TREE-HUGGING STIFLES THE PUBLIC: An

Inquiry into the History and Practices of

the Struggles of Environmental
Sustainability and Its Implications to
Global Governance

A Paper Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the

Course

“PoS 138: Issues and Problems in

International Relations (Globalization
and Global Governance)”

under

Dr. Benjamin T. Tolosa, Jr.

Submitted by:
Elago, Ma. Pilar Luisa
Ilagan, Robee Marie
Juliano, Hansley
Manalo, Patrick Austin
 Submitted at:
October 8, 2010
Department of Political Science

Introduction

Discourses and advocacies on and for environmental preservation

have become the normalized framework whenever issues on public and

social sustainability come to the fore. The debates on the viability, rationality

and necessity of adopting a perspective that favors the preservation of the

natural world, as well as far more economistic (that is to say, one that values

austerity, efficiency and thrift) and minimalist stances when it comes to the

management of our natural (renewable or non-renewable) resources, have

arguably come to a point wherein it is almost a given. Exposure to basic

education is unnecessary, in a sense, to even take the opinion that caring for

the environment is an ideal and, as such, should be among the priorities of

any self-respecting and responsible society.

It is in this light, therefore, that we can appreciate how environmental

governance’s seemingly privileged stance in the global discourse market is

highly supportive of the maintenance of the current neoliberal system of

international relations. It is not without reason that Chantal Mouffe and

Ernesto Laclau would observe that “If neo-liberal ideas have acquired an

unquestionable political resonance, it is because they have permitted the

2
articulation of resistances to the growing bureaucratization of social

relations.”1 The discourse on environmentalism has become a hegemonic

discourse in the field of global governance that assailing it is usually

tantamount to outright ostracizing. However, it is precisely this being given

of the environmental discourse that it should be opened to further analysis

and critical observation. While the literature and current events agree that

issues of environmental sustainability are simultaneously of public and

private importance, the incapability of public and state actors to create

coherent stands and/or viable modes of action in confronting the issue make

it a space of articulation and cooptation for increasing privatization. The

increase of efforts from the private sector marketing ideologies of

environmentalism, while laudable and commendable at surface value,

ultimately allows for the increasing monopolization of private-affiliated

interest groups in the discourse and, arguably, masks the very fact that a

majority of environmental sustainability-relate problems root from the

private sector itself.

This paper would therefore tackle the interactions of various actors

involved in the global governance of the discourse on environmental

sustainability, as well as the aftermath and implications of these actors’

individual actions to the development of the discourse itself. Through a

review of the emergence of environmentalism itself, we see how it is

ultimately an advocacy of good intentions that is heavily based on an

1
Chantal Mouffe and Ernesto Laclau, Hegemony and Socialist Strategy, 2nd. Ed. (Verso:
London, 2005), 175.

3
economistic perspective and a policy of urgency that is prone to the

prioritization of resource management and praxis-oriented directions above

the necessity of maintaining healthy critique of the very process of the

discourse itself. We historicize the emergence of environmentalism as an

issue per se; what international and global ruptures of historical, economical,

political and social significance were instrumental and/or vital in the

emergence of voices and interests advocating for environmental

sustainability as they are understood today.

Since the emergence of environmental sustainability is quite

identifiable with the immediate post-Cold War world system, it is quite

arguable that the majority of efforts that have been inaugurated in dealing

with the question are of a neo-liberal and democratic nature. We therefore

look at the efforts of state actors in dealing with questions of environmental

sustainability, as well as international-global policies enacted and

implemented via newfound enthusiasm with the United Nations during the

1990’s and early years of the 2000’s. Analyzing the developments of cross-

state and inter-state reactions would reveal that most nations that have

experienced the Cold War held certain degrees of optimism in this advocacy

as a means to promote long-sought universal understanding and peace, only

for it to be ultimately put into question by the United States’ consistent

uncooperative stance to these efforts.

Distraught at the economic realpolitik that has characterized the

Empire world order and brought talks on environmental sustainability to a

4
halt, we can therefore appreciate the aggressive stance and efforts of global

civil society and transnational advocacy groups in promoting and enforcing

environmental sustainability, at the cost of promoting loss of confidence in

state apparatuses. The emergence of Greenpeace and the World Wildlife

Fund, non-government organizations who are now known as the leading

advocates for environmental sustainability, reflect the increasing character

of environmentalism as a private enterprise. This would also explain a

majority of the socio-political conditions via which the rise of private

enterprise’s contribution to the discourse became apparent.

In light of the increasing private nature and the spearheading of

environmentalist efforts by private and non-government actors, we now look

at how big business and commerce ultimately recaptured what should have

been a space for public participation and state mobilization into serving its

profiteering needs. While Thomas Friedman did advocate that instead of

antagonizing big business and instead making them partners in promoting

environmentalism is key, it ultimately became a “scapegoating” mechanism

of big business. Marketing environmentalist efforts as “corporate social

responsibility” or “giving back to the community,” they were able to enjoy

good press even if they themselves are affiliated with the very problems and

practices that caused issues of environmental degradation in the first place.

As such, with environmental sustainability becoming a stronghold of the neo-

liberal status quo, we now come to a re-negotiation and “return-to-roots”

appreciation of the environmentalist struggle. We witness the possibilities of

5
promoting these issues and implementing viable modes of action via the

efforts of local governments and the very sectors affected by environmental

degradation. Key observations would include an appreciation of civilian and

community efforts on how do they actualize protection of their resources

from the encroachment of potentially-damaging policies that were enacted in

the global sphere in the name of environmentalism, in light of the interaction

of these aforementioned interests.

The emergence of environmentalism as an issue and a political

question.

Before James Watt’s invented the steam engine in 1763, there were

many other forms of industry, both agricultural and not agricultural. Butlin

argues the existence of early industrialization in Europe, calling it “proto-

industrialization”2. It is the assertion of the reality that an early

industrialization had already taken place prior to the invention of steam

engines. Mining and manufacturing products were already developing.

But humanity took its first steps into a world of industrialization as the

invention of steam engine allowed for accelerated transportation of people

and goods. The effect was not instantaneous; however, “steam contributed

little to growth before 1830 and had its peak impact about a hundred years

2
R.A. Butlin, “Early Industrialization in Europe: Concepts and Problems,” The
Geographical Journal 152 no. 1 (1986): 1-8. http://jstor.com.

6
after Watt's famous invention. Only with the advent of high-pressure steam

after 1850 did the technology realise its potential.”3

But since then, the world has not looked back. The coal industry has

flourished and the developments in transportation accelerated mass

production even more. This took away situational restrictions on how much

and how often companies could create and deliver goods, and in effect, how

often they could extract resources.

Along with the accelerated progress and movement of persons &

goods that the industrialization brought, it also helped usher in a large-scale

extraction of raw materials that has only grown with time. Among the

resources that were most extracted are: wood, coal and petroleum. The

majority of these resources were used for fuel, which caused a huge increase

in the amount of greenhouse gas levels emitted.

The industrial revolution, because of the immense quantities of

environmental pollution it produced as an effect or by product, gave rise to

the social movement of environmentalism. This movement is spurred by

ecological scares linked to nuclear technologies, pesticide pollution, and

overexploitation of natural resources. The publication of Rachel Carson's

Silent Spring in 1962 is generally considered to be a key milestone.

The specific events that ultimately brought the issue to the world’s

attention are: population explosions, unhealthy and inhospitable ground,

3
Nicolas Crafts, “Steam as a general purpose technology: A growth accounting
perspective,” The Economic Journal 144 no. 495 (2004): 338-351.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.

7
depletion of water resources, overwhelming amount of pollution, rampant

extraction of mineral resources, and endangerment/extraction of flora and

fauna. Seemingly-disjointed environmental issues arguably only have started

to be a concern for all nations when issue of “global warming” erupted, and

the effects started to be felt around the globe.

There are numerous tell-tale signs of these phenomenons. There are

power shortages everywhere in the Philippines, pollution is a constant

problem in most countries, and there is a very real threat of extinction of

many still undiscovered plants and animals. These are only some of the real

life experiences modern men have to contend with in the face of the

bourgeoning problem of climate change.

“A leaked Pentagon report, obtained by The Observer…

concluded that 'climate change should be elevated beyond a

scientific debate to a US National Security concern‘… [it] also

claimed that dwindling food and water supplies could lead to

global instability, with disruption and conflict becoming endemic.

“4

Furthermore, statistics will say that the trend of population growth will

put an increasingly damaging stress to the world’s ecology and will cause

major problems in the future.

“Over the next century, the population of the world, barring a major
catastrophe such as nuclear war or a global pandemic, will level off
some- where between 8 and 12 billion people, between 1.6 and 2.4
4
O’Riordan, “Environmental Science, Sustainability and Politics,” in Transactions of the
Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 29, 2, Geography: Making a Difference in a
Globalizing World (June 2004): 236.

8
 times the current estimated popula- tion. An increase of this order will
require a 3 to 4 times increase in agriculture to allow for meeting the
dietary improvements for ending hunger... In turn… energy production
will have to increase six- to eightfold to provide the inputs needed for
such agricultural growth, for industrialization and urbanization, even at
levels much below those of the industrialized nations today… We need
to understand the unprecedented burden placed upon the earth and
we need to make the necessary adjustments that will enable us to
sustain such a great level of human activity.”5

Since the 1990s, there has been an explosion of advocacies for

environmental sustainability. This is evident in the sprouting of numerous

NGOS and IGOs trying to address the issue, as well as treaties and

conferences like the 1992 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil World Conference on

Environment and Development and the Kyoto Protocol.

“Sustainability” has become the new rallying cry for civil society and

transnational advocacies. It has spurred numerous researches, petitions, and

even technological innovations that promise more environment friendly

products or packaging.

Among this is the PLA or what some people call “corn plastic”. One of

the producers of plant-based plastics is Oregon based company called

Natureworks, with their flagship developments “Ingeo”, a plastic made of

biopolumer “that offers more disposal options and is more environmentally

friendly to manufacture than traditional petroleum-based plastics.”6 The

plastic used is derived from 100% renewable resources such as plants and

5
Robert W. Kates, “The Human Environment: The Road Not Taken, The Road Still
Beckoning,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77, No. 4 (1987): 525-
534. http://www.jstor.com
6
Natureworks, “Ingenious Materials”. http://www.natureworksllc.com/

9
claims to be the “world’s first polymer showing a significant reduction in

greenhouse gas emissions.”7

However, environmental sustainability has been argued countless of

times to be intertwined with all human necessities, therefore “universal and

non-negotiable”8. In effect, from it grew a consolidated effort to strip the

problem of its political implications, possibly weakening discourse exchange

on how it is produced. Nevertheless, the cry has been heard and the debate

on environmental sustainability is increasingly gaining ground.

States seemed willing to cooperate and maintain global environmental

integrity. Most states have even developed their own institutions and

legislations for the protection of their natural resources. Among these are

United States’ Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) National

Environmental Policy Act, United Kingdom’s Department of Environment’s

Marine Policy, and European Union’s 20-20-20 Targets that demand:

reduction in EU greenhouse gas emissions of at least 20% below 1990 levels,

20% of EU energy consumption to come from renewable resources and 20%

reduction in primary energy use compared with projected levels, to be

achieved by improving energy efficiency.

But the issue of environmentalism is not so straightforward, as some

private interests are against the goals of environmentalists, and the

7
Ibid.
8
Robert Goodland and Herman Daly, “Environmental Sustainability: Universal Non-
Negotiable,” in Ecological Applications 6, 4 (Nov. 1996).

10
“increasing flows of trade, capital and investment”9 make the situation more

complex.

“The costs of environmental regulation can be quite large. By one

estimate, the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol limiting C02
emissions may reduce economic output by $100 billion (in 1990 U.S.
dollars) annually for Western Europe, and on the order of $50 billion for
Japan alone (Li 2000:164). Depending on the circumstances, Kyoto
may cost the typical nation between 0.5 percent and 1 percent of total
GDP”10

The heavy costs of environmental protection has caused many private

actors who have their interests in keeping the high consumption of resources

have not spared any cost into combating the efforts of environmentalists.

States, with their own interests, have been seen to be reluctant to

committing fully to the environmental efforts. United States’ competition

with China has led to both countries boycotting the Kyoto Protocol and the

Copenhagen Conference.

Cross-State, International, and Global Responses to the Issue of

Environmental Sustainability

Throughout the course of the Cold War, when the concern of all states

was to attain hegemony and power over the emergent global state system,

issues considered to be classical in the field of international relations such as

war and peace, cooperation and conflict, wealth and poverty dominated the

international scene. Dealing with these issues was usually characterized by

interstate competition for very rare resources, which Thomas L. Friedman

9
Evan Schofer and Francisco J. Granados, “Environmentalism, Globalization and
National Economies,” Social Forces 85, No. 2 (2006): 965-991. http://www.jstor.com.
10
Ibid., 966

11
called the olive trees competition.11 Olive trees, Friedman says, are

significant because they are the symbols of the locality of the nation-state.

Sometimes, however, because of the safety and security felt within the

bounds of the nation-state, people contend with each other for endurance.

Amidst the pursuit of a home to call one’s own in the representation of the

olive tree, people struggle for the greatest protection they can attain.

Friedman writes, “We fight so intensely at times over our olive trees

because, at their best, they provide the feelings of self-esteem and

belonging that are essential for human survival as food in the belly.”12 This,

of course, means that the nation-state is not in decline, as “it is the ultimate

olive tree—the ultimate expression of whom we belong to – linguistically,

geographically and historically.”13

After the Cold War, however, there has been a shift from this mode of

thinking. The Lexus emerged as the leading goal and driving force of nation-

states, displacing or better still challenging the olive tree.14 The Lexus, as

opposed to the olive tree, signifies “sustenance, improvement, prosperity

and modernization,” representing global institutions, financial markets, and

computer technologies that have surfaced over the last century.15 And with

the advent of industrialization, as mentioned above, together with

modernization, came the growing concern with new issues not only in

11
See Thomas L. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree, rev. ed. (New York: Farrar,
Straus, Giroux, 2000).
12
Ibid., 43.
13
Ibid.
14
Ibid., 44.
15
Ibid.

12
international relations but in global governance as well. One of which is the

environment.

The end of ideological and superpower conflicts in the world system in

the post-Cold War era inevitably brought about a new tendency for

consolidation and uniformity.16 While some scholars have found out that

environmental problems cause intrastate rather than interstate conflict, the

said natural crisis is also a way to “put pressures on states to engage in

greater international cooperation.”17 The logic is this: the “threat” posed by

environmental degradation to a particular state is also a threat to other

states; it now becomes a threat to all of mankind.18 In connection with this,

the argument can further be taken into the following manner: Northern

states which have the capacity for modern industrial technologies

undoubtedly cause dilapidation of the environment, and those who suffer the

most are the Southern states.19 The question of environmental sustainability

then comes into the picture.

The pressing concerns of the developing world have been catapulted

into the pedestal of an international/global issue in 1987 by the Brundtland

Commission’s document, “Our Common Future,” advocating for sustainable

16
Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri, Empire (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard
University Press, 2000), 10.
17
Robert Jackson and Georg Sørensen, “New Issues in IR,” in Introduction to
International Relations (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), 254. Jackson and
Sørensen mention the work of Thomas Homer-Dixon as an example to illustrate the
intrastate conflicts generated by environmental degradation, saying that “it
[environmental annihilation] can cause urban migration and unrest, decreased
economic productivity, and ethnic conflicts.”
18
Ibid.
19
Robert Goodland and Herman Daly, “Environmental Sustainability: Universal Non-
Negotiable,” in Ecological Applications 6, 4 (Nov. 1996): 1013.

13
development.20 Together with this, “Air 21” of the United Nations Rio Earth

Summit and the World Development Report 1992 of the World Bank clearly

pushed for the lessening of poverty by empowering the poor through

finances and human resources as indispensable requisites to sustainability.21

Additionally, in 1992, the Summit of the United Nations Conference on

Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro focused on the issue of

sustainability.22 Despite the view that globalization and sustainability are two

ends of the same line, efforts were still made in order to bridge the gap

between them.23 Some evidences include the formulation and ratification of

treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol, the Stockholm Convention on Persistent

Organic Pollutants, the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Basel

Convention on the Control of Transboundary Movements of Hazardous

Wastes and their Disposal, and the United Nations Convention on Law of the

Sea, in order to make countries commit to promoting environmental

preservation. A major concern, however, is in place regarding these

agreements.

The refusal of the US to sign any of the abovementioned treaties is the

most debilitating development to interstate movements. For instance,

George Bush withdrew his support from the Kyoto Protocol supposedly for

20
Ibid.
21
Ibid.
22
See Richard Le Heron and Michael Roche, “Globalization, Sustainability, and Apple
Orcharding, Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand,” in Economic Geography 72, 4 (Oct. 1996),
418.
23
Le Heron and Roche argue that globalization, just like the Lexus, is modernization,
and therefore is synonymous to environmental degradation, while sustainability is the
olive tree that is concerned with the wellbeing of an individual, which includes the
welfare of his surroundings. See Ibid.

14
the sake of the US economy, stating that the said treaty was too costly and

even commented that it was “an unrealistic and ever-tightening

straitjacket.”24 Later on, he even asserted that jobs numbering to the millions

will be lost if US follows the Kyoto Protocol, and even questioned the reality

of global warming as a threat to the environment.25 Similarly, CBD was

signed but not ratified by US because it was deemed and classified as

belonging to the criterion that “any regulation, legislation and treaties on

biodiversity that does not adequately consider regulatory takings, fails to

recognize socioeconomic needs and influences, or preempts sound

management authorities of the United States.”26 In other words, the US’s

main reason for not ratifying, not signing, or withdrawing support from each

of the abovementioned pacts is the constraint that they bring to US

sovereignty, especially control over its economy.

With the declaration and adoption of the Millennium Development

Goals (MDGS) in September 2000, however, it seemed to prove to be

another instance of de-emphasis on the question of the environment in

state-interstate policy. Because the concern of MDGS is to “free all men,

women and children from the abject and dehumanizing conditions of

extreme poverty” by 2015, it cannot be denied that the environment has

24
Deborah White, “US Refuses to Sign Pact to Stem Global Warming,” About.com: US
Liberal Politics,
http://usliberals.about.com/od/environmentalconcerns/p/KyotoProtocol.htm (accessed
October 8, 2010).
25
Ibid.
26
“How the Convention on Biodiversity was defeated,” Sovereignty International, Inc.,
1998, http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/biotreatystop.htm (accessed October 8, 2010).

15
once again been relegated to the margins within the global arena.27 Walden

Bello wittingly observes that “economic realpolitik” is to be blamed for such

inefficient and hesitant agreements regarding environmental policies.28

Thus the question that remains unanswered is this: how to effectively

attract states to collaborate for the purpose of sustainability. Tim O’Riordan

mentions Robin O’Malley and his colleagues’ remark, that “unless

environmental science carries with it policy relevance, technical credibility

and political legitimacy, it can still be ignored or sidestepped.”29

Post-Disillusion: The Efforts of Global Civil Society

In the face of the growing complexity of multilateral state negotiations

that are hampering interstate efforts, private actors have been seen as the

heart of the movement. In the aftermath of seeming breakdown in state-

interstate efforts, the only standing advocates of environmental

sustainability have been concentrated on private actors. These can be seen

in transnational networks, like Greenpeace and World Wildlife Fund (WWF),

leading the advocacy of environmental sustainability. Friedman says, “In a

world in which the private sector is now the overwhelming source of capital

and innovation for growth, there can be no sustained recovery without it.”30

27
“Millennium Development Goals – MDGS,” Choike.org,
http://www.choike.org/2009/eng/informes/302.html (accessed October 8, 2010).
28
Walden Bello, et al., The Anti-Development State: The Political Economy of Permanent
Crisis in the Philippines (Philippines: Focus on the Global South and the University of the
Philippines Sociology Department, 2004), 154.
29
Tim O’Riordan, “Environmental Science, Sustainability and Politics,” in Transactions of
the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 29, 2, Geography: Making a Difference
in a Globalizing World (June 2004): 237.
30
Friedman, Lexus and Olive Tree, 396.

16
Because the private sector represents finances, money, and capital, it would

therefore be suicidal to ignore and belittle their influence over public spaces.

As the environmental agenda continues to grow globally, it becomes

more noticeable that the public sector is becoming increasingly ineffective in

its efforts to promote environmental sustainability. Consequent to this

seeming weakening of the state is the emergence of a global civil society,

often a network of transnational and transborder activists who pursue a

certain cause for humanity and the world, but also, as mentioned, private

entities and NGOs that seek to transfer the concentration of power from the

state to the global scene. Seeing the lack of substantial results from

intergovernmental agencies (IGOs), environmental activist networks,

according to OneWorld.net, have taken the reins and led the movement

using a myriad of strategies. Some traditional strategies include traditional

strategies, which include petitions and letters to policy-makers or business

polluters; consumer boycotts of products associated with environmental

abuse; peaceful protests often involving visual stunts to capture media

attention, event coordination, professional media work; scientific research;

public education and legal advice. One example of this would be the case of

commercial whaling in Japan. While the International Whaling Commission

(IWC) has banned commercial whaling in Japan, the Japanese government

has been constantly pushing for the lifting of the prohibition, partly because

of the pressure from local fishing communities and the then-vibrant whale

17
industry in the country.31 This is due to the fact that, as per the Japanese

government, the whales that are hunted are used primarily for scientific

research, and that the number of whales used for such purposes is

sustainable—meaning that it would not in any way harm the population of

whales to the point of rendering them endangered, let alone extinct.32

Other strategies considered to be novel compared to the previous one

include cyberactivism, the use of new media technologies, such as sending

electronic communications to decision-makers, through which activists can

develop their own campaigning identities through the creation of blogs,

videos, and mapping data. The success of the campaign to save the Great

Bear Rainforest in Canada was attributed by Greenpeace to cyberactivism,

positing that “no campaign group can afford to be without a Facebook fan

page or Twitter account.”33 Similarly, Greenpeace Argentina says that a text

message campaign forced and convinced members of parliament to pass

legislation eradicating urban landfill waste.34

Still, some networks have resorted to radical activism. “Protests

described as non-violent ‘civil disobedience’ or ‘direct action’ lack

consensual definitions but they are likely to breach of the law and expose

the activist to risk of arrest. Civil disobedience is associated with passive

obstruction of lawful activity whilst direct action may involve proactive

31
Harris, “Environmental Politics,” 32.
32
“The Position of the Japanese Government on Research Whaling,” Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Japan, http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/q_a/faq6.html (accessed October 8,
2010).
33
“Environmental activism guide,” OneWorld.net,
http://uk.oneworld.net/guides/environmentalactivism (accessed October 8, 2010).
34
Ibid.

18
trespass or damage to property.”35 An example under this category would be

the Earth First! Movement in the US. This movement employs direct and

confrontational action, such as civil disobedience and “monkey wrenching”

or “ecotage” in order to advocate for environmental protection.36

It is largely due to the success of these movements that we are now

witnessing an environmental revolution that has made most people more

aware of their ecological footprints. Even multinational corporations are

starting to put up “sustainability programs.” Coca-Cola has partnered with

the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in its Life Plus Foundation that introduces a

program called “Live Positively” with the catchphrase “our platform for

sustainability.”37 It features efforts to reduce its water efficiency as well as

improve their packaging to make it more earth-friendly.38

WWF is a transational NGO that aims to conserve nature using “the

best available scientific knowledge and advancing that knowledge where we

can, we work to preserve the diversity and abundance of life on Earth and

the health of ecological systems.”39 It uses methods of traditional lobbying

and cyberspace promotion. This can be seen in its statement of their work:

The primary work of WWF’s government relations team is to

collaborate with the U.S. Congress and the administration in
achieving WWF's natural places conservation mission, and to

35
Ibid.
36
“Ecotage” is defined as “illegal actions such as tree-spiking and sabotaging
bulldozers.” See Neil Carter, “Environmental Groups,” in The Politics of Environment:
Ideas, Activism, Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 142.
37
Sustainable Product Packaging & Recycling: The Coca-Cola Company,
http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/packaging.html (accessed October 8,
2010).
38
Ibid.
39
“Who We Are – Environmental Conservation,” World Wildlife Fund,
http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html (accessed October 8, 2010).

19
 secure funding from U.S. government partners to support our
conservation programs and fieldwork around the world. Our
goal is to influence broader, long-term governmental policy -
domestically and internationally - that supports WWF's
mission to conserve 19 of the world's most important natural
places and significantly change global markets to protect the
future of nature by 2015.40

Another transnational advocacy network, Greenpeace, boasts of their

presence “in 40 countries across Europe, the Americas, Asia, Africa and the

Pacific.”41 The organization spearheads numerous international campaigns

against the proliferation of nuclear power plants, climate change, and the

use of toxic chemicals. Its methods range from petition signing to boycotting

of products. One of its campaigns is the petition to CEO Michael Dell to phase

out the use of materials with harmful chemicals. “Dell was penalized in the

latest Greenpeace Guide to Greener Electronics for backtracking on its

commitments to eliminate toxic PVC plastic and brominated flame retardants

(BFRs) from its products, despite the fact that many of its competitors have

already done so.”42 The efforts of transnational advocacy networks such as

Greenpeace have increased awareness in the struggle for environmental

sustainability.

However, there are no guarantees to the success of the movements.

One example is Greenpeace’s struggle against the Oil and Gas giant

ExxonMobil. It organized protests and information campaign against the

company, such as the ExxonSecrets, a research effort to expose Exxon

40
“How We Do It: Government Relations & Environmental Policy,” World Wildlife Fund,
http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/howwedoit/policy/ (accessed October 8, 2010).
41
“About Greenpeace,” Greenpeace International,
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/ (accessed October 8, 2010).
42
Ibid.

20
Mobil’s funding to anti-environmentalists trying to silence the climate change

issue. Greenpeace branded them “one of the world's worst corporate

polluters.”43

But after their protest in the company headquarters of Exxon Mobil in

2003, the U.S. courts made them sign an agreement that “prevents

Greenpeace from staging protests on Exxon’s property or filling stations, or

at any event sponsored by the company or involving company officers.”44

This shows a need to refine its methods of mobilization, as it failed to

mobilize boycotts for Exxon Mobil.

What we see here, with the emergence of global environmental activist

networks, is a new mode of politics. Neil Carter quotes Paul Wapner in

Environmental Activism and World Civic Politics, about the emergence of a

“global civic society,” saying that it is “that slice of associational life that

exists above the individual and below the state, but also across national

boundaries.”45 According to Carter, these groups claim that “instead of

identifying with the nation state, people are increasingly seeing themselves

as part of a broader global community where they can be represented by

43
“Greenpeace and the People vs. ExxonMobil,” Greenpeace USA,
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/greenpeace-and-the-people-vs/
(accessed October 8, 2010).
44
“Greenpeace agrees not to protest against ExxonMobil for seven years,” Ethical
Corporation, http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=3040 (accessed
October 8, 2010).
45
Quoted in Carter, “Environmental Groups,” 149. See also Margaret E. Keck and
Kathryn Sikkink, Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International Politics
(Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998); and Ronnie D. Lipschutz, “Global Civil Society
and Global Governmentality: Or, the Search for Politics and the State amidst the
Capillaries of Social Power,” in Michael Barnett and Raymond Duvall (eds.), Power in
Global Governance (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005).

21
environmental social movements: an international ‘new politics.’”46 With the

proliferation of environmental NGOs as advocates and leaders in the

safeguarding of the environment, this phenomenon is neither surprising nor

rare.

This new mode of politics, however, has a certain peculiar feature. It is

not necessarily democratic. For instance, Friends of the Earth (FoE), another

environmentally-concerned group from the UK, originally had strict

organizational structure. It was organized autonomously, with local groups

independent from the central structure and have complete control over their

funds and policies.47 With pressure from members, however, it was coerced

to open up and institute a more democratic structure, with members being

elected and with professionals occupying positions.48 Greenpeace, however,

was never democratic. Carter describes its configuration as

blueprint of an elitist, hierarchical structure where control

resided with full-time staff and professional activists. The
intention was to free those activists from inefficient, time-
consuming democratic controls to allow them to concentrate on
direct action. Most Greenpeace “members” are, in fact,
supporters whose subscription fee gives them no formal
organizational rights, and the involvement of local groups and
individual supporters is largely limited to fund-raising.49

This is not to tarnish the image of transnational environmental activist

networks, but simply to present what they are and how they operate within

the complex sphere of relations in a globalized world, where democracy in

governance is still what is needed.

46
Carter, “Environmental Groups,” 149.
47
Ibid., 137.
48
Ibid.
49
Ibid.

22
The emergence of corporate social responsibility: cooptation par

excellence.

The overwhelming acceptance of a majority of important actors in the

global socio-political sphere to the environmentalist discourse, while an

indication of the seeming success of global civil society in its advocacy and

campaign, has also stimulated a number of critical views towards it. As we

have highlighted in the beginning of this discussion, the importance

accorded a particular point of view in the current setup of Empire is always

suspect due to its capability of formulating another means by which subjects

and bodies could be created in order to serve the productivity and

maintenance of the neoliberal élan. In addition to this, a majority of

environmentalist advocacies have become seemingly persistent in their

desire to supplant state action in the issue that its very actions are

suspected to be driven by particular interest which may or may not be

actually upholding the very tenets of environmentalism.

Critiques of environmentalism range from blind fundamentalist denial

of the phenomenon, to a more systematic undermining of facts in the level of

research and discourse. Such findings have begun to cast doubts on the

rhetoric that fuel the tendencies of most environmental sustainability

advocates declaring doomsday predictions. Anti-environmentalism, a

recently-emerging argument that the world is far more resilient than claimed

23
by environmentalists, has begun growing and is being harped upon by

fundamentalist business enterprise. Statements it can take the current rising

carbon footprint of the world, as well as increasing degradation, has also

become commonplace in reactionary circles.

This claim, however, is not as substantiated as environmental

skepticism, largely attributed to the research conducted by Bjørn Lomborg,

Associate Professor of Statistics in the Department of Political Science in the

University of Aarhus in Denmark. In his controversial book The Skeptical

Environmentalist50, Lomborg argues that the claims of environmentalism are

increasingly becoming exaggerated. As he emphasized: “The fear created by

the Litany51 is effectively communicated by organizations and the media,

which again (and for a variety of reasons) selectively use some of science’s

many results to confirm our concerns. This fear is absolutely decisive

because it paralyzes our reasoned judgment. Thus, it is imperative that we

regain our ability to prioritize the many different worthy causes.”52 It is not

particularly saying that environmental concerns are ultimately irrelevant to

the current concerns of the world; in fact, they do remain vital and pressing,

but the seeming articulation of the environmentalist discourse as primal is

seemingly counter to the very liberal democratic concerns the world

presumably professes to. As Mouffe would reiterate:

50
Bjørn Lomborg, The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the
World. Cambridge University Press: New York, 2001.
51
That is to say, the emphasis on the ever-deteriorating state of the world. As Lomborg
would quote from Young Oxford Books: “The balance of nature is delicate but essential
for life. Humans have upset that balance, stripping the land of its green cover, choking
the air, and poisoning the seas.” Ibid., 1.
52
Ibid., 333.

24
 “Political modernity means the abandonment of the idea that there is
one single common good that can be imposed on everybody, whether
based on nature as in ancient societies, or on a religious vision, or on
more recent democratic or communist ideas. Pluralism means that
there are many different ways in which we can organize our lives, and
this what modern democracy must come to terms with. There is not a
single unified homogenous people.”53

It is not surprising, therefore, that in the advent of environmentalism’s

rise as the hegemonic discourse in global governance, a majority of the

groupings holding power in the neo-liberal economic setup would advance

their interests in the name of this very advocacy. Seeing that, as Hardt and

Negri outlined, “territory and population are first made accessible as an

outside for exchange and realization, and then subsequently brought into the

realm of capitalist production proper… [therefore] capital’s thirst must be

quenched with new blood, and it must continually seek new frontiers”54, it

would be to its interest to incorporate the discourse on environmentalism

and redirect the desires of the market to an upholding of such presumed

values. It is in this light that we can argue how the emergence of corporate

social responsibility (CSR) as a governing ethic in big business was able to

legitimize itself as a harbinger of the environmentalist cause while using it as

well to defer its real responsibilities to the public.

There are varying definitions of how corporate social responsibility is

presumed to work or what values it promotes, but for the purposes of

discussion we will use the one provided by Lord Holme and Richard Watts in
53
Chantal Mouffe, (interviewed by Mike Power). “A Radical Left Project?” in Wilks,
Stuart, ed. (1993). Talking About Tomorrow: A New Radical Politics (London: Pluto
Press), 111.
54
Hardt and Negri, Empire, 227.

25
Making Good Business Sense: "Corporate Social Responsibility is the

continuing commitment by business to behave ethically and contribute to

economic development while improving the quality of life of the workforce

and their families as well as of the local community and society at large."55

The assumption here is that private enterprise, for long having been

stereotyped by society (and primarily the Left) as gluttonous devourers of

resources for the purposes of accumulation, are now waking up to their

responsibilities and have acknowledged that “they need to give back to

society” the fruits of their labor and financing. The tagline caught up with

business enterprises worldwide (as it presented a very good means by which

they can justify their hegemony in the social strata). Environmentalism was

incorporated in the long run, and it is not surprising how CSR was able to

project big business as seemingly “activist and productive” compared to civil

society and the social movements that have long assaulted them.

One need not look far than the case of coffee juggernaut Starbucks to see

how this is done effectively and, as such, appealing to middle- and upper-

class guilty sensibilities. The concept of “Environmental Stewardship”, as

they have highlighted in their promotional materials, is that:

We share our customers' commitment to the environment – and

we believe in the importance of caring for our planet working with and
encouraging others to do the same. As a company that relies on an
agricultural product, it makes good business sense. And as people
living in the world, it is simply the right thing to do.56

55
Richard Holme and Phil Watts, Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Good Business
Sense (World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2000,
<www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/csr2000.pdf>), 9.

26
 Good press was enjoyed by those who advocated corporate social

responsibility, as well as efforts to responsible waste management. Another

Philippine corporate juggernaut, SM, would gain praise for its advising of

shoppers to “bring their own reusable bags for their purchases, for it will be

the start of ‘Reusable Bag Day’” every Wednesday. 57 While it is Rustan’s who

first introduced the concept to the Philippine market, many stores followed

suit after SM, namely Robinson's Supermart, Isetann Malls, Hi-Top

Supermarket, Ayala Malls, Ever Malls and Makro, culminating in a

memorandum of understanding signed last September 23, 2010 with the

Department of Environment and Natural Resources mandating shops to

charge fees for those who would have to use plastic bags. The logic behind

this is the fact that plastic, being a petroleum product and non-

biodegradable, poses hazards to environmental harmony and has already

figured in countless issues of pollution and fauna preservation.

While the efforts do seem commendable, we cannot deny the fact that

at the advent of corporate social responsibility, traditional issues related to

private enterprise, particularly labor, have been relegated to the backseat.

With organized labor having become a minimal concern and losing its

lobbying power in the advent of contractualization and globalization, it is not

quit surprising how unions’ efforts to assert their rights have been

marginalized once more. The effect is similar to any phenomenon of

56
Starbucks, “Environment | Starbucks Coffee Company”,
<http://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/environment>, accessed 8 October 2010.
57
Glassshards, “No Free Plastic Bags Every Wednesday Starting November”,
<http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6877305-no-free-plastic-bags-every-
wednesday-starting-november>, accessed 8 October 2010.

27
industrialization: “When agriculture came under the domination of industry,

even when agriculture was still predominant in quantitative terms, it became

subject to the social and financial pressures of industry, and moreover

agricultural production itself was industrialized.”58

The most disturbing trend of environmentalism being used for good

press could be seen with Nestle Philippines. While Nestle has long been part

of Filipino lifestyle due to its quality products, a majority of people are not

familiar with the fact that their factory in Cabuyao, Laguna commissioned

crackdowns of its labor unions, culminating in the death of one of its leaders,

Diosdado “Ka Fort” Fortuna in 2005. Ateneo de Manila’s student publication,

Matanglawin, relates the context of the situation:

(The protesters mentioned that they did not receive any assistance
from the government and media. According to [Noel Sanchez, a union
officer,] reporters form GMA-7 have already approached them and
learned of their plight. They waited for the story to come out on
television but they were frustrated. Supposedly, Nestlé barred the
publication of their case. Only stations like Network 25 were able to tell
the story of the suffering of Nestlé employees. The protesters suspect
that since most media outfits are also corporations, they would prefer
to follow Nestlé than risk losing a large amount of profit should Nestlé’s
advertisements be pulled out.59

As we can see, environmentalism is actually being used in some

sectors to support private enterprise and mask their unjust practices. While

driven by good intentions, the prevalence of private enterprise in the

discourse shows us a disturbing trend by which a majority of other sectors

would suffer. Nonetheless, it does not diminish the fact that it is still a vital

58
Hardt and Negri, Empire, 291.
59
Victoria Camille Tulad and Angela Casauay, "Ilang TAON Pa Ba? Ang anim na taong
pakikibaka ng mga manggagawa sa Nestlé", Matanglawin, Vol. 32, No. 5, 22.

28
issue, which highlights the need to reclaim the issue of environmental

sustainability for public interest.

Countermeasures and the Comeback of Public Actors

Because of the abovementioned seeming domination of private

corporations and the civil society in addressing issues on the environment,

and with the obstinate juxtaposition of the terms “governance” and

“sustainability,” governments, both local and national, have been relegated

to obscurity.60 O’Riordan, however, cites Michael Carley and Ian Christie’s

perspective on governance as critical in understanding the dynamics of

sustainability governance.61 For Carley and Christie, according to O’Riordan,

governance is “a steering or guiding process, that is constantly adapting and

learning, and which seeks to manage through cooperative patterns of central

strategic guidance and local self-organizing communities of action.”62 The

following are what Carley and Christie identify as five important issues of

governance and sustainability:

1. The management of an evolution for a more resilient

humanity on a robust planet and its peoples within ecological
limits that require losers to be aided by gainers.
2. The establishment of further reliable conditions of
ecological resilience and social well-being over many
generations to come, whose future choices should not be
avoidably limited by present decisions and actions.
3. A growing crisis of legitimacy and public trust in all
political institutions, an outcome that may ultimately mean that
all “formal” political structures fail to be believed and
supported.
4. A willingness to cooperate and mobilize at levels of local
livelihoods, and to seek forms of self-governance that are semi-
60
See O’Riordan, “Environmental Science,” 240.
61
Ibid.
62
Ibid.

29
 autonomous, if actually given the powers and resources for
collective self-determination.
5. Recognition of a deliberative, participatory and
precautionary democracy that is mobilized to shape its destiny,
acts with forethought and prudence, and is willing to engage
with others to learn how and why positions are adopted or can
be adjusted in the face of external change and internal
learning.63

Governance, then, means cooperation, participation, openness. A kind of

governance that might then be considered good in quality is one which

accommodates old and new practices, especially in the public sphere.64 As

O’Riordan paraphrases Carley and Christie, governance

is energized by the failure to overcome complex and policy-

linked problem arenas such as climate change, biodiversity
management, social justice and entitlement to all people to
steward essential planetary resources for permanent and
workable livelihoods.65

Such are the distinctive features of sustainability.

Policy analysis, therefore, will be vital in bridging the relationship

between sustainability and economic development.66 Specifically, foreign

policy analysis is designed to be a frame in examining responses to changes

in the environment because it takes into account the “continuing erosion of

the distinction between domestic and foreign issues, between the socio-

political and economic processes that unfold at home and those that

transpire abroad.”67 As Paul G. Harris writes:

63
Ibid.
64
Ibid.
65
Ibid.
66
For a comprehensive overview of the formulation and articulation of policy, see
Rebecca Sutton, “The Policy Process: An Overview,” Working Paper 118 (London:
Overseas Development Institute, 1999).
67
James N. Rosenau, “Introduction: New Directions and Recurrent Questions in the
Comparative Study of Foreign Policy,” in Charles F. Hermann, Charles W. Kegley, Jr., and
James N. Rosenau, eds., New Directions in the Study of Foreign Policy (Boston: Allen &
Unwin, 1987), 3. See also Paul G. Harris, “Environmental Politics and Foreign Policy in
East Asia: A Survey of China and Japan,” in Paul G. Harris, ed., Confronting

30
 Foreign policy is the interplay between domestic forces,
institutions, and actors (such as democratic principles – or lack
thereof – civil society, executive and legislative power
structures, government agencies and diplomatic personnel) and
international forces, institutions and actors (such as
globalization – economic, environmental, cultural – international
organizations and regimes, and powerful countries, corporations
and non-governmental organizations, or NGOs).68

Such was the strategy employed by Richard Le Heron and Michael Roche in

their study on the “contextual pressures forcing orchardists in the globally

oriented apple complex of Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand.”69 Because certain

restrictions have emerged in the governance, if one may call it, of apples

into the global industry of fruits, there have been changes in the policy of

Hawke’s Bay.70 It was largely characterized by an opening up,

accommodating and including hitherto been marginalized and excluded

apple sectors into the production network.71

Similarly, James Evans cites the case of Birmingham’s effort on

creating and mandating environmental policy as dependent on local

practices and particularities.72 For instance, the enactment of the

Birmingham and Black Country Biodiversity Action Plan was done in an

inclusive, responsive, and mutual partnership.73 It brought together people

from various fields in the local government, individuals and experts such as

ecologists, conservationists, and implementers into harmony in the sense

Environmental Change in East and Southeast Asia: Eco-politics, Foreign Policy and
Sustainable Development (Tokyo: United Nations University Press, 2005).
68
Harris, “Environmental Politics,” 18.
69
Le Heron and Roche, “Globalization,” 416.
70
See Le Heron and Roche, “Globalization.”
71
Ibid., 278.
72
James Evans, “What is Local about Local Environmental Governance? Observations
from the Local Biodiversity Action Planning Process,” in Area, 36, 3 (Sept. 2004).
73
Ibid.

31
that they worked together in order to make possible the production of a new

form of local knowledge.74 Evans writes: “The local character of the

Birmingham and Black Country Biodiversity Action Plan is thus a function of

certain people and natures, and the exclusion of others.”75 What this case

highlights is the importance of the local to be taken into account in terms of

governance, because it is also a site of power. Local practices often are

considered to be “path dependent” and therefore are unlikely to be changed

by any external force, all the more reinforcing established norms and

practices.76 Hence it is necessary to accommodate them into the larger

global sphere of governance and sustainability. Environmental development

is most effective when it is consultative and participative. In a word,

democratic.

On the other hand, it is also possible for another aspect of local

articulation, communal interest, to advance environmentalist concerns. In

the Philippines, for instance, peasant farmers have continually advocated for

agrarian reform not only to alleviate their impoverished state of life, but also

to better the worsening condition of the environment. For example, Celia M.

Reyes has found out that farmers whom agrarian reform has benefited

generally improved their lives financially, reducing the incidence of poverty,

and giving them better access to safe water and sanitation facilities

compared to the non-beneficiaries.77 The point is that communal interest is

74
Ibid.
75
Ibid.
76
Ibid.
77
Celia M. Reyes, “Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty,” Discussion Paper Series No.
2002-02 (Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies, January 2002).

32
able to put forward challenges that not only concern individual situations but

also localized and selective environmental articulations. Although more an

effect rather than a function of agrarian reform, the environment is part and

parcel of the said movement. A certain group thus defines agrarian reform in

the following manner:

Agrarian Reform is about sharing land with landless tillers. It is

equally about developing the capacity of the landless-turned-
landholders to become profitable, environmentally-sound
agricultural producers operating within a social, economic,
technological and political environment that works in their
favor.

It is all about economic viability and ecological integrity. It

protects the competitive advantage of the country in agriculture
while seeing to it that productive resources are protected from
abuse.78

Governance and sustainability, as we see, go hand in hand.

Sustainability today is often the goal of governance, as presented above.

Because of the continuing destruction of the environment, concern for nature

cannot be outrightly neglected and shunned to the periphery. It has to be

part of every center. In so doing, local practices have to be considered in

order to advance an equitable, grounded, and fair environmental policy.

Cooperation is key, for it is instrumental to the realization of proposed

policies not only in the local scene, but more importantly, in the global arena.

Accommodation, inclusivity, and democracy are the pillars of sound

sustainable governance which has tended to contradict itself because of

irreconcilable meanings attached to it. In the final analysis, environmental

78
KAISAHAN website, http://www.kaisahan.net/about.shtml (accessed October 8, 2010).

33
sustainability and global governance are not really hostile concepts; they are

instead compatible like bread and butter.

Conclusion: Environmentalism as “Shared Conflict of Shared

Humanity”

The struggle to creating a sustainable lifestyle for everyone is a global

debate, and the effect global governance has on the outcome is of prime

importance. States should become the prime protectors or environment as

private interest can only do so much.

The goal of improving environment and economy need not be

exclusive, as research has shown that the two may, in fact, work together to

improve the State. Schofer and Granados claim that:

“It is commonly assumed that environmentalism harms national

economies because environmental regulations constrain economic
activity and create incentives for firms to move production and
investment to other countries. We point out that global
environmentalism involves large-scale institutional changes that: (1)
encourage new kinds of economic activity and (2) reconstruct
economic value such that environmental protection is rewarded in the
market. We employ cross-national panel analyses to examine the
effects of national environmentalism on economic growth, trade,
industry and investment. We find that pro-environmental countries fare
better in terms of economic growth, investment and size of the
industrial and service sectors. We find no impact of environmentalism
on foreign investment and trade. Firms and investment do not appear
to be fleeing countries with strong environmental standards.”79

With the threat of economical destabilization minimized, the State

should resist the pull of private interests that try to dissuade environmental

policies. The refusal of powerful states to join in the aims of environmental

Evan Schofer and Francisco J. Granados, “Environmentalism, Globalization and
79

National Economies,” Social Forces 85, No. 2 (2006): 965-991. http://www.jstor.com.

34
sustainability has created weakened treaties and international institutions,

as far as their coercion capacities are concerned.

A coherent, decisive, and uniform policy should be realized for all

nations to be followed, most especially first world nations who contribute to

most of the greenhouse gases emitted. More and more people are starting to

wake up to the reality of how fragile our ecology is. Environmentalism should

become a “shared conflict of a shared humanity”, as we all pay the costs.

The world cannot be cut into halves, as the rivers flow into one sea, and the

mistakes of one nation can become the demise of the whole world.

35
Bibliography:

“About Greenpeace.” Greenpeace International.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/ (accessed October 8,
2010).

“Environmental activism guide.” OneWorld.net.

http://uk.oneworld.net/guides/environmentalactivism (accessed October 8,
2010).

“Greenpeace agrees not to protest against ExxonMobil for seven years.”

Ethical Corporation. http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?
ContentID=3040 (accessed October 8, 2010).

“Greenpeace and the People vs. ExxonMobil.” Greenpeace USA.

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/media-center/reports/greenpeace-and-
the-people-vs/ (accessed October 8, 2010).

“How the Convention on Biodiversity was defeated.” Sovereignty

International, Inc., 1998.
http://www.sovereignty.net/p/land/biotreatystop.htm (accessed October 8,
2010).

“How We Do It: Government Relations & Environmental Policy.” World

Wildlife Fund. http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/howwedoit/policy/ (accessed
October 8, 2010).

“Millennium Development Goals – MDGS.” Choike.org.

http://www.choike.org/2009/eng/informes/302.html (accessed October 8,
2010).

“The Position of the Japanese Government on Research Whaling.” Ministry of

Foreign Affairs of Japan. http://www.mofa.go.jp/POLICY/q_a/faq6.html
(accessed October 8, 2010).

“Who We Are – Environmental Conservation.” World Wildlife Fund.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html (accessed October 8, 2010).

36
Bello, Walden, Herbert Docena, Marissa de Guzman, and Mary Lou Malig.
2004. The Anti-Development State: The Political Economy of Permanent
Crisis in the Philippines. Philippines: Focus on the Global South and the
University of the Philippines Sociology Department, 2004.

Butlin, R. A. “Early Industrialization in Europe: Concepts and Problems.” The

Geographical Journal 152, no. 1 (March 1986): 1-8.

Carter, Neil. 2001. “Environmental Groups.” In The Politics of Environment:

Ideas, Activism, Policy, Neil Carter, 130-55. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Cola-Coca. Sustainability. http://www.thecoca-
colacompany.com/citizenship/packaging.html (accessed October 8, 2010).

Crafts, Nicholas. “Steam as a general purpose technology: A growth

accounting perspective.” The Economic Journal 144, no. 496 (2004): 338-
351.

EthicalCorp.Com. Greenpeace agrees not to protest against ExxonMobil for

seven years. 2009. http://www.ethicalcorp.com/content.asp?ContentID=3040
(accessed October 8, 2010).

Evans, James. Sept. 2004. What is Local about Local Environmental

Governance? Observations from the Local Biodiversity Action Planning
Process. Area, 36, 3: 270-79.

Friedman, Thomas L. 2000. The Lexus and the Olive Tree. Rev. ed. New York:
Farrar, Straus, Giroux.

Glassshards, “No Free Plastic Bags Every Wednesday Starting November”,

<http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/6877305-no-free-plastic-bags-
every-wednesday-starting-november>, accessed 8 October 2010.

Goodland, Robert, and Herman Daly. Nov. 1996. Environmental

Sustainability: Universal Non-Negotiable Ecological Applications 6, 4: 1002-
17.

Greenpeace. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/.
http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/about/ (accessed October 8,
2010).

Hardt, Michael, and Antonio Negri. 2000. Empire. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press.

37
Harris, Paul G. 2005. “Environmental Politics and Foreign Policy in East Asia:
A Survey of China and Japan.” In Confronting Environmental Change in East
and Southeast Asia: Eco-politics, Foreign Policy and Sustainable
Development, ed. Paul G. Harris Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Harris, Paul G. 2005. “Environmental Politics and Foreign Policy in East Asia:
A Survey of China and Japan.” In Confronting Environmental Change in East
and Southeast Asia: Eco-politics, Foreign Policy and Sustainable
Development, ed. Paul G. Harris Tokyo: United Nations University Press.

Holme, Richard and Phil Watts. Corporate Social Responsibility: Making Good
Business Sense. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, 2000,
<www.wbcsd.org/web/publications/csr2000.pdf>
Ingeo. http://www.natureworksllc.com/ (accessed October 8, 2010).

Jackson, Robert, and Georg Sørensen. 1999. “New Issues in IR.” In

Introduction to International Relations, Robert Jackson and Georg Sørensen.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

KAISAHAN. http://www.kaisahan.net/about.shtml (accessed October 8, 2010).

Kates, Robert W. “The Human Environment: The Road Not Taken, The Road
Still Beckoning.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77, no.
4 (December 1987): 525-534.

Keck, Margaret E., and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders:
Advocacy Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Le Heron, Richard, and Michael Roche. Oct. 1996. Globalization,

Sustainability, and Apple Orcharding, Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. Economic
Geography 72, 4: 416-32.

Lipschutz, Ronnie D. 2005. “Global Civil Society and Global Governmentality:

Or, the Search for Politics and the State amidst the Capillaries of Social
Power.” In Power in Global Governance, eds. Michael Barnett and Raymond
Duvall. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lomborg, Bjørn. The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of

the World. Cambridge University Press: New York, 2001.

Mouffe, Chantal. (interviewed by Mike Power). “A Radical Left Project?” in

Wilks, Stuart, ed. (1993). Talking About Tomorrow: A New Radical Politics
(London: Pluto Press), 109-116.

38
O’Riordan, Tim. June 2004. Environmental Science, Sustainability and
Politics. In Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series,
29, 2, Geography: Making a Difference in a Globalizing World: 234-247.

Reyes, Celia M. January 2002. Impact of Agrarian Reform on Poverty.

Discussion Paper Series No. 2002-02 Makati City: Philippine Institute for
Development Studies.

Rosenau, James N. 1987. “Introduction: New Directions and Recurrent

Questions in the Comparative Study of Foreign Policy.” In New Directions in
the Study of Foreign Policy, eds. Charles F. Hermann, Charles W. Kegley, Jr.,
and James N. Rosenau. Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987.

Schofer, Evan, and Francisco J. Granados. “Environmentalism, Globalization

and National Economies.” Social Forces 85, no. 2 (December 2006): 965-991.

Starbucks. “Environment | Starbucks Coffee Company”,

<http://www.starbucks.com/responsibility/environment>, accessed 8
October 2010.

Sustainable Product Packaging & Recycling: The Coca-Cola Company.

http://www.thecoca-colacompany.com/citizenship/packaging.html (accessed
October 8, 2010).

Sutton, Rebecca. 1999. The Policy Process: An Overview. Working Paper 118.
London: Overseas Development Institute.

Tulad, Victoria Camille and Angela Casauay, "Ilang TAON Pa Ba? Ang anim na
taong pakikibaka ng mga manggagawa sa Nestlé", Matanglawin, Vol. 32, No.
5, 22.

White, Deborah. “US Refuses to Sign Pact to Stem Global Warming.”

About.com: US Liberal Politics.
http://usliberals.about.com/od/environmentalconcerns/p/KyotoProtocol.htm
(accessed October 8, 2010).

WWF. What We Do. http://www.worldwildlife.org/who/index.html (accessed

October 8, 2010).

39