Search Results

Ecological citizenship is presented as an example and inflection of post‐cosmopolitan citizenship. It is contrasted with environmental citizenship. The ecological footprint is presented as the ecological citizenship's version of political space, and global warming is used to exemplify the asymmetrical relations of globalising cause‐and‐effect that call forth post‐cosmopolitan obligations.

Citizenship classes in secondary/high schools are discussed as a way of fomenting ecological citizenship, through a case study of the introduction of citizenship as a formal element of the English high school curriculum in 2002. A cautiously optimistic assessment is made of the prospects.

Fiscal incentives for encouraging sustainable behaviour are contrasted with citizenship approaches. The distinction between environmental and ecological citizenship and the notion of ‘post‐cosmopolitanism’ are introduced. The relationship between citizenship, democracy, and sustainability is discussed.

The idea that relationships of citizenship may extend beyond state borders even in the absence of transnational political institutions is implicit in the idea that duties of ecological citizenship are owed to those in the developing world who bear the brunt of climate change as a result of unsustainable practices in industrialized countries. It is also implicit in the contention that duties of global citizenship are owed to those who live in grinding poverty in other countries. But even if these duties are properly regarded as duties of justice, it is not clear that they can legitimately be described as duties of ecological or global citizenship. This is not simply because citizenship is about the enjoyment of rights as well as the incurring of duties. It is also because it is part of the core concept of citizenship that the duties of citizenship are special duties which fellow citizens owe to each other as part of that relationship.

This chapter addresses the covert capacity of autonomy — the goal of moral-political life in liberal-democratic societies — to oppress women and others who fail to fulfill its requirements. Taking the collapse of the welfare state as a locus of analysis, it shows how ecological citizenship and collective responsibility work toward reconfiguring the inequalities and injustices enacted under the aegis of a too-rigorous veneration of autonomy. One of the projects of the chapter is to reevaluate practices of advocacy in knowledge: a point that arises in chapter three with reference to medicine and is further developed here, both in connection with medicine and across a wider range of examples. Contrary to entrenched conceptions of epistemic self-reliance, the contention is that advocacy often makes knowledge possible: indeed, more radically, that without advocacy certain knowings are not possible. Trust is important to good advocacy, and testimony again plays a central part.

This chapter explores some implications of the book's framework in terms of how to implement and discharge duties of ecological justice, as for example in terms of ecological citizenship. The book presents an account of global non-ranking biocentric distributive ecological/interspecies justice to wild nonhuman beings. Based on this theoretical framework, the human takeover of the Earth's ecological space — its resources, ecosystem benefits, and actual spaces — that ultimately leads to species extinctions constitutes an injustice; it should be discussed and responded to as a matter of justice. Duties of global justice are held collectively by humanity and thus need to be acted upon collectively via political institutions. But these duties are not held equally globally due to different historical and present responsibilities for the injustices at hand. Discharging duties of distributive interspecies justice becomes a matter of just implementation which in turn is driven by intra-social justice considerations.

Jason B. Simus discusses and dismisses the criticism put forward by Allen Carlson that some, if not most, environmental artworks constitute an aesthetic affront to nature. Carlson claims that whether an environmental artwork constitutes an affront depends only on aesthetic qualities apart from any relationship to its social, moral, and ecological qualities. Simus rejects this claim, and argues that the aesthetic qualities of a work should not be divorced from these other qualities; instead we should aim at a comprehensive evaluation that takes all the work’s qualities into consideration when the question is whether or not an environmental artwork is an affront. Simus also criticizes Carlson’s idea that real nature is pristine, untouched by humans, as based on an outdated ecological theory. If humans are not seen as part of nature but apart from nature, environmental artworks are almost by definition an affront to nature. Simus’ central thesis is that environmental artworks have the same democratic potential as restoration projects if participation in their creation, appreciation, and criticism encourage deliberation about aesthetic, social, moral, ecological and all other community-regarding values.

This chapter turns to the question of environment and democracy. It takes up two themes in environmental political thought: ecological citizenship and environmental democracy. Not only are these interrelated theoretical orientations advanced by environmental political theorists to counter the kinds of technocratic eco-authoritarianism discussed in the two previous chapters, they are presented as essential foundations of a sustainable way of life. The future of democratic governance in view of the climate crisis is thus seen to depend on the viability of the environmental democratic challenge. The discussion supports the premises of environmental democracy, but points to a pressing need to give more attention to the relationship of this theory to the realities of political power and the limited time frame now available for achieving such a challenging societal eco-transformation. The chapter approaches this through an examination of the literature on deliberative environmental democracy, ecological citizenship, citizen juries, and deliberative systems.

This chapter discusses the notion of victimhood as this pertains to climate change. Each section deals with a specific victim category — non-human environmental entities, children and young people, and Indigenous communities. Each grouping has its own specific histories, stories, and issues. What perhaps unites the discussion is an underlying emphasis on adopting an ecocentric perspective that incorporates social and ecological justice. From a human perspective, ecocentrism attempts to strike a balance between the need to utilise resources for human survival and the need to develop rules that facilitate the benign use of the ecosphere. Thus, for example, ensuring the preservation of biocentric values becomes integral to maintaining long-term human needs. To do this means minimising the victimisation of both the human and the non-human — in essence, to assert a form of ecological citizenship.

The author returns to the “becoming environmental of computation” as an explanatory concept for how contemporary technologies of sensing and monitoring interact with physical environments to new formations of environmental engagement and experience. Sensing in this analysis is about more than detecting external stimuli to be processed and managed as content. Instead, programmed environments call attention to the tuning and attunings that computational and environmental operations enable or delimit. The conclusion examines how citizen sensing and its practices of environmental engagement are bound up with and individuated through environmental sensors; the boundaries of “citizen,” in turn, shift and expand to include more ecological ways of accounting how citizenly engagements unfold.

This chapter focuses on the importance of encouraging college students to include environmental stewardship as part of their vocation. It points out that the protection of nature is a universal value, important to cultures and religions worldwide. Understanding and preserving our cultural and personal relationships with nature leads to happier, healthier, and more fulfilling lives. Students learn to better understand the natural world and feel a sense of responsibility to use nature wisely through outdoor fieldwork and service opportunities. Institutional support enables students to practice environmental stewardship at many levels, from natural habitat restoration to sustainable agriculture, energy conservation, and green building design. Through courses on and off-campus, as well as research and internship opportunities, students gain knowledge and practice in sustainable living. Incorporating good ecological citizenship into daily life at college makes it likely that environmental stewardship will become part of our student’s vocations in the future.