1

General
Chapter 1 The environment and the history of environmental concerns

o The environment and its components

o Society and environment
o The environmental movement
o Environmental issues and the environmental Movement in the twentieth century
o Perspectives: man -environment interaction

THE ENVIRONMENT AND ITS COMPONENTS

‘Environment’ is a term much used in modern society, but what does it mean? For many it is
synonymous with nature; others see it as having a human element – as represented by the
cultivated landscape of agricultural areas, for example, or the built environment of cities,
perhaps. At its simplest, however, it is concerned with surroundings. The environment in which
an object finds itself consists of all the other objects or elements that surround it (Figure 1.1). It
involves more than that, however. One of the most important factors in any study of the
environment is the idea of relationships.

Objects do not exist in their environments in complete isolation. Each is affected by adjacent
objects and in turn may influence them. In this, environmental studies, as a discipline, has much
in common with the science of ecology. Both are concerned with the biotic (living) and abiotic
(non-living) elements of the earth and their interactions with each other. In the past, ecologists
tended to concentrate on the living elements in the system, investigating individual species of
plants and animals or community patterns of interdependent organisms, which along with their
immediate surroundings formed an ecosystem.

Environmental scientists on the other hand approached their studies through the non-living
elements of the system. Investigation of the atmosphere, hydrosphere and lithosphere, for
example, provided the base upon which further studies of the biotic elements could be built. As
the human element has assumed a greater and greater role in modern environmental and
ecological studies, the difference between the disciplines has declined. Now, terms such as
‘environment’ and ‘ecosystem’ are often seen as interchangeable, particularly at the popular
level, and although environmental scientists and ecologists continue to identify distinct
differences between the disciplines, they often investigate similar issues using similar approaches
and techniques. Both disciplines share the theme of ‘interrelationships’, a concept that recognizes
the intimacy and potential impact of linkages in the natural system. When one element in an
environment changes, others will be faced with the need to change also, a situation that has
important implications for current and future environmental issues. Many current environmental
problems, for example, have arisen because of ignorance of environmental interrelationships, or
knowing disregard of them.
2

There is also the question of scale. Although there is a tendency to talk about ‘the’ environment, there are,
in fact, many environments, ranging from those at a microscopic scale to the whole earth environment
itself. Like the individual elements in any one environment, the various environments are closely
interlinked. As a result, the disruption of even a small-scale environment may ultimately be followed by
change at a world scale.

Change is an integral part of any environment, and, under normal circumstances, environments are
sufficiently dynamic or elastic to accommodate it. Indeed, most environments are in a continual state
of flux, experiencing ongoing series of adjustments – a state known as dynamic equilibrium. When
relative stability can be maintained with only minor adjustments, the environment is said to be in a
steady state. These concepts have been central to the geographical approach to the environment for
decades, but have received wider attention as part of the Gaia hypothesis promoted by James Lovelock
(see Box 1.1, The Gaia hypothesis). Despite this ability to respond to change there are times when the
amount of change exceeds the ability of the environment to accommodate it. The end result is
environmental disruption. Although environmental change and environmental disruption occur naturally
– climate change and associated environmental disruption appear regularly in the earth’s history, for
example – concern with these elements today is with those that involve some human input. In theory,
human beings, as animals, are an integral part of the environmental scheme of things and subject to the
controls and restraints that implies. In practice, the human element has become the main cause of change,
disruption and deterioration in the environment. Why has this been so? It has much to do with the form
3

that development has taken, along with society’s attitude to the environment and knowledge of how it
works.
In our modern, technology-based society the knowledge base is immense, but it is not limitless. In
the environmental studies field many unknowns remain concerning the nature of the environment
and the amount of change that it can accommodate.

BOX 1.1 THE GAIA HYPOTHESIS

First developed in 1972 by James Lovelock, and named after an ancient Greek earth goddess, the
Gaia hypothesis views the earth as a single organism in which the individual elements coexist in a
symbiotic relationship. Internal homeostatic control mechanisms, involving positive and negative
feedbacks, maintain an appropriate level of stability. It has much in common with the concept of
environmental equilibrium, but goes further in presenting the view that the living components of the
environment are capable of working together actively to provide and retain optimum conditions for their
own survival.

In the simplest case, animals take up oxygen during respiration and return carbon dioxide to the
atmosphere. The process is reversed in plants, the carbon dioxide being absorbed and oxygen being
released. Thus the waste product from each group becomes a resource for the other. Working together
over millions of years, these living organisms have combined to maintain oxygen and carbon dioxide at
levels capable of supporting their particular forms of life and, through carbon dioxide, maintain the
greenhouse effect at a level which can provide a temperature range appropriate for that life. This is one of
the more controversial aspects of Gaia, flying in the face of conventional scientific opinion, which since
at least the time of Darwin has seen life responding to environmental conditions rather than initiating
them. Some interesting and possibly dangerous corollaries emerge from this. It would seem to follow, for
example, that existing environmental problems which threaten current forms of life and life processes –
global warming and ozone depletion, for example – are transitory, and will eventually be brought under
control again by the environment itself. Some scientists view the acceptance of this aspect of Gaia
as irresponsible, since it also requires acceptance of the efficacy of natural regulatory systems that are
as yet unproven, particularly in their ability to deal with large-scale human interference. Lovelock himself
has allowed that Gaia’s regulatory mechanisms may well have been weakened by human activities,
which have created so much stress on the environmental regulatory mechanisms that they may no
longer be able to nullify the threats to balance in the system. The effects could even threaten the survival
of the human species. Although the idea of the earth as a living organism is a basic concept in Gaia,
the hypothesis is not anthropocentric. Humans are simply one of the many forms of life in the biosphere,
and, whatever happens, life will continue to exist, but it may not be human life. For example, Gaia
includes mechanisms capable of bringing about the extinction of those organisms that adversely affect the
system. Since the human species is at present the source of most environmental deterioration, the partial
or complete removal of mankind might be Gaia’s natural answer to the earth’s current problems.
For more information see:
Joseph, L.E. (1990) Gaia: The Growth of an Idea, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Lovelock, J. (1995) Gaia; A New Look at Life on Earth (2nd edn), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pearce, F. (2001) ‘The Kingdoms of Gaia’, New Scientist 170 (2295): 30–3.
Schneider, S.H. and Boston, P.J. (eds) (1991) Scientists on Gaia, San Francisco: Sierra Club Books.

Even when the knowledge is available, it is often ignored. For example, it is common knowledge that
the earth/atmosphere system is a closed system in material terms and, as a result, resources are finite
(Figure 1.2). This was expressed in a more popular form, in 1966, by the economist Kenneth Boulding
through the concept of ‘Spaceship Earth’. He likened the earth to a spaceship in which the occupants
had to survive using the air, water and food available at lift-off, since – at that time, at least – there was no
means of delivering additional material once the ship was in orbit. In the case of the earth, the concept
4

applies most obviously to minerals and the other commodities upon which modern society has come to
depend, but also to all those resources, including air, water, soil, vegetation and animals, that are normally
considered part of the natural environment. The latter group of resources has been used for thousands of
years, but are mostly still available because of very efficient recycling processes built into the
earth/atmosphere system. Chemical elements such as carbon, nitrogen and sulphur are recycled
continuously, as is water (Figure 1.3). Plants and animals are also recycled in a way, in as much as they
are able to perpetuate their species through reproduction. Unfortunately, these cycles have been disrupted
as a result of human activities, leading to a variety of environmental problems. The disruption of the
carbon cycle, for example, is associated with global warming and the disruption of the sulphur cycle is
associated with acid rain. Similarly, pressure on the hydrologic cycle in some areas has caused shortages
of water and also serious water pollution. In contrast, where energy is considered, the earth/ atmosphere
system is an open system, and therefore, in theory, much less restrictive than the closed material system
(Figure 1.2). Solar radiation provides the energy required to allow the multitude of elements that make up
the environment to function,

energy, which ultimately passes out of the system into space. The smooth flow of energy is interrupted by
storage mechanisms, which retain some of the solar energy in the system for periods ranging from a few
months – in the case of the energy stored in plants during the growing season – to millions of years – in
the case of the energy stored in fossil fuels in the earth’s crust. Disruption of the flow of energy through
the system by human activities is associated with a number of pressing environmental issues, including
global warming, ozone depletion and increased atmospheric turbidity. The initial problems in these areas
arose out of ignorance of the working of the environment, but even now, when a broad spectrum of
society has been made aware of the causes, success in dealing with them has been limited at best.

SOCIETY AND ENVIRONMENT

Environmental studies are very much involved with the relationship between society and environment,
but it is a relationship that is not always well understood and one that is always changing. There is
widespread belief that, in the past, people enjoyed a much better rapport with their environment than
5

they do today. To some extent that may have been true, but the relationship was not simple, and, from
a human point of view, it was not always benign. At times the environment was restrictive and harmful
to human activities. The early humans were subject to the same positive and negative environmental
conditions as other animals. Such elements as predator/prey relationships and the carrying capacity of
particular ecosystems applied and the early human populations must have experienced increases and
decreases in numbers in much the same way, and probably for many of the same reasons, as other species.
That being so, why did the human animal become the earth’s dominant species? Little or no evidence to
answer that question has survived from the earliest human societies, but it seems unlikely that they would
have benefited from favourable environmental conditions any more than other species. Human success in
becoming the dominant species did not result from a benign environment. It came about because society
challenged the environment and did so successfully.

It is entirely possible that humans were in a better position to challenge the environment and make
better use of the resources it provided than other animals. Their superior mental capacity allowed
them to manipulate or stretch the relationships they had with their environment and a combination
of skills that was broader than that of most other animals permitted them to survive under a wide
range of environmental conditions. These attributes that allowed human beings to challenge the
environment also ensured that they would change it, minimally at first, but to a greater and greater extent
as time went by.

PREHISTORIC TIMES

As the last Ice Age was drawing to a close, some 13,000–15,000 years ago, the earth’s human population
survived by hunting and gathering. Such activities imply a reasonable balance between people and their
environment to allow the relationship to be sustained and the hunters to survive. Whether or not this
sustainability was the result of a deliberate strategy is not clear, but given low population densities,
nomadic lifestyles and the absence of any mechanism other than human muscle by which the hunting and
gathering groups could utilize the energy available to them, it is perhaps not surprising that it was
achieved with minimal impact on the environment (Table 1.1).

Other than the food they consumed, the main source of energy for the hunters was fire. It provided heat
for warmth and cooking and on a larger scale for hunting, when strategically placed fires were used to
drive game towards waiting hunters. Relatively large areas may have been burned during these hunting
activities, and no doubt fires for heating and cooking sometimes got out of control and burned adjacent
areas.

However, fire is a natural element in many ecosystems and recovery would follow the fires. Similarly,
when a decrease in the number of animals in an area reduced the success of the hunt or threatened the
survival of a hunting group, their nomadic lifestyle allowed them to move on to new hunting grounds,
leaving the animals in the original area to recover. Thus, when most of the earth’s human population was
involved in hunting and gathering, the environmental impact was local and short term, involving the
temporary loss of vegetation and a reduction in the local animal population.
6

One possible exception has been postulated, however. During the late Pleistocene period the extinction of
megafauna species took place in areas as far apart as North America and Australia. Martin (1984) linked
the disappearance of such animals as the mammoth and giant beaver in North America and giant
kangaroos and wallabies in Australia some 10,000 years ago with the arrival of human hunting groups
into areas previously uninhabited or at most sparsely inhabited. With no fear of humans, they were easy
prey and their numbers were ultimately reduced below the level at which they could survive. Subsequent
evidence from Australia and North America has provided strong support for Martin’s proposal (Dayton
2001), but other potential causes have also been put forward. MacPhee and Marx (1997), for example,
have suggested that the extinctions came about because the immune systems of the megafauna were
unable to cope with the pathogens brought in by the migrating humans and they succumbed to disease
rather than over-hunting.

The late Pleistocene was also a period of major climate change and, although techniques for investigating
these changes are becoming increasingly sophisticated, the role of climate in these extinctions is not clear
(Barnosky 1994). It is possible that no single element was responsible. Changing climatic conditions, for
example, may have caused the animals to become increasingly vulnerable to human predation or disease,
and despite relatively primitive weaponry, the hunters were able to bring about their extinction.
7

In time some hunting and gathering communities left their nomadic lifestyle behind. Whether by accident
or design, they discovered how to domesticate plants and animals and in so doing were able to pursue a
more sedentary lifestyle, which led to the development of the first agrarian civilizations. Between 7000
and 3000  (c. 5000–1000 ), these civilizations developed in Egypt, Mesopotamia, the Indus valley
and the Yellow River basin (Hwang- He) in China. Towards the end of this period, the Mayan civilization
grew up in Central America (Figure 1.4). Sedentary agriculture, permitted by the domestication of plants
and animals, ultimately led to the development of permanent settlements and local urbanization. All of the
Middle Eastern and Asian locations were on riverine plains in areas that experienced dry conditions for
part of the year. Natural irrigation provided by seasonal overbank flooding and artificial irrigation, using
small dams, cisterns and ditches to redistribute the water, allowed year-round cropping and the
accumulation of a food surplus. This in turn permitted a greater division of labour and the development of
social, cultural and economic activities not possible in a migratory community or one dependent upon
subsistence agriculture. Accompanying this was an increase in the level of human intervention in the
environment, associated with accelerated population growth and a new technology based on agriculture.
Natural vegetation was replaced by cultivated crops, the aquatic environment was
altered, and the beginnings of soil degradation in the form of siltation and salinization became apparent in
some areas (Jacobsen and Adams 1971).

THE AGRICULTURAL REVOLUTION

Significant as these developments were, they were limited in extent, and the level of human intervention
in the environment increased only slowly over thousands of years. Agriculture gradually spread beyond
the original hearths, sometimes encouraging permanent settlement, sometimes combining with hunting
and gathering to perpetuate nomadic lifestyles in shifting agriculture. Methods of converting the energy in
falling water and wind were discovered and coal became the first of the fossil fuels to be used in any
quantity.

As late as the mid-eighteenth century, however, the environmental impact of human activities seldom
extended beyond the local or regional level (Table 1.1). A global impact became possible only with the
major developments in technology and the population increases that accompanied the so-called
agricultural and industrial revolutions of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. This is not to
imply that change had been absent prior to that time, but it was relatively slow – evolutionary rather than
revolutionary. A period of more rapid change in agricultural activities began in Britain between about
1750 and 1850, with improvements introduced in all aspects of farming, leading to greater efficiency and
allowing a substantial increase in food production. Greater attention was paid to maintaining and
increasing the quality of the soil, by adding lime and manure. Land previously too wet to be used was
brought into production by improving drainage, and soils that were too dry or light were treated with marl
(clay rich in calcium carbonate) to improve their texture. New crops, such as turnips, potatoes and clover,
were grown more frequently and crop rotation was introduced.

Experiments with livestock breeding increased the quality and quantity of meat and wool. New
mechanized or semi-mechanized implements were developed to deal with all aspects of cultivation, from
ploughing and planting to harvesting. All of this reflected an improved knowledge of the science of
agriculture, from soil improvement to plant and animal breeding and mechanization, but it also marked
the beginning of a significant onslaught on the land. Soil composition and texture were changed, non-
8

native plant and animal species were introduced and the new farm implements subjected the land to a
much more intensive physical regime than it had experienced under simple manual labour.

In a few decades the agricultural revolution changed the landscape of Britain, replacing natural and
existing cultivated vegetation with new crops and replacing open fields with enclosures surrounded by
hedges and walls (Simmons 1996). In places it also contributed to environmental degradation in the form
of soil erosion, where the enthusiasm for improvement brought land unsuitable for arable agriculture into
production. As the new agriculture diffused throughout Europe and was carried to other continents
through colonial expansion, it took with it a group of potentially serious environmental problems, ranging
from the destruction of natural flora and fauna to the disruption of the hydrologic cycle and the initiation
of soil erosion. This was not the result of any malicious intent. Indeed, improvements in agriculture were
seen as natural and necessary, with a promise to enhance the quality of life for mankind.

Initially, it seemed that the promise was being fulfilled and food production grew rapidly, but the situation
was not sustainable. Ignorance of the impact of the new agricultural techniques on the environment
ensured that mistakes would be made and the contribution of agricultural activities to environmental
disruption and deterioration would grow.

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION

The changes in agriculture in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries paralleled similarly innovative
changes taking place in industry at that time. These brought about the industrial revolution, characterized
by a major expansion in the use of coal as a fuel, in the steam engine and in the iron industry (Hudson
1992). Together they encouraged the growth of new industrial cities, incorporating heavy industries based
on coal, iron and steel, as well as an expanding textile industry powered by the new steam engines.
Railroads and steamships linked these cities with their sources of raw material and their markets.
Population grew rapidly, fed by the food surpluses of the agricultural revolution, providing the necessary
labour force and also creating a growing consumer demand. The exact relationship between population
growth and technology remains a matter of controversy, but there can be no denying that, in combination,
these two elements were responsible for the increasingly rapid environmental change, which began in the
eighteenth century.

The role of energy was particularly important, for it was the ability to concentrate and then expend larger
and larger amounts of energy that made the earth’s human population uniquely able to alter the
environment (Table 1.1). Together, the rapidly growing population, new urbanization and industrialization
created local and regional environmental stress through such elements as the inadequacy of sewage
disposal techniques, mineral urban/industrial activities over the adjacent rural land. Since then the human
impact on the environment has expanded from the local or regional level to the global and the results have
become permanent or irreversible.

Air pollution and water pollution are ubiquitous, natural vegetation has been used up faster than it can
regenerate or has been replaced by cultivated crops, rivers have been dammed or diverted, natural
resources have been dug from the earth in such quantity that people now rival geomorphological
processes as agents of landscape change and, to meet the need for shelter, nature has been replaced by the
built environment created by urbanization.
9

THE ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT

As the impact of these changes became more and more obvious, and the magnitude of the problems
involved became clear, concern for the environment grew, until today it is greater than it has ever been.
One of the main forms in which this concern is expressed is in the environmental movement, a term
which is widely and loosely used to include a variety of individuals and groups working through
scientific, social or political agendas to achieve the common goal of defending the environment,
conserving resources and generally protecting nature.

In its modern form, the environmental movement dates from the 1960s and 1970s, a period which saw the
creation of new environmental organizations such as Friends of the Earth, Pollution Probe and
Greenpeace, and the celebration of the first ‘Earth Day’ on 22 April 1970. Prescient individuals such as
Rachel Carson, with her exposure of the problems associated with pesticide use in Silent Spring (1962),
and Paul Ehrlich, with his account of the potential threats from overpopulation in The Population Bomb
(1968), influenced emerging environmental attitudes at the time, as did the publication of significant
assessments of the earth’s sustainability under human occupation such as The Limits to Growth (Meadows
et al. 1972) and Blueprint for Survival (Ecologist 1972). Paehlke (1997) has identified this as the ‘First
Wave’ in the environmental movement, extending from 1968 to 1976, but waves, whether natural or
metaphorical, do not suddenly materialize, and this was no exception. It grew from a series of ripples that
had first appeared some 200 years earlier (Figure 1.5).

influenced emerging environmental attitudes at the time, as did the publication of significant assessments
of the earth’s sustainability under human occupation such as The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972)
and Blueprint for Survival (Ecologist 1972). Paehlke (1997) has identified this as the ‘First Wave’ in the
environmental movement, extending from 1968 to 1976, but waves, whether natural or metaphorical, do
not suddenly materialize, and this was no exception. It grew from a series of ripples that had first
appeared some 200 years earlier (Figure 1.5).

BRITAIN AND EUROPE

Humans have been curious about the earth and its physical attributes since at least the time of the ancient
Greeks, but it was the rapid swelling of interest in natural science and philosophy in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries that set environmentalism in motion (Figure 1.6). In Europe, the geological
investigations of Playfair, Hutton and Lyell, for example, drew attention to the dynamic nature of the
lithosphere (see Chapter 2) and its contribution to environmental change (Mannion 1997). In the
biological sciences, the studies of Lamarck, Wallace and Darwin led to the recognition of the importance
of gradual and cumulative change in plant and animal communities and produced the concept of
evolution.

Although Wallace shared very similar ideas, evolutionary concepts have come to be associated almost
exclusively with Darwin. His classic On the Origin of Species, published in 1859, is popularly
remembered for its development of the theory of evolution, but it was also a study of environmental
change. In the concept of natural selection – commonly referred to as ‘the survival of the fittest’ – species
able to adapt to a particular environment, or a change in the environment, survive, whereas
those unable to adapt ultimately become extinct.
10

In developing his evolutionary theories Darwin probably was influenced by the writings of the geologist
Charles Lyell, who first recognized the role of gradual – as opposed to catastrophic – change in the
physical environment, and by the work of Thomas Malthus on the relationship between population
growth and food supply. This was also the era of the amateur naturalist. Spurred on by an interest in
botany, zoology, geology and palaeontology, amateurs collected, dissected and catalogued, building an
inventory of the natural history of an area, which they shared, locally, nationally and internationally, with
fellow enthusiasts.

Some are recognized through the naming of a plant, insect, animal or fossil, and some, such as Gilbert
White in The Natural History of Selborne (1789), published the results of their life’s work, but most are
long forgotten. Nevertheless, through their work they contributed to the data base upon which the
scientific study of the environment would be built. As more and more knowledge accumulated some
observers, such as Buffon, Von Humboldt and Woeikof, recognized that the environment was being
changed by human activities (Thomas 1956). They noted, for example, the results of deforestation
and the spread of urbanization. In Britain, in the mid-nineteenth century, Robert Smith first recognized the
phenomenon of acid rain and its relationship to the burning of coal (Turco 1997).

Such changes must also have been obvious to many others who did not put pen to paper, but
the accumulation of scientific knowledge about the

environment did little to slow the deterioration that was taking place during the growing industrialization
that characterized much of Britain and Western Europe in the early nineteenth century.

Perhaps that is not surprising, since the study of current environmental problems has shown that progress
is made only if knowledge reaches beyond the scientific community to give a broader audience an
understanding of the issues involved. Providing that understanding has become the duty of a variety of
governmental organizations and is one of the objectives of most modern environmental groups. In
nineteenth-century Europe governments were generally uninterested and there were no environmental
organizations as such, but there were individuals who, through the senses rather than the sciences, began
to provide the opportunity for more and more people to appreciate nature or the natural environment. The
philosophers Rousseau and Goethe, for example, explored the relationship between society and nature at
a cerebral level, while poets such as Wordsworth and Coleridge considered the aesthetic pleasures and
benefits of nature. Painters increasingly represented nature on canvas. Some such as Constable captured
the realism of the landscape; others such as Turner incorporated a personal vision, which translated the
elements of the environment into wild combinations of colour, light and shade (Clark 1969).
These poets and painters were part of what came to be known as the Romantic movement. Whether or
not it arose as a reaction to the rampant technology of the industrial revolution is debatable, but the
Romantics certainly favoured feelings or sensation over reason (Ferkiss 1993). However it was done, all
of this helped to foster a growing interest in nature.

Prior to the end of the eighteenth century, few would have gone for a walk in the woods or climbed
mountains for the sheer pleasure of it. By the middle of the next century, a tourist industry based on a
desire to view ‘wild’ nature was well established, a favourite destination being the Swiss Alps. Although
this touched only a few, mainly the wealthy, it was an essential part of the progress towards a better
understanding of the environment and society’s interrelationships with it.
11

NORTH AMERICA
The growth of environmentalism and the environmental movement in North America had much in
common with that in Europe, but also showed some important differences. When the Europeans came to
North America, they met nature at a scale few had previously experienced. They found almost
uninterrupted woodland from the tropical forests of what was to become Florida to the boreal forests of
Canada in the north; they found coastal waters, rivers and lakes teeming with fish; they found wild game
in abundance. In Spain, France and Britain, where most of the colonists originated, the landscape was not
as domesticated as it would one day become, but it had been cultivated for centuries, with the result that
the forests had been pushed back, wild animal populations had declined, crops had replaced natural
vegetation and the landscape could be described as being more rustic than natural. The explorers, fur
traders and fishermen, who were first to arrive used the resources of the New World for food and shelter –
and profit, of course – and interacted with the indigenous population.

All that changed when the agricultural settlers arrived. These colonists viewed the land as wilderness that
needed to be civilized to create a state similar to the one that they had left behind. Some of the timber was
used for building settlements, for shipbuilding or the making of furniture and some was exported to the
home countries in Europe, where even by the eighteenth century the forests had been decimated, but
often the demand for new agricultural land was so great that the woodland was cleared by direct burning.

The animals that lived in the forest lost their habitat and disappeared, while the Native Americans lost an
environment upon which they had depended and like the animals were forced to move out. Treatment
of the environment was extremely wasteful. Environmental resources were so abundant that they seemed
never-ending, with new resources available simply by moving west away from the coast. That approach
was central to the environmental history of North America in the 150–200 years following the arrival of
the first colonists. In the south, for example, the land depleted of its nutrients by the heavy demands of the
tobacco and cotton crops was simply abandoned and new land to the west was brought under cultivation.
The land that was left was subject to major soil erosion, and only a few decades after the establishment of
the Virginia colony soil eroded from the tobacco fields was already silting up Chesapeake Bay and the
adjacent waterways. To the north, where the fur trade was a major staple, the problem of dwindling
supplies of beaver pelts caused by the overharvesting of the beaver in the eastern part of the continent
was overcome by tapping into the abundant resources that remained in the west. The ongoing need for
new supplies drove the fur trade beyond the Great Lakes into the far north-west and eventually to the
Pacific coast. Later, the forest industry followed much the same pattern, harvesting trees with apparently
no need for management in a land where the forest resources seemed limitless.

An awareness of nature and what was being done to it grew gradually, building through a combination
of scientific or semi-scientific observations, artistic representation and philosophical debate, not unlike
what had happened or was happening in Europe. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, explorers
such as Lewis and Clark recorded details of the country through which they passed, and the fur traders of
the North West and Hudson’s Bay Companies kept records not only of the furs they traded, but also of a
wide range of environmental elements, such as the weather, the vegetation, the landscape and the
waterways. A few years after arriving in the United States in 1803, the naturalist and artist John James
Audubon began the task of painting the birds of North America and his illustrated books increased the
awareness of the natural history of the continent. Other artists such as Cole, Doughty and Durand of the

Hudson River school of landscape painters introduced the Romantic movement to the visual arts in North
America with paintings that glorified nature, and on the literary scene James Fenimore Cooper, writing
in the 1820s and 1830s, used the eastern wilderness as the setting for his novels about the early frontier.
That wilderness was already disappearing from the eastern United States by that time and these
12

paintings and novels exposed a wider public to its existence and former dominance in the landscape,
albeit in a form coloured by the artistic licence necessary in such endeavours. Despite this, according
to Ferkiss (1993), most Americans in the early nineteenth century continued to fear the wilderness,
rather than revere it. They saw nature as something that had to be conquered if progress was to be
made.

ENVIRONMENTAL PHILOSOPHERS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS IN NORTH AMERICA

This attitude may even have applied to a group of pioneering environmental philosophers, including
Emerson and Thoreau (see Box 1.2, Pioneering North American environmental philosophers and
environmentalists), who are generally credited with sowing the seeds from which the environmental
movement grew in the United States. Thoreau, particularly, has gained a reputation as the pre-eminent
proto-environmentalist, with Walden, his account of the time he spent in the early 1850s communing with
nature at Walden Pond near Concorde, Massachusetts, widely considered a classic of environmental
literature (Buell 1995). Ferkiss (1993), however, has concluded that Thoreau was not the lover of nature
or patron of the wilderness that later writers have made him out to be. He saw the natural landscape as
one which was pastoral rather than wild; one that had been modified, even improved, by human
intervention. Perhaps Thoreau’s reputation is not entirely well deserved, but there can be no denying the
environmental character of much of his writing. Cox (1993) has concluded that by his later years Thoreau
was an ecologist in all but name and a perceptive observer of the changes taking place in the New
England wilderness. Whatever interpretation is applied to their thoughts on nature and wilderness, by
stimulating interest in the natural environment Emerson and Thoreau provided a philosophical base for
American environmentalism upon which their contemporaries such as George Perkins Marsh and
John Muir were able to build.

Marsh trained as a lawyer and became a diplomat, but he was also a self-trained physical geographer who
was quick to appreciate the impact of society on nature and natural resources (Lowenthal 2000). His
observations of the degradation caused by human activities on the landscape of the eastern Mediterranean
and the rapid decline of the forests in eastern North America led him to believe that the environment
could suffer irreparable damage at the hands of society. He was not against change, but saw that it had to
be managed change (Buell 1995). He published his ideas in 1864 in Man and Nature or Physical
Geography as Modified by Human Action, which included details of the impact of human activities
such as mining, agriculture and forestry on the environment. Although his ideas are less widely known by
environmentalists than those of Thoreau, they led to the first major environmental conference of modern
times – ‘Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth’, held at Princeton University in 1956 – and gave
an early glimpse of the catastrophic potential of human activities that was to become a central element in
the environmental movement more than a century later. One of the first to put this early environmental
thinking into practice was John Muir. Muir was born in Scotland, but spent most of his life in the United
States, where his thoughts on nature and the wilderness were influenced by the writings of Emerson and
Thoreau (Buell 1995). As a naturalist he was particularly concerned about the damage being done to the
mountain and forest environments of the American west, and towards the end of the nineteenth century
he turned to writing to promote their conservation. Within the conservation movement Muir was a
preservationist, believing that nature had its own inherent value and should be preserved with little or
no change, other than that which occurred naturally (Smith 2000). He advocated strong government
participation and received the support of President Theodore Roosevelt, himself a strong believer in
conservation. Muir was also a popular activist whose efforts helped to create the Sierra Club in
1892 and as its first president he was instrumental in having the Yosemite area of the Sierra Nevada
designated as a national park. His legacy can be seen in the Sierra Club’s involvement in the
13

founding, preservation and expansion of parks and wilderness areas in the western United States,
from Arizona to Alaska, over the century since its founding.

At odds with preservationists like Muir were those conservationists who saw no problem with
the wise utilization of the economic resources of natural areas, while retaining as far as possible
the environmental integrity of the areas so that they might remain available to future generations.
In effect, their ideas foreshadowed the concepts of multiple land use and sustainable development
that were to become central environmental issues in the latter part of the twentieth century. The main
proponent of this utilitarian approach to conservation – as Ferkiss (1993) has termed it – was Gifford
Pinchot, the first Director of the Division of Forestry when it was created in the US Department
of Agriculture in 1898. He was a scientific forester who believed that the forests should be managed
14

BOX 1.2 PIONEERING NORTH AMERICAN ENVIRONMENTAL

PHILOSOPHERS AND ENVIRONMENTALISTS
Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–82) Philosopher and writer who embraced the transcendental
philosophy of the divinity and unity of man and nature. Such beliefs foreshadowed later environmentalist
concepts and ideas.

Henry David Thoreau (1817–62) A protégé of

Emerson, Thoreau rejected materialism and sought
to improve the quality and meaning of life by the
contemplation and study of nature. Perhaps best
known for his account of the time he spent at Walden
Pond near Concord, Massachusetts, Thoreau also
kept a journal in which for twenty-four years he
recorded his philosophical and scientific observations.
An ecologist in all but name, his observations
made him aware of the concept of forest succession
and as early as 1859 he advocated the creation of
wilderness parks for the preservation of nature.

George Perkins Marsh (1801–82) A self-trained

physical geographer, Marsh’s main contribution to
the early environmental movement was his appreciation
of the human impact on nature and natural
resources, which he detailed in his pioneering
environmental studies text Man and Nature, published
in 1864. Although less well known than his
contemporary environmental pioneers, his ideas
were revived in 1956 at the Princeton conference on
‘Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth’.

John Muir (1838–1914) Appalled by the destruction

of the environment in the California sierras, John
Muir became one of the first environmental activists
to use his writing and political contacts to promote
the preservation of the western wilderness. In 1892
he was a founding member and first president of the
14

Sierra Club. The original non-profit environmental

conservation organization, after more than a century
the Sierra Club remains a leader in the environmental
movement.

Aldo Leopold (1887–1962) Although he lived and

wrote more than a generation after the original
environmental pioneers, Leopold’s work in scientific
wildlife management was ground-breaking. He
appreciated the interrelationships among the various
components of the environment and saw the concept
of the ecosystem as central to the management of
nature. Practising what he preached, Leopold supported
the establishment of wilderness preserves and
was a founding member of the Wilderness Society.
Rachel Carson (1907–64) Writer and naturalist
who was the author of the best-selling book Silent
Spring in which she drew attention to the impact of
chemicals on the environment. When first published,
the book was denounced as alarmist by the chemical
industry and many biologists treated it with some
scepticism. Carson’s concerns were justified, however,
and her book gave the environmental movement a
major boost.

For more information see:

Carson, R. (1962) Silent Spring, New York: Houghton Mifflin.
Fleck, R.F. (1985) Henry Thoreau and John Muir among
the Indians, Hamden CT: Archon Books.
Leopold, A. (1949) A Sand County Almanac, New York:
Oxford University Press.
Lowenthal, D. (2000) George Perkins Marsh: Prophet of
Conservation, Seattle WA: University of Washington
Press.
Muir, J. (1894) The Mountains of California, New York:
Century.
Thoreau, H.D. (1854) Walden, Boston MA: Ticknor and
Fields.

commercially for their natural resources and did not support the preservation of national forest land
for non-commercial purposes such as parks. Overall the utilitarian conservationists seem to have won
the day, but environmental groups continue to press the preservationist approach. Aldo Leopold (see
Box 1.2, Pioneering North American environmental philosophers and environmentalists), an American
ecologist, regarded as the father of wildlife management and founding member of the Wilderness
Society, incorporated aspects of both approaches in his teaching and writing, but the schism that was
created more than a century ago still exists, being seen most recently in the debate over the development
of oil and gas resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the North Slope of Alaska.
15

ENVIRONMENTAL MOVEMENT IN THE TWENTIETH CENTURY

By the early decades of the twentieth century pressure from both industrial and agricultural development
posed major threats to the environment, but the seriousness of the situation was not widely recognized.
The atmosphere of large cities in Europe and North America was laden with smoke released by the
industrial and domestic use of coal as a fuel. Habitat was lost to the spread of arable agriculture and forest
exploitation worldwide, water was polluted by industry and the ecology of many areas was changed for
ever. The migration of large numbers of Europeans to North and South America, Australasia and Africa in
16

the second half of the nineteenth century and in the twentieth century up to the First World War ensured
that the threats were worldwide. In Australia, for example, unique ecosystems were destroyed when the
land was cleared for European-style farming. The environmental impact of introduced species, such as the
rabbit, is well documented (Adamson and Fox 1982), but large herds of cattle and flocks of sheep that
numbered in the millions also contributed to environmental deterioration, particularly in semi-arid areas
where over-grazing led to serious soil erosion (Simmons 1996).

European colonization of Africa started later than in the Americas or Australasia, but by 1900, following
the so-called ‘Scramble for Africa’ in the last decades of the nineteenth century, almost the entire
continent was under the control of a handful of European powers. The late start, however, did not spare
the African environment. In many areas the Europeans encountered an indigenous agriculture that was
reasonably well suited to local environmental conditions. By altering agricultural practices, through the
introduction of cash cropping, or livestock, for example, or by disrupting the social patterns that had
grown up around traditional agricultural activities, the colonial powers paved the way for environmental
deterioration.

The clearing of marginal land, planting of environmentally inappropriate crops, imposition of permanent
agriculture where shifting agriculture had been the norm and the resettlement of indigenous groups into
areas that could not support traditional agriculture all contributed to habitat change, depletion of soil
fertility, over-grazing and general degradation of the land (Mannion 1997). Problems peaked in North
America in the 1930s, with the drought that devastated the Great Plains. Cultivated crops could not
withstand the drought in the same way that the natural grasses of the Plains could, and large areas became
desert. Soil erosion was rampant, as the exposed, dry soil was lifted by the wind or washed away by any
rain that did fall.

As a result of the Dustbowl conditions, and their impact on the social and economic situation in both
Canada and the United States, there was growing interest in dealing with soil erosion and the management
of water supplies. This met with some success and although drought is still an integral part of the Plains
environment, it has never again led to conditions that matched those of the Dustbowl.

By the middle of the century, the environmental cost of serious pollution was beginning to attract broader
attention. Urban air pollution was particularly obvious. It was not a new phenomenon, but it had remained
relatively localized in large cities that had high seasonal heating requirements, were heavily industrialized
and had large volumes of vehicular traffic or a combination of all three. Paradoxically, it had often been
seen as the price that had to be paid for a successful economy. Into the 1940s and 1950s, however, the
economic and social costs of pollution were beginning to be recognized and attempts were being made to
deal with it. Pittsburgh started in the late 1940s to deal with the pollution associated with the steel
industry (Thackrey 1971) and, at about the same time, the state of California introduced laws in a first
attempt to reduce the pollution associated with the increased use of the automobile (Leighton 1966). In
London, England, a major smog episode in the winter of 1952 was so disastrous that it helped to bring
about the introduction of a series of Clean

Air Acts that were aimed at reducing air pollution (Brimblecombe 1987). Pollution was every bit as bad –
if not worse – in the waterways. The major rivers and lakes in both North America and Europe were
choked with sewage or industrial waste, and the fish that had lived in them had either been killed off or
become inedible. Eutrophication was rampant, leaving lakes covered by organic scum and rendering
bathing beaches unusable because of the algae and weeds washed up on shore. Streams that appeared
deceptively clean might, in reality, be polluted by invisible chemicals released from industrial plants or
washed off agricultural land. Even in areas with limited amounts of industry, the waterways were no
longer clean. In the relatively unpopulated north-western corner of the Canadian province of Ontario, for
17

example, the presence of only one pulp and paper mill in the town of Dryden was enough to pollute a
river many kilometres downstream. The mill spread mercury pollution north and west into the Winnipeg
River system, contaminating fish and causing serious health problems for those who ate them.

Although air and water pollution received most attention, the land was not spared. There the problem was
chemicals that had been introduced, with the best of intentions, to improve agricultural output or reduce
damage to plants and animals by insects or disease. Rachel Carson, an American biologist, was the first to
draw attention to the impact of these chemicals on the environment. The title of her best-selling book,
Silent Spring, referred to the silence that fell over the land as birds succumbed to the chemical poisons
released by the growing and often indiscriminate use of pesticides, herbicides and fertilizers. DDT, which
up to that time had been viewed as almost a miracle pesticide, was identified as one of the main culprits.
When it was published in 1962 the book was denounced by the chemical industry as alarmist, and many
biologists treated it with some scepticism, but its concerns ultimately were justified (Cox 1993). It gave
the environmental movement a major boost, and inspired an increasing amount of research over the next
two decades into the problem of environmental pollution by chemicals. Silent Spring may have been one
of the triggers that led to the great upsurge of interest in the environment in the second half of the 1960s,
which Paehlke (1997) has referred to as the First Wave in the modern environmental movement (Figure
1.7).

Smith (2000) has identified other events in the United States that increased public awareness of
environmental issues at that time. In early 1969 an oil drilling platform off the coast of southern
California leaked tens of thousands of litres of crude oil over a period of eight months, leading to
the pollution of beaches at Santa Barbara and neighbouring communities. Later that year, a
cigarette discarded into the heavily polluted Cyahoga River in Cleveland set the river on fire. In
Britain, the wreck of the Torrey Canyon off the Scilly Islands in 1967 played a similar role in alerting
the public to the environmental consequences of increasing supertanker traffic. Although pollution

concerns such as these were central to Paehlke’s First Wave, there were other factors, not necessarily
unrelated to pollution, that also appeared. Energy issues emerged, for example, eventually surpassing
pollution in terms of public concern in the mid- 1970s, and the realization that population growth
and resource depletion had to be addressed led to the serious reconsideration of approaches to
development. The wave grew with the first Earth Day in 1970, the founding of Greenpeace in 1971,
the creation of Green parties in Switzerland and New Zealand and the holding of the first conference
to draw worldwide public attention to the immensity of environmental problems – the United
Nations Conference on the Human Environment (UNCHE), Stockholm, 1972 (see Box 1.3, Development
of environmental concern through international conferences). At the same time, attitudes to the
environment were changing. Many environmental groups, such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club,
worked hard to build awareness of the problems, while the general alienation of young people from the
existing social, political and economic order in the late 1960s and early 1970s was also reflected in
environmental attitudes. Technology was seen as the main culprit in environmental
deterioration, and the regulatory solutions favoured by decision makers were seen as useless by
environmentalists unless they were accompanied by better education and greater appreciation of the
environment.

Public pressure forced the political and industrial establishment to reassess its position on environmental
quality. Oil companies, the forest products industry and even automobile manufacturers began
to express concern for pollution abatement and the conservation of resources. Similar topics began to
18

appear on political platforms, and although this increased interest was regarded with suspicion and
viewed as a public relations exercise by some environmentalists, legislation was gradually introduced
to alleviate some of the problems. By the early 1970s some degree of control seemed to be
emerging. Despite this, the wave was beginning to break. The potential impact of Stockholm was
not sustained and the environmental movement declined in the remaining years of the decade,
pushed out of the limelight in part by growing fears of the impact of the energy crisis, which broke
in 1973 (see Chapter 5). Memberships in environmental organizations – such as the Sierra Club and
the Wilderness Society – which had increased rapidly in the 1960s, declined slowly, and by the late
1970s the environment was seen by many as a dead issue (Smith 2000). Environmental deterioration did
not disappear just because fewer people were concerned about it,

BOX 1.3 DEVELOPMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN THROUGH

INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES
Man’s Role in Changing the Face of the Earth, 1956 Dedicated to George Perkins Marsh; a broad
examination of human impact on the environment
from earliest times.
Study of Critical Environmental Problems, 1970 An assessment of the issues characteristic of
the ‘Second Wave’ (see Figure 1.8). This was the first
major study to draw attention to the global extent of
human-induced environmental issues.
United Nations Conference on the Human Environment, 1972 Held in Stockholm, it recognized
the need to confront the growing threats to the
environment. It formalized that recognition with the
signing of the Declaration of the Human Environment
and the creation of the UN Environment
Programme.

World Commission on Environment and Development (the Brundtland Commission), 1987 Firmly
combined economy and environment through its
promotion of ‘sustainable development’, which
requires development to be both economically and
environmentally sound.

UN Conference on Environment and Development (the Earth Summit), 1992 Held in Rio de Janeiro,
it produced a blueprint for sustainable development
in the twenty-first century. Products included the
‘Rio Declaration’, ‘Convention on Climate Change’,
‘Convention on Biodiversity’, ‘Statement of Forest
Principles’ and ‘Agenda 21’.

Rio +5, 1997 A summit convened in New York, five

years after the Earth Summit, to review progress on
the issues raised in Rio. Particular attention was paid
to Agenda 21, the blueprint for future environmental
management. The general conclusion was that
although some progress had been made in implementing
sustainable development, few targets had
been met in other areas.

Earth Summit +10, the World Summit on Sustainable Development, 2002 An international meeting
held in Johannesburg to review progress towards
19

sustainable development ten years after the Earth

Summit. Despite attempts to encourage the implementation
of Agenda 21, by identifying quantifiable
targets, it is considered by many environmentalists
to have done nothing to advance the solution of
environmental issues.
In addition to these major international events, there
have been hundreds of conferences and meetings that
have dealt with individual environmental issues and
the socio-economic, cultural and political concerns
associated with them.

and by the mid-1980s there was a major resurgence of concern. Why it came about is not clear. It
may simply have been a return to the natural progression started in the 1960s, but Smith (2000)
has suggested that in the United States it was in part a public backlash against the perceived
antienvironmentalism of the Reagan administration.

Interest was broad, embracing all levels of society,and held the attention of the general public, plus
a wide spectrum of academic, government and public-interest groups. The issues involved were part
of a Second Wave in the environmental movement (Paehlke 1997) and most have continued on into
the new century (Figure 1.8). They are global in scale and although they appear different from issues
of earlier years, in fact they share the same roots. Topics such as acid rain and global warming are
linked with the sulphurous urban smogs of two or three decades ago by society’s continuing
dependence on fossil fuels. Societal pressures on land of limited carrying capacity contribute to
famine and desertification much as they did in the past. The depletion of the ozone layer, associated
with modern chemical and industrial technology, may be considered as only the most recent result of
society’s continuing search to improve its quality of life, all the while acting in ignorance of the
environmental consequences. This Second Wave is characterized by a new environmentalism, in which
there is growing awareness of the breadth and complexity of the issues. One of the results is that the
economic and political components of the issues are better understood and better addressed than in the
past. Reporting in 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development – commonly called
the Brundtland Commission after its chairwoman, Gro Harlem Brundtland – firmly combined
economy and environment through its promotion of sustainable development, a concept that required
development to be both economically and environmentally sound so that the needs of the world’s
current population could be met without jeopardizing those of future generations. Part of the
commission’s mandate was to explore new methods of international co-operation that would foster
understanding of the concept and allow it to be developed further. To that end, it promoted a major
international conference, held in Rio de Janeiro in 1992 as the Earth Summit or the UN Conference on
Environment and Development. The theme of economically and environmentally sound development
was carried through the conference and was central

to most of the treaties and conventions signed at the summit. It was also included in many of the
agreements reached at the Global Forum, a conference of non-governmental organizations held in Rio at
the same time as the Earth Summit (Box 1.4). Rhetoric often exceeds commitment at such wide-ranging
international conferences and concerns were expressed at the time regarding the effectiveness of
the summit (see, for example, Pearce 1992a). One initiative – the Framework Convention on Climate
Change – has retained a very high profile, with the scientists and politicians meeting regularly to
wrestle with the environmental issues associated with global warming. Most of the others, however,
are progressing much more slowly. In one respect
20

the Earth Summit was successful. By bringing

BOX 1.4 TREATIES SIGNED AT THE WORLD ENVIRONMENT MEETINGS IN RIO DE
JANEIRO, JUNE 1992
UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE ON ENVIRONMENT AND DEVELOPMENT
(UNCED)
Government treaties and other documents
The Rio Declaration Including twenty-seven principles – key elements of the political agendas of both
industrialized and developing nations
Convention on Climate Change Included as an objective the stabilization of greenhouse gas
concentrations,
but no agreement on specific emission targets or dates – led ultimately to the Kyoto Protocol
Convention on Biodiversity Goals included conservation and the sustainable use of biological diversity,
plus fair sharing of products made from genestocks
Statement of Forest Principles Was not a treaty but a statement of seventeen non-binding principles
for the protection and sustainable development of all forests – tropical, temperate or boreal
Agenda 21 Attempted to embrace the entire environment and development agenda. It consists of four
sections – social and economic dimensions, conservation and management of resources for development,
strengthening the role of major groups, means of implementation – and forty chapters covering all
aspects of the environment, including issues such as climate change, ozone depletion, transboundary air
pollution, drought and desertification
GLOBAL FORUM
Non-governmental organization (NGO) treaties and other documents
Earth Charter A short statement of eight principles for sustainable development intended to parallel
the Rio Declaration
TREATY GROUPINGS
NGO co-operation and institution building cluster Included treaties on technology, sharing of
resources, poverty, communications, global decision making and proposals for NGO action
Alternative economy issues cluster Included treaties on alternative economic models, trade, debt,
consumption and lifestyles
Major environmental issues cluster Included treaties on climate, forests, biodiversity, energy, oceans,
toxic waste and nuclear waste
Food production cluster Included treaties on sustainable agriculture, food security and fisheries
Cross-sectorial issues cluster Included treaties on racism, militarism, women’s issues, population,
youth, environmental education, urbanization and indigenous peoples
Source: after D.D. Kemp, Global Environmental Issues: A Climatological Approach (2nd edn), London
and New York:
Routledge (1994).

politicians, non-governmental organizations and a wide range of scientists together, and publicizing
their efforts by way of thousands of journalists, it ensured that knowledge of the perilous state of the
environment was widely disseminated and through that it added momentum to growing concern over
the issues. Progress in dealing with environmental problems often seems to be minimal, but without
these two elements – knowledge and concern – it would be even slower than it has been.

The concept of sustainable development has not been embraced by all environmentalists (Figure 1.9).
Those who support it are seen as technocentric in their approach, using technology and managerial
techniques to allow the environment to be administered for the benefit of society. In opposition are
those who hold the ecocentric view that the human species is not necessarily the most important species
21

in the natural environment, and as a result priority should not routinely be given to human needs when
dealing with environmental issues. The difference is not unlike that between the proponents of utilitarian
conservation advocated by Pinchot and the preservationist views of Muir at the beginning of the twentieth
century.

Ecocentrism has been embraced directly and indirectly by a number of environmental philosophies, from
social ecology, in which the human domination of nature is viewed as an extension of the hierarchical
nature of society,

with its emphasis on profit and group dominance, to eco-feminism, which claims particular ties between
women and the environment as a result of such shared elements as productive and reproductive functions
(Hessing 1997).

An approach to ecocentrism that has been particularly widely promoted is deep ecology. First proposed by
Arne Naess in 1973 and developed over the following decade, deep ecology involves a holistic approach,
which recognizes the importance of individual elements in the environment and their relationship to each
other (Hessing 1997). It also recognizes that there will be times when the intrinsic natural value of an
environment or some component of the environment will have to be judged against the economic or
social value that society places on it. In such cases, it is invariably assumed that human need takes
precedence, but deep ecologists, being strong advocates for the environment, regularly challenge that
assumption.

Attempts at translating these different philosophical concepts into reality have been accompanied
by an ongoing clash of views on the best or most effective approaches to the issues involved (Goldfarb
2001). For some in the environmental movement the technocentric approach, even with the inclusion of
sustainable development and conservation techniques, is insufficient to deal with the problems of
22

technology, economics and politics that are central to modern environmental issues, and may at best only
slow environmental deterioration.

In turn, those who embrace ecocentrism are often seen as unrealistic in their demands, creating a false
equality among the components of the biosphere, and ignoring the fact that human beings have technical
and intellectual attributes that make them different from other living creatures. Not all environmentalists
belong in these broad groups, of course. Each philosophy has its central core of proponents, but at the
individual level more mundane factors such as personal values, political beliefs and self-interest play a
part in the development of attitudes to the environment and the ways in which it should be managed or
protected.

Modern environmentalism includes an aggressive element, with environmental groups much more
militant and ready to take direct action. That action may include direct legal challenges to perceived
environmental destruction, or the non-violent, confrontational approach pioneered by Greenpeace, carried
out in a well planned, professional manner. Several degrees more radical are groups such as Earth First
and the Sea Shepherd Society, which have engaged in or planned illegal activities such as the spiking of
trees to make them difficult and dangerous to harvest, the blockading or occupancy of threatened areas
and the sinking of whaling ships. Many radical environmentalists support the ecocentric philosophy of
deep ecology.

As a result, some of the issues that were central to the environmental movement some 100–50 years ago –
wilderness preservation, for example – have resurfaced. The modern approach appears much more drastic
than its predecessor, but Muir and his fellow members of the Sierra Club were viewed as radical in their
day, and future generations may see the current environmental confrontation as acceptable, perhaps even
necessary.

One major advantage that modern environmentalists have over previous generations is the ability to
collect and analyse data. Although an element of ignorance remains in many areas, the knowledge
base that would allow some of the most serious environmental issues to be tackled is already
phenomenally large and growing daily. Until that fund of knowledge has been translated into action,
it will not be possible to slow down and eventually reverse the environmental deterioration that
threatens the world.
23

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

The environment in which an object finds itself is a combination of the various physical and biological
elements that surround it and with which it interacts. Although it is common to refer to ‘the’ environment,
there are in fact many environments, all capable of change in time and place, but all intimately linked and
in combination constituting the whole earth/atmosphere system. They vary in scale from the microscopic
to the global and may be subdivided according to their attributes. The aquatic environment, for example,
is that of rivers, lakes and oceans, the terrestrial environment that of the land surface. The term ‘built
environment’ has been applied to areas such as cities, created by human activity. The human element has
a dominant role in modern environmental studies, a situation that has developed in a series of waves over
the past 150–200 years. The environmental movement has its roots in the growing concern for nature
which characterized all sectors of society – from literature to science – in the nineteenth century. Interest
was mainly in the cataloguing and conservation of flora and fauna and their natural habitats, leading to
the creation of national parks, forest reserves and game preserves. Between the world wars, particularly
where drought devastated large areas of agricultural land in the 1930s, more attention was paid to soil
conservation.

By the 1950s and 1960s pollution had become the central environmental issue. After a decline in the
1970s, when concern over energy replaced the environment in public interest, the environmental
movement rebounded, reflecting an increased level of concern with society’s ever-increasing ability
to disrupt environmental systems on a large scale.

A new environmentalism emerged, characterized by a broad global outlook, increased politicization and a
growing environmental consciousness that took the form of waste reduction, prudent use of resources and
the development of environmentally safe products. There is also growing appreciation of the economic
and political components in environmental issues, particularly as they apply to the problems arising out of
the economic disparity between rich and poor nations. The modern environmental movement is
aggressive, with certain organizations using direct action in addition to debate and discussion to draw
attention to the issues. Rising above all of this is the recognition that education in environmental issues is
essential if the earth’s environmental problems are to be resolved.

QUESTIONS FOR REVISION OR FURTHER STUDY

1 In its broadest sense, the environmental movement works to reduce and prevent damage to the
environment. There are different approaches to these goals, however. In the nineteenth century the debate
was between conservation and preservation, in the twenty-first there is a similar debate between
technocentrism and ecocentrism. Examine current environmental issues and try to decide which of these
approaches is likely to be most effective in reducing or solving the problems you can identify.
24

2 List by-laws, statutes and other ordinances that have been passed in your community in an attempt to
improve or maintain environmental quality. How successful have they been? What are the main reasons
for success or failure?