E L CAMINO DE LA COMUNIÓN SEGÚN S G REGORIO

An important part of environmental citizenship theory is the connection between the personal and the political, or the individual and the collective (Luque 2005), as evidenced in the studies discussed above where citizens did behave consistently with

their environmental beliefs. A significant finding by Berglund and Matti (2006) is that respondents with a high score for altruism ‘to a larger extent make explicit reference to acting collectively rather than as individuals’ (p. 565). Although in a context focusing on an individualised action, sorting waste at the household level, this strong identification with the collective is an indication of citizens’ recognition of the public implications of personal actions, and supports the personal-political dimension of environmental citizenship.

Wolf, Brown and Conway (2009) examined the argument by critics of environmental citizenship theory that reliance on individuals to take on citizenly responsibilities ignores the social, economic and institutional context in which citizens find themselves, and that structural change must be the object of individuals’ actions if they are to have any effect. Their findings concerning attitudes towards climate change and consequent behavioural changes strongly endorse Dobson’s (2003) theoretical position. The authors find that the participants express a civic

responsibility to act on climate change: this responsibility is not merely individual, ‘[r]ather, it relates to how people perceive themselves as part of a local community, the nation-state, and global society, in which sustainability is a key objective’ (Wolf, Brown and Conway 2009, p. 514). It is thus a collective responsibility, and

governments and individuals are equally obliged to act: they should not wait for each other. They also use the language of justice; suggesting, as asserted by Dobson (2003), that climate is a political, not moral, issue.

It is clear from Wolf, Brown and Conway’s study that participants feel a sense of responsibility for climate change; a collective responsibility that arises from ‘the asymmetric allocation of ecological space’ (p. 518). Participants change their

behaviour, to a degree, to reduce their contribution to climate change, and also engage politically through informal community networks which form as a result of the

government’s failure to fulfil its responsibility.

Seyfang (2006), too, found this connection between individual consumption decisions and social connection or solidarity; such connection is felt strongly by the respondents, who value the sense of community built through knowing where the food has come from and being able to make tangible connections with producers, retail staff and other consumers. Through this sense of local and global community Seyfang finds the expression of solidarity, commitment to fairness and justice and reduction of ecological footprints so central to Dobson’s (2003) theory. Seyfang concludes that ‘ecological citizenship bridges the divide between individual and collective action’ (p. 394). However, while such a connection was found in abundance

in her case study, she also points out that there is no inevitable link between ‘actions in the private realm’ and ‘collective activities’ (p. 394), thus raising another significant gap in the theory: while individuals may and do act strongly in the private sphere to reduce their ecological footprint, which automatically reduces society’s footprint, there is nothing in the theory that indicates how this is to happen. In addition, there is no necessary link between privatised actions and an awareness of and reaction to the household’s contribution to climate change and global inequality: many such actions can be taken purely for rational economic or health reasons.

Because they were aware of the inconsistencies and contradictions between their environmental beliefs and their consumption behaviour, Evans and Abrahamse’s (2009) respondents considered that voluntary lifestyle changes – even if widespread – would not be enough: that what is needed is ‘top-down’ action from government and business, to change the systems, for example transport infrastructure, within which people are striving to make changes to their own lives. Beyond this, however, the respondents showed a desire for ‘structural and social change in its own right’ (p. 499), and many were involved in local political (the Green Party) and activist networks towards this end. Despite this sense that living more sustainably is not enough on its own, all respondents felt that they ‘had to’ continue with their own sustainable lifestyle projects (p. 499), although the article does not indicate any inquiry into why the respondents feel this need to continue.

Similarly, in their pilot survey of political consumers, that is people who express their political views – including environmental – through their consumption choices, Stolle, Hooghe and Micheletti (2005) found that political consumers ‘have strong feelings of internal efficacy: ‘[a]part from voting, they scored higher on every form of political participation than non- or moderate political consumers (p. 261). However ‘even those practising [political consumerism] most rigorously do not believe that [it] is the most effective way of bringing about political and social change: they too see voting and volunteering as more effective ways to influence society’ (p. 262). Nevertheless, the activism of political consumers extends much further than conventional political acts: into the market place and into everyday life.

Flynn, Bellaby and Ricci (2008) in their study of attitudes to hydrogen energy were interested in whether ‘individual self-interest coexist[s] with expressed concern for collective welfare, and how might this affect environmental citizenship and sustainability’ (p. 770). While respondents were generally prepared to make pro- environmental changes which were of immediate benefit to individuals and households, there were few signs that people’s collective welfare was a primary

concern. Rather, ‘attitudes seemed to converge on instrumental and privatised outlooks’ (p. 781). They conclude that due to the dominance of everyday, immediate and localised concerns and the lack of evidence of ‘collective values and solidaristic objectives’ concerning energy and environmental issues, ‘in this field at least environmental citizenship remains latent and ecological citizenship is yet to evolve’ (p. 781) (using Dobson’s (2003) definitions of environmental and ecological

citizenship – see section 4.5.1).

As well as the attitude-behaviour gap, there is, it seems, also a gap between local and global environmental awareness. As Rathzell and Uzzell (2009) conclude from a 1990s study: '[i]ronically, then, although people feel that they are responsible for the environment at the local level this is precisely the level at which they perceive minimal problems. The areal level which they perceive has the most serious

environmental problems [the global] is the areal level about which they feel least personally responsible and powerless to influence or act' (p. 328). Although people may express concern about the environment, responsibility for environmental destruction, degradation and remediation was seen in many cases as outside the control of individuals or their community. In their update of this study, in open-ended questions individual behaviour was seen as the most important cause of

environmental degradation: British respondents, though, described individuals as selfish, lazy and consumerist while Swedes emphasised structural causes like Western lifestyles and market society. The authors put this difference down to the British experience of three decades’ exposure to disempowering neo-liberal policies.

Kollmuss and Agyeman (2002) note that a person’s ‘locus of control’ –

whether internal, where they feel they can personally influence outcomes, or external, where they do not have such influence – is an important indicator of pro-

environmental behaviour. Macnaghten and Urry (1998) see a lack of agency as

fundamental to the mismatch between people’s expressed environmental concern and their lack of action: like Rathzell and Uzzell (2009) they put their respondents’ lack of environmental behaviour, despite their awareness of and concern about

environmental problems, down to a feeling of disempowerment due to the

overwhelming nature of the institutional forces responsible for the environmental degradation and the structure of their society.

In Macnaghten’s (2003) focus groups, too, ‘[i]ndividual action was seen as largely ineffective, both due to the global scale of the problems and to the perception of powerful commercial interests intractably embedded in systems of self-interest antithetical to global sustainability’ (p. 77), leading to non-engagement with issues

portrayed as global problems requiring solution through a global ‘community’. This lack of faith in institutions extended to NGOs who advocate simple solutions to what are obviously huge, complex problems. However, respondents were much more engaged around global environmental issues, including climate change, when they were ‘expressed through lived particulars in … local terms’, for example pollution affecting waters where an angler fishes, or a mother takes her children (p. 81). While acknowledging explanations that individualisation and the stressing of personal solutions to structural problems ‘is leading to withdrawal, apathy and resignation26_‘,

Macnaghten (2003) finds a more complex picture, and that there is hope in strategies that focus on people’s concern for themselves, their families and localities as ‘points of connection’ to global environmental issues (p. 81). In Australia the high level of concern about climate change has been linked to drought, water shortages and devastating bushfires, and now floods (see Chapter One), all of which affect people’s lives: perhaps this heightened awareness has resulted in the rush of applications for government schemes subsidising household renewable energy systems (Vincent 2010).

5.4 Conclusion

All of the factors discussed above show that there are powerful forces at work influencing, often negatively, the possibility of citizens acting consistently with their environmental beliefs in their everyday lives. However, many of the studies show that environmental citizenship through sustainable consumption does exist; pointing to the importance of awareness or consciousness of the impacts of one’s behaviour and the need to do something about it, and the willingness and agency to act accordingly; however such consciousness and agency is not available to everyone and is not automatic, pointing to the relevance of Barry’s (2006) concept of a continuum of environmental (sustainability) citizenship behaviour (see Chapter Four), and the idea suggested in Chapter Two of a matrix of citizenship behaviour.

According to the theory, environmental citizens are aware of the link between global environmental problems like climate change and their own ecological footprint: they are people able to transcend the attitude-behaviour gap, at least to a greater extent than most people. Environmental citizenship has been criticised for its focus on the individual, and many of the participants in the studies above who are living or trying to live sustainable lives were also aware of the limitations of such actions, yet they still felt the need to live consistently with their beliefs. They were also aware of

the need for change at the structural, political and economic levels, and many were involved in community and political activity. Perhaps it is this awareness of the interconnectedness of the environmental, social, political and economic that marks environmental citizens apart, however unless they are able to bring their commitment and consciousness to bear at a level broader than the individual – to work for change in the public sphere to break down the structural barriers noted above – the theory, and its practice, has limited value.

The following chapter discusses the empirical study of presumed environmental citizens carried out for this thesis. In examining the personal,

consumption-related, practices of members of the Tasmanian Greens party as well as their community and political involvement, the chapter presents in microcosm the complex issues arising around the cross-over between private and public sphere responses to climate change.

Chapter Six

Case study of Tasmanian Greens members

6.1 Introduction

In the previous chapter empirical studies exploring the relationship between environmental citizenship and sustainable consumption were reviewed against a number of themes drawn from theoretical and background literature. This chapter contributes a new case study. As explained in Chapter One, the case study evaluates environmental citizenship theory in the real-life context of the consumption habits and political and community involvement of Tasmanian Greens party members in relation to their concern about climate change.

This chapter describes the backdrop to the case study in the form of the development of Tasmanian Green politics; justifies the case study population; and outlines aims, methodology and framework for analysis. It then presents the results, and related theoretical analysis, on individual responsibility and consumption. Further results, including those on community and political involvement, are

discussed in Chapter Seven, which continues the analysis of environmental citizenship theory in the light of empirical studies.

6.2 Background to the case study