emissions after spending billions and billions of dollars which would have been better spent elsewhere.” (Direct Air Capture Solution Faces Criticism, Steep Challenges, Mongabay, Dec. 13, 2024).

‘Citzens United’ for the Environment

Since capitalism fathered today’s version of radical climate change, it should treat it as its own. This justifies a universal movement for Environmental Personhood. After all, corporations have been declared ‘people’ in Citizens United the US Supreme Court ruled that corporations are “persons,” aka: the Doctrine of Corporate Personhood entitled to constitutional protections.

Similarly, non-human entities can be “persons” under both Canadian and international law with certain rights and obligations. This is something that indigenous people have followed for centuries.

“In February 2021, the world was introduced to Mutehekau Shipu — also known as the Magpie River — when the people of Ekuanitshit, Quebec and the regional municipality made a joint declaration granting the river legal personhood and rights. The declaration carries broad implications for the fight to protect nature across Canada and around the world.” (I am Mutehekau Shipu: A River’s Journey to Personhood in Eastern Quebec, Canadiangeographic, April 8, 2022)

The river now has its own rights, modelled after the inalienable rights a human person has, including the right to flow and exist. Crucially, it also has the right to legal representation, allowing human lawyers to advocate on its behalf in the courts. Environmental Personhood, like Corporate Personhood, is one way to bring nature into the value system of capitalism, by respecting nature and concern for the health of the planet with legal stranding the same as corporations enjoy. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. Who knows where it might lead.

Meanwhile, faster than ever, climate change festers in the background, roughing-up the American Dream of homeownership. It’s gonna get worse, first Trump and now, from Europe’s biggest economy: Germany Set to Scale Down Climate Ambitions, Bloomberg Green Daily, Feb. 17, 2025.

Robert Hunziker lives in Los Angeles and can be reached at rlhunziker@gmail.com

Action on Climate Change May Look Different Than You Expect

Vijay Kolinjivadi - Aaron Vansintjan

FEBRUARY 21, 2025
Facebook

TwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Image by Mika Baumeister.

Talk a walk through the Los Angeles’ Arts District, and you’ll learn that there’s nothing contradictory about trying to save the world and living a luxury lifestyle. Start your tour with the Los Angeles Cleantech Incubator (LACI), which proudly displays a banner stating: “the future begins here.”

LACI is “a non- profit organization creating an inclusive green economy” and run “by entrepreneurs, for entrepreneurs.” They are also supported by a “community” that includes not only the City of Los Angeles but also BMW, Wells Fargo, United Airlines, and JPMorgan Chase.

Across the street, there’s Urth Caffé, a high-end chain offering 100 percent organic and locally sourced goods. Nearby art galleries and boutiques sell handcrafted natural products and upcycled accoutrements.

The Arts District offers the dream of the “sustainability class”—a growing class of do-gooders, with disposable income and high education, for whom green consumption and innovation go hand in hand. But something doesn’t feel right. Can they really save the world one locally sourced ayurvedic turmeric latté or EV charging station at a time?

In fact, luxury and sustainability are fundamentally at odds. The richest 10%— including anyone who earns over $120,000 per year—are responsible for 50% of the world’s carbon emissions. This doesn’t even factor in their investments, which include stocks in some of the world’s most polluting industries. Not only that, but people who have green lifestyles tend to have a higher environmental footprint, since it is income, not attitudes, that is the biggest predictor for carbon emissions.

The sustainability class isn’t just about lifestyle choices. It’s also about innovation: being at the edge of the curve, advancing the newest green tech. A quick scan of the start-ups and companies LACI supports will give you an idea of what “innovation” looks like, with quirky names like Dyrt, Planette, Emissionless, Shoponomik, and Galora—“the airbnb for homegrown foods”. LACI promises sustainability that is edgy, smart, and, most importantly, profitable. The products these companies offer, like EV vehicles, green cryptocurrencies, and household waste reduction apps, are rarely in reach of the world’s poorest 50%, who together emit just 11% of the world’s carbon emissions. But perhaps that was never the intent anyway.

Whether it’s about lifestyle or tech innovation, the solutions on offer in the Arts District are essentially the same. At their heart, they promise one idea: that you can keep living your fancy lifestyle as long as you invest in the right products and services. Put another way, those with money can be sustainable, while it remains out of reach of ordinary people.

In fact, the future on offer by the sustainability class is not sustainable at all. Or, rather, it only promises to sustain the present order of things – which all indicators suggest is hurling towards ecological breakdown, with unthinkable consequences for life as we know it.

Lucky for us, a different kind of environmentalism is not far away. Just across the river from the Arts District is the predominantly Latino neighborhood of Boyle Heights. At first sight, it might not look very sustainable. The area is cluttered with car garages, cheap diners, dollar stores, and messy backyard gardens.

But here, residents, led by the Union de Vecinos (union of neighbors), have been building a very different vision of sustainability, which is ultimately more inclusive. They are less interested in bike lanes, the new metro line, or EV charging stations. They have, for decades, focused their efforts on fighting for social housing, tenant rights, clean water, and against police profiling. What brings these disparate campaigns together, explains organizer Leo Vilchis Sr., is “to make the social life here flourish.” For instance, by screening films, painting murals, throwing block parties, and helping struggling renters, they bring people together and teach the community how to organize.

While this may not look like environmentalism at first, it ends up making big wins that cut across class divides. For example, residents from the neighboring city of Maywood asked for the support of the Union de Vecinos in fighting a private water companies who provided contaminated water to residents. They began to build connections between residents and ran their own candidates, increasing community participation in elections 10 times. Eventually, they won control over city council and made the water companies public.

Or, to take a smaller example: organizers of the Union de Vecinos told us that they aren’t against planting more trees to increase shade, but, when they do, they also install benches so that elderly can use them, also slowing down traffic and increasing connections in the community.

In each situation, the Union de Vecinos starts by building relationships, then organizing for what people need in their daily lives. Vilchis explains that environmentalism follows from community power: “We want to support each other— convivir (conviviality, living together) … create community. When we develop community relations, we will inevitably be involved in politics, sociology, and ecology.”

Mike Davis, one of Los Angeles’ most famous historians, once said that “the cornerstone of the low-carbon city, far more than any particular design or technology, is the priority given to public affluence over private wealth.” Protecting neighborhoods from being sold to the highest bidder—like Union de Vecinos does—is environmentalism. Organizing renters to fight nebulous real estate conglomerates is climate action. Organizing a workplace, taking over city council, and putting utilities in public control—these are all ecological.

We don’t need another “AirBnB for homegrown foods.”  What we need is more conviviality that brings people together in our communities and breaks down class divides—what you might call solidarity. The future begins, not in places like the Arts District, but across the river, in Boyle Heights.

Listen to Vijay and Aaron discuss their new book The Sustainability Class on CounterPunch Radio.

Vijay Kolinjivadi is an assistant professor at the School for Community and Public Affairs, Concordia University in Montreal, Canada. He is also a co-editor of the website Uneven Earth. The co-author, with Aaron Vansintjan, of The Sustainability Class (The New Press), he has been published in Al Jazeera, New Internationalist, Truthout, and The Conversation. He lives in Montreal. Aaron Vansintjan is the founder and co-editor of Uneven Earth and co-author of The Future Is Degrowth. He has been published in The Guardian, Truthout, openDemocracy, and The Ecologist. The co-author, with Vijay Kolinjivadi, of The Sustainability Class (The New Press), he lives in Montreal.