Green Ideologies (Notes from Barbara Goodwin)

·        Anthropocentrism – How can a human ideology possibly be eco-centred, rather than human-centred when humans care about prolonging the planet for their children/grandchildren etc. And not on the basis of concern for other life forms on the planet.

·        Light greens, which often correlate with environmentalism, are more anthropocentric in their approach. They believe the reason for minimising human intervention in the natural world is to ensure the survival of the human race. Environmentalists are concerned with moderating the impact of human activity on the environment and with protecting nature as far as is compatible with human purposes. They typically argue for recycling and protection and conservation of wildlife and countryside.

·        Dark greens believe all species live in ‘one world’, a world whose fragile balance is jeopardized by human activities. Ecocentric view of the world. Correlates with ecologism, which is a doctrine which advocates the radical transformation of the relationship between human beings and their environment.

Economic Arguments

Malthusian greens

·        World population growing exponentially. 1970-1990 – grown from 3.6 billion to 5.3 billion.

·        Only finite natural resources, many of which are non-renewable. E.g. fossil fuels.

·        Once population exceeds resources nature must readjust the imbalance e.g. wars fought over resources or a pandemic.

·        To prevent this, malthusian’s call for global economic equilibrium, rather than further growth.

·        They advocate population control and efficiency in resource use.

·        They concluded that a sustainable society may still be possible, but that it would require a careful balance between long-term and short-term goals and an emphasis on sufficiency, equity and quality of life rather than on quantity of output.

·        Criticism – However, this stops developing countries from progressing.

Eco-capitalism/light greens

·        Open to the idea of technological fixes e.g. new sources of energy e,.g. solar and hydrogen.

·        Pollution dealt with by anti-pollution devices or taxes on polluters.

·        Criticism – Marcuse believed capitalism could only grow by depleting the natural resources on which it relies on for production.

·        The essential components of capitalism: markets, consumption, and the continuous increase of needs and desires – completely destroy the environment.

·        These measures would require expensive technology and the use of more resources themselves, creating more pollution.

Eco-socialism

·        Bookchin believes ‘bourgeoisie exploitation and manipulation are undermining the very capacity of the Earth to sustain advanced forms of life’.

·        Emphasises low technology production and agriculture.

·        Gorz argued that economic rationality should be subordinated to eco-social rationality. He held that eco-capitalism was not enough to resolve the problem.

·        Gorz argued that RWH (reduced working hours) + increased productivity would allow a reduction in unemployment, given a situation of low growth. RWH would also free people to undertake valuable but non-remunerated activities.

·        Overall effect of RWH should be redistributive, thus achieving socialist objectives in Gorz’s view.

·        Criticisms – Communism e.g. USSR, was ecologically disastrous. The industrial system remains the same as with capitalism, just the mode of production changes.

·        Socialist society might redistribute resources more equally, however, this is likely to increase the propensity of the newly enriched ‘workers’ to consume. This is because the poor will spend more of their increased income on immediate consumption.

Deep Greens

·        Requires revolution in human lifestyle.

·        Industrialization itself is a culprit, along with capitalism.

·        Abolition of capitalism is not enough - Social reorganization of some sort is required.

·        Implies a radically new mode of production based on lower technology.

THE NEED TO REDUCE CONSUMPTION

·        All greens would unite on the need to reduce the consumption of unnecessary goods.

·        Deep greens demand a radical re-evaluation of what exactly is necessary in human life.

·        Legislation is the most likely method of curtailing consumption. The contemporary liberal and libertarian doctrine of freedom of consumer choice makes such laws sound oppressive. However, most governments impose taxes on consumption goods and the rates of tax are regularly manipulated to control consumption patterns. e.g. VAT.

·        Another way of limiting consumption is by reducing and limiting population levels globally. However, this involves both practical and moral problems.

·        Injunction from the West to reduce Third-World populations could be perceived as racist.

·        Limitation of population can be done by immigration controls. – Porritt believes this is the strictly logical position as far as ecologists are concerned. It is however, potentially racist.

·        Moral issue of contravening individual freedom e.g. China’s one child policy. Effects such as female infanticide.

·        Neo-Malthusian solution to pop. Control – plague, famine, diseases such as HIV/AIDS are welcome and natural methods of population control. Seen as morally unacceptable.

·        If  Greens believe in natural processes and non-intervention – should they interfere with the natural conception process at all?

·        Falling production and consumption would cause societies to maintain a sharp division between rich and poor.

ANTI-POLLUTION ARGUMENTS

·        Pollution can be defined as an alteration to or destruction of established ecosystems.

·        Introduction of poisonous or otherwise harmful ingredients into local environments, or into the global system.

·        Most pollution is the result of industrial activity or of industrial exploitation of natural resources. Only a reversion to pre-industrial economies worldwide would fix this.

·        Pollution does not just occur by itself but is usually a result of human economic activity.

·        A pollution argument in the human interest (i,e, to enjoy unspoilt beaches, wildlife safaris etc.) is essentially a light green argument and subject to moral and practical compromise.

·        Differs from the deep green argument about the rights of other species and the intrinsic value of human nature.

MORAL ARGUMENTS

·        Greens may adopt these moral argunments:

·        (1)The recognition that other species have a right to survive and a right to our respect.

·        (2)The acknowledgement that other species have intrinsic value, beyond human valuation, as do local eco-systems.

·        (3)The holistic position that the planet as a whole eco-system has an absolute and intrinsic value.

·        However, it is hard to see how arguments advanced by human beings can be anything but anthropocentric.

·        Animal rights arguments – face the difficulties of contending that animals could have rights, since rights are essentially a human concept. (1).

·        It is humans who bestow value on things. Essentially, the intrinsic value argument requires a non-human value-giver i.e. a god. (2).

·        Extinction was around long before humans were, so any extinction of a species caused by human interference isn’t that different to what happens in nature all the time. (2).

·        Does not entail a clear condemnation of human intervention; by contrast the argument that the earth will adapt and regain equilibrium, whatever humans do, might be seen as licensing any interventions we might make (3).

HOW WOULD A FUTURE GREENER SOCIETY BE ORGANIZED?

·       Ecotopias – are Green images of the Good Society.

·       Models of eco-friendly communities – arranged as a series of small parishes.

·       Bookchin proposes regional eco-technology – a situation in which instruments of production are moulded to the resources of an ecosystem. Food producers and farmers must operate in cooperation with nature rather than in defiance of nature. Industrial units located within ecocommunities should be smaller and should use clean power.

·       Sale (deep green) argued that modern cities of 50000 inhabitants could in principle become self-sufficient. The rules for self-sufficiency include the sharing of facilities and tools within neighbourhoods, recycling and repairing, dependence on handicrafts rather than manufacture and doing without what is not needed.

·       The result of a Green revolution would require a reduction in living standards which would cause severe policing by an authoritarian global power or by authoritarian local states. Global redistribution would certainly need enforcement.

PROBLEMATIC QUESTIONS

·       Green arguments mean that discrimination becomes impossible – this results in humans not being able to interfere in nature at all.

·       The question of what to do with species that are no longer useful arises. Cows, pigs etc. Would have no use and therefore would have to be destroyed as we could no longer have them on our land eating crops if they were no longer useful.

·       Rawls talks about adopting a ‘just savings principle’ which would determine the social minimum for the present generation and set a rate at which it should save for prosperity.

·       Ecologism has emerged from scientific ecology. This scientific base is crucial in preventing ecologism from being seen as merely another romantic, back-to-nature doctrine.

·       Because light green ideas and prescriptions are simply assimilated by ‘grey’ political parties, it is the deep greens who are more likely eventually to develop a distinctive, ecocentric ideology.