Green Governing Our Future?
Throughout History, individuals have appeared who made environmental stewardship their life work. For example, overseas, treasures like Yosemite and the Grand Canyon became national parks because of activists. Here in Australia, the Tasmanian Dam Case disaster (for example) was averted due to the efforts of a handful of passionate conservationists.
It has been through the relentless efforts of devoted activists, conservationists and greater public awareness and concern for our environment that our Government has become more "green". Whether pressured for votes sake or otherwise, government has been forced to take notice. As a result we now have a variety of legislation and policies governing environmental management - for example: The "Environmental Protection Act 1994" and the "Nature Conservation Regulation 1994" indicating a general trend or change towards environmental sustainability and our government will gradually lean more and more towards "green legislation" as society becomes more concerned with environmental issues.
The bottom line is something like: It will be the environmentalists/activists who push community and pressure governmental change, but then it will be the governmental 'green' legislation (once accepted) that will ensure compliance and force sustainable change.
Edgar, Earle & Fopp (1993) contend that with the changing social context of Australian society, a number of environmental concerns have become major issues as social agitation has demanded changes through government action. In other words, government regulation for the environment has often been the culmination of intense protests by environmental activists. This is an interesting point, and is in line with Margaret Juke’s statement that while it will be the environmental activists that pressure government regulation, it will be the government legislation that will ensure citizen compliance and force sustainable change.
These statements suggest that neither government regulation nor environmental activism can work effectively as solitary agents of positive environmental change. Each has a role to play in achieving gains for the environment, as has been shown repeatedly throughout history, notably in the Tasmanian Dams saga of the 1980s. In this case, the passionate and emotive activism of green groups within the community elevated the proposed damming of the Franklin River to the status of a major political issue. While this devoted environmental activism brought the issue into the national political spotlight and provided the impetus for government action, it was government regulation which ultimately put a stop to the proposed hydroelectric development.
In summary, both environmental activism and government regulation have important roles to play in achieving environmental gains, as exemplified in the Tasmanian Dams case. However, the question remains – which is MORE effective in generating change? Is it environmental activism, which influences community beliefs and often prompts government action on environmental issues, or is it government regulation, which ultimately provides the enforceable mechanisms for achieving positive environmental outcomes?
“It will be the environmentalists/activists, who push community and pressure governmental change.” In today’s society, governments exist to represent ‘the people.’ It is these people and their voices that keep where they are today. But ‘these people,’ (the communities) also need the governments just as much, as these governments are the ones that can governing policy that ‘officially’ and ‘legally’ protect the environment.