Green Politics: Ecology as Ideology Green Politics Historically, ideologies have emerged in contexts of major social, economic, and/or cultural change. The Green movement is no exception: It has emerged from the ecological crises of the late 20 th early 21 st centuries Ecology (n): The branch of science concerned with the interrelationship of organisms and their environment. 1
In part because it so new, there is no settled orthodoxy among Greens. This even extends to the name: conservationist, environmentalist, deep ecologist all pick out somewhat different ideas. Similarly: No fixed position on the ideological spectrum free market environmentalism vs. conservation vs. pro-active planetary management We will follow BDCC in using Green politics as a convenient general term of reference. The Green Critique To one degree or another, most Greens are critical of two main features of modern society: 1. The technological mastery of nature for human ends; especially an uncritical acceptance of the desirability of economic growth. 2. Other modern ideologies, insofar as these ideologies purport to justify or acquiesce in the destruction of the natural environment 2
Two Aspects of the Green Critique Accordingly, the overall Green project has both: 1. A critical aspect which challenges the assumptions of other ideologies, and 2. A constructive aspect geared toward the articulation and justification of an alternative Green ideology. Sometimes, this constructive aspect takes the form of a Green ethic Anthropocentrism All modern ideologies, Greens say, share certain anthropocentric and/or humanist assumptions: 1. Human beings are the rightful masters of nature. (Cf. Francis Bacon, René Descartes) 2. Nature exists as a resource base upon which human beings draw in order to serve their own ends. Nature in itself has no value apart the human values it serves. (Cf. Locke, Marx) 3
Humanist Arrogance This anthropocentrism (or, for ecofeminists, androcentrism) has given rise to a planet poisoned and polluted by human activities. This is arrogance not only insofar as humanists assume that human beings are superior to nature, but also in pretending that human beings are somehow separate or separable from nature. Instead, Greens point out, we are necessarily always embedded in the natural ecosystems that support us a web of life. An Environmental Ethic But there is considerable variation among the constructive proposals offered by Green ideologies. Among those that offer a positive environmental ethic (e.g., Aldo Leopold, Arne Naess), there are some important commonalities 4
Common Tenets of Environmental Ethics 1. Things are inter-connected. Human actions, especially when augmented by technology and aggregated over large and growing populations, are not inconsequential they affect virtually everything 2. In view of this interconnectedness, all life (human, animal or otherwise) ought to be worthy of respect and preservation, possibly even sacred 3. Because our fate is interconnected with that of other species, human beings must act (or, more often, refrain from acting) in order to maintain and preserve those conditions that support life. Related expressions of this idea: biocentrism, ecocentrism Differing expressions of this idea: Intrinsic value of nature vs. instrumental value of nature 5
Peace Peace: Historically several Green organizations emerged from the peace movement (e.g., Greenpeace). Peace remains a central objective for many Greens: While we must certainly avoid the threat of slow, progressive ecocide, we must also avoid the threat of, e.g., nuclear omnicide. Green Agenda Two main sorts of duties are implied by an environmental ethic: Individual actions: e.g., making sustainable choices as consumers, recycling, voting for candidates who support Green causes. Collective actions: e.g., boycotting polluters and manufacturers that produce eco-unfriendly products, consciousness-raising, political action, sustainable policies (which may end up limiting individual actions). 6
Collective Action Problems Environmental thought has been especially influential in articulating certain collective action problems. In particular, an idea due to Garret Hardin (1915-2003) the Tragedy of the Commons offers a serious challenge to our understanding of what sorts of solutions to ecological problems are likely to be successful The Tragedy of the Commons Think of a common pasture, a commons. Each individual shepherd who uses the commons can reason as follows: If I put one more animal out to graze, I will reap all of the benefits, whereas the cost (i.e., in terms of depletion of the pasture) will be borne by everyone who uses the commons. I.e., the costs of each unit of production (each animal) are partly externalized. 7
Hardin: The Tragedy Hardin: If we assume only that each shepherd is economically rational, all shepherds using the commons will reason that same way. Each shepherd will continue to put animals out to graze until the pasture is destroyed. Generalized: When individuals make use of a public good, they do not bear the entire cost of their actions. Individual self-interest dictates that the best (non-cooperative) strategy is for each individual to maximize her individual utility, even though this will lead to the over-exploitation of commons resources. Hardin: Possible Solutions Hardin: privatize commons property; that way costs will be internalized (i.e., borne by the individual producer), resource exploitation will become selflimiting. Or, we can appoint an authority (i.e., convert the un-owned commons into public property); the authority can ration the use of public goods in the collective interest. These strategies may work for a time, Hardin thinks, but ultimately we will have to limit human population growth. 8
Green Agenda II While most Greens are in broad agreement about their political ends, there is considerable disagreement about strategies. Some groups support interest-group political strategies: PACs, lobbying politicians, relatively low-key consciousness-raising (e.g., Sierra Club, the Nature Conservancy) Others argue that the environment is not just one special interest among others, but a universal interest, too important for politics as usual. Accordingly, some Green groups favour aggressive direct action (even ecotage): Confronting polluters, demonstrations, even spiking old-growth forests. (e.g., Greenpeace, Earth First!) 9
Deep Ecology Other Greens are less concerned with political strategies than with religious (or quasi-religious) consciousnessraising. E.g., the idea that we ought to understand the earth as our common mother (the goddess Gaia, perhaps). Only by getting into the right relationship with Her can we truly overcome anthropocentric thinking. Social Ecology Still other Greens are dubious about this sort of religious language and, moreover, are critical of excessive, militant anti-humanism. Social ecologists argue that while we human beings may be responsible for the ecological damage we have caused, we can learn from our mistakes and change for the better. This is a social view inasmuch as we owe it principally to ourselves and our descendants to leave a decent ecological legacy 10
Free-Market Environmentalism In a related vein, free-market environmentalism stresses the idea that stewardship will naturally arise once individuals are made responsible for their decisions. (Recall: Hardin) On this view, ecological goals can be reached not necessarily through regulation or public ownership, but through ordinary property rights. 11