Not only are there disputes over the uses of the environment, but there exists a difference in opinion over how to handle the environment as well. In the 1900’s in Yellowstone National Park there was an incident which involved the extinction of grey wolves in that area by hunting because of their “interference” with farmers and hunters who depended on livestock which the wolves also hunted (Ecosystem, ScienceDaily). Not long after the extinction, there was a drastic change in the vegetation and ecosystem in the park that the wolves were an intricate part of – namely the predator and prey cycle (Douglas, 9). In this case, there exists different positions on how to handle the environment. Citizens and scientists suggested the wolves be reintroduced into the ecosystem before further damage was done, whereas the farmers and hunters wanted the wolves diminished so they can keep livestock. This exemplifies people are affected differently by the environment, thus making it political.
Another instance where it is evident that the environment is inherently political lies within the context of globalization, “globalization is not a monopoly of the neo liberals: the most varied actors, with the most varied philosophies are also caught up in the transnationalization of social relations” (Sachs, 153). Here, Wolfgang Sachs mentions that issues about globalization contain ‘varied actors’ with the most varied philosophies. This means that there are many different people with many different views on globalization; thus making it a political issue about the environment as a whole. For instance,
“ …the environmental costs incurred within the transnational value-creation chains will become especially high in the countries of the south and east, while the post-industrial economies will become ever more environmentally friendly.” (Sachs, 151).
This quote demonstrated by Sachs makes it evident that there are different views on the environment on a global scale – making it inherently a political issue. The underdeveloped and developing countries in the South and East are now looking to develop and with this comes increased consumption of fossil fuels, more land usage, etc. On the other hand – according to Sachs – post industrial economies will become more environmentally friendly. This incident in itself shows the varied views and usage of the environment across nations. While some countries are looking to decrease fuels in hopes of reducing global warming, other countries are now looking for economic development which is usually hand-in-hand with a cost for the environment. There is a clash of values which leads to diverse positions in terms of where the environment stands.
Furthermore, the environment can also be the social interactions happening within an institutional environment (Kapoor, 2010). This includes the government (as an institutional environment) and the interactions that take place within it. In essence, this makes the environment political because in governments and organizations there exists disagreements and multiple ways of seeing things since there is much input to be considered before making decisions; for example, policy-making.
The Indian Act exemplifies how the environment (institutional) is inherently political;
“this first consolidated Act laid out who was recognized as an Indian by the government as well as the conditions by which Indians could become enfranchised, or Canadian citizens” (Booth and Skelton, 103).
In other words, the government decided who would be considered as an Indian regardless if they had the blood in them or not. This is a political issue because both the Indians and the
government have different definitions of what would be considered an Aboriginal person. On one hand, an Aboriginal would consider themselves to have status even if they are married to someone of non-Aboriginal blood; however, in the Indian Act stated by the Canadian government, only legally recognized Aboriginal people have claims and benefits (Booth and Skelton, 98). According to the government, an Aboriginal would lose status if he or she marries someone of non-Aboriginal blood (Booth and Skeleton, 99). The Aboriginal that loses his or her status will suffer from a loss of benefits, land, and access to natural resources such as the right to fish as opposed to the government who will gain more land for other purposes such as building on it. Both parties will also be affected differently by the decision of who gets Aboriginal status, making it a social and institutional environment that is political.
Because of the opposing views and the fact that it is an issue that is eventually brought into the public sphere, environmental racism is another example of the environment inherently being a political issue. In Celene Krauss’s Women of Colour on the Front Line, an African American woman Cora Tucker shares her experiences with environmental racism in Rahway, New Jersey;
“we have seven landfills, we have a sewer treatment plant, we have the Ford Motor Company, we have a paint factory. We have numerous chemical companies and steel mills” (Krauss, 498).
According to professor Ilan Kapoor, a political issue is about making an issue public that was previously obscured (2010). Often, minorities (in this case African Americans) are
aware of the discrimination that takes place in environmental racism. When they take action, the issue is brought into the public sphere thus becoming a political issue; “they bring their protests a political awareness that is grounded in race...” (Krauss, 498). In addition, it was not a surprise to the African American woman when New Jersey was said to be the site for incineration (Krauss, 498). Clearly, there exists very opposing views. It’s in the company’s or government’s interest to get rid of waste in a timely and costly-efficient manner, even if it means dumping it near minority communities. The citizens of these communities are at a detrimental risk for health diseases which is their biggest, if not only concern. The use of the land (waste landfills, chemicals, etc.) near the community affects the public citizens and causes an issue of rights. This also makes the issue of the environment political.
Several characteristics define what makes an environment political. However, it is not just the natural environment; it could be social, cultural or institutional. In essence, the environment will almost always be inherently political because of the many uses of it and the varying views on how it should be used. Inevitably, it will have a different effect on everyone.
Works Cited
- Kapoor, Ilan. “Politics and the Environment.” York University. Sept. 20, 2010.
-
The Golf War. Dir. Jen Schradie and Matt DiVries. Film. (year unknown)
-
ScienceDaily. Wolves are Rebalancing Yellowstone Ecosystem. October 29, 2003. <>
-
Smith, Douglas. “Yellowstone After Wolves.” International Wolf Center, April 2003. <.>
-
Sachs, Wolfgang. Planet Dialectics. London: University Press, 1999.
-
Booth, Annie and Norman Skelton. “First Nations’ Access and Rights to Resources.” Emerging and Current Concerns.
- Krauss, Celene. “Women of Colour on Front Line.”
