Green and Environmental Theory

1
Green and Environmental Theory
2
Introduction

• In the last three decades the environment has
  developed into a significant area of national and
  transnational politics
• Environmental threats are not a threat to the
  state but to the whole mankind
• Global warming, biodiversity loss, acid rain,
  ozone depletion, toxic waste trade, melting of
  ice caps, deforestation
• Growing popular consciousness of environmental
  issues
• States have been forced to adopt key policies to
  reduce pollution
• Need for global co-operation in order to face
  environmental threat
• The setting up of international environmental
  regimes
• Modernists vs Eco-radicals

3
Modernists

• Natural resources are unlimited
• Mankind has always been able to improve
  scientific knowledge
• Faith and belief in technological advances
• Enhancement of human capability to exploit and
  preserve the environment
• Emissions of CFC is being cut down, new and
  alternative fuels are being developed
• Industrial production relies less on raw
  materials than it used to in the past
• Mankind will continue to improve producing and
  consuming techniques
• More food is being grown in ecologically
  sustainable ways
• Alternative energy sources (solar, wind) will be
  expanded
• The environment does not pose a fundamental
  threat to the survival of human society

4
Eco-radicals

• Natural resources are limited
• No technological advances can radically solve the
  problem
• The natural system has a limited carrying
  capacity
• Need for dramatic changes in modern lifestyle
• Less consuption-oriented and waste-producing
  societies
• The concept of sustainable development
• Reduction of economic activity and consumption in
  order to preserve the environment
• Population control
• Green political theory
• Eco-centric polity
• Reduce the power of the nation states
• Local and regional forms of control on the free
  market economy and global transnational
  co-operation

5
The increased risks of environmental conflicts

• Environmental scarcity exacerbates inter-state
  conflict
• It also creates intra-state and domestic
  conflicts
• Unlike traditional threats, environmental
  scarcity involves persistent, low intensity
  conflict
• Urban migration, unrest, decreased economic
  productivity, ethnic rivalries
• Risk of countries becoming more fragmented and
  authoritarian
• Environment proves the connection between
  international and domestic politics and conflict
  
• The Water conflicts in the Middle East and East
  Africa

6
The realist view

• Environment is only one more explainable source
  of conflict among states
• States have long competed for natural and
  economic resources
• Environmental scarcity adds little new to the
  debate
• Environmental degradation hardly increases the
  need for international co-operation
• States will not renounce to their sovereignty
  over natural resources in order to participate in
  global environmental regimes
• Development and power will be always preferred by
  states to the protection of the environment
• The U.S. attitude towards the Kyoto protocol

7
The Liberal View

• Environmental degradation is not a threat to
  states but to mankind as a whole
• Not a traditional hard but a soft security
  threat with transnational implications
• A threat to global commons oceans, ozone layer,
  climate, rainforests, ice caps
• Environmental problems are likely to put pressure
  on states to achieve closer co-operation
• In the last 25-30 years several international
  regimes have been set up ozone, Antarctic,
  seabed resources
• States have to increase their commitments to
  international regimes in order to tackle
  environmental issues

8
The social-constructivist view

• Environmental issues are a threat to mankind as a
  whole rather than to the state
• The environment cuts across the dividing line
  between domestic and international politics
• Other actors are important beyond states
  transnational corporations, NGOs, producers,
  consumers
• Need for international and transnational
  co-operation
• The nation state, as part of modern society, is
  more a problem than a solution to the
  environmental threat
• Small, self-reliant, local communities are best
  suited to promote new and non-consumerist
  lifestyles

9
The post-modernist view

• Criticism of the modernist, anthropocentric
  Western view of the world
• Criticism of the Christian reification of the
  idea that mankind is above nature
• Equal value to man and nature in a single
  biosystem
• Need for dramatic changes in lifestyle, including
  flying
• Need to abandon industrial mass production and
  consumption
• Need for a new, Green theory of international
  relations
• Promotion of a de-industrialised, environmental
  friendly society

10
Conclusions

• Environmental issues as a new central debate in
  international relations
• Increasing pressures upon states to engage in
  more international co-operation
• Is the nation-state equipped for addressing
  environmental threats?
• How to reconcile the social-constructivist call
  for smaller political communities with the idea
  of transnational co-operation?
• Can mankind afford going back to a
  de-industrialised society?
• Should we really give up flying?
• Do we have any certainty that natural resources
  are limited?
• Can we rely on the assumption that natural
  resources are unlimited?