It is citizenship that allows environmental activists in liberal democracies like Australia to pursue their aims: the development of civil and political rights over centuries means that there is an array of means at their disposal for influencing environmental outcomes – through direct political means such as lobbying, or
campaigning in elections, perhaps even running as a candidate; through participating in decision-making processes; through street protests; or through the courts
(Eckersley 1996). A citizen therefore can choose to exercise her or his civil and political rights in support of the environment. In a liberal democracy this is the most basic, but perhaps the most broadly accepted and practised, way in which citizenship is relevant to the environment (Bell 2005). The development of social rights also means that activists can, if necessary, rely on a basic level of state support (MacGregor 2006).
Issues flowing through to environmental citizenship theory from traditional citizenship theory, however, are much broader and deeper, and go to the heart of whether environmental citizenship is a legitimate field of political theory. They include:
• rights, duties and obligations;
• the passive or active character of citizenship;
• the virtues of citizenship;
• the territorial basis of citizenship.
In all of these issues, the environmental variant can be said to be extending citizenship theory, even to be ‘a disruptive influence’ (Dobson 2000). However, theorists would be unlikely to be of one voice on any of them: there is a rich diversity of views (Saiz 2005). As an introduction to a more detailed analysis of major theoretical approaches, therefore, this section briefly outlines the treatment of these issues in environmental citizenship theory. The structure of this analysis owes much to Dobson (2000, 2003). 4.4.2 Rights and obligations
As discussed in Chapter Two, a focus on citizens’ rights is generally associated with the liberal approach to citizenship (Bell 2005; Pettit 2000) although the arrival of ‘social citizenship’ in the early twentieth century led to the advancement of social, political and civil rights through the claims and work of many social movements, often from a socialist or social-democratic perspective (Eckersley 1996b).
The relationship between rights and responsibilities in environmental citizenship has been extensively examined, and is one of the key issues of continuing debate. Latta (2007) comments that ‘[A] concern for individual rights and obligations, relative to collective problems or a “common good”, is widely understood as the specific contribution of citizenship to ecological political theory’ (p. 378). Authors writing from the environmental rights perspective have looked at procedural rights, such as the right to participate in policy debate, and to adequate information and substantive rights, such as the right to a healthy environment (Eckersley 1996b; Bell 2005); and, more controversially, whether the environment itself has rights, or whether components of it such as animals do (; Christoff 1996a; Eckersley 1996b).
Eckersley (1996b) argues for a conception of environmental rights that comes from a human rights foundation, that is, it builds on the achievement of civil, political and social rights. She sees environmental rights as a possible fourth generation of human rights, which would apply not just to individuals but to communities as well – an environmental bill of rights would fulfil this objective. Dean (2001), though, points out that the interdependency of humans and the environment tends towards
redefining social citizenship rights in the context of the limits to economic growth, rather than the creation of specific environmental rights.
Christoff (2000) argues that there are two types of environmental citizenship rights: environmental and ecological, with the former taking an anthropocentric perspective, in favour of ensuring outcomes – even spiritual or aesthetic ones – for
human beings, while the ecological rights approach is more ecocentric – seeking rights for other species, and also for humans living in other countries and in the future. This type of right clearly involves its advocates in claiming responsibilities, that is, people have a ‘moral imperative and custodial responsibility to consider our impacts on defenceless and absent others’ (Christoff 2000, p. 206). Generally, as Eckersley (1996b) and Dean (2001) point out, green theorists (and activists) have not focused on arguing for human environmental rights, but rather have generally sought to extend human responsibility (Saiz 2005).
Like traditional citizenship theory, recent environmental citizenship literature has moved from focusing on rights to duties or obligations; it takes, however, a very different approach. Contrary to recent social citizenship discourse, in which
responsibilities and rights have a directly reciprocal relationship,for example mutual obligation in the welfare context, in environmental citizenship the responsibility is for something outside the individual citizen – the environment (and more broadly the humans who depend on it). As Dean notes, ecological considerations do demand specific responsibilities to protect the environment: ‘responsibilities for which there can be no directly correlative rights’ (2001, p. 494) – a theme which is very strong in Dobson’s work (2003), discussed in detail in section 4.5.1.
4.4.3 The active/passive divide
Environmental citizenship is an essentially active notion: a person is an
environmental citizen if she practically enacts her commitment to the environment. However, as Dobson (2003) points out, the line between active and passive citizenship is not clear-cut: a person who only carries out her legal citizenly duties, has no
involvement in politics or community groups, may, he asserts, still be considered an active citizen if she acts as a citizen-consumer, that is, standing up for her rights and entitlements as a consumer of goods and services, although this is one of the many debated positions within the theory. Is a person an environmental citizen if they look for more environmentally-friendly options when shopping? Or does environmental citizenship entail more overtly active behaviour, such as joining a conservation group, a local Landcare group, or becoming politically active? The vexed issue of the possible role of green consumerism in environmental citizenship will be considered in Chapter Five.
To many who think, write and act on environmental issues, it is impossible to separate individuals’ everyday actions from their environmental consequences. This is
particularly important in the area of climate change, as discussed in Chapter Three. One of the major, and most disputed, aspects of environmental citizenship theory is its extension of citizenship to the private sphere (Dobson 2003; Seyfang 2005).
However, apart from its radical departure from classic citizenship, the application of citizenship to the private sphere is problematic in other ways noted even by environmental citizenship theorists themselves. The feminist critique outlined by MacGregor (2006) discusses issues around household work and the offloading of public responsibilities, as well as the potential to depoliticise the underlying causes of environmental problems by focusing on individual behaviour. This individualisation of citizenship responsibility is also raised by other theorists, and is examined in section 4.6.4.
4.4.5 Territoriality
As noted in Chapter Two the globalisation of economics and politics in recent decades has seen tentative theoretical steps towards citizenship beyond the confines of the nation-state, particularly with the development of ‘cosmopolitan’ citizenship (Falk 2002; Held 2002; Dobson 2003; Saiz 2005). One of the hallmarks of environmental citizenship is the strength with which it embraces citizenship beyond bounded territory, given the seriousness and pervasiveness of global environmental problems such as climate change (Christoff 1996a; Dobson 2003; Saiz 2005) and its emphasis on the collective responsibility of humanity for nature, thus taking citizenship beyond the limits of the nation-state Saiz (2005). Dean (2001) notes the ‘celebrated Green slogan or aphorism ‘think globally, act locally’, which places individuals in a global context while requiring particular kinds of behaviour in everyday life: the local (p. 493). Like Dobson’s (2003) post-cosmopolitan and ecological citizenship, Clarke’s ‘deep
citizenship’ crosses the public-private divide, extending the concern of the individual ‘citizen-self’ to economic and environmental concerns that impact on the world (Clarke 1996).
4.4.6 The virtues of environmental citizens
Theoretical consideration of virtue is as old as that of citizenship itself, and is
intimately connected with republican notions of the common good and citizen duties (Barry 2006; Connelly 2006). Virtue is deeply resonant with the concept from the
environment movement, and environmental citizenship, that individuals, and communities, can make a difference. It is also intimately connected with motivation, and is considered further in section 4.6.3.
4.4.7 Summary
Environmental citizenship builds on long traditions of citizenship, both in theory and practice. It would not exist were it not for the great advances made in citizenship through the development of civil, political and social rights; however it is taking citizenship further in response to major global social, economic and environmental change. While containing elements of older traditions – liberal, republican and
communitarian – it has moved beyond them, particularly in the areas of rights/duties, active/passive citizenship, public/private spheres and territoriality.
Against this background, the following section discusses the ideas of two of the most prominent theorists – Andrew Dobson and John Barry – to provide a
comprehensive background to the discussion of important themes or questions arising from the theory. The work of other theorists who have contributed to the development of environmental citizenship theory, will be referred to throughout the discussion, and later chapters.