Download The ecological citizen and climate change

The ecological citizen and climate change
Johanna Wolf
Prepared for
the workshop “Democracy on the day after tomorrow”
at the ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia
Norwich, UK
Abstract
To date, most research on climate change has focused on the science of possible impacts and the
formulation of international policy responses. In comparison, relatively few studies have
considered the social mechanisms and processes by which responses to climate change could
occur. This paper examines participants’ responses to climate change based on two case studies
on Canada’s west coast. It argues that ecological citizenship provides significant explanatory
power for the accounts of participants. The results suggest that participants feel a responsibility
for their incremental contributions to climate change which they describe as a civic duty that is
owed to those currently affected by impacts and to future generations. The responsibility
matches what has been described as ecological citizenship because it is felt to be a nonreciprocal, non-territorial, responsibility-focussed commitment of the private sphere. The
findings suggest that with respect to climate change, individuals’ actions and underlying
attitudes are concerned with current and future implications of northern living standards and
lifestyles, are driven by a sense of individual civic responsibility, and seek agency beyond that
afforded by the state.
The ecological citizen and climate change
1
Citizens and the environment
[E]mergent ecological concerns have added fuel to a complex debate about the
responsibilities that attach to citizenship (Dean 2001).
With rising environmental concerns over the past decades, and politically contested
approaches to remediating them, political aspects of citizens’ lives have not been
unaffected. This is reflected also in a to date largely theoretical debate that has begun to
explore the possible linkages between citizenship and the environment.
Of many global problems, global climate change is often cited as the most serious threat
facing humanity today. Projections indicate that climate change will impact societies and
ecosystems throughout and beyond the 21st century. The impacts of climate change will
affect all countries and regions around the world, albeit in different and uncertain ways.
Developed countries have contributed the majority of historic emissions since the
industrial revolution whilst, it has been argued, developing countries are most vulnerable
to the impacts, amplified by their socio-economic vulnerabilities. Therefore, climate
change is a problem of equity, caused by past emissions and borne by those who have
contributed least, developing countries and generations not yet born.
This paper argues that ecological citizenship has significant explanatory power in a case
study setting in Canada, where intergenerational equity, among other factors, is a
motivation for the ecological citizen to act to reduce individual contributions to climate
change.
1.1
Characteristics of ecological citizenship
Research considering citizenship and the environment by Christoff (1996), Smith (1998)
and Barry (1999b; 2002) demonstrates the relevance of environmental problems to
citizenship theory.
This has paved the way for Dobson (2003) to highlight the
importance of the at least normative connection between citizenship theory and the
environment. There are only very few empirical applications of ecological citizenship.
For example, Horton (2005) found in a case study of environmental activists in the UK
that green citizenship is produced by and practiced within a green socio-cultural
architecture in which cultural institutions promote the routinized performance of green
identities (p. 145). This section introduces the key characteristics of ecological
citizenship based on theory: the ways in which it extends beyond liberal and civicECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
2
The ecological citizen and climate change
republican citizenship, its concern with civic responsibilities rather than rights, and its
concern with fairness and equity.
Ecological citizenship as suggested by Dobson (2003) is a development of what he calls
post-cosmopolitan citizenship. Both citizenship types extend beyond the remits of liberal
and civic-republican citizenship types in four ways. This paper focuses on ecological
citizenship. First, it shares the language of virtues with civic-republican citizenship; its
principal virtue is justice (ibid., p. 132).
Second, its obligations are owed non-
reciprocally. Third, its remit includes not only the public but also the private sphere.
And fourth, ecological citizenship extends beyond the boundaries of the state (ibid., p.
82). These four hallmarks of ecological citizenship are important features used in this
research to examine empirical data in section 3 below.
An underlying principle of ecological citizenship is that of fairness. By implying justice
as the prime virtue of ecological citizenship, and considering further virtues such as care
and compassion (p. 67), Dobson expands the concept of citizenship into realms that have
previously been argued to belong not to the ‘good citizen’ but to the ‘Good Samaritan’.
Yet, the origins of the virtues are the relationships that give rise to the obligations of
citizenship in the first place, and it is the relationships, not the virtues themselves, that
give rise to citizenship obligations (ibid., p. 66). With this in mind, these relationships
are of a historical nature as they arise from what Lichtenberg (1981) calls “antecedent
action, undertaking, agreement…” between strangers (in Dobson 2003). It is clear from
this that the type of fairness implied here is about intergenerational as much as
intragenerational equity. The origin of both of these aspects of equity lies in “identifiable
relations of actual harm” (Dobson 2003, p. 81), that is the (collective) consequences of
actions undertaken in the past and today, now and in the future.
At the core of ecological citizenship is also a recognition of obligations and
responsibilities as central tenets, rather than rights as in liberal citizenship thinking
(Dobson 2003). This relates to the point above about fairness and poses the question to
whom these obligations or duties are owed. Temporal and geographic boundaries that
previously have confined the consequences of individuals’ actions have been dispelled by
the effects of globalisation to augment the reach of private agents’ remits to the future
and the global – albeit primarily in developed countries. This relates to the inclusion of
the private sphere in post-cosmopolitan citizenship because unequivocally, private acts,
such as driving a car, can have public implications (cf. e.g. Clarke 1999), such as
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
3
The ecological citizen and climate change
contributing to greenhouse gas emissions. Arguably, such private acts are inextricably
intertwined with living standards (access to and ownership of a car) and lifestyles (the
choice to drive), which in turn are tied to the level of economic development in a location
or state. Ecological citizenship therefore bears a civic concern for the implications of
individual actions. What, however, is the link between ecological citizenship and climate
change? The next section offers an answer to this question.
1.2
Ecological citizenship and climate change
It has been argued that both post-cosmopolitan and ecological citizenship are concerned
with bone fide citizenly activities (Dobson 2003). Based on this, the purpose of this
section is to outline the connection between the theoretical dimensions of ecological
citizenship offered by Dobson and the specific characteristics of climate change as a
social problem, that is, how it is caused and may be responded to.
Non-territoriality is an important dimension of ecological citizenship, and it is a key
characteristic that links this citizenship to climate change (and indeed other global
environmental problems). It is ubiquitously agreed that climate change constitutes a
global problem because it is caused by, affects, and cannot be remediated without the
participation of a multitude of global actors (Watson 2001). The global nature of the
causes of the issue also implies that national boundaries, the traditional realm of
citizenship operation, are merely another obstacle to effective action on the problem, as
demonstrated by the lack of international cooperation on the ratification of the Kyoto
Protocol by the world’s most significant emitter, the United States. The impacts of
climate change are unequally distributed across geographic space and in time, and they
do not respect national boundaries, impacting those that are most vulnerable (Adger et al.
2006). Just as the impacts of globalisation are asymmetric between developed and
developing countries, so do the obligations of ecological citizenship arise from the
asymmetric distribution of power and effect between (and among) citizens of developed
and developing countries. This is mirrored also in Goodall (1994) who suggests that only
many individual acts at the local level will bring about significant change. As a result,
national boundaries aside, all those citizens who participate in activities that contribute to
climate change bear obligations to reduce their share in causing the problem.
Theoretically, it can be argued, they also bear a share of responsibility for whatever
damage and subsequent remediation arises from the impacts of climate change.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
4
The ecological citizen and climate change
Dobson (2003) suggests that the duties and responsibilities of ecological citizenship arise
from the impact (“ecological footprint”, p. 118) individual citizen’s activities have on the
opportunities of other citizens within or outside the same country. Closely aligned with
Brundtland’s definition of sustainability (WCED 1987), he thus proposes that the key
obligation of the ecological citizen is to ensure that the impact of an individual fulfilling
his or her needs does not foreclose the ability of others, alive now and in the future, to
pursue their needs. Effectively, ecological citizenship as proposed here follows from the
non-territorial consequences of lives lived in developed countries and is an instantiation
of sustainability. The link to climate change then is straightforward: as incremental as
an individual’s contribution to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions may be, it still adds to
the overall plight borne by future generations and those people who are vulnerable to the
consequences of climate change.
Because citizens in developed countries have contributed and continue to emit the
overwhelming majority of historic GHG emissions, it is these citizens who are mainly
responsible for current climate change. Considering the impacts of climate change on
common resources, such as limited freshwater supplies, an individual’s overuse of water
affects those tapping into the same resource, now or later, and forecloses adaptation
options now and potentially in the future. This is an example of the relationship between
strangers mentioned above that gives rise to citizenship obligations.
Following
Lichtenberg (1981), these are citizenly obligations because the emissions individuals
contribute are at least part of the causes of global climate change, and this causal relation
between strangers is what rules out moral commitments in this instance1.
Virtues are central to ecological citizenship for two reasons. First, the ecological citizen
has an obligation to ensure that his or her impact does not foreclose the opportunities of
others. Second, an underlying theme of ecological citizenship identified in section 1.1
above is fairness, between citizens of developed and developing countries and citizens
now and in the future. From this, it is clear why Dobson posits that the first virtue of
ecological citizenship is justice (Dobson 2003). “Ecological citizens care because they
want to do justice” (ibid., p. 123). This virtue, albeit not necessarily of individuals, also
1
This does not preclude that reducing individual emissions cannot be inherently right. The argument here,
however, focuses on the nature of the link between individuals, which, if there is a cause and effect
relationship between individuals’ actions, is citizenly.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
5
The ecological citizen and climate change
plays a crucial role in adaptation to climate change (Adger 2001; Smit and Pilifosova
2001; Adger and Paavola 2002; Thomas and Twyman 2005; Adger et al. 2006). Virtues
important in effecting justice could include some that are more commonly associated
with being a ‘good person’ rather than a ‘good citizen’, compassion and care.
As shown earlier, ecological citizenship considers the private realm as a site where
citizenship activities occur. This is so because first, private actions can have public
implications, and second, because the second order virtues of care and compassion are
typically associated with the private realm and private relationships (Dobson 2003).
Considering the first aspect, the public implications of private actions, it was already
argued above that GHG emissions generated by individuals, for example, from car use,
generate a responsibility of a civic nature. The second aspect, the virtues of care and
compassion, can be related to considering the impacts of one’s actions on others, on
future generations and strangers, that may live far from one’s own home. When the two
come together, that is, a non-reciprocal care about the lives of others induced by the
recognition that one’s GHG emissions contribute to the impacts of climate change on
others, ecological citizenship takes on concrete shape. It is important to highlight that the
obligation is of a citizenship type because of the causal link between an individual’s
actions, albeit incrementally, and temporally and spatially removed, and the
consequences that may occur elsewhere.
Adaptation to the impacts of climate change has been defined as adjustments to perceived
or anticipated climate stimuli (Smit and Pilifosova 2001). Some literature discusses
adaptation to climate change impacts in a context of fairness and justice, however, this
work does not consider whether, and if so how, adaptation may be linked to citizenship.
In principle, adaptive responses to climate change impacts occur now and in the future,
by those already affected ex post (reactive adaptation) and by those who perceive, or will
perceive, a threat ex ante (anticipatory adaptation). Adaptive capacity has been identified
as the “potential, capability, or ability of a system to adapt to climate change stimuli or
their effects or impacts” (ibid., p. 894).
When setting this into the context of individuals’ actions, equity, and citizenship, a
connection emerges: Failure to recognise the consequences of one’s actions that impact
others can constrain the others’ capacity to adapt to climate impacts. This is certainly
expected for future generations who will need to adapt to all those impacts current
generations fail to avoid through mitigation and long term adaptation. On the other hand,
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
6
The ecological citizen and climate change
adaptation to impacts further afield, geographically and temporally removed from those
who contribute emissions, can theoretically be hindered by the very global socioeconomic structures that create the problem in the first place. Vulnerability plays a
crucial role here because by the same token, those most vulnerable to the impacts of
climate change are also those least able to adapt (Adger et al. 2006). Wisner et al. (2004)
define vulnerability as “the characteristics of a person or group and their situation that
influence their capacity to anticipate, cope with, resist and recover from the impact of a
natural hazard”.
In an incremental way, the impacts of individuals’ actions now,
primarily in the North, modify and shape those characteristics, now as well as in the
future. The impacts of climate change give rise to obligations of citizenship because they
are brought about by private choices that generate relationships to strangers, citizens
elsewhere and in the future. Thus, acting as an ecological citizen can overcome one of
the constraints on adaptive responses to impacts.
1.3
Criticisms of ecological citizenship
The theoretical advances by Dobson have recently sparked a debate about what enables
ecological or green citizenship to be enacted (e.g. Bell 2005; Carter and Huby 2005;
Drevensek 2005; Hailwood 2005; Luque 2005; Sáiz 2005; Seyfang 2005; Smith 2005;
Valdivielso 2005). In critiques of Dobson’s work, two crucial weaknesses of ecological
citizenship theory, and its potential application in practice, have been identified. First, as
Saíz (2005) puts it, “Dobson’s insistence on the efficacy of individual political agency”
(p. 176) is a critical point of weakness because it implies that individuals can be relied
upon to strive to be better citizens. This ignores that individuals act within a social,
economic, cultural and institutional context that shapes and constrains citizens’ ability to
act in particular ways. A related point is made also by Luque (2005) who points out that
the ecological footprint metaphor used by Dobson implies that individuals who recognise
their footprints to be too large can satisfy their responsibility to those impacted by simply
reducing the size of their footprints. But “unless ‘doing one’s share focuses most of all
on bringing about structural change, the deactivation potential of the ecological footprint
metaphor would be of concern” (ibid., p. 216). In addition, it should be added that
reducing an individual’s footprint in a developed country does not necessarily enable
access of an individual in a developing country to any resources. In this case, even when
focusing on bringing about structural change, it would be extremely difficult to effect
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
7
The ecological citizen and climate change
changes at the global and national economic and institutional scales which could allow
such access by those currently disadvantaged.
Second, changes in individual’s impacts may not be sufficiently large. This point is
recognised by Valdivielso (2005) who suggests that many motivated ecological activists
do not have the opportunity to maintain sustainable consumption (p. 244). Living in the
developed world often means adhering to a minimum living standard that embodies a
lifestyle intricately intertwined with patterns of consumption, which in turn are culturally
and socially embedded needs of mobility, food, work, housing, training or leisure. As a
result, in these cases “the least possible impact is often still much higher than the desired
impact” (ibid., p. 244).
The above discussion shows that ecological citizenship is a young and largely theoretical
concept. Despite the criticisms outlined, the concept may have explanatory power in
areas of human motivation and behaviour that extends beyond that of other approaches.
2
Case study: Two coastal communities in British Columbia
The fieldwork for this research was undertaken from July 2004 to May 2005 in Victoria,
British Columbia (BC) and on Salt Spring Island, BC, both located on the southern tip of
Canada’s Pacific coast. Participants were recruited selectively on one hand, representing
key actors on climate and other environmental or local issues, and purposely on the other
hand, representing a spectrum of the population at large. The latter sample was recruited
in parking lots of local malls and supermarkets, a mother and toddler group in both
locations, a sailing club, and a golf club in both locations. In total, 86 participants
partook in the research, 45 in Victoria and 41 on Salt Spring Island. Of these, in Victoria
27 were selected participants (including three experts on climate change), and 18 were
purposive participants. On Salt Spring Island, 17 were selected participants and 24 were
purposive participants2.
The methods of data collection included, in this order, semi-structured interviews, a Q
sort, and two focus group workshops, one in each case study location.
The semi-
structured interview questions were developed from an initial exploratory round of
2
In this paper, participants are referred to by their anonymous synonyms. For example, SSI13K is key
actor participant number 13 from Salt Spring Island, while VIC8P is purposive participant number 8 from
Victoria.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
8
The ecological citizen and climate change
interviews with broad questions eliciting themes from participants about regulation,
institutions, behaviour, and knowledge about climate change. The Q sort was developed
from transcribed interviews as well as popular and scientific literature on climate change
to represent the multitude of discourses or the “concourse” of the issue (Stephenson
1978; Brown 1999). The focus group workshops served as a deliberative forum that
reflects the social dimensions of attitudes (Krueger 1997; Barbour and Kitzinger 1999;
Oates 2000). During the workshops, participants were asked to reflect on key issues by
drawing mind maps (Buzan and Buzan 1995; Buzan 2002) and to consider the results of
the Q sort. Two sets of maps were produced, one drawn individually, and one drawn in a
small group, after deliberation. The results of these three techniques were used for
triangulation.
For the sake of brevity, the analysis here focuses on the results of
interviews and the focus groups.
Other work considering perceptions of and responses to climate change by laypeople
suggests that perceptions are context-specific (Lorenzoni et al. 2005). It is important to
note that the results of this work emerge from and are to be considered in their specific
local context on Canada’s west coast.
2.1
A civic responsibility
“Every citizen has to be on board this train” (SSI9P, 28 May 2005).
Civic responsibilities or duties are related to individuals’ actions through the remote
connections between individuals’ lives and the temporally and spatially scaled
consequences of their actions, or what Dobson (2003) calls the relationships giving rise
to citizenship obligations (p. 129). This section argues that the responsibility described
by participants of this research is of a civic nature for three reasons. First, the collective
consequences of individuals’ private activities are recognised as important despite the
fact that they occur outside of the individual’s immediate reality, and in spite of the
incremental nature of individual contributions. Second, participants feel they owe a nonreciprocal, non-territorial responsibility to future generations and current generations
living elsewhere (particularly in developing countries). Third, the responsibility is rooted
in a sense of interconnectedness that describes the connections and relations between
individual’s lives which give rise to citizenly obligations. The following paragraphs
illustrate this with direct quotes.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
9
The ecological citizen and climate change
The most dominant and uniform outcome of the case studies conducted for this research
is participants’ sense of individual responsibility for both causing and ameliorating
climate change. Throughout interviews, the individual is evident as the key actor bearing
responsibility for causing and ameliorating climate change. The implied understanding
in a large majority of answers to the question ‘who do you think is responsible for
causing climate change?’ is ‘we all are’. Asking ‘who is it up to do something about
climate change?’ prompted the majority of participants to reply ‘to everyone of us.’
Participants were asked specifically how those responsible for causing climate change
and those who should do something about it compared. Most respondents do not see a
difference between the two groups. This is important because it illustrates what one
participant exemplarily put
… if you are a member of western society, … you are responsible by participation
(SSI3K).
This statement underlines that this participant perceives the individual in western,
developed societies as the key actor bearing responsibility, and therefore, simply by
virtue of participation in the society, as the responsible agent. This is implied in every
interview but one, that of the strongest climate change sceptic, who felt that if climate
change were real, it would be up to governments to address the issue.
Participants of this research consider themselves part of a global society. In this view,
the individual constitutes a part in a greater collective that shapes and is shaped by this
collective.
This reflexive relationship is mirrored in participants’ sense of
interconnectedness with other individuals across the globe, current and future
generations, and the incremental influence their own living standard may have on those
of others elsewhere. As indirect as this connection may be, it is one of the prime
influences in this research on individuals’ perceptions of their role in a global collective.
In this aggregate view, individuals’ contributions to the common good and the range of
possibilities in a common future embody the incremental nature of the responsibility felt
by participants:
I don’t necessarily do it from a climate change perspective but more so from being a
good citizen by not over-utilising water, or electricity, trying to minimise that and trying
to be really economical in my vehicle and food choices (VIC12K).
Thus, the individual obligation for action expressed in interviews is not just that, an
individual responsibility. Rather, it relates to how people perceive themselves to be part
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
10
The ecological citizen and climate change
of a local community, the nation state, and global society, in which sustainability is a key
objective. The obligation felt therefore exceeds the boundaries of the immediate reality
to extend to lives lived elsewhere and in the future, even non-human lives, and the
integrity of the planet’s ecosystems as a whole. For these reasons, this responsibility
concerns the civic realm of individuals’ lives. This closely resembles what Barry (1999a)
calls the “collective enterprise of achieving sustainability” (in Dobson 2003).
Further, in order to understand why the term ‘civic’ accurately describes the obligation
felt, we need to examine the spatial and temporal dimensions of this obligation.
Participants feel that the collective responsibility lies jointly with all those who contribute
to the problem by living in the North.
This notion of a collective yet individual
responsibility is important in order to understand how participants perceive their lives to
influence those of others elsewhere and in the future.
Spatially, the responsibility is thought to reach across continents to lives of people only
most indirectly connected to those of the interviewees.
Yet, as argued above, this
connection is important because by comparison, the effects of a life lived in the North are
perceived to extend beyond national boundaries and across the world in a globalised
reality, while those of a life lived in a developing country are seen as relatively
inconsequential as far as causing climate change is concerned:
Who is causing the climate to change right now? We all are. Everyone of us. Let me
qualify that. All of us in the industrialised world are. Certainly not the third world
nations. It is all of us in the industrialised world (SSI8P).
Temporally, the dimensions of the obligation extend to an unknowable future and to
future generations who will seek livelihoods and opportunities.
They will also be
impacted by and need to adapt to those consequences of climate change which current
generations fail to avoid. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the majority of participants
acknowledge a responsibility toward future generations:
[Who do you think you’re benefiting in your actions to reduce your emissions?] Our
children I think. Generations to come. It’s like planting walnut trees. They take 40 years
to mature, why would you plant one? [So you feel you have a responsibility to future
generations?] Ya (SSI6P).
I don’t understand how anyone can have an ethic that says that we are responsible for
the impacts of our behaviour on other people and that we have a responsibility not to
harm them, and to limit that morality only to existing people. It makes no sense to me at
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
11
The ecological citizen and climate change
all. And yet, that is the assumption that is built into all the economic analysis, … and
many ethical theories (VIC19K, emphasis in the original).
In interviews, participants draw a link to future generations by referring to children.
Participants also consider the impacts of climate change on people in other,
predominantly developing countries, removed from their own immediate reality, as a
group to whom action to reduce emissions is owed. To further clarify this sentiment,
participants were asked during the focus groups “To who do you feel you owe the
responsibility for responding to climate change?” The mind maps drawn individually
show there are essentially four conceptions about responsibility.
First, participants
mention “our children” and “future generations” (SSI4P, SSI12P, VIC5K, VIC6K,
VIC13K). Second, some participants refer to “the Earth” or “all life on Earth” (SSI6K,
SSI9P, SSI12P, SSI13P, VIC4K, VIC13K). Third, two participants wrote that they owed
the responsibility to “the global community” (SSI12P, VIC18K).
Finally, across
interviews with almost all participants implicitly, the responsibility is also owed to the
self – to protect integrity, build identity, and reduce cognitive dissonance:
I owe it to myself to live with integrity, to be proud of the path I’ve chosen, to sleep
soundly at night without guilt, knowing that I’ve done all I can to protect life on earth
(VIC4K).
One participant included references to all four of the above (SSI13P).
2.2
Characteristics of civic responsibility
It has been suggested that although ecological citizenship is a politically based notion, its
activities and principles are not solely confined to the political sphere as narrowly
conceived (Barry 1999a).
This research provides further evidence that ecological
citizenship encompasses dimensions excluded from traditional political citizenship
thinking, or the “sub-political realms” (Beck 1992, p.14), the private and specifically
economic realms of individual lives (e.g. Beck 1997; Dryzek 2000). The following
paragraphs demonstrate three specific characteristics of the civic responsibility, one that
concerns individuals’ political agency as voters, one that relates to their economic agency
as consumers, and one that concerns the power associated with a Northern lifestyle. This
section thus shows that the characteristics of ecological citizenship as it is described here
include but extend beyond the political realm (cf. Dobson 2003; Horton 2005).
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
12
The ecological citizen and climate change
Participants link the responsibility to individuals’ roles as voters, which further supports
the argument that it is a civic responsibility:
I think it is even more important that individuals recognise their role because they are
also voters. If you believe that government has a key role, who is it that tells
government what to do? It’s the electorate. So, if individuals feel that it’s important,
then theoretically governments will also feel that way. In this way individuals are
pivotal (SSI7K).
This quote highlights first, that the responsibility is tied to the democratic and political
agency of individuals, and second, that it is contingent on other individuals’
responsibility – be it recognised by those or not. In this way, individuals’ roles are
situated among a collective of responsibilities. While part of the responsibility is held by
government, participants express specifically that should the government not recognise or
honour its responsibility, individuals are still obliged to their own responsibility, and vice
versa.
Everybody has to play their part. You can’t just rely on government to legislate and you
can’t just rely on people and communities to do things (SSI8K).
Every member of society is expected to recognise his or her responsibility, and
government is expected to recognise its responsibility. These incremental responsibilities
are, however, not de facto but only theoretically contingent on each other: If governments
fail to act on their responsibilities, this does not diminish the responsibility of citizens,
and vice versa. Individual responsibilities are honoured by empowered individuals who
are convinced that governments either cannot or will not live up to their part of
responsibility. For this reason, the eventual responsibilities to future generations are
handled in a similar way. This further illustrates the non-reciprocal relation between the
responsibilities of current and those of future generations.
Participants link the responsibility also to economic agency and it is here that the notion
of ecological citizenship demonstrably extends beyond the political realm of an
individual. As one participant put it: “It is the individual consumers who are ultimately
responsible” (SSI6K). Much in the same fashion in which individuals’ consumption is
linked to causes of climate change, participants bring consumer choices into focus when
discussing responsibility for climate change.
A number of responses indicate that
participants believe in market regulation through consumers’ power: a significant change
in demand will effect a change in supply.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
13
The ecological citizen and climate change
Further, the sense of responsibility is also connected to Northern lifestyles that take
access to fuel and water for granted. Participants are aware that their lifestyle hinges on
such expected resources, and compare their own living standard to others in the world.
[I]n the western world particularly we are responsible. It’s our lifestyle. We have
gotten used to it and we perpetuate it with the ‘cheap gas, cheap water syndrome’
(SSI11K).
Implicit in the phrase “the western world” is that this lifestyle, at the root of global
problems such as climate change, involves more than the fair share of resource
consumption per individual. Living in a developed country like Canada thus becomes a
privilege which is tied to a responsibility.
Someone likened it to […] the whole world coming to the banquet table […] and we’re
lucky enough to be at the front of the line – how much do we take? […] We are really
by mistake taking too much and we have to stop. I guess I have a sense of fairness, a
sense of responsibility (SSI6P).
Implicit in this metaphor is that future generations are not in the line yet and will be
affected by the choices made before they were alive. In this fashion, the responsibility,
once again, extends to future generations.
A number of participants relate the privilege to live in a developed country to power, and
through this, indirectly relate the responsibility to power:
I think people who have more power have more responsibility. […] I think we are very
privileged here compared to other parts of the world and with that privilege comes an
obligation (VIC17K).
From the above, there are clear indications that the multi-facetted nature of the sense of
responsibility felt by individuals certainly includes the civic realm and thus is felt to
constitute a civic duty. Therefore, to an ecological citizen, the private realm is included in
acting as a citizen. Thus, political and economic agency together represent some of the
specific dimensions of participants’ sense of responsibility: for causing the problem of
climate change on one hand, and for helping to alleviate it on the other.
What are the underlying themes that ground participants’ understanding of civic
responsibility? The following section considers three particular issues that are at the
heart of the felt individual responsibility: interconnectedness, identity and virtue, and
individual leadership.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
14
The ecological citizen and climate change
3
3.1
Foundations of ecological citizenship in practice
Interconnectedness
In the early stages of the empirical research, it became evident that participants consider a
sense of interconnectedness in at least some or, in a few cases, most of their daily and
long-term decision making. As a result, the question “Do you feel that actions in your
everyday life affect other people, perhaps in other locations?” was included in the semistructured interviews.
The rather unanimous response to this question implicit in
interviews of 73 participants is demonstrated by the following exemplary quote:
Everything we do has an impact elsewhere, as small as it may be (SSI14K).
The sense of interconnectedness described by participants fosters individuals feeling part
of a global collective. The main premise participants identify is that their participation in
society has consequences that may be removed from their own immediate reality,
extending to places far away and into the future. Participants demonstrate that their
knowledge of the causes of environmental problems, combined with their perception of
increasing globalisation, yields a notion of interconnectedness that is crucial to
understanding the ways in which these individuals think themselves to be part of
collectives.
As a direct consequence of Canadian media failing to link local climate impacts to
climate change, and portraying climate change as an issue of greenhouse gas reduction
not adaptation to impacts, participants see their contributions to the problem in the
context of impacts that are depicted by the media in other, often developing countries.
An individual’s sense of an indirect connection with others through interacting, global
economic and environmental systems, and the far reaching consequences of individual
behaviour, for example, from fossil fuel use, are a key part of how participants
understand individual responsibility. The majority of participants feel their behaviour
and decisions affect others, elsewhere and in the future. This demonstrates that the role
of the global collective of humanity is key because it is the contingent backdrop against
which individuals recognise their incremental responsibility.
Again, this reflects
precisely what Barry (1999a) calls the “collective enterprise of achieving sustainability”
(p. 231) but in the context here it emerges from a specific analysis of perceptions and
interpretations of climate change.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
15
The ecological citizen and climate change
The interconnectedness to future generations occurs in two ways. First, as an extension
of feeling connected to people alive now, as shown above.
In this case, the
interconnectedness arises when individuals realise that the connection they apply to
current generations in developing countries also extends to future generations there.
Second, individuals explicitly mention their responsibility to future generations
specifically. They thus feel connected to people in the future by understanding the
possible future implications and consequences of actions now. This is discussed in
section 4.
3.2
Identity and virtue
Evidence from interviews suggests that where individuals’ identity involves valuing
virtuous behaviour, participants provide rationales for their actions that are specifically
linked to their identity through the virtue embodied in the activity.
Participants
commonly responded positively to my question whether they felt they had benefited from
acting in response to their knowledge about climate change. The importance of such
behaviour can be detected in quotes that relate to one main theme. The most common
notion implicit in participants’ explanations is a sense of improved self-image, a sense
that their actions are congruent with their underlying beliefs.
I don’t think we should be living our lives damaging the rest of the world by what we
do. For me, and for my wife too, those things make us feel better, make us feel like we
are doing something to help the world and mitigate the damage (SSI11K).
A number of dimensions further define the role played by identity. In most participants’
cases, the underlying belief structures suggest it is ‘good’ to ‘leave the world a better
place’. Others feel a sense of altruism in which the incremental contribution made to the
greater good of others is important to participants’ self-image. Some participants also
feel personally empowered by enacting the beliefs that support their identity. Yet another
dimension relates to participants’ sense of their life’s meaning and worth. Underlying all
of these aspects, however, is the value that is placed on an equitable global society, now
and in the future. Individuals’ identities are the link between this aim and acting on the
civic responsibility felt.
3.3
Leading by example
Participants recognise their individual responsibility as only theoretically contingent on
other individuals’ responsibility – whether the latter act on it or not. They feel obliged to
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
16
The ecological citizen and climate change
act on their responsibility for climate change regardless of other people acting on theirs.
Yet, they clearly demonstrate that they believe individuals’ contributions to be only
increments of the whole, and hence, in order to achieve effective action on climate
change, the collective is perceived to be obliged and required to act. For a number of
participants, this understanding yields a sense of individual leadership which in turn
supports the link to identity outlined above.
Further, participants demonstrate that they hope their personal commitment acts as a
positive example that others may follow. However, while participants would like to
encourage others to act similarly, they are careful neither to lay blame nor to impose their
own values onto others. Individuals’ perception of leadership emphasise the hope to
inspire others to act on climate change:
I believe in the ripple effect: If I do my little part, … then the people that are part of my
life … each doing our own little thing, and hope that it will gradually become a big
thing (SSI5P).
This underscores that participants believe climate change to be a collective problem
which can only be solved by collective efforts toward equitable solutions. The three
foundations of being a good ecological citizen, interconnectedness, identity and virtue,
and leading by example, are all linked to an underlying concern for equity, for the
wellbeing of future generations and those currently affected by the impacts of climate
change. The following section discusses the intra- and intergenerational aspects of equity
as they are evident in the results of the case studies.
4
Intra- and intergenerational equity
During the focus group workshops, participants were asked to respond to the question
“What type of responsibility do I feel?” by drawing a mental map. The deliberations on
the maps support the findings from interviews that equity considerations, among others,
are part of the sense of individual responsibility described by participants. Figure 1
below shows a mental map drawn by a group of three participants in Victoria in May
2005.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
17
The ecological citizen and climate change
Government belief
in community of
citizens
A denial culture
The grieving process
Religious beliefs
Recognise it as death
Value of self
or others
prevention
Responsibility
By not doing
something we
“hurt” others
(people die due to
climate change)
Prevention
- our culture
- choosing with
our culture-forced
paths
Feeling helpless
prevents action
Caretakers of the Earth
for future generations
Humans
All species
Figure 1: What type of responsibility do I feel? Group mind map drawn during Victoria focus group
(VIC5K, VIC13K, VIC18K, 29 May 2005).
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
18
The ecological citizen and climate change
The themes on the map illustrate two dimensions of equity. First, the notion of “hurting
others” as a result of lack of action on climate change supports the analysis on
interconnectedness above, illustrating the causal link drawn between incremental
contributions to emissions and effects on other people. Similarly, reflecting on people
dying because of climate change in the context of these participants reveals that in
Canada, very few if any casualties have resulted from climatic impacts. This comment
therefore relates to people elsewhere. These two insights demonstrate that participants
think about intragenerational equity, that is the relationship between those emitting and
those bearing the burden of climate impacts. Second, the phrase “caretakers of the Earth
for future generations” shows that current generations have a direct obligation not to
preclude opportunities of future generations – the essence of sustainability. The root of
this, however, is what participants elaborate in interviews; the responsibility is driven by
the ambition to contribute to a more just and equitable world. In support of this, the
model shows explicit concern for human and non-human life in the future.
These
insights indicate that intergenerational equity is considered explicitly by participants of
this research, and underlines that they are motivated by this understanding to help
alleviate climate change.
A key characteristic of both intergenerational (and intragenerational) equity is that they
are non-reciprocal. This unidirectional impact of an individual life on others now and in
the future is a crucial component that characterises the civic duty embedded in the
responsibility described above.
It means that while participants understand their
responsibility to be contingent on that of others, there are societal groups which are
exempt because they do not participate in causing harm: future generations and
developing countries. However, an exception to this is when cause for reciprocity of
intragenerational equity is perceived.
For example, while societies in developing
countries historically have not contributed to climate change and are struggling to meet
their population’s needs, recently growing economies, particularly China and India, are
seen as recent contributors and therefore participation in emission reduction to a degree is
expected. This is in light of these countries’ growing industries and living standards that
may raise emissions in those countries for the foreseeable future. Every participant who
raised intragenerational equity however, made clear that the North has no right to deny
the growing economies their opportunities for development, similarly to this quote:
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
19
The ecological citizen and climate change
I mentioned China and India. Having been there, I have mixed feelings about that,
because in North America we can say “they shouldn’t be polluting so much” but why
should they not want to have the same standard of living that we have? So to say “You
can’t have industry, stay the way you are” is unfair (SSI3P).
This illustrates the way in which the development paths of developing countries are
considered, and how inter- and intragenerational equity are perceived to be related.
Future generations are exempt from the reciprocity simply by not being alive yet, which
prevents their actions from having retroactive impacts. By understanding the role of
current generations as “caretakers of the Earth” (see figure 1), participants demonstrate
that their responsibility is non-reciprocal, as a carer/cared-for relationship is one of
power. Decisions now, as argued above, are understood to imply an obligation that
comes with the power associated with a current Northern lifestyle.
5
Conclusion
Taken together, the above provides indication that the obligations embedded in an
individual’s responsibility match what Dobson (2003) calls “asymmetrically sized
ecological footprints” (p. 127). Such obligations are meant to ensure that the collective
impact of individuals does not foreclose opportunities of others, whether they are alive
now or yet to be born. Consequently, as the responsibility felt by participants includes
considerations of equity, it closely matches the civic duties associated with ecological
citizenship as argued by Dobson (ibid.), Horton (2005), Sáiz (2005), and Carter and Huby
(2005).
Participants of this research perceive an individual responsibility for their incremental
contributions to climate change. This responsibility bears the characteristics of a civic
duty owed non-reciprocally to those currently affected by climate change impacts and to
future generations.
While the duty is thought to be contingent on a collective
responsibility of the developed North, it is acted on independently thereof. It implies
civic agents to be part of a greater, even global collective that is responsible for causing
climate change and responding to it. The duty is conferred by virtue of participating in a
Northern, developed society whose living standards have collective consequences for
both human and non-human life elsewhere in the world and in the future.
Intergenerational (and intragenerational) equity is thus a key element of this duty.
Consequently, it is a civic obligation that extends beyond the political and public realms
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
20
The ecological citizen and climate change
to encompass private activities with public implications. Considering this evidence, the
responsibility described by participants exactly matches that giving rise to ecological
citizenship as argued by Dobson (2003; 2005). The high consistency of views in this
research suggests that the key aspects of a civic responsibility for addressing climate
change rely on shared understandings. Two important such understandings are first,
valuing equity, both intra- and intergenerational, and second, the specific definition of
sustainability which is negotiated and has been popularised by local actors.
This research demonstrates that the future can play an important role in shaping how
present generations understand and enact their civic responsibilities. Considering the
implications of one’s actions in a context of intergenerational equity is thus a key trait of
the good ecological citizen. By acting as caretakers of the Earth, ecological citizens now
are aiming to achieve their vision of sustainability, that is meeting current needs without
compromising future generations’ abilities to meet their needs.
The views of the
ecological citizen therefore embody sustainability, and particularly its consideration of
intergenerational equity. The explanatory power offered by ecological citizenship in this
context demonstrates that participants of this research seek agency on issues important to
them, here climate change, beyond what they are afforded by the state.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
21
The ecological citizen and climate change
Bibliography
Adger, W.N. (2001). "Scales of Governance and Environmental Justice for Adaptation and
Mitigation of Climate Change." Journal of International Development 13(7): 921-931.
Adger, W.N. and Paavola, J. (2002). Justice and Adaptation to Climate Change. Tyndall Working
Paper 23. Norwich: Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research.
Adger, W.N., et al., Eds. (2006). Fairness in Adaptation to Climate Change. Cambridge MA:
MIT Press.
Barbour, R.S. and Kitzinger, J., Eds. (1999). Developing focus group research :politics, theory
and practice. London: Sage.
Barry, J. (1999a). Rethinking Green Politics. London: Sage.
Barry, J. (1999b). Sustainability and intergenerational justice. In A. Dobson Fairness and
Futurity: Essays on Environmental Sustainability and Social Justice. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Barry, J. (2002). Vulnerability and Virtue: Democracy, Dependency and Ecological Stewardship.
In B. Minteer and B.T. Pepperman Democracy and the Claims of Nature. New York:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity. London: Sage.
Beck, U. (1997). The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order.
Cambridge: Polity.
Bell, D.R. (2005). "Liberal Environmental Citizenship." Environmental Politics 14(2): 179-194.
Brown, S. (1999). Subjective Behaviour Analysis. 25th Anniversary Annual Convention of the
Association for Behavior Analysis - “The Objective Analysis of Subjective Behavior:
William Stephenson’s Q Methodology”: Chicago.
Buzan, T. (2002). How to mind map. London: Thorsons.
Buzan, T. and Buzan, B. (1995). The mind map book. London: BBC.
Carter, N. and Huby, M. (2005). "Ecolgical Citizenship and Ethical Investment." Environmental
Politics 14(2): 255-272.
Christoff, P. (1996). Ecological Citizens and Ecologically Guided Democracy. In B. Doherty and
M. de Geus Democracy and Green Political Thought: Sustainability, Rights and
Citizenship. London: Routledge.
Clarke, P.B. (1999). Deep Citizenship. London: Pluto Press.
Dean, H. (2001). "Green Citizenship." Social Policy and Administration 35(5): 490-505.
Dobson, A. (2003). Citizenship and the Environment. London: Routledge.
Dobson, A. (2005). Citizenship and Sustainability - Paper submitted to the Conference "The
Governance of Sustainability": University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
Drevensek, M. (2005). "Negotiation as the Driving Force of Environmental Citizenship."
Environmental Politics 14(2): 226-238.
Dryzek, J.S. (2000). Deliberative Democracy and Beyond: Liberals, Critics, Contestations.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goodall, S., Ed. (1994). Developing Environmental Education in the Curriculum. London: David
Fulton Publishers.
Hailwood, S. (2005). "Environmental Citizenship as Reasonable Citizenship." Environmental
Politics 14(2): 195-210.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
22
The ecological citizen and climate change
Horton, D. (2005). Demonstrating Environmental Citizenship? In A. Dobson and D.R. Bell
Environmental Citizenship. Cambridge MA: MIT Press.
Krueger, R.A. (1997). Analyzing & reporting focus group results. London: Sage.
Lichtenberg, J. (1981). National Boundaries and Moral Boundaries: A Cosmopolitan View. In P.
Brown and H. Shue Boundaries: National Autonomy and its Limits. New Jersey:
Rowman and Littlefield.
Lorenzoni, I., et al. (2005). "Dangerous Climate Change: The Role for Risk Research." Risk
Analysis 25(6): 1387-1397.
Luque, E. (2005). "Researching Environmental Citizenship and its Publics." Environmental
Politics 14(2): 211-225.
Oates, C.J. (2000). The use of focus groups in social science research. In D. Burton Research
Training for Social Scientists - A Handbook for Postgraduate Researchers. London: Sage.
Sáiz, A.V. (2005). "Globalisation, Cosmopolitanism and Ecological Citizenship." Environmental
Politics 14(2): 163-178.
Seyfang, G. (2005). "Shopping for Sustainability: Can Sustainable Consumption Promote
Ecological Citizenship?" Environmental Politics 14(2): 290-306.
Smit, B. and Pilifosova, O. (2001). Adaptation to climate change in the context of sustainable
development and equity. In J.J. McCarthy, O.F. Canzianni, N.A. Leary, D.J. Dokken and
K.S. White Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability - Contribution
of Working Group II to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Smith, G. (2005). "Green Citizenship and the Social Economy." Environmental Politics 14(2):
273-289.
Smith, M.J. (1998). Ecologism - Towards Ecological Citizenship. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
Stephenson, W. (1978). "Concourse theory of communication." Communication 3: 21-40.
Thomas, D.S.G. and Twyman, C. (2005). "Equity and justice in climate change adaptation
amongst natural-resource-dependent societies." Global Environmental Change 15: 115124.
Valdivielso, J. (2005). "Social Citizenship and the Environment." Environmental Politics 14(2):
239-254.
Watson, R.T., Ed. (2001). Climate Change 2001: Synthesis Report - Contribution of Working
Groups I, II, and III to the Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change. Climate Change 2001. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
WCED (1987). Our Common Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Wisner, B., et al. (2004). At Risk. London: Routledge.
ECPR Joint Sessions 2007, Helsinki
23