THEORY
distributional impact. The closure of a heavily polluting factory will have a
negative distributional impact on the employees who will lose their jobs. A
policy to reduce petrol consumption through fuel taxes or restrictions on car
use will discriminate more heavily against someone who is dependent on a
car, because they need it for work or they live in a remote rural area, than
someone who has no car or who can easily switch to public transport. In
short, there will be many occasions when a choice has to be made between
social justice and sustainability.
Athird argument suggests that social justice may have a close functional
relationship with other components of the green programme, notably the
steady-state economy, participatory democracy and decentralisation. A more
egalitarian society may be an essential condition of the transition to a steady-
state economy. Currently, the gross economic and social inequalities that are
integral to capitalist accumulation and wealth creation are legitimated polit-
ically by a trickle-down effect that raises the absolute standard of living of
low-income groups (even though relative poverty increases) and by a costly
welfare state that provides a safety net for the very poorest members of soci-
ety. This situation is made possible by continued economic growth and an
ever-expanding economic pie, but would these inequalities still be accept-
able if the economy were static? People may accept inequality when their
own material lot is improving, but they are likely to resent it deeply if they
are getting poorer in absolute terms. Moreover, the greater transparency of
ademocratic, decentralised sustainable society would make the persistence
of inequality more obvious. Any shift to more frugal consumption patterns
and simpler lifestyles is likely to prove more acceptable where everyone
is seen to be making similar sacrifices; if not, inequality is likely to be a
potential source of social conflict. If this argument holds true at the level
of an individual country, it is even more valid on the international stage.
Without a major reduction in intragenerational inequality between North
and South, by means of debt relief, aid, technology transfer and reform of
international trading agreements, there is likely to be only limited progress
towardsresolving global environmental problems (see Chapters9 and 10 ).
The radical forms of participatory democracy and decentralisation desired
bygreens may also be unworkable without something approximating to
equality of wealth and income. It is hard to envisage participatory democ-
racy functioning effectively if the face-to-face interactions that it requires
bring individuals of vastly different wealth (and hence power?) together on
aregular basis. Indeed, the extension of participatory democracy across soci-
ety, especially in the workplace, where it should result in narrower income
differentials, will in itself contribute to greater equality, partly by making
the manysourcesandformsofinequality more transparent to ordinary
people and fuelling demands for their removal (Carter 1996 ). Similarly, it is
more likely that decentralised communities would co-ordinate environmen-
tal policies and accept reductions in consumption if the standard of living in