The Civic Environmental Approach

SYMPOSIUM Democratic Professionalism: The Civic Environmental Sharing Authority Approachin Civic Life Albert ÖzgüçW. Orhan Dzur shaped by the practical agendas of their proponents. The term The concept of environmental citizenship has drawn much civic environmentalism was coined in early 1990s in the US attention among environmental scholars lately. There is, however, and is still more often used there, while the term environmental already another concept in the environmental literature that citizenship is the preferred idiom in the rest of the Englishconveys a similar idea: civic environmentalism. Both appear speaking countries such as Canada, Britain, and Australia. It applicable to any discussion of green constitutionalism, but the was coined by the Canadian environmental agency in charge of relationship between the two is not clear. Are they basically the environmental policies and programs (i.e., Environment Canada) same or do they refer to completely disparate phenomena? A quick and has been recently adopted by a number of British environsurvey of the relevant environmental literature would suggest that mental scholars.1 Environmental scholars who opt to use them there is not much intercourse between the communities of scholinterchangeably are indeed very few.2 Given the terminological arship which make use of these two concepts. Environmental and conceptual affinity between the two, the current disconnect scholars who comment on either of the two concepts seldom between the academic literatures grown around each concept is discuss the other or cite the literature grown around it. This is striking and calls for an explanation. curious as these two concepts, even if not identical, resemble one Admittedly, this geographic difference is conceptually inconanother not only in terminology but also conceptually. sequential by itself. Nonetheless it is illuminating when considI shall discuss below why there is a disconnect between the ered in light of the political agenda defined by the proponents of two discourses and then explain how they can actually converge each discourse. The civic environmenboth conceptually and practically. To talism literature responds to a specific establish the convergence thesis I shall Even in a less-than-perfect regime, policy debate peculiar to the American first draw attention to the Aristotelian however, the common good can and context: what the best policy on envibackground shared by both discourses, must be discerned and factored into ronmental protection is given the fedand then argue that both discourses eral administrative structure of the have been constructed in the last fifdeliberation to the extent possible. In US. Is the regulatory framework (the teen years or so to address a practical the face of the present environmental so-called command-and-control sysproblem, namely, the failure of the challenges, we can speak of sustaintem) or the frequent resort to litigation modern environmental movement in ability as the common good of not by mainstream environmental organizabringing about the social transformaonly each and every political comtions an effective method in protecting tion it has called for. I begin with the munity on earth but also of the whole the American environment? Civic envicontingent differences between the two human family itself, including both ronmentalists in America think neither discourses—civic environmentalism present and future generations. tool is effective on its own. They would and environmental citizenship—based rather see local governments, nonon how they are conceptualized in their governmental actors, and market-based instruments be given respective scholarly literatures. The second section examines the greater role and say in responding to environmental problems. Aristotelian common ground between the two discourses, and Civic environmentalists recognize that the environment is not “a the concluding section situates these two discourses within the special realm reserved for experts and professional activists, but practical context of contemporary environmental debates. an essential aspect of public life—a place for citizens.”3 The proponents of civic environmentalism (in the US context) The Discursive Divergence approach the federal government with suspicion. This sort of To understand how and why the environmental discourses skepticism resonates with the American political tradition which of civic environmentalism and environmental citizenship differ views the state as a necessary evil. The regulatory framework of from one another, we need to look at the particular issues the two environmental governance at the federal level is often claimed discourses address. Doing so will allow us to realize that the gento be ineffective, counterproductive, and even authoritarian. eral framework and the specific terminology of these discourses The preference for local solutions to environmental problems are determined by their discursive contexts, which are in turn among civic environmentalists can be explained through the 38 The Good Society, Volume 17, No. 2, 2008 · Copyright © 2009 The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA GREEN CONSTITUTIONALISM distinct American institution and habit of voluntary association and decentralism. One major historical and theoretical source of inspiration behind this institution and predilection is the Jeffersonian or Tocquevillian vision of decentralized, selfgoverning small communities, and civic associations.4 The recurrent argument encountered in the civic environmentalism literature is that a decentralized, community-based, participatory approach can work better than the prevailing command-and-control model that both the federal government and the mainstream environmental organizations prefer in dealing with environmental issues such as land conservation, species preservation, and nonpoint pollution.5 The civic approach in this sense reflects the populist or libertarian aversion to bureaucratic centralism and technocratic regulation. Most civic environmentalists use the predicate civic to underline the importance of self-governance and voluntary association at the sub-national level as they doubt that concentration of power can be put to benevolent use.6 Civic environmentalists claim that delegating environmental responsibility to local communities strengthens their political capacity by increasing the opportunities for exercising the virtues of self-sufficiency and neighborliness (through such venues as farmer’s markets, community gardens, and city farms). They point out the civic returns of protecting green spaces in urban areas and using green design for cities in general because these structural aspects shape the quality of city life. Civic environmentalists aim at building public trust and sense of place in the process of addressing environmental problems. These constructive sentiments are seen as both outputs and inputs of civic environmentalism: “The more social capital a community possesses, the greater is its ability to solve problems and achieve positive environmental outcomes.”7 In short, the civic approach to environmental issues aspires to provide ordinary people with a sense of security, confidence, joy, partnership, and achievement, all of which are essential to sustain environmental awareness. Proponents of environmental citizenship, on the other hand, index citizenship to environmental sustainability: “environmental citizenship is about the active participation of citizens” to move “society from unsustainability towards greater sustainability.”8 They hope that environmental citizenship can help to bring about a more enduring change in the attitudes of people toward the environment.9 Environmental citizenship is theorized mainly by scholars responding to the ongoing citizenship debates in political theory literature. Discontent with the instrumental and atomistic premises underlying the liberal contractarian view of society and citizenship has prompted in recent decades the quest for an alternative tradition in the history of Western political thought. This search has yielded two paths: one republican and the other cosmopolitan. The republican conception of citizenship has been discovered in certain periods of Western history as diverse as ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, the Renaissance Italy, seventeenth-century England, and the American founding during which civic duties and collective liberty are claimed to be defended and held dear while individualism criticized and downplayed.10 The cosmopolitan tradition, on the other hand, conceives moral duty, human belonging, and loyalty in more universal terms. These noble sentiments, the cosmopolitans argue, need to be extended to all circle of human family regardless of the contingent accidents of birth. This current debate among contemporary scholars of liberalism, republicanism, and cosmopolitanism forms the backdrop of the growing scholarly literature on environmental citizenship.11 Indeed we can discern two strands within environmental citizenship literature corresponding roughly to the republican and cosmopolitan alternatives to the Hobbesian-Lockean liberal view of citizenship: those who situate environmental citizenship within a transnational discourse and those who reconnect environmental citizenship with its republican roots.12 The central themes in the environmental citizenship literature are civic duty, responsibility, and identity. According to one definition, “Environmental Citizenship is an idea that each of us is an integral part of a larger ecosystem and that our future depends on each one of us embracing the challenge and acting responsibly and positively toward our environment.”13 What is particularly novel about this definition is the combination of civic responsibility with ecological consciousness. The latter is now thought essential to becoming a responsible citizen, and civic responsibility is seen as instrumental to create sustainable communities. Environmental scholars have hitherto conceptualized the political agency of ecological transformation through anything but citizenship. They have considered “the new middle class, the working class, the unemployed, new social movements or universal agency” but not ordinary people qua citizens.14 The reluctance to theorize citizenship in environmental literature has to do with the dominant anti-systemic belief among environmental scholars that the discourse of citizenship has always played an exclusionary role in the Western tradition.15 The present turn to this concept and institution is a sign that environmental scholars are getting more pragmatic in their strategies for ecological transformation. The Theoretical Basis of the Convergence Despite the contextual differences between civic environmentalism and environmental citizenship sketched above, they are far from being two disparate discourses. The common ground shared by the two scholarly literatures is especially discernible in their similar emphasis on notions of the common good and Volume 17, Number 2, 2008 39 SYMPOSIUM civic virtue. Civic environmentalism, one proponent observes, provides “an opportunity to realize the ideal of community” and “a vision for the common good.”16 Similarly, Andrew Dobson acknowledges that environmental citizenship is inspired by the republican commitment to “the idea of the public and, more specifically, to the idea of the common good” as well as “the idea of citizenship virtue.”17 The discourses of civic environmentalism and environmental citizenship are especially united in their common discontent with the individualistic, rights-centered focus of the classical liberal tradition. A key feature of this tradition has been the under-emphasis of the good and over-emphasis of the rights and liberties of the individual. This oppositional stance to classical liberalism, shared by both discourses, parallels contemporary republican or communitarian critiques of the liberal tradition as well as the rise of neo-Aristotelianism.18 The political theorist Richard Dagger aptly recognizes that civic environmentalism “borrows its emphasis on the civic environment from the tradition of classical or civic republicanism.”19 Other scholars too formulate republican conceptions of environmental citizenship emphasizing civic duty and action.20 The notion of “the common good”—the principal theme in the republican tradition—derives from the Aristotelian conception of politics. Aristotle’s famous remark in the Politics—“the political good is justice, and this is the common advantage” (1282b16–17)—suggests that the highest end in the realm of politics is justice and this is attained by instituting laws and implementing policies that serve all citizens equally. Aristotle has no illusions about the fact that the common good is difficult to realize in any political community since there are often competing parties involved in the political process. Even in a lessthan-perfect regime, however, the common good can and must be discerned and factored into deliberation to the extent possible. In the face of the present environmental challenges, we can speak of sustainability as the common good of not only each and every political community on earth but also of the whole human family itself, including both present and future generations.21 The increasing popularity of environmental citizenship parallels the recent resurgence of interest in citizenship among contemporary political theorists, and one major reason for this revival is the growing realization that “the health and stability of modern democracy depends, not only on the justice of its ‘basic structure’ but also on the qualities and attitudes of its citizens.”22 Dobson follows the republican critique of liberalism in arguing that the dominant liberal interpretation of citizenship and politics divorces morality from politics by excluding the notions of “virtue” and “obligation” from the public sphere and reducing citizenship to the activity of securing social entitlements from the state.23 Environmental citizenship “challenges the model of the ‘self-interested rational actor’” that underlies the classical 40 The Good Society liberal tradition of economics and politics. This model of the individual and society has no room for the notion of civic virtue, which is now widely recognized as essential for the purposes of environmentalism. Similarly, civic environmentalism is formulated as a reaction to the “adverse societal conditions” affecting America today such as “declining social capital, political disaffection, rising economic inequality, racial segregation, and excessive privatization.”24 All these deteriorating indicators have prompted the quest for a more civic-minded liberalism. The withdrawal of citizens from public life has been widely accepted in contemporary political theory literature as a serious threat to the well-being of democracy in the long term. The contribution of civic environmentalism to this debate is to call attention to “the deterioration of the American environment, both built and undeveloped” as a major factor behind civic decline. Civic environmentalism works on the premise that there is an “inextricable bond between … the idea of democracy and environmental protection.”25 Another common Aristotelian thread between the two discourses is the theme of (civic) “virtue.” The resurgence of interest in environmental citizenship among environmental political theorists is connected to the revival of interest in virtue among environmental philosophers.26 Several environmental scholars have noted the close relationship between environmental virtues and environmental citizenship or civic environmentalism. Admittedly this theme is more explicitly discussed in the environmental citizenship literature than the literature on civic environmentalism. Having said this we should note that the latter is still amenable to the language of virtue, particularly because of its emphasis on civic association, voluntary action, and the common good, all of which, to recall Kymlicka’s point, depend on “the qualities and attitudes” possessed by the citizens. The concept of civic virtue is more at home with the premodern conception of politics, which revolves around virtue, than the classical liberal tradition. In the pre-modern tradition of Western political thought going back to the ancient Greeks, and above all to Aristotle, politics is constituted by collective striving of citizens to attain the common good of their communities through civic or political virtue.27 Good laws and institutions, according to Aristotle, are not enough by themselves. Their effectiveness fundamentally depends on citizens dedicated to live together in accordance with virtue. In Book III of Politics, where Aristotle discusses the notions of “city” and “citizenship” at length, he says, “Whoever takes thought for good management, however, gives careful attention to political virtue and vice. It is thus evident that virtue must be a care for every city, or at least every one to which the term applies truly and not merely in a manner of speaking” (1280b5–8). GREEN CONSTITUTIONALISM Aristotle’s teleological conception of political praxis can be contrasted with an instrumental conception which Aristotle mentions in the same context. The political association, according to Aristotle, can be alternatively conceived as providing security or protection of property. These two goals we might call the Hobbesian and Lockean positions respectively. Aristotle is aware of these possibilities but thinks that the political regime cannot be defined either as a military or trade alliance (1280a35– b11). For these functions do not account for the ultimate purpose of political association, which, for Aristotle, is providing its members the conditions of living well. The city cannot make all its members to live the good life but it can at best facilitate their striving or at least not obstruct them. The Aristotelian conception of praxis oriented to happiness or the good life allows for the questioning of this oversight in contemporary politics. Numerous environmentalists and environmental scholars have come to show discontent with the current state of environmentalism and have become apprehensive about its future prospects.28 One scholar, for instance, observes that “after several decades of environmental campaigning, the long-desired ecological U-turn has still not been achieved and does not seem to be imminent either.”29 John Barry acknowledges this failure and hopes that the practice of environmental citizenship can be a remedy: Since the provision of knowledge and information about the ecological crisis has failed to encourage sufficient numbers of individuals to become environmental (never mind sustainable) citizens and alter their behavior accordingly, a republican view would be that what is needed is the creation or cultivation of such citizenly virtues and behavioral changes.30 Similarly, Shutkin’s civic environmentalism responds to “the failure of traditional environmentalism to articulate and act on a democratic social vision.”31 Traditional environmentalism, To understand why the terms citizen, citizenship, or civic according to Shutkin, suffers from democratic deficit because it have become staples of recent environmental scholarship, we has relied “overwhelmingly on legal and policy tools to address should also consider the political conjuncture in which these environmental problems, dismissing the academic discussions take place. The need for and rich history of grass-roots recent debates over the end or death of There is growing unhappiness with organizing and constituency building.” environmentalism inside and outside the achievements of the environmenThe managerial approach “rendered it the academy are particularly pertinent tal movement in spite of the environ[environmentalism] largely irrelevant for our purposes. Behind a veneer of mental gains made over the last three to the day-to-day lives of most ordinary contingent differences between civic decades and increasing environmenAmericans.”32 environmentalism and environmental Environmental scholars on both sides tal awareness in most liberal democitizenship, I suggest in this section, we of the Atlantic have almost simultanecan also discover a common practical cratic societies. Environmentalism, ously begun to debate the “death” or concern uniting these two discourses: despite its broad appeal, has been to “end” of environmentalism. The debate to make environmentalism more relthis day driven by a small circle of over the death of environmentalism in evant to the lives of ordinary people. environmentalists. the US context concerns the widely There is growing unhappiness with shared opinion that mainstream envithe achievements of the environmental ronmental groups have long treated the environment narrowly movement in spite of the environmental gains made over the last and independent of other spheres and concerns of human life. three decades and increasing environmental awareness in most The debate in Europe is concerned with the “end” (in liberal democratic societies. Environmentalism, despite its broad both senses of “goal” and “final point”) of environmentalism. appeal, has been to this day driven by a small circle of enviIronically what has prompted this debate is the relative receptiveronmentalists. The complex nature of environmental problems ness of European societies to environmental concerns and issues. perhaps makes specialization inevitable. Still, the technocratic The editors of a recent book on this subject formulate the followapproach to environmental problems is something to reckon ing question behind this state of affairs: do “environmentalists with. The elitist modus operandi has proved to be especially still have a reason to be environmentalists”?33 The individual ineffective against intractable environmental problems such as responses to these questions compiled in this book vary but the global warming. Friendly critics of contemporary environmenrecurrent message is that environmentalism has to reinvent itself talism constantly remind us the need for developing novel ways to avoid irrelevance in today’s world. One particular blind spot that can at the same time improve the life conditions of ordinary of environmentalism that many contributors to the volume point people. Both civic environmentalists and environmental citizenout is the naïve supposition that “the facts speak for themselves, ship advocates see the remedy to the deteriorating health of and the Greens are there merely to point to facts.”34 Given the contemporary environmentalism in broadening its social vision realization that the old environmental ways are not working, most to include all spheres of social life. Convergence from a Practical Standpoint Volume 17, Number 2, 2008 41 SYMPOSIUM authors in this volume repeatedly call attention to fresh ways of engaging ordinary people. The issues of citizenship and culture deserve more attention to accomplish this shift.35 The feeling of disarray among environmentalists suggests that the innovative concept of “sustainability” must have lost its initial appeal as an animating vision. The sustainability discourse might still be one of the rhetorical weapons in the environmental arsenal but, as Dale Jamieson recognizes, “we need a discourse that permits deeper discussion of aesthetic, spiritual, religious, cultural, political, and moral values.” Without using the notion of environmental citizenship or civic environmentalism, Jamieson draws our attention to the need to develop “a richer set of positive visions regarding the proper human relationship to nature”: These visions must go beyond the bloodless futures of scientific forecasters, the technological futures of cornucopians, and the single focus futures of those who are interested only in rainforests, women, or American family incomes. What is needed are simple and compelling stories that show us how to practically participate in creating the future in our daily lives, and how to engage in ongoing dialogue with others about how our everyday actions help to produce global realities. Articulating these visions is not the job of academics alone, but also requires the efforts of writers, artists, and people from all walks of life.36 Despite their varying emphases, we can speak of a shared conceptual and practical ground between civic environmentalism and environmental citizenship. What we may call the civic environmental approach—to refer to the common core of both civic environmentalism and environmental citizenship—can be valuable in forming political alliances, motivating the active core of environmental movement, and broadening the larger support base of environmentalism in the twentieth-first century. The advocates of the civic approach want to create a “proactive” (as opposed to “reactive”) vision for environmentalism by allowing ordinary people, especially the young, to learn and exercise the skills of active citizenship. Instead of being passive subjects of what the political system delivers or does not deliver, people can learn to direct their lives through the civic approach. Özgüç Orhan received his Ph.D. from the Department of Government and Politics at the University of Maryland, College Park in 2007. He is currently an Assistant Professor at Fatih University, Istanbul, in the International Relations Department. Endnotes 1. This terminological variance between environmental scholars from the US and Europe is also noted in Julian Agyeman and 42 The Good Society Bob Evans, “Justice, Governance and Sustainability: Perspectives on Environmental Citizenship from North America and Europe,” in Environmental Citizenship, eds. Andrew Dobson and Derek Bell (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 187. We should also note that the term civic environmentalism has been more recently adapted to countries other than the US. See, for instance, Paul F. Steinberg, Civic Environmentalism in Developing Countries (Washington, DC: The World Bank, 2002); and Ching-Ping Tang, “Democratizing Urban Politics and Civic Environmentalism in Taiwan,” The China Quarterly 176 (2003): 1029–51. 2. The only scholar who discusses both and uses them interchangeably is Andrew Light. See his “Urban Ecological Citizenship,” Journal of Social Philosophy 34.1 (2003): 44–63. 3. Marc Landy and Charles T. Rubin, “Civic Environmentalism: Developing a Research and Action Agenda,” June 2003, http://www. marshall.org/pdf/materials/200.pdf, p. 5. 4. See Shutkin, 19–26; and DeWitt John, “Civic Environmentalism,” in Environmental Governance Reconsidered, ed. Robert F. Durant et al. (MIT Press, 2004), 226. 5. In addition to the previously cited works by DeWitt John and William A. Shutkin, civic environmentalism literature also includes Bob Pepperman Taylor, Our Limits Transgressed: Environmental Political Thought in America (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas, 1992); and Ben A. Minteer, The Landscape of Reform: Civic Pragmatism and Environmental Thought in America (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006). 6. To be precise there are two versions of civic environmentalism: one is more market-oriented and the other is more community-oriented. The two are not necessarily irreconcilable but we can surmise that they can conflict in certain cases. The market-oriented strand is associated with the working group of the George C. Marshall Institute among whom we can count Charles T. Rubin, Marc Landy, and Brent Haglund, as well as the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI), a think-tank advocating polices that synthesize public and market tools. The community-oriented approach is defended in William A. Shutkin, The Land That Could Be: Environmentalism and Democracy in the Twenty-first Century (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2000). Shutkin, for instance, distinguishes his approach by pointing out that his “conception of civic environmentalism shares a lot with the PPI’s but expands on and enriches this and other notions of civic environmentalism by viewing the issue primarily through the lens of civic engagement and democracy rather than environmental regulation per se,” (p. 16). 7. See Shutkin, 76. See also Mark E. Warren, Democracy and Association (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001) for a general discussion of the democratic contributions of associational groups including environmental ones. 8. Sherilyn MacGregor and Simon Pardue et al., “Environmental Citizenship: The Goodenough Primer,” May 2005, http://www. environmentalcitizenship.net/pdf files/environmental citizenship primer.pdf, p. 1. 9. Andrew Dobson and Derek Bell, “Introduction,” in Environmental Citizenship, eds. Andrew Dobson and Derek Bell (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 4. 10. See, among others, Martin van Gelderen and Quentin Skinner, eds., Republicanism: A Shared European Heritage, 2 vols. (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2002). 11. See Peter Christoff, “Environmental and Ecological Citizenship,” in Rethinking Australian Citizenship, eds. Wayne Hudson and John Kane (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, GREEN CONSTITUTIONALISM 2000); Deane Curtin, “Ecological Citizenship,” in Handbook of Citizenship Studies, ed., Engin F. Isin and Bryan Turner (London: Sage, 2002), 293–304; Andrew Dobson, Citizenship and the Environment (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003); Andrew Dobson and Derek Bell, eds., Environmental Citizenship (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005); and Sherilyn MacGregor, Beyond Mothering Earth: Ecological Citizenship and the Politics of Care (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 2006). 12. Andrew Dobson can be taken as the representative for the first strand and John Barry for the second. See John Barry, Rethinking Green Politics: Nature, Virtue and Progress (London: Sage, 1999). 13. The Center for Environmental Philosophy, “Environmental Citizenship,” http://www.cep.unt.edu/citizen.htm. 14. See Luke Martell, Ecology and Society (Cambridge, UK: Polity Press, 1994), 184. 15. See, for instance, Curtin, 293. Curtin attributes the lack of interest in “citizenship” discourse at the margins of contemporary theory to its affiliation with Western colonialism, capitalism, or patriarchy. 16. Shutkin, 5. 17. Dobson, Citizenship and the Environment, 59, 36, 95–96; see also 43, 128–29. 18. See Amitai Etzioni, The New Golden Rule: Community and Morality in a Democratic Society (New York: Basic Books, 1996), 252. 19. Richard Dagger, “Stopping Sprawl for the Good of All: The Case for Civic Environmentalism,” Journal of Social Philosophy 34.1(2003): 40. 20. See John Barry, “Resistance is Fertile: From Environmental to Sustainability Citizenship,” in Environmental Citizenship, eds. Andrew Dobson and Derek Bell, (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2005), 21–48; and Andrew Light, “Ecological Citizenship: The Democratic Promise of Restoration,” in The Humane Metropolis: People and Nature in the 21st Century City, ed. R. Platt (Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Press, 2006), 169–82. 21. See, for instance, James Connelly, “The Virtues of Environmental Citizenship,” in Environmental Citizenship, eds. Andrew Dobson and Derek Bell (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 49–73. 22. Will Kymlicka quoted in Dobson, 43. 23. Ibid., 40–41. 24. Shutkin, 238. 25. Ibid., 3, xvi, 43. 26. For a general discussion, see Robert Hull, “All about EVE: A Report on Environmental Virtue Ethics Today,” Ethics & the Environment 10.1 (2005): 89–110. 27. For an overview of recent literature on recovering Aristotle for citizenship, see Susan D. Collins, Aristotle and the Rediscovery of Citizenship (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006). 28. The debate in Europe is presented in Marcel Wissenburg and Yoram Levy, eds., Liberal Democracy and Environmentalism: The End of Environmentalism? (New York: Routledge, 2004). A more heated debate was instigated in the US by an article co-authored by Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus: “The Death of Environmentalism: Global Warming Politics in a Post-Environmental World,” September 29, 2004, http://www. thebreakthrough.org/images/Death of Environmentalism.pdf. They have developed their argument later in their book Break Through: From the Death of Environmentalism to the Politics of Possibility (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007). 29. Ingolfur Blühdorn, Post-Ecologist Politics: Social Theory and the Abdication of the Ecologist Paradigm (London: Routledge, 2000), xi. 30. John Barry, “Resistance is Fertile: From Environmental to Sustainability Citizenship,” Environmental Citizenship, eds. Andrew Dobson and Derek Bell, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 28. 31. Shutkin, 6. 32. Ibid., 18. 33. Yoram Levy and Wissenburg, “Introduction,” in Liberal Democracy and Environmentalism: The End of Environmentalism?, eds., Marcel Wissenburg and Yoram Levy (New York: Routledge, 2004), 3, italics original. 34. Gayal Talshir, “The Role of Environmentalism,” in Liberal Democracy and Environmentalism: The End of Environmentalism?, eds., Marcel Wissenburg and Yoram Levy (New York: Routledge, 2004), 10. 35. See especially the contributions by Graham Smith, Marius de Geus, and John Barry. 36. Dale Jamieson, “Sustainability and Beyond,” Ecological Economics 24 (1998): 191. Volume 17, Number 2, 2008 43