The idea of ecological democracy is a promising one, a combination of two sets of appealing core normative values – environmental concern and engagement on the one hand, and democratic legitimacy and procedure on the other. Yet, these two sets of values are quite different, and not so easily reconciled. Theorists of ecological democracy have long struggled with this dual (and duelling) set of promises, and have always had to address the obvious potential for conflict between them. As Goodin (1992: 160) clearly laid out, long ago, ‘to advocate democracy is to advocate procedure, to advocate environmentalism is to advocate substantive outcomes: what guarantee can we have that the former procedures will yield the latter outcome?’ There is no guarantee that democracies will necessarily bring about ecological and sustainable ends, and more authoritative processes of attaining those ends could undermine democratic ideals and legitimacy. Ecological democratic thought in the past quarter-century since Goodin’s warning (including in the pages of this journal; see for example Bulkeley and Mol 2003) has been consistently mindful of this very real tension; most theorists have focused on finding, developing or promoting synergies between these two core and ideal sets of values. On the one hand, some theorists – more in line with what Eckersley (2017) defines as environmental democracy – have focused on reforming existing democratic institutions to better represent environmental values or attain environmental goals. On the other hand, advocates of a more thorough ecological democracy argue for a radical break with the neoliberal state and transformation toward decentralised, organic and grassroots democratic practices that embody ecological values and give greater weight to the interests of nonhumans and future generations. Even within the realm of those more radical forms of ecological democracy, dedicated to enriching and representing deep ecological values and deep democratic ones, approaches have always been broad and diverse, especially as theorists moved beyond responding to the early attraction of environmental authoritarian thinking in environmental political theory (Ophuls 1977). As environmental political theory developed as a field in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a number of different frameworks for ecological democracy were proposed, from Dryzek’s (1987) early work on ‘ecological rationality’

中文翻译：

---

调和生态与民主价值观：生态民主的近期观点

生态民主的理念很有前景，它结合了两组有吸引力的核心规范价值观——一方面是环境关注和参与，另一方面是民主的合法性和程序。然而，这两组价值观却大不相同，而且并不那么容易调和。生态民主的理论家长期以来一直在努力应对这种双重（和决斗）的承诺，并且总是不得不解决它们之间明显的潜在冲突。正如古丁（1992：160）很久以前明确指出的那样，“倡导民主就是倡导程序，倡导环保主义就是倡导实质性结果：我们能有什么保证前一种程序会产生后一种结果？” 不能保证民主一定会带来生态和可持续的目标，而实现这些目标的更权威的过程可能会破坏民主理想和合法性。自从古丁的警告（包括在本期刊的页面中；参见 Bulkeley 和 Mol 2003）以来的过去四分之一个世纪中，生态民主思想一直关注这种非常真实的紧张局势；大多数理论家都专注于寻找、发展或促进这两组核心和理想价值观之间的协同作用。一方面，一些理论家——更符合埃克斯利 (2017) 对环境民主的定义——专注于改革现有的民主制度，以更好地代表环境价值或实现环境目标。另一方面，更彻底的生态民主的倡导者主张与新自由主义国家彻底决裂，并向分散化的转变，体现生态价值并更加重视非人类和后代利益的有机和草根民主实践。即使在那些致力于丰富和代表深层生态价值和深层民主价值的更激进的生态民主形式的领域内，方法也一直是广泛而多样的，特别是当理论家超越了对环境专制思想的早期吸引力做出反应时政治理论（Ophuls 1977）。随着环境政治理论在 1980 年代末和 1990 年代初发展成为一个领域，提出了许多不同的生态民主框架，来自 Dryzek（1987）关于“生态理性”的早期工作 即使在那些致力于丰富和代表深层生态价值和深层民主价值的更激进的生态民主形式的领域内，方法也一直是广泛而多样的，特别是当理论家超越了对环境专制思想的早期吸引力做出反应时政治理论（Ophuls 1977）。随着环境政治理论在 1980 年代末和 1990 年代初发展成为一个领域，提出了许多不同的生态民主框架，来自 Dryzek（1987）关于“生态理性”的早期工作 即使在那些致力于丰富和代表深层生态价值和深层民主价值的更激进的生态民主形式的领域内，方法也一直是广泛而多样的，特别是当理论家超越了对环境专制思想的早期吸引力做出反应时政治理论（Ophuls 1977）。随着环境政治理论在 1980 年代末和 1990 年代初发展成为一个领域，提出了许多不同的生态民主框架，来自 Dryzek（1987）关于“生态理性”的早期工作 尤其是当理论家们不再回应环境政治理论中环境威权主义思想的早期吸引力时（Ophuls 1977）。随着环境政治理论在 1980 年代末和 1990 年代初发展成为一个领域，提出了许多不同的生态民主框架，来自 Dryzek（1987）关于“生态理性”的早期工作 尤其是当理论家们不再回应环境政治理论中环境威权主义思想的早期吸引力时（Ophuls 1977）。随着环境政治理论在 1980 年代末和 1990 年代初发展成为一个领域，提出了许多不同的生态民主框架，来自 Dryzek（1987）关于“生态理性”的早期工作