Environmentalists' Behaviour and Environmental Policies
In: FEEM Working Paper No. 76.2009
In: FEEM Working Paper No. 76.2009
SSRN
Working paper
In: Nineteenth century prose, Band 31, Heft 2, S. 206-229
ISSN: 1052-0406
In: Political studies, Band 50, Heft 4, S. 703-724
ISSN: 0032-3217
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 50, Heft 4, S. 703-724
ISSN: 1467-9248
It is often assumed that neutralist liberalism and environmentalism are incompatible because promoting environmentally friendly policies involves endorsing a particular conception of the good life. This paper questions that assumption by showing that one important version of neutralist liberalism, John Rawls's 'justice as fairness', can allow two kinds of justification for environmental policies. First, public reason arguments can be used to justify conceptions of sustainability and environmental justice. Second, comprehensive ideals (including non-anthropocentric ideals) can be used to justify more ambitious environmental policies when two conditions are met, namely, the issue under discussion does not concern constitutional essentials or matters of basic justice; and the policy is endorsed by a majority of citizens. Rawls's willingness to allow this second kind of justification for environmental (and other) policies is defended against two objections, which claim that Rawls's 'democratic liberalism' is incoherent. The first objection – the 'justice' objection – is that to spend public money promoting comprehensive (environmental) ideals is inconsistent with the 'difference principle'. The 'justice' objection depends on a common misunderstanding of the difference principle. The second objection – the 'neutrality' objection – claims that 'democratic liberalism' is inconsistent with Rawls's commitment to neutrality. The 'neutrality' objection is unconvincing because 'democratic liberalism' is 'fundamentally neutral' whereas the leading alternative is not.
In: The journal of politics: JOP, Band 48, Heft 1, S. 218-220
ISSN: 0022-3816
In: 50 Tulsa Law Review 593 (2015)
SSRN
In: Environmental science & policy, Band 6, Heft 4, S. 389-391
ISSN: 1462-9011
In: Proceedings of the annual meeting / American Society of International Law, Band 86, S. 241-246
ISSN: 2169-1118
In: Zeitschrift für Umweltpolitik & Umweltrecht, Band 4, Heft 2, S. 295-320
"Die Psychologie des politischen Handelns wird anhand einer Typologie der politischen Beteiligung und einer Erklärung der Motivation des einzelnen zu solcher Teilnahme untersucht. Die Konzepte der postmateriellen Werte und der sozialen Grenzen des Wachstums werden vorgestellt, um zu einer Erklärung des Engagements in der Umweltpolitik beizutragen, die auf der Interessenlage der Beteiligten basiert. Das Konzept des Umweltbewußtseins wird differenziert erläutert und ein Profil der Umweltschützer gezeichnet. Befunde, die die Verflechtungen von Wertsystem, Zufriedenheit mit der Demokratie und Bewertungen von Umweltproblemen und Umweltschutzgruppen zeigen, werden dargestellt. Die Befunde erhellen den Zusammenhang zwischen der Interessenlage der Befragten und einer Stellungnahme zu Aspekten der Umweltproblematik." (Autorenreferat)
Unidad de excelencia María de Maeztu MdM-2015-0552 ; Why do people who care about the environment adopt behaviours that are not consistent with their beliefs? Previous studies approach this as a case of cognitive dissonance, researchers looking into the strategies through which people reduce gaps between their attitudes and their behaviours. Here we start from the premise that there is no dissonance, and that people have consistent reasons of why they are doing what they are doing. The research task is then to shed light on these reasons. Using Q-methodology, a mixed quantitative- qualitative approach, we interviewed 42 environmentally-minded researchers asking them why they eat meat. Our interviewees were aware of and cared about the environmental and ethical impacts of meat eating, but reasoned that they eat meat because either technological, or political changes are more important than what they personally do, because of doubts about the impact of personal action in a complex world, or simply because they lack the determination to stop eating meat. Our analysis suggests that policies and messages that try to educate or guilt meat-eaters are unlikely to work with those well aware of the impacts of their actions.
BASE
In: Political psychology: journal of the International Society of Political Psychology, Band 6, Heft 4, S. 723
ISSN: 1467-9221
In: Journal of policy analysis and management: the journal of the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Band 4, Heft 3, S. 458
ISSN: 1520-6688
"As global environmental changes become increasingly evident and efforts to respond to these changes fall short of expectations, questions about the circumstances that generate environmental reforms become more pressing. Defensive Environmentalists and the Dynamics of Global Reform answers these questions through a historical analysis of two processes that have contributed to environmental reforms, one in which people become defensive environmentalists concerned about environmental problems close to home and another in which people become altruistic environmentalists intent on alleviating global problems after experiencing catastrophic events such as hurricanes, droughts and fires. These focusing events make reform more urgent and convince people to become altruistic environmentalists. Bolstered by defensive environmentalists, the altruists gain strength in environmental politics and reforms occur"--