Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
greater public involvement with, and in
uence on, decision-making
would increase the acceptability of environmental policies. In particular,
the use of deliberative democratic approaches in which people are
actively involved with debating political issues and determining what
should be done in the best interests of society as a whole has been called
for. 5 It is argued that this would promote a sense of civic unity and, as a
result, a heightened consciousness of how individual preferences impact
on shared public goods. 6 This is in contrast to liberal democratic models
that treat citizens (as they are characterised in the literature on environ-
mental politics) as isolated individuals possessing the right to consume
with impunity, but with few responsibilities to their fellow citizens other
than those laid down in law. 7
Iconsiderinthe following section of this chapter the arguments that
have been made in favour of deliberation as a process that would further
the goals of environmental politics. I agree that a deliberative style of
democracy, at least as its advantages are portrayed in the supportive
theoretical literature, would provide strong backing for the effective
operation of ecological governance. Participation in discussion and
debate of environmental questions is claimed to promote preferences
amongst participants for ecologically benign outcomes in public con-
texts, and perhaps also in their private decision-making. 8 It may result in
an increased likelihood that participants will view decisions reached as
legitimate; and in a restored con
dence in politics that may enhance the
acceptability of decisions even amongst non-participants because these
have been made or, at least, shaped by members of the public rather than
being formed exclusively by a remote political elite. 9 Deliberation involv-
ing those who would be affected by plans to apply ecological policies
would also, as I note in Chapter 4 , allow for the identi
cation, discussion
and, where possible, avoidance of con
ict between ecological and other
values, including those held in places for reasons other than their con-
tribution to ecosystem health (e.g., their aesthetic qualities). 10 In view of
5
Jacobs,
'
Environmental Valuation
'
,p.211;Barry,
'
Rethinking Green Politics
'
,pp.118
-
23,
214
-
36; Smith,
'
Deliberative Democracy
'
,pp.61
-
73; Lundqvist,
'
Ecological Governance
'
,
pp. 17, 148
-
51; Meadowcroft,
'
Deliberative Democracy
'
,p.183.
6
For example see Jacobs,
'
Environmental Valuation
'
,pp.217
-
21; Barry,
'
Rethinking
Green Politics
'
,pp.228
-
36; Smith,
'
Liberal Democracy
'
,pp.145
-
8.
7 M. Sagoff,
'
Values and Preferences
'
(1986) 96 Ethics,301;Barry,
'
Green Political Thought
'
,
in
M. Wissenburg and Y. Levy (eds) Liberal Democracy and Environmentalism: The End of
Environmentalism? (London: Routledge, 2004), p. 87.
8 Chapter 6, Section 6.2.3 .
pp. 206
-
9; M. de Geus,
'
The Environment versus Individual Freedom and Convenience
'
9 Chapter 6, Section 6.2.4 .
10 Chapter 4, Section 4.6.2 .
Search WWH ::




Custom Search