Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Background
Our future is shaped by Education, who plays a very important role in doing so.
Education shows us the way to live life. It is not only learning and reproducing
theories and principles to score marks, but to understand the situation in a proper
way. Through education we can find solution to human worldly problems.
Environmental education has a goal and the goal is to develop a world population
who is aware of problems associated with the environment and has skills,
knowledge, motivation, attitude and commitment to work individually and in
groups to find solution to environmental problems and to prevent new ones coming
in the way. One hundred and fifty years of colonial rule left us a legacy not only of
denuded forests and damned rivers, but also of a belief that this was ‘progresses. In
the half century since independence, we ourselves, have not only done precious
little to change this, belief, but on the contrary, pursued that same model of so
called ‘development’ with a vengeance. The origin of life on the earth was decided
and controlled with a set of environmental condition. Once a species become
extinct, it is impossible to recreate that genetic combination or gene type. Through
these past millions of years, for the sustenance of life environment has played a
major role, and it will continue to be so for all the times. The exact origin of life is
a mystery even today. Yet, we can reason that the first formed tiny droplets of
protoplasm, the physical basis of life were neither plant nor animal. The
biodiversity we see today is the result of millions of years of development and
diversification. Plants, animals and microorganisms make the biotic part of nature
and the abiotic part includes the physical and chemical components of the nature.
The biotic and abiotic factors together make our environment. They are in perfect
-1-
harmony with each other and form a stable system. Therefore it is our duty to
protect the environment, of which we are a part.
In India, our ancestors had fully realized the importance of conserving
natural resources. This is why ancient Indian culture is referred as “Aranya
Sanskriti”. It was in the modern times, from approximately two centuries ago, that
man’s greed took over his needs. He became so self-centred that he stopped
thinking about the environment. Man cleared forests on a large scale for various
purposes. “We inherited the earth from our fore fathers; let us not leave it
contaminated for our children and grandchildren” say Mani Vasagam.
Environment is thus the precious gift of nature which is highly dynamic,
multidimensional and an interdisciplinary concept which encompasses various
elements concerning human settlements, air, land which consequently influences
all forms of life in one way or the other. Environment has bundle of resources
which supports, develop, enrich human life. Large quantities of these resources are
exhausted for sustainable development which is further compounded by the effects
of population explosion. We can find environmental imbalances in our continent as
the flow of resources are always towards a few islands of prosperity while seas of
poverty are both drained of their resources and are also becoming dumping ground
for the waste products. Now, mankind shudders at the prospects of the
stratospheric ozone layer, melting of the glaciers, the snow in the Himalayan
ranges and warming up of the planet beyond the endurance of living species,
nuclear holocaust and chemical holocaust. This has compelled rethinking about
living in harmonious relationship with nature and given rise to worldwide ecology
movement. Hence environment has become concern of all, the academicians,
intellectuals, scientists, policy makers and government across the continents. “The
earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s needs, but not every man’s greed” Mahatma Gandhi. The environment is a term need to represent an entire system,
geology and climate. On a more human level, the environment, the air, water,
temperature and biology of a certain extent of a place are what that sustains and
define the limits of what we can do to a certain extent. So, it becomes our
responsibility to take utmost care to protect our environment so that, we can live
comfortably in this healthy environment. Today’s world is completely, different
-2-
from what it was before. Globalisation, Urbanisation and industrialisation had
destroyed the world to a greater extent. With the new millennium coming up the
environmental issues has become a very important issue and have been discussed
worldwide. Now-a-days we don’t live in the environment which is serene or stable
but much rather becoming unrecognisable and diminishing before our eyes. The
plants, trees, flowers, birds, beautiful animals, and various other life forms which
God has created for us to enjoy its beauty are now becoming slowly extinct. They
are solely depending on us to protect and preserve them.
There are various problems which the environment is facing today. First,
due to cutting down of trees for farming and housing purpose forests are getting
depleted. Trees are considered to be the lungs of the earth. They recycle all the
polluting carbons in the air and return back oxygen into our atmosphere. Secondly,
due to vehicles being increased in the air, water, land and also increase in
industrialisation gives rise to various types of pollution which in turn increases the
percentage of carbon and other pollutants in the environment. Today we are living
in a society where people are not bothered about wasting. Hundreds of millions of
tons of waste are generated every year which has become a major threat to the
environment. They produce foul odour and also produce severe threat to public
health and it is a potential threat to the public health, it blots the environment can
be one of the reasons for slow economic development. All the above problems
slowly results in warming up of the world and without anyone noticing it, the
environment which God has given us, is slowly eradicated. Pope John Paul II once
said, “It is the task of human beings to care for, preserve and cultivate the treasures
of creation”. He tells us that we must show respect for the environment and live in
faith in relation with God’s creation. Everyone is affected and everyone is
responsible. It is an issue that cannot be ignored and action must be taken to
preserve something that is unique to humanity.”Worldwide environment awareness
had started in 1972 after the Stockholm conference. The main aim of the
conference was to make the world aware of degradation of environment and what
remedies are possible to solve the environmental problem. The conference felt the
need that every individual should be aware of the environmental problems and
issues so that they can force the government to take action. This is possible only
-3-
when each and every individual are educated. Several conferences on environment
were held at various level to generate awareness among the people. It is inevitable
that the earth will deteriorate at some point. Hence measures have to be taken by
individual, government agency, the non-government agency to slow down the
process of deterioration. The media has a particular responsibility for advancing
environment awareness in our society, because it plays an eminent role in the
distribution of information in news bulletin and current affairs coverage. By
featuring documentaries which heighten an appreciation of natural heritage and
awareness about environmental problems are powerful educative tools. Now-adays, the media is considered to be the major agent in disseminating information to
the society. Hence they can play an eminent role in relaying information in news
bulletin and current affairs coverage. By featuring documentaries about preserving
cultural heritage and their need are powerful tools in education. Television also has
an important position in educating people about the environment through its
various programs. The standard of living has been raised by development and at
the same time led to top serious environmental disaster. Hence it is always wise to
maintain a relationship between our needs and supplies so that the ecological
balance is not disturbed. Hence the main goal of many environment groups today
is to increase awareness because that is the only way to develop a more sustainable
world. We can help the environment to be maintained in a number a ways. This
will make huge difference and put something back into the environment why don’t
we start with:
Planting trees wherever possible
Use energy saving light bulbs
Recycling centres in area can be located
Switch off the lights and all electronic items when not in use.
Don’t use car or more petrol consuming vehicles to travel for short
distance instead use cycle or walk.
Travel by air only when needed.
-4-
Get a compost bin or wormery.
Discuss with others the issues relating to our environment
Basically everybody needs to remember the ‘3 R’s’ – Reduce, Reuse
and Recycle.
In this way people can become informed and aware that there is only one
environment and it is our duty to protect it. This is the right time to make the
society aware and motivate each and every individual for environmental
consciousness.
1.2
Overview of Researches in Environmental Education
As Environmental Education become an important area to be improved, there are
lots of researches are conducted to focus on different dimensions of EE. Many of
the studies focus on to determine students’ understanding of environment; many
others try to clarify students’ and teachers’ attitudes and awareness about
environmental issues; others examine the teaching and learning methods for
effective EE applications. One of the main issues for EE researchers is to
determine how students define the term environment. It is important to determine
students’ understanding of environment, because if educators know what their
students understand from environment, they can have an idea about how to develop
beneficial and effective environmental education strategies (Loughland, Reid,
Petocz, 2002). One of the examples of such studies is Shepardson (2005). He
conducted a research to get ideas of students about the meaning of environment.
Eighty one students from different grade levels were participated in study. Firstly,
students were asked to draw a picture of environment and then explain their
drawings. Secondly, a series of seven photos were shown students and asked them
to explain whether the photograph describe an environment. The results of the
study showed that students mostly look environment from ecological perspectives
and define it as area where animals live or area that supports animal life. Students
mostly view environment as a natural landscape, they did not consider human
made environments as environment and also they did not consider human as a part
of the environment.
-5-
Another study was conducted by Loughland, Reid & Petocz in 2002. They
asked 2249 primary and secondary school students what they understand from the
term “environment”. As a result of the study they determined 6 distinct categories
for students’ understanding of environment. Loughland et. al. said that the first
three categories which were the environment is a place; place that includes living
organisms; place that includes living organisms and people were reflecting
environment as an “object”. The last three categories which were the environment
does something for people; people are part of the environment and are responsible
for it; people and environment are in mutually sustaining relationship were
reflecting mutual care and “relation” between environment and people. In 2003,
Loughland, Reid, Walker and Petocz conducted another research and investigated
the factors that affect students’ perception of environment-as an “object” or as a
“relation”. Totally 1734 primary and secondary school students participated in the
study. Results showed that majority of the students (88 per cent) view
“environment as an object” and minority of them (12 per cent) view “environment
as a relation”. Primary school students show “relation” conception five or six times
more than secondary school students. The researchers of the study explained this
situation as in primary schools; teaching about environment is more integrated
across into different disciplines but in secondary school teaching environmental
sciences is a different subject area which focuses on examination of local
ecosystem. By means of gender difference, girls had one and a half time more
relation conception of environment than boys. Another result of the study was that
there is not a correlation between having better knowledge about environmental
issues and development of a “relation” conception of environment. Loughland,
Reid, Walker and Petocz (2003) said that environmental knowledge was gained
without developing a “relation” concept of environment so current environmental
education requires reorientation. Having an idea about environmental attitudes of
people provides important clues for development of effective EE strategies, many
of the researches were conducted studies to determine people’s environmental
attitudes. A person who has positive environmental attitudes, mostly have a
tendency to participate in several environmental activities (Tıkka, Kuitunen,
Tynys, 2000). It is cited by Ballantyne and Packer (2002) that the study which was
conducted by Ballantyne, Fien & Packer (2001) showed that one of the most
-6-
effective ways of taking students’ interests on environmental issues is to provide
opportunities in which they can get first-hand experiences in real environmental
settings. They added that especially, if students are provided to observe the
evidences of environmental problems and effects of these problems on people,
animals, plants and wildlife etc., the environmental messages that are given in
schools become more meaningful for them.
In his study Bowker (2007) examined the 9-11 years of children’
perceptions and learning about tropical forests from their drawings. Thirty children
were randomly chosen from 3 different schools which located different social
areas. The children participated in the study visit to Humid Tropics Biome which
contains the tropical forest. Immediately before students come to the Humid
Tropics Biome, their teachers wanted them to draw a picture of rainforest to show
their knowledge about rainforests. Before visiting the rainforest, children firstly
attended a workshop about rainforest features-shape, texture, function of plants and
then they visit the rainforest. After their visit and workshop, immediately, the
children were given their first drawing back and provided opportunity to review it
and then complete with a new drawing about rainforests. Besides these, interviews
were conducted to ask children describe their first and second drawings to gain
deep understanding of their perceptions of rainforests. Analysis of the children’s
first and second drawings showed that second drawings include the more species
of trees and plants, the greater accuracy of the plants and more accurate rainforest
features. The interview results also revealed that children mostly remember the
names and properties of the plants that they draw correctly. As Loughland, Reid,
Walker & Petocz (2003) indicated, other sources for learning about environment
should be focused and environmental education should be taken out of the formal
school system and be located in the community in young people live. Moreover,
Wilhelm & Schneider (2005) conducted a research to examine urban youth’s
perception of nature and their suggestions for effective environmental education.
The youths of the study stressed that they are more interested in programs that let
them to be active in their learning.
Littledyke (2004) determined children’s views on science and
environmental issues. According to research results, students mostly did not view
-7-
science as an important issue in society and also as a factor in environmental
issues. Students mostly looked at science as an approach to learning. For
environmental issues, younger students mostly saw environment as a living place
for animals. Older children mostly think about environment in terms of transport
and pollution. In 2006, Petegem and Blieck conducted a research to determine
young people’s environmental worldviews by using the Manoli, Janson & Dunlop
(2005)’s revised “New Ecological Paradigm” (NEP) scale for children. NEP scale
is a widely used to measure people’s shifting worldviews from a human dominant
view to an ecological one, with humans as a part of nature. 524 children in
Zimbabwe who are between 13-15 years old and 613 children in Belgium who are
13 years old participated in the study. Responses to NEP scale showed clear
differences in the perception of the human-nature interrelationship between
Belgian and Zimbabwean students. Belgian students had more environmentally
protective attitudes. Both of the Belgian and Zimbabwean students were aware of
humankinds’ negative impact on nature. However, Zimbabwean students also
stress human dominance over nature and believe that people can use nature to
supply their needs. Belgian children do not share this human dominance view on
nature. Petegem and Blieck (2006) said that in industrialized societies people
mostly reject the progress and growth that result in environmental degradation.
However, in less-industrialized societies, the distinction between human dominant
view and ecology dominant view may not be as exact as industrialized ones;
people of less-industrialized societies may have holistic view of human
environment relationship. As research results showed that Zimbabwean students
are also concerned with the adverse human influence on ecological systems and at
the same time their responses showed they believe in limited human usage of
nature. Authors of the research explain this result with Zimbabwean students’
nature-extractive tradition. The result of this study showed the effect of cultural
differences in children’s worldviews. Sustainability emphasizes the importance of
satisfying balance between environmental protection and using nature for human
needs. Researchers stressed the necessity of continuous educational support for
young people to make them find different ways for supporting sustainability and
understand main reasons of environmental problems and find solutions for the
conservation of remaining environment. Vaske and Kobrin (2001) realized a study
-8-
to determine the effects of attachment to a local natural resource on
environmentally responsible behaviour in a person’s daily life. They worked with
young people whose ages between 14-17 years old.
According to results of their study, they claimed that if people develop
emotional connection to their local natural resources, they feel themselves more
responsible toward their environment and so behave more responsibly in their daily
activities (p. 21). Cullinford (1996) said that young people’ view of environment
change according to their personal experiences related with environmental issues.
He gave the example of that if young people experience pollution in their
environment, they will think of environment in terms of pollution (cited by
Loughland et. al., 2002, p. 188).
Researchers also focus on determining people’s feelings towards
environmental problems and their views about the future trend of environmental
problems. It can be inferred from such studies as an overall view that majority of
the young people are pessimistic about global environmental futures (Hıcks and
Bord, 2001). As a result of their study, for example Connell et. al. (1999) stated
that young people expressed the feelings of sadness, pessimism and frustration
about environmental problems. Duan and Fortner (2005) also showed that Chinese
college students have also a pessimistic attitude about the environmental changes
of future. It was suggested by Duan and Fortner (2005) that teachers should not
only explain the negative changes in environment but also explain that these
environmental problems can be overcome if individuals take necessary steps. And
they should help their students to understand how people can prevent or manage
the problems with certain ways.
1.3
Needs for Environmental Education in School
Education, the base for moulding a human being into a knowledgeable, insightful,
ethical and well-mannered personality is identified as an essential factor for
survival in the present scenario. The major role played here are by the higher
educational institutions which make an effort to disseminate knowledge among
students. Knowledge is the key resource for global competitiveness. The processes
of Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization (LPG), along with technological
-9-
revolution have further strengthened the significance of a knowledge-based
society. Globalization and education are mutually supportive. It is a two way
process, as globalization presupposes competitiveness and efficiency in the system
or knowledge accessible to the system. The entire process of globalization is
technology-driven and knowledge-driven. Universities and colleges play a vital
role in educating and promoting human capital around the world. Analysing the
influential factors of growth and development in all developed or developing
societies indicate that the efficiency and efficacy of educational systems in any
country is the promotion of its inclusive development.
School is the only institution today, which can exert greater influence on us
and our family. School organisation is a part of educational process in the country.
A well organised school is the back born of education. Since they are known as
mini societies, their main aim is to spread education in the society. We spend a
number of years in school not only learning and acquiring knowledge but also
school help us to mould our character and acquire basic principles in life. The basic
traits of our personality are formed during our school days. The word education is
easily understood then defined. Education means the art of teaching or training
which is derived from the Latin word “educatum”. Education is a process of selfexpression. Education trains the human mind to make the right decision, open his
mind to the outside world, helps to solve many worldly problems and also
increases the economic, political and social development of any country.
Environmental education has a goal. It tries to fulfil the goal by creating a
population who has got a sense of environmental awareness in the world.
Environmental education can train them to find a solution to the current problems
and prevent new ones.
Industrialisation and scientific invention have generated havoc on the
environment. Man failed to realise the fact that these development upsets the
ecosystem. Industrial development, technological invention, changing the mode of
transportation urbanisation, change in the food habits, deforestation and decreasing
the agricultural land are the main outcome of the modern civilization. Wide spread
use of insecticides, pesticides, improper use of fertilizers and chemicals in
environment are some others contributing factors which challenged the life of man,
-10-
animals specially birds and other organisms. Industries are causing much danger to
man's life causing air pollution which poses danger to human kind. Similarly
various other type of pollution such as soil pollution, noise pollution, water
pollution, marine pollution, global warming, effects of nuclear hazards etc. are
some major factors for which awareness is necessary. Over exploitation of natural
resources is a basic concern for everybody. Food shortage due to population
growth, soil erosion and nutrient depletions occur at a faster rate. Burning fossil
fuels and chlorinated compounds such as chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigerator
and air conditioner releases carbon-dioxide and other gases that cause global
warming as well as damaging the stratospheric ozone, which may bring about rise
in sea level and catastrophic climatic changes. A diesel vehicle emits particles in
their exhaust which can be easily inhaled and these particles are dangerous for
health. Mine waste and effluents from mining and metallurgical industries give a
number of physical and chemical problems to human beings. Certain other
industries like paper and pulp industries, fertilizer industries, explosive industries,
soap and detergent industries, chemical industries, food processing industries,
textile, tannery, leather, and petroleum industries release/discharge undesirable and
harmful constituents which are responsible for air and water pollution, causes great
public concern. Sewage begins to cause nuisance as it starts to become stale.
Proper methods of disposal and its treatment should be applied otherwise it causes
chronic diseases. When sewage is applied continuously on a part of land, the pores
or voids of the soil are clogged and free circulation of air is prevented. As a result
anaerobic conditions are developed in place of aerobic conditions and the land is
not capable of taking further sewage load. At this stage, decomposition of sewage
takes place and offensive gases are produced. This is called the sewage sickness of
land. The noise which increases pollution due to population explosion, rapid
industrialization and urbanisation affects human health, comfort and efficiency. It
causes contraction of blood vessels, high blood pressure, mental distress, high
cholesterol, heart attacks, neurological problems, birth defects, abortion etc.
Nowadays everybody talks about the environment but how many of us are serious
about it. How many of us have clear concept of environment. There must be
planning about the effects and control measures of environmental pollution.
Government should initiate and create awareness campaigns to save environment
-11-
without political propaganda. We should opt for some programs relating to it. It is
possible only when public are aware about the ecological and environmental
issues. For example, banning the littering of polythene cannot be successful until
the public understands the environmental implications of the same. People should
understand the fact that if we degrade our environment, we are harming ourselves.
For the first time, the attention of general public was attracted at global level when
"Earth Summit" in 1992 was held in Rio de Janerio on environment and
development. Later on a number of world summit and conferences were held to
fight the menace of environmental pollution. Active co-operation of social
organizations, scientist- educationists, social workers, politicians, administrators
and public is needed for issues concerning environment. Movements should begin
at grass root level. Only celebrating "World Environmental Day" cannot solve the
problem. Government alone cannot do anything until and unless every citizen is
aware of the environment. Hence this is the right time to make each and every
individual aware and motivate them for environmental consciousness.
Thus the need of the today is to develop a population who has knowledge
of environment and its associated problem. This can be done only if environment
education is introduced in school. Environmental education seeks to influence and
change the attitude towards environment and install a stronger sense of
responsibility for safeguarding the environment. School plays a major role in this
process. If society feels that we have to create a world free from environmental
problems then it is their duty to see that they are educated about environment and
its related problem. Hence it is the moral responsibility of every educator to see
that the students have the knowledge of environmental issues and develop qualities
that inculcates sustainable development.
1.4
Historical Background of Various Summits
We are living in a country where our ancestors regarded nature as mother. In the
olden days, people used to live with nature and they knew the value of nature.
Their living pattern, their thinking, their festivals, day to day customs, and
activities are related to nature. They are aware of the fact that, everything we get
comes from nature and therefore they respect nature.
-12-
In Indian culture, we worship trees, animals, mountains, hills, rivers etc.,
many of the festivals are related to nature. A large number of festivals are
celebrated during harvest season in different parts of our country but today, we
have forgotten everything. We have exploited the earth’s resources by increasing
human
activities
such
as
deforestation,
industrialisation,
urbanisation,
constructions of dams etc. This has compelled rethinking about living in
harmonious relationship with nature and many thought provoking articles and
findings made the environmentalists force the heads of various states to come
together and discuss the new threat.
From 5th June to 16th June 1992 at Stockholm the first historical
conference on Human Environment was held. It was the first time, globally it was
felt that the environment has been endangered and the government and all
industries have to join their hands together to protect the environment. The
conference emphasised the need of all the government and the people to come
together and protect the environment. It was the first time it was brought to the
notice that during the fast race of development we forgot our environment. The
next world conference on environment took place at Rio-de Janerio in Brazil
between June 3rd and 12th, 1992. Following are the points put forth for
consideration during the conference:
1) Environment imbalance
2) Measures to control increased population
3) Pre-emptive measures for control of:
– Greenhouse effect
– Depletion of ozone layers due to various reasons
– Effect of acid rain and nuclear winter
4) Measures to maintain ecological balance in nature
The Earth Summit made an action plan for sustainable development which is
stated in Agenda 21, Chapter 36 devoted for education which states that
“Education is critical for promoting Sustainable development and improving the
capacity of people to address environment and development issues.”
-13-
The protocol of the United Nation frame work convention known as The Kyoto
protocol aimed to fight global warming. The main aim of the protocol is to
stabilise the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere so that it does not
interfere with our climatic system.
The Copenhagen Climate Council founded in 2007, aimed to achieve the
following principles: · Create a global awareness about the Copenhagen UN
climate summit and Kyoto protocol. · Arranging constructive talks between
government, business circle and science fraternity. · Generating a source of
awareness among the global business leaders that if we tackle the present climatic
change we have huge opportunities for innovation and economic growth.
The Montreal Protocol: is a treat which is designed to protect the ozone layer by
removing those substances which is responsible for ozone depletion. The treaty
was signed on September 16th, 1987 and came into force on January 1st, 1989.
The same treaty was revised in 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1995, 1997 and 1999. It is
believed that if we adhere to this agreement the ozone layer can be recovered by
2050.
Earth Summit (2011), was held between December 12th to 15th, in Abu Dhabi
UAE. The purpose of the summit is to make environmental data and information
access to all communities for the benefit of the society.
Earth Summit (2012), Rio was held on 20~22 June 2012, at Rio-De-Janerio. It is
also known as “Rio + 20” as the first summit was held in Rio in 1992.The main
objectives of the Summit are: 1) To see that there is a renewed political
commitment for sustainable development. 2) To asses and make programmes for
sustainable development and 3) To review new challenges that emerges. Two
specific themes on which the summit focussed are: a green economy and
institutional framework for sustainable development. Given below is the list of
principles laid down by United Nations Conference on Human Environment.
-14-
Principle 1
“Man has the fundamental right to freedom, equality and adequate conditions of
life, in an environment of a quality that permits a life of dignity and well-being,
and he bears a solemn responsibility to protect and improve the environment for
present and future generations. In this respect, policies promoting or perpetuating
apartheid, racial segregation, discrimination, colonial and other forms of
oppression and foreign domination stand condemned and must be eliminated”.
Principle 2
“The natural resources of the earth, including the air, water, land, flora and fauna
and especially representative samples of natural ecosystems, must be safeguarded
for the benefit of present and future generations through careful planning or
management, as appropriate”.
Principle 3
“The capacity of the earth to produce vital renewable resources must be maintained
and, wherever practicable, restored or improved”.
Principle 4
“Man has a special responsibility to safeguard and wisely manage the heritage of
wildlife and its habitat, which are now gravely imperilled by a combination of
adverse factors. Nature conservation, including wildlife, must therefore receive
importance in planning for economic development”.
Principle 5
“The non-renewable resources of the earth must be employed in such a way as to
guard against the danger of their future exhaustion and to ensure that benefits from
such employment are shared by all mankind”.
Principle 6
“The discharge of toxic substances or of other substances and the release of heat, in
such quantities or concentrations as to exceed the capacity of the environment to
render them harmless, must be halted in order to ensure that serious or irreversible
-15-
damage is not inflicted upon ecosystems. The just struggle of the peoples of ill
countries against pollution should be supported”.
Principle 7
“States shall take all possible steps to prevent pollution of the seas by substances
that are liable to create hazards to human health, to harm living resources and
marine life, to damage amenities or to interfere with other legitimate uses of the
sea”.
Principle 8
“Economic and social development is essential for ensuring a favourable living and
working environment for man and for creating conditions on earth that are
necessary for the improvement of the quality of life”.
Principle 9
“Environmental deficiencies generated by the conditions of under-development
and natural disasters pose grave problems and can best be remedied by accelerated
development through the transfer of substantial quantities of financial and
technological assistance as a supplement to the domestic effort of the developing
countries and such timely assistance as may be required”.
Principle 10
“For the developing countries, stability of prices and adequate earnings for primary
commodities and raw materials are essential to environmental management, since
economic factors as well as ecological processes must be taken into account”.
Principle 11
“The environmental policies of all States should enhance and not adversely affect
the present or future development potential of developing countries, nor should
they hamper the attainment of better living conditions for all, and appropriate steps
should be taken by States and international organizations with a view to reaching
agreement on meeting the possible national and international economic
consequences resulting from the application of environmental measures”.
-16-
Principle 12
“Resources should be made available to preserve and improve the environment,
taking into account the circumstances and particular requirements of developing
countries and any costs which may emanate- from their incorporating
environmental safeguards into their development planning and the need for making
available to them, upon their request, additional international technical and
financial assistance for this purpose”.
Principle 13
“In order to achieve a more rational management of resources and thus to improve
the environment, States should adopt an integrated and coordinated approach to
their development planning so as to ensure that development is compatible with the
need to protect and improve environment for the benefit of their population”.
Principle 14
“Rational planning constitutes an essential tool for reconciling any conflict
between the needs of development and the need to protect and improve the
environment”.
Principle 15
“Planning must be applied to human settlements and urbanization with a view to
avoiding adverse effects on the environment and obtaining maximum social,
economic and environmental benefits for all. In this respect projects which arc
designed for colonialist and racist domination must be abandoned”.
Principle 16
“Demographic policies which are without prejudice to basic human rights and
which are deemed appropriate by Governments concerned should be applied in
those regions where the rates of population growth or excessive population
concentrations are likely to have adverse effects on the environment of the human
environment and impede development”.
-17-
Principle 17
“Appropriate national institutions must be entrusted with the task of planning,
managing or controlling the 9 environmental resources of States with a view to
enhancing environmental quality”.
Principle 18
“Science and technology, as part of their contribution to economic and social
development, must be applied to the identification, avoidance and control of
environmental risks and the solution of environmental problems and for the
common good of mankind”.
Principle 19
“Education in environmental matters, for the younger generation as well as adults,
giving due consideration to the underprivileged, is essential in order to broaden the
basis for an enlightened opinion and responsible conduct by individuals,
enterprises and communities in protecting and improving the environment in its
full human dimension. It is also essential that mass media of communications
avoid contributing to the deterioration of the environment, but, on the contrary,
disseminates information of an educational nature on the need to project and
improve the environment in order to enable them to develop in every respect”.
Principle 20
“Scientific research and development in the context of environmental problems,
both national and multinational, must be promoted in all countries, especially the
developing countries. In this connection, the free flow of up-to-date scientific
information and transfer of experience must be supported and assisted, to facilitate
the solution of environmental problems; environmental technologies should be
made available to developing countries on terms which would encourage their
wide dissemination without constituting an economic burden on the developing
countries”.
-18-
Principle 21
“States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the
principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources
pursuant to their own environmental policies, and the responsibility to ensure that
activities within their jurisdiction or control do not cause damage to the
environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction”.
Principle 22
“States shall cooperate to develop further the international law regarding liability
and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage
caused by activities within the jurisdiction or control of such States to areas beyond
their jurisdiction”.
Principle 23
“Without prejudice to such criteria as may be agreed upon by the international
community, or to standards which will have to be determined nationally, it will be
essential in all cases to consider the systems of values prevailing in each country,
and the extent of the applicability of standards which are valid for the most
advanced countries but which may be inappropriate and of unwarranted social cost
for the developing countries”.
Principle 24
“International matters concerning the protection and improvement of the
environment should be handled in a cooperative spirit by all countries, big and
small, on an equal footing. Cooperation through multilateral or bilateral
arrangements or other appropriate means is essential to effectively control, prevent,
reduce and eliminate adverse environmental effects resulting from activities
conducted in all spheres, in such a way that due account is taken of the sovereignty
and interests of all States”.
Principle 25
“States shall ensure that international organizations play a coordinated, efficient
and dynamic role for the protection and improvement of the environment”.
-19-
Principle 26
“Man and his environment must be spared the effects of nuclear weapons and all
other means of mass destruction. States must strive to reach prompt agreement, in
the relevant international organs, on the elimination and complete destruction of
such weapons”. By combining traditional laws with modern legislation any country
can control pollution and degradation of resources. In order to protect the limited
resources available, the country should adopt relevant environmental safeguards.
At the central level the ministry of environment and forest is the nodal
agency for planning, promoting and coordinating the environment programs and
also policy formation. The ministry of Environment and Forests also gets
assistance from a number of enforcement agencies in executing the assigned
responsibilities. The first country to insert an amendment to its constitution was
India. This amendment was stated in order to protect and improve the environment
for safeguarding wildlife, forest and public health. An Environmental department
was created in 1980, and followed by Bhopal gas tragedy, the ministry of
Environment and Forest was created in 1985 by Government of India.
Article 48-A was inserted in the principles of state policy “which enjoins
the state to make Endeavours for protection and improvement of the environment
and safeguarding the forest and wildlife of the country (42 amendment w.e.f. 3
January 1977)”. Article 51-A (G) states that “it is the duty of every citizen of India
to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and
wildlife and to have compassion for living creatures”. Various environmental
regulations in India are:
-20-
Environmental Regulation in India
Year
1974
Environmental Regulation
The
Water
(Prevention
Act)Amendments,1998
1975
The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution Act) Rules
1977
The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution Act) Cess Act
1978
The Water (Prevention And Control Of Pollution Act) Cess Act
1981
The Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution Act) Act,
Amendments,1987
And
Control
Of
Pollution
1982/1983 The Air (Prevention And Control Of Pollution Act) Rules.
1986
The Environment(Protection) Act, Amendments (1989, 1990, 1993,
1996, 1998,
1999,2000,2001)
1986
The Environmental (Protection) Rules
1989
The Hazardous Wastes (Management And Handling) Rules,
Amendments, 2000,Draft
Amendments 2002
1989
Manufacture, Storage And Import Of Hazardous Chemical Rules
Amendments, 1994,2000
1991
The Public Liability Insurance Act/ Rules , 1992
1992
E(P) Act Notification –“Environment Statement”
1994
E(P) Act Notification –“Environment Clearance”
1995
The National Environment Tribunal Act
1997
Amendments in the Environment Clearance, Notification- “Public
Hearing” made
mandatory
1997
Prohibition on the Handling of Azo Dyes
1997
The National Environment Appellate Authority Act
1998
The Bio-Medical Waste(M&H) Rules
1999
Notification for making 100% Utilization of Fly-Ash made mandatory
1999
Regulation on Recycling of Waste Oil And Non-Ferrous Scrape
2000
Municipal Solid Wastes(M&H)Rules
2000
Ozone Depletion Substance(R&C)Rules
2000
Noise Pollution (Regulation And Control)
2001
Batteries (M&H) Rules
2002
The Noise Pollution (Regulation And Control)
2002
The Biological Diversity Act”
-21-
The above acts and regulations are to guide the public to help them to
understand how they can engage with the decision makers to make effective
decisions to improve and protect the environment so that living creatures, plants,
property and human beings can live without any hazard.
1.5
Concept of Environmental Ethics
Ethics is the branch of philosophy in which man attempts to evaluate and decide
upon at particular courses of moral action of general theories of conduct. It is
considered a normative science, because it is concerned with norms of human
conduct. The word ‘Ethics’ is derived from the Greek adjective ‘ethical’ which
comes from the substantive ‘ethos’. ‘Ethos’ means custom, usages or habits.1 The
term ‘moral’ closely associated with ethics, comes from the Latin word ‘mores’
which primarily stands for ‘custom’ or ‘habit’ and secondarily means ‘character’.2
Customs are not merely habitual ways of acting. They are also ways approved by
the group. Thus, ‘Ethics’ literally means the science of custom or habits of men.3
In India also, the word’ dharma’4 has been explained in two ways. On one hand, it
stands for preservation of traditional values as reflected in social customs; on the
other it means moral qualities of universal nature like non-violence and truth. The
former view is emphasized by Purvamimānsā, which defines dharma as ‘rules lay
down by the Vedas, 5 which are repositories of the traditional social virtues. The
latter view is emphasized by Jainism which says that dharma is made up of nonviolence, self control and austerity.6 fuses both these views together when it says
that dharma is characterized by; good conduct and that which appeals to the
conscience. In the West, ethics has been precisely defined as the study of right or
good in conduct.8 It is that study which concerns itself with judgment of approval
and disapproval, judgments as to the rightness or wrongness, goodness or badness,
virtue or vice, desirability or wisdom of actions, dispositions, ends, objects or state
of affairs. There are two main directions, which this study may take its space. It
may concern itself with a psychological or sociological analysis and explanation of
our ethical judgments, showing what our approvals and disapprovals consist in and
why we approve or disapprove what we do. Or it may concern itself with
-22-
establishing or recommending certain courses of actions, ends or ways of life as to
be taken or pursued, either as right or as good or as virtuous or as wise, as over
against others which are wrong, bad, vicious or foolish.
Philosophers have attempted to determine goodness in conduct according to
two chief principles, and have considered certain types of conduct either good in
themselves or good because they conform to a particular moral standard. The
former implies a final value or summum bonum, which is desirable in itself and not
merely as means to an end. In the history of ethics there are three principal
standards of conduct, each of which has been proposed by various groups or
individuals as the highest good: happiness or pleasure; duty, virtue, or obligation;
and perfection, the fullest harmonious development of human potential.
1.5.1 History and Development
For as long as people have been living together in groups, the moral regulation has
been necessary to the group’s well being. Although morals were formalized and
made into arbitrary standards of conduct, they developed, sometimes irrationally,
after religious taboos were violated; out of chance behaviour that become habit and
then custom; or from laws imposed by chiefs to prevent disharmony in the tribes.
The Greek philosophers from about the 6th Century BC onward, theorized
intensively about moral behaviour which led to the further development of ethics
as philosophy. In the 6th Century B.C. the Greek philosophers Pythagoras
developed one of the earliest moral philosophies from the Greek mystery religion
Orphism. Believing that the intellectual nature is superior to the sensual nature and
that the best life is one devoted to mental discipline, he founded a semi-religious
order with rules emphasizing simplicity in speech, dress, and food. Its members
observed that were designed to demonstrate the decreed ethical beliefs. In the 5th
century BC the Greek philosopher known as Sophists, who taught rhetoric, logic,
and civil affairs, was skeptical of moral absolutes. The Sophist Protagoras taught
that human judgment is subjective, and that one’s perception is valid for only one
self. Another, Gorgias even went to the extreme of arguing that nothing exists; that
if anything does exist, human beings could not know it; and that if they did know
it, they could not communicate that knowledge. Other Sophists, such as
-23-
Thrasymachus, believed that might make right. Socrates opposed the Sophist. His
philosophical position, as represented in the dialogues of his pupil Plato, may be
summarized as follows: Virtue is knowledge; people will be virtues if they know
what virtue is; and vice, or evil, is the result of ignorance. Thus, according to
Socrates, education as to what constitutes virtues can make people moral. One of
prominent pupil of Socrates, Plato submitted that good is an essential element of
reality. Evil does not exist in itself but is, rather an imperfect reflection of the real,
which is good. In his ‘Dialogues’ (First half of 4th Century B.C.), he maintains that
human virtue lies in the fitness of a person to perform that person’s proper function
in the world. The human soul has three elements-intellect, will and emotion, each
of which possesses a specific virtue in the good person and performs a specific
role. The virtue of intellect is wisdom, or knowledge of the ends of life; that of the
will is courage, the capacity to act; and that of the emotions is temperance or selfcontrol. The ultimate virtue, justice, is the harmonious relation of all the others,
each part of the soul performing its appropriate task and keeping its proper place.
Plato maintained that the intellect should be sovereign, the will second and the
emotions third, subject to intellect and will. The just person, whose life is ordered
in this way, is therefore the good person.
Aristotle, Plato’s pupil regarded happiness (eudemonia) as the aim of life.
In his principle work on ethics, the Nicomachean Ethics (late 4th century BC), he
defined happiness as activity that accords with the specific nature of humanity;
pleasure accompanies such activity but is not its chief aim. Happiness results from
the unique human attribute of reason, functioning harmoniously with human
faculties. Aristotle held that virtues are essential good habits, and to attain
happiness a person must develop two kinds of habits, those of mental activity, such
as knowledge, which lead to the highest human activity, contemplation; and those
of practical action and emotion, such as courage. Moral virtues are habits of action
Environmental ethics refers to the responsibility to understand the environmental
consequences of our consumption, and need to recognize our individual and social
responsibility to conserve natural resources and protect the earth for future
generations. An environmental ethics is basically a human ethics based on social
justice for all without discrimination of race, sex, religion, ideology, caste, region
-24-
or nation. Most current environmental problems are essentially a result of people’s
activities and their attitude towards the socio-cultural and natural environments.
Historically, individual and societal values have not always been in the best
interests of preserving a high quality environment from destruction (Natural
Environment Research Council, UK, 1989).
In view of the foregoing argument, it appears relevant to develop an
environmental ethics scale not only to assess the existing social responsibility and
environmental ethics of individuals, but also to modify and develop the ethics in
case of lack of concern and ethics towards environment among individuals and
society collectively. Most people recognize that some agreed-upon guidelines or
general rules should exist between individuals when they interact with one another
because if they did not, nothing in our lives would be predictable or safe. In other
words, people need to know that besides actual laws, there are some basic,
common ethics or principles of what is right and what is wrong that everyone
agrees upon and usually follows or lives by. Ethics is sometimes called moral
philosophy because it is concerned with what is morally good and bad or what is
right and wrong. As a specialized part of ethics, environmental ethics is concerned
with the morality (right and wrong) of human actions as they affect the
environment or the natural world we live in that conform to the ‘Golden Mean’, the
principle of moderation, and they must be flexible because of differences among
people and conditioning factors. For Aristotle, the intellectual and the moral virtues
are merely means towards the attainment of happiness, which results from the full
realization of human potential.18
The coming of Christianity marked a revolution in ethics, for it introduced
religious conception of good into Western thought. In the Christian view, a person
is totally dependent upon God and cannot achieve goodness by means of will or
intelligence, but only with the help of God’s grace. The primary Christian ethical
belief is stated in the golden rule. ‘So whatever you wish that men would do to you,
do so to them.’19 Early Christianity emphasized as virtues asceticism, martyrdom,
faith, mercy, forgiveness, and non-erotic love, few of which had been considered
important by the philosophers of classical Greece and Rome.
-25-
The influence of Christian ethical beliefs and practices diminished during
the Renaissance. The Protestant reformation affected a widespread return to basic
principles within Christian tradition, changing the emphasis on certain ideas and
introducing new ones. According to Martin Luther, ‘goodness of spirit is the
essence of Christian piety. Moral conduct, or good works, is required of the
Christian, but justification or salvation comes by faith alone’. In general, during the
reformation, individual responsibility was considered important than obedience to
authority or tradition.
During the 18th Century the British philosophers David Hume, in essays
‘Moral and Political’ (1741-1742) and Adam Smith, the proponent of laissez-faire,
theory of economics, in his ‘Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759), formulated
subjective ethical systems. They identified the good with what evoked feelings of
satisfactory and the bad with what evoked painful feelings.
In Europe, the French philosopher and novelist Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in
his ‘Social Contract’ (1762), accepted Hobbes’s theory of a social contract. His
novel ‘Emile’ (1762) and other works, however attributed evil to social
maladjustments and held that human beings were by nature good.
A major contribution to ethics was made later in the 18th Century by the
German philosopher Immanuel Kant in his ‘Grundlegung Zur Mataphysis der
Sitten (Principles of the Metaphysics of Ethics, 1785). According to Kant, no
matter how intelligently one acts, the results of human actions are subject to
accident and circumstances; therefore, the morality of an act must not be judged by
its consequences but only by its motivation. Intention alone is good, for it leads a
person to act, not from inclination, but from duty, which is based on a general
principle that is right in itself.
One of another prominent ethical and political doctrine was prominent by
British philosopher J. Bentham towards the end of the 18th century and later
expounded by James Mill and his son, John Stuart Mill, known as Utilitarianism.
He explained the principles of utility as a means of argumenting the happiness of
the community. He believed that all human actions are motivated by a desire to
obtain pleasure and avoid pain. Bantham speculates on the necessity of extending
-26-
moral consideration to include non-human animals. The morally pertinent
question, as Bantham states it is, can they suffer? For it is the capacity to suffer
that entitles a being to moral consideration, irrespective of its species membership.
More recent efforts, in the field of environment ethics, to extend the sphere of
moral concern beyond the solely human, have suggested that plants, and even
natural feature such as rivers, may have moral standing. It will be discussed in
detail under environmental ethics of this very chapter.
Later on many philosophers around the globe propounded different views
contributing in ethical theories like German philosophers G.W.F. Hegel, Danish
philosopher and theologian Soren Kierkegaard, Russian philosopher Prince Pyotr
Kropitkin, Sigmund Freud, British philosopher Bertrand Russell, German
philosopher Martin Hedegger, French Philosopher Jean Paul Sartre, American
philosopher John Deway, Indian philosopher Rabindra Nath Tagore, Swami
Vivekanand, Mahatma Gandhi, Acharya Tulsi etc. These philosophers are
considered the propounder of modern ethical theories, marked a place in the field
of ethics.
1.5.2 Field of Ethics
Ethics is divided into two fields: meta ethics and normative ethics. Meta ethics,
also called analytical or critical ethics, systematically studies the meanings of
ethical terms and of judgment used in normative ethics, their function, and the
means of supporting normative judgments. Normative ethics, also called moral
philosophy, is concerned with presenting and justifying a guide to right conduct. It
employs such terms as ‘good’, ‘bad’, ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ to express preferences,
decisions and choices or to criticize, grade, persuade, praise, blame and encourage.
Environmental ethics falls under normative ethics.
1.5.3 Environmental Ethics
Environmental ethics is relatively a new field of philosophical ethics, concerned
with describing the values carried by the non-human natural world and prescribing
an appropriate ethical response to ensure preservation or restoration of those
values. Environmental ethics is the discipline in philosophy that studies the moral
relationship of human beings to, and also the value and moral status of the
-27-
environment and its non-human contents. In other words, “Environment ethics is
theory and practice about appropriate concern for, values in and duties regarding
the natural world.” Environmental ethics starts with human concerns for a quality
environment and, some thinks this shape the ethics from starts to finish. Others
hold that beyond inter-human concerns, values are at stake when humans relate to
animals, plants, species and ecosystem. According to their vision, humans ought to
find nature sometimes morally considerable in itself, and this turns the ethics in
new directions
It is often said to be morally wrong for human beings to pollute and destroy
part of natural environment and to consume a huge proportion of the planet’s
natural resources. If that is wrong, is it simply because the sustainable environment
is essential to human well-being? Or is such behaviour also wrong because the
natural environment and its various contents have certain value in their own right
so that these values ought to be respected and protected in any ease? These are
among the questions investigated by environmental ethics.
In the literature of environmental ethics, the distinction between
instrumental and intrinsic value has been of considerable importance. The former
is the value of things as means to further some ends, whereas the latter is the value
of things as ends in themselves regardless of whether they are also useful as means
to other ends. Because the intrinsically valuable is that which is good as an end in
itself, it commonly agreed that something’s possession of intrinsic value generates
a prima facie direct moral duty on the part of moral agents to protect it or at least
refrain from damaging it. In the field of environmental ethics, broadly there lie two
perspectives. First perspective is called human-centered (anthropocentric)
worldview. They assign intrinsic value to human beings alone or they assign a
significantly greater amount of intrinsic value to human beings than to any nonhuman things such that the promotion of human interests or well being at the
expanse of non-human things turns out to be nearly always justified. For example,
Aristotle maintains that “Nature has made all things specifically for the sake of
man and that the value of non-human things in nature is merely instrumental.”
Generally, anthropocentric positions find it problematic to articulate what is wrong
with the cruel treatment of non-human animals, except to the extent that such
-28-
treatment may lead to bad consequences for human beings. Kant (“Duties to
Animal and spirits”, in lecture on Ethics), for instance suggests that cruelty
towards a dog might encourage a person to develop a character, which would be
desensitized to be cruelty towards humans. From this standpoint cruelty towards
non-human animals would be instrumentally rather than intrinsically wrong.
Likewise, anthropocentrism often recognizes some non-intrinsic wrongness of
anthropogenic environmental devastation. Such destruction might damage the well
being of human beings now and in the future, since our well-being is essentially
dependent on a sustainable environment. This human-centered view prevails in
most industrial societies today. According to this view, as the planet’s most
important and dominant species we can and should manage the planet mostly for
our benefit. Other species have only instrumental value; that is; their value depends
on whether they are useful to us or not. Following are the basic beliefs of this
worldview:
We are the planet’s most important species and we are apart from and
in charge of the rest of nature.
There is always more and it's all for us. Earth has an unlimited supply
of resource to which we gain access through use of science and
technology.
All economic growth is good, more economic growth is better, and the
potential for economic growth is unlimited.
A healthy environment depends on a healthy economy.
Our success depends how well we can understand, control, and manage
the planet for our benefits. There are several versions of this view.
Some people think that economic and population growth is good and
more growth is better. There is no serious problem of environment, or if
there are, economic growth and technology will fix them. They are
called “No problem School”.
-29-
Another group believes that the best way to manage the planet is through a
free market global economy with minimal government interference. Still another
group believes that we have serious environmental problem that we must deal with
by becoming better and more responsible planetary managers. These people follow
the pragmatic principle of enlightened self-interest: Better earth care is better selfcare. Many people with this belief adopt a Spaceship- Earth strategy, in which
earth is seen as a spaceship – a complex machine that we can understand,
dominate, change and manage to prevent environmental overload and provide a
good life for everyone.
Another group advocates the principle of stewardship in managing the
earth. According to this principle, because of our super intellect and power or
because of our moral or religious belief, we have an ethical responsibility to
manage and care for all species and ecosystem. But, all these view are
anthropocentric, which aims for the more and more betterment of human species.
This very anthropocentric view is responsible for the present state of
environmental and endangered condition of planet earth and its species. As a
reaction to this anthropocentric worldview, emerged the eco-centric or nonanthropocentric view, which further developed as a systematic philosophical
discipline namely ‘environmental ethics’. Non-anthropocentrism believes that any
human-centered worldview even stewardship is unsustainable. They holds the view
that we all should recognize inherent value or intrinsic value of all forms of life i.e.
value regardless of their potential or actual use to us. This means that all species
have inherent right to live and flourish or at least to struggle to exist to play their
role in evolution. Non-anthropocentrism tries to establish that all non-human living
organs are morally valuable in themselves, as each of them possesses intrinsic
value irrespective of valuers. It annihilates moral hierarchism within biotic
communities, restores equal moral status and environmental justice, mutual care,
love and sympathy. It equally cultivates individual rationality by means of which
one can realize that his own self is no longer different from other and every
individual self is essentially merged with the self. Thus, self-realization is the most
important key to understanding nature.
-30-
Proponents of eco-centric worldview believe that as long as we see
ourselves as the ‘top-dog’ species, we will continue to eliminate species that are
not useful to us instead of recognizing biodiversity as a vital element of earth
capital for all life. They also believe that any human-centered worldview will fail
because it wrongly assumes that we have or can gain enough knowledge to become
manager of man. In the words of Aldo Leopold “We are only fellow voyagers with
other creatures in the odyssey of evolution,” Eco-centric world view calls for us to
work with rest of nature by learning and using mechanism that nature has evolved
for promoting sustainability and adaptability. Followings are eco-centric beliefs
which are opposite of the anthropocentric worldview beliefs.
Nature exists for all Earth’s species not just for us, and we are not apart
from or in charge of the rest of nature. We need the earth, but the earth
does not need us.
There is not always more, and it’s not all for us. Earth’s resources are
limited, should not be wasted, and should be used sustainably for us and
all species.
Some forms of economic growth are beneficial and some are harmful.
Our goals should be to design economic and political system that
encourage earth-sustaining forms of growth and discourage or prohibit
earth degrading forms, and to see that the benefits of such growth are
distributed equitably among all people (social and economic justice)
and sexes (gender justice), and across generations (intergenerational
justice).
A healthy economy depends on a healthy environment. Our survival,
life quality, and economies are totally dependent on the rest of nature.
Our success depends on learning to cooperate with one another and
with the rest of nature instead of trying to dominate and manage earth
for our own use. Because nature is so incredibly complex and always
changing, we will never have enough information and understanding to
manage the planet.
- 31 -
History of Environmental Ethics
The notion of eco-centric ethics or environmental ethics has gained prominence
recently among many environmentalists, but its ongoing go back centuries.
Environmental ethics as a discipline evolved in west, but environmental values,
and concern for protection and urge to live in harmony can be traced from eastern
world also. One of the oldest religion of east, Hinduism provides a worldview with
regard to the ecological situation based on the premise that mankind is an integral
part of nature itself linked to the rest of creation by a indissoluble bounds. Prayer
for peace in Yajurved is the embodiment of environment ethics “Supreme Lord, let
there be peace in the sky and in the atmosphere, peace in the plant world and in the
forests; let the cosmic powers be peaceful, let Brahman be peaceful; let there be
undiluted and fulfilling peace everywhere.51 Eastern religions Hinduism, Jainism,
Buddhism,
Taoism,
Confucianism,
Shintoism,
etc
are
enshrined
with
environmental values, and promote harmony with nature world. St. Francis of
Asisis (1181-1126) espoused a philosophy akin to the eco-centric ethic. He
specially considered all animals as integrated components of divine creation.
According to him, ‘wildlife has right to exist independent of any human purpose.
During St. Francis’s century, however, such concepts were largely ignored or
chastised.
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862), the father of Limnology, the
transcendentalist, also professed a variety of eco-centric ethics. He built a cabin on
Walden Pond in Massachusetts and lived a simple life for two years. There he
viewed nature as a single living organic entity with all living organism related to
each other. In his work ‘Walden’ he urged his readers to recognize and learn to live
within environmental guidelines.
Although nature was the focus of much nineteenth and twentieth century
philosophy, contemporary environmental ethics emerged as an academic discipline
in the 1970s. This emergence was no doubt due to the increasing awareness in the
1960’s of the effects that technology, industry, economic expansion and population
growth having on the environment. The development of such awareness was aided
by the publication of two important book at this time Rachel Cason’s ‘Silent
-32-
Spring’ first published in 1962, alerted readers to how the widespread use of
chemical pesticides was posing a serious threat to public health and leading to the
destruction of wildlife. Of similar significance was Paul Ehrlich’s book ‘The
population Bomb’ (1968), which warned of the devastating effects of spiraling
human population has on planet’s resources.
An intellectual climate had developed in the last few years of the 1960s in
large part because of the publication of two papers in ‘Science’ Lynn White’s,
‘The historical roots of our ecological crisis’ (March, 1967) and Garrett Hardin’s,
‘The Tragedy of the Commons’ (Dec 1968). In his paper, White argued that the
main strands of Judo-Christian thinking had encouraged the over-exploitation of
nature by maintaining the superiority of humans over all other forms of life of
earth and by depicting all of nature as created for the use of humans. White’s thesis
is widely discussed in theology, history and has been subject to some sociological
testing as well as being regularly discussed by philosophers. Central to the
rationale for his thesis were the works of the Church Father’s and the Bible itself,
supporting the anthropocentric perspective that humans are the only thing that
matter on Earth. Consequently, they may utilize and consume everything else to
their advantage without any injustice. In addition, White also stated that some
minority traditions within Christianity (e.g. the views of St. Francis) might provide
an antidote to the arrogance of a mainstream tradition steeped into
anthropocentrism. Around the same time ‘Population Bomb’, (1968) was
published. Most influential with regard to this kind of thinking, however, was an
essay in Aldo Leopold’s A Sand Country Almanac, “The Land Ethic” in which
Leopold explicitly claimed that the roots of ecological crisis were philosophical.
Although originally published in 1949, ‘Sand Country Almanac’ became widely
available in 1970 in a special Sierra Club/Ballantine edition in which included
essays from a second book, ‘Round River’. The sense of environmental crisis
stimulated by those and other popular works was intensified by NASA’s
production and wide dissemination of a particularly potent image of the earth from
space taken at Christmas, 1968 and featured in the ‘Scientific American’ in
September 1970. Here, plain to see, was a living, shining planet voyaging through
space and shared by all of humanity, a precious vessel vulnerable to pollution and
-33-
to the overuse of its limited capacities. In 1972, a team of researcher at MIT led by
Dennis Meadows published the ‘Limits to Growth’ study, a work that summed up
in many ways the emerging concerns of the previous decade and sense of
vulnerability trigged by the view of the earth from space. In commentary of the
study the researcher wrote:
“We affirming finally that any deliberate attempts to reach a rational and enduring
state of equilibrium by planned measures, rather than by chance or catastrophe,
must ultimately be founded on a basic change of value and goals at individual,
national and world levels.”
The call for a basic change of values in connections to the environment (a
call that could be interpreted in terms of either instrumental or intrinsic value)
reflected a need for the development of environmental ethics as a new sub division
of philosophy. Throughout most of the decade philosophers sat on the sidelines
trying to determine what a field called environmental ethics might look like.
William Blackstone at the University of Georgia organized the first
philosophical conference in 1972. The proceedings were published as ‘Philosophy
and Environmental Crisis’ in 1974 which included Pete Gunter’s first paper on
‘The Big Thicket. In 1972 a book called ‘Is it too late? A Theology of Ecology’
written by John B. Cobb was published. It was the first single authored book
written by a philosopher. In 1973, an Australian philosopher Richard Routley
(Now Sylvan), presented a paper at the 15th World Congress of Philosophy ‘Is
there a need for a new Environmental Ethics.’ In 1975, environmental ethics came
to the attention of mainstream philosophy with the publication of Holmes Rolston
III’s, paper “Is here an Ecological Ethics?” Arne Naess, Norwegian philosopher
and the founding editor of the journal ‘Inquiry’, authored and published a paper in
Inquiry, ‘The shallow and the Deep, Long-Range Ecology Movement’ in 1973,
which was the beginning of the deep ecology movement. Prominent writers in this
movement include George Session, Bill Devall, Warwick Fox, and Max
Oelschaeger Throughout the 1970s ‘Inquiry’ was the primary philosophy journal
that dealt with environmental ethics. In 1979, Eugene C. Hargrove66 founded the
journal ‘Environment Ethics’, which name became the name of the field. The first
-34-
five years of the journal were spent mostly arguing about rights for nature and the
relationship of environmental ethics and animal rights/animal liberation. Rights
lost and animal welfare ethics were determined to a separate field. Animal rights
has since developed as a separate field with a separate journal, first, ‘Ethics and
Animals’, which was later superseded by ‘Between the Species’.
John B. Cobb published another book in the early 1980s ‘The liberation of
life’ with co-author Charles Birch. Robin Attfield, a philosopher in Wales, wrote a
book called ‘The ethics of Environmental Concern’. It was the first full length
response to Passmore. An anthology of papers, ‘Ethics and the environment’ was
edited by Donald Scherer and Tom Attig.
There was a turning point about 1988, when many single-authored books
began to come available. Paul Taylor’s ‘Respect for Nature, Holmes Rolston’s
‘Environmental Ethics, Mark Sagoff’s ‘The Economy of the Earth, and Eugene C.
Hargrove’s ‘Foundation of Environmental Ethics, J. Baird Collicott created a
collection of his paper ‘In Defense of the Land Ethic. Brayon Norton wrote ‘Why
preserve Natural Diversity’ followed more recently by ‘Towards Unity’ among
Environmentalist. A large number of books have been written by Kristin Shrader –
Frechette on Economic and Policy.
In the 1980s a second movement, eco-feminism was developed. Karen
Waren is the key philosopher, although the eco-feminist movement involves many
thinkers from other fields. It was then followed by a third, social ecology based on
the views of Murray Bookchin. An important link between academics and radical
environmentalists was established with the creation of Canadian deep ecology
journal ‘The Trumpeter’. In 1989, ‘Earth Ethics Quarterly’ was begun as a more
popular environmental publication. Originally intended primarily as a reprint
publication, now as a publication of the ‘Center for respect for life and
Environment’, it is focused more on international sustainable development. The
1990s begin with the establishment of the ‘International Society for Environmental
Ethics’, which was founded largely through the efforts of Laura Westra and
Holmes Ralston III. It now has members throughout the world. In 1992, a second
referred philosophical journal dedicated to environmental ethics, ‘Environmental
-35-
values’ published its first issue in England. In 1966, a new journal was established
at the University of Georgia, ‘Ethics and the Environment.’ In 1997, a second
international association was created ‘The International Association for
Environmental Philosophy’, with an emphasis of environmental phenomenology.
Development of Environmental Ethics
The field of environmental ethics concerns to outline our moral obligation. The
most fundamental question that must be asked when regarding a particular
environment ethic is simply ‘what obligation do we have concerning the natural
environment. If the answer is simply that we, as human beings, will perish if we do
not constrain our action towards nature, then the ethics is considered to be
anthropocentric. And in one senses all ethics must be considered anthropocentric.
After all, as far as we know, only human beings can reason about and reflect upon
ethical matters, thus, giving all moral debate a definite ‘human centeredness.’
While the history of western philosophy is dominated by this anthropocentric
ethical framework that grants moral standing solely to human beings, it has come
under considerable attack from many environmental ethicists. Such thinkers have
claimed that ethics must be extended beyond humanity, and moral standing should
be accorded to the non-human natural world. Some have claimed that this
extension should run to sentient animals, other to individual living organisms and
still others to holistic entities such as river, species and ecosystems. Under these
ethics, we have obligations in respect of the environment because we actually owe
things to the creatures or entities within the environment themselves. Different
philosophers have given quite different answer to these fundamental questions,
which has led to the emergence of quite different environmental ethics. Following
section examines the prominent accounts for moral standing within environmental
ethics, together with the implication to each.
Human Beings
Under this section comes the anthropocentric ethics which claim that people are
both the subject and object of ethics. Humans can have no duties to flora and fauna
and ecosystem only. Anthropocentrisms may wish to save these things for the
benefits they bring.79 Quite simply then, we posses obligation to respect the
-36-
environment for the sake of human’s well-beings and prosperity. The sentiments of
John Passmore are probably typical of this narrower view. “The of right is simply
not applicable to what is non-human. It is one thing to say that it is wrong to treat
animals cruelly, and quite another to say that animals have rights. Despite the
human-centeredness, anthropocentric environmental ethics have nevertheless
played a part in the extension of moral standing. This extension has not been to the
non-human natural world though, but, instead, to human beings who do not yet
exist. The granting of moral standing to future generation has been considered
because of the fact that many environmental problems, such as climate change and
resource depletion will affect future generation much more than they affect present
ones. In light of these facts, some philosophers have founded their environmental
ethics on obligation to the future generations. In this sense our obligations lie with
ensuring that we do not prevent future generations from meeting their basic needs.
This, in turn, forces us to consider and appropriately revise our levels of pollutions,
resource depletion, and climate change and population growth. Despite of this
extension of moral standing, most environmental philosopher feel that such
anthropocentric environmental ethics do not go far enough, and want to extend
moral standing beyond humanity. Only by doing this, such thinkers argue, can we
get the beyond narrow and selfish interest of humans, and treat the environment
and it’s inhabitants with the respect they deserve.
Animals
Ethics is for people, but is ethics only about people? Wild animals do not make
man the measures of things at all. There is no better evidence of non-human values
and valuers than spontaneous wild life, born free and on its own. Animals hint and
haul, find shelter, seek out their habitats and mates, care for their young, and flee
from threats. They suffer injury and lick their wounds. Animals maintain a valued
self-identity as they cope through the world. They defend their lives because they
have a good of their own. There is somebody there behind fur or feathers.
An animal values its own life for what it is in itself, without further
contributory reference, although of course it inhabits an eco-system in which its
life-support depends. Animals are valuable, able to value things in their world,
-37-
their own life intrinsically and their resource instrumentally. So there can and
ought to be several philosopher agree that moral standing should be extended to
include animals and an animal welfare ethic or some prefer to say an animal rights
ethic.
Peter Singer and Tom Regan are the most famous proponents of the view
that we should extend moral standing to other species of animals. While both
develop quite different animal ethics, their reasons for according a moral status to
animals are fairly similar. According to Singer, the criterion to moral standing is
sentience: the capacity to feel pleasure and pain. For Regan, on the other hand,
moral standing should be acknowledged in all subjects-of-a- life: that is those
beings with beliefs, desire, perception, memory, emotions, a sense of future, and
the ability to initiate action. So, while Regan and Singer give tightly different
criteria for moral standing, both places a premium on a form of consciousness.
For Singer, if any entity possesses the relevant type of consciousness, then
that entity should be given equal consideration when we formulate our moral
obligations. The point is not that every sentient being should be treated equally, but
that it should be considered equally. In other words, the differences between
individuals, and thus, their different interests should be taken into account. Singer
then feeds his principle of equal consideration into a utilitarian ethical framework,
whereby the ultimate goal is to bring about the greatest possible satisfaction of
interests.
For Tom Regan, all entities that are subject-of-a-life ‘possess inherent
value’. This means that such entities have a value of their own, irrespective of their
good for other beings or their contribution to some ultimate ethical norm. In effect
then, Regan proposes that there are moral limits to what one can do to a subject-ofa-life. This position stands in contrast to Singer, who feeds all interests into the
utilitarian calculus and bases our moral obligation on what satisfies the greatest
numbers.
It can be concluded from the above perspective that animal welfare is
relevant to environmental ethics because animals exist within the natural
environment and thus, form part of environmental concerns. However, extending
-38-
moral standing to animals also leads to the formulation of particular types of
environmental obligations. Essentially, these ethics claim that when we consider
how our actions impact on the environment, we should not just evaluate how these
affect humans (present or future), but also how they affect the interest and rights of
animals.88
Individual Living Organism
A bio-centric ethics ask about appropriate respect towards all living things, not
only the wildlife and farm animals, but now the butterflies and the sequoia tress.
Otherwise, most of the biological world has not yet taken into account: lower
animals, insects, microbes, and plants. Over 96 percent of species are invertebrates
or plants; only tiny fractions of living organism are sentient animals. Considering
plant makes the difference between biocentrism and animal ethic clear. For some
environmental philosophers, extension of moral standing merely to animals is not
sufficient rather, it should be extended beyond conscious life to include individual
living organism such as tree. According to them, we cannot rely on intuitions to
decide who or what has moral standing. For this reason, a number of philosophers
have come up with arguments to justify assigning moral standing to individual
living organism. One of the earliest philosophers to put such an argument was
Albert Schweitzer. His influential reverence for life claims that all living thing
have a will to live and that humans should not interfere with or extinguish this will.
In the words of Schweitzer, “Just as in my own will to live there is a yearning for
more life, and for that mysterious exaltation of the will-to-live which is called
pleasure, and terror in the face of annihilation and that injury to the will-to-live
which is called pain; so the same obtains in all the will-to-live around me, equally
whether it can express itself to my comprehension or whether it remains unvoiced.
Ethics thus consists in this, that I experience the necessity of practicing the same
reverence for life toward all will-to-live as toward my own. Therein I have already
the needed fundamental principle of morality. It is good to maintain and cherish
life, it is evil to destroy and check life.”
But, while it is clear that all living organism struggle for survive, it is
simply not true that they ‘will’ to live. This, after all, would require some kind of
-39-
conscious experience, which many living things lack, however, perhaps what
Schweitzer was getting at was something like Paul W. Taylor and more recent
claim that all living things are teleological centers of life. For Taylor, this means
that living things have a good of their own that they strive towards, even it they
lack awareness of this fact. This good is the full development of an organism’s
biological power. In similar arguments to Regan’s, Taylor claims that because
living organism have a good of their own, they have inherent value; i.e. value for
their own sake, irrespective of their value to other beings. It is this value that grants
individual living organism moral status, and means that we must take the interest
and needs of such entities into account when formulating our moral obligations.
Christopher Stone, a Professor of law at the University of Southern
California proposed that trees and other natural objects should have at least the
same standing in law as corporations. He reasoned that if tree, forests and
mountains could be given standing in law then they could be represented in their
own right in the courts by groups. Moreover, like any other legal person, these
natural things could become beneficiaries of compensation if it could be shown
that they had suffered compensatable injury through human activity.
A question arises that we humans require the destruction of many living
organisms simply in order to live, how are we then formulating any meaningful
moral obligation. We need to walk, eat, shelter, and clothe ourselves, all of which
usually, involve harming living beings. Schweitzer answers that we can only harm
or end the life of a living entity when absolutely necessary. On clearing about
necessary condition, Taylor points out as self defense, basic needs. When basic
interests clash, human are not required to sacrifice themselves for the sake of
others.
Holistic Entities
Aldo Leopold, a forester ecologist, is the main influence on those who proposes
holistic ethics. He claimed famously: “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the
integrity, stability and beauty of biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise. ‘The land is a community’, is the basic concept of ecology, but that land
is to be loved and respected is an extension of ethic.” In a holistic ethic, this
-40-
ecosystemetic level in which all organisms are embedded also counts morally in
some respect more than any of the component organisms, because the systematic
processes have generated, continue to support, and integrate tens of thousands of
member organism. The appropriate unit for moral concern is the fundamental unit
of development and survival. That, we were just saying, is species lines. But a
species is what it is, where it is, encircled by ecology.
According to Leopold, land is not merely soil. Instead, land is a fountain of
energy, flowing through a circuit of soils, plants and animals while food chain
conduct the energy upwards from the soil, death and decay returns the energy back
to the soil. Thus, the flow of energy relies on a complex structure of relation
between living things. While evolution gradually changes these relations, Leopold
argues that man’s intervention have been much more violent and destructive. In
order to preserve the relations neither the land, Leopold claims that we must move
towards ‘land ethic’, thereby granting moral standing to the Land community itself,
not just its individual members.99 Loopold’s idea that the land as a whole is an
object of our moral concern also stimulated writers like Eric Katz, Andrew
Brennaran to argue for certain moral obligation towards ecological not just their
individual constituents. The U.S. based theologian and environmental philosopher;
Holmes Rolston III argued that species protection was a moral duty. It would be
wrong, he maintained, to eliminate a rare butterfly species simply to increase the
monetary value of specimens already held by collectors. Species are intrinsically
valuable. They are usually more valuable than individual specimen, since the lost
of a species is a loss of genetic possibilities and the deliberate destruction of a
species would show disrespect for the very biological process, which make
possible the emergence of individual living things.
J. Baird Callicott advocated a version of land-ethical holism which takes
Leopold’s statement “a thing is right …...” In this theory, the earth's biotic
community per se is the sole locus of intrinsic value, here as the value of its
individual members is merely instrumental and dependent on their contribution to
the integrity, stability and beauty of the larger community. Thus, on the whole,
according to bio-centric ethics, our moral obligation lies in maintaining and not
disturbing the integrity and stability of larger community by our actions.
-41-
Earth Ethics
The astronaut Michael Collins recalled being, “I remember so vividly. What saw
when I looked back at my fragile home-a glistening, inviting beacon, delicate blue
and white, a tiny outpost suspended in a black infinity? Earth is to be treasured and
nurtured, something precious that must endure.” The UN Secretary-General,
Boutros Boutros Ghali, closed the Earth summit, “The spirit of Rio must create a
new mode of civic conduct. It is not enough for man to love his neighbour, he must
learn to love his world.”103 Earth is not mere a big resource to be exploited for
human needs, nor a pie to be divided up for human consumption. Rather, Earth is a
precious thing in itself because it is home for us all, Earth is to be loved, as we do a
neighbour for an intrinsic integrity. The center of focus is not people, but the
biosphere.
The most prominent philosopher, who proposed highest moral standing to
earth itself is James Lovelock, who proposed ‘Gaia Hypothesis’. He first exposed
his idea in 1979 in his book, ‘Gaia, a new look at life on Earth’. The Gaia theory
states that the biosphere of this planet has most or all of the essential characteristics
of a living organism. These characteristics are responses to stimuli, metabolism,
biological
development
and,
most
importantly,
homeostasis.
The
fifth
characteristic, reproduction, may be or may not be evident. Nevertheless, Gaia
model represents the planet as a super organism. It also implies that not only do
living organisms modify their nonliving environment but both of them evolve
together as a unity.
Lovelock discovered Gaia from outer space when he saw the Earth from
the perspective of an ET looking for evidence of life. He thought that what he is
seeing is not so much a planet adorned with diverse life form, but a planet
transfigured and transformed by a self-evolving and self-regulating living system.
By nature of its activity, he named that being Gaia, after the Greek goddess, which
drew the living world forth from chaos.
In way analogous to the myriad different cell colonies which make up
organs and bodies, the life forms of earth in their diversity co-evolving and
contribute interactively to produce and sustain the optimal conditions for the
-42-
growth and prosperity not of themselves, but of the larger whole, Gaia. The very
make up of the atmosphere, seas, and terrestrial crust is the result of radical
intervention carried out by Gaia through the evolving diversity of living creatures.
James Lovelock proves through his theory the importance of whole earth as
a super living organism, and that our moral consideration should be extended up to
the Earth itself. Eco-centric views emphasize our obligations towards Gaia’s health
by invoking the intrinsic value of a complex system like Gaia and by recognizing
that Gaia as a long lived super organisms has great relative worth then does a
single species like Homo Sapiens, Under the eco-centric view all species carry
equal worth a priori, but every species is dispensable to Gaia, whereas a healthy
Gaia is absolutely indispensable for the flourishing of any species.
Since, Gaia is identical with the global ecosystem, its biota and abiota, we
are under morally obligation to apply the criteria that ecologist have established for
the health of smaller ecosystems i.e. maintained species diversity, productivity, and
the systems homeostatic capacity. As Lovelock said, “Earth does not belong to us,
rather we belong to it. We belong on it. Earth is really the relevant survival unit.
The Gaian ethics may facilitate the task of converting destructive human activities
to constructive and corporate behaviour.
Radical Ecological Ethical Theories
There are some philosophers who perceive our obligation towards environment
beside in terms of extending moral standing. They do not find extension of moral
standing sufficient to resolve environmental crisis. They argue that a broader
philosophical perspective is needed, requiring fundamental changes in both our
attitude to and understanding of reality. For radical ecologist, ethical extensionism
is inadequate because it is stuck in traditional ways of thinking that led to these
environmental problems in the first place. They argue that ethical extensionism too
is human-centered, because it takes human beings as the paradigm example of
entities with moral standing and then extends outwards to those things considered
sufficiently similar. These radical ecologies do not confine themselves solely to the
arena of ethics. Instead, they demand fundamental changes in society and its
institution. In other words, these ideologies have a distinctively political element,
-43-
requiring us to confront the environmental crisis by changing the every way we
live and function, both as a society and as a individual. Some prominent of such
are as:Deep Ecology
This philosophical school was founded by Norwegian philosopher Arne Naess in
the early seventies with his distinction between shallow and deep ecology. The
shallow ecology movement, as Naess calls it, is the fight against pollution and
resource depletion, the central objective of which is the health and affluence of
people in the developed country. The deep ecology in contrasts endorses
biospheric egalitarianism, the view that all living things are alike in having value in
their own right, independent of their usefulness to others. It recognizes the
fundamental interdependence of all phenomena and the fact that as individual and
societies, we are all embedded in (and ultimately dependents) the cyclical process
of nature. Deep ecologists advocate the development of a new eco-philosophy or
ecosophy to replace the destructive philosophy of modern industrial society. Arne
Naess and George Sessions have compiled a list of eight principles or statement
that is basic to deep ecology:
1. Well being and flourishing of human and nonhuman life on Earth have
value in themselves (synonyms: intrinsic value, inherent worth)
2. These values are independent of the usefulness of the nonhuman world for
human purposes.
3. Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realization of these
values and are also values in themselves.
4. Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy
vital needs.
5. The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a
substantially smaller population. The flourishing of non-human life requires
smaller human population.
- 44 -
6. Present human interference with the non-human world is excessive and the
situation is rapidly worsening.
7. Policies must therefore be changed. These policies effect basic economies,
technological and ideological structures. The resulting state of affairs will
be deeply different from the present.
8. The ideological changes will mainly that of appreciating life quality
(dwelling in situations of inherent values) rather than adhering to an
increasingly higher standard of living. There will be a profound awareness
of the difference between bigness and greatness.
Those who subscribe to foregoing points have an obligation directly or
indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.
Naess’s ecosophy involves just one fundamental ethical norm “Self
realization.” For Naess, this norm involves giving up a narrow egoistic conception
of the self in favour of a wider more comprehensive self (hence the deliberate
Capital “S”). Moving to this wider ‘Self’ involves recognizing that as human
beings we are not removed from nature, but are interconnected with it.
Recognizing our wider self, thus, involves identifying ourselves with all other life
forms on the planet. The Australian philosopher Warwick Fox has taken this theme
of self-realization in his own eco-philosophy, ‘transpersonal ecology’. Fox does
not regard environmental ethics to be predominantly about formulating our moral
obligation concerning the environment, but instead views it about the realization of
an ecological consciousness. Thus, for Naess, once the appropriate consciousness
is established, one will naturally protect the environment and allow it to flourish,
for that will be part and parcel of the protection and flourishing of oneself.
A radical ecological thinker, Mahatma Gandhi’s ideas were quite akin to
deep ecology. Nature to him was the outer expression of the all-pervasive living
Reality, which means God. He said” God manifests Himself in innumerable forms
in the universe and every such manifestation command my spontaneous reverence”
He was quite sensitive to the charms of nature. He viewed that everything living
-45-
and nonliving is vibrating with life. He advocated a creative harmony between
individual communities and natural world. He advocated that it is the task of
human beings to realize that only a violent attitude towards life destroys the power
of the earth. So, as a remedial measure, Gandhi told to follow a non-violent way of
life, a unique and valuable concept which needs to be expanded to all living and
nonliving beings. Hence, his vision was of a non-violent eco-friendly world order’.
He echoed his principle of deep ecology, when he said that nature has given
enough to satisfy everyone’s need, but not greed. Unsatisfied desire, resulting into
increasing imbalance, environmental degradation, fast vanishing flora and fauna,
explosion of population- all are the outcome of the greed of the modern homosapiens. He himself practiced nonviolent throughout life and told that it is not
possible for a human being to create life, so he is in no way justified to destroy any
life.
Social Ecology
Social Ecology shares with deep ecology the view that the foundations of
environmental crisis lie in the dominant ideology of modern western society. Thus,
just as deep ecology, social ecology clears that in order to resolve the crisis, a
radical overhaul of this ideology is necessary. Indeed, domination is the key theme
in the writing of Murray Bookchin, the most prominent social ecologist. For him,
environmental problems are directly related to social problems. In particular,
Bookchin claims that the hierarchies of power prevalent within modern societies
have fostered a hierarchical relationship between human beings and natural world.
Indeed it is the ideology of free market that has facilitated such hierarchies,
reducing both human beings and natural world to mere commodities. Bookchin
argues that the liberation of both human and nature are actually depending on one
another. This argument is quite different from Marxist thought which recognizes
men’s freedom dependent on the complete domination of humans from nature that
is prevalent in capitalist ideology. Instead, social ecology argues that human must
recognize that they are part of nature, not distinct or separate from it. It suggests
that then human societies and human relations with nature can be informed by the
non-hierarchical relations found within the natural world. Like in ecosystems, there
-46-
is no species more important than other; instead relationships are mutualistic and
interrelated. This interdependence and lack of hierarchy in nature provide a
blueprint for a non-hierarchical human's society.
On how such transformed society will look like? Bookchin explains that
such transformation must take place within smaller local communities. Such
communities will be based on sustainable agriculture, participation through
democracy, and of course freedom through non-domination. Not only then does
nature help cement richer and more equal human communities, but transformed
societies foster a more benign relationship with nature. This latter point also
illustrates Bookchin’s optimistic view of humanity’s potential. After all Bookchin
does not condemn all of humanity for causing the ecological crisis, for instead it is
the relationship with societies that are to blame. Bookchin suggest that we can
choose to put ourselves at the service of natural evolution, to help maintain
complexity and diversity diminish suffering and reduce pollution. Bookchin’s
social ecology recommends that we use our gifts of sociability, communication and
intelligence as if we were ‘nature rendered conscious’, instead of learning them
against the very source and origin from which such gift derive. Exploitation of
nature should be replaced by a richer form of life devoted to nature’s preservation.
Indian environmental thinker, Ramchandra Guha also expressed his ideas
akin with social ecology. He supported the idea of social change to solve the ecocrisis. He said that our historical experience of different societies shows that there
are always exemplary individuals who in their own lives, through thinking,
reflection and experience have undertaken value changes and a spiritual
transformation in their attitude towards nature and the non-human. Eco-feminism
Like social ecology, eco feminism also points to a link between social
domination and the domination of the natural world. And like both deep ecology
and social ecology, eco feminism calls for a radical overhaul of the prevailing
philosophical perspective and ideology of western society.
By the mid 1970, feminist writer had raised the issue of whether patriarchal
modes of thinking encouraged not only widespread inferiorizing and colonizing of
women, but also of people of colour, animals and nature. Sheila Collins argued that
-47-
male dominated culture or patriarchy is supported by four interlocking pillars:
sexism, racism, class exploitation and ecological destruction. Yenstra King, an
eco-feminist says that domination of women by men is historically the original
form of domination in human society, from which all other hierarchies of rank,
class and political power-flow. Human exploitation of nature may be seen as a
manifestation and extension of the oppression of women, in that it is the result of
associating nature with female, which had been inferiorized and oppressed by the
male dominating culture. Val Plumood, Karen J. Warren are considered prominent
eco-feminist thinkers. Like deep ecology and social ecology, eco-feminism also
believes that to resolve environmental problems we face and the system of
domination in place; it is the consciousness and philosophical outlook of individual
that must change.
Deep Ecology, feminism and social ecology have had a considerable
impact on the development of political positions in regard to the environment.
Apart from their radical ecological theories, there are some other radical ideas,
which present their ideas relevant to the development of ecological ethics. One of
them is Eucharistic ecology, which believes that this planet is a God gift. It
perceives earth as Eucharistic planet, a God gift planet, which is structured as
mutual feeding as intimate self-sharing. It is a great process, a circulation of living
energies, in which the Real presence of the Absolute is discerned. Never holding
still, continually passing away from moment to moment, it is shining face of the
eternal. It is living as an integral body, as the glory body of the Real. In short, it
perceives the world as the real presence of Absolute one, the God.
Similar to Eucharistic ecology is the ‘Pantheism’, which believes in the
oneness of God and Nature. This doctrine identifies the deity with various forces
and working of nature. It believes that God is identical with the universe. All is
God and God is all. The universe taken as a whole is God. God and nature are
synonymous, two for the same thing. Pantheism with its idea of oneness of God
and nature instills a reverence for nature, which can help reverse the ecologic
crisis.
-48-
The variety of approaches to environment ethics described in this chapter
indicates the diversity and complexity of environmental ethics. All these
approaches to ethics formed in current general ethical theories have been applied
with environmental ethics. In addition, considering the possible ethical significance
of grouping such as eco-system and the ideas such as diversity, has led to the
development of largely new ethical approaches such a suggested by Collicot or
developed out of Gaia hypothesis. The environmental problems of the present have
drawn attention to the insight that ethical questions are raised by human behaviour
towards not only non-human individuals, but towards ecosystem, species and
biosphere itself. Deciding what sort of ethical response is appropriate to such
question is the task of environment ethics. The importance of such responses is
beyond doubt.
The Future of Environmental Ethics
Given the increasing concern for the environment and the impact that our action
have upon it, it is clear that the field of environmental ethics is here to stay. There
are evidences for future development in various aspects. First of all, environmental
ethics needs to be and will be informed by changes in the political efforts to
ameliorate environmental problems. As earlier said, Environmental Ethics
concerns formulating our moral obligations regarding the environment. Realizing
this imminent danger of the environholocaust, there has been an awakening
enmassed and a new world order has compelled itself to deliberate how best one
can maintain, upgrade and improve the environment with judicious utilization of
this treasure, for the benefit of mankind. In this context the last decade has
witnessed an explosion in the structural and functional capabilities of nongovernment organizations. It is a sign of relief that various efforts are being taken
at global level by these NGO’s. International organizations provide an essential
forum for International cooperation in relation to environmental issues. In this
context they have two important roles to play: environmental policy-making and
the development of international environmental laws. It is important to observe,
however, that these two roles are distinct and that the powers of particular
organizations in regard to each function will vary. While it is now common
practice for a wide range of international organizations to develop environmental
-49-
policies, but, the development of law is usually only one element, which does not
fall within the powers of organizations. 129 Here the environmental legislation
adopted in various countries plays a vital role for the conservation of environment,
i.e. more than two-dozen laws protect India’s environment. They cover all aspects
of the environment from pollution to conservation, from deforestation to nuclear
waste. 130
Ethicists and environmentalists must also propose more alternatives and better
means of resolving the problem we face, and the environmental movements are
providing a significant platform for the same. The environmental movements
advocates for the protection, sustainable management and restoration of the natural
environment in an effort to satisfy human needs, including spiritual and social
needs, as well as for its own sake. The movements are united by a reverence for the
natural world, a commitment to maintain the health or natural systems and in its
recognition of humanity as a part of and not separate to ecosystems. Some
significant movements, i.e. Green Peace, Chipko, Save Narmada etc. were
organized and represented by the common mass resulting in some important
summits and treatise for the environmental conservation. Earth summit, Kyoto
Protocol is some to name.
Once, it is recognized that we have environmental obligations; all areas of ethics
are affected, including just war theory, domestic distributive justice, global
distributive justice, human rights theory and global ethics. Global ethics deals with
the moral questions that arise from globalization. Some of the most pressing of
these arise from the great systematic disparities of wealth, health, longevity,
security, and freedom between the North and South. What obligations have
individuals and governments in the North to improve the lives of people in the
South ? How might international trading arrangements be made fairer? How might
military intervention be better regulated? How might the local tyrannies of
warlords or criminal gangs be undone? How far must the ways of life of
individuals change for the sake of the worst off elsewhere, or for the sake of
reversing climate change? In nutshell global ethics can be summarized as under:
1. Culture of nonviolence and reverence for life.
- 50 -
2. Culture of Solidarity and just economic order.
3. Culture of tolerance and life of truthfulness
4. Culture of equal rights and partnership between men and women.
Finally, environment ethics of course is informed by our scientific
understanding of the environment, whether it be changes in our understanding of
how eco-systems work, or changes in the evidence concerning the environmental
crisis. Here environmental education will have to be potential Instrumental for the
common awareness.
The academic programme should be planned in such a way as to meet the
changing needs of the country. We have seen agriculture and technological
revolution with their consequences. Now it is high time when we need an
educational reform based on environmental education. The behaviour of entire
society towards the biosphere must be transformed if the achievement of
conservation objectives is to be assured. A new ethic, embracing plants and
animals as well as people, is required for human societies to live in harmony with
the natural world, on which they depend for survival and well-being. The longterm task of environmental education is to foster or reinforce attitudes and
behaviour compatible with this new ethic. The objective of environmental
education can be broadly classified as under:
(a) To create awareness and impart knowledge as also attempt to change the
attitude of individual and social groups towards environment and its
degradation.
(b) To help individuals and social groups to acquire skills to evaluate and solve
the environmental problems confronting the society through active
participation of the members. To achieve these objectives education can be
imparted at two levels the formal and the informal level.
(c) To promote formal and non-formal education related to the environment by
implementing the World Conservation Strategy: (i) by promoting the
inclusion of environmental objectives within ongoing educational
- 51 -
programmes and projects; and developing new projects; (ii) by encouraging
public participation in environmental issues; (iii) by facilitating
communication within the professional community concerned.
(d) To train specialist involved in management and decision-making related to
conservation: (i) by promoting and developing training programmes for
natural resources managers; (ii) by supporting the development of a
network of wildlife and parks training centers for developing countries; (iii)
by assisting government departments to meet training needs. Work in the
environmental ethics over the past three decades has focused to a
considerable degree, on how humans should think about world environment
and what values they might carry. But it seems likely that in future, ethical
interest in other kind of environment will grow. There are number of
obvious reason for this. Wilderness is declining both in size and number.
Urbanization is expanding. Most people in the world rarely or never enter
wild areas, living and working in urban or rural agricultural areas.
Environment ethicists are now turning to explore new dimensions of ethics
to be applied in broad perspective in order to realize the stipulated
condition of harmonious and healthy environment. Thus, in the future,
debates about environmental ethics are likely expanded to consider even
other kinds of environmental and ethical issues, which this environment
raises.
In the light of above is can be summarized up that this millennium will be
significant for the propagation and application of environmental ethics, and this
will be also the need of hour.
Environmental ethics is that branch of philosophy dealing with the major
ethical questions regarding the relationships between humans and the environment.
This includes issues such as biodiversity, wildlife management, ecological
preservation, hunting practices, farming techniques, and food regulations. As a
branch of philosophy, environmental ethics is a fairly recent development, having
become a body of organized knowledge only in the last decades of the twentieth
century. It came about as a necessary response to a
-52-
growing number of very obvious threats to the physical condition of the world in
which we live. The list of some of these global environmental problems is a long
and familiar one, and many of them came about because of the massive increase in
the growth of the human population worldwide. As populations continue to soar,
the various problems caused by too many people naturally increase in both their
number and seriousness. It is predicted that the 2000 world population of six
billion people will rise by another one billion people within ten years. To the many
problems this causes, such as increased pollution of the air, water, and soil, is also
added the depletion of these and other important natural resources. Many people
associate the beginnings of today's environmental ethics with the first Earth Day
held on April 22, 1970, in the United States. On April 22, 1970 (and every April
since which was celebrated as The Earth Day), organizers around the country
rallied and demonstrated to make people and political leaders aware of the
importance of caring for and preserving the environment. That first Earth Day
launched the beginning of an environmental awareness in the United States and
later around the world. It made many people realize that some sense of
environmental responsibility should be developed and applied to our daily lives.
Most movements do not just suddenly happen out of nowhere; they are
usually preceded by many other influential events. In the environmental
movement, perhaps the earliest of these was the 1949 publication of a book by
American naturalist Aldo Leopold (1887–1948). Leopold had fallen in love with
nature as a youngster and eventually joined the newly established U.S. Forest
Service in 1909. As a game management expert, he came to appreciate and
understand how deeply humans affected the natural world. A year after he died, his
landmark work, A Sand County Almanac, was published. It contained not only his
strong defense of the environment but his argument that what was needed was a
new philosophy about man and nature, or what would come to be called an
environmental ethic. This idea was carried on by others when, two decades later,
the first Earth Day was held. Ultimately, harm to the natural environment comes in
great measure from the collective Detrimental practices of the earth’s billions of
inhabitants. The insights of psychology with regard to human behavior and its
changes, in general, may be applied to better understand and change particular
-53-
human behaviors that are harmful to the natural environment. Psychology may
consider behavioral, cognitive, and social psychological approaches in this regard.
Changing individual behavior relevant to the environment is a very complicated
process involving the individual’s social background and socialization, incentives
and constraints, as well as basic values, worldviews ,attitudes, and beliefs with
regard to the environment. Just as in our relationship to self and to others, our
relationship to the environment is enhanced by living a more conscious, deliberate,
and reflective life, one that is not primarily driven by reactions to triggers and
automatic thoughts and habits. The concept of healing ourselves and healing the
earth as parallel processes is the focus of a very promising new area of
psychotherapy called “eco-therapy,” which has an intriguing parallel to the
previously mentioned areas of “eco-justice” (religion) and “environmental justice”
(law). There is much hope in the development of these bodies of thought and
practice specifically relevant to the environment that are emanating from a variety
of fields. An important message from psychology is that human beings can make
significant changes in how they behave toward each other and toward the natural
environment. Relying merely on text book is not adequate. Awareness has to be
created now to save earth, among the youth as youth power is tremendous and they
can change the entire scenario if they are sensitized. But before this is done it is
necessary to find out how much environmental awareness each students have and
what Environmental Ethical responsibilities do they have of various environmental
issues influencing the present and the future generation. Every individual born has
the right to live a decent life but there are various elements and factors in the
environment which deprive them from enjoying such life. If we think that we
deserve a better quality of life then we all have to join hands together, to curb the
toxification of the earth. This is possible only if we re-orient the citizenry values.
Hence it becomes obligatory on the part of each individual citizen to develop
environmental ethics that, while we aspire for good life, we should not sacrifice the
future of the generations to come. Hence, ethics is a branch of philosophy that
seeks to define what is right and what is wrong on a universal basis.
“Environmental ethics is the part of environmental philosophy which considers
extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to
including the non-human world. It exerts influences on a large range of disciplines
-54-
including law, sociology, theology, economics, ecology and geography.” Many
ethical decisions with respect to the environment that human beings make are, for
example
1) For human conception, should we still cut and clear forests?
2) Is it necessary to continue to propagate?
3) Is it essential to make gasoline powered vehicle?
4) Is it necessary to keep any environmental obligation for future generations?
5) Does human being have the right to cause the extinction of a species
knowingly for the convenience of humanity?
Rationale of the Study
In the late 1700s and into the early 1800s, major changes began to take place in
Great Britain, and other parts of Europe, as well as North America. The Industrial
Revolution was taking hold in these countries, forever changing the lives and work
of people in those parts of the world. Before the revolution, people and animals
had to do all of the work whether it was farming or factory. The Industrial
Revolution meant that societies were using machines to provide the energy to do
most of the work. During this time, coal and other natural resources began
replacing the need for human labour, which meant more goods could be produced.
Due to the increased use of coal and new developments, high amounts of pollutants
were being emitted into the air and more natural resources continued to be
exploited for production purposes. The process of industrialization resulted in the
pollution of Earth’s air, water, and soil, which pose threats to both human health
and the environment. Population grew at rates faster than before and much of the
population became concentrated in urban areas. The Industrial Revolution raised
concerns about the use of natural resources because much of the population
throughout Europe and North America soared during this time. As the Industrial
Revolution reshaped people’s daily lives, and the production of goods became
easier, natural resources began disappearing rapidly. People slowly began to
realize that the resources were disappearing faster than they could replenish
-55-
themselves and conservation, as an idea, was established. Conservation became an
idea of the people of North America and Europe in the 17th century. When the
Europeans settled North America, they viewed the resources as being endless and
could not understand the possibility of running out of trees, water, or land. After
the Industrial Revolution made its way into North American cities, it became clear
that it was possible to run out of certain resources. As the population grew, the
resources steadily declined. As time passed and more and more people became
aware of the exploitation of Earth’s resources, conservation began to take hold, not
only as an idea, but also as a recognized necessity. For the past century,
conservation has become a buzzword in North America and Europe.
Since conservation practices began in North America, laws have been
passed and organizations have been formed to help promote and enforce
conservation efforts. Over the past 100 years, conservation efforts have changed
but the goals remained the same. One aspect of these conservation efforts has
become education. Educating the public and creating public awareness is a
necessity for the success of the environment. However, it has been a common
misconception that environmental educators are environmental advocates and their
only concern is to preach to the public instead of teach.
John Hug (CSMEE, 1977) addressed this issue by discussing the “two hat”
dilemma that has been a persistent problem for environmental educator. Many
people consider environmental educators to be activists. Likewise, many
environmental educators also consider themselves to be environmentalists. Hug
points out that environmental educators then need to keep the proper “hat” on their
heads when doing environmental education programs. The emphasis should be on
teaching people “how” to think, rather than “what” to think.
Environmental education in the United States evolved in the 1960s in the
middle of the environmental awareness movement. But even before then, “the
evolution of environmental education has incorporated the significant influence of
some of the great eighteenth- and nineteenth-century thinkers, writers, and
educators, notably Goethe, Rousseau, Humboldt, Haeckel, Froebel, Dewey, and
Montessori” (Palmer, 1998, 4). It is argued that these pioneers contributed to the
-56-
thought and practice of dealing with the environment, but the recognition of the
founding of environmental education goes to Sir Patrick Geddes (1854-1933), a
Scottish Professor of Botany. “He is regarded by many as being the first to make
that all-important link between the quality of the environment and the quality of
education” (Palmer, 1998, 4).
After the acknowledgement of the term in 1965, the goal was to define its
meaning and promote its legitimacy. This has been a continuing dilemma for those
that are associated with environmental education. Through the years,
environmental education has been characterized as many things, “from
environmental science to environmental activism, from tree-hugging to treefarming, from an elitist movement to a popular case” (Heimlich, 2002, 3).
Environmentalists, who are usually viewed as extremists, were associated with the
term environmental education. “The challenge for environmental education has
been to avoid being identified with the negative connotations of the term while still
maintaining the connection with environmentalists” (Heimlich, 2002, 3).
Developing a definition for the term environmental education has been a
difficult and ongoing process due to the different opinions and attitudes of the
public. “Environmental education has different meaning to people depending on
their continuum of understanding and school of thought” (Heimlich, 2002, 4).
Environmental education encompasses several subject matters and holds a different
definition for each. Natural sciences limits environmental education to
conservation of ecosystems and our natural resources, as mentioned earlier, and
social sciences defines environmental education as pinpointing exemplary human
behaviour for management and protection of the environment (Heimlich, 2002).
Environmental education encompasses all these subject matters, from art and
humanities, to math and sciences; therefore, finding a specific definition for this
term is difficult.
Since the early 1900s, several national environmental education
organizations have been formed in several countries. In North America, the
National Association of Environmental Education - - later renamed North
American Association for Environmental Education - - was formed in 1971.
-57-
NAAEE is a “professional association that was established to promote
environmental education and support the work of individuals and groups engaged
in environmental education through teaching, research, and service” (NAAEE,
website).
The first state affiliate of the North American Association of
Environmental Education was the Kentucky Association of Environmental
Education. KAEE was established in 1975 to “represent teachers, government,
industry, parents, and students - - people who understand that each citizen should
be able to make wise decisions concerning the environment” (KAEE, website).
With the establishment of these organizations, it became clear that one of the best
ways to help our environment was to educate people to be environmentally
conscious as well as environmentally considerate. Although educating adults in our
society is beneficial, the best way to initiate change is through the education of our
youth. In 1996 NAAEE, under the National Project for Excellence in
Environmental Education (NAAEE, 1993), began publishing a series of documents
that derive from standards in subject areas to define comprehensive K-12
environmental education programs (NAAEE, website).
“Environmental education has not been considered a discipline, so it is not
historically a part of the study within the formal education system” (Heimlich,
2002, 51). This has started to change. Environmental education has been working
in partnership with schools to develop curriculum-based programs. There are
formal and non-formal educators that are working together for this cause. There are
also private organizations that offer environmental education programs such
wildlife rehabilitation and preservation facilities as well as privately owned parks.
Many of the formal educators work in partnership with the non-formal educators
due to experience and the abundant resources at their fingertips. “Many of the
goals of environmental education and education reform are similar. These include
helping students to be knowledgeable and skilled thinkers who are able to put their
knowledge, skills, and creativity to work solving problems, who are practiced at
working collaboratively and independently, and who are prepared to take their role
as responsible citizens” (Heimlich, 2002, 54).
-58-
Studies have been conducted to determine if these goals of environmental
education curriculum-based programs are being achieved. Is environmental
education helping students excel in school? A nationwide study was conducted in
the late 1990s focusing on schools that use the Environment as an Integrating
Context (EIC) for learning. EIC “defines a “framework for education: a framework
for interdisciplinary, collaborative, student-centered, hands-on, and engaged
learning” (Lieberman & Hoody, 1998, 6 n.p.). This study focused on the benefits
of EIC-based learning in Language Arts, Math, Science, Social Studies, Thinking
Skills, and Interpersonal Abilities. “The benefits include:
Better performance on standardized measures of academic achievement
in reading, writing, math, science, and social studies;
Reduced discipline and classroom management problems;
Increased engagement and enthusiasm for learning; and
Greater pride and ownership in accomplishments” (Lieberman &
Hoody, 1998, n.p.)
The states and whole country has been involved in academically based
environmental education for several years and is still striving to improve
environmental literacy in the state and country as well. “While environmental
education is important to citizens of all ages, there is no doubt that children are its
primary beneficiaries” (Kentucky Environmental Education Council, 1998, 3).
“Because the benefits are not immediately apparent, it has been given a very low
priority both in government planning about the environment and in the planning of
educational programs” (Kentucky Environmental Education Council, 1998, 1).
This study focused on measuring the educational benefits of academically
based environmental education programs. School system provides the largest
organised base for environment education and action. Teachers are the important
factor who is bound to affect this program. It is only the Teacher who can link
environmental knowledge, its problems and help the students to find the solution
for their problem. The curriculum existing in various primary and secondary
-59-
schools gives opportunity for the students to understand the environment. It is in
the hands of the teachers to integrate and develop the sense of environmental
awareness among the secondary and higher secondary school students in a natural
way while teaching the syllabus. Hence in the present situation, it is essential to
study the level of environmental awareness of secondary and higher secondary
school students. It is also essential to know what type of environmental ethics they
will maintain to preserve the environment for the future generation. Our
environment is threatened with a number of factors; degradation of environment is
resulting in a faster rate due to over growth of population. There arises the need to
preserve and protect our environment in order to achieve this need the role of
students plays a very important part.
Need of the Study
Over the last 50 years, environmental education (EE) has been one of the main
interests of school organizations, local communities, the private sector, and local
governments. These organizations demand that schools include EE in the
curriculum of K-12 education, but lack a plan to establish an environmental
education curriculum that unifies an effective approach to teaching environmental
education. Most programs, according to the North American Association of
Environmental Educators (NAAEE) (Ballard & Pandya, 1990), rely on a series of
environmental activities that can be incorporated into any course within an existing
curriculum. Such approaches are called “an interdisciplinary infusion of
environmental topics” and as add-ins or add-ons crowd an already full curriculum
(Disinger, 1997). The Intergovernmental Conference on Environmental Education
(UNESCO, 1978) recommended the primary categories of environmental
education curriculum goals and objectives of: (a) awareness, (b) knowledge, (c)
attitudes, (d) skills, and (e) participation. While these components have been cited
in many documents, articles, and books in the last decade (Athman & Monroe,
2000; Callicott & Rocha, 1996; Day & Monroe, 2000; Gough, 1997; Palmer,
1998), not all authors agree upon the degree of importance of one objective over
the other. However, there are reoccurring concepts that are mentioned frequently in
the literature, specifically awareness, knowledge, and attitudes (Palmer, 1998). The
difference in objectives and goals stated by different authors, groups, and
-60-
organizations do not present a unified approach to environmental curriculum
development. As discussed by Gough (1997), EE curricula have been too abstract
and fragmentary, and have been unsuccessful in preparing individuals to face
changing and complex realities of environmental problems. According to Orr
(1992), EE is often regarded as an extra in the curriculum, not as a core
requirement. In his opinion, “all education is environmental education” (p.90).
This statement may sound radical and biased; however it allows the opportunity to
see education as relevant to the challenge of building a sustainable and
environmentally conscience society. Such an approach to curriculum has been
documented in the works of curricularists from the reconstructivist school of
thought. As early as 1932, George Counts urged educators to utilize education as
an agent of change in order to address social issues of his day. Ornstein and
Hunkins (1998) drew a parallel of Counts’ position on the role of education in
social reform to those of modern day proponents of social reconstructionism as
society faces the challenges of “racial, ethnic and sexual inequality; poverty,
unemployment and welfare; computers and technology; political oppression and
war; environmental pollution; disease; hunger; AIDS; and depletion of the earth’s
resources”. The role of the teacher, according to social reconstructivist curriculum
planners is to serve as an agent of change and reform by making students aware of
problems confronting humanity and by creating opportunities for students to solve
such problems. In order to accomplish this, how should the importance of
awareness, knowledge, or attitude be emphasized? Madsen (1996) explained that
environmental awareness, knowledge, and commitment, are necessary to achieve
environmental protection and restoration. Madsen emphasized that the public must
have a basic grasp of environmental problems. Leaders in the field of
environmental education must not only have extensive knowledge and
understanding of environmental problems, but must have environmental awareness
to solve these problems. They must be committed “to initiate action, based upon
knowledge and understanding” (Madsen, 1996).
A review of related literature shows that there are some researches done in
the area of environmental curriculum [Devi Susila, 1990] Environmental
knowledge, environmental attitude and perception [Parharaj.B, 1991] analysis of
-61-
environmental
awareness
and
responsibilities
among
university students
(Selvam.V ,and Abdul Nazar.N., 2011) cultural differences in the environmental
world view of children (JelleBoeve - De Pauw, Peter Vanpetegem) Planting the
seeds of environment awareness (Leslie Pashby and Joanna Weis, 2009). The
school curriculum and environmental education (Maria Del Carmen Conde and
J.Samuel Sanchez 2010).The relationship between environmental moral reasoning
and environmental attitude of pre-service science teachers (BusraTuncay,
OxgulYilmaz-Tuzun, Gaye Tuncor-Teksoz, 2011) etc. However no studies have
been conducted yet to measure the level of environmental awareness what
environmental ethics need to be maintained among the secondary and junior
college students? Every child born on this earth has the right to descend to this
earth which is healthy, pollution free, disease free and clean. As the researcher
grew up she has observed various changes in the environment such as unusual
rains to heavy rains leading to water logging, extreme winter to mild winters,
extreme heat and so on. The researcher observes severe changes in the global
environment, due to ozone depletion, increasing in carbon level, melting of ice
caps, excess of snowing, severe storm, tsunami etc. occurring due to change in the
global climate. It is shocking to know that, if this is the state of environment which
will be maintained by mankind than in the very near future, the life of mankind
will be shortened. Average life expectancy will be only around 30 years. A child
may look like a teenager, no human hair will be there on their body, they will get
wrinkles very fast as the ozone layer might have got depleted and alpha rays and
beta rays of the sun will be directly reaching the earth’s surface, there will be no
trees and plants existing on the earth; no rainfall; the surface of the earth will look
like a parched desert, no traces of water anywhere, people will have to depend on
artificially produced food and water to satisfy their needs.
Even today we find due to changes in the environment food products and
vegetables do not have the same taste as in the olden days. The basmati rice,
considered to be best flavoured and scented by nature has lost its fragrance. So,
now it is the time that every citizen in our country wakes up and thinks that our
future cannot be linked to our past. The new inventions, discoveries, globalisation,
industrialisation, urbanisation which is giving us comfort are going to shake the
-62-
foundation of human life. The human society as a whole and the economy is on the
verge of destruction and going to be eroded so we have to change our attitude and
views as we are aware of the saying that “if wealth is lost something is lost; if
health is lost everything is lost”. The present generation is still not aware of the
fact that if we do not have a healthy environment our survival is at danger. Crucial
time has come to realize the changing pattern of the environment of the present
day. A number of recent scientific – techno factors along with exploitation of
natural resources by human activities have endangered our survival on this earth.
At least at this junction, we have to alert the students about the deterioration of
environment or we will lose all boon of natural wealth bestowed on us. So we
should conserve our environmental resources. Hence the main aim of inculcating
environmental ethics among the population is to generate a society who has
knowledge of environment and maintain sustainable development. Human society
has two major challenges such as: 1) Protection of the quality of the environment
from further deterioration and 2) Gradual restoration of the quality of living
environment. Nowadays, majority of the world population is encountering different
problems related with the nature and attempting to save nature. On the other hand,
we even today do not try to understand our local problems related to nature. So, the
awareness about environment is becoming a global talk, but local people
concerned to the environmental crisis and remedial measures are either ignorant or
irresponsible. There is an urgent and indispensable need to inculcate EVS for the
present day students at all levels for the development of an eco-friendly
environment.
Ultimately, this process rests in the hands of well-educated communities
that can train their new generations toward becoming responsible environmental
citizens. Curriculum theorists, including John Dewey, have long advocated the
solution of social problems, along with the development of responsible members of
a democracy, as the foundations of curriculum (Pinar, Reynolds, Slattery, &
Taubman, 2000). Therefore, the role of education system is to assume this
responsibility. The focus of the current study raises the following questions. How
well-prepared are the instructors in the education system in assuming this
responsibility? How sensitive are current environmental curricula to the needs of
-63-
the community? How can the concepts of awareness, knowledge, and attitude be
used to improve curriculum objectives in environmental education? Against this
backdrop the researcher felt the need to conduct a research on environmental
awareness and environmental ethics of school teachers of Allahabad.
Statement of the Problem
“A Study of Environmental Awareness and Environmental Ethics among the
Primary and Secondary School Teachers of Allahabad”.
Objectives of the Study
1. To study the environmental awareness of the primary and secondary
school teachers of Allahabad.
2. To study the environmental ethics of the primary and secondary school
teachers of Allahabad.
3. To find out the relationship between the environmental awareness and
environmental ethics of the primary and secondary school teachers of
Allahabad.
Hypotheses of the Study
H0 1. There is no significant difference in the environmental awareness of the
primary and secondary school teachers of Allahabad.
H0 2. There is no significant difference in the environmental ethics of the
primary and secondary school teachers of Allahabad.
H0 3. There is no significant the relationship between the environmental
awareness and environmental ethics of the primary and secondary
school teachers of Allahabad.
Operational Definition of the Terms Used
Environmental Awareness: Envision the increasing of awareness and
understanding of the environment through education. Most of our population is not
aware of our limited resources and how quickly they are being used up. Hence
-64-
environmental awareness means to make every individual aware of the
environment as a whole and its related problem.
Environmental Ethics: “Refers to the responsibility to understand the
environmental consequences of our consumption, and need to recover our
individual and social responsibility to conserve natural resources and protect the
earth for future generations”.
Government Schools: A school that gets aid from the government and is managed
by the government is termed as Government school.
Private Schools: A private school is managed by an independent authorities that
set its own policies and goals which are not bound by the government.
Delimitation of the Study
The present study has been delimited to following aspects:
i) Only that primary and secondary schools have been taken into
consideration where Uttar Pradesh Basic Siksha Parishad and
Madhyamic Siksha Parishad has syllabus was taught.
ii) Only two variables i.e. Environmental Awareness and Environmental
Ethics have been taken into consideration.
-65-