I discuss the references in Nature and Power to imperial China, especially its thorough discussion of key issues in China's environmental history, but I point out several limitations. Joachim Radkau says little about the role of local elites in agrarian policy, the impact of central Eurasian conquest on imperial regimes' attitudes toward the land, and the impact of global trade on the empire in the preindustrial age. The second part of the article discusses the important strategic and environmental role of trades in fur, tea, and fish from the seventeenth to twentieth centuries.

Nature and Power is to be understood not only as human power against nature but also as power by nature in the sense of Michel Foucault's biopouvoir (biopower) or Francis Bacon's “Naturae non imperator nisi parendo” (Only by obeying nature may we dominate nature). The fragile human attempts to get power over nature and by nature have a long history, reaching back over millennia until prehistoric times, and much of world history may be explained in part by the unstable relationship between humans and nature. The environmental approach offers a fresh look at global history. The great change that has happened in modern times seems to have been described best by Karl Polanyi (1944) in his Great Transformation, which also refers to a revolution in the human relation to nature. There are primeval symbioses of humans and nature that are the basis of environmental history until modern time. A global history of the environment may be written for a long time along the three great commons of history: woodlands, water, and pasture. The dark tune of Garrett Hardin's (1968) “Tragedy of the Commons,” to be sure, does not dominate the whole melody of environmental history. There is also a lot of historical evidence for Elinor Ostrom's rehabilitation of the commons. But it is better to be cautious with dogmatic theories and sweeping judgments. In modern times Hardin may be right, at least in this or that regard. Ostrom's concept applies only to local, not to global commons. The underlying philosophy of Nature and Power is neither optimism nor pessimism but possibilism.

As is perhaps suggested by its very title, Nature and Power, Joachim Radkau's important contribution to “a global history of the environment” takes as its primary axis of analysis the impact of the exercise of political authority by states on the natural world as constituted by plants, animals, soil, water, and air. The economy makes very few appearances as such. Indeed, the only index reference to things economic is a lone entry for Max Weber's Economy and Society (1922), and even there the economy is not the point of the citation. Yet economic history and environmental history share a great many common concerns, not least of which is what we might broadly call “human welfare.” My comments will explore the possible connections between Radkau's reading of our global environmental past and the broad narratives developed by economic historians to tell their version of global history.

Radkau's ambitious volume illustrates both the opportunities and the risks offered by expansive chronological overviews. His environmental approach to global history confronts some of the challenges common to all such projects, such as the inevitable need for heavy selection. Environmental history adds both special benefits and special costs that are derived from its connection to current politics and from its distinctive subject matter.

This contribution focuses on analyses of specific themes in the encyclopedic Nature and Power, by Joachim Radkau. The analysis is shaped by insights derived from pairing individual chapters from the book with related readings. Examples will include traumatic environmental experiences, early modern colonialism and colonial “ghost acreage,” industrialization and uses of the forest, and manipulations of the hydrologic cycle. The structure of the contribution is explicitly comparative.

To introduce this special issue of Social Science History, my essay sketches the historiographical context out of which grew Joachim Radkau's (2008) book Nature and Power: A Global History of the Environment (German edition 2002 [2000]). It notes a few of the problems that Radkau and other historians face when undertaking a solo synthesis of research mainly at the local and regional levels. In addition to the issues of selecting themes, geographic extent, and temporal depth, questions of purpose have to be considered. Should global environmental history devote itself to producing a usable past for policies of the present and future? Should it, rather, take a prospective approach to reconstruct environmental thinking and practice as it was in a previous time, the better to identify unintended consequences and ambiguities in the historical past and to avoid presentism and anachronism while recognizing that history offers teachable moments? Radkau hews more to the second of these approaches than to the first, and his book provides the focus and a point of departure for the rest of the essays in the issue.

In his book Nature and Power Joachim Radkau seeks to provide a broad vision of environmental history that is not unduly influenced by American perspectives but does justice to the experience of the “Old World.” Given this motive behind his work, how does Radkau deal with the American hemisphere? Examination of the relevant sections of his book shows that Radkau is drawn toward areas of environmental history with scholarly debate, takes conventional positions for the most part on those debates, and follows the literature in emphasizing the United States over the rest of the Americas.