A case for critical environmental theory in environmental policy
by Jennifer Kelley - February 21, 2023
There are a few different perspectives local, regional, and national governments use when creating policies – public policy, pluralism, policy sciences, and even critical theory as of late. The latter, a contentious topic in our education system, means something a bit different in our environmental policy making. Although, the bottom line is still there for both education and environmental. That is, creating equitably based integrated solutions that includes everybody – in the case of the environment this includes plant life, human life, and wildlife. It looks through the lens of interconnection between people, societies, and ecosystems.
Pluralism, in deep contrast, relies on branches of government and collaboration between agencies to improve upon or change existing policies. This is a bit of an unreliable perspective, although meant to be help streamline overarching issues, because new administration in our American system of government come and go every 4 years, specific political movements effect partisanship, and who’s in and who’s out on Capitol Hill deeply affect power structures. It is perhaps an understatement to say these fickle factors can much persuade or dissuade any outcome.
Policy sciences examine problems and solutions via scientific and goal-oriented lenses. As much goes in science, conclusions for problems and solutions build one upon the other as more information is either discovered or uncovered. It is an ever-evolving science that is useful in updating current policy but not so much in creating new policy. The ESA for example is renowned for suggesting improvements after various studies have been performed but not necessarily adapting to new situations (Czech and Krausman 2001). Often improvements gleaned from policy science lens are toward the effectiveness of an agency’s follow-through with a particular existing policy – i.e. visitation numbers in national parks or trail maintenance near an endangered species nesting area, rather than the effectiveness of the purpose of the policy – like saving an endangered species.
One such improvement was the inclusion of the term “survival habitat” in policy language. The inclusion of the term created a specific definition for species being protected but not necessarily how to achieve a habitat that encourages survival and how to integrate existing structures such as preexisting human settlements or businesses (Czech and Krausman, 2002). The terminology definition can have a negative impact on business. For instance, corporations in gas and oil who need land for testing may be unable to do so because of a newly discovered nesting site that is deemed a survival habitat of an endangered bird species. One such controversy is the Sage-Grouse which has been fought over in areas of the west for many years. You can read more about it here: Audubon Society article on Sage Grouse Agreement. I am not sad about such restrictions for big businesses sometimes I confess but the situation can create a dig-your-heels-in-the-sand contentious negotiation process where nothing is resolved, and bad sentiments grow.
Next up is public choice theory – which goes a long way in an affluent society, and possibly where the effects of a botched policy sciences view can alter the scope of protections. Public choice as a theoretical policy foundation believes in independence for people to succeed or fail and for government to stay out of the way of either - except in cases where economic markets are unbalanced. A basic ideal carrying public choice is that a specific regional community and it’s government should have the right to determine what is conserved and what is used for the betterment of the people in the area. An example of where public choice has gone terribly wrong is the controversy of wolf repopulation in the west. Public Choice theorists have determined the effects of repopulation to hunters would bring an economic downturn if wolves were reintroduced and even suggested the science behind the benefits of reintroducing the wolves was a ruse (Czech and Krausman 2001). I have to ask, why would scientists lie?
Public choice can clearly be very myopic with very little room for negotiation or bigger picture thinking. For example, wolf reintroduction helps the overall environment by reestablishing the predator – the one who can cull an overpopulation of grazing mammals such as deer or elk for instance. The wolfs’ presence and habits mean less deer and elk grazing, which means more vegetation for remaining wildlife, and the soil – where all the nutrients are, remains healthy. Clearly, there are many sides to the controversy, and you can read more here: Yellowstone National Park Trips and National Park Service
Finally, as of late a perspective in establishing policies for environmental issues has been critical theory. Critical theory is the study of oppression and domination and how to eliminate both by the creation of policies for the good of the whole. For environmental issues the lens stands on the truth that there is a connected integrated interdependent existence of all living things. It is the lens by which much of climate change adaption policies are attempting to be formulated – consider here The Paris Agreement. When combined with a scientific base, critical theory as a philosophical theory has the potential to be a powerful and equitable policy making foundation moving forward. Many charities base vision and goals around it as well – clean water, fair housing, access to healthcare, education, getting rid of waste dumps of first world countries in poorer countries, etc. In this author’s opinion, critical theoretical perspective of integrated human and natural systems mirrors the truth of a global climate – a series of integrated systems that rely and depend on one another for survival.
One of the key takeaways from my research is from a book by Czech and Krausman (2001) – which I used as reference throughout the article. The authors wrote that the critical theoretical model in environmental policy valued, “self-realization and biocentric equality” and erased the separation between, “self-realization and the understanding of nature, because humans and nature are one” (Czech and Krausman 2001, 40). We are nature and nature is us – as Maya Angelou brilliantly said, “… I’d be a darn fool not to be on my own side.” She was discussing women’s healthcare, but I hope she would not mind the reference to bring the point home that we are what some have yet to accept, that is equal to and interconnected with each other and nature.
For reference:
Czech, Brian and Paul R. Krausman. 2001. The Endangered Species Act: History, Conservation, Biology, and Public Policy. 1st Edition Johns Hopkins University Press.
