The Ramifications Of Green Political Thought

The Ramifications of Green Political Thought

According to Andrew Dobson

The fundamental concept Andrew Dobson brings out in his novel Green Political Thought, is the revolutionary im-plications of ecologism.

Dobson describes ecology as "deep green thinking." He asserts that ecologism is a distinctive political ideology, which is separate from environmentalism, just as liberal-ism, conservatism, and socialism are kept separate from one another. He further maintains that what sets ecologism apart from other ideologies is "its focus on the relation-ship between human beings and the non-human natural world."

Dobson further states that the purpose of green con-sumerism is to distinguish "need from want." The laborious role of a true green society becomes the ability to formu-late strategies that define and reestablish the relation-ships between production and consumption. Without limits to our consumption, catastrophic consequences are inevita-ble for the environment and those who inhabit it. Such af-ter-affects of technological misuse include global warming, deforestation, pesticide poisoning, ozone depletion, acid rain, and species loss. Hence, solutions to remedy these by-products of limited consumption are the basis for con-troversy among people in present day society.

Moreover, if the theories of modern ecology and sus-tainability (or lack there of) hold true, the ramifications of this ideology become global. Dobson creatively illus-trates in his book that there are not any simple solutions to correcting the shadowy future that industrialism is be-stowing upon us. The author further emphasizes two criti-cal features in relation to ecology and sustainability. The first is that technological solutions will not bring fourth infinite materials in a finite system. Secondly, the exponential growth of industrialism promises that Earth's resources are unsustainable in lieu of the growing population. With that having been said, the challenge of the ecological movement is to convince the consensus that change is prudent. The heart of the debate of limited con-sumption involves the tradeoffs required to achieve sus-tainable development. For now, the majority of society would rather leave the grievances of repoliticalization and social change for the future generations to deal with, rather than conserving today, in order to plan for tomor-row. Here, I mean conserving in the sense of not merely "cutting back," but actually re-thinking the technological processes utilized to achieve the luxuries that we as a so-ciety have become so accustomed to.

However,