21
dimensions which underpin the effectiveness of sustainable action – political, economic and social dimensions.
In contrast with deep ecology (Naess 1988) or radical ecocentrism, it does not,
for example, oppose consumption per se (to maintain public services such as health
and education, some form of consumption is necessary) but promotes ‘mindful’
consumption, i.e. that which is consistent with the aims and philosophy of a sustainable society. Green republicanism is consistent with ecologism because it recognises the need to transform those features of capitalist society that promote
hyper-consumerism and the injustice of a society in which goods are so unevenly
distributed
2
.
Most people live within states and have contractual responsibilities towards each
other codified through legal systems. Should states support voluntarism in which
those citizens who choose to live sustainably take required action while others
might choose unsustainable paths? Or should there be elements of coercion provided by the authority and laws of the state so that all citizens take a part in moving
towards an eco-just society? Barry (2005) and Humphreys (2009) argue that green
republicanism does require obligations from a state’s citizens, for example, physical
labour, in helping to improve drainage systems, breeding grounds for birds, seeding
wildflowers in waste grounds as well as engaging in democratic deliberation such as
critical discussion of forestry developments, the role of the private sector and NGOs
in environmental projects and the role of the state in international obligations such
as controlling carbon emissions.
Such an approach entails fine distinctions between freedom and coercion and
degrees of popular resistance to changes which are seen as leading to environmental
depredation and unsustainable economic systems. So green republicanism does not
mean compliance to meet what might be justifiable demands of the state, i.e. in the
case of personally responsible citizens, but engaging in robust democratic deliberation, possibly backed by non-violent protest, to achieve eco-just ends.
There are interwoven issues to consider. While many scientific and technological
developments are directed towards the public good in terms of their social desirability, ethical acceptability and sustainability (Owen et al. 2009), products and
developments carry with them certain risks and hazards. Nanomaterials, for example, have many potential social benefits, but such small particles present unquantifiable health risks (Patenaude et al. 2015). Ravetz (2004) depicted post-normal
science, as identified technologies such as nanotechnology, robotics and artificial
intelligence, known by the acronym GRAIN, as those where decision stakes and
social uncertainties are high, presenting potential unknown hazards.
In addition, many of the environmental challenges that beset contemporary societies often involve sophisticated levels of scientific understanding, for example,
estimating the sources and levels of pollution of watercourses, the causes and extent
of losses of biodiversity, the cost-benefits and quality control of organic products.
2 Wilkinson and Pickett’s book, The Spirit Level (2010), demonstrates that more egalitarian countries have lower infant mortality rates and more sustainable societies after gross GDP is taken into
account.
2 Political Dimensions of Environmental Citizenship
dimensions which underpin the effectiveness of sustainable action – political, economic and social dimensions.
In contrast with deep ecology (Naess 1988) or radical ecocentrism, it does not,
for example, oppose consumption per se (to maintain public services such as health
and education, some form of consumption is necessary) but promotes ‘mindful’
consumption, i.e. that which is consistent with the aims and philosophy of a sustainable society. Green republicanism is consistent with ecologism because it recognises the need to transform those features of capitalist society that promote
hyper-consumerism and the injustice of a society in which goods are so unevenly
distributed
2
.
Most people live within states and have contractual responsibilities towards each
other codified through legal systems. Should states support voluntarism in which
those citizens who choose to live sustainably take required action while others
might choose unsustainable paths? Or should there be elements of coercion provided by the authority and laws of the state so that all citizens take a part in moving
towards an eco-just society? Barry (2005) and Humphreys (2009) argue that green
republicanism does require obligations from a state’s citizens, for example, physical
labour, in helping to improve drainage systems, breeding grounds for birds, seeding
wildflowers in waste grounds as well as engaging in democratic deliberation such as
critical discussion of forestry developments, the role of the private sector and NGOs
in environmental projects and the role of the state in international obligations such
as controlling carbon emissions.
Such an approach entails fine distinctions between freedom and coercion and
degrees of popular resistance to changes which are seen as leading to environmental
depredation and unsustainable economic systems. So green republicanism does not
mean compliance to meet what might be justifiable demands of the state, i.e. in the
case of personally responsible citizens, but engaging in robust democratic deliberation, possibly backed by non-violent protest, to achieve eco-just ends.
There are interwoven issues to consider. While many scientific and technological
developments are directed towards the public good in terms of their social desirability, ethical acceptability and sustainability (Owen et al. 2009), products and
developments carry with them certain risks and hazards. Nanomaterials, for example, have many potential social benefits, but such small particles present unquantifiable health risks (Patenaude et al. 2015). Ravetz (2004) depicted post-normal
science, as identified technologies such as nanotechnology, robotics and artificial
intelligence, known by the acronym GRAIN, as those where decision stakes and
social uncertainties are high, presenting potential unknown hazards.
In addition, many of the environmental challenges that beset contemporary societies often involve sophisticated levels of scientific understanding, for example,
estimating the sources and levels of pollution of watercourses, the causes and extent
of losses of biodiversity, the cost-benefits and quality control of organic products.
2 Wilkinson and Pickett’s book, The Spirit Level (2010), demonstrates that more egalitarian countries have lower infant mortality rates and more sustainable societies after gross GDP is taken into
account.
2 Political Dimensions of Environmental Citizenship