Wednesday, 2 July 2014

Environmentalism: A theoretical perspective meaning of environmentalism

Amrita Jaiswal

            The concern for the environment started gaining momentum in 1950s but it lacked the problem solving and interdisciplinary approaches. To address the environmental problem confronting society an integral relation between man and nature has been advocated by the branch of philosophy called Environment Ethics. Environmentalism is a political concern with moral overtone for the restoration, preservation and betterment of the environment, environmentalism is about conviction- conviction that better mode of existence is possible (O’ Riordan, 1981).

Environmentalism is a social movement which deals with the conservation, protection of the environment while putting the nature at the centre. This concern for the environment has been defined by different scholars differently. In the word of Michael S. Rozeff Environmentalism is an activist political movement with moral and religious overtones, aimed at alleviating perceived and fancied human woes falsely attributed to misuse of the natural environment; a movement which uses power of the state laws to regulate individual economic choice to the diminishment of human values and life. Ramchandra Guha (2000) argued that environmentalism must be viewed as a social program, a charter of action which seeks to protect cherished habitats, protest against their degradation, and prescribe less destructive technologies and lifestyles. This concern for the environment, since the last twentieth century has been provoked further and become more intense due to the advancement of industrialization and urbanization, linked to the emergence of post-material sensibilities among young people in particular. The environmental concern has become more acute because of the fear that economic growth is endangering both the survival of the human race and the vary planet it lives on.  The term environmentalism encompasses personal values, behaviors, and social movement with broader goals of environmental protection and entailing a more exacting critique of the status quo (Dalton, Crontmacher, Lourich & Pierce, 1999; Stern, 1985). Environmentalism comes down of right and wrong inputting of stuffs, conservation (preservation), included being right out taking and pollution (overpopulation included) being wrong inputting. Environmentalism as a subject study concerned with human beings ethical and moral relationship with the natural environment. Henceforth one of the important task of academic environmentalism is to define humanity’s environmental needs and thus to define what is environmentally ‘good’ (Slocombe, 1984).
The 1960’s marked the beginning of widespread public concern over the environmental degradation in the developed countries of the west (Eckersley, 1992). Increasing awareness of this global problem has given rise to variety of popularly based responses that are collectively referred as the environmental movement. Environmentalism or environmental ethics took the concrete shape and developed into specific philosophical discipline in the 1970’s. And ultimately with the coming of modern environmentalism which was associated with political and activist mass movement, it was demanded that a radical transformation in the values and structures of the society is needed (Carter, 2001). Increasing obvious effects of accelerating industrialization and exploitation of the natural resources, technology use, industry, economic expansion and population growth on the environment leads to the growing environmental concern by the end of the 20th century. However it was 1972 UN Stockholm Conference, which significantly marked the entry of environment onto the international agenda. This conference marked a turning point in the development of international environmental politics. Thus by early 1970’s the issues of environmental politics started gaining momentum accompanied with new political ideas and ways of thinking about the environment; accompanied with the rise of a mass environmental movement and the creation of a new policy agenda. But even before this, there was a growing awareness in this field, aided by the publication of two books in sixties. Rachel Carson’s book named ‘Silent Spring’ published in 1962, diverted the concern of the readers towards how the widespread use of chemical pesticides are creating  havoc to the life of people, threatening public health and leading to the destruction of wildlife. And second book was of Paul Ehrlich’s named The Population Bomb (1968), was of equal significance, proclaiming the devastating effect on the planet’s resources of a spiraling human population. But the major issue which needs to be realized is that the cause for this acute environmental problem and ecological crises is humanity’s separation from nature (Martin W. Lewis, 1993); and year after year human separation from nature is growing more pronounced, leading inexorably to intensified ecological trauma for the planet and psychological degradation for humanity. In this context civic environmentalism is of sole importance, which is based on broad consensus that the environment is us, so it is our (human) responsibility to protect and preserve the environment. By thinking globally, acting locally we can protect the environment (Lipietz, 1995) because the thought of the global bring us to this local responsibility. It means that “environment” is not a special realm and concern only reserved for experts and professional activitists, but an essential aspect of public life- a place for citizens. The work of community and community based thinking can bring change and would prove fruitful and effective solution to the environmental problem confronting international society in present era.
Environmental ethics concern with the human beings’ ethical relationship with the natural environment; and the main aim of environmentalism or environmental ethic is to outline the moral obligation of the individual human being in the face of the environmental concern. It shows that there is a robust connection between environmentalism and underlying beliefs, values and worldview (Stern 2000, Stern and Dietz, 1994). Values are of utmost importance and have an important place in the preservation of the deteriorating environment. It influences our worldview about the environment, and furthermore shapes our beliefs about the consequences of the environmental change. This value then affect the way and manner we attribute our ability to lessen threats to things we value, which ultimately influences our norms about taking action (Dietz, Fitzzerald, and Shwom, 2005). Nevertheless, the way in which the term environmentalism and environmental concern are conceptualized and operationalized as well as its determinants, is still subject to lively debate. (Goksen, Faos, Adaman, Fikret and Zenginobuz, Unal, 2001). Indeed the environmental crisis could arguably be regarded as the global political issue both because of the far reaching nature of its implications and because of its intrinsically transnational character. Environmental problem is the global phenomenon as it does not respect the nations boundaries and current environmental problems like climate change, environmental degradation, ozone depletion, global warming, resource depletion, desertification ultimately have its ramification on the whole world.
It is important to emphasize on the theoretical ground concerning environmentalism. But before dealing with this there are some questions that may be raised. Is it only human temptation which is responsible for the ruthless exploitation of nature? What strategies we should contemplate in order to posit our attention towards environmental ethics? What strategies should be adopted for reintegration of man and nature? Environmental ethics is accepted as the moral thought for the better understanding in search of harmonic relationship between the earth/nature and man/humankind. In order to understand environmentalism in holistic sense it’s crucial to go through its three broadly classified strands.
(a)Anthropocentrism- Anthropocentrism in real parlance means human-centeredness. Anthropocentric view of nature is primarily viewed as something which has value to people and it envisaged that proper respect for humanity may in fact itself lead to respect for other species as well (Hayward). Anthropocentrism regards only human as having intrinsic value (end in itself), a claim usually based on their capacity either to experience pleasure and pain or to reason. This approach to nature regards that only natures have an interest. The rest of nature is of instrumental value; it has value and deserves moral consideration only in so far as it enhances human well-being; and only those actions should be taken which would not threaten human well-being (John Passmore & Frechette, 1974). Human needs and interests are of highest, perhaps exclusive significance. Anthropocentric ethic claims that we possess obligations to respect the environment for the sake of human well-being and prosperity (Maudgil 2010, p.121). But within anthropocentric concern of environment there are different perceptions. Light Green Ethic or Shallow anthropocentric ethic which proclaimed that non-human beings of any kind have no independent moral status or considerability, and they have merit consideration insofar as they matters to humans; consequently any parts of non-human nature that have no use- value for humans are fair game, so to speak and any parts which apparently have no value can be disposed of (Curry, 2006). As against this view mid-green or intermediate ethics, denies the sole value assumption- that human alone have any significant intrinsic value- but it subscribes to a modified version, the Greater Value Assumption according to which natural items have some intrinsic value, but wherever they conflict with human interests the latter must take precedence (Sylvan & Bennett, 1994).
History of western philosophy is mostly dominated by this kind of anthropocentrism and henceforth it has come under considerable criticism by many of environmental ethicists. Some environmental theorists have claimed that the purview of ethics must be extended beyond humanity; the non-human natural world should also be accorded with moral standing. Some philosopher have showed their concern for extending moral considerability to include animals, more popularly known as moral extensionism, which emphasize on the point that what has been thought of as a solely human value is also true of non-humans. Name of moral extensionist Peter Singer &Tom Regan as the main exponent of this view is noteworthy here, who emphasized on extending moral standing to other species of animals.
Peter Singer (1976-79) while adopting the utilitarian stand declared that the criterion for moral standing is sentience that is ‘the capacity to suffer or experience enjoyment or happiness.’ Singer argues that the principle of equal consideration of interests should consequently be applied to all creatures that can suffer, while adopting the utilitarian argument he proposes that the actions should be judged by their consequences that is pleasure and pain, happiness or well being they produce. Singer also stressed on the point of giving equal consideration to all sentient but all sentient being should not be subjected to equal treatment.
While adopting slightly different criteria, Regan (1983) put emphasis on a Right-based approach to animal protection and believed moral standing should be acknowledged in all ‘subject-of-a-life’: that is those beings with beliefs, desire, perceptions, memory and emotions, a sense of future and the ability to initiate action, everything have equal intrinsic value. Thus Regan extends moral community from humans to include many animals and hence everyone within that moral community is entitled to respectful treatment.
But Both Regan and Singer have been criticized. Critique would argue that there is contradiction in Singers ideas. Utilitarian theory is not the right criteria to value non-human world, because it places intrinsic value only in ‘states of affairs’- suffering or enjoyment – rather than in the individuals who are experiencing that suffering of enjoyment. Obviously it would place human above the non-humans, as they have capacity to talk and reason and hence animals cannot enter into reciprocal agreement as they lack capacity to comprehend or discharge moral obligations, so they cannot be subjected to moral rights or obligations. Regan Right-based arguments are also subject to criticism as it is morally offensive to compare the struggle for animal right with the women’s emancipation, civil rights, and anti slavery movement.
(b) Ecocentric Etich/ Dark Green Approach- Ecocentric ethic means earth-centered and is called holistic approach to view nature. Ecocentric approach find intrinsic value in nature (Yadav 2010, p.137), and it recognized that abiotic parts of nature are also worthy of concern. This holistic entity examined the fact that human nature is such that human can genuinely and fully flourish only if there is frequent contact by humans with wild nature (Elliot, 95). Ecocentrism put emphasis on ecologically informed philosophy of internal relatedness that advocates that all organisms are not only interrelated with their environment, but also constituted by those environmental interrelationships (Birch & Cobb, 1981). Ontologically, under this perspective, ‘the world is an intrinsically dynamic, interconnected web of relations in which there is no absolutely discrete entities and no absolute dividing line between the living and the nonliving, the animate and the inanimate or the human and the nonhuman’ (Eckersley,1992, p.49). Ecocentric ethic (Eckersley 1992) rejects the human chauvinism of anthropocentrism and argues that non-human entities also have intrinsic value. Value should be accorded not simply to humans but also to nature. In that sense it is holistic approach (Curry, 2006), as dark green ethics takes as objects of ethical concern holistic entities (although that can and usually does include individuals); and those entities include integral components that are non-living as well as animate.
Under this ethic there are number of philosopher who justified there stand while assigning moral standing to individual living organisms. Name of Albert Schweitzer is worth mentioning here, he was one of the prominent philosopher with whom many other thinkers drew inspiration. Schweitzer’s influential ‘Reverance for life’ ethic claims that all living things have a ‘will to live,’ and that humans should not interfere with or extinguish this will (Schweitzer, 1923). Aldo Leopold was greatly influenced by the idea of granting moral standing to all individual living things and proposes ‘holistic ethic’. Aldo Leopold gave the idea of ‘Land Ethics’, and in his essay A Sand County Almanac he summed the basis of his new ethic in the following way: “A thing is right when it tend to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise.” Leopold argues that we must grant moral standing to the land community and not just its individual members. The land ethic helps in enlarging the boundaries of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals, or collectively: the land. Leopold noted, ‘a land ethic changes the role of Homosapiens from conqueror of the land community to plain member and citizen of it” (Curry, 2006 p. 66). J. Baird Callicott has also contributed in this, by its further development.
(c) Deep Green Theory/Approach- Deep ecology stressed on the fact that paradigmatic shift is required to cope with the continuing environmental crisis, and asserted that mere small reformation efforts within the existing and dominant mode of thinking are not enough (Devall, 1984). Institutional change is required, and for achieving this individual change is just a start of the journey. The community in which they live must meet their needs by offering environmentally sound alternatives’ (Sylvan & Bennett 1994:180). John Muir leader of the Sierra club was the preservationist, contrary to the idea of conservationist Gifford Pinchot, who proposed on ideology, based utilitarian principles of multiple uses of natural resources. Muir represented an attitude of reverence towards nature. For Muir nature was not just a storehouse of resources” and humans were not just owners of these resources and henceforth he expresses his concern on the principle of biocentric egalitarianism, (states that all forms of life have the equal right to live and blossom) of the rights of rocks, birds and whales to live follow their own evolutionary destinies is of most importance. Being the staunch critique of anthropocentrism, Muir proclaimed that for the completeness of cosmos, all creatures are equal to each other.
Deep Ecology term coined by Arne Naess, it goes beyond the limited piecemeal demand of shallow approach and indeed demand an entirely new worldwide and philosophical perspective; and it took the total-field perspective, instead of formulating moral principles concerning the environment to supplement our existing ethical framework. Its moral approach is non-anthropocentric and regards human as integral part of the organic whole. (Naess1973), the Norwegian philosopher gave more emphasis on Self-realization (idea more near to Gandhian thought) and proposed the idea of Deep Ecology in contrast to shallow ecology. Deep ecology rejects the view of the anthropocentric morality that human community is superior to and in charge of the rest of the world. Naess feels a need for a shift from science to wisdom that is an extended form of ecological thinking what he call Ecosophy; in order to replace the destructive philosophy of modern industrial society (Naess,1973). Naess has conceptualized his concern of deep ecology through eight principles and his concept of self-realization accentuated the idea of giving up narrow egoistic conception of the self in favor of wider self which would help us to recognize that all life has intrinsic value and human being are not superior to nature rather both are interconnected. It is the self-realization which would help us to unify our wider self, with other living being with compassion, and it would prohibit us from thinking other living world as merely means to an end. Naess argues that by seeing ourselves as part of nature and by identifying more closely with it, to the extent that the other (nature) becomes part of our self, a self realization emerges upon which we can develop obligations to non-human nature (Carter, 2001).
Warwick Fox (1990), Australian philosopher, with his concept of Transpersonal Ecology and is one of the most ardent exponent of relational self. His transpersonal ecology bears heavy imprints of psychology and was against formulating our moral obligations concerning the environment. Nature protecting behaviour will flow from experiential identification with nature. Rather Fox argues for the realization of an ecological consciousness. Ecological consciousness talks of changing the way we perceive and think about nature. Like Naess, Fox stress on the point that once the appropriate consciousness is established regarding nature it would naturally help in protecting the environment because while protecting the environment, they will perceive that they are protecting themselves. Instead of regarding individual self atomistically as separate and isolated from everyone and everything else- we should seek to empathize with others, particularly with animals, plants and wider nature.
Critique of deep ecology would argue that it is utopian idea & tough to realize the real virtue of deep ecologist, and by adopting their stand it seems to be vague to address real environmental concern. It is tough to realize the real essence of deep ecology & to adopt a global comprehensive attitude. Deep Green Theory rejects reverence for nature in favour of less demanding respect (Hayward, 1998).
Social ecologists like Murry Bookchin, regarded environmental problems as the result of social problems. Unlike the self-realization dictum of deep ecologists, social ecologists propose the new ideology of absence of domination. Bookchin, 1982, proclaimed that due to the existence of free market, the modern society is governed with the hierarchies of power prevalence which ultimately fostered a hierarchical relationship between the human and the natural world, ultimately reducing both to mere commodities. Bookchin while adopting the stand of deep ecologists argued that liberation of both humans and nature are actually dependent on each other. The important thing is that human must realize that they are the part of the nature and not separate from nature, and the relationship between the two are mutualistic and inseparable. While adopting the radical stand for transformation he stressed on the point that this interdependence and lack of hierarchy in nature, would provide a base for a non-hierarchical human society. However social ecologist can be criticized as its dubious for many that there is no natural hierarchy within nature and some argues that social ecology is anthropocentric, which failed to provide the kind of standing the environment deserve.
Ecofeminism- Like the deep ecologist and social ecology, ecofeminism also calls for a radical change of the prevailing philosophical perspective, but unlike the deep ecologist which considers the anthropocentric (human-centric) worldview the responsible reason for the environmental crises, ecofeminist gave primary blame to the androcentric (man-centric) worldview (Marti Kheel,1990) for the deteriorating state of environment. Ecofeminism regarded the domination of women and natures are quite interrelated to each other. Single responsible reason is for the domination of both women and nature that patriarchy (father-rule). And henceforth the feminist environmentalist share the same goal that is to abolish this oppressive conceptual framework of patriarchy (Warren,1990). Val Plumwood while criticizing rationalism to be the responsible reason for the oppression of both women and nature, he stressed on the point that rationalism is the cause of this domination. Rationalism perpetuates dualism leading to the inferiority and superiority of the two things. For example taking the stand of rationality between reason and emotion, mind&body, man&women, it is always the former which take precedence over the later. Because rationality always leads to dualism, which provide us the distinctive ground for assessing superior and the inferior thing (Plumwood,1991). Thus in order to end the domination of nature by human and women by man what is needed is  to challenge Rationalism &subsequently this dualism which is fostered by that rationalist thought.
On the basis of above discussed approaches to environmentalism, it is assessed that no single normative theory is adequate to address environmental problem and issue and henceforth we need to endorse all of the above approaches and employ any of them as circumstances necessitate, the idea led by moral pluralism in environmental ethics.
Need of the Environmental Ethic- The question which is time and again confronting the human society is that; what is the need of the environmental ethics and what obligation do we have for the future generation in reference to environmental ethics. Due to the damages done by the human being, the replenishing capacity of the nature becomes impare and ultimately it is the human being who is the ultimate victim of their own misdeeds and they have to suffer as a result of their greed, aggression and delusion. A concern for the environment is imperative for us because we live for it; we live in it, we live with it (Vohra, 2010). And in order to find plausible solution to the environmental issues confronting man or threatening the life of human being, we need to clearly understand the relationship between man and nature. We need to revive and change this notion that man alone is morally significant being of the world. The domination of nature by man is due to the new technology. But technological progress by itself is not an evil, rather its improper use, or inaccurate application that turns it into evil. Hence it’s important on the part of human being to learn to use the scientific knowledge and new technology judiciously in order to fulfill human needs and purpose, without inflicting harm to the natural world. Secondly it is craving of human being to gain more which compel them to exploit natural resources and ultimately it is the human beings who have to suffer as a result of his greed, aggression and delusion. What we need today is to revive the Darwin concept of unity and harmony of nature that challenged the traditional dichotomies such as man against nature or man versus nature. Beside this false notion of superiority of humans over the nonhuman world which made them to believe that humans alone have intrinsic worth and the natural world have only instrumental value or utility need to be changed.
While fulfilling the present vested interest, we forget about its repercussion on the future generation; and it is evident that the action and policies that we as contemporary humans would undertake will ultimately have a direct or indirect great impact on the well-being of the future generation. Nevertheless the question that always confronts human society is that what obligations we have for the future generation in the reference to environmental ethics. And again on this issue different people have different perception. (Golding 1972), denied such standing to the future people, he substantiate his point by opting the ground that since the future cannot act reciprocally and henceforth they lie outside of the moral community. But contrary to this perception (Kauka, 1978) held the view that it is usually considered uncontroversial that we have obligations to the dead such as executing their will and so on, even though they cannot reciprocate. Others took a very humanist ground and conceded that although any future generation cannot do anything for us, but pointing to the existence of broader transgenerational reciprocity they say that it can nevertheless act for the benefits of its subsequent generations.
Some may question that since we are not known with the identity of the future people, perhaps it leaves the problem of deciding just what obligation/duty we have to them and we even lack the knowledge of their conception of their good life. However taking this point further (Barry 1999), argued that in order to pursue their idea of the good life-whatever that happens to be, future people will have need of some basic resources, such as food, water, minimum health and so on. Thus it is important obligation on the part of the contemporary human that we do not prevent future/coming generation from meeting their basic needs.
Thus the relation between man and nature constitutes ultimate basis for all environmental issues. And environmental ethics is necessary to preserve the majesty, integrity, stability and beauty of the nature. Buddhist philosophy believed that we need to change our attitude toward nature from one of domination to cooperation and it further affirm the fact that purification of human conduct and mental attitudes would help to eradicate environmental crisis. It is due to our obsession for material pursuit that we forget that happiness lies in preserving harmonious equilibrium between man and nature, and environmentalism helps us to know that about the kinds of people we wish to be.
The probable solution to this problem of environmental crises is only the principle of sustainable development because we cannot survive without harnessing the benefit from nature and if we would not change our attitude ultimately we humans have to suffer the repercussion of the environmental crisis. Environmentalism concentrates on ‘sustainable development,’ a concept originally used in the world conservation strategy and popularized by the world commission on environment and Development (WCED, 1987). Thus the philosophy of sustainable development which stand for judicious and curtailed use of natural resources along with maintain ecological balance (Ganguli & kumar, 2010), and balance integration of man and environment are of utmost importance. Henceforth development and balance of nature should go side by side, and mans attitude need to be changed because it is only the human temptation which is responsible for the ruthless exploitation of nature.
Other strategies which may help in giving concrete shape to the environmental ethics is the concept of eco-culture or environmental culture which may be proved fruitful in developing concern for environment and inspiring the youngsters about environmental values which motivate them to learn and imbibe various ecological virtues for the well-being of planetary system, nature and mankind (Gangudli & kumar 2007). In the nutshell it would help in developing holistic attitude and thinking towards nature accompanied with reverence, eros, compassion, attunement, humility, acceptance of finitude, earthiness, asceticism, creativity and inclusivity are the virtues that would be cultivated by each and every human being in the best interest of environment. The environmental virtue should not be forced upon anyone rather people should be inspired to understand and cherish these virtues for the good of ecology.
Radical social and political changes are necessary in order to respond to the existing deteriorating state of environment. Unlike environmentalist who accept the framework of existing political, social, economic & normative structures of world politics and seek to ameliorate environmental problems within those structures, Green contend that it the structure which need to be changed and transcended because Green regard those structures as the main cause of the environmental crisis. However we need to contemplate the basic idea that balance approach is crucial which would incorporate the fundamental change in the attitude of the common masses by living within the prevailing order and structure of the society would help to adhere with the present environmental problem.
Notion of environmental citizenship may prove fruitful to bring about enduring change in the mindset of the common masses; because environmental citizenship is about the active participation of citizen to move society from unsustainability towards greater sustainability. Environmental citizenship would help in developing the perception among the citizen that each of us is an integral part of a larger ecosystem and the future state of the environment depends on us only, which motivate each of us to embrace the challenge and act responsively and positively towards our environment. It helps in developing the idea that there is no boundaries between man and nature and if we did not take steps for the restoration of the environment and continue to harm the rest of the nature than we are harming our selves (Devall & Sessions, 1985).
There is need to break the anthropocentric and ecocentric divide. Humans should have a proper place in relation to the non-human world and this proper place is not of moral inferiority or superiority. It should be borne in our mind that mans lust for comfortable life which propel them to subordinate the nature interest and high degree of pressure in natural resources are ultimately causing danger to human wellbeing and health. Perhaps man should not forget that the depletion of natural resources may lead to the destruction of human race itself. The key for the restoration of environment lies in sheding our arrogance and the art of respecting our environment-human as well as non human. Nevertheless studies of anthropocentric & ecocentric attitudes indicate the point that the people with ecocentric orientation are much more likely to act upon their values, attitudes and beliefs to protect the environment than those with anthropocentric orientations. (Thompson&Barton1994, Kortenkamp&Moore 2001). Contrary to this some scholars held the perception that proper respect for humanity may itself lead to respect for other species (Hayward, 1998). Hayward proclaimed that there are some way in which anthropocentrism is not objectionable and considered that human-centeredness may be positively desirable. It’s an accepted fact that self-love properly understood, can be considered as a precondition of loving others. And henceforth it’s well perceived notion that if humans know how to treat their fellow human decently, then only they will begin to treat other species decently. In nutshell, it can be said that a positive concern for the human well-being need not stand to preclude a concern for the well-being of non-humans and it may even serve to promote it. Hayward suggested that anthropocentrism in the sense should be applauded rather than condemned. Indeed, it is untenable to adopt a pure ecocentric position which tried to deny the existence of a clear and morally relevant dividing line between humankind and the rest of the nature. However, a more fruitful approach regarding the debates in environmental philosophy is that between the relative positions concerning the moral weight we should give importance to the natural environment in relation to human interest. The important thing today is that, as Sylvan&Bennett state is, to set anthropocentric concerns within ecocentric concerns.
Conclusion- In the domain of environmental concern no important changes can ever take place without an internal change in our mindset, allegiance, inclination and convictions. Even though we cannot transform the world but individual initiative can bring about much more substantive result. Even if we have certain moral obligations concerning the environment, those obligations are directed to the interest of human beings themselves because the misdeeds done by human being are ultimately going to have its repercussions on their well-being. Thus this notion that human occupied the highest place in the natural world need to be revived and change and this should be borne in mind that the beings and objects of natural world are interconnected and interdependent on one another; and there is a perpetual action and reaction between them. Nevertheless the superior status of humans in the order of evolution and the possession of rational faculty place certain responsibilities on the part of humans to protect the natural environment. It’s important responsibility on the part of humans to maintain harmonious balance between nature and the man not only for their own sake but also for maintaining the majesty, integrity, stability and beauty of the nature.
·  Brechin, Steven, R., Objective Problems, Subjective Values & Global Environmentalism, Evaluating the Postmaterialism Argument & Challenging a New Explanations, Social Science Quarterly 80:793-806,1999.
·  Brechin, Steven, R., & Willett Kemton, Global Environmentalism: A Challenge and the Postmaterialism Thesis? Social Science Quarterly 75:245-69, 1994.
·  Calvert, Peter & Susan, The South, The North & the environment, London, Pinter,1999.
·  Carter, N. The Politics of the Environmentalism Ideas, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
·  CharyS.N, Environmental Management: An Indian Perspective, MacmillanPress, 2000.
·  Curry, P. Ecological Ethics an Introduction, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2006.
·  Devall Bill John Muir as Deep Ecologist, Environmental Review,Vol.6,No.1,pp.63-86,1984.
·  Diekmann, Andreas and Axel, Franzen, The Wealth of Nations and Environmental Concern, Environment and Behaviour, 3, pp.540-49, 1999.
·  Dunlap, Riley, E., and Angela G. Mertig, 1995, Global Concern for the Environment: Is Affluence a Pre requisite? Journal of Social Issues, 51, pp.122-37.
·  Dunlap, Riley, E., George H. Gallup, and Alec M. Gallup, 1993, Of Global Concern: Results of the Health of the Planet Survey, Environment 35, pp. 33-39.
·  Ellhiott, Lorraine, The Global Politics of the Environment, London, Macmillan Press,1998.
·  Frank, David, J., Ann Hironaka and Evan Schofer, 2000, The Nation-State and the Natural Environment over the Twentieth Century, American Sociological Review 65 pp.96-116. 
·  Golding, Mark, 1972, Obligations to Future Generations, Monist, 56, 85-99.
·  Guha, Ramchandra, Environmentalism A Global History, Oxford Uni Press, Delhi,  2000.
·  Hayward, Tim. 1998, Political Theory and Ecological Values, Cambridge, Polity Press.
·  Iain, Davey 2009 “Environmentalism of the poor and sustainable Development: An Appraisal”, JOAAG, vol.4. No.1.
·  Inglehart, Ronald, 1995, Public Support for the Environmental Protection: Objective Problems and Subjective Value in 43 Societies, PS: Political Science and Politics 28: 57-72.
·  Kheel, Marti, Ecofeminism&Deep Ecology, Reflections on Identity&Difference in Reweaving the world, San Francisco: Sierra Club Books 1990, pp.128-137.
·  Krishna, Sumi, Environmental Politics, People’s Lives & Development Choices, Sage Publication, New Delhi, 1996. 
·  Lipietz, Alain, Green Hopes The Future Of Political Ecology, Cambridge, Polity Press,1995.
·  Martin, W. Lewis, 1999, Towards a Self-Critical Environmentalism, Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol.18, No.2, pp. 229-231.
·   Misha, R.P, Environmental Ethics A Dialogue of Cultures, New Delhi, Concept Publ. 1995.
·  Naess, Arne, The Shallow & the Deep Ecology Movement. Inquiry 16,1973, PP. 95-100.
·  Najam, Adil 2005, Developing countries & Global Environmental Governance: Contestation to Participation to Engagement, International Environmental Agreements, 5: 303-321.
·  Singer, Peter 1974, All Animals are equal, Philosophical Exchange, Vol. 1, No.5, 243-257.
·  Sinha, Raman, Environment in Historical Perspective, Anamika Publi., New Delhi, 2007.
·  Stern& Dietz, The Value Basis of Environmental Concern, J O S I, 1994, 50, 65-84.
·  Talayarkhan, J.H, Values of Environment, New Delhi, Wiley Eastern Limited,1993.
Amrita Jaiswal
Research Scholar, Deptt of Poltical Science

BHU, Varanasi.