Moving Societies to Green Governance - Term Paper Example

Moving Societies to Green Governance I. Preliminaries The movement for a better environment is a collective effort of people to raise their qualityof life. In the same way that Kettleman City has struggled against “the disproportionate distribution of environmental hazards,” people worldwide have been struggling to create a better world by engaging in various movements to realize a better environment.1 Perhaps, one of the most important advocacies or concerns of the said movements is environmental justice.2 According to Cole and Foster, “environmental justice requires democratic decision making, community empowerment, and the incorporation of social structure---for example, existing community health problems, cumulative impacts of processing environmental hazards, the effect of segregative housing patterns----in environmental decision-making processes.”3 Further, Cole and Foster elaborated that the most important in the concept of environmental justice “is the element of decision making, or community self-determination.”4 Cole and Foster correctly noted that that “current environmental decision-making processes have not been effective in providing meaningful participation opportunities for those most burdened by environmental decisions.”5 Thus, sound environmental governance essentially means the creation of new social and political structures that will promote sound environmental governance. Given the threats of environmental degradation and their potential risks to the survival of mankind, the need for sound governance of the environment is urgent. Cole and Foster reported that “many observers point to protests by African Americans against a toxic dump in Warren Country, North Carolina, in 1982, as the beginning of the movement.”6 By the word “movement,” Cole and Foster were referring to the Environmental Justice Movement. Most likely the report is inaccurate because peoples all of the world probably have their own respective histories of struggles for environment justice. Most important, peoples all over the world have their own respective movements for a green economy and society. For example, several authors have been claiming that indigenous peoples have visions of societies that are one with nature, societies that are environment-friendly, societies that are green. Environmental racism, of course, is a valid concern. Cole and Foster have an ample discussion on this point.7 For example, one of the Cole and Foster’s most important discussions on environmental racism revolved on the experience of Chester residents along Delaware River in Philadelphia. In the Cole and Foster narrative, “Chester is a small enclave of people of color within the predominantly white Delaware County.” 8 According to Cole and Foster, the “toxic assault” on the people of color of Chester began in the late 1980s in which “hundreds of truckloads of trash” were being brought to Chester every day.9 In many parts of the world today, a similar situation has been happening. Yet, the victims have been irrespective of color. The common denominator on why many people are living close or within the garbage dumps is that they are poor rather than the color of their skin. Thus, following the Cole and Foster logic and analysis, the participation of people irrespective of their economic status in life in environmental governance is a crucial element towards the realization of Environmental Justice. II. Green Economy It should be emphasized that the assaults that the Cole and Foster struggles have occurred because governance has not been green in the first place. If governance has been green, the issue of environmental justice may not have existed in the first place. Thus, the title of the book Van Jones (with Ariane Conrad) had been appropriately titled, The Green Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems. If an economy is green then there will be no environmental injustice in the first place. There would be no one from which to exact environmental retribution or justice because there was no environmental injustice that occurred. Paraphrasing Van Jones and Ariane Conrad, a green economy also known as a green-collar economy will fix two of our biggest problems: our environmental problems and our economic problems. In the words of Jones and Conrad, the green-collar jobs are “the jobs of tomorrow---today.”10 According to Jones and Conrad, the moment that the United States, for example, signs up legislation to reverse global warming, industries will be created to support the legislation.11 For Jones and Conrad, “a green collar job is this: a family-supporting, career track job that directly contributes to preserving or enhancing environmental quality.”12 Jones and Conrad elaborated that “like traditional blue collar jobs, green collar jobs range from low-skill, entry-level positions to high-skill, higher-paid jobs and include opportunities for advancement in both skills and wages.” Meanwhile, Walker delivered an important point: that of globalizing environmental justice.13 We can say the same for a green-collar economy or a green economy. One cannot really live green if any part of the world is not green. Take for example, toxic wastes that flow into the sea. We all know that toxic wastes in the seas eventually end up in another country or countries even if the wastes originated from one country.14 This can be true for metals that can be swallowed up by fishes, nuclear contamination, and plastics or polymers.15 In moderating global warming, for example, reducing our consumption of fossil fuels may not help much if other countries of the world accelerate their consumption. The reduction in consumption of fuels by developed nations may not be significant if developing nations do not commit enough to reduce theirs. In turn, developing nations may hesitate to move towards a green economy if developed nations do not assist developing nations in their development needs. In short, moving into a green economy requires a new mode of governance. It means acting at the global level as we intensify our action and commitment at the local level.16 Moving into a green economic system requires that we scale up our action at the global level. Similar to the discussion of Luke Cole and Sheila Foster, it requires that we set up systems of governance at the global level that would enlist the participation of both developed and developing nations and the national and international organizations to map out concrete steps that would allow us to create an economy that is environment-friendly, an economy that is green, a green economy in a global green economic system. But what exactly is a green economy? Of course, we have the discussion of Van Jones and Ariane Conrad on what constitute a green-collar economy. However, I believe that the features of a green economy can be elaborated further. Perhaps a good way to characterize a green economy is to identify the features of a green economy. In my opinion, a green economy must have the following features. First, it must be minimizing if not eliminating its use of fossil fuels (eliminating is probably not realistic or practical).17 Fossil fuels constitute an important source of greenhouse gases that contributes to global warming.18 It is an unimaginable to call an economy “green” if fossil fuels are not significantly reduced given tremendous possibilities for reducing a country consumption of fossil fuels. Second, a green economy must be replacing its consumption of fossil fuels with renewable fuels.19 The renewable fuels include solar, wind, hydroelectric, and geothermal energies.20 It can also include energy sources like the sea waves and water flows and the like. Nuclear energy 21is being claimed as a green and clean energy. However, we may have to see examine first the comprehensive impact of nuclear energy on the environment as its use in Japan has not been encouraging. Third, a green economy must ensure that its forest sector must be continually increasing given the situation that the world’s forest cover has significantly decreased over the last several decades. It is important to stress that a green economy must have this characteristic especially because the world’s forest is one of its best bets in carbon sequestration or in reducing the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere. According to world experts, global warming is the result of the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Fourth, I believe it is usually not emphasized that a green economy must also involve biodiversity conservation. This means that we minimize the obliteration of any of the world’s species. Green has always been associated with the environment and biodiversity is one important feature of the environment. Most likely by preserving biodiversity, we would also preserve one important source of supply of our pharmaceuticals. Besides, as lives in nature are interdependent, preserving biodiversity should be seen as an important component in ensuring that all of natural life is basically preserved (with the minute changes in the earth’s temperature or changes, some of life may unavoidably disappear forever although new ones continue to evolve or emerge). Fifth, perhaps as a complement to the fourth, it is also important to conserve the world’s ecological systems as probably biodiversity can also continue to exist if ecological systems are also preserved. The survival of the species is probably deeply linked with their ecological habitats. Remove one ecological habitat and probably many species dependent in the ecology or an ecological system will probably die. Thus, to preserve the species or conserve biodiversity we must conserve their ecological habitats or ecological systems. Sixth, zero wastes and maximum recycling are also important characteristics of a green economy. This means that we must reduce our garbage as much as possible by promoting recycling and promoting the use of recyclables rather than non-recyclables. Zero waste, of course, promotes biodiversity conservation. Zero wastes, of course, will reduce the possibility that fishes in one sea will not be killed by polymers or plastics that will be coming from another sea. It can also mean that fishes, river, and sea organisms will not be killed by poisons and toxics from the mines. It can also mean that effluents from the factories are not thrown into the sea or do not contaminate the water tables. III. Green Politics Prerequisite to a Green Economy The six characteristics are what I believe to be the most important elements of a green economy and a green world. Realizing that economy is essentially a political act and the principal route that must be taken to realize a green world is through a political act or political action. Why? This is because there is a sector of capitalist, businessmen, traders, network of suppliers and network of trade that is benefitting from the non-green economy. Changing the regime from non-green to green will unavoidably imply a different set of asset holders. The assets include land, factories, economic enclaves that are non-green. The said land, factories, and economic enclaves are owned by non-greens and moving into a green economic system or economic regime implies that they will have to abandon their assets or the ownership of their assets. They cannot sell the said assets because moving towards a green economy implies that the same assets that they own will not be useful to other parties as well when the world succeeded into fully becoming as a green economy. Take for instance, an electricity generator using fossil fuels? Will the electricity generator using fossil fuel be useful or marketable when the world becomes green? Of course, the electricity generator will not be valuable. Its market value will be reduced to the price of a junk. No one will buy the asset and, worst, the owner of the non-green asset can go bankrupt as the price of his or her assets acquire the value of a junk. Thus, non-green capitalist, business, entrepreneurs and the entire business sector who derive a living from a non-green economy are actually at risk of going bankrupt and losing political power as the world moves into a green regime. Many of the current breed of industrialists and businessmen (who are non-greens) are the financiers of many of the world’s leaders and politicians. Moving into a green regime, therefore, will face resistance from many of the world’s leaders and politicians to the extent that their political careers have been financed by non-green capital. Unavoidably, the realization of a green economy regime will require a new breed of politics and politicians. Many of the green politicians and leaders will have to be created from without. This means that a new set of leaders and politicians must be created outside of the current breed of politicians and leaders. Of course, there can be transformations. Some of the world’s leaders and politicians who were financed by non-green capitalists, traders, and entrepreneurs can be enlightened and may actually support a green agenda. Further, the idea of a “modern state” may apply. According to Dryzek and colleagues, a modern state embodies the “residues of the social movement that it forms.”22 This implies that if the environmental movement is strong enough, the movement can shape the political programs of the state even if it is basically a creation of politicians supported by non-green capitalists, businessmen, and entrepreneurs. IV. Related Discourse Meanwhile, given the foregoing, it appears that there are at least two sets of key discourses in moving towards a green economy. The first set of key discourses pertains to the mechanics of transition to green economies. How do we really move into a green economy? Given that there is a status quo that benefits from a green economy, resistance against a green economy will likely be strong. How can the green build power when wealth and power are in the hands of the non-green groups, especially the business groups? The second set of key discourses pertains to whether market-based solutions fundamentally work in moving society towards a green economy or whether market-based solutions can be reliable. I believe it is an important principle in economics that producers minimize costs in order to maximize profit. As it is also considered a fundamental principle in economics that externalities are not captured by market prices, goods with externalities like those that are polluting are basically cheap. The implication therefore is that goods with negative externalities or which are polluting will be favored rather than those that are without externalities. This feature alone is perhaps a good reason why it is not wise to rely too much on market forces in the transition to a green economy. V. Conclusion Based on our foregoing discussion, it is clear that the transition into a green economy, it is best to rely on the political route rather than on the economic route. The transition into a green economy will be principally facilitated by political measures rather than economic ones. References American Nuclear Society. “American Nuclear Society Backgrounder: Japanese Earthquake/Tsunami, Problems with Nuclear Reactors.” 12 March 2011 (18 October 2011). Cole, Luke and Sheila Foster. From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement. New York University, 2000. Dryzek, John, Christian Hunold, David Schlosberg, David Downes, and Hans-Kristian Hernes. “Environmental Transformation of the State: the USA, Norway, Germany and the UK,” Political Studies 50 (2002): 659-682. Greenpeace. “Plastic Pollution: A Growing Threat to the Health of Our Nation.” Amsterdam: GreenPeace International, 2005. (18 October 2011) Holmes, K. John and Larry Papay. “Prospect for electricity from renewable sources in the United States,” Journal of Renewable and Sustainable Energy 3 (2011), 1-14. International Organization for Sea Turtles. “Marine Pollution.” International Organization for Sea Turtles (2005): 1-4. (18 October 2011) Jones, Van and Ariane Conrad. Green-Collar Economy: How One Solution Can Fix Our Two Biggest Problems. HarperOne, 2008. Pollin, Robert, Jeannette Wicks-Lim, and Heide Garret-Peltier. Green Prosperity: How Can Clean-Energy Can Fight Poverty and Raise Living. University of Massachusetts: Political Economy Research Institute, 2009. Spadaro, J., Lucille Langlois, and Bruce Hamilton. “Greenhouse Gas Emissions of Electricity Generation Chains: Assessing the Difference,” IAEA Bulletin 42/2/2000, 19-24. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. “Act Locally.” 24 June 2011 (18 October 2011). U.S. Department of Energy. “Renewable Energy: An Overview.” March 2001 Bulletin, 1-8. Walker, Gordon. “Globalizing Environmental Justice,” Global Social Policy 9, no. 2 (2009): 355-382. Read More