The Car and 'traffic problems' in the focus of two contrasting discourses; Ecological Modernisation and Bioregionalism.

Introduction.
The environmental discourses of ecological modernisation and bioregionalism are quite different from each other in some important ways. An attempt will be made to cast more light onto some of the characteristics of each and therefore also the differences between them by looking at orientations from these discourses towards a particular problem , or more accurately a particular group of problems, that is; problems defined as surrounding and pertaining to motorised road traffic and especially the private car. The differing ways of talking and thinking about 'the environment' that occur within these discourses mean that car-related problems, which might look ostensibly the same from any particular standpoint, are defined quite differently by them. The two discourses effectively create two different worlds in which the environment, environmental problems (and perhaps everything else) are apprehended and interpreted quite differently.
However, one way of approaching environmental politics through discourse analysis is to consider ways in which discourses construct orientations which may (or may not) allow room for manoeuvre in terms of how environmental problems are spoken about, thought about and (thus) approached through discursive practise. In this case; while the two discourses in question come from different parts of what can be thought of as a kind of discursive spectrum ranging from reformist to radical critiques of contemporary western society, and while one has been (and continues to be) successfully (at least in its own terms) exercised in several countries and the other remains (so-far) largely unfulfilled in terms of influence on policy making, the potential for either (or both) discourse to radicalise its own terms of reference remains something worthy of consideration. 'Radicalise' in the latter case not being meant in terms of more radical environmental politics ('deeper green' and so on), but as in the potential for change within the discourse, for movement over time. In other words, in the exercise of talking (and thinking, and doing) green politics, there exists the possibility of discursive evolution within a discourse, rather than just the simple choice between either acceptance or rejection of its tenets.
So through the examination of these discourses and their orientations toward the specific subject (or set of subjects) in this case of private vehicular road traffic, we might begin to find any ground on which there may be scope for change in thinking about 'the environment' and environmental problems.


'The Car ' as a problem and the Wider Context of Travel and Transport.
Because a discourse creates its own world, 'the world' thus becomes the setting on which things are (and have been) happening. Thus specific problems identified in a world (within a discourse) are also encompassed in specific kinds of surroundings. So If cars are a subject of environmental concern through one discourse and interpreted and expressed in a particular way, then the wider context of transport and travel are also constructed, expressed and interpreted in ways that are likely to be particular to that discourse (occurring within the still wider context of 'the environment ').
Through the two discourses in question, it should perhaps come as no surprise then that cars and the wider contexts of traffic and travel as the locus of problems, are all constructed in different ways. Specifically, for example in the case of bioregionalism, it is more likely that travel itself is identified as a problem (in the sense that too much of it may be a bad thing), whereas for ecological modernisers travel may well be an unquestioned part of life, the source of problems for them are more likely to be identified as being in the way that traffic systems are set-up, rather than than travel itself being a problem. Similarly, both discourses have different orientations towards the car, so that for ecological modernisers the car is something to be tamed , redesigned and 'cleaned' while bioregionalists may see the car as something to be largely 'done away with', at least as a mode of mass transit. We shall now take a closer look at some of the features of the two discourses by examining them in more detail.


Ecological Modernisation.
Dryzek describes 'ecological modernisation' as referring to; '...a structuring of the capitalist political economy along more environmentally sound lines.' (Dryzek, 1997: 141). From this orientation, the existence or even omnipresence of the liberal capitalist state goes unquestioned and is taken as read. Ecological problems are seen as matters that are to be dealt with through adapting the industrial structure and the (re)organising and reform of technological systems in ways that favour a 'high-tech', efficient use of environmental resources and promotion of a 'cleaner, greener' economy using 'environmentally friendly' technology.
The discourse contains neither a total rejection nor a wholesale endorsement of enlightenment ways of thinking. Torgerson notes that ecological modernisation recognises that modernity has brought about ecological irrationalities that have failed to respect the inherent complexities of ecological systems (Torgerson, 1999: 143-4), but once this is recognised, the belief is that; '....a process emerging from modernisation itself could ensure ecological rationality.' (Ibid). This paradoxical position on modernity however, in practice tends to lean away from the critique, and towards the endorsement of modernity in an impulse to '...get progress back on track' (ibid). Thus capitalism, under this way of thinking, has then taken 'the wrong path' in not having taken account of ecological considerations, in not being as it were, as technologically sophisticated as it should be. Ecological modernisers want a super-efficient, super-clean form of liberal capitalism.
The discourse seems to have then, a selective orientation towards the enlightenment in the highlighting of 'the best bits' contained in the promise of 'high-tech' progress, the technological solutions to problems and a systematic approach through rational organisation , while refusing to lay any fundamental blame on the underlying processes of industrial capitalism itself, which many 'deep-greens' identify as the cause of the modern, wholesale destruction of the biosphere.
An important aspect of ecological modernisation is the potential for the development of a version of reflexive modernisation, in which continuously built-up knowledge and past experience are fed back into the descision-making process. This can occur through the at least partial engagement of the precautionary principle. John Barry describes this principle as holding that '....in the context of uncertainty it is rational to be prudent and not proceed with a particular action if there is a risk of it resulting in future significant danger or harm.' (Barry, 1999: 159). Thus in the case of transport, the possibility that a potential new road system for example, might increase traffic in the long run, and so risk increased congestion, pollution-induced illness and danger to pedestrians in an urban centre, as well as potentially adding to global problems through climate change, could result in its abandonment. A reflexive form of ecological modernisation may even have the potential to challenge the project of modernity itself, though the prospect of it going as far as undermining its capitalistic basis seems a long way off.Transport Systems defined as Problems and Solutions.
For ecological modernisers, there is unlikely to be anything thought of as inherently wrong with people owning cars, or even with there being road-transport networks on a grand scale. For them, modernisation must be confined within the ultimate overall aims in a capitalist state of continued economic growth. The private car is recognised as playing a central role in both the promotion and acceleration of capitalist expansion:
'The acceleration of the movement of goods, the transformation of production by car manufacturers in what became known as Fordism, and the direct stimulation of the economy by the car industry, all meant that the car has played a key role in promoting accumulation in the twentieth century, and thus in reproducing capitalist society on a global scale.' (Paterson, 2000: 269).
Capitalism though, is beyond reproach. For ecological modernisation's recognition (at least to some extent) of the complexity of natural systems and its leaning towards rational, organisational and systematic approach to problems, means that environmental degradation resulting from cars or traffic is likely to be viewed as an irrationality in the way the system is set up. For ecological modernisers then, the problem is likely to be seen as being that the transport system is not rational enough. Leaving transport largely to the free market, from this perspective, has failed to produce the most rational possible transport system; that is, one which maximises efficiency and cleanliness and minimises pollution, congestion and inefficiency.
In taking into account some of the complexity and inter-relatedness of environmental problems, an approach is made in tackling them that is much more holistic in attitude than in other reform discourses. In this case, an (ecologically) irrational transport system needs redesigning and re-organising in a way that is seen to be ecologically rational without threatening the 'health' of the economy. We can see how this relates to its implementation in practice because several western countries have re-ordered their economies in a way that is based on a perspective compatible with ecological modernisation.
Dryzek lists five countries that can lay claim to greatest success of the western democracies in actual environmental policy performance; namely Germany, Japan, the Netherlands and the Scandinavian countries of Norway and Sweden (Dryzek, 1997: 137).
'These five countries have been particularly successful in increasing the energy efficiency of national income, reducing emissions, and reducing garbage over the last twenty years or so. Moreover, they have committed themselves to support of global initiatives requiring reduction in carbon dioxide emissions for the sake of global climate stabilisation, and those requiring elimination of chlorofluorocarbon production for the sake of protection of the ozone layer. (Ibid, 137-138).
The attitude of these countries toward transport policy can be characterised as one of planning integrated transport systems. Integration is a recurring theme of ecological modernisation as epitomised by the Netherlands' National Environmental Policy Plan which was '....designed to integrate environmental criteria into the operations of all departments of government.' (Ibid).
When it comes to transport, concern for the adverse health effects of both pollution and the high levels of casualties and mortalities associated with car-dominated transport systems, along with the global implications of greenhouse gas emissions resulting from burning fossil fuels, has lead these countries to develop transport systems that reduce peoples reliance on the private car. This has primarily been done through investment in effective, large-scale, integrated public transport networks.

The Example of Munich.
In Germany, as in much of the rest of western Europe, the post-war era saw big developments of infrastructure based around the car. The example of Munich initially shows a promotion of private cars through advertising itself as a 'car-friendly city ' (Hajer and Kesselring: 1999). But the emphasis on mobility through car-use was set to change:
'During the 1980s the effort to maximise mobility slowly transformed into the issue of coping with 'congestion' and restoring urban amenity. In the course of the decade the debate became much more politicised.'(Ibid).
Two distinct discourses are identified by Hajer and Kesselring as representing issues surrounding transport in the 1980s; 'traffic calming' and 'the management of flows'(Ibid). 'Traffic calming', an idea aided by the strengthened Green Party, concentrated on reducing traffic speeds in the urban centre and provided alternatives to cars through the development of a network of cycle lanes and investment in public transport.
'The argument for traffic calming was combined with the call for a radical change in the 'modal split' i.e. a shift away from the car and towards the so called 'Green Alliance' (the 'Umweltverbund'). The introduction of the notion 'Green Alliance' was an act of active reframing of traffic discourse. 'Green Alliance' referred not to a coalition of actors but discursively related several modes of mobility and the respective infrastructures. It thus conceived of the combined existing infrastructure for cycles, walking and public transport in terms of a coherent alternative to the car.'(Ibid).
The 'management of flows' was a decidedly technological response to the problem defined primarily as one of traffic 'congestion', which was seen to be holding back economic efficiency,'.... it is a two-tier strategy: public transport should not replace car traffic but should be regarded as a part of a complementary strategy.' The idea became especially influential when the city joined the EU 'Prometheus' project:
'PROMETHEUS was a research initiative investigating the possible application of "telematic" technology (the combination of telecommunication and computer technology) to traffic management. Originally, an initiative of a coalition of the eight biggest European car producers, BMW played an active part. The idea was picked up by the European Commission and became an official EU initiative in 1986.'(Ibid).
So 'Prometheus' was very much a part of the ideology of economic growth as defined through 'clean' technological solutions. The participation by big car manufacturers as well as interest groups and political parties in defining policy is indicative of another aspect of ecological modernisation. The countries that have adopted the 'modernisation' approach are seen to be countries that tended to have, to a greater or lesser extent, developed corporatist democratic systems (Dryzek, 1997: 141).
Corporatist systems take a particularly consensual approach to political decision-making. Consensual, as opposed to adversarial (UK style) politics has been described, for example, as one of the main features of the Nordic model of government (Arter, 1999: 148). Moreover a culture of consensus is said to form a part of, and even be deeply rooted in Scandinavian life. This does not have to mean a perfect world in which political conflict does not exist but rather that the way in which decisions are reached, are achieved through through a system in which the overriding desire is that for collective deliberations and compromise (ibid), especially that between government, business and labour interests. Since the rise of ecological concerns, this collective bargaining has increasingly included environmental interests, while maintaining the primary goal of continued economic growth, through the discourse of ecological modernisation.
In terms of private car use, as has been said; the emphasis has been on attempts to reduce it by offering advanced public transport networks that compliment a lessened, and uncongested use of space by motorists. This has been combined with technological advances to 'green ' new cars, such as making cars that run on 'cleaner' fuels, have catalytic converters fitted and especially to increase fuel efficiency.

The Successes and Limitations of Ecological Modernisation in Traffic Issues.
The results of Munich experiments in traffic calming and flow management were '...a 30 per cent decrease in the accident rate and a reduction of congestion on the northern motor ways in the region' (Hajer and Kesselring, Op. Cit). Comparative examination of transport related data frequently show clear environmental gains in Dryzek's 'clean and green' five (Dryzek 1997: 137) compared with other Western democracies (also see Weale, 'The Politics of Ecological Modernisation', 1992 in Dryzek & Schlosberg (eds.), 1999: 303-4 for a comparison between the UK and Germany). Use of public transport, cycling and walking is far higher (especially in urban centres) in countries whose transport policies are approached from the discourse of ecological modernisation , and especially when compared with Britain and the United States (Whitelegg, 1997: 194). The approaches taken to traffic as seen in Munich can indeed lead to a less polluted, safer and more efficient society (the metaphor of a 'tidy household' in Dryzeks analysis (Op. Cit.: 146). Pollutants of global significance like carbon dioxide emissions are also likely to be curtailed by comparative reductions in car use.
Hajer and Kesselring describe the Munich experience as an example of the 'win -win format typical of ecological modernisation'(Op. Cit) in that it can claim, in its own terms, a double victory for the environment while safeguarding, indeed enhancing, economic growth. In other words, ecological modernisation serves the need for securing gains in both ecological and economic efficiency. The authors point out that the enthusiastic involvement of car companies like BMW in policy formation that reduces car traffic is less a sign of ecological altruism than economic expediency:
'Behind this is the conviction on the part of BMW that cities like Munich are close to their maximum capacity in terms of car traffic. In their thinking, trespassing beyond this limit might have at least three negative effects for them as car producers:
* if car traffic is primarily associated with congestion, car traffic might lose its attractiveness as the optimal means of mobility altogether;
* the attractiveness of European cities might diminish as locations for economic activity in the global market and
* the business costs of mobility might increase if congestion is not overcome.' (Hajer and Kesselring, 1999).
Joseph Coughlin has described transport policy in the United States as being a product of two competing cultural views; '...one pastoral or "green," and the other industrial, or growth-based '(Coughlin, 1994: 139). Ecological modernisation can be said to be a discourse through which attempts are made to do the utmost in delivering on both of these prerequisites. A more critical analysis might see this as a failure to grasp the importance of capitalism itself as an underlying cause of ecological destruction, and describe ecological modernisers desire to square this circle as attempting to both 'have your cake and eat it'.
Deep green critiques of ecological modernisation point to this failure to grasp or identify capitalism as a chief culprit in environmental atrophy; the incessant drive for maximising economic growth at the expense of the biosphere, the globalised nature of economic trade which exports the worst environmental and social effects of the West to 'developing' nations and distorts the view from our locally sanitised form of capitalism (especially where ecological modernisation has been a strong influence), dominated by the dubious pleasures of consumption.

Bioregionalism.
Bioregionalism as a Dimension of Radical Ecologism.
Bioregionalism goes much further than ecological modernisation in its critique of modernity. For radical greens, liberal capitalism is itself identified as an (if not the ) underlying cause and promoter of environmental degradation. From this perspective, any merely reformist environmental critique of capitalism is either missing the point entirely, or perhaps even deliberately trying to fudge the issue in order to help maintain the status quo in terms of power relations. Green radicals are therefore likely to be highly suspicious of the participation of powerful, polluting, multinational corporations in consensual politics such as that of BMW in the Munich's traffic modernisation program described earlier.
Bioregionalism has been identified as the (radical) green economy's ' geographical principle ' (Young, 1993: 99). The discourse has a strong romantic aspect in its cultivation of a 'sense of place', as described by Dryzek:
'People who live in a bioregion need to adopt it as their true home, to be respected and sustained so that the region in turn can sustain human life. Many bioregional writers and activists concern themselves almost exclusively with this dimension, ignoring more rationalistic concerns. People need to become aware of the kind of ecosystem they inhabit, and regard themselves as a part of it, rather than identify with ethnic groups or nations or other human groupings that transcend ecological boundaries.' (Dryzek, 1997: 160, emphasis added).
Here, an identification is made as one of being with nature; of ourselves as a part of it, rather than nature viewed as a resource, and ourselves as masters of this resource and resource-technologies to be ('rationally ' in the case of ecological modernisation) used ' for our own ends'. From this view, communities are decentralised (anarchist). People must evoke a form of ecological citizenship (ibid) from which 'our own ends ' are synonymous with those of nature and often in the context of (romantic) harmonious relationships rather than those of an exploitative kind, in which landscape is respected and worked with, rather than transformed (ibid).

Bioregions and Transport.
This appreciation of a landscape (or bioregion) as our natural home necessitates an awareness its natural features and their uses (in symbiotic relationships between humans and other species). Arguments about what may practically constitute a bioregion in terms of size, natural features or habitat-type cannot be permitted in any kind of depth here, save to say that it must in some tangible way constitute a natural habitat in the landscape, limited and expressed by its natural features. What is important to recognise in terms of thinking about transport, is the very fact of the idea of living within a bioregion (whatever it may be) as a community (gemeinschaft), equated with desires for local self-sufficiency and for less trade and less movement of goods and people (Young, Op. Cit.). In a community in which bioegionalism was a dominant discourse, people would simply travel less; there would probably be both less need for travel, and less fetishisation of travel that has arguably resulted in modernity.
The perspective offered by bioregionalism can be used in critiques of commonly used arguments for (individuals and /or society) the upholding of the present car-dominated culture. For example, John Adams (who writes from the perspective of a geographer who wants to change spacial priorities away from cars rather than from a bioregional standpoint) claims that people moving out of towns and cities to rural areas often remain 'functionally (sub)urban ' in commuting long distances back into urban centres every day, they then complain that they have no choice but to own a car, but have, in his words, '...chosen to have no choice ' (Adams, 1996 in Barnett and Scruton, 1998: 223).
Adams also pours some doubt on technological developments as an ecological saviour in suggesting that electronic mobility (working and communicating from home and so on), far from decreasing travel (physical mobility) as its enthusiasts often claim, is probably freeing people up from previous constraints and thus working as a stimulus to facilitate physical travel, given that we live in a culture obsessed by it (ibid: 220):
'...people aquire a larger number of friends, customers and business associates at ever greater distances from home or office. These relationships are supported and strengthened by the ability to keep in touch inexpensively by phone, fax and e-mail. But most of them, ultimately, will foster a desire to get in touch physically.' (Ibid).
Adams goes on to describe a conversation he had with someone he met in Canada after attending a conference on sustainable transport:
'...He was going to play bridge with someone from Toronto, someone from California and someone from Scotland. They had met, and played bridge, on the internet; and now they wanted a real game. An energy expert at the conference told me that my contribution to sustainable transport, involving a round trip from London, would consume a tonne of aviation fuel.'(Ibid: 221).
Bioregeionalism imagines a world in which, as with many other forms of radical ecologism, some degree or other of spirituality is important. From this perspective, it is not good enough to rationalise about how natural systems can be harnessed or to discover ways of maximising the efficiency of natural resource use. There must be a whole (spiritual) re-awakened awareness of our place in, and as a part of, nature that re-contextualises our relationship with nature such that its diminishment is a diminishment of our own psyche and identity:
'What I think most bioregionalists hold in spiritual common is a profound regard for life -all life, not just white Americans, or humankind entire, but frogs, roses, mayflies, coyotes, lichens: all of it: the gopher snake and the gopher. For instance, we don't want to save the whales for the sweetsie-poo, lily-romantic reasons attributed to us by those who profit from their slaughter; we don't want to them saved merely because they are magnificent creatures, so awesome that when you see one close from an open boat your heart roars; we want to save them for the most selfish of reasons; without them we are diminished '. ( Dodge, J. 1981. 'Living By Life: Some Bioregional Theory and Practise ' in Dryzek & Schlosberg, Op. Cit: 369 , emphasis added).
A culture in which 'all' life is considered on a profound level is not one that seems compatible with capitalism's desire for maximising growth in the economic sphere. A bioregionalst local economy would tread decidedly lightly on its patch of Earth, fostering a no-growth (in conventional terms) economy. 'The target is stability, not growth, a steady-state economy which is in equilibrium with ecological rhythms and capacities.' (Young, Op. Cit.).
The car is an unlikely candidate for sympathy in a culture that holds such values. The private automobile is for many greens, one of the ultimate symbols of life-destruction, even in terms of the monumental death and injury toll on humans alone; poet Heathcote Williams memorably described this carnage as 'a hum-drum holocaust, the third world war nobody bothered to declare ' (in 'Autogeddon', 1991). When the equivalent carnage to other species is added to this, along with deterioration in quality of life (both health-wise and aesthetically), then the car's massive contribution in greenhouse-gas emissions that threaten the stability of the global climate and hence eco-systems around the world, and on top of this is the car's place in the promotion of fossil-fuel based economics and capitalism itself (see Paterson Op. Cit. and Freund & Martin, 1993), a car-dominated culture can come to represent the opposite of the good life for boiregionalists and other green radicals.
Jim Dodge believes that people must realise that it is in their utmost interest to respect and maintain healthy biological systems (Dodge, Op. Cit: 372) and that '...the best way to meet this challenge is where you live - that is, personally and within the community.' (Ibid). The community in the bioregional sense, is both spiritually and practically living 'as one' with nature, thus what is healthy for nature is also 'healthy' for other natural systems.
For a transport system to be 'healthy', it must therefore be in-tune with nature, not making harsh demands on natural systems, and in-tune also with the needs of the community. Safety of people, and lack of demands on the atmosphere and other natural systems in terms of pollution would be a priority, as it is (though to a lesser degree) in the discourse of ecological modernisation. But in a community in which bioregionalism was a dominant discourse, the noise, bustle and general chaos of large scale 'traffic' systems are likely to be seen as grating against the need for empathy with nature. Most significantly of all, is that in a self-contained community; living from and within a bioregion, would be largely (or ideally wholly) self-sufficient, making the need to travel much less. Transport in this sense, is likely to be neither thought of or designed as a large-scale 'system', but more likely as few and individual short trips made when necessary to transport crops to market or take people to a (nearby) place of work, and probably often done in ways that 'tread lightly on the earth' such as on foot or bicycle.

Conclusions - Lessons from both discourses.
The two discourses in question occupy different positions on any 'reformist-radical' or 'shallow-deep' ideological scale in terms of environmentalism. By examining orientations to a particular set of issues; in this case cars/transport/travel, we have seen that a society or community strongly influenced by either one discourse or the other alone is likely to result in quite different kinds of outcomes in terms of what kinds of places they would be.
But both discourses have things in common as well. They both contain a critique of modernity.
Ecological modernisation's critique may be of the reformist variety, but the fact that it begins to engage with the idea of ecology at all is significant. If 'ecology' represents an understanding of the interconnectedness and holisticness of biological systems (which can and should include 'dead' things like rocks, human-made machines and wasp-made paper nests as inhabited parts of biological processes), then the discourse (and especially reflexive ecological modernisation) may conceal within it the possibility for a stronger critique that could (in the face of overwhelming supporting evidence), potentially lead to a more thorough criticism of capitalism itself.
Bioregionalism attracts criticism for 'small' not always being 'beautiful', in that small communities can be ecologically wasteful, can socially stagnate and harbour pockets of bigotry (see Lewis ,M. W. 'Introduction to Green Delusions' in Dryzek & Schlosberg, Op. Cit: 404 and Wall, D. 1990: 53), and the globalised nature of economics and political relations may make bioregionalism seem like a wild utopia. But the discourse reminds us of two important things:
Firstly; that there may after all be limits of some kind to what 'nature' (in as much as 'nature' exists, where nature is 'all life', not just non-human life) can cope with in terms of human action upon it , especially when it comes to the scale and intensity of unrestrained capitalist forces, and secondly; that we may not be able to move towards any kind of truly green society without a fundamental shift in values that reconsiders all of life as having some intrinsic worth. Any movement towards a widespread increase in eco-centric values is likely to increase the attractiveness of smaller-scale, more localised ways of life; including production, entertainment, consumption and therefore travel, along with increasing resistance to globalised trade.
Both discourses' critique of modernity (though differing in intensity and kind) and their engagement with nature as a holistic and/or complex entity, provide scope for an increasing critical awareness (within the public realm) of the project of modernity in general, though bioregionalism (as a dimension of radical ecologism), includes a more radical critique of capitalism in particular.
4893 Words.

Bibliography.

Adams, J. (1996). 'Carmageddon ' in Barnett, A and Scruton, R. (Eds.), (1998). Town and Country, London: Jonathan Cape.
Arter, D. (1999). Scandinavian Politics today, Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Barry, J. (1999). Environment and Social Theory, London: Routledge.
Coughlin, Joseph F. (1994),'The Tragedy of the Concrete Commons: Defining Traffic Congestion as a Public Problem ' in Rochefort, D.A. & Cobb, R.W. (Eds.), (1994).The Politics of Problem Definition, Shaping the Policy Agenda, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Dobson, A. (1995). Green Political Thought , 2nd ed', London: Routledge.
Dryzek, J.S. (1997). The Politics of the Earth, Environmental Discourses, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dryzek, J.S. & Schlosberg, D.(Eds.), (1999). Debating the Earth, The Environmental Politics Reader, 2nd ed', Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Freund, P. & Martin, P. (1993). The Ecology Of The Automobile, Quebec: Black Rose Books.
Paterson, M. (2000). 'Car Culture and Global Environmental Politics', Review of International Studies (2000), Vol. 26, pp.253-70.
Torgerson, D. (1999). The Promise of Green Politics, Environmentalism and the Public Sphere, London: Duke University press.
Whitelegg, j. (1997). Critical Mass, Transport, Environment and Society in the Twenty-first Century, London: Pluto Press.
Smith, M. , Whitelegg, J & Williams, N. (1998). Greening The Built Environment, London: Earthscan Publications.
Wall, D. (1990). Getting There, Steps to a Green Society, London: Green print.
Williams, H. (1991). Autogeddon , London: Cape.
Young, S.C. (1993). The Politics of the Environment , Manchester: Baseline Books.
Internet Sources.Democracy in the Risk Society?, Learning from the New Politics of Mobility in Munichin, Marten Hajer & Sven Kesselring; http://www.cddc.vt.edu/tps/eprint/envpol99.htm;19/11/00. 1999.(Also in Environmental Politics, no. 3, pp.1-23.)