Politics Of Environmentalism Research Paper

1. Environmentalist Concerns

Although their concerns sometimes extend to the ‘built’ or ‘social’ environment, self-styled environmentalists generally seek to protect the ‘natural’ environment. Natural environments are rarely pure, of course, and few places are literally untouched by human hands. Heather dominates the Scottish moors because of past agricultural practices, for example, and eucalyptus the Australian bush because of Aboriginal ‘firestick’ land management. Many sites and species owe their social salience to the resonance they have with human history and heritage, symbolisms, and meanings. Thus, it is apt to say (more anthropo- centrically than some ‘deep ecologists’ would prefer) that political concern is indeed with ‘our’ environment (Goodin 1992, Chap. 2).

Some of the interests which environmentalists have in view are similarly anthropocentric. Overpopulation (Ehrlich 1968), maldistribution (Brandt 1980), and resource depletion threaten to starve us: Malthus’ (1803) old prophecy has acquired new urgency through modern computer modeling (Meadows et al. 1972, Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State. 1980). Pollution threatens to poison us and technology to overwhelm us (Commoner 1971). Greenhouse gases threaten global warming, melting the polar ice caps, and CFCs threaten the ozone layer that protects us from the sun’s ultraviolet rays (McKibben 1989). To nuclear power greens say, ‘No thanks!’, in part because they see it as unnecessary (like ‘cutting butter with a chain saw’), in part because of risks of radioactive leaks from operating plants (such as at Chernobyl) or waste storage facilities, and in part because of fears of diversion of nuclear materials to bomb-building (Goodin 1982, Chap. 10, Lovins et al. 1980).

Anthropocentric concerns merge with biocentric ones, insofar as what is bad for humans is bad for other species and ecosystems as well. One of the cornerstones of the modern environmental movement —Rachael Carson’s Silent Spring (1962)—took the effect of DDT on birds as a harbinger of the dangers of chemical pollution to human health. The interconnectedness of all life is an ecological theme echoed repeatedly in the titles of major international reports, such as the report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future (1987), and the manifesto of the 1972 Stockholm Conference, Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet (Ward and Dubois 1972).

Environmentalists are also concerned with the wellbeing of animals, species or ecologies for their own sake, rather than because of the fate they share with humans. Environmentalists campaign to ‘Save the Whales’ from extinction, not because they want to eat them, but because they think that those noble and intelligent creatures have as much right to live as people do. Environmentalist concern sometime extends beyond the animal kingdom to inanimate creation. Biodiversity is just as valuable among plants as animals. Natural landscapes, wild rivers, and majestic canyons have a value which is not reducible just to the value of the birds and fish that live in them. Environmentalist concern also extends widely in both time and space. Environmentalists are concerned with the legacies that current activities might be leaving for distant future generations, and with the impact that they might have on distant locales which none of them personally ever expect to visit. The wrongness of the harms we are inflicting on those distant peoples and places, environmentalists say, is in no way mitigated by the sheer fact of their distance, either in time or space. Neither is it mitigated by the inevitable uncertainty attaching to action at such a distance. Whereas economic calculations ordinarily discount uncertain effects, greens urge a ‘precautionary principle’ which in the face of uncertainty assumes the worst and strives to protect against it (Goodin 1982, Chap. 9, Weale 1992, UN 1992, Principle 15).

Many environmentalists are thus keen advocates of ‘environmental justice,’ internationally as well as domestically. The maldistribution of resources is seen as a key cause of environmental degradation, and remedying the one as a key step in remedying the other (UN 1992). Various schemes for ‘sustainable development’ and ‘ecological modernization’ suggest ways to ‘develop without damage’ (Dryzek 1997, Chaps. 7–9, Dobson 1998). Ecofeminists, however, suppose that man’s dominance of nature is of a cloth with men’s dominance of women, and problems of environmental degradation cannot be resolved without resolving problems of gender subordination (Plumwood 1993).

2. Movement Politics

Politically, the key environmental slogan is: ‘Think globally, act locally.’ Although the scope of their concerns is global, many environmentalists suppose that the most effective way of pursuing them is through decentralized structures and local action (Goldsmith et al. 1972). For greens, ‘small’ is indeed ‘beautiful’ (Schumacher 1973).

Much of environmentalist action takes the form of protest politics, ranging from street marches and publicity stunts to eco-sabotage. An example of the latter is the radical US group, ‘Earth First,’ which advocates ‘monkey-wrenching’ modern technology, including everything from cutting down power lines to driving spikes into trees in old-growth forests to provide them with a means of ‘natural self-defence’ against anyone who tries cutting into them with a chainsaw (Dryzek 1997, Chap. 9, Goodin 1992, pp. 133–5). Less radical groups such as Greenpeace engage in direct but nonviolent action, such as stationing their ship Rainbow Warrior squarely within the exclusion zone surrounding the French nuclear test site in the South Pacific.

Those techniques of direct action and nonviolent mass protest are relatively standard across the other ‘new social movements’ with which environmentalists often make common cause, among them the peace movement, the feminist, gay, and lesbian rights movements, and various other human rights movements. Most of those share the same broad concern (and many of the same specific concerns) with the socioeconomic institutions of contemporary capitalism and the acquisitive, materialist values underlying them. Many organize themselves as loose networks rather than formal membership organizations. Many pursue their political objectives substantially through nonconventional means, outside the ordinary channels of established parties and legislative assemblies (Offe 1985).

Movement politics do sometimes take an institutional form, when environmentalists organize themselves into explicitly ‘green parties’ and interest groups. The most famous among them, Die Grunen in Germany, entered the Bundestag in 1983 and joined the governing coalition led by Social Democrat Gerhard Schroder in 1998. Green parties were characterized, initially at least, by the same egalitarian, nonhierarchical ethos as the ‘new social movements’ from which they sprang (Douglas and Wildavsky 1982, Spretnak and Carpa 1986, Dobson 1990, Chap. 4, Goodin 1992, Chap. 4). They have decentralized organizational structures, characterized by grassroots democracy and rotating leadership. For some greens (such as the German Fundi faction), that political style is valued in itself, even if it costs them any real political power; but for others (the Realos, who won the German factional fight), the whole point of a political party is to seize power to do good, and internal party structures ought be aimed toward those ends (Goodin 1992, pp. 109–11, Dryzek 1997, pp. 173–5).

3. Environmental Policy

Many accomplishments of the environmentalist movement have come at the local or national rather than international level, and through the efforts of mainstream political parties rather than greens themselves. Examples range from the 1970 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in the USA to the 1989 Dutch National Environmental Policy Plan. The latter sort of regulatory regime is praised as more flexible and consultative and, because of that, more capable of altering pollution-generating practices. The US EPA is criticized for its inflexible ‘command-and-control’ approach and a fixation with ‘end of the pipe’ solutions, stopping pollutants from being released into the environment at the very end of the process rather than preventing them from being created in the first place (Dryzek 1997, Chap. 8, Weale 1992). Economists urge the replacement of regulatory policies with economic incentives, tradeable pollution permits, and the like (Pearce et al. 1989). It turns out, though, that even relatively toothless reporting requirements, such as the Environmental Impact Statements required by the US NEPA, can be surprisingly effective at ‘making bureaucracies think’ about the environmental consequences of their proposed actions (Taylor 1974).

Many environmental problems transcend national boundaries, however. Coordinated international action is then required, but that need not necessarily be universal in form. Early in these debates, George Kennan (1970) pointed out that most threats to the global environment come from the ‘rich men’s club,’ and coordinated action among a majority of rich countries would go a very long way toward reducing those threats, whether or not others decline to join. Some of the most promising international agreements —notably, the 1987 Montreal Protocol restricting emission of ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs)—are structured in precisely this way.

Institutionally, the 1972 Stockholm Convention led to the creation of a formal United National Environmental Program, based in Nairobi. Much of the impetus for international environmental protection has, however, come through the loosely coordinated actions of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). Some of those are coalitions of environmental activist organizations, while others represent coalitions of scientists in an ‘epistemic community’ driving the development of policies such as those embodied in the 1987 Montreal Protocol (Haas et al. 1993).

Bibliography:

1. Brandt W 1980 North–South. Pan, London
2. Carson R 1962 Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
3. Commoner B 1971 The Closing Circle, 1st edn. Knopf, New York
4. Council on Environmental Quality and the Department of State 1980 The Global 2000 Report to the President of the US. Pergamon Press, New York
5. Dobson A 1990 Green Political Thought. Unwin Hyman, London
6. Dobson A 1998 Justice and the Environment. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
7. Douglas M, Wildavsky A 1982 Risk and Culture. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA
8. Dryzek J S 1997 The Politics of the Earth. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
9. Ehrlich P R 1968 The Population Bomb. Ballantine, New York
10. Goldsmith E, Allen R, Allaby M, Davoll J, Lawrence S 1972 A blueprint for survival: towards the stable society. The Ecologist 2(1): 8–22
11. Goodin R E 1982 Political Theory and Public Policy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago
12. Goodin R E 1992 Green Political Theory. Polity, Cambridge, UK
13. Haas P M, Keohane R O, Levy M A (eds.) 1993 Institutions for the Earth: Sources of Effective International Environmental Protection. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
14. Kennan G F 1970 To prevent a world wasteland: a proposal. Foreign Affairs 48(3): 401–13
15. Lovins A B, Hunter Lovins L, Ross L 1980 Nuclear power and nuclear bombs. Foreign Affairs 58: 1137–77
16. Malthus T R 1803 Essay on the Principle of Population, 5th edn. Johnson, London [Winch D (ed.) 1992 Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK]
17. McKibben B 1989 The End of Nature, 1st edn., Random House, New York
18. Meadows D H, Meadows D L, Randers J, Behrens III W W 1972 The Limits to Growth. Universe, New York
19. Offe C 1985 New social movements: challenging the boundaries of institutional politics. Social Research 52: 817–68
20. Pearce D, Markandya A, Barbier E B 1989 Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan, London
21. Plumwood V 1993 Feminism and the Mastery of Nature. Routledge, New York
22. Schell J 1982 The Fate of the Earth, 1st edn., Knopf, New York
23. Schumacher E F 1973 Small is Beautiful. Blond and Briggs, London
24. Spretnak C, Carpa F 1986 Green Politics, rev. edn., Bear, Santa Fe, NM
25. Taylor S 1984 Making Bureaucracies Think: The Environmental Impact Statement Strategy of Administrative Reform. Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA
26. United Nations (UN) 1992 Rio declaration on environment and development. Annex 1 of Agenda 21, Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development. A Conf.151.26 (Vol.I). United Nations, New York
27. Ward B, Dubois R 1972 Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK
28. Weale A 1992 The New Politics of Pollution. Manchester University Press, Manchester, UK
29. World Commission on Environment and Development 1987 Our Common Future. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK