Th e terms ‘environmentalism’ and ‘global environmental movement’ are oft en used interchangeably with ‘green’ or ‘ecological movement’.77 However it is named, this movement, developed in Europe and North America in the last two centuries, refl ects growing concerns about the impact of human activities on the well-being of the environment. Initially, environmentalism emerged in
78 McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 5.
79 Ibid., 12.
80 De Steiguer, Th e Age of Environmentalism, 9.
81 Ibid.
82 Nash, Roderick, Rights of Nature, 61.
83 Ibid.
84 Aldo Leopold, “Th e Land Ethic,” in An Environmental Law Anthology, ed. Robert L.
Fishman, Maxine I. Lipeles, and Mark S. Squillace (Cincinnati, Ohio: Anderson Publishing Co., 1996), 16.
85 Ibid.
Europe aft er its long history of colonialism and natural resource exploitation before spreading to the United States.
1. Founding Fathers of Environmentalism
Th e fl owering of natural history in England in the 18th century fuelled inter-est in the ainter-esthetic value of nature and the preservation of wildlife. Private environmental groups such as the Commons, Open Spaces, and Footpaths Preservation Society, all established in Britain in 1865, were among the fi rst organisations to campaign for the preservation of places for amenity.78 Public wilderness preservation commenced for the fi rst time in the US in 1864 when Congress granted the Yosemite Valley to the State of California for recreational purposes. In 1872, the world’s fi rst national park, Yellowstone, was established in a large area in Wyoming. Th e American invention of national parks mir-rored the spread of ideas about the glorifi cation of nature for its own beauty and values.79 Aft er spending two years in a cabin at Walden Pond in Massachusetts, Henry David Th oreau (1817–1862), an American writer, pro-duced a rich literature refl ecting the principles of transcendentalism, a phi-losophy based on intuition, rather than rationality.80 He called for a simpler life represented by wilderness, as opposed to urbanism and its vices. Th oreau is considered the pioneer of ecocentric thinking.81
Albert Schweitzer (1875–1965) is another prominent intellect, whose
‘Reverence for Life’ philosophy is a forerunner of environmental ethics.
Schweitzer’s respect for life extends to all living beings and all matter.82 Th e ethical person, according to Schweitzer, “shatters no ice crystal that sparkles in the sun, tears no leaf from its tree, breaks off no fl ower, and is careful not to crush any insect as he walks.”83 Consequently, people should use nature’s resources when it is necessary and for practical reasons only. Aldo Leopold (1887–1948), a passionate conservationist, was more specifi c in his attempt to extend ethical values to the natural world.84 His focus was on ecosystem integ-rity, which goes beyond living creatures “to include soils, waters, plants, and animals, or collectively: the land.”85 Leopold denounced the traditional view of land as property and urged people to maintain a harmonious relationship with
historical and philosophical underpinnings 23
86 See De Steiguer, Th e Age of Environmentalism, 16.
87 Ibid., 9.
88 Th inkexist.com, “George Perkins Quotes,” http://en.thinkexist.com/quotes/george_
perkins/.
89 Ibid.
90 Andres R. Edwards, Th e Sustainability Revolution: Portrait of a Paradigm Shift (New Society Publishers, 2005), 13.
91 Ibid.
92 Hay, Main Currents, 14.
93 See De Steiguer, Th e Age of Environmentalism, 13.
94 Ibid.
95 See below Section C.
96 Barrett v. State, 220 NY 423(1917). Available at http://www.animallaw.info/cases/
causny220ny423.htm.
the land.86 As early as 1864, George Perkins Marsh (1801–1882), an American diplomat and conservationist, observed in his book, Man and Nature, that human activities have had a destructive eff ect on the environment throughout history.87 Marsh, called the fi rst environmentalist, considered the human being to be a ‘disturbing agent’ and that “[w]herever he plants his foot, the harmonies of nature are turned to discords.”88 Th us, he urged humankind to adopt a con-structive attitude towards nature and to rehabilitate destroyed landscapes.89
Environmental awareness culminated with the writings of visionaries like Th oreau and Muir. Th e naturalist John Muir (1838–1914) sought primarily to protect wildlife and ecosystems for recreational, educational and spiritual pur-poses.90 His beliefs infl uenced President Th eodore Roosevelt and led to the establishment of several national parks across the country.91 In contrast to the protectionism and preservation preached by Muir, Giff ord Pinchot (1865–
1946), an American forestry expert, believed in a rational and effi cient man-agement of natural resources for ‘human consumption’.92 Pinchot and Muir’s antagonism culminated in a debate over the construction of a dam and a res-ervoir in the Hetch Hetchy Valley in Yosemite National Park.93 Muir’s opposi-tion to the project stemmed from his belief that the valley should be preserved for its own value; while Pinchot, whose view eventually prevailed, regarded natural assets as a means for public provision and welfare.94 Th is confl ict of views is still the essence of the debate between advocates of anthropocentrism and deep ecologists.95
Barrett v. State was a stark illustration of this debate. By outlawing the hunt-ing, molestation or disturbance of beavers, New York State sought to protect the species from extinction.96 Th e claimants, whose land was devalued by the damaging activities of the protected species, fi led a suit against the State, claiming they had a right to compensation. Interestingly, the Court invoked the intrinsic value of the protected wild animals and the public interest to reject the petitioners’ claim for damages caused by beavers stating that “the police power is not to be limited to guarding merely the physical or material
97 Ibid.
98 McCormick, Reclaiming Paradise, 15.
99 See generally Nicholas de Sadeleer, Environmental Principles: From Political Slogans to Legal Rules (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002).
100 Rachel Carson, Silent Spring (Boston: Houghton Miffl in, 1962); Paul R. Ehrlich, Th e Population Bomb (New York: Ballantine Books, 1968); Hardin, “Th e Tragedy of the Commons.”
101 See De Steiguer, Th e Age of Environmentalism, 42.
102 Ibid., 32.
103 Ibid., 39.
104 Ibid., 40.
interests of the citizen. His moral, intellectual and spiritual needs may also be considered. Th e eagle is preserved, not for its use but for its beauty.”97
Since Barrett v. State, an ideological division has existed between those who regard nature in terms of its economic benefi ts for humankind, and the advo-cates of nature conservation for its intrinsic values. Upon the creation of the 1907 Inland Waterways Commission to regulate American river systems, Roosevelt recommended some restraints on the use of water for such eff orts as fl ood control and prevention of silting in order to guarantee its sustainability as a vital national resource.98 Th ese restraints can be likened to other familiar environmental principles, such as the polluter-pays principle, the principle of prevention and the precautionary principle.99 Since then, conservation has been perceived as more practical than preservation. It continues to be at the top of the international environmental agenda.
2. Th e Rise of Modern Environmentalism
It is common to trace modern environmentalism to Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring (1962), Paul Ehrlich’s Th e Population Bomb (1968) and Garrett Hardin’s essay, “Tragedy of the Commons” (1968), as well as to the writings of other scholars who have had great infl uence in raising public awareness of the grav-ity of environmental issues.100 Carson’s Silent Spring was hailed for its initia-tion of the ‘Age of Environmentalism’101 and its remarkable impact on public opinion. Th rough research fi ndings and factual accounts, Carson, a marine biologist, revealed the devastating eff ects of chemical pollution on ecosystems and human health. In one story included in the chapter ‘And No Bird Sing’, Carson showed the danger of the accumulation of DDT, an agricultural insec-ticide, in the food chain.102 Her writings challenged the interests of chemical and agricultural industries, who tried to discredit the book; however, her work was proven reliable following subsequent scientifi c approval from the United States Offi ce of Science and Technology.103 As a result of the heightened public and governmental awareness of threats posed by chemical toxins, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) banned the use of 50 of the most dangerous pesticides, including DDT.104 By emphasising the direct responsi-bility of humans in contaminating their environment, Carson’s work widened
historical and philosophical underpinnings 25
105 In March 1967, the tanker Torrey Canyon wrecked on the south coast of England and spilled an estimated 117,000 tons of crude oil into the English Channel. As a result, the British government created the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution in 1979. See McCor-mick, Reclaiming Paradise, 57–58. On January 28, 1969, a similarly devastating incident occurred in California when its pristine beaches on the Pacifi c Ocean were polluted by tens of thousands of crude oil spilled from a Union Oil Co. platform. Th is ecological nightmare galvanized the public as well as the Nixon administration to consider environmental issues seriously.
106 Robert V. Percival, “ “Greening” Th e Constitution-Harmonizing Environmental and Constitutional Values,” Environmental Law 32(2002).
107 Hay, Main Currents, 17–18.
108 Ron Arnold, one of the staunchest adversaries of the environmental movement and the founding father of the Wise Use Movement, presents the latter as an alternative ideology to that underpinning environmentalism. In comparing the two ‘competing paradigms’, Arnold pointed out that “environmentalism by its very nature promotes feelings of guilt for existing … [while]
wise use by its very nature promotes feelings of competence to live in the world.” Ron Arnold,
“Overcoming Ideology,” in A Wolf in the Garden: Th e Land Rights Movement and the New Environmental Debate, ed. Philip D. Brick and R. McGreggor Cawley (Lanham, Maryland:
Rowman & Littlefi eld Publishers, 1996).
109 Greenpeace and Earth First! are illustrative manifestations of the radical environmental movement. While Greenpeace, the fi rst radical environmental group, was initially formed to
the scope of environmental interests beyond wilderness preservation and iso-lated species of animals to include the health and well-being of humans and ecosystems alike.
Modern environmentalism was also a reactionary movement against mod-ernism and major environmental incidents that occurred in many regions, especially in the United States. Th e fi rst major incidents to raise public sensi-tivity to environmental issues were the Torrey Canyon and Santa Barbara spills,105 as a result of which federal regulatory programs were enacted to pro-tect the environment: the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.106 Th e implementation of these new statutes was assigned to newly established environmental agencies such as the Environ-mental Protection Agency and the Council on EnvironEnviron-mental Quality. Th e infl uence of such a powerful movement even went beyond policies and legis-lation to reach some of the States’ constitutions.
Th ere is a discontinuity between the emergence of wilderness preserva-tion—as conceived by Th oreau, Muir, and Leopold—and the subsequent resurgence of environmentalism in the 1960s, which was prompted by eco-logical issues such as pollution and population growth, as well as the warnings of doom-saying scientists. Interest in wilderness preservation was revived in North America and Australasia in the mid-1970s.107 However, the emergence of the so-called third wave of environmentalism in the 1980s has challenged the idealism of earlier environmentalists. Th is new wave, which departs from the radical principles, focuses on solving ecological problems through negoti-ations and compromises with governments and corpornegoti-ations.108 It is much more focused on economics and public policy than on ecocentric ideals such as exploration of the ‘wild self ’ and social change.109
protect the atmosphere from nuclear testing and to defend whales, the main objectives of Earth First! revolved around the protection of the wilderness. See Bill Devall, “Deep Ecology and Radical Environmentalism,” in American Environmentalism: Th e US Environmental Movement 1970–1990, ed. Riley E. Dunlap and Angela G. Mertig (New York: Taylor and Francis, 1992), 55–58.
110 See Rodman’s typology and Fox’ taxonomy in Hay, Main Currents, 31.
111 See generally Eccy De Jonge, Spinoza and Deep Ecology: Challenging Traditional Approaches to Environmentalism (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2004), 10.
112 Klaus Bosselmann, When Two Worlds Collide: Society and Ecology (Auckland: RSVP Publishing, 1995), 4.
113 See Susan J. Armstrong and Richard G. Botzler, eds., Environmental Ethics: Divergence and Convergence, 3rd ed. (New York: McGraw-Hill 2003), 314.
114 Ibid., 309–10.