>Russell, in the case of the South African 'Green' movement - both 'Green'
>organisations like Earthlife Africa (ELA) (site of my first serious
>political involvement - which has now seemingly fragmented, but used to be
>a significant voice on environmental issues in SA) and in the case of
>networks like the Environmental Justice Networking Forum (EJNF) - this
>characterisation is a bit suspect.
Perhaps - but then I was making some fairly general remarks.
>
>Yes, there are people who blame 'the other' for the problem - but at least
>some 'movement' (as opposed to 'party') Greens (in South Africa at least)
>sharply define themselves against 'conservationists' who just want a bit
>of fenced in nature for their own enjoyment, and screw all the rest. In
>fact the ELA Statement Of Belief (their constitution) starts of by
>defining Green as being different from conservationism and
>environmentalism, and states: 'Greens recognise that ecological stress is
>a logical and inevitable consequence of the economic and social status
>quo.'
>
>Similarly the concept of 'environmental justice' on which the EJNF was
>founded includes a very broad definition of the environment - basically
>everything around you is the environment, and various people involved in
>the EJNF have argued against emphasising the distinction between 'brown'
>(social environment) issues and 'green' (natural environment) issues,
>again on the basis that nature and society are not distinct things.
>
But it is no accident that THE fundamantal plank of the "left's" development
approach in SA today is what they call "sustainable development". What
exactly is this and what does it mean?
I agree with the position of the Africa Direct group who explain sustainable development as (sorry it's a bit long):
"The introduction of regulating mechanisms upon capitalism designed to counter assumed future environmental and social damage caused by the unfettered reproduction of capital. Originally the obsessions of green, leftwing and feminist movements that arose out of their disillusionment with the market, these have entered mainstream bourgeois ideology. Although not presented as anti-growth, the effect of these regulations is a 'slow down' outlook.
Because of its unique relationship with the West, Africa offers the greatest scope for the implementation of these ideas. There are also reasons why these ideas are more readily embraced by African intellectuals: all development thinking in Africa today is predicated upon the perception of African failure; development in Africa appears 'unsustainable' where rural economies have collapsed and urbanisation means a rapid expansion of urban squalor; where the living standards of the elite contrast starkly with those of the masses and there is no evident 'trickle-down' effect; where expanded cash crop exports coexist with diminished food production etc, etc.
Within the context of the moral rehabilitation of imperialism, 'sustainable' policies like the new 'basic needs' and 'poverty' reduction programmes pushed by the West have the potential to turn what are in fact damning manifestations of the West's domination of Africa into lofty moral causes for the West and 'New African' elites to pursue.
Within African societies, this has had the effect of depoliticising development questions and turning them into moral and technical ones. For example, Tanzania's debt crisis has forced it to introduce school fees. Instead of the issue of school fees becoming a focus for political opposition to debt repayments, non-payment of school fees has become a means by which local government bodies strengthen their authority through punishing irresponsible parents. Development issues become technical when presented as 'what do you do in a village that is 70 miles from the nearest source of electricity?' The answer is develop alternatives which are sustainable and appropriate e.g. pedal-powered electricity. The answer seems never to be making linkage with the national electricity grid a political demand and campaign issue, which gives the lie to the 'grass-roots' southern ngo.
The net effect of structural adjustment and sustainable development programmes is that African societies are being reconciled to their present living standards, and austerity has become an organising moral principle. Ambitious development projects are more likely to be rejected as unsustainable. It is not development but poverty that is being made sustainable."
And >certainly LM's position - that environmental problems don't matter,
that
>Science is good (and non-ideological) and that the capitalist system, not
>environmental destruction, is the problem - seems to combine some
>abstractly correct notions with an overly cynical and fatalist outlook.
I think this is an over-simplistic distortion of what LM says. I've never heard them say environmental problems don't matter. In fact the sections on health and energy in Africa and India in their much- maligned contribution to the "Against Nature" programme make some powerful points about the environmental consequences of the low levels of development in these countries.
>Yes, we want more (especially in South Africa) - but when we want more, we
>don't want it to be created in a manner that is toxic to the people
>creating it, creates unnecessary waste, etc.
So who does?
Russell