Dominant Schools of thoughts

Environmental politics is about how humanity organizes itself to the nature that sustains it. Thus it compasses matters of how people deal with the Earth and its life, and how they, relate to each other through the medium of the environment. Also it impinges on other areas of political concern such as those related to poverty, education, race, the economy and international relations…etc.

The “environment” as a collective term for all these concerns arrived in the 1960s, which dates the beginning of environmental politics as such. Since then, the growth of environmental literature has matched the growth of environmental concern, which has spread to the Third World and the global system itself. In the last four decades, the politics of the Earth has featured a large and growing range of issues. The initial concerns were with pollution, wilderness preservation, population growth, and depletion of natural resources. These concerns have been supplemented by worries about energy supply, animal rights, species extinction, global climate change, depletion of the ozone layer, toxic wastes, the protection of whole ecosystems and environmental justice. All these issues are interlaced with a whole range of moral and ethical questions about human livelihood, human attitudes and our proper relations to other entities on the planet.

Environmental politics today covers discussions of the various political, social and economic causes of ecological problems; the ethics of our relationship with the natural systems that sustain us; our environmental relationships with our fellow-humans; environmental movements and designs for alternative; political organizations.

Environmental crisis arrived in the last 1960s, along with dire warnings about global shortages and ecological collapse. Since then, the global populations have increased by over 50percent. There has been mighty nuclear accident at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl, industrial accident at Bhopal and Prince William Sound in Alaska. Green parties have emerged as a significant electoral force in many countries. Mainstream environmental groups have acquired massive memberships. Populist backlashes against environmentalism have flared. Global environmental issues relating to climate change and ozone layer depletion have come to the fore. We have had Earth Summits; Earth Days, environmental legislation and regulation.

Environmental movements, originated in the 1960s with the emergence of the German idea of “conservation biology” and the American concept of “doctrine of resources conservation”, adopted a very different tradition of “reverence for wilderness” in the 1980s. With the new trends in global politics, like the gap between rich and the poor, the North and South, the increasing illiteracy rate and etc has led to the conclusion that the kind of development that we follow today is not in harmony with nature.

The present development model, like modern science, consider human to be supreme, over and above nature and not as a part of nature. This has not only led to marginalization of and alienation from nature, but also marginalization of principles of nature, leading to ecological disasters and environmental destructions. Nature is considered as objects, a non-living thing, a resource, a constant supplier of raw materials and an absorber of wastes, not as a living system. That is why nature is plundered, forests are destroyed, and land, water and air are poisoned by excessive use of chemical fertilizers, pesticides and insecticides.

However, we cannot ignore that the fact that our ancestor were wiser than us in the regard. It is well known that environmental conservation often found in ancient cultures around the world. Many indigenous people’s value and belief system have evolved to respect nature, and live in harmony with it and it assert that land and people are one and inseparable. An environmental ethics based on equity, fairness and respect for nature can be traced to ancient thinking, particularly to the various religious schools.

Hinduism on environment

Hinduism and Environment The principle of the sanctity of life clearly ingrained in the Hindu religion, only God has absolutely sovereignty overall creatures; thus human beings have no domination over their own lives or non-human life; consequently, humanity can not assign degrees of relative worth to other species. The idea of Divine Being as the one underlying power of unity expresses in the Yajurveda: The loving sage beholds that Being, hidden in mystery, Wherein the universe comes to have one home; Therein unites and there from emanates the whole; The omnipresent One pervades souls and matter Like warp and woof in created being. The sacredness of God’s creation means no damage may be inflicted on other species with out adequate justifications. Therefore all lives, human and non-human, are of equal value and all have the same right to existence. According to Atharvaveda, the Earth is not for human beings alone, but for other creatures as well: Born of Thee, on Thee move mortal creatures; Thou bearest them-the biped and the quadruped; Thine, O Earth, are the five races of men, for whom Surya (Sun), as he rises spreads with his rays The light that is immortal. The earliest Sanskrit texts, the Veda and Upanishads, teach the non-dualism of the supreme power that existed before creation. God as the efficient cause, and nature, Prakriti, as the material cause of the universe, are unconditionally accepted, as is their harmonious relationships. However, while these texts agree on the concept of non-dualistic theism, they differ in their theories regarding the creation of the universe. According to Rig Veda: He is one, but the wise call him by different names; such as Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, Divya-one who pervaded all the luminous bodies, the source of light; Souparna- the protector and preserver of the Universe; whose works are perfect; Matriswa-power like Wind; Garutman-mighty by nature. Hindu scriptures revealed a clear conception of the ecosystem. On this basis a discipline of environmental ethics developed which formulated codes of conduct and defined humanities relationship to nature. An important part of that conduct is the maintance of proper sanitation. In the past, this was considered to be the duty of every one and any default was a punishable offence. Hindu society did not even consider it proper to throw dirt on a public path. Kautilya says: The punishment of one-eight of a Pana should be awarded to those who throw dirt on the roads. For muddy water one-fourth Pana, if both are thrown the punishment should be double. If latrine is thrown or caused near a temple, well, or pond, sacred place, or government building, then the punishment should increase gradually by one Pana in each case. For urine the punishment should be only half. The strong vegetarian ethic of Hinduism is derived from the belief in Karma, as is the general attitude of using but not killing life, an attitude well exemplified in the special status of the ‘scared cow’. The cow is venerated as mother, for from her comes food, drink, fuel (dung) and, at her natural death, leather. What use would be it to eat flesh when she can provide so much more, for so much longer, while alive? Cow protection is the key to the Hindu attitude to the rest of creation and unlocks its distinctive ethical bias. As Gandhi said: “In its finer or spiritual sense, the term ‘cow protection’ means the protection of every living creatures”.

Islam on Environment

Islam and the Environment

As Allah created man on earth, he decreed that man should preserve this habitat. He gave man the right to invest in it and benefit from it. He enjoined upon man not to cause mischief anywhere. He addresses whoever may think of disturbing the natural balance, the earthly equilibrium, or inflicting injustice. “Seek not mischief in the land, for Allah loves not those who do mischief.”
Islam do not consider nature and cosmic objects as deities, but at the same time, unwarranted tampering or spoiling of nature is prohibited. The relationship between the believer and the universe is one of harmonious benefit and use. When Allah takes an oath by some creatures, he draws attention to the fact that man should recognize their value and take care of them. There is not an animal that lives on the Earth, nor a being that files on its wings, but forms part of communities like you.

We have omitted nothing from the book and they all shall be gathered to their Lord in the end. With such an adjuration and call for revering other creatures and aspects of His creation, Allah urges man to jettison bashfulness towards them because such an attitude does not yield progress or civilization. Removing the beauty of these creatures and failing to draw the benefit from them cause’s man to neither gain in morals nor lead him to progress or civilization.

As befits a faith born in the desert, water is honored as "the secret of life". Islam forbids the wastage of water "and the usage thereof without benefit.... The preservation of water for the drinking of mankind, animal life, bird life and vegetation is a form of worship, which gains the pleasure of Allah. Imam Alhilaly infers from this passage that Islam also forbids "factory outpours to go to waterways or to the ocean, as this would pollute the water and hearten marine life. "Air is the property of Allah the Exalted," the imam states. "Hence, contaminating the air with smoke is an encroachment on nature and a threat to the life of mankind and all other living things.” The Qur'an does, however, endorse the transformation of wilderness into agriculture and cattle pastures. The Qur'an proclaims that it is Allah who "sends down water from the sky, and therewith we bring forth buds of every kind. We bring forth the green blade from which we bring forth the thick-clustered grain; and from the date palm, from the pollen thereof, spring pendant bunches, and gardens of grapes, and the olive and the pomegranate.

“The earth is our first mother,” says Imam Alhilaly. "Therefore it has certain rights over us. One of these rights is making it come alive with green vegetation and other plant life.” The Prophet said that he who is kind and merciful towards animals, Allah will be kind and merciful towards …We must deal with animals with utmost beneficence and compassion and strive to ensure the preservation of the different species,” Imam Alhilaly instructs. "It is forbidden in Islam to kill an animal for mere play. Islam has forbidden wastage of animals and plants in peacetime and in war time.”

The corrupters of the earth, whether those who deny God, practice injustice or go against the universal laws, are referred to by the following Qurainc verses There is the type of man whose speech about this world’s life may dazzle thee, and he calls The God (Allah) to witness about what is in his heart: yet is he the most contentious of enemies? When he turns his back, his aim everywhere is to spread mischief through the earth and destroy crops and cattle. But Allah loves not mischief…

Mischief has appeared on the land and sea, because of (the need) that the hands of man have earned, that (Allah) may give them a taste of some of their deeds: in order that they may turn back (from evil). Mischief on the land and sea is inflicted by man’s unwary interference with the natural laws and environmental systems that are ultimately against his own interests. Environment pollution, which is tantamount to the disruption of natural balance, is the main form of corruption on the Earth…

Both Quran and in the Shariah, the legal codes of Islam, the rights of the natural world are strongly expressed and the abuse of them by humanity condemned out of hand.

Christanity on environment

Christianity and Environment Christianity is perhaps unique among the major world religions in having not one single reference to any environmental duty in its core scriptures. The reason for this has to do with the historical roots of Christianity. Where Judaism and Islam developed as the religions of real communities with fragile natural ecologies to preserve, Christianity developed as an isolated movement, outside of Jewish community and later of Roman society. It did not have to concern itself in any way with the functioning of this world. Indeed in its first century it had an urgent sense that this world was passing away, and would be superseded at any moment by a magical kingdom instituted by God. The non-human environment had no role to play in this drama; indeed God would subject it to appalling tribulations in the "birth pangs" of the ‘Son of Man’. However, Christian scholars make attempts to show that Jesus loved nature. Passages regularly cited to show Jesus concern about nature, when read in context, actually prove his belief that humans are far superior. He gave examples of people watering their cattle, or of pulling their animals out of ditches, not to enjoin people to do these things, but to show that it must be all right to heal humans on the Sabbath. The implication is not that humans and animals are alike, but that humans are superior to animals: Two of the most often cited images are used when Jesus is telling his disciples that they can follow him without concern about their food and clothing. If God has provided for animals, how much more will he provide for humans, who are more valuable. The full passages show that Jesus believed that God was aware of and took care of plants and animals. Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns. And yet your heavenly father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell, you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these. But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you. In both the Old and New Testaments, God himself shows little concern for the natural environment. He destroys plants and animals along with humans whenever its suits his purpose. The prophet Amos, who was active in Judah around 760 BC, devised another strand of God's environmental destructiveness: a future "Day of Yahweh" when God would wreak vengeance on the oppressors of the poor. The sun would go down at noon, and fire would devour the land and the oceans. Later prophets expanded Amos' vision. Isaiah threatened war and failed. It is to be noticed that the ‘wrath of God’ would be expressed by in the form of famines and earthquakes and plagues, the sun would be darkened and the stars would fall from heaven. The earth would be flooded as in the days of Noah, while fire and sulphur would rain from heaven as in the days of Lot.

Gandhi on Environment

Gandhi and Environment
Mahatma Gandhi was socialized in the Indian cultural tradition and he had taken quite advanced education in England. He, therefore, could claim to have comparative views of the living life-style and progress of both India and the West. As early as in 1909 ‘Hind Swaraj’, Gandhi stated, that the civilization of the West than being welcome in India in the name of modernity is a ‘Bhasmasur’ (destructive monster). It is a civilization, which equates consumerist lifestyles and abundance with development. It cannot be civilization in real sense of the term.
There is no end to the desire of the man, indiscriminate satisfaction of which has led the West to have mastery over nature, Hind Swaraj, he had given his critique of modern civilization and he had shown the limits of the Western world and criticized the extent of technology use and evils of higher standard of living.
Gandhi said that if imitating the West India tried to reach the living standard of England the resources of the Earth will not to enough. He also cautioned against what was later on to be known as the consumerist culture and a waste centric society. His celebrated and often quoted statement that; ‘the Earth has enough to satisfy the need of all people, but not for satisfying the greed of some’ has become astonishingly relevant in 1990’s. He distinguished between need and want of the human being. Gandhi also emphasized to keep in view, the future generations before using up natural resources by the present generation. In the modern civilizations he said that it seeks to increases physical comforts of the people. We should keep the patience to see that such a civilizations will invites its own destructions.
Gandhi creates the three principles, Sarvodaya, Swadeshi, and Satyagraha, which have such importance for sustainable development. Sarvodaya was a philosophical position that Gandhi maintains. He believed that morality must underpin all human actions. Society must strive for the economic, social, spiritual, and physical well being of all, not just the majority. He favored a holistic approach to well being and a total approach to the community. For him the well being of every individual was an important concern.
He advocates that the locus of power must be situated in the village or neighborhood unit. He believed that there should be equitable distribution of resources and that communities must become self-sustaining through reliance on local producers instead of large-scale imports from outside. In this way each individual would be able to market his or her goods in the neighbor hoods. People would then make goods for local consumption and become interdependence within each locality.
Gandhi was opposed to large-scale industrializations, and favored small local industries instead. In this way there would be certainty that each individual would be gainfully employed and able to live a self-sufficient fulfilled life. This local self-sufficiency he called Swadeshi. It means buy local, be proud of local, support local, uphold and live local. It was based on the theory of decentralized local interdependence and universal employment. When we buy or sell something outside our area then we are depriving a local person of his or her livelihood.
When we looks at the pollution and the environmental degradation, the climate changes and the possible effects of these of the survival of life, caused by the large scale industrializations and so-called development, it becomes clear that one needs to call for a suspension of industrializations. One needs to review carefully what is to the advantage of all people and the environment and what is not. We are on a collision course, and if we do not heed the warning signs, it will be at our own peril.
Gandhi’s best-known theory of Styagrha or non-violent direct actions is in fact a way of life, not just an absence of violence. He believed that to carry out non-violent action one needed to be disciplined entailed the important element of self-restraint in respect of all beings regardless of religion beliefs, caste, race or creed, and a devotion to the values of truth, love and responsibility.

ECological post modernism

Ecological Post-modernism Post-modernist view projects environmental problem as a product of “enlightenment thinking” which extolled the virtues of rationality and the ability of human to use ‘nature’ for their own ends in the name of progress. Modernity, which is the product of enlightenment thinking is, seems to have produced as many as problems as it has solved. So the final achievement of modernity and reason would be ecological destruction. The image of contemporary environment protests is to seek simple way of living, in tune with nature. In many places environmental activist left cities, sought out the countryside and forest and they rejected the codes and practices of affluent life styles .Post-modernist sees western society as transformed by modernity and sees the technological process and development as the causes of increasing negative consequences for the earth, and its populations. They challenged the moral right of human being to organize the world in the interest of human race alone.[1] According to Princen and Finger the global ecological crisis has reinforced and accelerated the process towards post modernism. It has led to more fragmentation, further eroded collective projects, and caused “the multiplications of social environmental actors”. 37. Doyle, n.32.

Eco anarchism

Eco-anarchism Anarchist’s believes in a stateless society, in which harmony develops out of mutual respect and social solidarity amongst human beings. The richness of such a society is founded upon its variety and diversity. Ecologist also believe that balance or harmony spontaneously develops within nature, in the form of eco systems and these, like anarchist communities, requires no external authority or control. The anarchist’s rejection of government with in human society thus parallels the ecologist warning about human rule within the natural world. Bookchin therefore linked an anarchist community to an eco system, and suggested that both are distinguished by respect for the principles of diversity, balance and harmony. Anarchist’s has also advocates the construction of decentralized societies, organized as a collection of communes or village. Life in such communities would be live close to nature, each community attempting to achieve a large degree of self-sufficiency. Such community would be economically diverse; they would produce foods and wide range of goods and services, and therefore contain agriculture, craftwork and small-scale industry. Self-sufficiency would make each community depends upon its natural environment, spontaneously generating an understanding organic relationship and ecology. In Bookchin view decentralization would lead to a more intelligent and more loving use of the environment. A society regulated by spontaneously sympathy amongst human beings is therefore likely to encourage an ecological balance between human beings and the natural world. The Green movement also adopted ideas such as decentralization, participatory democracy and direct action from anarchist thought. However, even when anarchism is embraced as providing a vision of an ecological sound future, it is seldom accepted as a means of getting there. Anarchist believes that progress will only be possible when the government and all forms of political authority are overthrown. In contrast many in the green movement see government as an agency through which collective action can be organized and therefore as the most likely means through which the environmental crisis can be addressed, at least in the short term. They fear that dismantling or even weakening government may simply give free rein to those forces that generated industrializations and blighted the natural environment in the first place.

Ecofeminism

Eco-feminism Eco-feminism emerged in the 1970s as parts of the women’s liberation movement. Eco feminism is a radical philosophy in the sense that it seeks radical change in ecological consciousness; though it is gradually quite hostile to deep ecology. Carlassare argues that the term ‘eco-feminism’ is utilized ‘by some activist and academics to refer to a feminism that connects ecological degradation and the oppression of women. Women are seen as closer to nature by the fact of their biological essence: the ability to give birth and nurture children. It is the female virtues related to care, empathy, institution, connection, and cooperation, which are crucial. The roots of environmental problems, according to eco feminist, are not anthropocentrisms, but rather anthropocentrism Basic theme of the eco feminist is that ecological destruction has its origins in patriarchy: nature is under threat not from humankind but from men and the institutions of male power. Feminist who adopt an androgynous or sexless view of human nature argue that patriarchy has distorted the instincts and sensibilities of men by divorcing them from the ‘private’ world of nurturing, home making and personal relationships. The sexual divisions of labor thus incline men to subordinate both women and nature, seeing themselves as ‘masters’ of both. Vandana Shiva sees colonialism and patriarchy as explaining the success of the globalizations of ‘western development’ and advanced capitalism. Patriarchy is seen as cultural rather than natural, and ecofeminist look back to egalitarian and matriarchal societies, some complete with goddesses, prior to the rise of cities, kingdoms, and empires. The roots of contemporary social and ecological evils is a, according to Shiva, the enlightenment commitment to science and economic growth, which together destroy life’s diversity and sanctity. According to Vandana Shiva development was thus reduced to a continuation of the process of colonization; it became an extension of the project of wealth creation in modern Western patriarchy’s economic vision, which was based on the exploitation or exclusion of women on the exploitation and degradation of nature, and on the exploitation and erosion of other cultures.

Marxist on Environment

Marxist Perspective Marxists describe man’s interdependence with nature to both the biochemical and psychological. Man gets all vital substance from nature for his existence, for that nature in turn is being affected by man’s activity, man’s dependence on nature is; for his direct means of life; and the material, the object, and the instrument of his life activities. As a part of nature mans spiritual and physical life being linked to the nature, which mans nature, is linked to him. Marxist perspective on environmental problem focus on both social inequality and the consequences of class divided capital society, defined by economic criteria. It seeks for the abolitions of capitalism which is un sustainable and unnatural because of its unequal economic developments and exploitation for the withering away of state. To Howard.L.Parsons, dialects are “man’s collective and immediate material dealings with nature bring him in to dialectical relations with it, into dynamic and potentially developing interaction with it. Such a relations, when critically analyzed, reveals nature as continuous motion, interconnections, and transformations. Nature is a ceaseless, series of unities of opposites, which are mutually creative, mutually destructive, and mutually transforming”. Rudolf Bahro, a leading German ecosocialist, argues that capitalism is the root cause of environmental problems. The natural world has been spoiled by industrialization, but this is merely a consequence of capitalism’s search for profit. Capitalism is thus characterized not only by class conflict but also by the progressive destruction of the natural environment. Both human labor and natural world are exploited because they are treated simply as economic resources. The core theme of eco socialism is the idea that capitalism is the enemy of the environment, whilst socialism is its friend. However, such a formula embodies tension between two elements, it between ‘red’ and ‘green’ priorities. If environmental catastrophe is nothing more than a by-product of capitalism, abolishing capitalism, or at least taming it, becomes the main agenda. For this Therefore, ecologist should not form separate green parties of set up narrow environmental organizations, but work within the socialist movement and address the real issue: the economic system.

Social Ecology

Social Ecology Social ecology is a redesigned inheritor of the anarchist tradition with all its associated political values and hostility to the state, liberals and Marxists. It stands for individual autonomy and envisages society as a series of decentralized local communities, each strongly connected to a specific ‘bioregion’. An eminent Social Ecologist Bookchin, the roots of all evil, in human society no less than inhuman relationships with nature, is hierarchy. Hierarchy has arisen only in the last six thousands years or so human civilizations. Whether manifested in the domination of peasants by lords, of women by men, of the country side by the city, of the young by the old, of workers by capitalists, of society by the state, of nature by the people, or of the body by the mind, hierarchy is a profoundly undesirable and unnatural phenomenon. For Bookchin sees no hierarchy in the nonhuman world. Relationships witch humans perceive as competitive or dominating are infact subtle examples of mutual benefits. Nature is not the violent struggle for survival of the fittest, which apologists for war and capitalism portray. Instead, nature properly understood is a cooperative place, indeed a model for harmonious human society, and the place where freedom originates.

Deep Ecology

Deep Ecology Deep ecology was a term coined by Arne Naess, a Norwegian philosopher in the early 1970s. Since then, it has also been referred to as ‘ecocentrism’. For Deep ecology, the environmental crisis is, at its center, a crisis of consciences. A change in the way we understand and relate to nature is the top priority for addressing the environmental crisis. Deep ecologist seeks major reductions in human arrogance when it comes to dealing with the natural world. According to Eckersley the most powerful assumptions of deep ecology are four fold. First, ecocentic argue that all being, human and non humans, posses intrinsic value. Second major ecocentric assumption is that all beings are of equal value: ‘that there are no “higher” and “lower” life forms in nature’. Third, there are the central principles of interconnectedness. Finally, ecocentric often argue that the earth is finite in its carrying capacity, and that there are too many people on the planet. According to Devall and Sessions, “the idea is to cultivate a deep consciousness and awareness of organic unity, of the holistic nature of the ecological webs in which every individual is enmeshed”. According to Warwick Fox advocates a “transpersonal ecology” which is a psychological condition of identification and care for other beings, ecosystems and nature in its entirety. Deep ecologist value species, populations and ecosystems, not just individual creatures.

Poltics of Environment

The politics of environment has been attracting wider attention for quite a few decades. Various environmental movements and schools of thoughts are prevalent today. And, they are having a strong presence at international, national and local levels. Nonetheless, concern for nature is not a current thinking. Ancient societies had preserved an environmental ethics of their own by means of those social values and practices that they professed and practised. The same is the case with multitude of indigenous groups which are cut away from modernity. From the perspective of many world religions, the abuse and exploitation of nature for immediate gain is unjust, immoral and unethical. In the ancient past, Hindus, Buddhist and others were careful to observe moral teachings regarding the treatment of nature. In these systems, not only the commons but also the ruling elites followed those ethical guidelines. Hindu vision proclaims the greatness of the cosmos and advocates the great forces of nature the Earth, the sky, the air, the water and the fire as well as various orders of life, including plants and trees, forests and animals, are all bound to each other within the great rhythms of nature. Respect for nature is deeply embedded in the Buddhist tradition. One of the key points of the Buddhism is that it tries to liberate from suffering not just human beings, but even worms and ants and all creatures, large and small. Islam and Christianity have much in common in their view of the natural world. In this regard, both the Bible and the Quran share the same Semitic values and ethical concepts. It is advocated that the earth and its beings are the creation of the Almighty and the abuse of them by humanity is severely to be condemned. In the modern times, it was Mahatma Gandhi who emphasised the need for the conservation of environment. He was a critic of the ‘world of machine’ and insisted that man must show concern for nature and all other living beings. Many accept that Gandhian pacifism and living in tune with nature are becoming more relevant in recent times. It is well known that environmental struggles like Chipko, Brazilian Rubber Tapper Movement; Green Belt Movement etc had been directly inspired by Gandhian ideology. From the seventies onward, there was a spurt in the formation of different schools of environmental thinking. Prominent among them, the Deep ecology argues that all being, human and non humans, posses instrinsic value. Deep ecology rejects anthropocentrism. On the contrary, social ecology adheres that the roots of all evil is the result of hierarchy in nature. Another prominent theory is Eco-feminism which suggests that women are closer to nature by the fact of their biological essence: the ability to give birth and nurture children. According to Eco-feminist, the roots of environmental problems are adropocentricsm. Yet another latest school, the Ecological post-modernists find fault with the modernisation. It condemns technology based development. Post modernists consider that negative consequences for the Earth, and its population are caused by the present modernisation pattern. In the early 1980s there were approximately 13000 environmental movements in developing countries. These groups have been formed to press for solutions to regional or local problems or sought to get the political system to respond to its demands. In North America, Australia and part of Scandinavia the environmental agents has often been dominated by attempts to protect wilderness areas from the intrusion and excess of human development.