A Dilemma of Green Democracy

Abstract

Can democracy secure environmental sustainability? This article proposes a basic, yet substantial organising principle-the 'dilemma of green democracy'-which maps out the possibility of realising green decision outcomes under democratic constraints. The dilemma posits that there is no logical or unconditional relationship between democratic decisions and environmental sustainability. More specifically, three plausible conditions for collective environmental decision making-robustness to pluralism, consensus preservation and green outcomes-are mutually inconsistent, meaning that they cannot be satisfied simultaneously. To construct a logically possible environmental-democratic institution, we must avoid the dilemma by relaxing at least one of the conditions. This article explores a number of escape routes from the dilemma, and discusses each proposal by drawing on democratic theory and empirical examples in environmental politics. It concludes that as long as the dilemma of green democracy is resolved, democracy can, at least in principle, secure environmental sustainability.

The Environmental Performance of Participatory and Collaborative Governance: A Framework of Causal Mechanisms

“…Even where strong relations between collaborative processes and environmental outcomes are empirically established, it remains unclear why and how this is the case (Scott, ). Furthermore, competing claims as to the effectiveness of collaborative and participatory approaches pose a dilemma for “green democracy,” introducing “tension between democratic means and environmental ends” (Wong, , p. 138). Different fields of study have made a variety of arguments on the pros and cons of participation with respect to environmental outcomes.…”

Whose voices count in biodiversity conservation? Ecological democracy in biodiversity offsetting, REDD+, and rewilding

“…Biber, 2012;see Yearley, 1991), 11 biologists claim toand often really doknow more than the layperson on how to fulfill the goals of a given biodiversity preservation law. James Wong (2016) describes 'eco-filtering' as prioritizing whose voices should be privileged in implementing environmental laws. He asserts that some human voices should be heard more loudly because they speak for other, non-human voices who themselves are moral beings whose interests must be considered.…”

“…16 How to strike the appropriate balance between sometimes competing interests with competing epistemological and axiological claims to power will always remain The notion of deep equity is a guidepost, and not a panacea, for deciding whose voices should be heard, and when. As described above, Wong's (2016) notion of ecofiltering prioritizes voices who speak for the nonhuman, because they are intrinsically valuable, and marginalizes those voices who do not speak for the nonhuman. Deep equity doesn't require a position on whether nonhuman entities have intrinsic value or solely instrumental value: It does, however, suggest that human individuals and communities are interdependent and nonhuman individuals species, and processes, and thus any voices who filter out the nonhuman should have weaker voices in an ecological democracy.…”

“…The movement towards ecological democracy seeks to achieve ecologically sustainable communities through democratic means (Wong, 2016). As communities implement ecological democracy, whose voices do count and should count when we act to sustain or restore biodiversity?…”

“…Ideally these streams converge on solutions that abet both healthy human and nonhuman communities; and ideally democratic means should yield ends that preserve biodiversity and the human communities that depend upon it. But sometimes conflicts arise when democracy does not yield outcomes that sustain and promote biodiversity (Wong, 2016). For example, ranchers may fear that reintroduced predators will kill livestock, or citizens fear property restrictions if protected endangered species colonize their land.…”