IR4552: Politics of the Environment

Case Study: Environmental Liability

'Taking the horse to water but will it drink? Transposing the Environmental Liability Directive in Scotland', Environmental Liability (2008) 3, pp.92-98. Normative actor pressure > EU agenda: PPP & level-playing > pol-admin EU Commission mediating > White Paper (Feb 2000) > Working Paper (2001) > CoR + EcoSoc consultation > EP - Council of Ministers Co-Decision (3 readings + conciliation) > Directive (2004) > transposition deadline = output 2007 > implementation... Policy objective: legal liability for env damage Details left to Member States

Neil Carter

(2007) sustainable development is a pot-pourri of policies an ambitions

Jane Roberts

(2011) equity-futurity-environmental value

the history of a principle: SD

-1972 UN Conference on the Environment (Stockholm) -1987 Brundtland Report, Our Common Future -Report defines sustainable development as: "[A] developmetn that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." -Inter-generational responsibility -'Intelligent' use of resources -Anthropocentrism -Optimistic=>no need to give up our economic and social needs/objectives, we just need to combine them with environmental.

How do we measure implementation/effectiveness of principle?

-A patchwork of studies and conclusions -Several sets of indicators, models, criteria--see, for instance, Baker's ladder (1997), O'Riordan's map (1996), Moldan et al's indicators (2012)

Deep Greens

-Arne Naess 1972: distinguished between 'shallow concern' for the environment and 'deep concern' for nature's own sake, intrinsic value. -Radical re-conception of humanity's place > humans are NOT the pinnacle of evolution -Social & political arrangements secondary; more important: relationship between human and non-human world. -Deeps pursue sustainability but go further; they consider the modern standing and rights of the non-human world -Holism -Putting the Earth First -Shifting onus of justification to polluter

The big question is HOW?

-Broad principle universally accepted, details not! -Universality is both a blessing and a curse -Interpretation depends on 2 factors: (a) emphasis and (b) commitment -Need to add North-South divide to varying interpretations -At best: a discourse, process, an aim

Sustainable Development should include the following elements:

-Environmental protection -Policy integration -Inter-generational responsibility -Equity -Participation

The Challenge becomes apparent. Explain sequence of events.

-From the 1950s and 60s onwards--increase in pollution incidences eg in London smog (1952), black skies over the Ruhr (1961). -Visible impacts on landscape, species, and human health. -Rachel Carson (1962) Silent Spring: documents impacts of using synthetic pesticides to maximize productivity. -Club of Rome (1968) commissioned Limits to Growth (1972): first computer simulated forecast on economic growth, population growth and resource degradation.

Different shades of green

-GPT is NOT homogeneous -spectrum of deep and shallow green thinking

Environmental Limits

-Technological advances may help delay problems -BUT crisis point will be reached, unless we change behavior. Example from Mueller-Rommel and Meyer: f motor vehicles per capita in the western world, the massive growth of transnational transportation of freight and increased mileage of private individual transportation account for this new environmental burden. -Following footsteps of Malthus (1766-1834) Essay on the Principle of Population: exponential population growth <=> arithmetical food supply increase = eventually food scarcity => security problem -Meadows=> 'malthus with a computer'

Sustainability or sustainable development?

-Terms sustainable and sustainable development have been used inter-changeable < however they are not necessarily identical -Sustainability = ability o sustain planet < as it should be, arguably greener than the other term. -Sustainable development = process towards an aim, combining social-economic-environmental interests -Sustainable development more widely used

What is the solution?

-This is where 'survivalists' get into trouble -Meadows: proper wealth redistribution and REAL economic sacrifices -Hardin: 'temperance' and 'lifeboat scenario' -Paul Ehrlich (1968): compulsory sterilisation in certain countries -Robert Heilbroner (1974): 'monastic government combining religious orientation with military discipline'. -William Ophuls (1977): 'ecological mandarins' in control of societies -Second feneration survivalist much tamer: Michael Jacobs (1991)-government regulation, Herman Daly (1992)-pollution permits, Norman Myers (1994)-citizens' action.

The Tragedy of the Commons (1968)

-Using parable=> small community dependent on one natural resource. Resource shared/owned by NO ONE -Tipping point inevitable, unless self-regulation -However, self-regulation = irrational for the individual => free riders take advantage -disaster inevitable = tragedy - criticism eg simplified, looking into one isolated community dependent on one source only; should be open 'open access regime'. -Nevertheless, useful starting point, applicable to cases, eg atmosphere (sink), fish stocks (source) -Add to economic growth and population growth - economic equity/development => limits forseeable -Limits to Growth argument valid -Or is it?

Different labels for deep and shallow greens

-ecologism - environmentalism -dark - light -radical - reformist/moderate -fundi - realo -ecocentric - anthropocentric NB: careful with last...there are some radical anthropocentric groups eg Christian environmentalists Dobson emphasizes difference between ecologism and environmentalism Not included: GPT with other ideologies, eg. eco-feminism, eco-socialism See Neil Carter's mapping ecologism for an overview

Environmental Performance Index 2010

...

Environmental Policy Processes, and Tools

...

State settings compared: UK and Germany

...

2 Dimensions to consider whilst evaluating greenness

1. level of radicalism 2. intrinsic value -Def. instrinsic value: objective value 'which exists whether or not humans decide to consider the object valuable.' (Jane Roberts) -In contrast--extrinsic value: arises from relationship between valued object and its observer. => subjective & anthropocentirc. (RE) matter of degree is possible/ along a scale (RE) not easy to accommodate on a scale

Where are we now? Are we re-inventing the wheel?

1960s Rachel Carson's Silent Spring --> 1970s Meadows, Limits to Growth--> 80s Brundtland's Sustainable Development--> 90s Earth Summit--> 00s Ecological Modernisation (Janicke, Mol)--> 10s?

Limits to Growth

1972 Meadows et al. computer modeling consequences of rapidly growing world population and finite resource supplies; was a doomsday prophesy that has not held up to scrutiny because it has not taken into account technological advances which push limits.

Evaluation depends on your standpoint

2 SIDES: -Shallow green = small steps in the right direction; -Deep green = just drops in the ocean, it's a greenwash -Broad principle widely accepted, however different interpretations and commitments -26 years after Brundtland -question whether sustainable development is the right principle or inherently flawed -With Hardin in mind - is 'intelligent' use of natural resources possible? -Again, the answer depends on whether you adopt a deep or shallow green approach

Claus Offe's Observations

3 macro groups: Economic - Political-administrative - Normative Economic > maximising profit/ economic growth Normative > post-materialist values Effect = push-pulling Pol-admin actors mediating < maintain system + maintain own positions Result = constant tension/ conflict, reactive responses/ compromises Can be applied to modern SD context > two examples: Moratorium banning commercial whaling (IWC) in the balance; UK airport extensions ('plane stupid' campaigns)

Being shallow...

A label with negative connotations. However, when faced with practicalities of environmental goals, majority would opt for 'shallow' green approach. Shallow greens more likely to achieve aims Anthropocentric Response to Deep Green approach: a) humans inevitably at the centre > responsibility; b) it is unrealistic to detach yourself and think ecocentric; c) we have easier argument, it is less abstract; d) positive side effects of anthropocentrism = better society. Bookchin (1987) Social Ecology versus Deep Ecology: a challenge for the ecology movement Social ecologists establish a strong link between societal and environmental issues

pollution sink

A place/ process that removes, stores or absorbs the pollutant, such as wetlands, Sea, etc.

In shades of green, is it really a matter of degree or is each (shallow, deep, etc) mutually exclusive?

All greens start from the same base=> environmental problems requiring solutions Plus: 'we are neither left nor right but forward' Andrews Dobson identifies 3 features that confirm GPT as an ideology = 1) common set of values + 2) an alternative how society 'ought to' be + 3) programme of political action HOWEVER, while all greens agree on 1) and 2) there is no consensus on 3).

Regulatory tools continued...

Ambient: limit on total pollutants permitted Emission: limits for individual polluters Design: requirements for polluters Clearly top-down Comparatively easy to monitor and enforce Disadvantage: unpopular, questions of legitimacy, need to be enforced throughout.

Incrementalism and obstacles

Anthony Down's issue attention cycle Process of incremental change Env policy bargaining difficult < normative v economic interests, uncertainty, inter-generational/ intra-generational questions. A multitude of factors involved Implementation gaps/ deficits < cross-sectoral, multi-governmental Policy integration = important for sustainability yet difficult to achieve (theory <> practice)

Market-based tools

Belonging to group of NEPIs (new env policy instruments) Internalising environmental costs If 'invisible hand' does not take care of the environment, the government needs to create a market. Carrot & Stick: make polluters pay - give an incentive not to pollute. EU Emission Trading System ETS > buy the right to pollute (= commodity); polluters seek to minimise costs and make a profit < benefits economy & environment. Advantage: for economic actors ETS makes sense Disadvantage: current ETS not effective enough, also questions of principle (GPT)

To complete the picture... on NGOs

Carter's choices: public interest lobby (RSPB), participatory protest organisation (plane stupid), professional protest organisation (Robin Wood), participatory pressure group (German BUND). NGOs and INGOs Political opportunity structures determine NGOs' positions, relations with Green Parties (electoral system), strategies (legal systems) and level of Angst. New generation: more grassroots activism combined with globalisation; more NIMBY; new issues e.g. GM technology; also environmental justice (US Clearing House for Hazardous Waste). Need to add new trends to NGO typology

Concluding thoughts on Policy Tools

Case study on climate change shows complexity of environmental problems and range of policy tools. Tool preferences vary depending on political opportunity structures/ cultures Tools also vary over time Considering tool box: have we found the right tools to fix our environmental problems? Are there any tools that we haven't used yet? Should we return to using one particular tool? Whatever your answers and policy preferences > there are no straight-forward solutions to our environmental problems.

Sabatier in more detail

Coalitions' beliefs & strategies brokered into decisions > concrete measures e.g. rules, resources. Incremental changes/ adjustments > policy outputs > impacts Feed back to actors < they'll respond accordingly Subsystems feed into socio-econ structures, pol structures and other subsystems (External system events) Macro (external) factors determine constraints and resources of actors Also influence stable factors/ parameters e.g. Natural resources, values/ beliefs, constitution. Stable factors influence resources and constraints of actors also. All feed into subsystem > process continues

Introduction: UK vs Germany

Comparative analyses highlighting similarities Europeanisation, globalisation > convergence Types of policy convergence: unintentional/ coincidental; intentional (copy-cat) lesson learning; coerced alignment. Convergence drivers: cross-boundary/ global environmental challenges; economic level-playing-field. In recent years: policy shifts ('critical junctures') and policy divergence between systems. We will use historical institutionalist approach and identify - similarities, differences, junctures and departures.

The UK: the forerunner

Constitutional and historical context allowing for early adoption of environmental issue. First air pollution legislation 1273 First pollution inspectorate (Alkali) 1863 First NGO 'Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society' 1865 First Dept of the Environment (DoE) 1970 First Green Party in Europe Consider industrialisation, traditional interest in countryside. First wave of environmentalism important

Conclusions so far...

Critical account of environmental discourse We have seen progress since 1960s Offe & Sabatier can be applied to any public policy area, certainly applicable to env policy. When studying environmental politics, keep in mind - never-ending loop, incrementalism, actor groups and their interests, policy brokers, difference between policy adoption and implementation, influence of factors on policy and how a policy can influence factors, complexity (see MLG). Next: policy tools - a matter of choice and fashion...

Successful combination? Green and red?

Criticism = Watermelons (green on the outside, red on the inside) Does criticism suggest that there are just a few 'bad' examples or does it demonstrate an underlying dilemma? Can you combine the two without cancelling each other out? Deep Greens, after all, are eco-centric & want paradigm shift towards nature. Eco-Socialists are anthropocentric & want economic change which would lead to environmental change also.

Eco-socialists and their Manifesto

David Pepper, André Gorz, Ted Benton, Joel Kovel, Michael Löwy 'The crises of ecology and those of societal breakdown are profoundly interrelated and should be seen as different manifestations of the same structural forces.' Artificial needs & demands system exploits both workers and nature < commodities. Capitalism incapable of env problem-solving < this would require self-regulation It's Socialism or Barbarism! Radical (rather than moderate)

It is possible to combine green with red

David Pepper: socialism enhances GPT; it offers a strategy & solution. It combines anthropocentrism with radicalism Alienation and exploitation of nature by profit-seeking capitalists. Economic system = root cause of environmental problems Similar 'dialectic' progression Natural resources seen as free commodities 'Greedy' consumerism accelerates decline Globalisation of env problem similar to Imperialism Economic inequality linked to Environmental inequality > domestic and international level.

Population

Deep greens follow Paul Ehrlich's point about population growth Dave Foreman 'Human suffering resulting from drought and famine in Ethiopia is tragic, yes, but the destruction there of other creatures and habitat is even more tragic.' Naess back-pedaling: 'faced with hungry children, humanitarian action is priority.'

A familiar question...Do NGOs contribute to one green rainbow or do their differences outweigh their shared interests?

Do green NGOs contribute to one 'green rainbow' (Dalton) or do their differences outweigh their shared interests (Jordan & Maloney)? Example: anti-roads protest in the UK > 'the moderates are playing into the hands of the enemy' v. 'the radicals are alienating the rest of the population with their ecotage'. Answer depends on your perspective & issue/ case study.

Typology of economic actors

Doyle & McEachern's 3 categories of economic actors: Rejectionists: refuse to internalise environmental costs, actively deny costs, e.g. US think tank Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise www.cdfe.org/wiseuse.html , US Competitive Enterprise Institute. Accommodationists: sustainable development can be combined with business interests < energy efficiency as cost-saving exercise. Green business opportunists: identify a market opportunity < green consumerism. Balance between the three groups can change It also depends on political opportunity structures.

MLG and the UK

EU environmental policy > laggard UN environmental regimes > leader Position depends on policy issue, interests at stake Scottish context: policy divergence Facilitated by devolved parliamentary system, mixed electoral system, different party political landscape, differences in policy/ public priorities. Potential to be different Environmental policy not necessarily dependent on green & economic considerations > in Scottish case add nationalism

James Lovelock's Gaia Hypothesis (1970s)

Earth is a living system: all organic and inorganic matters are integrated in a self-regulating complex system, in which interference leads to impact. EXAMPLE: introduction of mongooses on Hawaii did not solve rat problem because mongoose hunted birds and eggs.

Shades of green conclusion

Eco-socialism contributes another facet to GPT Question remains: can green be mixed with another colour? Is green compatible with other ideological colours? Spectrum applied to ideological debates > you'll come up with a discourse similar to today's analysis. What is unique for green debate - intrinsic v extrinsic values; ecocentrism Having covered theory & ideology, we can now move on to ACTORS.

Case Study: a missed opportunity

Economic side: e.g. NFU Scotland, Clyde Fishermen's Association > 'vast amount of EU legislation already'. Normative side: green NGOs > opportunity to adopt an 'enhanced' policy missed by pol-admin actors. Final policy = minimal adjustments to existing legal framework. Shallow green interpretation: small steps are better than nothing. Deep green: minimalist approach signifies econ paradigm/ hegemony. EU policy intention <> Scottish policy reality 'Spirit' of liability policy not implemented

Kyoto continued...

Emission trading systems e.g. EU, USA. Technology investment and transfer e.g. carbon storage Adaptation e.g. research & fund adaptation measures Not touching upon global trade / consumption & production patterns Not addressing properly environmental-social-economic equity Copenhagen Accord 2009 nothing more than reiteration of general objective. Progress in 2012?

Habitats

Example: Rain forests need to be protected regardless of their usefulness to humans < what counts is intrinsic value Conventional (shallow green) justification for protecting rain forests: they absorb carbon and are genetic banks for medicine. Deep Greens: no need for justification; the whole eco-system deserves protection.

Limitations

FPTP electoral system hampering green presentation in Westminster NGOs' influence on politics and policy 'sporadic' (Tim O'Riordan) Definition of environment diluted > DoE UK Governments ' green commitment on paper not matching commitment in practice incrementalism, path-dependency, economic 'necessities' evident > U-turns, watering-down, choice of voluntary tools. Andrew Jordan: 'Sustainable Development has made headway only when political and economic circumstances have permitted it.'

Two waves of NGO mobilisation

First wave: from late 19th Century onwards > conservation/ nature preservation, e.g. Sierra Club (USA), National Trust (UK). Second wave: from 1960s onwards > modern environmentalism, e.g. Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth. Today: 2 generations plus whole green spectrum NGOs have shown adaptability Dramatic increase in numbers Possible reasons: fragmentation of green issue, overload, dissatisfaction with parliamentary politics.

Kyoto Protocol 1997

Follows FCCC's aim to 'stabilise ghg concentrations at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system'. To achieve this > mix of policy aims & tools Quantifiable targets (global target 5.2% reduction of ghg emissions in relation to 1990 baseline for 2008-2012, 'bubble group' incl. EU 8%, US 7%, etc. - developing countries exempt). Energy efficiency > investment, fiscal tools, techn exchange. Energy security > low-carbon energy sources (renewables, nuclear)

SUM

GPT accommodates many shades of green All greens agree on general problem and need for solution Also agree that GPT is different/ distinct from other ideologies But then head in different directions Deep Greens move away from anthropocentrism, instead ecocentrism They embrace holism and the intrinsic value of sentient beings and natural resources in general. Criticism: utopian, unrealistic goals, too radical, uncompromising. Big question: in the light of environmental deterioration > do we need a radical green answer before it is too late or do we opt for a more feasible, step-by-step approach? Answer depends on your level of radicalism and definition of value Perhaps Shallow Green is your spiritual home?

Give me a summary of Politics of the Environment

GPT is concepts and ideologies on the environment Policy practice: actors, processes, and tools Compare state settings Add international dimension, as in Commons. Finish with key issues Critical overview of environmental discourse at domestic and international levels

Let's investigate some features

Green politics & policy depend on political opportunity structures < they dictate process and behaviour of mediation. E.g. Federal systems = not only mediation between econ & normative actors but also between gov levels, legislative-judicial-executive powers > reflected in pol-admin approach & policy. Herbert Simon: decision-makers operate within 'bounded rationality' = decisions not only dependent on 'organisational environment' but also on their 'knowledge' at the time. (scientific) uncertainty < something pol-admin actors find very difficult to grasp. Ergo = our political systems are not tailored towards SD NB: for uncertainty debate, see for instance Roger Harrabin's 2-part 'Uncertain Climate' http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tj525

Bioregionalism

Guiding principle: natural world should determine pol, econ, social life, not vice versa. Kirkpatrick Sale: 'We must get to know the land around us, learn its lore and its potential and live with it and not against it.' Life-style change Minimal resource use, conservation, avoiding waste Instead: self-sufficiency & decentralisation Focus: individual 'spiritual' level Warwick Fox: transpersonal ecology Limited

8 Deep Green Pointers

Human and non-human lives have value, an intrinsic value Biodiversity is a value in itself Humans have no right to reduce diversity < Lovelock's gaia theory Human population (growth) is a problem Human interference is excessive/ on the increase Structures must change Need to move away from materialism/ dominant paradigm Need to participate in process of change

Human ingenuity & policy integration

Humans are capable of adjusting existing pol, soc, econ structures Utilise science and technology > CFC free fridges, lead-free petrol, catalytic converters, renewables. Ecological modernisation Adaptation > if environmental deterioration cannot be halted, we need to live with it and adapt. E.g. GM crops for regions suffering from desertification. Immediate objective: saving human lives Policy integration > work within, not outside system; this may involve compromise, appeal to 'enlightened' self-interest, highlight other benefits. Combining public policy areas > planning, transport, education Two-way street To Deep Greens > greenwash

Relations with others

In the past: relying on close-knit policy communities Challenge > globalisation & MLG; media/ communication; professionalisation of green actors. Economic actors more pro-active, allocated resources, pooled strength with others. Methods: direct and indirect lobbying, know-how, funding Not always hindering environmental policy In some cases, actively facilitating environmental policy e.g. International Chamber of Shipping > agreements on oil spills. Reasons for green motivation: 1) business interests (insurance companies), 2) clean/ high technologies & efficiency, 3) level-playing-field, 4) pre-empt next steps of others. Good example: 2007 US chief executives from BP America, DuPont, General Electric etc formed 'US Climate Partnership' United front on corporate accountability & liability

Application continued...

Inequality examples: Nigeria and oil companies (Shell); Europe exporting pollution to China; waste export to Africa. < close ties with dependency/ periphery theories Domestic context e.g. comparative studies on air pollution in the US > causal link between rich <> poor regions and environmental quality. Need to 're-appropriate' collective ownership of the environment. Re-consider 'real' value of humans and nature In essence: eco-socialism points the finger at our economic system < change it!

Pros & cons with Offe's concept

Interests & actors cannot always be pressed into one macro category Where do scientists and the media go? Pol-administrative actors not always speaking with one voice What about silent/ passive majority? And yet! > Enough examples to confirm Offe's point

Climate Change continued...

Key factors not favourable: wide-ranging lifestyle changes may be necessary; scientific evidence contested; real impacts for future generations; no easy alternatives/ quick fixes. Not surprisingly > different solutions, approaches, levels of commitment. Suggestions: carbon sinks, clean technology, nuclear power, renewables etc. Consensus over the need to act, no consensus over the ways and means < tools.

Who does what, when and how in environmental politics? Where do we begin?

Let's start with ... We all participate! Two perspectives on political discourse: critical <> pluralist Haas: 'glued-together epistemic communities' Let's take critical approach: Claus Offe's post-Marxist approach (Contradictions of the Welfare State 1984) Under investigation: actors' positions in process - their interests - their methods & influence - extent with which they embrace environmental interests. Point out variations within actor categories

Other aspects to consider

Matthew Crenson's question of political inactivity. Political discourse can lead to - nothing! European integration > subsystems not confined to one set of coalitions & brokers. One subsystem may process a policy decision while another influences the policy's outcome/ impact.

Limits to Growth Summary: Beyond the earth's carrying capacity

Meadows et al (Limits to Growth) looked at the earth's carrying capacity or the total population that earth's natural system can support without undergoing degradation - Projections: carrying capacity could not be sustained in future=> political and economic changes required -Focus: exponential growth of world population and associated growth in agric production, use of natural resources, industrial production/pollution -Criticism: Meadows et al insist global population growth and economic growth will be curtailed by environmental limits -Similar but more controversial is Paul Ehrlich's Population Bomb (1968)

Between moderate and radical NGOs

Moderates: conventional methods of interest representation, shallow green pragmatism, cooperate with econ & pol-admin actors, work within policy networks often soften original objective (green conundrum) e.g. Friends of the Earth Radicals: methods include ecotage & civil disobedience, Deep green radicalism confrontation rather than compromise/ cooperation outside networks by default/ choice, Maintain their hard-line e.g. Earth First!

Voluntary tools

More bottom-up Relying on consensus, legitimacy and commitment Usually to entice economic actors to comply with certain environmental standards, procedures. No strings attached > flexibility, though also flexibility to leave agreement. In fashion in 1990s At UN level also > Stockholm 2002 voluntary partnerships Complementary or a replacement/ substitute for other policy tools? Advantage: soft coercion Disadvantage: not binding

Multinationals

Multinational Corporations (MNCs) / Transnational Corporations (TNCs) e.g. Shell, BP, Monsanto. Key feature: flexibility = locate wherever production/ business interests can be maximised > social dumping + environmental dumping Some states/ societies more vulnerable to relocations than others MNCs affect the environment <> environmental regulation affects MNCs Trump card of job creation/ econ growth Economic argument = easier strategy Doyle & McEachern: economic actors are in a 'position of power'

Looking at the range of NGOs

NGOs range from - single to multi issue; hierarchical to anarchical; small to large (chequebook) memberships; local to global; low to high levels of resources; shallow to deep green; insiders to outsiders. Finally: depending on political opportunity structures, they either play a crucial role or 'just' a complementary role in green politics > compare UK with Germany.

Let's look at the common/ shared features of NGOs

NGOs tend to - raise awareness and educate, seek to influence pol-administrative actors (plus economic actors), provide information & know-how, praise as well as name & shame, conduct/ coordinate direct action, help set agendas and formulate policy, add legitimacy to decisions, monitor progress and remind others of commitments. For all these tasks resources are required < dependent on membership fees & donations.

Next: our economic players

Need to be careful with generalisations > not a homogenous group + need to consider consumers also And yet: tendency to use resource pools and sinks, resist regulation, focus on business interests. There are self-imposed ('altruistic') measures < arguably not reaching far enough; also Deep Greens would question motives. Whatever your perspective: economic actors matter in green politics

Offe and Sabatier combined

Offe's focus: actors & conflict; Sabatier's: policy change/ learning Both consider 2 groups of actors (coalitions) and highlight mediating policy brokers Offe's model static, whereas Sabatier's is a constant process loop.

Concluding thoughts on Actors

Offe's model may not be perfect but is applicable from a macro level Within each actor category generalizations can be made. However, there are also variations/ differences between sub-categories. Each actor category has had to make adjustments over the years In the past: balance biased towards economic actors In recent years: policy networks more permeated and accessible (and arguably unpredictable) However, whether this new openness and fragmentation has led to green innovation and whether it has brought us closer to sustainability is a question for you to answer.

Let's stick with Offe's model: Political-administrative Actors

Pol-Admin Actors mediate and navigate Decisions & actions depend on complex set of determinants, formal and informal Decisions are path-dependent, dependent on their respective political opportunity structures Martin Jänicke: common set of institutional features and responses, similar responses > we can generalise Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen: policy differences depending on systemic differences. A bit of both: some general characteristics that apply to all plus setting/ structure specific variations.

Last but not least...

Pol-admin actors have ear-time < not always evenly balanced Not one homogenous political arena but many policy networks (see Jordan, Richardson, Marsh, Rhodes) Range from policy communities to issue networks Trend towards more volatile & permeable networks Also - distinction between action and inaction Matthew Crenson (1971): asked why US cities with similar air pollution problems & industries produce different policy outcomes; some take action, others don't. < balances, alliances, votes.

Key messages

Policy change a continuous loop Process of policy learning = positive progress 'Mini' subsystems considered in wider context Distinction between policy output and impact We need to analyse factors: external & internal; stable & circumstantial; formal & informal. Plus: bounded rationality (Herbert Simon) Green politics = essentially a bargaining process Does not stop at policy adoption but continues indefinitely Distinction between policy intention/ theory and reality/ practice

Case Study: climate change

Problem: greenhouse gases interfere with passage of energy into atmosphere; absorb heat radiated from earth's surface > greenhouse effect > environmental & long-term impacts. Questions: How much is 'man-made'? What needs to be done? Problem-solving: UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 1992; Kyoto Protocol 1997; Copenhagen Accord 2009; ???? 2012. Acknowledgement of problem + human contribution + need to reduce ghg emissions through international regime. However, ghg produced in many ways < reduction not easy.

Between Deep and Shallow, debate

Question: do they exclude each other or do the coexist and complement each other? Mutually exclusive > deeps see shallows as 'sell-outs' 'greenwashing' reality and fooling themselves; shallows see deeps as 'dogmatists' and 'dreamers'. Also: both cannot compromise on ecocentrism vis-à-vis anthropocentrism. Deeps: shallows are reinforcing current system Shallows: radicalism gets you nowhere Peaceful coexistence > only one difference between the two = question of how? Both criticise current econ & pol systems However, one thinks outside the box & radical change, the other thinks incremental. Both claim: we are neither left nor right but forward. Jonathan Porritt: 'Politics of the industrial age is like a 3-lane motorway with left, right and centre where different vehicles move in the three lanes but all are heading in the same direction. Greens feel that it is the direction that is wrong rather than the choice of any one lane.'

Silent Spring

Rachel Carson 1962 September. Helped launch the Environmental Movement in the 60s. Discusses the harms of pesticides and their threat to humans once released into the biosphere. Plants and animals fall victim to illnesses induced by pesticides, humans, especially children, will soon sicken as well.

Animal Rights

Radical activism Single issue Objective: stop suffering of sentient beings Peter Singer Criticism: Animal rights activists tend to neglect the wider picture

Paul A. Sabatier's Advocacy Coalition Framework (1998)

Relatively Stable Parameters: 1-basic attributes of the problem area (good) 2-Basic distribution of natural resources 3- Fundamental socio-cultural values and social structure 4-Basic constitutional structure AND External (System) Events 1-Change in socio-economic conditions 2-Changes in public opinion 3-Changes in systemic governing coalition 4-Policy decisions and impacts from other subsystems BOTH LEAD TO constraints and resources of subsystem actors WHICH MAKE WAY FOR Policy Subsystem, in which (A) Coalition A (a-policy beliefs; b-resources)-> Strategy A1 re.guidance instruments--> (B) Policy brokers--> (C) Coalition B (a-policy beliefs; b-resources)->Strategy B1 re. guidance instruments--> DECISIONS BY SOVEREIGNS-->Institutional rules, resource allocations, and appointments--> Policy outputs and/with-> Policy impacts -------> back to coalitions

The solution is (apparently) something like this...

SOCIAL-ENVIRONMENT (bearable solution) SOCIAL ECONOMIC (equitable solution) ENVIRONMENT-ECONOMIC (Viable solution)

Relations with other Greens

Saying 'neither left nor right but forward' amounts to supporting the existing system. Real target should be capitalist system. Deep greens' response: real target should be industrialism no matter what type. Shared ideas: deeps and eco-socialists call for immediate, radical change; high level of radicalism/ commitment with an ambitious (utopian) aim. Both challenge current status quo, criticise 'greed', prepared to introduce strict regulation Both sides recruit from similar 'left-leaning' clienteles Enter red-green coalitions

3 more actor categories to consider

Scientists > significant input; instrumental; claim neutrality but are they? The media > influential; biased; media attention erratic e.g. on timing and scope. Social networkers > increasingly influential e.g. through e-petitioning (e.g. 38 degrees); less organised/ institutionalised but a category to watch out for.

Looking for quality

Shallow greens are interested in the health, safety and general amenity of urban and rural environments They are interested in environmental quality Env quality can be measured E.g. they look at toxic waste, nuclear energy, ghg emissions and their impacts on human health/ well-being. By tackling these visible/ immediate problems first, other environmental solutions will follow < spill-over Add: green consumerism e.g. Campaign on CFC-free fridges.

The glass is half-full for?

Shallow greens are more optimistic -> better projections/ predictions + technological solutions + systemic adjustments. They question limits to growth predictions > Julian Simon challenged Paul Ehrlich on projections in 1980, target year 1990. Ehrlich lost bet. Bjørn Lomborg: criticised limits to growth 'litany'.

Susan Baker's Ladder of sustainable development (1997)

Stage 1: VERY WEAK SUSTAINABILITY Policy: Lip Service Economy: Minor Tinkering Society: Dim Awareness Discourse: Corporatist discussion, consultation exercises Stage 2: WEAK SUSTAINABILITY Policy: Formal policy integration, deliverable targets Economy: Substantial restructuing of microeconomic incentives Society: Wider public education Discourse: Round-tables, stakeholders, parliamentary surveillance Stage 3: STRONG SUSTAINABILITY Policy: Binding policy integration Economy: full valuation of costs, green accounts alongside national accounts Society: Curriculum integration, local initiatives Discourse: community involvement, twinning between developed and developing Stage 4: VERY STRONG SUSTAINABILITY Policy: Strong internal conventions, national duties of care, statutory and cult support Economy: Formal shift to sustainable economic accounting, nationally and internationally Society: Comprehensive cultural shift, technological innovation, new community structures Discourse: community led initiatives become norm

More features...

The choice between short-termism and long-termism > pol-admin actors lean towards short-termism Commons dilemma & collective action issue (see Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons 1968) Tendency towards responding/ reacting rather than preventing Anthony Downs: 'issue-attention cycle' = pre-problem > noticed > 'alarmed discovery' > pressure for change > change > realisation of costs involved > decline of interest > post-problem phase > etc... Incrementalism = pol-admin actors tend to 'ameliorate' problems; conduct 'alterations to the norm' (Charles Lindblom)

Some final thoughts on NGOs

The normative side is colourful, multi-faceted Too varied to be pressed into one category (Jordan & Maloney) or all belonging to the same family (Dalton)? It is up to you to decide. Recent findings: Competition is counter-productive while alliances are more effective Right now: the beginnings of a new social movement/ mobilisation wave? Too soon to tell. NGO impact on politics and policy difficult to qualify & quantify. Yet: consensus that they have made a difference, they do matter. NGOs reflect societies' need to respond to problems/ pressures. They constitute an important part of Offe's welfare state model

Has Brundtland made a difference?

The report has made us think. Report cited at all levels; some examples: -UN Declaration, Conventions, and Protocols -EU primary and secondary law, Environmental Action Programmes, etc -UK Government => sustainable development -Scottish Government => Choosing Our Future 2005, Sustainable Scotland Network, Scottish Sustainable Development Forum, etc. -Good intentions on paper. Are they matched in practice? Consider: -Implementation gap -Variations in performances -Problems in gaining a comprehensive overview -More recent paradigm challenges questioning origin of principle

Connect the Environment to IR.

To what extent immediate and wider impacts are (a) noticeable and (b) acceptable is a matter of judgement => Politics & IR.

Doyle & McEachern: the study of political systems is crucial

Type of political system determines relations between economic and pol-admin actors Comparison of 'authoritarian' Nigeria and 'liberal democratic' UK and their government responses to Shell activities. Nigeria: Shell and regime quasi-symbiotic, normative actors (Ogoni People) suppressed, left outside process. UK: normative pressure RE Brent Spar oil rig > no government support for Shell, Shell had to act. Careful with sweeping comparisons. However still valid point = consider political system.

Introduction to Policy Tools

Variety of environmental challenges require a variety of answers < tailor-made policy tools Carter: 4 policy tools = regulatory - voluntary - government expenditure - market-based. All have advantages & disadvantages Some are in fashion or fall out of fashion. Regulatory: command & control tool; popular in 1980s; set quantitative limits + procedures; e.g. air pollution limits, water quality standards, environmental impact assessment. Often associated with end-of-pipe approach & thou shall not.

Eco-labelling

Voluntary & market-based Government- or sector-driven Earn label through implementation of set criteria, standards, procedures. Green marketing tool Since 1970s German blue angel 1978; Nordic eco swan EU eco-label 1992 Sectors: Green Seal (USA); FSC (forest stewardship); energy star; dolphin-friendly labels. Advantage: visible, incentive, guiding Disadvantage: voluntary, can be misleading.

Why transcend (haha) from science to social science?

We possess an anthropocentric, socially constructed, and biased view of the world. Ecocentric and anthropocentric worlds seem at odds. Examples: 1. Red squirrels vs. Grey (and Black) Squirrels must be 'humanely dispatched' 2. Construction: Target setting and regime building for climate change.

Case Study continued...

With details for Member States > scope for interpretation; advantage: flexible/ tailored to suit circumstances on the ground, disadvantage: less binding, difficult to enforce. Scotland obliged to adopt statutory instruments for Directive > another bargaining process RE details. Scottish Executive/ Government mediating, though concerned about econ, legal & admin costs/ implications > minimalism Consultation responses disappointingly low Responses confirmed normative <> economic divide

Let's move on to NGOs...

With dispersal of power (MLG, globalisation etc) increasingly important. Policy networks increasingly open & fluid Politics & IR no longer exclusively state-centric Need more research into extent of NGO influence One thing for sure: they matter in green politics General Def: independent, non-profit organisations, not involved in electoral/ parliamentary process.

Garret Hardin (1968)

Wrote: The Tragedy of the Commons

What is a paradigm?

a set of beliefs, ideas, and values from which public policies and whole systems of behaviour flow

Post-war dominant socio-economic paradigm

economic growth, infinite supply of natural resources, depletion limited thanks to technological fixes, environmental concerns secondary - Both East and West embraced paradigm -Perceived link between material improvement and human advance/well-being

Kuznets curve

inequality increases in early stages of capitalist development (pre-industrial), declines (post-industrial), and eventually stabilizes at relatively low level (service economy); Simon Kuznets. x-axis = Income per capita y-axis = environmental degradation some believe it goes in N-shape; income increases after saturation

Principle of Population

the growth rate of food due to technological advances will always be slower than the rate at which humans reproduce