Political Ecology

I have personally taken several political science courses, and they all have defined politics in roughly the same way: who gets what, when and how. In our modern day world, it is almost impossible to do anything without politics playing a part; at the very least, one needs to make sure they aren't breaking a local law with their activities. Since governments are one of the most powerful and influential institutions in the world, and especially where they maintain their sovereignty, it would be almost unthinkable to not have them play some part in environmental protection, whether their presence is wanted or not.
As our models for the world, the environment, and nature all continue to develop, it becomes apparent that there is a need to no longer view such things as apolitical entities, but as related aspects of our culture. As I mentioned in a previous post, it is important to look at the environment as a part of our culture, affecting us just as we affect it. Using the new versions of social science I discussed, it is no small leap to add politics into mix, allowing a more holistic, if not eclectic, view of the world, especially in ecological studies. By using political ecology to "'denaturalize' certain social and environmental conditions, showing them to be contingent on outcomes of power, and not inevitable" (Robbins, pg 12), there is a greater allowance of understanding certain outcomes and how avoid or improve them. Political ecology also allows for an understanding of how collective action forms in different groups; a fundamentally imperative force for change in most societies. Within all of these aspects is a progressive ideology to adapt to the changes in the environment effectively. Looking at a couple development programs in Lesotho and Honduras should help highlight these aspects, and the need for political ecology.