Do you agree with the thesis thate we are witnessing the birth of a new kind of environmentalism/ecologism? Its purpose is not so much to protect the natural environment as to protect people who suffer the consequences of environmental damage and climate change.
An important problem that advocates of this concept is the dramatic ecological cost of social inequality.
Research into the impact of inequality on the deterioration of the quality of the natural environment began in the 1990s. They clearly showed that not only climate change and activities causing environmental degradation have their beneficiaries and victims.
They also showed that the natural environment also suffers from the growing inequality between the rich and the poor. For example, it has been proven that the rate of disappearance of species is more strongly associated with income inequalities than with factors such as population density or environmental policy.
Is it therefore legitimate to bind the responsibility of international organizations, states and economic entities for climate change and environmental damage with their responsibility regarding human rights violations, including those of economic, social and cultural nature?
I know that it will probably be considered an abstraction at this stage, but I am still curious about your views on the possible binding of these issues to the provisions of the third part of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of December 16, 1966, especially art. 11, art. 12 and art. 15.
All good in New 2019!
I think that this new environmentalism is a reality and at the same time a chance for all parties to make a difference. It should not end up in rhetoric!
"Fixing the environment" means both the natural environment and the human-hive structure and environment, so there are balances in both.
Dear Vincent and Craig,
thank you for your voices in this discussion.
Best regards!
World-wide a development of strong environmental ethics, that must be stronger than any of our individual religious beliefs, in order for our species to survive into the future. At least an awareness of our natural surroundings, and making sure that we protect the Pseudomonas bacteria host-plants, so our human hives and plus the natural world around us, have sufficient rainfall to continue our existences (see Discover magazine http://discovermagazine.com/2012/apr/07-does-rain-come-from-life-in-the-clouds )? I have a bumper-sticker on my car, "Save the Pseudomonas Seven--to keep the rain falling"--means, the seven major forests on the planet where the bacteria originates.
Article Salient Ecological Sensitive Regions of Central Western Ghats, India
I think we need to understand the reality in climate change and its associated effects and support all efforts towards its mitigation and adaptation
The “new environmentalism” is a term used to describe a shift in environmentalism towards a more holistic approach that takes into account social justice and economic issues1. This approach recognizes that environmental issues are not separate from other social issues and that they are interconnected. The new environmentalism is seen as a chance to fight climate change by addressing the root causes of environmental problems1. However, some critics argue that the new environmentalism is a myth and that it does not go far enough in addressing the root causes of environmental problems1. Overall, the new environmentalism represents an important shift in environmentalism towards a more holistic approach that recognizes the interconnectedness of social and environmental issues1.
My work with the Saudi government and my 2002 proposal that you can read at https://www.ecoseeds.com/cool.html was adopted in August 2010 when 200 million hectares were set aside to replant native plants.
Then two years ago, the planting got started as the "Saudi Green Initiative" at the rate of one million trees per WEEK, until 10 billion are planted.
Then, last year, the Saudi Crown Prince got 24 countries together at the COP27 meeting, to form the "Middle East Green Initiative", which includes China, India, Pakistan and the UK, to all together plant 50 BILLION trees, to start doing something about Global Warming that you can see at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QO8PcbxOu0Y which is the live-stream one hour long meeting, and the 200 million hectares of degraded lands getting planted, are mentioned at 2 min and 30 seconds into that video.
The only "new" thing we need, is for ALL of the countries of the world, start converting 80-85% of their annual military budgets, into Ecological Restoration budgets, to start the replanting of their country's natural areas, to give their people real "National Security".
You can see the difference in Oman, where you have the native forests, and where those forests were chopped down a long time ago. The rain can only follow the natural forests, and "no-forests, no rainfall"--so if we want rainfall in the arid parts of the world and in fresh-water stressed areas, then we need to turn those military budgets into a "Tree-native-grass and wildflower planting budget".
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Medicine
- Epi
- Age Groups
- Children