Working Both (Positivist) Ends Toward a New (Pragmatist) Middle in Environmental Law

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q1 LAW
J. Ruhl
{"title":"Working Both (Positivist) Ends Toward a New (Pragmatist) Middle in Environmental Law","authors":"J. Ruhl","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.214528","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This review of Daniel Farber's recent book Eco-pragmatism, in which he argues on behalf of taking more pragmatic approaches to the development of environmental policy, provides both the background necessary for appreciating Farber's union of ecosystem dynamics science and environmental pragmatism philosophy, and the basis for extending the new \"eco-pragmatism\" approach into natural resources conservation settings. Eco-pragmatism implies the intersection of two components-the eco, being the rich and developing field of ecosystem science and management, and the pragmatism, being the classical American pragmatist philosophy represented today in environmental settings through the emergence of environmental pragmatism philosophy. Unfortunately, Eco-pragmatism provides little background on either of these sources of eco-pragmatist approaches to environmental law. The review demonstrates that the science of ecology and the philosophy of environmental pragmatism do indeed make a fitting pair, and that Farber has provided the service of combining them in an approach that is adapted to modern environmental law and policy. The eco-pragmatist approach is different from either of the existing models for environmental decision making in they each relies on positivist foundations that portray environmental decisions as matters purely of economic efficiency (one extreme) or environmental preservation (the opposite extreme), whereas pragmatism looks to experience rather than dogma as its source of theoretical foundation. As Farber describes it, eco-pragmatism uses dynamical regulatory frameworks to blend economic efficiency and environmental protection in an approach that uses environmental goals to maintain a baseline of protection and economic analysis to place a check on overprotection. Unfortunately, Farber demonstrates the force of the eco-pragmatist approach only in the narrow setting of pollution and its public health consequences. The review demonstrates that eco-pragmatism also has value in the natural resource conservation setting, where emerging themes of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and adaptive management correspond to Farber's framework for environmental baseline, economic backstop, and dynamical regulation. Eco-pragmatism thus offers some deliverance from the seemingly endless warfare between the positivist ends that has burdened environmental policy in all its applications.","PeriodicalId":47068,"journal":{"name":"George Washington Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2000-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"George Washington Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.214528","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

This review of Daniel Farber's recent book Eco-pragmatism, in which he argues on behalf of taking more pragmatic approaches to the development of environmental policy, provides both the background necessary for appreciating Farber's union of ecosystem dynamics science and environmental pragmatism philosophy, and the basis for extending the new "eco-pragmatism" approach into natural resources conservation settings. Eco-pragmatism implies the intersection of two components-the eco, being the rich and developing field of ecosystem science and management, and the pragmatism, being the classical American pragmatist philosophy represented today in environmental settings through the emergence of environmental pragmatism philosophy. Unfortunately, Eco-pragmatism provides little background on either of these sources of eco-pragmatist approaches to environmental law. The review demonstrates that the science of ecology and the philosophy of environmental pragmatism do indeed make a fitting pair, and that Farber has provided the service of combining them in an approach that is adapted to modern environmental law and policy. The eco-pragmatist approach is different from either of the existing models for environmental decision making in they each relies on positivist foundations that portray environmental decisions as matters purely of economic efficiency (one extreme) or environmental preservation (the opposite extreme), whereas pragmatism looks to experience rather than dogma as its source of theoretical foundation. As Farber describes it, eco-pragmatism uses dynamical regulatory frameworks to blend economic efficiency and environmental protection in an approach that uses environmental goals to maintain a baseline of protection and economic analysis to place a check on overprotection. Unfortunately, Farber demonstrates the force of the eco-pragmatist approach only in the narrow setting of pollution and its public health consequences. The review demonstrates that eco-pragmatism also has value in the natural resource conservation setting, where emerging themes of biodiversity, ecosystem services, and adaptive management correspond to Farber's framework for environmental baseline, economic backstop, and dynamical regulation. Eco-pragmatism thus offers some deliverance from the seemingly endless warfare between the positivist ends that has burdened environmental policy in all its applications.
环境法的两个(实证主义)终点走向一个新的(实用主义)中间
在丹尼尔·法伯的新书《生态实用主义》中,他主张采取更务实的方法来制定环境政策。本文为欣赏法伯将生态动力学科学与环境实用主义哲学相结合提供了必要的背景,并为将新的“生态实用主义”方法扩展到自然资源保护环境提供了基础。生态实用主义意味着两个组成部分的交集:生态,作为生态系统科学和管理的丰富和发展的领域,实用主义,作为美国古典实用主义哲学,通过环境实用主义哲学的出现在今天的环境设置中。不幸的是,生态实用主义对环境法律的生态实用主义方法的这些来源提供的背景很少。这篇评论表明,生态学和环境实用主义哲学确实是一对合适的搭档,而法伯提供的服务是将它们结合在一种适合现代环境法律和政策的方法中。生态实用主义的方法不同于现有的两种环境决策模式,因为它们都依赖于实证主义的基础,将环境决策描述为纯粹的经济效率(一种极端)或环境保护(相反的极端),而实用主义则将经验而不是教条视为其理论基础的来源。正如法伯所描述的那样,生态实用主义使用动态监管框架将经济效率和环境保护结合在一起,用环境目标来维持保护的基线,用经济分析来检查过度保护。不幸的是,法伯只在污染及其公共健康后果的狭窄背景下证明了生态实用主义方法的力量。该综述表明,生态实用主义在自然资源保护环境中也具有价值,其中生物多样性、生态系统服务和适应性管理等新兴主题与法伯的环境基线、经济支持和动态调节框架相对应。因此,生态实用主义为环境政策的所有应用带来了负担,在实证主义目的之间似乎无休止的战争中提供了一些解脱。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
2
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信