Session 1: Environmental Ideas in the 21st Century
Proceedings based on the notes of John Theaker, edited by Caspar Hewett
The Chair, Dave O'Toole, framed the discussion by pointing at how environmental
ideas now cut across all areas of politics, business and civil society and
asking what impact these ideas are having; Environmental ideas are now taught in
schools, discussed in the House of Commons and debated at world summits, so what
does it mean to be an environmentalist in the 21st Century? He introduced the
three speakers; Derek Bell, Leverhulme Research Fellow in Politics at
University
of Newcastle, Joe Kaplinsky, Technology Analyst and Mary Mellor, author
The Politics of Money: Towards Sustainability and Economic Democracy
and asked them
to consider the impact of the environmental movement, what is behind the
mainstreaming of environmental ideas and what consequences this has for the
future
Derek Bell opened by saying that the problem for
environmentalists at the start of the 21st Century is that
environmental ideas have become part of the mainstream and have lost their
radical political and economic edge. The principle of sustainability is widely
accepted. For governments and businesses that buy into it there is an attitude
of win-win. There is no notion of trade offs. The idea of environmentalism has
become part of the mainstream and weakened as a result. He outlined what he sees
as the ideas inherent in sustainable development;
-
Justice. The Bruntland report defined sustainable
development as 'development which meets the needs of the present without
compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.' Justice
is a very important element in this.
-
Public participation is also very important. Emphasis is placed on public
participation. However, often this is only a formal commitment - paying lip
service to participation. We need to go beyond the "same old faces"
syndrome. How do we encourage people to get more involved in decision-making?
What innovations can encourage people to participate? One way forward here is
the concept of environmental citizenship.
Bell argued that we need a new paradigm of social and hard science - to move
away from the technological fix - for there are important social and political
aspects to environmentalism as well. An inter-disciplinary approach is needed.
In a world dominated by money and power it is important for environmentalists to
find ways to participate and to engage in dialogue on these issues.
The second speaker, Joe Kaplinsky, felt that environmental ideas have been a
disaster so far - we don’t need them. He asked; what is at the core of
environmental ideas and what are the common themes? Using a quote by George
Monbiot as an example, Kaplinsky argued that, underlying environmental ideas is
the sense that, contained within our aspirations are the seeds of our own
destruction. It is the idea of ‘nature’s revenge’ - Monbiot says that our
‘dreaming’ will destroy the conditions for life on Earth.
For Kaplinsky environmental ideas represent a profound scepticism towards
science and technology. The environmentalists claim that we have made science a
god. The solutions are often drastic. For example it is suggested that we need
to cut our energy use to 10-20% of present levels and that draconian regulation
needs to be introduced. However, these ideas are not informed by a series of
evidence and disasters. Rather they represent two things; a reaction against
progress and a politics of fear. The precautionary principle is intimately
linked to these two things. It places emphasis on unknown effects at an
indeterminate time in the future - it is all speculation and is not based on the
present situation. More often than not it projects distaster onto the
future.
Kaplinsky asked why we should minimise impact, our ‘footprint.’ Impact is often
referred to but is rarely defined - Paul Erlich defined it in a very general way
which seems to see any impact of human activity as bad. The logic of
Erlich’s argument is that we should regress to the stone age.
In closing his introduction Kaplinsky pointed out that, while it is tempting to
see these trends as being unique to the European Union, in fact the politics of
fear is world wide. For example the US is experiencing something similar but
there it is most clearly manifested as a fear of international terrorism and of
muslim fundamentalism.
Mary Mellor argued that the economy is the biggest thing we have to contend with
and made a passionate attack on money. She drew attention to the defeat of the
left in the 1980s and the vacuum this left in politics; while the greens have
developed views about the economy they tend to underemphasise the importance of
money - We need to go to the heart of how the economy really works. The economic
system is a money-based system. However, money is not real. It is presented as
real but it conceals the true value of things. After all a house is just a house
regardless of its ‘value’ in money terms. Mellor feels that we have lost any
sense of what is valuable.
Mellor argued that money only recognises what it wants to recognise and that it
confers power. She asked what right have they got? The most important aspect of
the modern economy is that it presents itself as a wealth creating sector - but
the modern economy is a money making sector, not a wealth creating sector. 97%
of the money in our economy is circulated through debt, mainly through consumer
and housing debt. She asked; shouldn’t we collectively harness that money and
use it for things that are valuable, that we want to? There is nothing natural
about the economy. We know the price of everything and the value of nothing.
Mellor closed by arguing that we should collectively take control of the way
money is issued. If we grasp this politically and socially then there will be a
revolution.
During the feedback session Kaplinsky pointed to the explosion of financial
activity in derivatives and insurance driven by risk aversion. This current
obsession with minimising risk is another consequence of the influence of green
thought and provides a further illustration of the politics of fear and
precaution. Kaplinsky also drew attention the stigmatization of
industrialization which he sees as a barely concealed critique of
production.
On the question of democracy Mary Mellor argued that only with economic
democracy can democracy have any strength or meaning. Derek Bell defined
democracy as rule by the people for the people and pointed to representative,
participatory and deliberative democracy as essential forms, each being part of
a whole. He felt that an emphasis on democracy is essential - so many of the
decisions made in our society are undemocratic. We need to look at the
democratisation of science so that the specialists do not run away with the
world and it is incumbent on scientists to bridge the gap. For Joe Kaplinsky
what democracy requires is the formation of some kind of expression of the
general will, the collective decision. He argued that environmentalism denies
the old way of rational discourse and debate, that too much of the irrationality
of environmentalism is given too much respect and that there is too much emotion
injected into the discussion. Thus he defended rationality itself.
Top of page
Sustainability Here and Now
What Future for the Developing World?