March 6 14 ENV222 lecture outline.pdf

6 Pages

School of Environment
Course Code
Stephen Scharper

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 6 pages of the document.
16) March 6 Current actions: State, domestic: 1 Government policy Meadowcroft, James (2012). “Greening the State?” In Paul F. Steinberg and Stacy D. VanDeveer, Comparative Environmental Politics: Theory, Practice and Prospects. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. pp. 63-87. ▯ Lecture notes ▯ 1. Definition of the state . previously discussed: authority relationships . exists only in a defined geographic space . made up of those bodies supported by tax revenue . main elements: government; security (army, police); courts, legal system ▯ The only body in society with a monopoly on the exercise of coercive force: . protect borders . maintain internal order . protect private property Main function: provide physical and legal infrastructure, to support market and civil society. ▯ 2. Meadowcroft arguments ▯ 2.1 . pp. 343-344: state performs three main functions: . maintain internal order . promote national prosperity, economic growth . provide welfare services, eg health and education ▯ to that is being added a fourth function, environmental protection: ie, the "environmental state" is emerging, to complement the "security state"; "economic state"; and "welfare state." His main argument is that the "environmental state" now exists. Some disagree, as discussed below. He argues the environment function has to be co-ordinated with other three: ▯ security and environment: . environmental problems may cause security problems, eg conflict over water . security actions cause environmental problems ▯ economy and environment: . environmental impacts cause problems for economy . but conversely environmental protection imposes costs on economy . but also may provide benefits, eg jobs in green industries ▯ welfare: . discusses rise of welfare state, does not discuss connections ▯1 . DM connection between welfare state and environmental protection was made in Feb 6 lecture and other classes; to be more fair to nonhuman world, we must be more fair to one another, in particular if we remove economic growth as a solution to poverty – welfare state would have to redistribute wealth 2.2 His further argument is that the future evolution of the environmental state only partially involves policy actions on specific environmental problems, but also must be part of a larger transition - p. 350 "deliberate societal changes" in state, market and civil society. ▯ This is similar to the argument I make in the March 4 lecture respecting a broad transformation of energy infrastructure (physical, legal, organizational); Meadowcroft argues p. 351 the transformation is needed not only for energy, but also materials, agriculture, water, species extinction/biodiversity loss. ▯ 3. Historical evolution of government environment policy ▯ To understand the evolution, it is essential to understand the basic function of environmental policy: 1) set standards - rules governing release of pollutants to air, water, land; use of land, eg building density, protect green areas; extraction of resources, eg fisheries, forestry 2) implement the standards - by means of law which requires an environmental licence (which stipulates the relevant standard) for all activities which cause environmental harm ▯ Evolution: . 1960s- early1970s: pass environmental laws; create environment departments . 1980s: new issues, acid rain, long-range transport of toxics by air; toxic contamination food, global biodiversity, climate change - scope of the problem expanding, both in terms of types of issue and from local to global . 1987 Brundtland report, paradigm sustainable development (March 11 lecture) . 1992 Rio Conference: high point of government action on environment . 1990s deregulation (weakening standards); reduction budgets environment departments; voluntary policy instruments instead of legally binding controls expansion environmental responsibility throughout government . 2000s- present climate becomes dominant issue; in Canada, basic contest between goals of wealth creation through fossil fuel export and action on climate change ▯ Meadowcroft presents this chronology as divided into two periods (pp. 336-37): ▯ . 1960s - roughly 1990: passage of environment laws; creation environment departments The environment was seen as one issue among many, to be dealt with by just one government department, using the established means of administrative law to regulate business. ▯ ▯2 . 1990 - present address long-term issues; try to integrate environmental and economic decision making; diversify policy instruments; involve more non-state actors; more international effort ▯ Pp. 337 - 339, four trends: . environmental policy field expanded to many more issues . deepening of state involvement; more sophisticated, using new tools eg habitat protection not just species protection . environment more central - now part of economic, social, security policy . permanent political contention summary p. 340. . from limited to more extensive government intervention . from simpler to more sophisticated approach . from periph
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.