Class 8: Perspectives on EP

1. P. Brian Fisher CofC EP: Fall 2010 Class 8: Perspectives on EP

2. 2 Part Argument from Environmental Case • 1. environmental conflicts are fundamentally about differences in values • However, rarely are arguments about EP defined by valuesrather, through science, economics, and risk. • 2. the way problems are defined plays a central role in shaping how those values get translated into policy

3. Authoritative Explanations or Frames (Issue Framing) • The “outcome of every conflict is determined by the extent to which the audience becomes involved in it.” (EE Schattschnieider). • As a result, advocates define problems strategically to attract and resonate with majority of public or key blocs within the community. • Often it’s a fight over those who haven’t made a commitment. • Thus politics and policy is largely driven by those in the middle—who remained uncommitted • What does this say about creating political change??

4. Compete over authoritative explanations through: • 1. Causal Stories: “causal stories are essential political instruments for shaping alliances and for settling the distribution of benefits and costs.” (p5) • 2. Predicting consequences (good or bad) because they know fear of loss or harm galvanizes public • 3. Limiting range and types of solutions • 4. Defining alternatives: definition of alternatives is also “supreme instrument of power.”

5. Issue Framing Revolves Around • 1. Science: many enviro issues contain uncertainty • Environmentalists stress the Precautionary Principle • Cornucopians stress unnecessary restrictions without foreknowledge hurts economy and is unnecessary risk • 2. Costs/Benefits (Economics) • Cornucopians stress economic costs assoc with enviro regulation; environmentalists stress enviro costs and longer term views of economic costs • Assumes gov’t should take enviro action ONLY when benefits outweigh costs. • 3. Risks (action or inaction)important to “perception of risk” which underpins environmental decision-making • Cornucopians minimize enviro risks and focus on policy’s potential econ costs, while Enviromentalists stress enviro or health risks of inaction.

6. 1. Environmentalists • * primary value on environment * • Historically: Preservationists (Romantics in early 1800s, Thoreau, and Muirprotect the wild) and Conservationists (Pinchotprudent use of natural resources) • Post WWII: focused on interdependence of nature and humansLeopold (A Sand County Almanac) and rights based on “land ethic”. • Limits to Growth (1970s)sustainability • Deep Ecology: ecocentric philosophical approach to env

7. 2. Cornucopians • * primary value on economic growth * • Def’n suggest limitlessness of world • Proponents fear environmental reactions threaten their economic well-being and health • Julian Simon and Herman Kahn: “resilience of well-functioning economic and social systems enable us to overcome env problems, and solutions leave us better off than if the problem never arose.” • Critics of Environmentalists: env regulations limit both individual freedom & use of resources for econ • Best way to ensure env protection is to pursue material prosperityKuznet Curve • People are “superior in their placement in the natural order”

8. Econ Growth and Environ Quality • Argument: As per cap income rises so will enviro quality in longer runKuznet Curve. • As per cap rises, environ quality will decline in short run, but will then rise • Explanation: In early econ development, enviro by products are acceptable side effect (prioritize survival)

9. 2 (or 4) Participants in Environmental Debates • 1. Environmentalists • Bioenvironmentalists • Social Greens • 2. Cornucopians • Market Liberals • Institutionalists

10. Perspectives on Enviro Policy Issues(4 Worldviews) • Market Liberals (Economics):env problem stem from poverty and weak econ growth. Tremendous growth has improved global environment through tech, science and ingenuity • Institutionalists (Institutions):env problems stem from weak institutions & lack of global cooperation (and ultimately governance). Potential for env crisis unless we improve state capacity and global institutions • Bioenvironmentalists (Ecosystems): problems stem from human instinct to “overfill ecological space” as seen by overpop, excessive growth, & overconsumption. Problem now, as we are nearing earth’s “carrying capacity” • Social Greens (Justice):Probs stem from large-scale industrial life leading to exploitation of people & environment. Problem now, as inequality and injustice expand at local/global levels feed enviro crises

11. Primary Environmental Approach • Market Liberals and Institutionalists: Curve demonstrates that as markets/states/communities develop they pollute more in the short run, but are cleaner in the long run (e.g. Japan) • Why? Economy shifts to service away from production; more education and awareness; more technology; more policy pressure for clean env • Slow Growth is not the answer--reinforces cycle of poverty and enviro degradation (e.g. poor as agents of env damage) • Solutions through econ growth while “managing” environment • mkt liberals see the market and technology as the way forward • Increased efficiency and market incentive, new tech • Institutionalists see global cooperation and integration to achieve standardization and sustainable consumption

12. Green Critiques:BioEnv & Social Greens • Both argue that econ growth is not a source of better environ conditions, but degradation at ALL income levels. • Environment is not a subsystem of the macroeconomy, but rather, the economy is a subsystem of the ecological system • Can’t achieve perpetual growth (there are limits) and natural resources are finite • Without limits, nothing in current economic approach to signal “unsustainable”--prices are not a good determinant of availability of resources. Also, mkt failures occur more often than admit • Kuznets Curve Misleading: • Only applied to some pollutants (not e.g. CO2 emissions) • Substituted environ impacts not included (Sulfur declines from shutting coal plant for nuclear, but still has pollutants) • Impacts (pollution) may have been shifted to another country • Ignores feedback that may inhibit future growth preventing decline • Question ‘Poor as agents of env damage’: For social greens, it’s inequality & industrial agriculture & “enclosure” & historical forces that lead to damage • Wealth & Overconsumption which arise from econ growth are themselves drivers of enviro degradation-->inequality in consumption (e.g. ecol footprint)