Environment And Development Research Paper

2. The Term ‘Environment’

‘Environment’ may be defined as the total external conditions and influences affecting the life and fortunes of organisms, effectively ‘the parameters of life.’ It is shaped by living and nonliving elements that often interact in complex ways, making it a challenge to understand and predict future situations. The study of these interactions, ‘ecology,’ was founded as an academic subject in 1869 by Ernst Hackel, became established by the 1930s, and underwent an expansion in the 1970s. Ecology has been described as ‘scientific natural history’ and, along with ‘environment,’ became familiar to the general public in the early 1970s. The media often uses the term ecology loosely as a label for environmental concern (for example, an ‘Ecology Party was launched in the UK in the early 1970s).

Humans often adapt well to the environment they live in, and may be able to modify it to better suit their needs. Sometimes they are uncomfortable, fail to improve or even sustain conditions, or cause environmental degradation and then have to move away or suffer. A given environment may offer more opportunities than others but, ultimately, there are limits to human activity. If humans can satisfy their needs on a sustained basis without damaging the environment they may be said to have achieved ‘sustainable development.’ There are often many workable development strategies that could be pursued, some ‘fit-in’ with nature and at the other extreme others boldly change conditions. Wise development should also assess and prepare for environmental threats. Agriculture is essentially an attempt to modify natural environments by inputs of energy (human labor or fuel-based mechanization), technology, and knowledge to sustain higher outputs of food or other crops.

People often talk of ‘their local environment’ or an ‘alpine’ or a ‘desert environment,’ but there is essentially only one global environment or biosphere. The biosphere can be subdivided into a vast number of more or less interacting ‘ecosystems’ (each a recognizably distinct assemblage of organisms adapted to particular environmental conditions). The ecosystem is the basic functional unit of ecology (see Miller 1990).

3. The Term ‘Development’

Attempts to define ‘development’ reflect the current values of those making the definition, it is therefore difficult to agree one definition that is universally accepted and precise. Some see it as a learning process, others argue it is ‘positive social transformation.’ Another definition that is widely accepted in the West is: an ambiguous term for a multidimensional process in olving material, social and/or ganizational change, accelerated economic growth, the reduction of absolute poverty and inequality. There is some overlap with modernization, so that a group of people could develop yet remain unmodernized, or vice versa. Modernization is generally accepted to be a change toward a ‘modern’ economic, social and political system developed in Western Europe and North America between the seventeenth century and present. Many in the arts, sciences, philosophy, and social argue that there have been signs of a paradigm shift since the mid-1960s, away from modern to postmodern development, involving less support for a mechanistic, reductionist and compartmentalized approach to the world’s problems, in favor of a more holistic, multidisciplinary stance. (A researcher adopting a holistic approach seeks to study the whole, which may be more than the sum of the parts, so exploration of linkages and interactions is as important as studying component parts.) Whether the approach to development is modern or postmodern in character, it will meet difficulties if it does not make optimum use of environmental opportunities, heed physical and socioeconomic limits, and prepare for possible hazards.

4. Attitudes Toward Environment And Development

Peoples’ perception of development affects their exploitation of the environment. It is frequently argued that a faulty attitude toward development leads to environmental misuse and socioeconomic problems for humans (Crump 1991).

4.1 Attitudes Toward Environment And Development From Prehistoric Times To The Nineteenth Century

Before humans developed a sedentary lifestyle and their numbers increased beyond a few persons per square kilometer, environmental damage was largely temporary and limited. People moved on before pollution or erosion became too bad and, with the probable exception of some game animals, seldom overexploited resources. Although it has always been important to recognize natural threats and opportunities, the need to be concerned about environment and development has mainly grown as people have settled and multiplied, and as industry and technology have caused new impacts. By roughly 3000 BC around the Mediterranean the struggle to survive had led to forest clearance, soil erosion, and loss of fauna through hunting enough for several ancient chroniclers to record environment and development problems. One Roman geographer even recognized a link between the expansion of free trade and exploitative agriculture damaging the land.

Peasants, with few alternatives to fall back upon for survival, have often evolved sustainable livelihood strategies and sound rules of stewardship to ensure common resources were used without being degraded. Other social groups: the very poor, refugees, and the greedy have often exploited and damaged the environment in their struggle to survive or to profit. The poor may be forced to sacrifice sustainable livelihood and future opportunities to survive in the short term unless given aid; those driven by greed or commerce cause havoc through environmentally insensitive ethics.

In medieval Europe the prevailing view was that the universe reflected Divine Perfection, consequently there was little attempt to think about development or tolerance for those who did. After the Renaissance some explored the possibility of shaping secular human development; for example, Thomas Moore published Utopia in AD 1516. By the mid-sixteenth century Europe’s merchant class had grown in influence, possibly assisted by the spread of Calvinistic ethics (Weber 1958). There was a growing, relatively liberal, capitalist economy and an increasing interest in science and rational study. From the mid-eighteenth century this commerce and scientific reason, together with an Industrial Revolution and urban migration had caused huge changes of attitude, a shift to what has been termed the ‘modern’ outlook.

This modern, western civilization is often accused of particular insensitivity toward the environment. However, there are environment and development problems in virtually all societies: in atheistic, Christian, Islamic, Buddhist and Hindu countries (the latter, some claim, are more ‘in-tune’ with nature), regardless of whether the economy is socialist or free-enterprise capitalist. The intensity and type of environment and development problems may vary with the impact of commerce, technology and population growth, but they are found everywhere and pose a global challenge.

Beyond the spreading cities, degraded farmlands and forests of Europe and eastern North America several islands began to suffer damage to biota and environment by the eighteenth century. For example, by the 1760s legislation was being enacted to try to protect forests on Tobago, Mauritius, and St. Helena, and many other islands were in need of such controls. Even oceanic fisheries, seal and whale stocks were coming under pressure by the early-nineteenth century. Nevertheless, few people could yet see the world’s frontiers closing, if there were problems they were sure there was plenty of new land and resources to move on to. There were also naturalists in Europe and the Americas who raised public interest in the natural environment (an early example being Gilbert White’s 1798 study of nature; reputedly the fourth most published English language book) (for writings on the development of environmental attitudes see Wall 1994).

4.2 Attitudes Toward Environment And Development From The Nineteenth Century To The 1940s

By the nineteenth century the dominant attitude adopted toward development in the Western nations was that, whenever possible, the environment should be exploited, and unspoiled areas were wasted or even threatening and should be ‘tamed.’ As the nineteenth century progressed the idea that humans could ultimately conquer environmental problems became established. Achievements between 1830 and 1930 seemed to confirm such beliefs, as engineering and science made huge progress. But as pollution and overcrowding of industrial cities increased (see Ponting 1991) and as scientists learnt more, it became clear that controlling the environment would not be as easy as had once been hoped, and that there was a growing need for better stewardship and development ethics.

In Europe, Russia and North America concern about growing cities, pollution and the clearance of forest and wilderness prompted a diverse group of intellectuals, romantics and ‘proto-anarchists’ to question the way development was progressing (these included Thoreau 1854 and Kropotkin 1899). These intellectuals shared a concern about the moral and ethical issues associated with development and environmental degradation. Some saw the need to value nature for the inspiration and solace it could give which might help improve the human character. While more utilitarian environmentalists argued for a return to closer proximity to nature, and for development to establish decentralized, cooperative communities that would offer an escape from what was being inflicted by large scale industrialization and increasing state control.

The idea of protecting the environment against development existed here and there long before the nineteenth century, around the world people have protected certain plants or animals, forests or areas for practical or religious reasons, establishing sacred groves, hunting parks, holy trees, and taboos which help ensure rational and sustainable use of common resources (see Berkes 1989). By the early to mid-nineteenth century a growing number of naturalists, hunters, and foresters could see that what had once seemed limitless lands and resources were being degraded so they set up societies to promote conservation, and lobbied for laws to protect wildlife, forest and soil. National parks and reserves began to appear in the USA, Africa, India and other countries, and a number of forestry services were established. In the USA preservationists like John Muir worked to establish unspoilt wilderness reserves, and conserationists like Gifford Pinchot argued for areas where environmental protection could be combined with compatible land use or resource exploitation. On both sides of the Atlantic a number of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) were established between 1830 and 1930 to promote conservation and wildlife protection (like the Sierra Club in California—founded in 1892); as well as continuing to promote environmental concern some of these bodies played an important role after the Second World War in establishing powerful new environmental NGOs like the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN) and Friends of the Earth.

Publication of Darwin’s The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection in 1859 helped established concepts like ‘natural selection’ and ‘survival of the fittest’. These ideas and scientific advances in the nineteenth century led to some rethinking of long accepted ideas about humankind and nature. From the mid-nineteenth century the development of science, particularly concepts of the evolution of species, encouraged some to argue that the human environment–development relationship was strongly influenced or even largely controlled by physical conditions like climate. Race was also often seen as another determinant of development. These Environmental determinists have been divided into the ‘scientific’ (e.g., Ellsworth Huntington 1915), who tried to objectively explore how nature might affect human fortunes, and those who promoted ‘crude and subjective’ arguments. The latter especially were cited to justify racial and political extremism, notably that which helped support fascism in Germany. Similar problems were caused by supporters of social Darwinism, who argued for development to be shaped by competition, self-interest and eugenics, rather than mutual aid, co-operation and tolerance of the less developed (Pepper 1984). Although, much discredited by the 1940s, it is probable that these concepts helped discourage social scientists from exploring environment and development issues until well into the 1970s.

Serious drought and soil degradation in the US Midwest ‘Dustbowl,’ especially between 1932 and 1938, displaced many farmers and darkened the air as far as Chicago and Washington DC. Novelist John Steinbeck drew on the misery caused by the disaster for his novel The Grapes of Wrath (1939), as did the folksinger Woody Guthrie; both were at first seen as subversives criticizing the American lifestyle before they provoked public concern. The US Government had begun to pass ‘New Deal’ measures to control the land degradation by the mid-1930s, notably the foundation of the US Soil Erosion Service (in 1933) and its successor, the US Soil Conservation Service (in 1935). Just as the public in North America and Europe had started to see signs that there were environmental limits to development the Second World War diverted attention and resources.

4.3 Attitudes Toward Environment And Development After The 1940s

During the immediate post-War period attention was mainly focused on economic and industrial reconstruction and improving food production. The British, struggling to raise vegetable oil production, invested heavily in the Tanganyika Groundnut Scheme in the late 1940s and early 1950s, largely by failing to consider basic environmental parameters the development efforts failed and wasted large sums of money. This was one of the first environment and development disasters, soon followed by oil-spills, nuclear waste escapes, and other problems. The Cold War diverted attention and funds from environmental studies and development programs, and continued to do so until the 1980s; but by triggering antinuclear weapons protest movements, it also helped to establish environmental politics in Europe. A few writers explored environment and development issues in the 1940s and 1950s (e.g., the writings of Teilhard de Chardin and Aldo Leopold helped stimulate environmental interest in the 1960s and 1970s), and some NGOs and public figures began to bring conservation and pollution issues to the attention of the public in North America and Europe. In 1949 the UN held one of the first post-War meetings, the Conservation Conference at Lake Success, New York State. In 1948 the IUCN, an NGO body which has acted as a very influential network supporting conservation and promoting interest in environment and development issues was founded, now known as the Union for World Conservation, it continues to be highly important (for a history of the IUCN and conservation, see Holdgate 1999).

By the early 1960s attitudes towards environment and development had begun to change in Western nations, this is probably attributable to peoples’ growing affluence and leisure time, development of the media, improved knowledge of the structure and function of nature (in part thanks to the exchange of information and research during the International Geophysical Year of 1957–1958 and the International Biological Programme of 1964–1965), and well-publicized pollution accidents and other development related environmental problems. It has also been suggested that the US Civil Rights Movement and ‘hippie’ culture encouraged people to ask questions about development and to value the environment more. Another significant development was that NGOs and groups of concerned individuals began to fight environmental issues in law courts. Interest in environmental matters ‘took-off’ in California, spreading to the rest of North America and Europe, reaching a peak between about 1966 and 1974. During this period what is variously described as ‘environmentalism,’ an ‘environmentalist movement,’ an ‘environmental movement,’ or an ‘ecology movement’ spread (the first is probably the best term to adopt). A number of popular books helped provoke public interest in environmentalism, one of the most seminal and earliest being Silent Spring (Carson 1962), which voiced concern about DDT pollution.

Today Environmentalism is generally seen as a moral code or set of mediating values to guide human conduct. Environmentalism is often confused with ecologism which is more a political ideology requiring its adherents to seek ethical and moral changes and to move away from giving priority to the welfare of humankind in any evaluation of development options. Environmentalism generally allows followers to put humans before nature and to seek managerial solutions rather than make far-reaching changes of development ethics and morals. Environmentalism encompasses a huge diversity of beliefs and attitudes, some pragmatic and willing to draw-upon science, others more romantic, and some keen to avoid modern science. In general mid-1960s to mid-1970s environmentalism was dogmatic, rich in advocacy rather than workable proposals, and focused on the need for conservation, and the threats of over-population, pollution, and careless technical innovation (Farvar and Milton 1972), it was also largely unpoliticized and restricted mainly to middle-classes and intellectuals. Many environmentalists, especially the neo-Malthusians (e.g., Ehrlich 1972), warned of a coming ‘crisis.’ In the UK a popular environmentalist journal The Ecologist was founded in 1970 and public interest was stimulated by authors like Goldsmith et al. (1972) and Ward and Dubos (1972). The feelings of ‘crisis’ were fanned when the USA and USSR space programs released pictures of the world from space, prompting awareness that war, pollution, and other development problems took place within a finite and vulnerable system—a realization captured at the time by the expression ‘Spaceship Earth.’ At about this time the Club of Rome published The Limits to Growth (Meadows et al. 1972), which argued that in a finite world the established patterns of development were akin to cancer. Amidst bitter debate this helped initiate a rethinking of development ethics and the nature of economics.

In 1969 James Lovelock proposed the Gaia hypothesis, there have been several variants of this, but they all essentially argue that life on Earth has not simply adapted to physical conditions it is part of a complex inter-relationship. The hypothesis is disputed, but if accepted, the implication for development is that humans must carefully ‘fit in’ and ensure they do not upset any of the delicate mechanisms that maintain a stable environment, failure to do could result in catastrophic ecological change.

Warnings that the Earth faces an environment and development crisis have increasingly been issued since the 1960s. The cause is identified as one or a combination of the following: population growth; cavalier use of nature; misapplication of technology; faulty development ethics. Those concerned with environment and development face a dilemma: problems may be expensive, socially damaging, or impossible to solve once they happen, it therefore makes sense to try to monitor crucial thresholds and act to prevent a crisis (a turning-point after which action is less effective or hopeless); yet there are risks in warning of threats and acting before there is irrefutable proof unless a so-called ‘win–win’ approach can be found which gives benefit whatever the outcome. There are risks that accepting there is a crisis will divert attention from actually solving problems and will promote undesirable ‘crisis management,’ rather than careful problem avoidance. Recognition of a crisis may be a mistaken overgeneralization and lead to failure to uncover causes.

In 1973 the UN Environmental Programme (UNEP) was established to promote environmental care worldwide. Based in Nairobi, rather than Paris or Washington or some other developed country capital, to help ensure developing countries are not alienated, the UNEP often struggles to gain adequate funding. North America and Europe started to pass legislation in the late 1960s to develop more pro-active planning approaches which aim to reduce or avoid unwanted impacts. One of the most important examples of such legislation was the 1969 US National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) (passed in 1970), among its achievements was the promotion of Environmental impact assessment (EIA) procedures, and within ten years it had been copied in many countries around the world.

Nevertheless, in spite of continuing environmentally-damaging accidents, conflict over natural resources (e.g. the UK–Iceland ‘Cod Wars’ between 1952 and 1976), growing politicization of environmentalism, and the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment (held at Stockholm), popular interest waned after 1974. Ironically, the 1973–74 OPEC oil crisis led to fears of energy scarcity which diverted public attention and led to allocation funding to pay for more expensive fuel imports so there was less for environmental care. In many poor countries debts began to mount after 1973 prompting increased exploitation of natural resources to earn foreign exchange which accelerated environmental damage also, as funds became scarce, poverty grew and the poor often resorted to environmentally-damaging livelihood strategies. So, as environmental problems grew there was less money to spend on tackling them, added to this there were political changes in the USA which by the late 1970s saw less government enthusiasm for expenditure on environmental protection.

4.4 Attitudes Toward Environment And Development After The 1970s

At the time of what was effectively the world’s first international ecology ‘summit,’ the 1972 UN Conference on the Human Environment at Stockholm, environmental matters were poorly reported, environmentalism was hardly politicized (outside Germany and a few other countries), few states had ministries or departments for the environment, and there was disinterest, distaste or even fear of calls for limits to growth and to protect nature. A number of representatives, especially those from developing countries, voiced the views that environmental care was a luxury their nations could not afford; that it was a ploy used by richer countries to delay further development and subjugate or exploit them; or, at the very least, was hypocrisy coming from states which had damaged their own environments to grow rich. When the 1992 UN Conference on Environment and Development met at Rio de Janeiro virtually all countries had ministries of environment; most delegates accepted environmental concern was a vital, integral part of development and not a luxury; the prevailing view was that rich and poor countries were interdependent parts of one global environment; and that practical and possibly painful measures must be taken to solve problems and promote more development in poor countries. In twenty years there had been a ‘sea change.’

Certain publications helped achieve this attitude shift, one was Our Common Future, the ‘Brandt Report’ (Independent Commission on International Development Issues 1980), which spread the idea of developed and developing country interdependence eroding the view ‘aid is charity’ (i.e., the rich would benefit from helping the poor develop and by protecting the world environment). Other influential publications included: the World Conservation Strategy (1980) and the ‘Brundtland Report’ (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). These publications rekindled public interest in environment and, to a greater extent than before, in development issues; they also spread the concept of sustainable Development. Sustainable development was more palatable than zero growth called for by supporters of the limits to growth argument; it links aid, environment and development in a concept which, although difficult to give a precise and universal definition for, argues for stewardship to minimize environmental and social damage, efforts to ensure future options are not reduced and, if need be, aid to help achieve these aims (Reid 1995).

During the early 1980s the expression green was increasingly applied to environmental issues, largely as a friendly media ‘shorthand.’ The meaning is vague, but in the main stands for environmentally-friendly and environmentally-sensitive, so ‘greening’ means ‘improving environmental care,’ and a ‘green,’ someone concerned for the environment. ‘Greening’ has marked the spread of environmental concern to a wider spectrum of Western (later other) societies, than in the 1970s. Interest has spread beyond the middle classes to the public as a whole, and business, the legal profession, technology, the media, consumer protection bodies, marketing and advertising, economics and social studies, theology and philosophy have ‘gone green.’ This is especially important with respect to economics and commerce, given the crucial role these have in development. Economics has been seeking to develop environmentally-sensitive approaches, an early green economics publication being Blueprint for a Green Economy (Pearce et al. 1989). By the late 1980s many large bodies, including the World Bank and most aid agencies, had established environmental departments and green guidelines.

Many interpret this greening as indicating a new social movement: the green movement, certainly since the mid-1970s a new ‘green’ relationship has developed between the social sciences, natural sciences, policy making, and development implementation. Some see the green movement as a ‘cultural attack’ on the ills of modern society and economics (Adams 1990, p. 71), and it has been argued it is a manifestation of a postmodern and postindustrial cultural shift. The green movement is very diverse, but most would accept it embraces environmental sensitivity, social responsibility, grass-roots democracy, and nonviolence.

Although many greens scorn politics, or support whatever party they feel will give the best protection for the environment, an aspect of greening has been the spread of environmental politics. Green politics first originated in New Zealand and West Germany with roots in anti-nuclear weapons protest, feminism, and the US Civil Rights Movement, early romantic environmentalists (like Henry Thoreau), and more recent writers on social ecology, environmental ethics and deep ecology (such as Arne Naess). Starting in Hamburg during the early 1970s, green politics established a newspaper—Die Grunen—and candidates were elected to German State legislatures, and a few years later, to the national Parliament. Early German activists include Petra Kelly, Herbert Gruhl, and Rudolph Bahro. Only a scattering of greens have been elected to governments in Europe and other countries (virtually none in the USA), and if anything support has waned wince the mid-1980s, however they triggered a greening (somewhat cynical) of established political parties. At the close of the twentieth century there can be scarcely a single country in the world without green NGOs (increasingly networking globally), sympathetic newspaper, radio and television editors, politicians interested in cultivating an environmentally-sensitive image, and growing commercial interest in environment.

It has become increasingly apparent that various ‘development pressures’ are damaging, or have destroyed, established livelihood strategies, leading to environmental damage and human misery. For example, the spread of sedentary agriculture has disrupted seminomadic herders; economic policies may trigger shifting cultivation leading to land degradation; population growth or land development policies may promote settlement of unsuitable and vulnerable soils. As traditional ways breakdown new ones must be found which improve and sustain human welfare without environmental damage. Development there-fore faces more challenges than ever before.

Governments, business, and NGOs increasingly adopt Environmental management measures to try to ensure the polluter pays (i.e., whoever is responsible for environmental damage meets the cost of remedy) and minimize unwanted impacts, using precautionary techniques like environmental and social impact assessment, environmental accounting, and eco-auditing. Foreign aid is nowadays almost always conditional on the application of such measures, and is increasingly focused on reducing or avoiding environment and development problems. Since the late 1980s concern about trans-boundary Environmental problems has increased, these include acid deposition; stratospheric ozone depletion; chemical pollution; loss of biodiversity; and global warming. There has been progress in understanding the structure and function of the environment and in techniques for measuring and analyzing data—for example, satellite remote sensing and geographical information systems (GIS) (for handling constantly updated data). At the Rio ‘Earth Summit’ in 1992, participating nations signed a Declaration on Environment and Development; Conventions on Biodiversity (protection) and Climate Change (control), and endorsed an environment and development action program: Agenda 21 (Keating 1993). Nations have started to negotiate and ratify solutions for environment and development problems, but often back-off when it comes to actually spending money or foregoing possible profits. Governments and individuals are becoming aware that consumption and technological advances can mean environmental damage and move toward better monitoring and enforcement of controls for environmental problems.

Bibliography:

1. Adams W M 1990 Green Development: Environment and Sustainability in the Third World. Routledge, London
2. Barrow C J 1995 De eloping the Environment: Problems and Management. Longman, Scientific & Technical, Essex, UK
3. Berkes F (ed.) 1989 Common Property Resources: Ecology and Community-based Sustainable Development. Belhoven Press, London
4. Carson R 1962 Silent Spring. Houghton Mifflin, Boston
5. Crump A 1991 Dictionary of Environment and Development: People, Places, Ideas and/or ganizations. Earthscan, London
6. Ehrlich P R 1972 The Population Bomb. Simon and Schuster, New York
7. Farvar M T, Milton J P (eds.) 1972 The Careless Technology. Garden City Press, New York
8. Goldsmith E, Allan R, Davol M, Lawrence S 1972 Blueprint for Survival. Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK
9. Holdgate M 1999 The Green Web: A Union for World Conservation. Earthscan, London
10. Huntington E 1915 Civilization and Climate. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT
11. Independent Commission on International Development Issues 1980 North–South: A Programme for Survival. Pan, London
12. International Union for Conservation of Nature and Natural Resources, UNEP, WWF 1980 World Conservation Strategy: Living Resources for Sustainable Development. IUCN, Gland, Switzerland
13. Keating M 1993 The Earth Summit’s Agenda for Change: A Plain Language Version of ‘Agenda 21’. Earthscan, London
14. Kropotkin P 1899 Fields Factories and Workshops (original in Russian; English edn. 1974 ed. by C. Ward, Hutchinson, London)
15. Meadows D H, Meadows D L, Randers J, Behrens III W W 1972 The Limits to Growth (a Report for the Club of Rome’s Project on the Predicament of Mankind). Universe Books, New York
16. Miller G T Jr 1990 Living in the Environment: An Introduction to Environmental Science, 6th edn. Wadsworth, Belmont, CA
17. Pearce D, Markandya A, Bastier E 1989 Blueprint for a Green Economy. Earthscan, London
18. Pepper D 1984 The Roots of Modern Environmentalism. Croom Helm, London
19. Ponting C 1991 A Green History of the World. Sinclair-Stevenson, London
20. Reid D 1995 Sustainable Development: An Introductory Guide. Earthscan, London
21. Thoreau H D 1854 Walden; Or, Life in the Woods. Ticknor and Fields, Boston (later published as Walden. Penguin, New York, 1983)
22. Wall D 1994 Green History: A Reader in Environmental Literature, Philosophy and Politics. Routledge, London
23. Ward B, Dubos R 1972 Only One Earth: The Care and Maintenance of a Small Planet. Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK
24. Weber M 1958 The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (English translation by T. Parsons—originally published in 1904 and 1905). Charles Scribner, New York
25. White G 1977 [1798] A Natural History of Selborne. Penguin, Harmondsworth, UK World Commission on Environment and Development 1987 Our Common Future (the Brundtland Report). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK