Environmental Conservation Discussion Questions Answer both of the following questions entirely on a typed, double-spaced document (font size must be size
Environmental Conservation Discussion Questions Answer both of the following questions entirely on a typed, double-spaced document
(font size must be size 12). These are essay questions, so take your time and answer them
thoroughly with supporting evidence from the readings, class lectures, discussions, and
films. The length of each answer should be no more than 3 double-spaced pages (which
means the total length of the both questions combined should be no more than 6 double-
spaced pages). I will be looking for one basic criterion: a strong argument supported by
evidence from class sources. Please make sure you include the letters below (A, B, C) in
your. Also, please answer all parts of the question and do so in a way that advances a
clear argument (in other words, make sure you have a clear point). Please do not quote
directly from the readings: use your own words. No additional or outside sources are
required for this assignment. Finally, include all references to readings in parentheses like
this: (Leonard, p. 63). Environmental Studies 116
Test I
Winter Quarter 2019
Answer both of the following questions entirely on a typed, double-spaced document
(font size must be size 12). These are essay questions, so take your time and answer them
thoroughly with supporting evidence from the readings, class lectures, discussions, and
films. The length of each answer should be no more than 3 double-spaced pages (which
means the total length of the both questions combined should be no more than 6 doublespaced pages). I will be looking for one basic criterion: a strong argument supported by
evidence from class sources. Please make sure you include the letters below (A, B, C) in
your. Also, please answer all parts of the question and do so in a way that advances a
clear argument (in other words, make sure you have a clear point). Please do not quote
directly from the readings: use your own words. No additional or outside sources are
required for this assignment. Finally, include all references to readings in parentheses like
this: (Leonard, p. 63). There is no need for a bibliography. Good luck.
1. A) In their chapter titled “Joined-Up Thinking,” Agyeman, Bullard, and Evans refer to
research that concludes that communities with strong indicators of social equality and
political freedoms are also characterized by stronger environmental protection and
sustainability (and the reverse was true as well). Drawing on this reading and other
materials we’ve read for the course up to this point, explain why you think this is the
case—that is, why the relationship between democracy or equality and environmental
protection works this way. Agyeman, Bullard, and Evans also discuss different
definitions of “sustainability” and “sustainable development,” including their own (“just
sustainability”). Which of these do you find most compelling and useful? Why? Propose
a definition of sustainability that goes even further than this and tell us why it’s an
improvement (4 points)
B) You have been exposed to several theories of environment-society relationships in
lecture and/or the readings. Discuss at least 1 example from the book, The Story of Stuff
that illustrates or challenges 1 of the following theories, and explain your answer: Deep
Ecology, Treadmill of Production, Treadmill of Destruction, Disproportionality, Risk
Society, World Systems/Unequal Exchange, Ecological Modernization, Ecofeminism, or
Political Ecology (4 points)
C) Discuss at least 1 example from the book, The Story of Stuff that illustrates or
challenges a different theory than the one you used in 1B, and explain your answer. (4
points)
2. A) Based on the readings from the course, devise a plan for how we could act
decisively to confront anthropogenic climate change. Be specific about what actions or
initiatives you are proposing and why you think they will make a difference. Be specific
about what scale(s) (e.g., local, national, global, etc.) this plan will impact and function
on and who will be affected. In other words, what is your theory of change? And be
specific about drawing directly from course readings for this answer (4 points)
B) How would your plan/theory address the ways that social inequality and climate
change intersect? In other words, what are the linkages and how can they be tackled
through creative means? And be specific about drawing directly from course readings for
this answer (4 points)
C) How would your plan draw from and reflect the concerns of scholars from at least 2 of
the following theoretical frameworks? (and these theories have to be different than the
ones you used in questions 1B and 1C): Deep Ecology, the Treadmill of Production,
Treadmill of Destruction, Disproportionality, Risk Society, World Systems
Theory/Unequal Exchange, Ecofeminism, Ecological Modernization, or Political
Ecology? Be specific. (4 points)
Introduction
foined-up Thinking: Bringing Together
Sustainability, Environmental ]ustice
and Equityl
Jalian Ag1emary Rohert L) Ballard and Bob Etans
IrurRopucrroN
In
recent yeats
it
has become increasingly
that the issue of
environmental qua)try is inextricably Linked to t}Lat^ppatent
of human equality. )ühetever
in the world environmental despoilation and degtadation is happening, it is
almost always linked to questìons of social jusdce, equit¡ tights and people’s
qualiq’ of life in its v/idest sense. There are three telated dimensions to this.
Fitst, it has been shown by Torras and Boyce (1998) that globaliy, countries
with a mote equal income distdbutìon, gre ter civil libert-ies and poJitical rights
and higher Jtteracy levels tend to have higher envitonmental quaüty (measured
in lower concentrations of air and water pollutants, access to clean .wâter and
sanitation) than those with less equal income distributions, fewer rights and civil
liberties and lower levels of Ttteracy. Similady, in a survey of the 50 US states,
Boyce et al (1999) found that states with greater inequalities in power
distdbution (measured by voter participation, tax faitness, Medicaid access and
educational âttainment levels) had less sttingent environmental poJicies, gre Íer
ievels
of
envitonmental sttess and higher râtes
of infant mortality and
premature deaths. At an even more local level, a study by Morello-Frosch (1997)
of counties in Cdtfornia showed that highly segtegated courrties, in terms of
income, class and tace,had higher levels of hazardous air pollutants. From
global to iocal, human inequality is bad fot environmental quality.
The second and related dimension is that environmental problems bear
down disptoportionately upon the poot. ìlhile the rich can ensure that their
children breathe cleaner air, that they ate warm and well housed and that they
do not suffer from polluted water supplies, those at the bottom of the socioeconomic ladder are less abie to avoid the consequences of motot vehicle
2
JastSustainabì/itiet
Joined-up
Thinking
3
and develops issues that acldress these core themes including: anthropoæntrisnt;
biatechnalagy; biaprosþecÍing (bio)nt/t’øral assimilation; Deep and Radical ecologt; en/ogical
debt; ecolagica/ dentocracl; ecolagicalfooQrints; ecolagical moderniTation; enuironmental space;
feruinisnt and gender; g/abaliryrion; partiripatorl research; place, ìdentitl and legal rights;
precaution; ris k sode{t; se/ectiue uictirziqation; ualaation.
North
are avoiding or delaying any
emissions through the so_called ,flexi
Clean Developmenr Mechaûis
2001). The emergence of the
the iast rwo decades
ineq.ities, n. ,..-,r,.
(Adeola, 2000).
;1;il*’ïi:,:il:å^iïiiJ’;:.,:”11,ï;i:.,,äi”,:’,.,L1
The third dimension is that of sustainable
deveiopment. The .new policy
agenda’ of sustainabitity emerged after
the prbti;;;; ïT ,iï
tv.no
commission on Environment andbevelop-..rt’,
report in 19g7, but more fury
after the 1992 united Nations co.rferencå
on Enviionment aná o.rr.ìop*.rr,
I irs successor, rhe 1002 World Sumåir on
urg. Sustainabilìty is cleatly a contested
In so doing, the chapters contribute to an important and emerging
reahzatto¡ that a sustainâble society must also be a just sociery locall¡ nationally
and internationally, both within and between generations and species. X/e are
fr-rlly aware of the extensive and contested debates surroundíng the concept and
conceptions of justice (Rawls, 1971, Low and Gleeson, 1998, Micldleton and
O’I{eefe, 2001). It ís not our intention, however, to contribute to this clebate.
Rather, we âre concerned to examine the linkages that can be made berween the
political and policy processes surrounding environmental justice ancl
sustainability. Similarly, we make no claims to being geographicalÌy nor
theoretìcally comprehensive in our treatment of this vast, interdisciplinary arc ,
nor concÌusive in our thoughts. rù(/e asked our chapter authors, who were selected
on the basis of their research and interests in this area, to mâp what thel
considered to be some of the key conceptual and practical challenges
confronting both the ideas of suttainabi/ilt and enuirontnenfaljustice to understand
if and how we might see greater linkages berween these ideas and their practical
actions in the future. In effect, we askecl them to explore the nexr-rs l¡etv¡een the
ideas
justice, then no development can
be
…,.,i.o.,*.r,rlTl:::,i:”iil#iî
concern, lmportant though
society is one where wider questions
of
sociar needs
;:iî:î:ä,:ît1,
aniwelf-;, ;J;.;;-.
nvtonmental concerns.
d just sociai goal, is
for a gteater jevel of
tions, the long tefm
this view ìs that
sustainability
î¡:1″::’.:ijå::l
and, in alì probabilit¡ a change
by the affluenr and aspired to
changes
in behaviour, not
leasr
if
there ìs not some measure of
mon futures ând fates.
bilitie:: Deuekptzent in an ()neqaa/ ïVor/d
three dimensions of the multiscalar
human equalìty (Torras and Boyce,
tainab’itv ancr environmentar
j
us
problems (ie being reactive), than around solutions (íebeingproactiue). Proactivity
in this case requires the sharing of values, visions and vocabulaties among
of people who are for the most part from dífferent social locations: it is
clifficult to clo, but not impossible. The structures required to build bridges,
rvhich represent a direct challenge to the dominant social parzdigrn (À4ilbrath,
1989), are only now being identifiedlcy otganizanons and inclivicluals around the
worid and put into place. This is the single greatest challenge to developing
greater theoretical andpracrlcal co-activism between the two areas.
groups
arguments
e
us
sustainabi,lity and environmental justice.
However, despite the very real chaLlenges facing greater linkages, and the
of those such as Dobson (in Chapter 4) who beiieve rhe two ideas to
self-interest in favour of unborn ge
on the other side of the gÌobe. Tñe
s
of
What became âppârent on receiving submissions ¡/âs that the linkagcs
between the icleas of sustainability and environmental justice are clearer with
respect to the problerzr identified by our authors than the solation¡ currently
possible within the dominant social paradigm (Milbrath, 1989), despite the
increasing challenges to its hegemony. But this cloes not meârì thar, as Dobson
(see Chapter 4 in this book) argues, ‘ne’er the twain shall meer’. nøe attribute this
to there being a far greater ease in identifying and (co-)organizing around
tice
-,1î
!i;.iií) “*fl .ffi:,’.,.å:::
be politically incompatible (he is, though, talking only about enyironnental
sustainability and sacial justtce), it ís felt by most of our aurhors tharja:tice znd
rastainabi/iry are intimately línkecl and mutually interdependent, certainly at the
prab/etn level and increasingly at the solatian level through issues like toxics use
reductìon; waste reduction, re-use and recycling; guaranteecl public access to
information and pubÌic involvement; and sustainable, equitable and iust
cr–rnsumption pâtterns. This is a theme we shall revisit in out Conclusion. Indeed,
there is some evidence thât this linkage of problems and practical ¡ohtions ts
4
/ast Sastainabilifiu
Joined-aþ
alreacly
.happening at the rocai rever in the uS n
A-lternadves for Commur ty and Enviro”Á..r4acn;
organizations such as
in Boston witrr their work
i”d transit inequity; the Center for Neighborhood
:îChrcago,
who are under
r-*,i
th e urb an Habitat
an environmental j us tice
j’öi:iîå :Xïï,ï*r.ï
@ullard,
1 9
murticurturar, urban
env”onmenrar leadership for_sociaty just
and sustainÃÌe communitiÅ in the
lrancisco Bay Area, lECo/UHÉ 1998, 21)t.
x/hile the environmenrar justice
-o…-í.r, started in the uS, and the
organizations above may be considered
to be in the vanguard, *. i_roo. ,”
showcas e b oth its expres sion ancr interactio”
*irï .”r i”i”?ii;; ;* *är.”,
countries’ But the varied discussions in this
book, from rocal rrrî., ä^gr.ua
ones’ from theorcticar debares to policy impremenrarion,
San
comq at a critica] time
when the.ûrst.tangibre successes ãf sustainab’ity
poricies, and movemenrs for
social and environmental
.jusrice, are being erojed by
t
and
the
the increasingll
orarions CÀ4NCÐ
that arebeing made by those
s by
,”,,füÍJ!”iî_ii: nä:î:#Ti:1i,i:’.ï
economic policies come with rarge social and
ecãrogicar costs in terms of higher
pollution levels, grearer resou-rce exproitation, t.rr’pro*oo”-¡*îåä..i
r”a
massive social and cuitural dislocadoì.
not
aìJ peopJes
bear these
cosrs equalJy. As has tradiúonailv been
l:-r”r”
-r^
urc Lasc,
compames usuaty 10care rheir diruesr busine
sses in areas rhar ofie r rhe
gaf of least poJìricar resisiance. Thus, in the us, h,urope and around the
worÌd
it is the least poriticaty powerfur and mosr marginarized
secrors of the
popuÌation who are being serectivery victimized
to the greatest
envtronmental crises. The causes and effects
extent by
of environmã.rt^l i.r;rrti..
unsusrainable producdon. arc becoming.increasingry
“rrd
rerared in preces as far tpart
the
as
Mississippi Chemical Corridoñn Louisii’a.
prpr; ñ:;-G”,;.;,
,U.r,
lndonesia, the^Niger Delta in Nìg;.i;, the
Braztlian Amazon and
Durban’s South Basin in So’Ih Africa, spurrirïg
.ooritio.r, berween acrvocates of
sustainable deveroprnent on one hand
and eãvironmerrtar justice ancr
ful_”^
i”
human
rights on the other.
In the remainder of this introductory chapter
we want to lay the foundations
for the resr of the book by brietly ,rr.i.rg
,ti. ._..g.r,.e
and development
ideas about,sustainability an*d
of
environm.ria
and the nexus, or common
ground, in between them. Both these ideas ¡”rai..,
hn.. mor,.d to the fåre _
f”ifi.
policy circles in many counffies in recenr
years. riÀ-.,, :r, while the sustainïbiliry
agenda has been advanced in the máre
formal poii.y_-ot r.rg lîiï’
governmerìr at all levers from municipar and
“r
rocar urrthoriti.. ,rrr.”þroi””^”a
to nationa,l governments, as well as a growing
number
::T1::t
e’vrronmenral justìce
of-tr,.rirr.rr.r,
oï’grrrr_
of the a.r..tof-ãrr, or
agendas,have achieved pio*ir_r.”n.”
roots organizing advocacy and action.
An e*arninadon
5
the two agenclas will prove useful in determining the potential for, benefits of
and the obstacles to more broadly based ideological and practical ìinkages,’øhich
rnany of our authors discuss.
SusrlrxaBrlrrY
94a)
of-framework
sustainabl. d..,.ÌåpÁ..rt
sustainable communitìes
ltheìr mission is ‘builcring
the emerging rerrain
Thinking
,, ,.*ñ
”
The surge in material in recent years dealing with the concepts of sustainability
ancl its action-oriented varant sustainable clevelopment, has led to competing
and conflicting views over what the terms acutdly mean and what is the most
desirable means of achieving the goa1. According to Reclclift (1987),
sustainabiJity as an idea can be traced back to the ‘limits to growth’ debates of
the 1970s and the 1972 UN Stockholm Conference. The single most frequently
quoted definition of sustainable developmenr comes from the Wodd
Commission on Environment and Development fWCED) (1987) who arguect
that ‘sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the
present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their
()wn needs’ CWCEQ 1987,p43). This definition implìed an important shift away
tiom the traclitional, conservation-based usage of the concept as de-reloped by
the 1980 7odd Conservation Strategy (IUCN, 1980) to a framework that
emphasized the social, economic and political context of ‘development’. By
1991 the IUCN had modifìed its definition. Along with that of the 7CED it is
the most used defìnition: ‘to improve the qualiry of [fe while living within the
carrying capacity of ecosystems’ (IUCN, 1991). However, unlike our working
‘cleflrnition’mentioned earlter (tbe need Ío ens.¿tre a better qua/ìlt of l,rfefor a/1, now, and
inta lbefirÍare, in aTtst and equitable ntanner whi/st liuingwit/tin the /imirs of suþarting
ecoEsietzs), neither the X/CED or IUCN defìnitions specifically mentions jusrice
and equiry which we hold to be of funclamental importance.
McNaghten and Urry (1998, p215) argue that ‘since Rio, working definitions
of sustainability have been broadly accepted by governments, NGOs and
busìness. These tend to be cast in rerms of living within the fìnite limits of the
planet, of meeting needs without comptomising the abiìiry of furure generations
to meet their needs and of integrâting environment and development’. More
recent thinking, according toJacobs (1999) and McNaghten and Urry (1998,
p215), is the ‘growing impetus within the policy-making community to move
away from questions of principle and defìnition. Rather they have developed
tools and approaches which can translate the goals of sustainabiliry into specìfic
actions, and assess whethet real progress is in fact being made to¡/ards achieving
them’. Prominent among these tools, they argue, are sustainability indicators.
X/ithin the sustainability discourse itself there has also emerged rwo divergent
trencls – that of strong/hard sustainability versus weak/soft sustainability
(jacobs, 1992). H’aÀ or strong sr-rstainability implies that renewable resources
must not be drawn down faster than they can be replenished in that natural capital
must rìot be spent – v,¡e m!Ìst live off the income produced by that capital. Soft
or weak sustainability accepts that certain resources can be clepleted as long as
they can be substituted by others over time. Natural capitalcan be used up as
long as it is convetted into manufactured capital of equal value. The problem
6
JuÍ
SuÍainabi/ities
Joined-up T/tin,king 7
with weak sustainability is that it can be vety crifficutt to assign
a monerary value
to narural materials and services, and it does not take into
account the fact that
some of these cannot
sustainability thus main
that
It
‘ Sttong
services
the.””1.”;;;;;
Sustainabiììty is at its very heart a po
nsüucr.
represents a be/ief in the need for societies to adopt
rrrore sustainable patterns
>olitical mobilization by individuals ancl
for governments. As with other over_
nd freedom, there are many
ancl
how societies might make
ENvTRoNuENTAL fusrrcE
The roots
of the uS environmentar justice movement can be ffaced to citizen
of toxic waste or hazardous and poiluting indr,stries in
revolts against the siting
areas in’abitecl_by predominânrly minority popurationr.
i t qg¡”Governmenr
-rraicating
Accounting. offìce repor t (cAo, 1 993)
that African-A;;;i.^rr.
comprised the
population in three of the four
communities of the
_majority
south-eastern us where hazardous waste Ìandfiils were
rocated, u.ra ,rr.
Iandmark report ‘Toxic x/asres ancr Race in the united
strter,
iurriã¿ ðn,rr.t
envfonmental ‘bads’- and suffer the re
of life
jusri
of locational cho
burclens. Environmental
resìstance’nature
:rï*f
s to the
detriment of minorities and, moreover, tr-rat this disproportionut.
u,r.a.r, i, ,.,
intenúonal re sult @ortne y, 1994)
In addition’ stuclies have shown that not onry are minority
populations more
I and dangerous places, but the âmolÌnt
.
ubljc advocates who represent minority
L996, Carnacho, 1998). Advocates of
of environmental inequities will only
hen they have access to the decisi
Purchase answer to see full
attachment