Suchergebnisse

This article explores the implications of the shift of environmental education (EE) towards education for sustainable development (ESD) in the context of environmental ethics. While plural perspectives on ESD are encouraged both by practitioners and researchers of EE, there is also a danger that such pluralism may sustain dominant political ideologies and consolidated corporate power that obscure environmental concerns. Encouraging plural interpretations of ESD may in fact lead ecologically ill-informed teachers and students acculturated by the dominant neo-liberal ideology to underprivilege ecocentric perspective. It is argued that ESD, with its focus on human welfare, equality, rights and fair distribution of resources is a radical departure from the aim of EE set out by the Belgrade Charter as well as a distinct turn towards anthropocentrically biased education. This article has two aims: to demonstrate the importance of environmental ethics for EE in general and ESD in particular and to argue in favour of a return to instrumentalism, based on the twinned assumptions that the environmental problems are severe and that education of ecologically minded students could help their resolution.

While the original objective of environmental education (EE) and education for sustainable development (ESD) acquired an awareness of the natural world and its current plight, animal welfare (AW), animal rights (AR), and deep ecology (DE) have often been absent within EE and ESD. AW and AR focus their attention on individual animals, while the DE perspective recognizes the intrinsic value of the environment. In this article, we shall discuss how the integration of these three approaches within EE/ESD can and should be improved, with particular reference to the ethical underpinnings of educational scholarship and practice. This article will argue that these three positions are well placed to enhance the democratic practices of EE/ESD through the adoption of an inclusive pluralism that embraces representation of non-human species and recognizes their interests.

This article presents and discusses student assignments reflecting on the documentary film If a Tree Falls, written as part of the Business Ethics and Sustainability course at The Hague University of Applied Sciences. This article follows two lines of inquiry. First, it challenges mainstream environmental education, supporting critical pedagogy and ecopedagogy. These pedagogies, which advocate pedagogy for radical change, offer a distinct and valuable contribution to sustainability education, enabling students to critically examine normative assumptions, and learn about ethical relativity, and citizenship engagement from environmentalists. The discussion of &ldquo ; lessons of radical environmentalism&rdquo ; is pertinent to the question of what types of actions are likely to achieve the widely acceptable long-term societal change. While this article focuses on student reflection on a film about radical environmentalism, this article also discusses many forms of activism and raises the question of what can be considered effective activism and active citizenship in the context of the philosophy of (environmental or sustainability) education in connection didactics and curriculum studies. Second, this article argues for the need for reformed democracy and inclusive pluralism that recognizes the needs of nonhuman species, ecocentrism, and deep ecology. The connection between these two purposes is expressed in the design of the student assignment: It is described as a case study, which employs critical pedagogy and ecopedagogy.

Cover -- Half Title -- Series Title -- Title -- Copyright -- Contents -- List of Tables -- Acknowledgments -- Preface -- Dedication -- Introduction -- Theoretical Objectives -- Note on Comparisons -- Methodology -- Ethical Considerations and Practical Difficulties -- Organization -- 1 Migration -- 1.1 Contextualizing Migration -- 1.1.1 Contemporary and Classical Theories of Migration -- 1.1.2 Motivation -- 1.1.3 Why do Some People Stay? -- 1.2 Historical Note -- 1.2.1 Movement in Russian Cultural Imagination -- 1.2.2 'Waves' of the Twentieth Century -- 1.3 'New' Russian Migration -- 1.3.1 Internal Migration -- 1.3.2 New Migration to 'Far Abroad' -- 1.3.3 Russians in Britain and The Netherlands -- 1.3.4 Different Groups of 'New' Migrants -- 2 London and Amsterdam: The Tale of Two Cities -- 2.1 The Setting -- 2.2 Reflections -- 2.3 The Tale of Two Cities -- 3 Community -- 3.1 What is 'Community'? -- 3.2 Establishing Invisibility -- 3.3 Reasons for Invisibility -- 3.3.1 The Outsiders' Perspective -- 3.3.2 Lack of 'Established' Community -- 3.3.3 Insiders' Perspective -- 3.3.4 Antagonism -- 3.4 Paradoxes of Absence -- 4 Subcommunities and Subcultures -- 4.1 Diversity of Russian Migrants -- 4.1.1 Class -- 4.2 Subcultures -- 4.3 Types of Subcommunities -- 4.3.1 Inclusive Subcommunities -- 4.3.2 Exclusive Subcommunities -- 4.3.3 How are Subcommunal Boundaries Drawn and Maintained? -- 4.3.4 Note on Comparison between London and Amsterdam Subcommunities -- 5 Social Networks and Informal Economic Activity -- 5.1 Informal Economic Activity -- 5.1.1 Business, Bribes and Barter -- 5.1.2 Reciprocity and Gift Exchange -- 5.2 Social Networks -- 5.2.1 Svyazi and Kontakty -- 5.2.2 Friendship -- 5.3 Typifying the Migrants: Who Interacts with Whom? -- 5.3.1 Doomernik's Classification -- 5.3.2 Capital and Networks -- 5.3.3 Brief Note on Employment.

One of the essential drivers of sustainable change for the circular economy is natural resource scarcity. The key development in the area of sustainable production and consumption that seeks to limit or even, ideally, stop continuous extraction of natural resources, is the cradle-to-cradle (C2C) framework. The C2C framework is based on the book Cradle to Cradle by Michael Braungart and William McDonough first published in 2002. The circular economy also poses threats to conventional business and production as in its ideal form, circular production should not mean churning out even more supposedly 'circular', 'sustainable', or 'green' products but fully re-using materials. The products need to be made not only to last but to have, at least ideally, all reusable parts. This is no easy task. Overt optimism of some of the circular economy promoters, such as The Ellen MacArthur Foundation, needs to be tempered with realism and realization for the potential for greenwashing. Even more problematically, the concept of the circular economy is intended to align sustainability with economic growth – just as an equally problematic concept of sustainable development (and the associated education for sustainable development or ESD) does. While the European Union states that the circular economy will "foster sustainable economic growth", critical scholars have noted that without radical degrowth in the economy (and population) circular economy is nothing but a new word for greenwashing. This paper will discuss how to teach students to think critically and pragmatically about the challenges and opportunities of the circular economy.

This article will discuss social, environmental, and ecological justice in education for sustainable development (ESD) and Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDG). The concept of sustainable development and, by extension, the ESD, places heavy emphasis on the economic and social aspects of sustainability. However, the ESD falls short of recognizing ecological justice, or recognition that nonhumans also have a right to exist and flourish. An intervention in the form of an undergraduate course titled Politics, Business, and Environment (PBE) will be discussed. As part of this course, students were asked to reflect on the three pillars of sustainable development: society, economy, and environment, linking these to the fourth concept, ecological justice or biospheric egalitarianism. Biospheric egalitarianism is characterized by the recognition of intrinsic value in the environment and is defined as concern about justice for the environment. Some of the resulting exam answers are analyzed, demonstrating students' ability to recognize the moral and pragmatic limitations of the anthropocentric approach to justice. This analysis presents ways forward in thinking about the role of "ecological justice" as the ultimate bottom line upon which both society and economy are based.

With the effects of climate change linked to the use of fossil fuels becoming more noticeable, political establishment and society appear ready for renewable energy. Yet, despite these expectations, fossil fuels still comprise nine-tenths of the global commercial energy supply. In this article, the history, technology, and barriers to acceptance of wind energy will be explored. The central question is why, despite the problems associated with the fossil fuels, more ecologically benign energy is still scarcely used. Having briefly surveyed some literature on the role of political and corporate stakeholders, as well as theories relating to factors responsible for the grassroots' resistance ("not in my backyard" or NIMBYs) to renewable energy, the findings indicate that motivation for opposition to wind power varies. While the grassroots resistance is often fueled by the mistrust of the government, the governments' reason for resisting renewable energy can be explained by their history of a close relationship with the industrial partners. This article develops an argument that understanding of various motivations for resistance at different stakeholder levels and understanding the role of democracy in decision-making opens up space for better strategies for a successful energy transition.

Baker & Winkler's target article is well-researched and thought-provoking, but I do have four points of contention: (1) The proposal to entrust elephants to traditional mahout culture has restricted elephants' freedom of movement and reproduction and (ab)used them. (2) The concept of "indigenous" simultaneously reifies and denigrates the "noble savages", privileging only human indigenous groups, ignoring nonhuman indigenes. (3) Most lifestyles have been globalized under consumer-economic and anthropocentric worldviews. (4) The fact that people (including mahouts) are part of nature does not mean they are benevolent, any more than cities, monocultures, or roads are.

It is true that one of the harmful consequences of creating categories where one group is unique and superior to others is that it justifies discriminating against the inferior groups. And outright abuse of nonhuman animals is indeed morally unjustifiable. But what is to be done about it?

This article explores how concern about animal welfare and animal rights relates to ecological citizenship by discussing student assignments written about the Dutch Party for Animals or PvdD. 'Animal welfare', 'animal rights', and 'ecological citizenship' perspectives offer insights into strategic choices of eco-representatives and animal rights/welfare advocates as well as educators. The assignments balance animal issues with socio-economic ones, explore the relationship between sustainability and ethics, and attribute responsibility for unsustainable or unethical practices. Analysis of student assignments reveals nuanced positions on the anthropocentrism-ecocentrism continuum, showing students' ability to critically rethink their place within larger environmental systems. Some students demonstrated compassion for nonhumans, indicating that biophilia is evenly distributed among different groups of students. This article finds that fostering pro-environmentalism and animal welfare or rights requires the deepening of the debate contesting but also connecting key issues in sustainability and ethics. This analysis can be valuable for political parties representing nonhumans, or for education practitioners in getting students to think about the challenges in human-environment relationships and for advancing support for ecodemocracy.

For interspecies justice, animal welfare, and animal rights, the planet needs to be divided on the basis of species' natural resource requirements. The Half-Earth View is that to maintain viable populations of the Earth's remaining species, half of landscapes and seascapes need protection from intensive economic activity. This protection is needed outside the nature preserve system, such as in agricultural areas or cities, so nature can co-exist with local communities.

With the effects of climate change linked to the use of fossil fuels, as well as the prospect of their eventual depletion, becoming more noticeable, political establishment and society appear ready to switch towards using renewable energy. Solar power and wind power are considered to be the most significant source of global low-carbon energy supply. Wind energy continues to expand as it becomes cheaper and more technologically advanced. Yet, despite these expectations and developments, fossil fuels still comprise nine-tenths of the global commercial energy supply. In this article, the history, technology, and politics involved in the production and barriers to acceptance of wind energy will be explored. The central question is why, despite the problems associated with the use of fossil fuels, carbon dependency has not yet given way to the more ecologically benign forms of energy. Having briefly surveyed some literature on the role of political and corporate stakeholders, as well as theories relating to sociological and psychological factors responsible for the grassroots' resistance ("not in my backyard" or NIMBYs) to renewable energy, the findings indicate that motivation for opposition to wind power varies. While the grassroots resistance is often fueled by the mistrust of the government, the governments' reason for resisting renewable energy can be explained by their history of a close relationship with the industrial partners. This article develops an argument that understanding of various motivations for resistance at different stakeholder levels opens up space for better strategies for a successful energy transition.