If the view of environmental concerns as interests or preferences—a private
conception of the good—were either the only one or an unequivocally
successful one, then there would be little point in discussing a relationship
between the environment and political theory. Yet among thinkers who have
discussed environmental concerns, there is a widespread conviction that this
view is neither accurate nor adequate. The Wrst, and perhaps still most
provocative, basis for this conviction was rooted in the idea of biophysical
‘‘limits to growth,’’ an idea popularized in a report by the Club of Rome with
that title in 1972 (Meadows et al. 1972 ). If these limits are real, then attention
to them is far more vital than the received notion of environmentalism seems
capable of accommodating. This drew far greater attention to the centrality of
humans’ embeddedness within the natural world and led to an outpouring of
writings seeking to move beyond ‘‘issue area’’ environmentalism. It is here
that the possibility for a Weld known asgreenorenvironmental political
theory—or sometimespolitical ecology—has emerged. 1
Academic books, articles, conferences, and other discussions have blos-
somed in thisWeld in recent years; it is particularly signiWcant to note the
increased level of international communication and even collaboration—at
least in the English-speaking world—that has emerged. At the same time,
parallel activities in such cognate (and somewhat more established)Welds as
environmental ethics, environmental policy analysis, and global environmental
politics have also grown. On the one hand, of course, these activities have the
potential greatly to enrich environmental political theory. On the other hand—
even in the absence of a misguided attempt to police strictly the boundaries of
theseWelds—the question of the distinctive identity or contribution to be made
by environmental political theory emerges as an important one. 2 In this chapter,
I describe characteristics that seem to distinguish environmental political
theory at the present and thereby to raise the question of how the project of
environmental political theory might be usefully construed in the future.
1 There is no consensus upon which of these labels is most appropriate. Some theorists embrace the
‘‘green’’ moniker on the grounds that it enables clearer connections with other issues and social
movements, while others distance themselves from it, sometimes expressing a concern that the term
implies a partisan connection to Green parties. Some prefer the ‘‘ecological’’ descriptor because of its
connotation of interconnectedness, although the label ‘‘political ecology’’ is more frequently identiWed
with scholars in geography and anthropology. OthersWnd the ‘‘environmental’’ label either more
encompassing or less controversial. While remaining somewhat agnostic about this, I am compelled to
choose a label in this chapter and—as will be evident—have selected ‘‘environmental political theory,’’
in part because it may be more recognizable.
2 This question should not be confused with a presumption that there is or should be a uniWed
normative agenda for environmental political theory.
774 john m. meyer