The topography of green thinking and practice in relation to climate change and peak oil: from Dark Mountains to Transition Towns

MacIntyre and Havel as Green Political Thinkers: Unreasonable Thinking in Turbulent Times

This paper draws heavily on some of my recent work (Barry, 2012) in which I have discussed the ideas of Alasdair MacIntyre and Vaclav Havel and what these two thinkers can contribute to green political theory.  Here, I wish to extend the discussion and further develop that conversation.  First a qualifier.  What is presented here is introductory, ground clearing and therefore necessarily suggestive (as well as extremely under-developed).  That is, it is the start of a new area of exploration rather than an analysis based on any exhaustive and comprehensive knowledge of both thinkers.  In this respect it is green reading of both MacIntyre and Havel, a movement from green theory towards the latter rather than in the opposite direction.  Scholars of both MacIntyre and Havel will no doubt find much to disagree with perhaps in what follows, based as this paper is on both an incomplete review of the full scope of the work of each thinker, coupled with an at best partial or novice’s understanding of the full complexity of their thought.   

Part I explores Havel’s thought with a particular emphasis on his ethicised notion of political action and critique (‘living in truth’) and his focus on the centrality of dissent (both intellectually and in practice) as central to political critique and action.  Part II offers an overview of MacIntyre interpreted as a putative green thinker, with a particular emphasis on his ideas of dependence and vulnerability.  Part III attempts to draw some common themes together from both thinkers in terms of what they have to offer contemporary green political thought.

'Climate Change, Justice and Human Rights Violations'

Towards a Green New Deal?: Greening the Economy in a carbon-constrained world

Economics as myth, economics as power: why modern economics has failed and how to fix it

“Every society needs myths to live by.  Ours is economic growth”, Tim Jackson

This presentation offers an analysis and a narrative of the emergence of one school of thinking about the economy (neo-classical economics and especially its neo-liberal incarnations in policy) and how it has ‘crowded out’ rival accounts of economics  and become the hegemonic and authoritative ‘regime of truth’ about economics, what the economy is and how it should organised.  The presentation will contextualise this critical analysis of modern economic thinking in terms of the successful, ideological and deliberately managed ‘sleight of hand’, which has seen a crisis of banking in the private sector become politically transformed into a crisis of public debt under the new ‘regime of austerity’ and welfare cuts.  It begins from the child-like question: if we encourage and expect alternative discourses and perspectives on how to organize the polity, why then when it comes to the economy would be expect anything less? 

Taking up Foucault’s insight that ‘economic growth’ is neo-liberalism’s ‘one true social policy’ (Foucault, 2008: 144), the presentation will, from a green political economy perspective, argue that as well as having a whole range of regressive and profoundly negative social consequences (ranging from corrupting democratic politics and communication, undermining active citizenship and reconfiguring the state to align with ‘market fundamentals’), this dominant form of economic thinking is also locking us into an unsustainable and indeed ecocidal forms of economic development. 

Revealing the ideological and mythic characteristics of modern economics, with detours outlining how university courses in economics have effectively become ideological indoctrination (in that neither the history of economics as a discipline nor the variety of theories of economics available), and the failure of this dominant economic account to rethink some of its basic premises on account of the current global economic recession (including its failure to predict it or build resilience into the economic system to cope with shocks for example), the presentation will suggest that it is only in seeing modern hegemonic economics (and all alternatives) as forms of political economy, can we begin to construct more progressive, ecologically sustainable and socially just accounts of how the economy should be defined, ordered and constructed.  In conclusion the presentation will offer some ideas about alternative political economies and why we need new myths to live by. 

Thinking about resilience, sustainability and collapse

Greening the Economy, Greening Economics

http://Podcast here: http://www.dublinopinion.com/mp3/podcasts/tasc_conf_johnbarry.mp3

While there is much talk and some growing agreement about the need to begin the process of the transition towards a low-carbon , sustainable economy – best exemplified by the ‘Green New Deal’ policy proposal; there is less attention paid to the opportunity the current ‘triple crunch’ of economic/financial crisis, climate change and energy insecurity, to rethink both the dominance of one way of thinking about the economy – namely neo-classical economics – and the pressing need for alternative perspectives on what we mean by ‘economics’.  In particular we need to end the fiction that economics is a ‘value free zone’ and return to conceptualising our public discourse about the economy in terms of ‘political economy’.  The increasing statistical and mathematical specialisation of orthodox economics does not hide its underlying ideological and ethical value basis.  It is as political as any other theory of how the economy should be organised and what the role of the state and civil society should be in that.  Now more than ever in our public discourse we need an honest debate about our economic future which includes those underlying value and political perspectives.  This crisis should be used to dethrone the orthodox economic view – which failed by its own logic to predict the crisis – and question its (and most other political parties in Ireland and elsewhere) strategy for recovery based on some short term paid to enable us to return to 2007 – which fundamentally misunderstands that a route back to ‘business as usual’ is impossible (even if desirable).  A return to an economic model based around ‘buildings, banks and boutiques’ (Colin Hines) (i.e. property, financial services and consumerism) is one that needs to be criticised and orthodox economics as the ‘grammar’ (i.e. rules) of speaking and thinking about the economy needs to be revealed and questioned to allow a fuller debate about the economy.    It is worth remembering that (orthodox) economists are asked to answer questions, not because what they say is ‘true’ or even ‘scientific’ but simply because they are asked.  We need to ask other schools of thinking about the economy and see what answers they provide as part of a discussion about different forms of political economy.

One such explicitly political and normative approach to the economy which does question this ‘business as usual’ approach – but backed by peer reviewed science as well- is ‘Green Economics’.  If the transition to a low-carbon energy economy is necessary what are the desirable features of such a transition?  Here Green economics can lead the way in asking basic questions which this current situation requires – what’s the economy for? What are markets for? what does a market based/organised economy deliver?
I will focus here on the need to question the cosy consensus around orthodox economic growth  looking at:
1.      its normative implications and assumptions – such as how it acts as a substitute for greater socio-economic equality 
2.      the biophysical limits to an economic growth policy paradigm – in a climate changed, carbon constrained world how can a sub-system (the human economy) exponentially grow within the fixed parameters of the larger ecological system?  What would our economy look like if scientists rather than orthodox economists designed it?
3.      how economic growth does not correlate with increased social well-being and that if our focus is on well-being then other concepts such as the International Labour Organisation’s concept of ‘economic security’  or arguments from the UK’s Sustainable development Commission about ‘Prosperity without Growth’

The transition to a green sustainable economy requires, if we want to really use this present crises as an opportunity to make a ‘step change’ in our economic thinking, us to move beyond ‘business as usual’.  The greening of the economy should be used as an opportunity to green our economic thinking and in so doing enrich our public debate about our economic future. 

Transitions to sustainability and resilience: the cultural and psychological dimensions of climate change and peak oil

A look at the cultural and psychological aspects of conceptualising and acting in relation to climate change and peak oil, including the usefulness of the Kubler-Ross grieving cycle in terms of analysing cultural responsiveness.

Energy, Green Politics and the Transition to a Sustainable Economy

Nationalism and Independence and/or Internationalism and Interdependence

Political Leadership, Climate Change and the Transition to a Post-Carbon Economy

Political Leadership, Climate Change and the Transition to a Post-Carbon Economy

"A great leader’s courage to fulfill his vision comes from passion, not position." John Maxwell

Towards Sustainable Regional Economies: From Economic Growth to Innovation and Economic Security

Landscape, Politics and Ethics: Transforming Space into Place

The conceptualisation of ‘land’ and ‘landscape’ is not only intellectually but also politically and ethically contested, and subject to many of the debates one finds about related concepts of ‘nature’ and the ‘natural’.  How ‘we’ define and understand the ‘land’ and ‘landscape’ is not politically neutral and has implications for who ‘we’ are and the values and practices we have in relation to the land.  In this paper I will offer a brief overview of the ways in which the land and landscape have been conceptualised within (green) political theory and environmental ethics, ranging from Wendell Berry’s revenant agrarian stewardship to the ethics and politics of ‘ecological restoration’, to bioregional distinctions between ‘ecosphere’ and ‘biosphere’ human-nature relations, to more urban-based forms of ‘collective ecological management’ in relation to sustainable land use, landscape management and preservation and wider issues of sustainable development.  A key theme I hope to explore is the ways in which particular conceptualisations of landscape (and land-use) are often related to constructions of collective identities in terms of the way in which such identity-constitutive aspects of landscape are as much about who ‘we’ are (particularly if the landscape is/or has been one worked on by humans) in expressing how we transform ‘space’ into ‘place’ with all the complex cultural, ethical, political and socio-economic issues that the latter term entails.

'Securing the Future?: Security, Quality of Life and a Sustainable Economy'

Taking my cue for the latest UK Sustainable development report entitled 'Securing the Future', this presentation seeks to critically examine the principles and policies that ought to guide a sustainable economy.  In particular it explores the idea of 'economic security' (as outlined in reports from the International Labor Organisation, amongst others) as an alternative to 'economic growth' within mainstream orthodox economic thinking and policy-making, and though linking it with 'ecological modernisation' theory, seeks to use this idea of 'security' to buttress and further develop long-standing green political arguments for an economy based on quality of life rather than consumption, GDP and growth.  The opportunities and dangers of linking aspects of the progressive economic agenda of green thinking to the discourse of 'security' are also examined. 

Refining Green Political Economy:From Ecological Modernisation to Economic Security and Sufficiency

Co-presented with Peter Doran, Law, QUB and later published in Analyze und Kritik, 2007

Perhaps the most problematic dimension of the ‘triple bottom line’ understanding of sustainable development has been the ‘economic’ dimension.  Much of the thinking about the appropriate ‘political economy’ to underpin or frame sustainable development has been either utopian (as in some ‘green’ political views) or an attempt to make peace with ‘business as usual’ approaches.  This article suggests that ‘ecological modernisation’ is the dominant conceptualisation of ‘sustainable development’ within the UK, and illustrates this by looking at some key ‘sustainable development’ policy documents from the UK Government.  While critical of the reformist dangers of ecological modernisation, supporters of more radical versions of sustainable development need to also be aware of the strategic opportunities of this policy discourse. 

We take the view that the discourse of ‘ecological modernisation’ has provided discursive terrain for both pragmatic policy makers and a range of views on sustainable development, from weak to strong. In particular, the article suggests that the discourse of ‘economic security’ and ‘sufficiency’ can be used as a way of articulating a radical, robust and principled understanding of sustainable development, which offers a normatively compelling and policy-relevant path to outlining a ‘green political economy’ to underpin sustainable development.

KEYWORDS: green political economy, sustainable development, economic security, ecological modernisation, sufficiency.

Corporate Social Responsibility and the Environment

Resistance is Fertile: Exploring Environmental Citizenship from Republicanism to Recylcing

Later published as 'Resistance is Fertile' in Dobson, A and Bell, D (eds), 2005, Environmental Citizenship (MIT Press)

“Those who profess to favour freedom and yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning.... Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never has and never will”.

Frederick Douglas, freed slave and anti-slavery campaigner,
4th August 1857, North Star.

'Environmental citizenship’ is fast becoming a ‘buzz-word’ within green political theorising, but more importantly is also gaining currency outside the academy within policy and decision-making discourses of state, corporate/business and civil society/non-governmental organisations.  Rather like ‘sustainable development’ before it, this extension of ‘environmental citizenship’ is evidence of it being open to a wide variety of interpretations, not all of which are reconcilable with one another. 

The aim of this paper is to highlight some of the normative and sociological/empirical dimensions of ‘environmental citizenship’ with a particular emphasis on some of the dangers of an overly narrow conception of ‘environmental citizenship’ which limits it to ‘state-based’ or state – backed practices encouraging individuals to ‘do their bit’ for the environment.  Taking a ‘green political’ approach, there is a danger that the practices of environmental citizenship can be limited to ‘environmental’ issues, potentially neglecting the economic, political and cultural dimensions of sustainability and sustainable development.  Thus the paper explores the centrality or importance of conceptions and practices of ‘resistance’ or ‘critical citizenship’ to the achievement of a less unsustainable society. 

Vulnerability and Virtue: Democracy, Dependency and Ecological Stewardship

This paper seeks to explore the notion of ‘environmental citizenship’ (or the ‘greening of citizenship) through the notion of ‘vulnerability’. Human dependency on nature and related ideas of vulnerability, neediness, frailty, limits, harm, precaution, which the global environmental movement has done so much to put on the public agenda, also raises unsettling questions (from the modern worldview) about humanity’s essentially dependant and vulnerable character.  That is, human dependency on external nature is related to claims about the dependant and vulnerable character of ‘internal’ human nature.  Making this connection about the relations of vulnerability and dependency that exist between humans and nature has of course been a central feature and aim of green movement.  Equally, citizenship has also been expressed as denoting and related to the existence of forms of dependency of humans upon one another.

The Changing Dynamics of Research Funding: Political, Philosophical and Research Implications

The funding of academic research has always been an important yet, at times contentious issue, while at the same time also being a relatively ‘taken for granted’ dimension of academic scholarship and the academic career.  Over the last decade major shifts in the ways research funding is structured, prioritised, audited, awarded and judged have occurred, some of which raise major political and ethical issues.  Some of these relate to the protection of academic freedom in a context where research themes and problems are directed and prescribed by funding bodies and sources whether these be state, charity/non-profit or market/corporate sources of funding.  Why is it that research on commercially exploitable intellectual property rights, patents and/or technologies are prioritised over research into inequality and injustice?  Has the funding of research which is directly or indirectly connected with profit-related or commercial outputs gone too far (or not far enough)?  Should the main role of academic research (and the HE sector as a whole) be judged by its contribution to enhancing the economic competitiveness of a country or region?  What is or ought to be the balance between commercially-driven research and non-commercial research? Is the balance between research in the natural and bio-medical sciences and in the social sciences and humanities an adequate reflection of the ‘research needs’ of modern societies in an increasingly globalised world which means not just existing in a competitive economic system but also increasingly multi-cultural and pluralist societies?  What are the threats and opportunities of the move towards ‘evidence based policy’ for producing ‘policy relevant research’?  Is there more room in the modern context of research funding for academic research and academics to make a difference in terms of government (and corporate/business) policy/output?  Should more interdisciplinary and team-based ‘problem-solving’ research (such as in the areas health and well-being enhancement, the various issues around an aging population, or the transition to a post-carbon energy economy) be encouraged by funders?  If so, how?  Is the modern political economy of funding ‘fit for purpose’ for the challenges facing knowledge-based societies (and economies) in the decades ahead? 

Beyond neo-classical economics and capitalism?: degrowth and green political economy