Reading Response #4

In Chapter 7 of The Politics of the Earth, “Environmentally Benign Growth”, John Dryzek makes an interesting comparison between the discourse of sustainable development and democracy. Both generally seem to be, at least in official international affairs rhetoric, respectively, the prevalent paradigm for environmentalism and politics. Also, in Dryzek’s view, both are broad and open-ended discourses that lend themselves to a variety of definitions and interpretations (147). What is more, sustainable development and democracy are both “largely about social learning, involving decentralized, exploratory, and variable approaches to its pursuit”, emphasizing the importance of the role of civil societies (158). Looking at these parallels, I would like to briefly examine the challenges that they suggest for the discourse of sustainable development.

On the problematic consequences of the parallels between sustainable development and democracy, a first issue can be seen in their vulnerability to be shaped and manipulated to respond to particular interests masked by declarations of public interest. It can be cynically—but also reasonably—said that politicians and businesses operate under the constant restraint of public relations. For a politician to publicly dismiss democracy is equivalent to career suicide in most of the contemporary world. Similarly, openly rejecting the appealing principles of sustainable development would not constitute sound business strategy. As Dryzek himself colorfully observes, “corporations have clambered on board the bandwagon to show that business too can play constructive roles” (156). The question is, can it really be expected that firms will abandon their tried-and-true neoclassical business practices in exchange of good PR? I find it highly unlikely. What can be expected—as is happening already—is that their publicity spots will contain more references to their presumably greener, eco-friendlier products.

From a global perspective, secondly, is sustainability compatible with an international political economy dominated by the tenets of market liberalism? Democracy is part of the historical and social offspring of capitalism, and the same could be said of sustainable development, inasmuch as it does not challenge capitalism, but actually aims at following its principle of continued growth (146). Moreover, democracy and sustainable development are both undermined by capitalism. Democracy (or capitalism), however, seems to have bought itself more time through the compromise of the welfare state.

Could a similar environmental compromise be achieved in the case of sustainable development? Perhaps, but, as James Speth notes in Red Sky at Morning, environmental challenges not only require concerted international action in most cases (which in itself multiplies the difficulties in achieving solutions), but they are also more complex, harder to perceive, and more commonly relegated to the future (100). The social and economic problems that the welfare compromise has somewhat addressed, on the other hand, did not have to add those difficulties to the already complicated realm of domestic politics. Speth further underscores the fact that solving environmental problems—as it would certainly be the case in the framework of sustainable development—requires interference in the market (113). While the market was wise enough to realize that the costs of oppression where larger than those of concession in the case of welfare democracy, it seems unlikely to be so in the case of sustainable development.

Reading Response #3

In part III of his Politics of the Earth (2005), John Dryzek analyzes the main environmental discourses that comprise the approach of “solving environmental problems”. The three discourses framed by this approach are administrative rationalism, democratic pragmatism, and economic rationalism. Out of these three, I wish to pay particular attention to administrative rationalism, not only because it was the first to be developed and employed, thus having a substantial record of results to analyze, but also because it currently supports the model of environmental policy in some parts of the developing world. In Central America, for instance, environmental policy is heavily dependent on institutions and practices of administrative rationalism, such as resource-management bureaucracies and environmental impact assessments. That is why I would like to reflect on the weaknesses of these practices, since even though some might have been already resolved in the United States and other pioneers in environmentalism, they still pose challenges in other countries that rely on them to formulate and apply environmental policy.

Dryzek first looks at professional resource-management bureaucracies as institutions of administrative rationalism. A centralized environmental authority (usually a Ministry of the Environment in Central America) is necessary to create, organize, execute, and enforce environmental policy. However, a high level of technical specialization is required, and as Dryzek points out, key positions can at times be appointed to non-specialists (77, 85). The risk is even greater in developing countries where cultures of patronage, nepotism, and co-opting often lead to positions being handed out with little regard to technical qualifications.

Polution control agencies, another institution of administrative rationalism, are also not exempt of vulnerabilities. Dryzek provides an example in the case of the “politicization of science”, whereby scientists can be replaced with pro-industry partisans in these agencies, thus altering the outcome of anti-pollution legislation that is supposed to be informed by scientific findings (79). Again, the risks are higher in the context of developing countries, where it is more common for powerful private interests to exert their influence over governmental decisions.

Regulatory policy instruments are another tool whose application can be problematic. Dryzek notes how, in the United States, the ultimate outcome of these regulatory instruments rests on judicial decisions, which are often preceded by costly and protracted litigation (80). Once more, this weakness can be exacerbated in developing countries, where courts can be more ineffective, misinformed, and corrupt.

Environmental impact assessments, expert advisory commissions, and rationalistic policy analysis techniques are other institutions that administrative rationalism prescribes, but they also contain some of the weaknesses of those practices discussed above. Environmental impact assessments are not only subject to economic pressures, but also depend significantly on courts for their interpretation and implementation (81). Expert advisory commissions and policy analysis techniques require a large amount of scientific expertise, which is not always sufficiently available in developing countries.

Facing these problems, a common sense suggestion would be to move towards democratic pragmatism, as the U.S. and some European countries have done, but this also poses a challenge in the developing world, where, by and large and at best, democracies are not yet fully consolidated.

Reading Response #2

In his beautifully crafted essay, The Tragedy of the Commons, Garrett Hardin underscores the greater importance of argument and rationality over that of an image or photograph, stating that while “One picture is worth a thousand words […] it may take ten thousand words to validate it”. Yet as he made that statement, Hardin seemed to forget that humans are not purely rational creatures; but also emotional ones. It cannot be denied that the power of a solid argument, or that of a particular discourse, as John Dryzek and other social constructivists assert, matters greatly, all the more as they relate to the most imminent interests of individuals and of states. However, it is not wise to ignore the moving potential that vision has to shape human behavior, especially after looking at cases in which images appear to have played a significant role in eliciting political action where arguments alone had failed to do so.

In his Politics of the Earth: Environmental Discourses, John Dryzek presents two concrete examples of environmental issues in which a single image was largely effective in seizing the attention of the international community and important national actors: the finite nature of the Earth and the depletion of the ozone layer. Dryzek observes how the first photographs of Earth taken from space poignantly drove home what was already a theoretically-grounded notion: Earth is a materially-limited system, and a “fragile one at that” (2005: 40). More exemplary, it was an image captured in 1985 of the ‘ozone hole’ over Antarctica that finally gave a “face” to the ozone depletion problem of which warnings had been made since the 1970s (43). Perhaps not so coincidentally, two years after this image was shown to the world, twenty-four states signed the 1987 Montreal Protocol (43).

It is important to note, however, that Dryzek makes a caveat about the apparent success over the ozone issue, observing that “it was fortuitous that the material interests of key players could eventually be brought into line with global environmental concerns” (45). This observation is in reference, for instance, to the fact that important economic interests of the United States were at play, as corporations like Du Pont had been investing in CFC substitutes at the time (44). It is indeed necessary to consider the effective response that aligning interests with environmental issues can yield, especially the interest of big international actors like the U.S.

Solid arguments themselves, as Hardin averred, can also significantly incite effective action. Dryzek again provides an example with the Global 2000 report, which ultimately (filtered by the Heritage Foundation) had an impact in some environmental policies of the Raegan administration (64).

After considering all of this, perhaps the best way to motivate action not only from powerful actors but also from individuals is to compose solid arguments, determine linkages between material interests and the environment, and employ striking images all at once. Which of these options plays the larger role in inspiring and convincing people to address a particular issue is hard to determine and probably dependent on specific circumstances. Yet for environmental issues, given that we are so connected to the natural world by our sense of vision, the power of the image in affecting individual conduct and policy should not be understated.

Reading Response # 1

Considering the extremely high stakes of environmental deterioration as expounded by authors such as James Speth, or detailed in documents such as the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), it is hard for a non-expert like me to understand why not enough ameliorating measures have been implemented. It is also hard to comprehend why so many environmental issues were allowed to escalate to the critical point that they have reached.
It is hard to think of excuses after realizing that important observations began to develop a more robust consciousness for environmental issues among scientists as early as the latter part of the 1970s (Speth, 2004). However, the fact that rigorous scientific reports like the MA in 2005 still point out to alarming deficiencies “to enhance the conservation and sustainable use of ecosystems” (MA, 2005, p. v) reveals that those observations were not properly harkened.
As the MA shows by containing a Summary for Decision-Makers, a large part of most solution-achieving processes falls on the hands of politicians and other important socioeconomic entities. Since most measures need to be implemented through both national and international policies and institutions, political actors play an essential role in achieving environmental solutions. Unfortunately, as the MA suggests, decision-makers lack awareness of “the threats posed by the degradation of ecosystem services” (MA, 2005, p. 20).
To that lack of awareness I would also add that there is a general lack of interest not only among decision-makers, but also among the general public (who is also a victim of insufficient or incorrect information). Humans’ seemingly inherent shortsightedness for large time-spanning events, like global warming, biodiversity impoverishment, and other environmental ills, appears to be largely responsible for this lack of interest.
Like someone trying to watch day turn into night at dusk only to be suddenly surprised by nocturnal darkness, people can find it hard to give serious consideration to environmental issues until they are being directly, and in many cases irreversibly, affected by them. In the meantime, they tend to be more preoccupied with more immediate concerns such as security, employment, and welfare. Those interests are the main drivers of political action, thus relegating other, more “invisible” issues like ecosystem deterioration and its effects on human well-being. Additionally, outside of certain social circles who often hold modest political clout, people generally lack at least a conscious understanding of “ethical duties” to the environment (Speth, 2004, p. 24) or a recognition of its “intrinsic value” (MA, 2005, p. v), as represented in artistic expressions such as Martin Buber’s “I Contemplate a Tree”, in which a man discovers himself and the tree to be siblings in nature.
Beyond alarming statistics and estimates, it is this lack of significant popular motivation to thwart the threats to biodiversity and ecosystems that constitutes, in my opinion, the main environmental question that has yet to find an answer.