Environmental politics

Last updated

Environmental politics designate both the politics about the environment [1] and an academic field of study focused on three core components: [2]

Contents

Neil Carter, in his foundational text Politics of the Environment (2009), suggests that environmental politics is distinct in at least two ways: first, "it has a primary concern with the relationship between human society and the natural world" (page 3); and second, "unlike most other single issues, it comes replete with its own ideology and political movement" (page 5, drawing on Michael Jacobs, ed., Greening the Millenium?, 1997). [2]

Further, he distinguishes between modern and earlier forms of environmental politics, in particular conservationism and preservationism. Contemporary environmental politics "was driven by the idea of a global ecological crisis that threatened the very existence of humanity." And "modern environmentalism was a political and activist mass movement which demanded a radical transformation in the values and structures of society." [2]

Environmental concerns were rooted in the vast social changes that took place in the United States after World War II. Although environmentalism can be identified in earlier years, only after the war did it become a widely shared social priority. This began with outdoor recreation in the 1950s, extended into the wider field of the protection of natural environments, and then became infused with attempts to cope with air and water pollution and still later with toxic chemical pollutants. After World War II, environmental politics became a major public concern. [3] The Post-war era resulted in the 'Great Acceleration', which saw a dramatic increase in industrialization, agriculture, and consumption of resources leading to a new geological era of environmental deficit. [4] The development of environmentalism in the United Kingdom emerged in this period following the great London smog of 1952 and the Torrey Canyon oil spill of 1967. [5] This is reflected by the emergence of Green politics in the Western world beginning in the 1970s. Notably, the 1972 United Nations Conference on the Human Environment in Stockholm marked the entry of environmental politics into the international agenda, giving rise to new environmental political thought and its incorporation into policymaking. [6] Since then, environmentalism has taken shape as its own political ideology and has had numerous variations, from more radical theories like 'deep ecology' which seeks to prioritize environmental needs to more reformist ideologies which view environmental damage as an externality. [7]

Democratic challenges

Existing policies can be placed on a spectrum in between the ideal of democracy and its opposite, authoritarianism. The environmental policies have different pathways for sustainability transformations. Democratic and sustainability transformations.jpg
Existing policies can be placed on a spectrum in between the ideal of democracy and its opposite, authoritarianism. The environmental policies have different pathways for sustainability transformations.
Countries with the most primary (old-growth) forest loss 2021 Top ten countries for tropical primary forest loss - World Resources Institute.svg
Countries with the most primary (old-growth) forest loss
Overall, 20% of the Amazon rainforest--the world's largest--has been "transformed" (deforested) and another 6% has been "highly degraded", causing Amazon Watch to warn that the Amazonia is in the midst of a tipping point crisis. 20220910 Amazon deforestation and degradation, by country - Amazon Watch.svg
Overall, 20% of the Amazon rainforest—the world's largest—has been "transformed" (deforested) and another 6% has been "highly degraded", causing Amazon Watch to warn that the Amazonia is in the midst of a tipping point crisis.

The roles of democracy and democratic institutions in advancing environmental policy and, in particular, climate policy are mixed, as evidenced by the variation in the environmental progress of different democratic governments. [11] From a theoretical perspective, democratic procedures can effect meaningful reform if public support for these reforms exists, especially when compared with autocratic regimes, as the set of incentives for policymakers to legislate toward these ends in a system deriving legitimacy from the consent of the governed is substantive; for instance, given political responsiveness as a result of electoral accountability, policymakers in democratic governments have reason to consider a wide view of the public interest that incorporates the varied positions of their constituents and work to efficiently create change. [12] On such a view, democracies will likely consider the consequential impacts to most, if not all constituents, caused by climate change. Factors like regime stability and ruler or governing official interests, too, seem better aligned for progress in a democracy; civil unrest is less likely in a state perceived as legitimate, as is graft, both of which appear likely to inhibit climate action. [12]

In contrast, empirical evidence does show inconsistencies in the ways in which democracies address environmental problems. [11] Though the reason for this variation is largely unclear, a number of features of democratic state organization appear to contribute to observed failures to act on climate change, among other environmental issues. Leaders may, in practice, not be motivated by a theoretical public good, but instead expend resources on resolving those policy challenges which are most visible to their electorate. [11] Given the largely intangible nature of climate change as a problem – one that is gradual, invisible, and global – the political opportunity cost of focusing on this challenge or other less visible environmental issues may be high for electorally accountable democratic leaders. [11]

Economic interests and outside influences may also limit the ability of democratic actors to drive meaningful environmental change. In developed democracies, businesses and other groups with economic motivations often hold considerable lobbying power and, therefore, have the ability to forestall climate or environmental progress, which are often unaligned with these groups' financial interests. [11] In developing democracies, environmental reforms are often seen as lesser priorities, given the need for addressing more proximate public concerns, including poverty, infrastructure, and general economic development. [13] Financial incentive can also play a role in preventing the passage of environmental policy outside of the legal realm; some evidence suggests that corruption, present in some form in a number of democratic institutions globally, erodes regulatory ability and public trust in state institutions, reducing the ability of democracies to effectively mitigate carbon emissions and other sources of pollution. [11]

In addition, the problem of popular disinterest in advancing environmental policy presents challenges for the prospects of democratic institutions' ability to drive environmental progress. Despite growing public understanding of the threat posed by climate change, the last decade has seen considerable opposition to pro-environmental policies across broad coalitions and around the globe. [13] Populist movements in Western democracies over the last several years, in particular, have taken positions that actively oppose such policies, and analyses of deliberative modes of participatory democracy have shown results that mirror the interests of those participating and do not necessarily tend towards a more favorable view of environmental or climate action. [13] [14] As redress to these potential shortcomings, means of reforming democratic processes, both theoretical and pragmatic, to correct for what may be short-sighted political interests have been suggested, though these reforms may reduce democratic choice or participation. [13] [15]

Questions of environmental justice, too, may be unanswered by democratic decision-making processes. Not only are those minority groups without meaningful representation in either single-member districts or majority-rule electorates disadvantaged in the realm of political interests, but these same groups are often those most impacted by the effects of climate change and other environmental problems. [16] In addition, recent literature around non-human representation has investigated the ways in which the interests of affected conscious agents, which are definitionally uninvolved in the political decisions of human society, are consistently underrepresented; solutions accounting for this disparity often appeal to reforms that would reduce democratic choice from a traditional perspective, including by giving biological experts greater say in policymaking, though even their ability to determine the interests of non-humans is uncertain. [13] On a global scale, those most impacted by the effects of climate change may have little say in determining policies that would curb emissions or otherwise work to adapt to climate outcomes. Not only do individuals only have the ability to determine climate policy in their own state, but those states that emit the least atmospheric carbon are often most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, while those that emit the most are often least vulnerable, a discrepancy unaccounted for by democratic processes. [17]

Climate change is slow relative to political cycles of leadership in electoral democracies, which impedes responses by politicians who are elected and re-elected on much shorter timescales. [18]

In the United States, although "environmentalism" was once considered a White phenomenon, scholars have identified "pro-environment positions among Latino, African-American, and non-Hispanic white respondents," with growing environmental concern especially among Latinos. [19] Other scholars have similarly noted that Asian Americans are strongly pro-environmental, with some variation among ethnic subgroups. [20]

Effectively responding to global warming necessitates some form of international environmental governance to achieve shared targets related to energy consumption and environmental usage. [21] Climate change complicates political ideology and practice, affecting conceptions of responsibility for future societies as well as economic systems. [21] Material inequality between nations make technological solutions insufficient for climate change mitigation. [21] Rather, political solutions can navigate the particularities of various facets of environmental crisis. Climate change mitigation strategies can be at odds with democratic priorities of prosperity, progress, and state sovereignty, and instead underscore a collective relationship with the environment. [11]

The international political community is presently based on liberal principles that prioritize individual freedoms and capitalist systems that make quick and ambitious climate responses difficult. [21] Interest-group liberalism is guided by individual human priorities. [22] Groups unable to voice their self-interest, such as minorities without suffrage, or non-humans, are not included in the political compromise. Addressing environmental crises can be impeded when citizens of liberal democracies do not see environmental problems as impacting their lives, or when they lack the education to evaluate the importance of the problem. [23] The human benefits from environmental exploitation and protection compete. [23] Considering the implications of ecological degradation for future human generations can give environmental concerns a basis in anthropocentric liberal democratic politics.

William Ophuls posits that liberal democracies are unfit to address environmental problems, and that the prioritization of these challenges would involve a transition to more authoritarian forms of government. [24] Others counter this by pointing to the past successes of environmental reform movements to improve water and air quality in liberal societies. [22] Research on the effects of political institutions on air quality presents results that the relationship between the degree of democracy and air quality, as measured by SO2 concentrations, is positive and quite robust. [25] In practice, environmentalism can improve democracy rather than necessitate its end, by expanding democratic participation and promoting political innovations. [26]

The tensions between liberal democracy and environmental goals raise questions about the possible limitations of democracy (or at least democracy as we know it): in its responsiveness to subtle but large-scale problems, its ability to work from a holistic societal perspective, its aptness in coping with environmental crisis relative to other forms of government. [23] Democracies do not have the provisions to make environmental reforms that are not mandated by voters, and many voters lack incentives or desire to demand policies that could compromise immediate prosperity. The question arises as to whether the foundation of politics is morality or practicality. [23] A scheme that conceives of and values the environment beyond its human utility, an environmental ethics, could be crucial for democracies to respond to climate change. [23]

Alternative forms of democracy for environmental policy

In political theory, deliberative democracy has been discussed as a political model more compatible with environmental goals. Deliberative democracy is a system in which informed political equals weigh values, information, and expertise, and debate priorities to make decisions, as opposed to a democracy based on interest aggregation. [27] This definition of democracy emphasizes informed discussion among citizens in the decision making process, and encourages decisions to benefit the common good rather than individual interests. [22] Amy Gutmann and Dennis Thompson claimed that reason prevails over self-interest in deliberative democracy, making it a more just system. [28] The broad perspective that this discursive model encourages could lead to a stronger engagement with environmental concerns. [22] When compared to non-democracies, democracies are in fact more cooperative in climate change policy creation, but not necessarily on the outcome and effects of these policies. [29]

This can be explained more exhaustively with the concept of grass-roots democracy. Grass-roots democracy is an approach in which ordinary citizens are in charge of politics, in opposition to ‘larger organizations and wealthy individuals with concentrated vested interests in particular policies’. [30] Green parties were once dedicated to offer a project valuing the ideology of grass-roots democracy. However, according to Ostrogorski [31] and Michels, [32] all parties follow inevitably a similar path towards concentration of power and oligarchy. Green parties thus follow different principles nowadays. [33]

In political theory, the lottery system is a democratic design that allows governments to address problems with future, rather than immediate, impacts. Deliberative bodies composed of randomly selected representatives can draft environmental policies that have short-term costs without considering the political consequences for re-election. [18]

Journals

Scholarly journals representing this field of study include:

See also

References

  1. ↑ Andrew Dobson, Environmental Politics: A Very Short Introduction, Oxford University Press, 2016 ( ISBN   978-0-19-966557-0).
  2. 1 2 3 Carter, Neil. 2007. The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy, 2nd ed. New York: Cambridge University Press. ISBN   0-521-68745-4
  3. ↑ Hays, Samuel P., and Barbara D. Hays. Beauty, Health, and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the United States, 1955-1985. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1987. Print.
  4. ↑ Steffen, W., Broadgate, W., Deutsch, L., Gaffney, O., & Ludwig, C. (2015). The trajectory of the Anthropocene: The Great Acceleration. The Anthropocene Review, 2(1), 81–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/2053019614564785
  5. ↑ Wilson, Mark (April 2014). The British environmental movement: The development of an environmental consciousness and environmental activism, 1945-1975 (doctoral). University of Northumbria.
  6. ↑ Carter, Neil. The Politics of the Environment: Ideas, Activism, Policy. Cambridge University Press, 2018.
  7. ↑ Heywood, Andrew, and Andrew Heywood. “Global Environmental Issues.” Global Politics, Palgrave Macmillan, Basingstoke, 2011, pp. 383–411.
  8. ↑ Pickering, Jonathan; Hickmann, Thomas; Bäckstrand, Karin; Kalfagianni, Agni; Bloomfield, Michael; Mert, Ayşem; Ransan-Cooper, Hedda; Lo, Alex Y. (2022). "Democratising sustainability transformations: Assessing the transformative potential of democratic practices in environmental governance". Earth System Governance. 11: 100131. doi: 10.1016/j.esg.2021.100131 . CC-BY icon.svg Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
  9. ↑ ● 2021 data: "Forest Pulse: The Latest on the World's Forests". WRI.org. World Resources Institute. June 2023. Archived from the original on 27 June 2023.
    ● 2022 and 2023 data: "Forest Pulse: The Latest on the World's Forests". WRI.org. World Resources Institute / Global Forest Review. 4 April 2024. Archived from the original on 4 April 2024.
  10. ↑ "Amazon Against the Clock: A Regional Assessment on Where and How to Protect 80% by 2025" (PDF). Amazon Watch. September 2022. p. 8. Archived (PDF) from the original on 10 September 2022. Graphic 2: Current State of the Amazon by country, by percentage / Source: RAISG (Red Amazónica de Información Socioambiental Georreferenciada) Elaborated by authors.
  11. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Povitkina, Marina (2018-05-04). "The limits of democracy in tackling climate change". Environmental Politics. 27 (3): 411–432. Bibcode:2018EnvPo..27..411P. doi: 10.1080/09644016.2018.1444723 . ISSN   0964-4016. S2CID   158096055.
  12. 1 2 Burnell, Peter (October 2012). "Democracy, democratization and climate change: complex relationships". Democratization. 19 (5): 813–842. doi: 10.1080/13510347.2012.709684 . ISSN   1351-0347. S2CID   143398060.
  13. 1 2 3 4 5 Pickering, Jonathan; Bäckstrand, Karin; Schlosberg, David (2020-01-02). "Between environmental and ecological democracy: theory and practice at the democracy-environment nexus". Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning. 22 (1): 1–15. Bibcode:2020JEPP...22....1P. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2020.1703276 . ISSN   1523-908X. S2CID   213609614.
  14. ↑ Newig, Jens; Fritsch, Oliver (May 2009). "Environmental governance: participatory, multi-level - and effective?". Environmental Policy and Governance. 19 (3): 197–214. doi:10.1002/eet.509.
  15. ↑ Dobson, Andrew (2016-03-07). Gabrielson, Teena; Hall, Cheryl; Meyer, John M.; Schlosberg, David (eds.). Are There Limits to Limits?. Vol. 1. Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199685271.013.41. ISBN   978-0-19-968527-1.
  16. ↑ "Racial Disparities and Climate Change". PSCI. 15 August 2020. Retrieved 2021-12-07.
  17. ↑ Althor, Glenn; Watson, James E. M.; Fuller, Richard A. (April 2016). "Global mismatch between greenhouse gas emissions and the burden of climate change". Scientific Reports. 6 (1): 20281. Bibcode:2016NatSR...620281A. doi:10.1038/srep20281. ISSN   2045-2322. PMC   4742864 . PMID   26848052.
  18. 1 2 Guerrero, Alexander (2014). "Against Elections: The Lottocratic Alternative" (PDF). Philosophy & Public Affairs. 42 (2): 135–178. doi:10.1111/papa.12029.
  19. ↑ Whittaker, Matthew, Segura, and Bowler, Shaun (2005). "Racial/Ethnic Group Attitudes Toward Environmental Protection in California: Is "Environmentalism" Still a White Phenomenon?" Political Research Quarterly (58)3: pp. 435, 435-447.
  20. ↑ Ong, Paul; Le, Loan; Daniels, Paula (2013). "Ethnic Variation in Environmental Attitudes and Opinion among Asian American Voters". AAPI Nexus: Policy, Practice and Community. 11 (1–2): 91–109. doi:10.17953/appc.11.1-2.958537240526x56v. S2CID   263769662.
  21. 1 2 3 4 Edmondson and Levy (2013). Climate Change and Order. pp. 50–60.
  22. 1 2 3 4 Baber and Bartlett (2005). Deliberative Environmental Politics.
  23. 1 2 3 4 5 Mathews, Freya (1991). "Democracy and the Ecological Crisis". Legal Service Bulletin.
  24. ↑ Ophuls, William (1977). Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity. San Francisco: W.H. Freeman and Company.
  25. ↑ Bernauer, Thomas; Koubi, Vally (15 March 2009). "Effects of political institutions on air quality". Ecological Economics. 68 (5): 1355–1365. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2008.09.003.
  26. ↑ Paehlke, Robert (1988). "Democracy, Bureaucracy and Environmentalism". Journal of Environmental Ethics. 10 (4): 291–308. doi:10.5840/enviroethics198810437.
  27. ↑ Fishkin, James (2009). When the People Speak. Oxford University Press. ISBN   9780199604432.
  28. ↑ Gutmann and Thompson, Amy and Dennis (2004). "Why Deliberative Democracy". Princeton University Press.
  29. ↑ Bättig, Michèle B.; Bernauer, Thomas (15 April 2009). "National Institutions and Global Public Goods: Are Democracies More Cooperative in Climate Change Policy?". International Organization. 63 (2): 281–308. doi:10.1017/S0020818309090092. hdl: 20.500.11850/19435 . S2CID   154618618.
  30. ↑ "Grassroots-democracy Meaning | Best 1 Definitions of Grassroots-democracy". www.yourdictionary.com. Retrieved 2021-01-27.
  31. ↑ Ostrogorski, Moisey (1902). Democracy and the Organization of Political Parties. New York: Macmillan.
  32. ↑ Michels, Robert (1911). Zur Soziologie des Parteiwesens in der modernen Demokratie; Untersuchungen über die oligarchischen Tendenzen des Gruppenlebens. Leipzig: Werner Klinkhardt.
  33. ↑ Frankland, E.G., Lucardie, P. and Rihoux, B. (2008). Green Parties in Transition: The End of Grass-roots Democracy?. Surrey and Burlington: Ashgate. ISBN   978-0-7546-7429-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.