The Paradox of Environment Governance

Despite the wealth of scientific knowledge available to us today, true environmental justice seems to be an almost unattainable goal. The increasing number of transnational environmental problems has been met with an increasing global response through multilateral agreements, environmental movements, and green growth. The most serious and irreversible of these problems such as climate change and biodiversity loss have worsened, prompting reconsideration of current practices in governance. Why is it that the way in which states and governments deal with environmental issues remains ineffective even when we know so much about the impending ecological crisis? On both local and international scales, marginalised communities that are most exposed to environmental harm tend to have less political power (Martinez-Alier et al., 2016). Particularly in the developed global North, we have seen regressive action in areas of business and politics, such as greenwashing and the perpetuation of racial disparities in decision-making, which inadequately address social or environmental inequalities. Governance must entail meaningful action to benefit all, and this requires an understanding of how communities are disproportionately affected by environmental issues.

The impacts of unequal power can be seen when considering who benefits and who suffers from environmental policies. The complexities of international cooperation further constrain environmental action, as seen with the unsuccessful efforts of the lower and middle powers at the 15th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Climate change commitments were overridden by the actions of the more powerful states like USA and China, and the failure to achieve the outcome many had longed for elucidates the ‘structural limits’ underlying international relations. The most severe environmental problems are often borderless, yet the international system is comprised of nation-states with sovereignty. Australia should be adopting its differentiated responsibility given its disproportionate contributions to climate change relative to its ability to economic capability for mitigation and adaptation. Developing states, particularly low-lying islands, are most vulnerable to the effects of climate change, such as sea-level rise, but are less economically able to adapt (Beeson and McDonald, 2013). Indeed, those that face the greatest repercussions of inaction often have less power, resources and status, which ultimately affects their capacity to contribute to political discourses. The 23rd Conference of the Parties saw greater commitments to a coal phase-out. But the Powering Past Coal Alliance sought to define the transition to clean energy as an opportunity for substantial economic growth. The proposition appealed to corporate interests but had little consideration for historic responsibilities (Brown and Spiegel, 2019). That is, countries’ contribution to global emissions in the past were not adequately addressed in this agreement. Effective environmental governance must require greater cooperation between nation-states to adopt common but differentiated responsibilities relative to their differing vulnerabilities and capabilities.

Within the environmental justice movement, First Nations people play a unique and important role that is often overlooked in governance. Over millennia, Indigenous Australian communities have formed a deep connection to and understanding of the land, which resulted in ecologically sustainable ways of living. The disrespect for Indigenous relationships to country and lack of Indigenous representation in environmental management since colonisation has led to conflict (Queensland Studies Authority, 2008). A current and leading example comes from the contentious proposals for the Adani coal mine in Queensland. What is to be the largest coal mine in the country has sparked controversy, most notably because the Wangan and Jagalingou people, the Traditional Owners of the land, have not given consent. Playing on the support from the State Government and ‘an inherent bias in the system’, Adani have had an advantage in the approval process. The Native Title Act, intended to maintain Indigenous rights and consent during such negotiations, has instead accommodated mining interests while diminishing legal representation of Indigenous stakeholders (Arnautovic, 2017). With its anticipated contributions to pollution and land degradation, the Adani coal mine will threaten our chances at both environmental protection and reconciliation with our First Nations people. This example, and many others, demonstrate how environmental justice cannot be achieved independently of racial justice and without addressing colonialism.

The power imbalance in environmental governance is rooted in deeper social injustices. In the US, people of colour, especially those in poverty, live in areas with high levels of industrial air pollution and toxic waste discharge. Consequently, such minorities are more likely to develop asthma and lead poisoning while remaining underrepresented in areas of governance relative to those from a white, educated, and affluent background (Bullard, 2001). It has also been found that indigenous populations tend to be heavily involved in conflicts over land rights despite constituting a small portion of the overall population (Martinez-Alier et al., 2016). Many communities of colour had been aware of and exposed to greater environmental risks well before the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) responded to these concerns. Consequently, improved monitoring processes have been implemented for the assessment and mitigation of health impacts on communities at risk. The ‘politically and economically powerless’ are most vulnerable to being taken advantage of by governments and businesses that are driven by a ‘colonial mentality’ that has been responsible, in a historical and contemporary setting, for exploiting humans and the environment. Only three decades ago did the EPA begin to address these environmental injustices, after ‘extensive prodding’ by activists. Grassroots groups have demonstrated the importance of the environmental justice movement, by holding governments accountable and broadening their networks as to enter arenas of public decision-making (Bullard, 2001).

Furthermore, overcoming the allure of greenwashing is necessary for bringing true environmentalism to fruition. Particularly among the upper-middle class of developed countries, ‘sustainability culture’ and ‘green consumerism’ have risen in popularity. Such paradigms are attractive but become redundant when ‘social subjectivities’ are ignored. We must also consider the possibility of ‘rebound effects’, whereby global demand causes an overall increase in consumption even though the cost of production per unit has declined (Lipschutz, 2012). These effects have manifested through greenwashing, which is used by corporations to deceive, through advertising, and profit off the growing demand for ‘green’ products and services from consumers and governments. Exploiting and appeasing consumer consciousness has the potential to evoke complacency and detract from truly sustainable practices. With the capacity to ‘evade and soften government rules’, eco-businesses are gaining power in governance, as well as in supply chains and markets. The result is the paradox – while big brands laud the release of ‘new’ and ‘sustainable’ goods, the total environmental harm resulting from the cycle of production, consumption, and disposal continues to increase (Dauvergne and Lister, 2013). Although communities may seek to live more environmentally conscious lifestyles, corporations may manipulate this trend to further their own financial gain. Thus, greater top-down regulation from governments and bottom-up lobbying from consumers is needed to maintain accountability of those most responsible for producing environmental ‘bads’.

Ultimately, environmental governance is ineffective partly because many of the environmental injustices that are still occurring are rooted in social injustices both within countries and between them. There has been a struggle for power and an unequal distribution of benefits in a system that priortises economic gains. Decision-makers need to address the environmentalism of the poor, which advocates for the alleviation of poverty and shared but differentiated responsibilities and overcome the deficit in political representation and accountability. However, the polarising nature of such issues, as well as the counter-productive practices of the corporate world must also be considered. In order to succeed in our efforts for environmental justice in a precarious world, we need to disengage from performative environmentalism and address inequality in an intersectional manner both locally and globally.