What is Frances environmental record

Summary

In the following considerations on the ecological dimension of the globalization process, I orientate myself on the guiding perspective developed in the previous chapter in connection with Hans Jonas of a “compatibility of humans with the biosphere”. This target is not to be confused with the utopias of a comprehensive ecological turnaround developed in ecological discourses or in a “green political theory”.1 While these strive for a synthesis of “good life” and “survival”, the concept of compatibility rather describes absolute minimum standards that must be achieved in order to avert catastrophic developments on a global scale and the conditions for the survival of as many people as possible, and non-human ones Living beings (which does not necessarily have to be a "good life"). Nevertheless, the practical implementation of even this comparatively withdrawn approach would require an enormous effort.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

literature

  1. See Andrew Dobson, Green Political Thought. An Introduction. London 1995.Google Scholar
  2. David Pepper, Modern Environmentalism. An Introduction. London 1997.Google Scholar
  3. Luke Martell, Ecology and Society. An Introduction. Cambridge, UK 1994, pp. 77-107. Google Scholar
  4. From the point of view of the history of ideas: David Pepper, The Roots of Modern Environmentalism. Beckenham, Kent 1984, especially pp. 187-214. Google Scholar
  5. Jörg Dürrschmidt, Globalization, sums up the presentation of the topic of ecology in the various globalization theories. Bielefeld 2002, pp. 73-80.Google Scholar
  6. See also Maarten A. Hajer, Ecological Modernization as Cultural Politics. In: Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Brian Wynne (Eds.), Risk, Environment and Modernity. Towards a New Ecology. London et al. 1996, pp. 246–268, here: p. 265. Google Scholar
  7. Werner Rammert, Mechanization and Media in Social Systems. Approaches to a Sociological Theory of Technology. In: Peter Weingart (ed.), Technology as a social process. Frankfurt a.M. 1989, pp. 128-173, here: p. 131. Google Scholar
  8. Langdon Winner, The State of Nature Revisited. In: Ders., The Whale and the Reactor. A Search for Limits in an Age of High Technology. Chicago and London 1986, pp. 121-137, here: p. 135. Google Scholar
  9. David Held, Anthony McGrew, David Goldblatt and Jonathan Perraton, Global Transformations. Politics, Economics and Culture. Stanford 1999, p. 376. Google Scholar
  10. See also Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Frontiers of Globalization. Economy, ecology and politics in world society. Munster 20025, Pp. 443-445. Google Scholar
  11. Corresponding perspectives were already developed before the globalization debate in the narrower sense began: think for example of the work of James Lovelock, the studies of the Club of Rome, the report "Global 2000" commissioned by President Carter or the influential "turning point" - Philosophy Fritjof Capras; German authors such as Herbert Gruhl and Erhard Eppler also belong in this context. See also Jörg Dürrschmidt, Globalisierung, pp. 42–46.Google Scholar
  12. See Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory and the Global Environment. In: Ken Booth and Steve Smith (Eds.), International Relations Theory Today. Cambridge, UK, pp. 129–153, here: p. 131. Google Scholar
  13. So also the argumentation of Steven Yearley, who states with regard to "local" environmental problems: "Of course, whenever such 'local' processes are repeated all over the world they do in a sense become global phenomena." (Steven Yearley, Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization. Reinventing the Globe. London et al. 1996, p. 60, examples ibid.) Google Scholar
  14. Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, p. 132. Steven Yearley says, “[. . .] environmental problems can be "global" in different ways. Far from all environmental problems are inherently global. [. . .] air pollution from vehicles and land contamination are predominantly local. The dust, noise and loss of visual amenity associated with quarries are regionally concentrated. The effects of discharges from chemical works are usually felt only locally. And even apparently major environmental catastrophes such as large tanker wrecks have their predominant impact in a restricted area. ”(Steven Yearley, Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization, p. 60) Cf. also David Held et al., Global Transformations, p. 376.Google Scholar
  15. Steven Yearley, Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization, p. 60. Google Scholar
  16. See also the alternative, but less convincing, classification in David Held et al., Global Transformations, pp. 378-380.Google Scholar
  17. Steven Yearley, Sociology, Environmentalism, Globalization, 377. Google Scholar
  18. Fred Hirsch, The Social Limits to Growth. Reinbek near Hamburg 1980.Google Scholar
  19. Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Frontiers of Globalization, p. 457 (H.i.O.). Google Scholar
  20. See ibid., P. 444 Google Scholar
  21. See below: Google Scholar
  22. On the subject of "Biodiversity", see the special issue of the journal "International Affairs", in particular the introductory article by Halna Ward, Introduction and Overview. In: International Affairs. Vol. 76 (2000), pp. 213-222. Google Scholar
  23. Furthermore, Timothy Swanson, Why is there a biodiversity convention? The international interest in centralized development planning. In: International Affairs. Vol. 75 (1999), pp. 307-331. Google Scholar
  24. Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, pp. 131f. Google Scholar
  25. See as a critical balance: Christoph Görg and Ulrich Brand (eds.), Mythen global environmental management. “Rio + 10” and the dead ends of “sustainable development”. Münster 2002.Google Scholar
  26. See e.g. Udo Ernst Simonis, Good intentions and poor results. “Earth Summit” in Johannesburg. In: Universitas. Vol. 57 (Oct. 2002), pp. 1024-1030.Google Scholar
  27. Andrew Jamison distinguishes five phases with regard to the development of a global ecological agenda (as well as the role of NGOs) (Andrew Jamison, The Shaping of the Global Environmental Agenda: The Role of Non-Governmental Organizations. In: Scott Lash, Bronislaw Szerszynski and Brian Wynne (Ed.), Risk, Environment and Modernity London et al. 1996, pp. 224-245, pp. 227). In this context, Jamison also works out a change in "Environmentalist knowledge interests" (ibid., P. 240) and states: "By becoming established actors in the global environmental discourse, the environmental movement may have lost an important part of its ( critical) identity. ”(Ibid., pp. 242f.) Google Scholar
  28. Günther Anders, The Antiquity of Man. Volume I: On the Soul in the Age of the Second Industrial Revolution. Munich 19836, P. 21ff. Google Scholar
  29. A variety of publications are available for the following discussions; therefore only a (subjective) selection of some basic texts: Andrew Hurrell and Benedict Kingsbury (eds.), The International Politics of the Environment. Oxford 1992.Google Scholar
  30. Caroline Thomas, The Environment in International Relations. London 1992.Google Scholar
  31. Ernst Ulrich von Weizsäcker, Earth Policy. Ecological realpolitik as an answer to globalization. Darmstadt 19975 (1989). Google Scholar
  32. John Vogler and Mark F. Imber (Eds.), The Environment and International Relations. London and New York 1996.Google Scholar
  33. Gareth Porter and J. Welsh Brown, Global Environmental Politics. Boulder, Col. 1991. Google Scholar
  34. Lorraine M. Elliott, The global politics of the environment. Basingstoke 1998. Google Scholar
  35. Ian H. Rowlands, Environmental Issues in World Politics. In: John Baylis and N.J. Rengger (Ed.), Dilemmas of World Politics. International Issues in a Changing World. Oxford 1992, pp. 287-309. Google Scholar
  36. Kenneth N. Waltz, Theory of International Politics. New York 1979, p. 109. Google Scholar
  37. See Robert H. Jackson: Can International Society Be Green? In: Rick Fawn and Jeremy Larkins (Eds.), International Society after the Cold War. Anarchy and Order Reconsidered. Houndmills 1996, pp. 172-192, here: p. 172. Google Scholar
  38. Andrew Hurrell: International Political Theory, p. 132. See also ders., A Crisis of Ecological Viability? Global Environmental Change and the Nation State. In: John Dunn (Ed.), The Contemporary Crisis of the Nation State? In: Political Studies. Vol. 42 (1994), Special Issue, pp. 140-165. Ders. And Benedict Kingsbury, The International Politics of the Environment: An Introduction. In this. (Ed.), The International Politics of the Environment, pp. 1-47. Google Scholar
  39. Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, p. 135. Cf. for a first theoretical inventory of this complex of problems: Eric Laferrière and Peter J. Stoett, International Relations Theory and Ecological Thought. Towards a synthesis. London 1999.Google Scholar
  40. On the various successes with regard to ozone and the greenhouse effect, see, among others, John Vogler, Environment and Natural Resources. In: Brian White, Richard Little and Michael Smith, Issues in World Politics. Houndmills 1997, pp. 223–245, here: pp. 240f. Google Scholar
  41. For the following, see Marvin Soroos, Global Change, Environmental Security, and the Prisoner's Dilemma. In: Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 31 (1995), pp. 317-332, here: p. 328. Google Scholar
  42. Marvin Soroos, Global Change, p. 328. Google Scholar
  43. John Vogler, Environment and Natural Resources, p. 242. Google Scholar
  44. See below on the concept of "epistemic communities ".Google Scholar
  45. See Lamont C. Hempel: Greenhouse Warming. The Changing Climate in Science and Politics. A review essay. In: Political Research Quarterly. Vol. 46 (1993), pp. 213–239, here: p. 214. Some authors see the greenhouse effect as an example of international market failure, because a state can distribute the costs of its economic activities worldwide (ie dump them largely on others) who are allowed to appropriate the profits nationally. The problem management, according to Redclift and Sage, would be passed on to the international level; But how, they ask, should states be induced to take measures to protect the environment if they only benefit them indirectly? On closer inspection, however, it becomes clear that the greenhouse effect and other global environmental problems cannot be summed up in this way, because the overall balance of a state must also include those burdens that are caused by it other States are expected, that is, states that seek to maximize (economic) gains and to socialize (ecological) losses just as selfishly (and therefore short-sighted) as he is. In order to improve its own environmental balance, a state is therefore dependent on cooperative behavior. The "international market failure" claimed above does not play a major role in the case of the greenhouse effect; this declaration is more likely to apply in cases of unilateral, cross-border pollution.Google Scholar
  46. In addition to the articles cited or cited below, see: Barry Buzan, People, States and Fear. An Agenda for International Security Studies in the Post-Cold War Era. New York et al. 1991, pp. 131-134. Google Scholar
  47. Lothar Brock, Peace through Parks: The Environment on the Peace Research Agenda. In: Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 28 (1991), pp. 407-423. Google Scholar
  48. Nina Graeger, Environmental Security? (Review essay). In: Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 33 (1996), pp. 109-116. Google Scholar
  49. Carsten F. Rønnfeldt, Three Generations of Environment and Security Research. In: Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 34 (1997), pp. 473-482. Google Scholar
  50. Nils Petter Gleditsch (Ed.), Conflict and the Environment. Dordrecht 1997.Google Scholar
  51. Hugh C. Dyer, Moral Order / World Order. The Role of Normative Theory in the Study of International Relations. Houndmills 1997, pp. 187-192. In all of the articles mentioned there are numerous references to further literature.Google Scholar
  52. On the development of the security concept, see, among others, David A. Baldwin, The concept of security. In: Review of International Studies. Vol. 23 (1997), pp. 5-26. Google Scholar
  53. See Lothar Brock, Peace through Parks, pp. 418f. Nils Petter Gleditsch, Armed Conflict and the Environment, p. 388. Google Scholar
  54. See Adalbert Evers and Helga Nowotny, On Dealing with Insecurity. The discovery of how society can be shaped. Frankfurt a.M. 1987. Google Scholar
  55. Hans Freyer, threshold of times. Contributions to the sociology of culture. Stuttgart 1965. pp. 284-290. Ulrich Teusch, Freiheit und Sachzwang, pp. 297–299.Google Scholar
  56. See in particular Brock's systematic inventory, which includes some aspects that are not addressed in the following: Lothar Brock, Peace through Parks.Google Scholar
  57. One of the advocates for a causal link between environmental crisis and conflict is Thomas Homer-Dixon, On the Threshold: Environmental Changes as Causes of Acute Conflict. In: International Security. Vol. 16 (2/1991), pp. 76-116. Ders., Environmental Scarcities and Violent Conflict: Evidence from Cases. In: International Security. Vol. 19 (1/1994), pp. 5-40.Google Scholar
  58. Furthermore, the research by Günther Bächler, Volker Böge, Stefan Klötzli, Stephan Libiszewski and Kurt R. Spillmann on the cause of war environmental destruction. Ecological conflicts in the Third World and ways of dealing with them peacefully. 3 volumes. Zurich 1996.Google Scholar
  59. See also the contributions to the discussion: Nils Petter Gleditsch (Ed.), Conflict and the Environment, and “Special Issue on Environmental Conflict”. In: Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 35 (1998). Google Scholar
  60. Furthermore: Nils Petter Gleditsch, Armed Conflict and the Environment: A Critique of the Literature. In: Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 35 (1998), pp. 381-400. Google Scholar
  61. Jon Barnett, Destabilizing the environment-conflict thesis. In: Review of International Studies. Vol. 26 (2000), pp. 271-288. Google Scholar
  62. Frank Biermann, Gerhard Petschel-Held and Christoph Rohloff, Environmental destruction as a cause of conflict? Theoretical conceptualization and empirical analysis of the connection between “environment” and “security”. In: Journal for International Relations. Vol. 5 (1998), pp. 273-308. Google Scholar
  63. However, the relationship claimed here hides a considerable complexity in that the environmental factor is closely linked to other factors and consequently one cannot be sure whether the environmental problem is actually the factor that initiates or causes the conflict. In this context, as already mentioned above, a distinction should be made between what are, as it were, conventional interstate conflicts on the one hand, which can arise, for example, through scarcity of resources, the effects of environmental damage on the balance of power or through failed attempts to amicably resolve cross-border environmental problems the destabilization of internal conditions, especially of “weak states” on the other hand, which can escalate to violent conflicts (both internally and externally) as a result of environmental destruction. Against the background of this distinction, Hurrell states that "ideas of environmental security cannot be usefully conceptualized in terms of a clear-cut distinction between domestic and international conflict or between military threats and other forms of insecurity" (Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, P. 140; see also John Vogler, Environment and Natural Resources, p. 243). Google Scholar
  64. Gareth Porter, Environmental Security as a National Security Issue. In: Gearóid Ó Tuathail, Simon Dalby and Paul Routledge (Eds.), The Geopolitics Reader. London 1998, pp. 215–221, here: pp. 215f. Google Scholar
  65. The term here refers to the concept introduced by the Palme Commission in 1982; on its use in connection with ecological problems: Lothar Brock, Peace through Parks, p. 417. Google Scholar
  66. See Gareth Porter, Environmental Security, pp. 215f., As well as my argumentation below.Google Scholar
  67. See: Daniel M. Schwartz, Environmental Terrorism: Analyzing the Concept. In: Journal of Peace Research. Vol. 35 (1998), pp. 483-496. On the topic of "environmental warfare": Lothar Brock, Peace through Parks, pp. 412f., There also further literature references on "environmental warfare". Google Scholar
  68. It is therefore not surprising that critics raise conceptual objections in particular. See Daniel Deudney, The Case Against Linking Environmental Degradation and National Security. In: Millennium. Vol. 19 (1990), pp. 461-476. Google Scholar
  69. Marc A. Levy, Is the Environment a National Security Issue? In: International Security. Vol. 20 (2/1995), pp. 35-62.Google Scholar
  70. For a practical and policy-oriented perspective, see: Braden R. Allenby, Environmental Security: Concept and Implementation. In: International Political Science Review. Vol. 21 (2000), pp. 5-21. Google Scholar
  71. See Nina Graeger, Environmental Security ?, p. 111f. Google Scholar
  72. See Gareth Porter, Environmental Security, p. 220. Marvin Soroos, Global Change, p. 319. Google Scholar
  73. See Matthias Finger, The Military, the Nation State and the Environment. In: Gearóid Ó Tuathail, Simon Dalby and Paul Routledge (Eds.), The Geopolitics Reader. London 1998, pp. 223-229, here: p. 226. Google Scholar
  74. Marvin S. Soroos, Global Change, p. 319f. Google Scholar
  75. Matthias Finger, The Military, the Nation State and the Environment, p.226. Google Scholar
  76. Cf. on the last-mentioned aspect and the associated possibility of demilitarizing security thinking: Richard Ullman, Redefining Security. In: International Security. Vol. 8 (1/1983), pp. 129–153, here: p. 133. Google Scholar
  77. See John Vogler, Environment and Natural Resources, p. 243. Google Scholar
  78. Daniel Deudney, Global Environmental Rescue and the Emergence of World Domestic Politics. In: Ronnie D. Lipschutz and Ken Conca (Eds.) The State and Social Power in Global Environmental Politics. New York 1993, pp. 280–305, here: p. 286. See also Nils Petter Gleditsch, Armed Conflict and the Environment, p. 388. Google Scholar
  79. In this context, see the discussion on “ecological intervention”. From an international law perspective, see the overview in Martin Nettesheim, Die Ökologische Intervention. In: Archives of International Law. Vol. 34 (1996), pp. 168-217. Google Scholar
  80. Gareth Porter, Environmental Security, p. 218. Google Scholar
  81. Marvin Soroos, Global Change, p. 319. Google Scholar
  82. Gareth Porter, Environmental Security, p. 220. Google Scholar
  83. Cf. also the opposing position of Robert Jackson, who argues that ecological threats are too distant and too abstract in time, develop too slowly and insidiously and require processing that is too long-term for them to be part of a security logic (Robert H. Jackson, Can International Society Be Green? Examples can be found in Gareth Porter, Environmental Security, p. 216) Matthias Finger formulates a similar objection: “The basic weakness of this model [of 'ecological security', UT] is that it only becomes applicable once the environmental problem in question has become sufficiently urgent to pose a security threat to more than one state. In addition, it assumes that the common security threat can be isolated in time and space, and that identifiable causes for it can be found. As a result, it tends to deal with symptoms, rather than with fundamental causes. "(Matthias Finger, The Military, the Nation State and the Environment, p. 226) Google Scholar
  84. Marvin Soroos, Global Change, p. 319f. Google Scholar
  85. See Markku Wilenius, Sociology, Modernity and the Globalization of Environmental Change. In: International Sociology. Vol. 14 (1999), pp. 33-57. Google Scholar
  86. Robert H. Jackson, Can International Society Be Green ?, p. 189. Google Scholar
  87. World Commission on Environment and Development, Our Common Future. Oxford 1987. Google Scholar
  88. Elmar Altvater and Birgit Mahnkopf, Frontiers of Globalization, p. 447. Google Scholar
  89. Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, 142. Google Scholar
  90. For a problem-oriented overview, see: Wolfgang Hein, Unterentwicklung - Crisis of the Periphery. Phenomena, theories, strategies. Opladen 1998.Google Scholar
  91. Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, 144. Google Scholar
  92. See Henry Shue, Global environment and international equality. In: International Affairs. Vol. 75 (1999), pp. 531-545. Google Scholar
  93. Robert H. Jackson, Can International Society Be Green ?, p. 185, see also ibid., P. 181. Google Scholar
  94. See Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, 149. Google Scholar
  95. Michael Redclift and Colin Sage, Resources, Environmental Degradation, and Inequality. In: Andrew Hurrell and Ngaire Woods (Eds.), Inequality, Globalization, and World Politics. Oxford et al. 1999, pp. 122–149, here: p. 127. Cf. also this., Global Environmental Change and Global Inequality. North / South Perspectives. In: International Sociology. Vol. 13 (1998), pp. 499-516. Google Scholar
  96. See Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, p. 150. Google Scholar
  97. See Michael Redclift and Colin Sage, Resources, Environmental Degradation, and Inequality, 139. Google Scholar
  98. See Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, p. 150. Google Scholar
  99. Vandana Shiva, The Greening of Global Reach. In: Gearóid Ó Tuathail, Simon Dalby and Paul Routledge, The Geopolitics Reader. London 1998, 231–235, here: p. 232. Google Scholar
  100. Ibid., P. 233. The thesis is explained there using the example of the “Biodiversity convention”. Google Scholar
  101. See Michael Redclift and Colin Sage, Resources, Environmental Degradation, and Inequality, pp. 122f. Google Scholar
  102. For example, instead of many, see John Vogler's statement: “[. . .] the share of the world income for the richest 20 per cent of world population has risen in the last thirty years from 70 to 85 per cent. At the same time, however, the contribution of this richest 20 per cent to environmental degradation, as measured for instance in carbon dioxide emissions per capita, is incomparably greater. "(John Vogler, Environment and Natural Resources, p. 232) Google Scholar
  103. See ibid., P. 135 Google Scholar
  104. See Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, 148. Google Scholar
  105. Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, 144. Google Scholar
  106. Robert H. Jackson: Can International Society Be Green ?, p. 185. Google Scholar
  107. On the other hand, more far-reaching attempts to remove the basis of the hitherto relatively lethargic environmental policy of the society of states or of this society of states themselves and their traditional agenda through the development of a “transnational civil society” appear less promising: for example by developing non-territorial political legitimacy, new forms of political organization finds or fills the idea of ​​a global ethical or moral community with life. See Andrew Hurrell, International Political Theory, p. 146. Google Scholar
  108. Of course, such "awareness-raising" projects, which basically would have to restore a level of ecological awareness and information that had already been achieved ten or twenty years ago, would have to reckon with resistance - for example from the "globalization winners", especially from the sector the economy, which is reluctant to take care of the darker side of its activities, but also on the part of large parts of the media, whose generally growing commercialization does not create favorable conditions for rational discourse and the permanent theming of complex issues.Google Scholar
  109. See Peter M. Haas, Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination. In: International Organization. Vol. 46 (1992), pp. 1-35. Google Scholar
  110. Chris Brown, Understanding International Relations. New normative approaches. London 1992, p. 234. Google Scholar
  111. Peter M Haas, Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy coordination, p. 3 Google Scholar
  112. This is the impression left by the otherwise abundant literature report by Michael Zürn, The Rise of International Environmental Politcs. A Review of Current Research. In: World Politics. Vol. 50 (1998), pp. 617-649. Google Scholar
  113. Andrew Hurrell: International Political Theory, p. 133. Google Scholar
  114. Oran Young's investigations are based on a cooperation model primarily related to the state level: Oran R. Young, International Cooperation. Building Regimes for Natural Resources and the Environment. Ithaca, NY 1989. Google Scholar
  115. Oran R. Young, International Governance. Protecting the Environment in a Stateless Society. Ithaca, NY 1994.