What is Environmental Politics?

Elizabeth R. DeSombre

• Publisher: Polity
• Year: 2020
• ISBN:
  9781509534159
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Environment & Energy Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

Why is it so difficult to control, or fix, pollution? How can we justify harvesting the world's natural resources at unsustainable rates, even though these activities cause known harm to both people and ecosystems? Scientific knowledge and technological advances alone cannot tackle these environmental challenges; they also involve difficult political choices and trade-offs both locally and globally. What is Environmental Politics? introduces students to the different ways society attempts to deal with the political decisions needed to prevent or recover from environmental damage. Across its six chapters leading environmental scholar Elizabeth DeSombre explains what makes environmental problems, such as climate change, overfishing or deforestation, particularly challenging to address via political processes, what types of political structures are more or less likely to prioritize protecting the environment, and how effective political intervention can improve environmental conditions and the lives of people who depend on them. It will be a vital resource for students new to the field of environmental politics as well as readers interested in protecting the future of our planet.

CHAPTER 1
Defining Environmental Politics

Why is it so difficult to prevent, or fix, problems of pollution? Why do we continually harvest or extract natural resources at unsustainable rates, even though these activities cause known harm to both people and ecosystems? Why do environmental problems frequently harm groups of people who are already the most vulnerable and least powerful?

Addressing environmental issues isn’t primarily an issue of science or information. Despite uncertainty about some details, we frequently understand the basic processes by which environmental problems happen, at least once we discover them. Responding to – or even creating – environmental problems requires political decisions: choices by governments (and others) about how to allocate resources and prioritize tradeoffs among different social values. These political decisions involve advocacy by groups with various priorities and different levels of political influence. This political process, which can be difficult enough for many social issues, faces particular challenges when addressing the environment.

Environmental politics is the study of how societies make decisions about resource use, pollution, or economic activities that influence the condition of the environment. These processes frequently, but not always, take place within government institutions. They involve or affect people from many economic and social sectors. Preventing or addressing environmental problems requires accurately diagnosing the characteristics of these problems and understanding the political processes for making rules about the activities that cause them.

What is the Environment?

For a term that is so frequently used, it can be surprisingly difficult to pin down what “the environment” means. Some people use it to refer to nature and the various amenities that nature provides: plants, animals, soils, air, water, even sunlight. But the concept is broader than that and changes as we imagine different human activities and learn more about global systems, from the smallest to the largest scale. We now understand the importance of microbes and of the stratospheric ozone layer in protecting life on earth. At the same time, human constructs such as buildings and cities, or practices such as agriculture or industrialization, form part of what we are thinking of when we talk about the environment.

What we are generally discussing when we look at the environment is how human activity influences it, and is influenced by it. One useful framing is to think of the environment in this context as being partly about pollution, which occurs when contaminants or other unwanted substances are introduced (usually unintentionally) into air, water, or land as a byproduct of other activity. It is also partly about the use of resources, things taken out of their environmental context for human use. These resources may be renewable or non-renewable.

Pollution is pervasive. It includes everything from waste dumped intentionally into the ocean to fumes from factory smokestacks to agricultural runoff into rivers. We can even speak of light pollution or noise pollution to refer to unwanted intrusions into our surroundings that affect the wellbeing of people or other species.

Some pollution is obvious. We can see or smell it. We may know its causes and be able to feel its effects. Other types of pollution, however, are less apparent. Water that is contaminated by lead or other heavy metals may be toxic to people and animals, but it may look or taste no different than clean water. Greenhouse gases – carbon dioxide and other emissions that contribute to global climate change – are substances that, on their own, aren’t necessarily harmful to breathe. Collectively they nevertheless contribute to the overall warming of the planet and the many related effects such as drought and sea-level rise. The chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) that contributed to the destruction of the ozone layer were non-toxic and stable and invisible in the air. Pollution, in other words, is defined by the harm it causes, but we may not always be aware of that harm when we are creating or experiencing it.

Natural resources also form a part of what we think of as the environment. Overuse of natural resources is an important category of environmental problems. Some natural resources are what we call “non-renewable.” On human time-scales the earth will not make any more of these materials than currently exist. Non-renewable resources include things such as fossil fuels – the coal, oil, and gas that are so central to our energy use – as well as minerals such as copper and tin, or even the rare earth elements (for example, neodymium) that are important in our cell phones and other technology.

Other types of natural resources – such as fish or forests – are what we call “renewable.” You’d think that use of renewable resources would be less problematic than use of non-renewable resources. After all, if you leave enough fish or trees around, they make more fish and trees. But it turns out that we often do extract these far beyond their ability to be renewed.

There is more to the environment than decisions about endangered species or factory pollution; these include factors such as urbanization or agriculture. At this point in ecological history, humans have shaped almost every aspect of the earth’s processes, so much so that geologists and others argue that we’ve entered a new geologic age: the Anthropocene. This era is named to reflect the pervasive influence of humans on global processes. Those effects are all relevant to a consideration of what the environment is.

Also relevant are questions of who the environment is for. When we’re concerned about protecting the environment, do we care only about ensuring its best uses for the wellbeing of people, or do we care about species or resources for their own sake? From the point of view of environmental politics, the focus is most frequently on people, because people are the decision makers, and because politicians are elected or otherwise maintained in power by the support of the people they govern. But species and ecosystems may matter in their own right and not just for their instrumental value to human beings, and some people do focus on the wellbeing of the environment or of certain species for the sake of ecosystems or those species and engage in environmental politics to protect them.

Even if we are concerned about the condition of the environment primarily for the sake of people, we need to ask which people bear the brunt of environmental problems. The concept of environmental injustice has been framed to call attention to the fact that some of the most vulnerable populations are the most likely to suffer the worst consequences of environmental problems and have the least voice in the creation of policies to address the environment. An understanding of characteristics of both politics and the environment can help us appreciate why it is that environmental problems are often concentrated in communities with the least political power.

What’s Special about the Environment?

Environmental issues have some unusual characteristics that have implications for our political efforts to address them. No one intends to create environmental problems, and the effects of these problems are often felt far away both in space and in time from where they are caused. Most environmental problems come from the combined actions of many people, which means that each person’s contribution to the problem feels small, and addressing the problem requires changing the behavior of a lot of people. So no one person can fix or prevent environmental problems alone, and, at the same time, those who don’t contribute to addressing these problems can undermine the ability of others to do so. While the environment isn’t the only issue area that has each of these characteristics, taken together they help explain why it’s fairly easy to create environmental problems and difficult to take successful action to prevent or fix them. These characteristics interact with the political structures and actors discussed in this book to help explain environmental action or inaction across different political jurisdictions.

Externalities

Environmental problems are externalities: unintended, and unpriced, consequences of other things people are trying to do. Outside of bad superhero movies, no one wakes up in the morning and decides to create smog or deplete an entire species. No one intends to cause, or even contribute to, global climate change.

Likewise, no one plans to contribute to a huge patch of plastic in the middle of the Pacific Ocean; people are simply seeking a way to carry groceries home or drink iced tea. The plastic bags or cups that may be given out for free allow people to accomplish those goals but, eventually, create a set of harms the user did not intend and may not even be aware of. The pollution caused from generating the energy people use is not something anyone plans or even wants to create; we simply want to be able to heat our homes, transport our family members, or see at night.

Externalities are experienced primarily by people other than the ones who get the benefit of the activity that caused them. That means the people doing an activity rarely take its externalities into consideration. If every time someone drank coffee in a disposable cup another tree in her yard disappeared and her drinking water became more contaminated with chemical pollution, she would quickly decide not to use disposable cups. Instead, those effects are most likely felt by people far away, in both space and time, from the coffee drinker. She is probably unaware of them and doesn’t directly experience any of the downsides of her cup use.

Externalities can be either positive or negative. You can create unintended consequences from your activities that are beneficial to others; they are externalities because they are not intended when you choose to undertake the activity, and they do not affect the cost of your actions. Someone who plants flowers for her own enjoyment may create positive externalities in the neighborhood; those who pass by may enjoy seeing or smelling the flowers, and the flowers may create beneficial habitat for butterflies or bees.

The flower example illustrates another concept: whether an externality is positive or negative depends on the perspective of those who experience it. The same flowers that give one neighbor pleasure may contribute to the allergies of a different neighbor. When we discuss the role of externalities in creating environmental problems, we are concerned primarily about negative externalities, so those are the ones that are discussed in this book.

The “unpriced” aspect of externalities has several important implications. First, it means that the person causing the externality doesn’t bear a cost for doing it. The sulfur dioxide pollution from coal burned to create electricity doesn’t factor into the price paid by the electricity generator or the consumer. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t a cost from that pollution. People get asthma and generate costs for doctors and drugs; employers lose money when their employees take sick days. The acid rain that results causes buildings to disintegrate and plants to die, among many other effects. Someone bears that cost, but it is not the generator of the electricity or (primarily) the people who use it.

In other words, it doesn’t cost any more to do what you’re doing in a way that causes pollution than in a way that doesn’t. For that reason, most people don’t even notice that they’re causing externalities (which is different from how they might notice if they left a water faucet on and would therefore get a much higher water bill). In fact, precisely because of the unpriced nature of externalities, it would almost always cost more to stop creating externalities than to continue to create them, at least initially, for whoever is creating them.

People don’t experience much, if any, of the harm from the externalities to which they contribute; that’s part of why they are considered to be external. There are several reasons that those who create them are unlikely to suffer from these externalities. The first is that there’s usually a disconnect in time and space from where an action takes place and where the results are felt. The sulfur dioxide emissions from a coal-fired power plant travel hundreds of miles in the air from where they are emitted, so the people experiencing their effects are rarely the same people using the electricity. (Even if the effects are felt locally, they are felt by many people, regardless of how much electricity each uses.) Other environmental issues take a while to be felt. Ozone depletion was caused by chemicals (used in refrigeration and electronics production) that had to make their way a long distance into the stratosphere, and to accumulate in significant enough quantities, to make a difference that we would notice on earth. Some of those chemicals, like some of the substances that cause global climate change, can persist for hundreds of years or more in the atmosphere, causing environmental problems generations after they were initially released.

Some externalities are more removed than others from the activities that create them. Someone who fishes does not intend to cause the depletion of a fishery but does intend to take fish. Someone using nitrogen fertilizers in the Midwest of the United States is simply trying to grow crops more successfully, conceptually unrelated to the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico that result when too much nitrogen or phosphorus in the water causes algal blooms that use the available oxygen and make areas of the ocean unable to support life. How closely connected an activity is to the externality it creates can influence the likelihood of causing it in several ways, which are discussed further below.

Figuring out how to prevent externalities is key to avoiding or addressing environmental problems. Because of the nature of environmental problems as externalities, finding ways to accomplish the same underlying goal without creating the externality is likely, at least initially, to cost more. That is because of the “unpriced” aspect of externalities. If there is no cost to putting sulfur dioxide into the air, then burning coal to produce electricity gets all the benefits of the electricity for those who produce or use the electricity without their having to pay for the downsides of that coal burning. Generating electricity in a way that doesn’t create sulfur dioxide emissions requires either using a different, more costly...