Environmental Theory

Environmental Theory

From the readings on environmental theory choose one that you think will most efficiently address the problems today, in twenty years and in the longer term. The point of this exercise is to choose a theoretical platform that allows us to construct a policy that will address environmental degradation. You may choose any of the problems that we have identified in the syllabus or you may choose to deal with environmental issues as a whole.

The theories include – realism, market liberalism, socialism / marxism, deep ecology, environmental justice or any other theory that you are willing to explain.

Below are responses that classmates have handed in for this assignment. Please follow the same format

Sample 1;

Environmental Justice

Although it might not be the most popular environmental theory today, I believe that environmental justice is best suited to address environmental problems today, in twenty years, and in the longer term. The foundation of environmental justice deals with the unequal placement of hazardous facilities and “LULUs” in minority and impoverished neighborhood (Bullard 437). As Robert Bullard writes, it has “been difficult for millions of Americans in segregated neighborhoods to say ‘not in my backyard,’ and accordingly, it is necessary to take steps to ensure that the “impacted populations” of an environmental policy are able to participate in the decision making process (Bullard 437, 432). Despite this focus, what I see as the byproducts of this theory that can have the most important impact on environmentalism.

Because of its focus on the equitable distribution of unwanted facilities, environmental justice, if successful, would ensure that affluent, white neighborhoods are affected by the presence of such facilities to the same extent as poor, minority neighborhoods. Because the wealthy will never consent to the construction of hazardous plants in their neighborhoods, equitable distribution in such a scenario dictates that such facilities are not constructed in anyone’s neighborhoods. In a sense then, not in my backyard would be transformed into not in anyone’s backyard, forcing the country to move towards cleaner, more “responsible uses of land and renewable resources” (Dryzek 429). By emphasizing the right of everyone to be “free from ecological destruction,” therefore, environmental justice theory essentially forces innovation to keep the environment in the best possible shape (Dryzek 429). This would provide the best way to address problems today and in the far future.

Sample 2:

Deep Ecology

I argue that realism is an approach to be used for long term environmental prospects because the tried and true adage that government actors will act in their interest, however I was taken with the theory on deep ecology. Deep ecology argues that all of life has a value regardless if it’s human or animal or plant and that of “biocentrism” that every living organism has a right to develop to its fullest potential. (Naess 343) The argument is that the real world is the wilderness outside our societies, no matter how much we develop as a human civilization, Mother Nature is present. Due to our own technological advances we have yet to develop a way in which to control Mother Nature and earth’s movements. We may be able to track and give warnings but we can not dictate what the earth will do. Furthermore our own predictions can be false when an environmental disaster strikes where it was not supposed to. The recent typhoon further shows that we are no equivalent for the damage that can occur and that we need to stop thinking that humans run the world. There are other organisms animals and plants that we have a duty to protect because logically we are a developed species that can dictate more so than others how things will be done, but our actions do not just affect other organisms but cyclically affect us. The damage we do to an ecosystem will affect us in the long run and future generations. ( Dodge 360) Dave Foreman says, “Human suffering resulting from drought and famine in Ethiopia is tragic, yes, but the destruction of other creatures and habitat is just as tragic.” (349) What deep ecology argues in an essence is that as we make policies for the future we have to not just think about more privileged areas of populations, but all humans, we need to be equal because if we promote one end then in the future we could be the end that needs help and our own actions can be our hand of destruction. Furthermore the organisms we share the planet with also are our means of survival as a species and what we put into the atmosphere will be what we get back from the atmosphere. In the past decade, the increase of natural disasters has served a s a means of equalizing us as different areas are struck. Not only did I find the “not using humans as a measurement on the value of life” interesting but also that you can not measure disasters just by quantity. ( 351 Foreman)

Sample 3:

Environmental Justice v Realism

Based off of the descriptions of all of these theories, two of them stand out the most. I think that Realism provides the correct perception in which to view the world. I think that if someone truly wants to solve a problem, the circumstances have to be accounted for before any steps can be made towards a realistic solution. I think that Realism provides for a solid understanding of all of the barriers which must be approached and overcome in regards to problems which require multilateral solutions, such as environmental issues. The problem is that I don’t see how Realism, on its own, will ever address any environmental issues.

Environmental Justice makes some interesting points. I suppose that the most important thing that this theory does is that it directly addresses many environmental problems. The main criticism that I have with it is that, because of the international political climate, I just don’t see how it can ever produce strong results. I also fail to understand why a state would want to put itself at a possible disadvantage when it will most likely be used against that particular state by any and all means possible. To me, this theory is really about changing social perspectives on the use of the environment. Change will be slow but I it it is possible to do from the bottom up.