Download
1 / 10
100 likes | 201 Vues
The Environmental State?. “ Ecologically oriented intervention comes to constitute—and is generally acknowledged to constitute legitimately—an essential responsibility of the public power .” ( Meadowcroft , 2005)
E N D
The Environmental State? “Ecologically oriented intervention comes to constitute—and is generally acknowledged to constitute legitimately—an essential responsibility of the public power.” (Meadowcroft, 2005) Legitimacy of the state rests (partially) upon defense of the environment (usually in the interests of human health and well-being).
Parallels with the Welfare State • Extension of the role of the state into new terrain (or systematization of old interventions) • Generated reflexively in response to perceived market failure and voluntary action. • Based on a normative structure (and thus endlessly contested) • Contradictory and Dialectical relationship between the economic system and the state. • Legitimation and Accumulation functions of the state
Limits and the Ecological State • An ecological state has to recognize SOME kind of environmentally-imposed limits on production. • The question that we all fight over is how to conceptualize these limits. • What is to be limited? (economic growth? material and energetic throughput? “Pollution”? Particular resources?) • Are limits “hard” (Malthus) or flexible (price, technology, sectoral mix, social tolerance for pollution/degradation). • How does the state know when a limit is being approached or crossed? (science? Prices? social movements?) • Suggests some kind of connection between sustainability and democracy.
Environmental Attitudes • 98% see nature in all its variety as essential to human survival • 90% think its important that their kids spend time in natural areas • 85% participate regularly in nature-related activities • 82% claim that nature has very important spiritual qualities to them personally • 80% believe that environmental protection should be given priority over economic growth. • 9 of 10 feel either a “great deal of concern” or a “fair amount” of concern” about the state of the environment, and • 9of 10 rate the environment as one of their top 10 concerns. • Environics International Survey
Performance • Environmental Performance Index (Yale University) • www.epi.yale.edu • 2009: 12th • 2010: 46th • 2012: 37th • 2014: 24th • Trend EPI Rank (performance in the last decade): 52nd • We do well on environmental health indicators (1stin health impacts; 20th on wastewater treatment). We do much more poorly on Ecosystem vitality (104th on Forestry; 105th on Agricultural sustainability).
Performance • U Vic Study • 25 indicators in 10 categories (air, water, energy, waste, climate change, ozone depletion, agriculture, transportation, biodiversity, and “miscellaneous issues”) All based on OECD data; Compares Canada to 28 other nations in the OECD • Our overall ranking was second-to-last, just ahead of the US. • We are among the five worst on 17 of the 25 indicators, and among the best five in none of them. • We are among the three worst on: • GHG emissions, sulphur dioxide, carbon monoxide,VOCs, water and energy consumption, energy efficiency, volume of timber logged, and generation of nuclear waste. Our performance on most indicators worsened over the two-decade period of the study • Improved on some air pollutants, sewage treatment, ozone depleting substances, municipal waste, recycling, protected areas)
Performance • Ecological Footprint Analysis • The 2012 Living Planet Report (WWF) shows Canada with the 8th largest Ecological Footprint in the world. • Canada uses 3.5 times our equal share of the world’s annual productivity (so, we’d need 3.5 planets to support everyone on a Canadian footprint).
Recent Environmental Policy • Mid-90s assessment of Canadian Environmental Policy suggested that “sustainable development” was a “latent policy paradigm” (akin to Keynesianism, or the liberal economic-growth paradigm) shaping policy more broadly: Suggests emergence of a “green” or “environmental state” akin to the “welfare state.” • 2009: weakening of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, eliminating EAs for major developments crossing Canadian rivers. Power to decide whether a project needs an EA rests with the Minister of Transport, with only weak provisions for public consultation. • 2010: Infrastructure projects exempted from CEAA, energy projects now assessed by the industry-friendly National Energy Board and the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission. Minister’s discretion over what needs an EA is broadened (contra the Supreme Court’s decision that rejected the government’s attempt to artificially narrow the scope of EA).
Recent Environmental Policy • 2011: Withdrawal from the Kyoto Protocol in Dec., (one day after the negotiation of the Durban Agreements) • Budget 2012: Further “streamlining” of the CEAA: • Exempting smaller developments from EAs; • Narrowing scope to list of issues covered by federal legislation; • Allowing only one EA (provincial) and increasing provincial control over EAs; • Introducing binding timelines for EAs • Budget 2012: Altering the Fisheries Act from protection of fish habitat to protection of the fish themselves (guts much of the protective power of the Act) and allows ministerial exemptions that would allow “adverse effect” on fish (they also get to decide what “economic, cultural, or ecological value” is). • Funding cuts and continued “muzzling” of scientists.
