Environmentalists Clash
In: California journal: the monthly analysis of State government and politics, Band 30, Heft 4, S. 10-13
ISSN: 0008-1205
In: California journal: the monthly analysis of State government and politics, Band 30, Heft 4, S. 10-13
ISSN: 0008-1205
In: Theoria: a journal of social and political theory, Heft 100, S. 116-118
ISSN: 0040-5817
In: Commentary, Band 105, Heft 4, S. 25-30
ISSN: 0010-2601
World Affairs Online
In: Political science quarterly: PSQ ; the journal public and international affairs, Band 111, Heft 1, S. 188
ISSN: 0032-3195
Intro -- Contents -- Foreword -- 1. The Environmentalists' Dilemma -- PART ONE: The First 100 Years -- 2. Moralists and Aggregators: The Case of Muir and Pinchot -- 3. Aldo Leopold and the Search for an Integrated Theory of Environmental Management -- 4. Conservationists and Preservationists Today -- 5. Worldviews: A Whirlwind Tour -- PART TWO: Environmental Policy Objectives -- 6. The Pressures of Growth -- 7. Pollution Control -- 8. Biological Diversity -- 9. Land Use Policy -- PART THREE: Environmental Philosophy -- 10. Diverging Worldviews, Converging Policies -- 11. Intertemporal Ethics -- 12. Interspecific Ethics -- Epilogue: Differing Senses of Place -- Notes -- Index -- A -- B -- C -- D -- E -- F -- G -- H -- I -- J -- K -- L -- M -- N -- O -- P -- Q -- R -- S -- T -- U -- V -- W -- Y -- Z.
In: The review of politics, Band 63, Heft 4, S. 663-692
ISSN: 0034-6705
In: The review of politics, Band 63, Heft 4, S. 663-692
ISSN: 1748-6858
Among environmentalists today, there is a widespread opposition to the "Enlightenment project." Deep ecologists, in particular, aspire to ground environmental ethics and politics in premodern modes of life and thought. This move fails to account for the myriad important connections between Enlightenment themes and those of contemporary ecophilosophy. Notions of a public sphere, cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism, and deep time, as well as new approaches to the self and doubts about the market, persist from the Enlightenment into current environmental theory and practice. The essay warns against severing environmentalism from its Enlightenment antecedents and urges instead an ethic drawn from the revered nature writer and ecologist Aldo Leopold, who was profoundly indebted to Enlightenment ideals.In recent years a rift has opened up between some currents of environmental philosophy and the legacy of the Enlightenment. Prominent eco-philosophers have blamed the latter for our contemporary environmental crisis. William Ophuls, for example, describes the Enlightenment as a desperate attempt to defy the ecological implications of the laws of thermodynamics by erecting a political order based on untrammeled growth rather than selflimiting virtue. One of the reviewers of Ophuls's book regards this indictment as "old news"; he criticizes Ophuls, in fact, for clinging to the Enlightenment paradigm in seeking to derive environmental ethics from natural laws. It would be fair to say that many, if not most, green intellectuals have come to define their enterprise as a counter-Enlightenment.
In: Nineteenth century prose, Band 31, Heft 2, S. 206-229
ISSN: 1052-0406
In: Political studies, Band 50, Heft 4, S. 703-724
ISSN: 0032-3217
In: Political studies: the journal of the Political Studies Association of the United Kingdom, Band 50, Heft 4, S. 703-724
ISSN: 1467-9248
It is often assumed that neutralist liberalism and environmentalism are incompatible because promoting environmentally friendly policies involves endorsing a particular conception of the good life. This paper questions that assumption by showing that one important version of neutralist liberalism, John Rawls's 'justice as fairness', can allow two kinds of justification for environmental policies. First, public reason arguments can be used to justify conceptions of sustainability and environmental justice. Second, comprehensive ideals (including non-anthropocentric ideals) can be used to justify more ambitious environmental policies when two conditions are met, namely, the issue under discussion does not concern constitutional essentials or matters of basic justice; and the policy is endorsed by a majority of citizens. Rawls's willingness to allow this second kind of justification for environmental (and other) policies is defended against two objections, which claim that Rawls's 'democratic liberalism' is incoherent. The first objection – the 'justice' objection – is that to spend public money promoting comprehensive (environmental) ideals is inconsistent with the 'difference principle'. The 'justice' objection depends on a common misunderstanding of the difference principle. The second objection – the 'neutrality' objection – claims that 'democratic liberalism' is inconsistent with Rawls's commitment to neutrality. The 'neutrality' objection is unconvincing because 'democratic liberalism' is 'fundamentally neutral' whereas the leading alternative is not.
In: Environmental science & policy, Band 6, Heft 4, S. 389-391
ISSN: 1462-9011
In: Environmental politics, Band 10, Heft 4, S. 115-120
ISSN: 0964-4016
While conservative environmentalists are in favor of field trial research for genetically modified (GM) crops, radical environmental groups oppose GM crop technology & have worked to delay the successful introduction of commercialized GM crops in GB. Further, public concern over the safety of GM food has caused the British government to freeze GM research. The research methodology of GM field trials has been both criticized & defended by environmental & other groups, while a division continues to exist between groups that propose reform & those that would like to depose conventional agriculture. Organic farmers in GB are likely to feel the effects of the debate. 1 Reference. K. A. Larsen
In: Dissent: a journal devoted to radical ideas and the values of socialism and democracy, Band 41, Heft 3, S. 401-402
ISSN: 0012-3846