Models of Justice in the Environmental Debate - Statistical Data Included

Journal of Social Issues, Fall, 2000 by Susan Clayton

A slightly different question is whether particular models of justice are more congenial to different sides of the argument over environmental policy. Appeals to responsibility seem more successful in an environmental domain than in the service of other arguments (Clayton, 1994), and principles of responsibility have been articulated by citizens discussing international pollution (Linneroth-Bayer & Fitzgerald, 1996), but this is likely to vary according to the direct responsibility of the person answering the question. Opotow and Clayton (1998) recently surveyed material from antienvironmental organizations and found three principles to predominate: First, property rights are paramount. Second, regulations are unfairly imposed by government, encouraged by environmental extremists, that work to the detriment of the powerless average American. This makes reference to the concept of procedural justice. Third, market mechanisms are the fairest way to protect the environment. The types of justice referred to by t hese antienvironmental groups reflect a philosophy of individualism rather than interdependence, of rights rather than responsibility.

In contrast are the findings from an earlier analysis of fund-raising letters from environmental organizations (Clayton, 1991). Here, a principal emphasis was on the need to enforce existing standards or laws and thus ensure procedural justice. Another, less common theme was the need to expand our moral community (to include nature or future generations). Some unusual examples of "rights" were cited, including the "right of future generations to marvel at the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" and the "right to a clean, safe, and healthy environment." A number of organizations made implicit or explicit appeals to responsibility.

Cvetkovich and Earle (1994), in a field study of an environmental conflict, reported that supporters of a wildlife protection ordinance were more likely than opponents to make reference to themes of equality or communal sharing. Dunlap and Van Liere (1984) found that support for private property rights was strongly and negatively associated with environmental concern. In an earlier laboratory study (Clayton, 1994), I found that although arguments based on procedure received equal agreement in an environmental and an antienvironmental condition, arguments based on responsibility or equality of suffering received significantly higher levels of agreement in the environmental than in the antienvironmental case.

In sum, research is accumulating to suggest that marketplace justice is more likely to represent the antienvironmental position and that themes of equality and responsibility are more common in environmental arguments. Rights and procedural issues are popular with both sides, though they are likely to be conceptualized differently. One way of describing the distinction between different models of justice is whether they are concerned with justice for the individual (microjustice) or justice for the larger society (macrojustice). Environmental groups seem more likely to utilize arguments based on macrojustice principles, whereas antienvironmental organizations find microjustice principles more compatible. (I have discussed the philosophical reasons for this elsewhere; see Clayton, 1994, 1996, 1998.)