One of the central arguments in this book is that the spread of environmental values is founded on successful attempts to adopt and promote new concepts. I am using the term concept in both a general and a specific sense. In a general sense, it refers to an idea or theoretical construct (for instance, the notion of ‘the limits to economic growth’). In a specific sense, it refers to a procedure (for instance, the practice of ‘ecologically sustainable development’).

By focusing on conceptual innovations (and on changes in perceptions and behaviour that have followed from them), I intend to explore:

• how environmentalism has come to play a more prominent role on the political agenda;

• why the response by established elites has, for long periods of time, been slow, protracted and uncoordinated and, at others, rapid and on a large scale; and

• how established political organisations may, in future, be better able to deal with issues raised by social movements, pressure groups and other concerned citizens.

The previous chapters foreshadowed some of the obstacles and possibilities for political institutions and organisations in meeting new challenges. These obstacles and possibilities will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters. Before exploring these further, I will outline some of the speculations that will guide the empirical analysis of environmental politics and institutional change. The overall scheme is presented in Figure 3.1, which depicts a hypothesised sequence of how certain groups shape the policy agenda and public opinion.

The Responsiveness and Effectiveness of Institutions

After exploring further the implications of the investigation by Luhmann into social systems, this chapter discusses the central question of the obstacles to and possibilities for an effective response by political institutions and organisations to challenges like environmentalism. Although Luhmann, as indicated earlier, highlights some of the obstacles that prevent effective responses by government and politics, I will concentrate on the ways in which groups and organisations with divergent interests and driven by different logics (for instance, economic growth or environmentalism or political power) engage in some form of constructive dialogue or conversation or rational communication.

One could infer that the term ‘rational communication’ originated in the work of writers like Habermas because of the experience of Germany of the ‘irrationality’ of fascism. If that were the case, it could also be argued that the concept is of limited value, both as an ideal type and as a way of describing empirical instances outside particular social, historical and geographical settings. While these arguments appear plausible, the aim of this book is to demonstrate the usefulness of this concept, or at least of the concept of constructive dialogue (which represents an elaboration of the notion of rational communication), in a variety of social, historical and geographical settings. This is not to suggest that the process of constructive dialogue will be smooth or easy.

There are some striking continuities in organised campaigns for environmental protection both within and among nations. It is easy to find historical precedents and cross-cultural similarities in the ‘evolution’ of environmentalism. It is therefore tempting to dismiss claims about the innovative character of environmentalism in our own time.

In the following sketch, which draws attention to elements of logical sequence and connectedness in environmental campaigns, my aim is less to prove the validity of evolutionary logic than to demonstrate:

• the value of institutions in perpetuating and reinforcing certain patterns of behaviour;

• how difficult it is for new issues to become conspicuous on the political agenda (especially if they challenge some of our cherished ways of conceptualising economic growth and material prosperity); and

• the need for design and creativity in conceptualising an issue which can then be placed on the agenda by sufficiently powerful political forces.

The last point can be linked to the earlier discussions about innovation and to the proposition about how, if new concepts can be formulated and the opportunity arises, an issue that has lain dormant for a long time can suddenly assume political significance.

For instance, as I shall illustrate in this chapter, the concern about the destruction of forests can be traced back to the turn of century.

The tension between innovation and tradition, between new ideas and established institutional practices, pervades most areas of policy-making. The evolution of policies on the environment serves to demonstrate that, despite this tension, established organisations are capable of responding to discoveries about environmental problems and to new intellectual paradigms. The policies also demonstrate the capacity of political parties both to influence, and to be influenced by, public opinion (see chapters 9 to 16). The pace of responses by established political organisations has varied immensely. In some instances, there has been a huge effort by governments to shift public opinion in support of new, radical measures to tackle problems. In others, changes have been slow despite the obviousness of the problem.

For instance, as early as 1922 the International Council for Bird Preservation was worried about oil pollution of the oceans. On the face of it, the British government responded quickly by enacting legislation against oil pollution in the same year. In the early 1950s an important discovery was made that oil being poured out of oil tankers into the ocean was the main cause of pollution at sea. At a meeting organised by the British government in 1954, thirty-two countries tried to promote an International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution of the Sea by Oil. After four years, the agreement had been ratified by only some of these countries. Its application was limited, and it faced further resistance from shipping interests, particularly in the USA.

So far I have concentrated on the significance for environmental politics of institutional practices, social movements and organisations. We now turn to the role of the mass media. Over time the mass media have variously been regarded as a threat to democracy and as agenda-setters for public opinion and for policy-makers (Lippmann 1922; Bachrach and Baratz 1962; Iyengar 1991; Iyengar et al. 1982). Many studies have attempted to gauge the impact of the mass media on policy making and public opinion (Cook et al. 1983; Erbring et al. 1980; McCombs and Shaw 1972; Page et al. 1987). Much research has been undertaken on whether the media set the political agenda or reflect it (for an overview, see Rosengren 1981).

The media represent a powerful force and have been used to great effect by social movements in trying to reshape norms and social values, as in the campaign to prevent the construction of the Franklin Dam in Tasmania and in other campaigns (see Burgmann 1993; Papadakis 1993; Sylow 1994). However, more than any other organisations, the established political parties depend on the media for their survival and influence. In order to understand how the media may assist political organisations in changing institutional practices, the analysis of media coverage of environmental issues will be guided by the following specific objectives:

• to acquire an understanding of how scientific discoveries, conceptual advances and new intellectual frameworks are disseminated to the wider community;

• to identify the key sources of information used by the media in disseminating information and opinions about environmental issues;

• […]

So far I have examined hypotheses about media coverage of environmental issues with a statistical analysis of stories in The Bulletin. The following account explores the detailed content of news stories. It demonstrates how the media affirm old stereotypes, create new ones, and can take on board new concepts. The focus will be on conservationists as a ‘lunatic fringe’, the encouragement of expressive protest, free enterprise and money-making, growth versus environment, a paradigm shift and sustainable development.

In the early 1970s the environment was barely on the political agenda. Notwith-standing efforts to establish institutional procedures for addressing this issue, there was some scepticism as to whether anything would actually be done. In 1973 The Bulletin reported on the ineffectiveness of the NSW Department of the Environment. It quoted a young graduate who had recently resigned from the department:

The Liberal Party

The Liberal Party of Australia was founded by R. G. Menzies in 1944 and formally launched in August 1945. The party initially represented a coalition of anti-labour parliamentary groups, including former members of the United Australia Party, which had suffered a catastrophic defeat in the 1943 election. One of the issues that united the new group was the opposition to socialism and to the ALP (see Jaensch 1992). The other key factor in the new union was the leadership by Menzies, who dominated both the parliamentary party and the extra-parliamentary organisation until his retirement in 1966.

The structure of the party had three distinct features. The first was the emphasis on federalism, which allowed each state division to enjoy substantial autonomy (for instance, with their own branches, constitutions, platforms, electoral committees and conventions). The second feature was the creation of a mass base and a large membership. In 1950 there were about 100 000 members in Victoria and New South Wales; in 1975 total membership reached a peak of 130 000, and it thereafter declined to 69 000 in 1990 (see Ward 1991; Marsh 1995). (The ALP experienced a similar, though even more rapid, decline in membership over this period.) The third defining feature was the division between the mass organisation and the parliamentary wing. This feature of the party has remained almost unchanged since 1945.

The previous chapters bore out the growing interest by political parties in environmental issues. The aim of this chapter is to concentrate on three issues: when an issue first appeared on the agenda of a political party; which of the established parties was first to recognise its importance; and how patterns of continuity and change in party policies and platforms over a period of five decades lead one to be both pessimistic and optimistic about the likelihood of overcoming institutional inertia and introducing effective reforms.

In trying to explain the efforts by established political organisations to change institutional practices, an important consideration is the emergence of new ideas and of new political actors willing to place these issues on the political agenda. In the context of the analysis in this part of the book, the most significant new political actors have been the Australian Democrats. However, when considering the contribution by the Democrats, it is worth remembering that they were formed only in 1977 and that they represent only a portion of the contribution by new social and political movements to securing environmental issues on the political agenda.

The Democrats provided a significant impetus for change.

This book uses the challenges posed by environmental issues to explore and test speculations about institutional change, and about the character and effectiveness of the political system as a whole. In other words, it focuses on the particular issue of whether or not political institutions and organisations can contribute to addressing concerns about the deterioration of the environment, and on the broader issue of whether or not these institutions are capable of dealing with all manner of challenges. This is not to underestimate the complexity of matters: in some instances political institutions and organisations may play a constructive role and in others a less than helpful one in dealing with environmental and other concerns. Hence an important consideration in this book will be to identify some of the obstacles that prevent effective policy-making. These obstacles may include the varying levels of power (say, between government, industrial and business interests, labour organisations, the bureaucracy and the legislature), the different interests (for instance, of labour unions and environmental groups) and the distinct logics of action (for example, of the political system, the economy and the legal system).

Another consideration will be to explore the possibilities for overcoming these obstacles and for achieving political consensus. The notion of consensus is closely tied to the notion of dialogue or, in the words of writers like Habermas, to the notion of conversation or rational communication. Habermas (1981a) has focused on what promotes and hinders communication, and has drawn the distinction between instrumental and communicative rationality.

This book reflects a continuing interest in environmental politics that was stimulated some time ago when, as a student at the University of Hamburg, I was captivated by the rise of new social movements that challenged the development of nuclear power in Germany. As I argue in this book, there are strong parallels between the concerns of environmentalists in Europe, in North America and in Australia. There are also definite similarities in the responses emanating from established political institutions. Although much of the empirical detail in this work is derived from Australia, links are made with patterns of political change in other countries. Above all, the work is located in intellectual traditions and challenges to these traditions that have emanated from and apply to many different contexts. This will become obvious as the reader works through the text.

What does need to be made transparent in the preface is the contribution by certain friends, colleagues and acquaintances. Anya Moore, apart from being a true companion, made numerous constructive comments on the entire manuscript. John Braithwaite, Peter Corrigan and Ian Marsh provided encouragement and detailed commentary on many aspects of the work. Conversations with and work by Ian McAllister, Clive Bean, Jan Pakulski, John Warhurst, Eric Livingston, Graham Maddox, Uma Pandey, Leslie Sklair, Barry Hindess and Bob Jackson have all been most helpful.

The analysis in this chapter concentrates on issues like uranium mining and nuclear energy, forests, conservation and environment, mining, sustainable development, pollution, views on government taxes and spending to promote environmental protection, and views on the pricing of products to reflect the costs to the environment.

The data on public opinion about environmental issues have been arranged under the following headings:

• the relative importance of environmental issues

• the perceived seriousness of environmental problems

• nuclear energy as a threat

• government action

• trust in organisations

• environment, economy and the framing of public opinion

• individual behaviour and the willingness to pay for environmental protection.

The principal sources include surveys conducted since 1945 by Morgan Gallup and other survey research organisations like ANOP, the Australian Election Surveys (AES), the National Social Science Survey, and various studies commissioned by government departments and agencies like the Resource Assessment Commission.

The Relative Importance of Environmental Issues

Data on long-term trends in public opinion about the environment as a major policy issue have been gathered since the early 1970s. Although polling organisations have at times used different questions to measure public opinion, one can draw together these diverse sources in order to form a picture of the overall trends. Another consideration is to relate these trends to political processes. The basis for making this connection has been established in part III, which presented data on the articulation of concerns about the environment in the platforms and policy speeches of political parties.