GIDDENS 7TH EDITION 2nd REVISE low res - Polity chapter.pdf · GIDDENS (7e) Chapters 1-10 (M2992).indd 157 17/12/2012 11:04. 158 THE ENVIRONMENT the 1980s were successful in raising

Chapter

The Environment

5

GIDDENS (7e) Chapters 1-10 (M2992).indd 152 17/12/2012 11:04

© Anthony Giddens and Philip W. Sutton 2013

This file should be used solely for the purpose of review and must not be otherwise stored, duplicated,

copied or sold

Contents

Nature, environment and society . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Nature and the environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Sociology and the environment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Environmental issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Pollution and waste. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Resource depletion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167

Food shortages and GM crops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Global warming . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

Sociological theories and sustainable societies. . . . . . . . 185

Consumerism and environmental damage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Limits to growth and sustainable development . . . . . . . . . . . 188

Living in the global ‘risk society’ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Ecological modernization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191

Environmental justice and ecological citizenship . . . . . . . . . 196

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Chapter review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

Research in practice. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 198

! inking it through . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Society in the arts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199

Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200

Internet links . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 200


T H E E N V I R O N M E N T154

Just before 3 p.m. (Japanese Standard Time) on 11 March 2011, the

most powerful earthquake ever to a! ect Japan, with a magnitude of

9.0, occurred o! the eastern coast of the country. " e quake produced

tsunami waves of up to 40 metres high which rolled inexorably towards

the Töhoku region. Travelling up to 10 kilometres inland, the tsunami

swept all before it; buildings, vehicles, power lines and people were all

caught up in the emerging disaster. Police statistics show that at least

15,000 people were killed, more than 9,000 were missing and another

5,000 were injured. " ousands of homes were destroyed and people

made homeless. More than 800 smaller aftershocks were recorded over

the next two months.

Even the most advanced industrial societies remain vulnerable to the forces of nature. This

image shows what remained of the Japanese city of Otsuchi after the earthquake and tsunami

on 11 March 2011 off the coast of north- eastern Japan.


" e Environment 155

advanced countries remain vulnerable to

natural processes that can be unpredictable

and highly destructive. " e natural environ-

ment is not simply an inert, passive backdrop

to the dramas of social life that can safely be

ignored by sociologists. It is an active force,

which often plays a signi$ cant role in the

shaping of societies.

In a globalized world, natural disasters

may also have a great impact on the lives of

people thousands of miles from the scene. For

example, the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake

killed not just local residents, but several

thousand tourists from around the world who

had been enjoying an idyllic Christmas break

in the region, including 155 British people,

the biggest loss of British lives in a single inci-

dent since the Second World War – far more

than the sixty- seven Britons who died in the

terrorist attacks in New York and Washington

in 2001. " e relief e! ort was also global in

scope, as the world’s news stations beamed

pictures and reports around the planet. In rich

countries, millions of dollars were donated by

the general public and governments, troops

and expertise were sent to the region, and it

was agreed that debt repayments from the

worst- hit countries should be suspended. In

early January 2005, millions of people across

Europe stopped what they were doing to take

part in three minutes’ silence in memory of

those killed.

Should sociologists be interested in events

such as the Asian tsunami? Surely this was a

‘natural disaster’, an example of the massive

power of nature? If so, then is it the proper

subject for environmental scientists and geol-

ogists rather than sociologists? After all, what

institutional training do sociologists receive

on understanding geology and plate tectonics?

For most of the twentieth century, this appar-

ently common- sense division of academic

labour was taken for granted. Natural scien-

tists investigated the non- human world, while

social scientists concentrated on people and

their societies. However, by the 1980s and

1990s things were changing as knowledge of

global environmental problems emerged,

and it has become clearer that the fate of the

Eleven nuclear reactors automatically shut

down as a safety measure, but cooling systems

failed at the coastal Fukushima nuclear site,

allowing heat to build up in the fuel. Explo-

sions were seen both outside and inside

the reactor buildings. A state of emergency

was declared in the region as radioactivity

levels rose inside and outside the plant. Food

products, tap water and soil samples were all

reported to be contaminated with radioactive

matter as a result of leakage from the Fuku-

shima reactors. More than 80,000 people were

evacuated and a 20 kilometre exclusion zone

was established. Two months after the earth-

quake, large quantities of radioactive water

were still seeping out of the reactor building,

raising fears of contaminated groundwater.

" e Japanese government announced in May

2011 that it would be reviewing its energy

policy, particularly Japan’s reliance on nuclear

power, to ensure the country’s future energy

security.

" e Japanese disaster was not the only

recent earthquake to cause major destruction

and loss of life. Also in 2011, a 6.3 magnitude

quake hit the city of Christchurch in New

Zealand, destroying hundreds of buildings

and killing 181 people. On 12 January 2010, a

7.0 magnitude earthquake 10 miles south- west

of Port- au- Prince in Haiti left about 1 million

people homeless and around 230,000 people

dead. On 26 December 2004, an earthquake

in the Indian Ocean produced a huge tsunami

which landed at Aceh in Indonesia. Estimates

suggest around 240,000 people were killed

across thirteen countries and many millions

around the Indian Ocean were left homeless.

And in 2005, a 7.5 magnitude earthquake in

Kashmir killed around 75,000 people and

destroyed more than half of the buildings in

the capital, Muza! arabad, at the epicentre of

the quake. " ese are just a few of the ‘natural

disasters’ already experienced in the twenty-

$ rst century.

Although there is sociological research

which looks at how human institutions and

citizens respond to ecological hazards, the

2011 Japanese earthquake and tsunami

remind us that even the most economically



guidance it can o! er on their life decisions.

When they do this, they implicitly draw on

the same idea of ‘natural forces’ – in this case

the movement of stars and planets – directing

human a! airs.

By the nineteenth century, the dominant

meaning of ‘nature’ had changed again. " is

time it was seen as the whole material world

of things rather than as a series of forces. " e

natural world was a world full of natural things

– animals, $ elds, mountains, and much more.

For instance, there was a trend towards look-

ing at ‘scenery’ as landscapes and pictorials,

with nature literally framed for our appre-

ciation and enjoyment. Similarly, eighteenth-

and nineteenth- century naturalists collected

and classi$ ed natural ‘things’, creating plant

and animal taxonomies that are still in use

today.

Two major and related causes of this latest

change in meaning were industrialization,

which shifted people away from working the

land in agricultural settings, and urbaniza-

tion, which led to larger human settlements

that generated new living environments

largely divorced from natural things (" omas

1984). Nature was seen as an obstacle that

society had to tame and master in order to

make progress, as the popular ideas of nature

‘in the raw’ or nature ‘red in tooth and claw’

suggest.

For a minority of people, nature and soci-

ety were seen as distinct, but nature was not

considered to be in need of taming. Instead,

modern industrial society was the problem,

polluting and wasting nature to feed new

urban lifestyles. Wild nature needed protec-

tion, not domestication. Nevertheless, for both

the tamers and the protectors, society and

nature were seen as separate things. Nature

was that which society was not, and vice versa.

This meaning remains the dominant one

today, though more people would probably

now agree with the nature protectors than did

so in earlier periods.

Since the 1950s, use of the word ‘nature’

started to give way to another term: the envi-

ronment. Dictionary de$ nitions of ‘environ-

ment’ suggest that it is the external conditions

‘natural’ and ‘social’ worlds is inevitably inter-

twined.

In this chapter we look at ideas of nature

and the environment and what constitutes

an environmental issue, before outlining

sociological approaches to the study of such

topics. From here we discuss some important

environmental issues, including pollution,

resource depletion, genetic modi$ cation and

global warming, then examine sociological

theories of consumerism and the risk society

and proposals aimed at dealing with envi-

ronmental dilemmas such as sustainable

development and ecological modernization.

" e chapter ends with an investigation as to

how justice and citizenship may be extended

to take in the environment, and we look

ahead to the future of society–environment

relations.

Nature, environment and society

Nature and the environment

" e environmental issues noted above all

seem to involve nature. But ‘nature’ is not

a simple word with a single meaning. In

fact, dictionary de$ nitions usually describe

some twelve distinct meanings of the word.

Raymond Williams (1987) says that nature is

one of the most complex and di% cult words

in the English language because its dominant

meaning has changed over time along with the

development of societies.

‘Nature’ can mean something that is essen-

tial to a person or a thing. Why do some

birds build their nests at the same time every

year, for instance? We may be told that this

is instinctive behaviour and an essential part

of the ‘nature’ of birds. In fourteenth- century

Europe, however, a new dominant meaning

began to emerge. Nature came to be seen

instead as a series of forces that directed the

world and ultimately explained why things

happen. For example, even today many

people consult astrological charts, looking

for their birth- date- based ‘star sign’ and what


" e Environment 157

surroundings within which human beings

exist – sometimes called the ‘natural environ-

ment’ – and in its widest sense this is simply

planet Earth as a whole. We will use this as our

working de$ nition throughout this chapter.

or surroundings of people, especially those

in which they live or work. David Harvey

(1993) notes that this de$ nition can apply to

a number of situations. For example, we have

a working environment, a business environ-

ment and an urban environment. However,

none of these environments is what most of us

think of when the term is used today. Indeed,

this chapter’s title, ‘" e Environment’, does

not refer to any of these ‘environments’. Most

people today would probably expect this

chapter to discuss pollution, climate change,

animal welfare, and so on, indicating that the

environment has taken on a widespread and

special meaning. ! e environment is assumed

to mean all of those non- human, natural

From the seventeeth century onwards, wealthy social groups in Britain began to take pleasure

in, and appreciate, landscape scenes such as this one, which also became the focus of the

‘tourist gaze’ (Urry 2002).

THINKING CRITICALLY

How satisfactory is our working

de! nition above of ‘the environment’?

What things would it include and what

would it exclude? Are human beings

part of nature? If they are, explain why

cities and urban areas are often seen as

arti! cial. If they are not, then what are

they?



the 1980s were successful in raising concerns

about the safety of underground disposal for

radioactive nuclear waste, and governments

eventually turned away from the nuclear

industry. However, today’s uncertainties

about oil and gas supplies in national energy

security plans and the need to reduce carbon

emissions to tackle global warming have

brought the nuclear power option back into

contention. Given the negligible carbon

emissions produced by nuclear reactors,

concern with nuclear safety now has to be

weighed against the environmental bene$ ts of

using nuclear power. Analysing how di! erent

groups put together their claims and counter-

claims about environmental problems deep-

ens our understanding of the issues involved

– an essential prerequisite for informed public

debate.

Similarly, some environmental activists

and ‘green’ writers argue that people in the

rich countries must turn away from capital-

ist consumerism and return to simpler ways

of living close to the land if global ecological

disaster is to be avoided (Devall 1990; Cowie

and Heathcott 2003; Elgin 2010). " ey main-

tain that rescuing the global environment will

mean radical social as well as technological

changes. However, given the enormous global

inequalities that currently exist, there is little

chance that the poorer countries of the devel-

oping world will sacrifice their economic

growth because of environmental problems

created by the rich countries. Some govern-

ments in developing countries have argued

that in relation to global warming there is no

parallel between the ‘luxury emissions’ of the

developed world and their own ‘survival emis-

sions’. In this way, sociological accounts of

international relations and global inequality

can clarify some of the underlying causes of

the environmental problems we face today.

Sociology’s founders – Marx, Durkheim and

Weber – paid little attention to what we now

call ‘environmental issues’. Marx analysed

capitalism and its exploitative class relation-

ships (see chapter 1, ‘What is Sociology?’,

chapter 3, ‘" eories and Perspectives’, and

chapter 12, ‘Strati$ cation and Social Class’),

Sociology and the environment

In our age of global environmental problems

and international environmental movements,

sociologists can and must take a direct interest

in our relationship to the natural environment

within which we live. But just how can soci-

ology help us to understand environmental

issues?

First, sociology can help us to understand

how environmental problems are distributed.

Although global warming – the increase in

average surface temperature across the globe

– will a! ect everyone on the planet, it will do

so in di! erent ways. Flooding kills many more

people in low- lying, poor countries, such as

Bangladesh, where housing and emergency

infrastructure are less able to cope with severe

weather than in Europe, for instance. In richer

countries, such as the USA, issues raised by

global warming for policy- makers are likely to

concern indirect e! ects, such as rising levels of

immigration as people try to enter the country

from areas more directly a! ected.

Second, sociologists can provide an account

of how patterns of human behaviour create

pressure on the natural environment (Cylke

1993). Although the 2011 Japanese tsunami

was not the direct result of human action, many

of the environmental challenges discussed

in this chapter are. For example, the levels of

pollution produced by industrialized coun-

tries would be greatly intensi$ ed if repeated

in the world’s poorer, non- industrial nations.

If the impoverished regions of the world are to

catch up with the richer ones, then citizens of

the rich world have to revise their expectations

about constant economic growth. Sociological

theories of capitalist expansion, globalization

or rationalization can all help us to understand

how human societies are transforming the

environment.

" ird, sociology can help us to evaluate

policies and proposals aimed at providing

solutions to environmental problems. For

example, before the earthquake and tsunami

in Japan, many governments in the developed

world had begun re- evaluating the option of

nuclear power. Anti- nuclear campaigns in


" e Environment 159

lems considered most important today really

the ones which are the most serious and in

need of urgent action?

For more on social constructionism,

see chapter 3, ‘Theories and

Perspectives’, and chapter 8, ‘Social

Interaction and Everyday Life’.

Constructionists ask a series of important

questions. What is the history of the problem

and how has it developed? Who is making the

claim that it is a problem and do they have

any vested interest and stand to bene$ t from

doing so? What do they say about it and does

the evidence support this? How do they say

it? Do they use scienti$ c, emotional, political

or moral arguments? Who opposes the claim

and on what grounds? Do opponents stand to

lose if the claim is successful and could that,

rather than the evidence, explain their opposi-

tion? Such questions give sociologists a clearly

de$ ned role in the study of environmental

issues which no other discipline performs.

" ey also add something new to our under-

standing of this area.

Social constructionists remind us that

all environmental problems are, in part,

socially created or ‘constructed’ by groups of

people. Nature never ‘speaks for itself’, but

people do speak on its behalf. " is process of

construction can be examined, understood

and explained. And, in doing so, the public

should be in a better position to assess whether

an environmental problem really is as serious

as the claims- makers say it is.

For some sociologists, though, construc-

tionism is problematic, as it tends to be

‘agnostic’ about the central problem at issue

(Irwin 2001). For example, a constructionist

study of the depletion of the ozone layer would

tell us a lot about how this problem came to

be seen as important, what arguments were

made about it and who opposed the claim. But

social constructionism does not o! er a direct

answer to the central scienti$ c question – is

the ozone layer really becoming dangerously

depleted? For environmental activists and

those committed to solving environmental

Durkheim sought to understand the sources

of social solidarity and to establish sociology

within academic institutions (see chapters 1

and 3), while Weber investigated the connec-

tions between religion, rationality and modern

capitalism (see chapters 1 and 3). " e relation-

ship between human societies and the natural

environment was not a central theoretical

concern. Instead, the important social issues

occupying scholars were social inequality,

poverty and its alleviation, transforming

unhealthy urban living conditions, and assess-

ing the future direction of industrial develop-

ment. " e natural environment was very much

taken for granted, simply as the backdrop to

the much more pressing and urgent social

problems generated by industrial capitalism.

" is situation became increasingly prob-

lematic once sociologists began to explore

the problems identified by environmen-

tal campaigners in the 1970s. Could the

classical theories provide any insights into

human–environment relations? Do we need

to abandon them altogether to understand

how environmental problems have come

about and how they might be solved? Some

sociologists have returned to classical sociol-

ogy, reinterpreting the classics in the light of

environmental issues (Dickens 2004; Dunlap

et al. 2002; Murphy 1997). However, most have

not. Rather, sociological studies of the envi-

ronment have been characterized by a dispute

among social constructionist and critical real-

ist approaches over just how environmental

issues should be studied sociologically.

Social constructionism and critical

realism

Social constructionism is an approach to

studying social problems, including envi-

ronmental problems. Social constructionists

have investigated how some environmental

issues come to be seen as signi$ cant and in

need of urgent action, while others are consid-

ered as less important or are largely ignored

(Braun and Castree 1998; Hannigan 2006).

Much depends on how the issue is framed as

a problem demanding a policy response from

government. But are the environmental prob-



‘Using your sociological imagination 5.1’, on

BSE in the UK, illustrates some key points of

this approach.

Realist approaches require the findings

from a range of academic disciplines: biology,

zoology, history, sociology, political science

and more. Only in this way can we properly

explain how and why BSE and vCJD posed

such a problem in the 1980s and 1990s. Like

constructionists, realists would agree that

cows are social as well as natural creatures.

Arguing a constructionist case, Alan Irwin

says: ‘" e modern cow is the product of gener-

ations of human- controlled cattle- breeding,

feeding and housing’ (2001: 80). But, unlike

constructionists, realists search for causal

mechanisms and are prepared to explore and

debate the natural science of environmental

issues in ways that social constructionists

problems, this is not helpful. Constructionism

tells us a lot about people and social inter-

actions, but almost nothing about society–

environment relations.

An alternative approach, known as ‘envi-

ronmental realism’ (Bell 2004) or critical

realism, approaches environmental issues in

a scienti$ c way, bringing together evidence

from across the social and natural sciences

in order to understand why environmental

problems occur. Critical realism aims to get

beneath the surface of the visible evidence to

uncover the underlying ‘causal mechanisms’

of events and problems (Benton 1994; Dickens

1996, 2004; Martell 1994). In contrast to the

agnosticism of social constructionists, criti-

cal realists are prepared to accept and debate

knowledge and evidence from the natural and

environmental sciences in their own analyses.

Most environmental problems are actually socially created. For example, modern

consumerism generates a huge amount of waste, which has conventionally been dumped in

land! ll sites.


" e Environment 161

approaches, we can say that social construc-

tionism leads in the direction of a sociology of

the environment that explores environmen-

tal issues from a conventional sociological

standpoint, using concepts and theories from

within the discipline. By contrast, critical

do not. Critical realism takes into account

the objective reality of natural objects and

environments, and this means rethinking our

sociological theories and concepts with this

in mind.

From this brief sketch of these two

US

ING

YO

UR

SO

CIO

LO

GIC

AL

IM

AG

INA

TIO

N 5.1 ‘Mad cow disease’ in the UK

In 1996, British government ministers admitted

the possibility that at least ten recent human

deaths had been caused by a new variant of

Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease (vCJD) in humans,

which may have developed as a result of people

eating beef infected with Bovine Spongiform

Encephalopathy (BSE) during the 1980s. This

was a huge shock. Millions of people had eaten

beef in this period and, at least theoretically,

could develop the disease. How had this

happened?

BSE is a fatal neurodegenerative disease

of cattle whose symptoms are similar to those

of Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease (CJD) in human

beings. These symptoms include the loss of

coordination, nervousness, loss of memory,

and aggression (hence ‘mad’ cows). From the

experience of sheep farming, it was thought that

BSE could not cross the species barrier into the

human population. CJD is a recognized but very

rare disease in human beings, but is unrelated

to BSE. The UK BSE inquiry (1998–2000)

identi! ed the cause of BSE in cattle as a gene

mutation in a single cow (named Cow 133). But

the most widely accepted explanation for the

spread of BSE is that cattle were being fed BSE-

infected offal (Macnaghten and Urry 1998: 253–

65). The inquiry report said that the problem

was ‘the recycling of animal protein in ruminant

feed’.

The report also noted that the link between

BSE and the human vCJD ‘was now clearly

established’. As of 7 January 2008, the National

Creutzfeldt–Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit in

Edinburgh reported that 163 people had died

from vCJD. Meat- rendering practices were

changed and new rules brought in to prevent a

recurrence, but public con! dence in science,

politics, regulatory bodies and the meat

industry were thoroughly shaken by the events.

On the face of it, this seems like an episode

of a naturally occurring disease in animals,

unrelated to social processes. However,

the transmission and spread of BSE was the

product of decisions taken within the animal

feed production system. The previous scienti! c

assumption that BSE would not cross the

species barrier was shown to be wrong. BSE-

infected beef did lead to vCJD in humans.

Treating cattle as commercial products and

denying their herbivorous nature by feeding

them dead cattle produced an unexpected

outcome that no one had forecast. A critical

realist approach would suggest that, to

understand this event properly (and therefore

to put in place the right measures to prevent

it from happening again), we need to know

what kind of creatures cows are: what are their

natural capacities? We also need to understand

human beings to know why the disease had

such devastating effects on people. What

happens when infected foodstuff ! nds its way

into the human body? We also need to know

how the food production system operates

and what political and economic decisions

were made that allowed dead animals to be

fed to others. And we need culturally speci! c

knowledge – just why do so many people eat so

much beef in the UK?

THINKING CRITICALLY

What advantages are there in sociologists

taking an ‘agnostic’ stance to environmental

problems? Why might this not be

such a good idea? How would social

constructionists investigate the BSE

epidemic and its consequences, as outlined

above?



In many Eastern European countries and in

the developing world, the practice remains

widespread today. In Britain, coal was used

extensively to heat homes and to power indus-

try, but in 1956 the Clean Air Act was passed

to try to regulate smoke pollution and smog.

Smokeless fuels, such as kerosene, propane

and natural gas, were promoted as alternatives

and are now more widely used.

Since the 1960s the main source of air

pollution has been the growing number of

motorized vehicles. Vehicle emissions are

particularly harmful because they enter the

environment at a much lower level than

emissions from tall industrial chimneys. As a

result, cities have long been among the most

polluted environments for pedestrians and

workers. Cars, which account for some 80 per

cent of travel in Europe, have a particularly

harmful impact on the environment. A single

occupancy car journey can produce the same

weight of carbon emissions per kilometre

travelled as a long- haul & ight. For this reason,

attempts to reduce air pollution in the indus-

trialized countries have focused on the use

of low- emission travel alternatives such as

passenger trains, high- occupancy buses and

the sharing of car journeys.

Air pollution is linked to a number of health

problems, including respiratory di% culties,

cancers and lung disease. Outdoor pollu-

tion is now growing rapidly in the developing

countries as they undergo rapid industrializa-

tion and the number of vehicles on the roads

grows. In many developing countries, leaded

petrol is still in use, though it has been phased

out in much of the developed world. Levels

of air pollution were also high in many parts

of Eastern Europe and the (former) Soviet

Union, though economic restructuring and

the collapse of industrial manufacturing has

reduced this somewhat since the 1990s.

Air pollution also has a damaging impact on

the environment. One harmful consequence

is acid rain, a phenomenon which occurs

when sulphur and nitrogen oxide emissions

produce acidic rainfall. Like many environ-

mental issues, acid rain is di% cult to counter-

act because it is transnational in its origins and

realism leads towards an environmental soci-

ology, which demands the revision of existing

sociological approaches to take account of the

complex intertwining of society and environ-

ment (Sutton 2007). However, as we will see

in the chapter, many research studies in this

$ eld tend to veer between these two polarized

alternatives.

Environmental issues

" ere are many di! erent environmental issues

confronting the contemporary world. Some

are local or regional in character, while others

have a global impact. However, what they all

share and what makes them speci$ cally envi-

ronmental issues is that they involve both

social relationships and interactions and non-

human, natural phenomena. In this sense,

they are hybrid issues of both society and

environment (Irwin 2001: 26). Keep this point

in mind when you read the rest of this section,

which covers a range of environmental issues

and problems.

Pollution and waste

Air pollution

It is possible to make a distinction between

two types of air pollution: ‘outdoor pollution’,

produced mainly by industrial pollutants and

automobile emissions, and ‘indoor pollu-

tion’, which is caused by burning fuels in the

home for heating and cooking. Traditionally,

air pollution has been seen as a problem that

a* icts mainly the industrialized countries as

a result of mass production and large numbers

of motorized vehicles. However, in recent

years attention has been drawn to the dangers

of ‘indoor pollution’ in the developing world,

where many of the fuels used, such as wood

and dung, are not as clean- burning as modern

fuels such as kerosene and propane.

Until the middle of the twentieth century,

air pollution in many countries was caused

primarily by the widespread burning of coal

– a fossil fuel – which emits sulphur dioxide

and thick black smoke into the atmosphere.


" e Environment 163

remains a serious problem in many parts of

the world.

Water pollution can be understood as

contamination of the water supply by toxic

chemicals and minerals, pesticides or

untreated sewage, and it poses the greatest

threat to people in the developing world.

Currently, more than 1 billion people around

the world lack access to safe drinking water

and more than 2 billion lack adequate sanita-

tion. Sanitation systems are underdeveloped

in many of the world’s poorest countries, and

human waste products are often emptied

directly into streams, rivers and lakes. " e high

levels of bacteria that result from untreated

sewage lead to a variety of water- borne

diseases, such as diarrhoea, dysentery and

hepatitis. Some 2 billion cases of diarrhoea are

caused annually by contaminated water and

around 5 million people die each year from

diarrhoeal diseases.

Some progress is being made to improve

access to the world’s resources of water.

During the 1990s, nearly 1 billion people

gained access to safe water and the same

number to sanitation, though ensuring safe

water supplies remains a problem, particularly

consequences. Much of the acid rain in east-

ern Canada, for example, has been shown to

be linked to industrial production in the state

of New York, across the US–Canadian border.

Other countries suffering from acid rain

have similarly found it di% cult to control or

tackle the problem, since its origins lie across

national borders. In some instances, bilateral

or regional agreements have been concluded

in an attempt to reduce its severity.

Water pollution

" roughout history, people have depended

on water to ful$ l a host of important needs –

drinking, cooking, washing, irrigating crops,

$ shing and many other pursuits. Although

water is one of the most valuable and essen-

tial natural resources, for many years, waste

products – both human and manufactured –

were dumped directly into rivers and oceans

with barely a second thought. Only in the past

sixty years or so have concerted e! orts been

made in many countries to protect the quality

of water, to conserve $ sh stocks and the wild-

life that depend on it, and to ensure access to

clean water for the global human population.

Regardless of these e! orts, water pollution

Air travel

Long haul

Non-fossil electricity High speed train coal-fired electricity

High occupancycity bus

Low occupancyHigh comfort

Two occupant small car Single occupant light truck

0 10 20 30 40 50

gC per passenger-km

60 70 80 90 100

Medium haul Short haul

Passenger trains

Buses/trams

Cars/light trucks

Figure 5.1 European carbon emissions (grams of carbon per kilometre) by mode of

transport, 2007

Source: FEASTA (2008: 2).



" e UN forecast is that by 2015 there will still

be around 2.4 billion people without decent

sanitation, only a small improvement on the

2.5 billion in 2006 (ibid.: 12).

" e quality of rivers in most developed

countries has been improving, though, in

Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union,

river pollution remains a very real concern.

One major problem is the pollution from

mining operations, particularly the mining

of cadmium, gold, zinc, copper and bauxite,

which have led to serious river pollution. For

example, in 2000 the Tisza River in Hungary

was polluted with large quantities of cyanide

from the Baia Mare Aurul gold mine in Roma-

nia, killing all aquatic life in the river. In 2005,

twelve countries in the region agreed a new

strategy to clean up the mining industry to

improve the environment of the region (Envi-

ronment News Service 2005).

in some parts of Africa (UNDP 2002; see also

figure 5.2). The problem may actually be

worsening as water supplies in developing

countries are privatized, raising the cost for

customers, while the e! ects of global warming

produce more regular droughts (see ‘Global

society 5.1’, p. 169).

One of the ‘Millennium Development

Goals’ set by the United Nations in 2000 was

to ‘reduce by half the proportion of people

without access to safe drinking water’ by

2015. UNESCO (2009a) reported that, glob-

ally, the world was on target, but sub- Saharan

Africa lagged considerably behind, largely on

account of continuing absolute poverty. " e

countries of this region store only about 4 per

cent of their annual renewable water & ow

compared with the 70 to 90 per cent stored by

the developed countries. Progress on sanita-

tion around the world has been much slower.

Even in lush rainforest where water is abundant, urban settlements, factories and intensive

farming practices can make access to clean water dif! cult.


" e Environment 165

are steadily reducing the proportion of waste

that ends up in land$ ll. " e European Union

aims to become a ‘recycling society’, and there

is a move to recycle or compost waste (40 per

cent of all waste in the European economic

area in 2008) as well as to reduce the amount

of packing used for products at the point of

production (European Environment Agency

2010).

The industrialized societies have been

called ‘throw- away societies’ because the

volume of items discarded as a matter of

course is so large. In most countries of the

industrialized world, waste collection services

are almost universal, but it is increasingly

di% cult to dispose of the enormous amounts

of waste. Land$ ll sites are becoming full and

many urban areas have run out of disposal

room. In Scotland, for example, around 90 per

cent of household waste was still going to land-

$ ll sites in 2006 and the Scottish Environment

Protection Agency reported that household

waste was growing at 2 per cent per annum.

" e international trade in waste has led to the

Solid waste

Next time you visit a supermarket, toy store

or fast- food restaurant, pay attention to the

amount of packaging that accompanies the

products you see. " ere are few things you

can buy without packaging and, though there

are clear bene$ ts, in terms of displaying goods

attractively and guaranteeing the safety of

products, there are enormous drawbacks too.

One of the clearest indicators of increasing

consumption is the growing amount of domes-

tic waste – what goes into our rubbish bins –

being produced worldwide. Waste generation

is closely tied to the relative prosperity of coun-

tries. Poland, Hungary and Slovenia, for exam-

ple, countries that have only recently started

to emulate the model of Western capitalism

and consumer culture, generate less than half

the waste per capita of the USA, Denmark

and Australia. However, the more established

high- consumption societies now manage their

waste more e! ectively. As $ gure 5.3 shows,

countries such as Sweden, Austria and the UK

0 – 6%

7 – 17%

18 – 32%

33 – 48%

49 – 63%

64 – 87%

no data0

0

1000

500

2000 km

1000 miles

500 1500

Figure 5.2 Percentage of population with lack of access to safe water, by country, 2004

Source: www.theglobaleducationproject.org/earth/human- conditions.php.



40 per cent of municipal waste by 2005, but by

2010 it was still falling narrowly short of this

target, at 39.7 per cent. However, the amount

of household waste has started to decrease

year on year since 2006–7 (Defra 2010: 1).

export of recycling to China, where waste is

often sorted by hand in poorly regulated work-

ing environments that produce environmental

degradation.

" e UK government set a target of recycling

Figure 5.3 Proportion of municipal waste going to land! ll, by European economic area

country, 2003 and 2008

Source: European Environment Agency (2010: 75).

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

%

Sw

itze

rla

nd

Ge

rma

ny

Ne

the

rla

nd

s

Sw

ed

en

Au

stri

a

De

nm

ark

Be

lgiu

m

No

rwa

y

Lu

xem

bo

urg

Fra

nc

e

EU

-27

Est

on

ia

Ita

ly

Fin

lan

d

Un

ite

d K

ing

do

m

Sp

ain

Ire

lan

d

Po

rtu

ga

l

Ice

lan

d

Cze

ch

Re

pu

bli

c

Po

lan

d

Hu

ng

ary

Slo

ve

nia

Ro

ma

nia

Slo

va

kia

Gre

ec

e

Tu

rke

y

Cy

pru

s

Lit

hu

an

ia

Ma

lta

La

tvia

Bu

lga

ria

2003 2008

Figure 5.4 Municipal waste management methods in England, 2000–1 to 2009–10 (tonnes)

Note: *EfW: ‘Energy from Waste’ refers to electricity being generated from the heat of

incinerating waste materials.

Source: Defra (2010: 2).

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

2000/01

2001/02

2002/03

2003/04

2004/05

2005/06

2006/07

2007/08

2008/09

2009/10

Other

Incineration without EfW*

Incineration with EfW*

Recycled/composted

Landfill

ton

ne

s


" e Environment 167

still a long way to go to transform the world’s

‘throw- away societies’.

In the developing world, the biggest prob-

lem with domestic waste is the lack of refuse

collection services. It has been estimated

that 20 to 50 per cent of domestic waste in the

developing world goes uncollected. Poorly

managed waste systems mean that refuse piles

up in the streets, contributing to the spread

of disease. With the passing of time, it is very

likely that the developing world will have to

deal with problems of waste disposal that are

even more acute than those the industrialized

countries currently face. " is is because, as

societies become richer, there is a gradual shift

from organic waste, such as food remains, to

plastic and synthetic materials, such as pack-

aging, which take much longer to decompose.

Resource depletion

Human societies depend on many resources

from the natural world – for example, water,

wood, fish, animals and plant life. These

elements are often termed ‘renewable

resources’ because, in a healthy ecosystem,

they replace themselves automatically with

the passing of time. Yet, if the consumption of

renewable resources gets out of balance or is

too extreme, there is a danger that they will be

depleted altogether. Some evidence suggests

that this may be occurring, and the deteriora-

tion of renewable resources is of great concern

to many environmentalists.

Water insecurity

You may not think of water as a depletable

resource – after all, it constantly replenishes

itself through rainfall. If you live in Europe or

North America, for most of the time you prob-

ably do not give much thought to your water

supply at all. " e rapid growth of the market

for bottled water is seen by some as illustra-

tive of the state of global inequality, with many

consumers in the developed world choosing to

buy water when they could get it for free – liter-

ally ‘on tap’. Yet, for people in many parts of

the world, access to a reliable water supply is a

chronic and severe problem.

Figure 5.4 shows the decade- long trend away

from land$ ll in England in favour of alternative

methods of disposal. Although the amount of

household waste recycled may still seem quite

low in comparison with the overall amount

produced, a large proportion of what is thrown

away cannot be easily reprocessed or reused.

Many kinds of plastics employed in food pack-

aging simply become unusable waste and have

to be buried in refuse tips, where they may

remain for centuries. Recycling is becoming

a huge industry around the world, but there is

Recycling has become a common practice,

with increasing numbers of local councils

extending provisions for recycling as part of

refuse collections and many people building

it into their everyday routines.



way that water is actually managed, the picture

changes dramatically. As the developed coun-

tries spend large sums of money on water

infrastructure and technology such as dams,

altering watercourses, and constructing canals

and pipelines, water insecurity becomes much

less of an issue ($ gure 5.6). Conversely, in

much of Africa, where the same kind of expen-

sive investment has not been and is not yet

possible, water insecurity looks set to become

a very serious matter.

On the other hand, expensive water infra-

structure projects have been aimed at achiev-

ing water security but have also damaged the

environment, potentially producing delete-

rious consequences in the future (Palmer

2010). Even if developing countries were to

use similar ‘concrete and steel’ projects to

enhance their water security, this may be at

the cost of damaging the natural environ-

ment and reducing biodiversity. An alterna-

tive would be to adopt a water management

approach that protects flood plains and

wetlands and safeguards watersheds, work-

ing with natural processes rather than trying

to change them.

In some densely populated regions, the high

demand for water cannot be met by available

resources. In the arid climates of North Africa

and the Middle East, for example, the pressure

on water supply is acute and shortages have

become commonplace. " is trend is almost

certain to intensify in the years to come, as

much of the projected world population

growth over the next thirty years is likely to be

concentrated in areas that are already experi-

encing water shortages. " e infrastructure of

urban areas will struggle to accommodate the

water and sanitation needs of this expanded

population, but the consequences of global

warming, as we shall see later, may be even

more serious.

Forecasts of a future water crisis tend to

focus on the developing countries, but it is

important to understand why this is so. In

terms of the availability of water and the stress-

ors on its availability for human populations,

one recent study suggests that, at $ rst glance,

Western Europe and North America appear

to face a less secure water supply than most of

Africa (Vorosmarty et al. 2010; see also $ gure

5.5). However, when we take into account the

Figure 5.5 ‘Natural’ water security, the global picture

Source: BBC News, 29 September 2010: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-

environment- 11435522.


" e Environment 169

Global Society 5.1 The Privatization of water

Richard Wachman’s article was published in

2007.

The midday sun beats down on a phalanx

of riot police facing thousands of jeering

demonstrators, angry at proposals to put up their

water bills by more than a third. Moments later a

uniformed of! cer astride a horse shouts an order

and the police charge down the street to embark

on a club- wielding melee that leaves dozens of

bloodied protesters with broken limbs.

A ! lm clip from the latest offering from

Hollywood? Unfortunately not. It’s a description

of a real- life event in Cochabamba, Bolivia’s third

largest city, where a subsidiary of Bechtel, the

US engineering giant, took over the municipal

water utility and increased bills to a level that the

poorest could not afford.

Welcome to a new world, where war and

civil strife loom in the wake of chronic water

shortages caused by rising population, drought

(exacerbated by global warming) and increased

demand from the newly af" uent middle classes

in the emerging economies of Asia and Latin

America. At a City brie! ng by an international

bank last week, a senior executive said: ‘Today

everyone is talking about global warming, but

my prediction is that in two years water will

move to the top of the geopolitical agenda.’

The question for countries as far apart as

China and Argentina is whether to unleash

market forces by allowing access to private

European and American multinationals that have

the technological know- how to help bring water

to the masses – but at a price that many may be

unable, or unwilling, to pay.

As Cochabamba illustrates, water is an

explosive issue in developing countries, where

people have traditionally received supplies for

free from local wells and rivers. But in the past 15

years rapid industrialisation, especially in places

such as China, has led to widespread pollution

and degradation of the local environment.

A report out today from accountancy giant

Deloitte & Touche says humans seem to have a

peculiar talent for making previously abundant

resources scarce: ‘This is especially the case

with water’, it observes. According to the ! rm’s

! ndings, more than 1 billion people will lack

access to clean water by next year. Paul Lee,

research director at Deloitte, and one of the

authors of the report, says: ‘Demand for water is

expected to be driven by economic growth and

population increases. India’s demand for water

is expected to exceed supply by 2020.’

The World Wildlife Fund has forecast that

in the Himalayas, the retreat of glaciers could

reduce summer water " ows by up to two- thirds.

In the Ganges area, this would cause a water

shortage for 500 million people. Lee says: ‘The

lack of the most important form of liquid in the

world is therefore a fundamental issue and one

that the technology sector can play a major role

in addressing.’

[. . .]

But the crux of the problem remains:

according to a report from Credit Suisse, annual

world water use has risen sixfold during the past

century, more than double the rate of population

growth. By 2025, almost two- thirds of the global

population will live in countries where water will

be a scarce commodity. And that could lead to

con" ict, as United Nations secretary- general Ban

Ki- moon warned last week.

Asia looks vulnerable, with China planning

to syphon off Tibet’s water supply to make up

for shortages in the parched north. Elsewhere,

the Israel- Palestine con" ict is at least partly

about securing supplies from the River Jordan;

similarly, water is a major feature of the strife

in Sudan that has left Darfur devastated. When

it comes to this most basic of commodities, the

stakes could hardly be higher.

Source: Wachman (2007).

THINKING CRITICALLY

List the factors that might contribute to

water insecurity in many developing

countries. If privatizing water supplies

leads to a higher cost, this should stop

people from wasting water and therefore,

indirectly, to water conservation. But

why might privatization have very

different consequences in developed and

developing countries?



densely populated areas, people are highly

dependent on staple food crops – such as rice

– stocks of which are dwindling. Many worry

that present farming techniques will not be

able to produce rice yields su% cient to support

the growing population. As with many envi-

ronmental challenges, the threat of famine

is not evenly distributed. " e industrialized

countries have extensive surpluses of grain,

but it is in the poorer countries that shortfalls

are likely to become a chronic problem.

A recent UK report, based on two years of

research into the future of food supplies and

farming, argued strongly that the present

global food system is not sustainable and

cannot end the problem of hunger (Foresight

2011). As the global population grows from 7

billion to over 8 billion by 2030 and 9 billion by

2050, competition for water, land and energy

will intensify and global warming will increase

the pressure on food production systems.

" e combination of these factors, the report

suggests, constitutes a major threat which

demands urgent action – piecemeal changes

will not solve the problem, nor will attempts

to achieve national food self- sufficiency.

" e need to put in place measures to safe-

guard water supplies is made even more

urgent today because ‘global warming’ also

has a potential impact on the depletion of

water. As temperatures rise, more water will

be needed for drinking and irrigation. Yet it is

also likely that groundwater may not replen-

ish itself as rapidly as before and that rates of

evaporation may increase. Changes in climate

patterns which are forecast to accompany

global warming are likely to a! ect existing

patterns of precipitation, altering access to

water supplies and making planning for water

management much more di% cult.

Food shortages and GM crops

Some 925 million people around the globe

experience hunger every day, lacking access

to sufficient nutrients, while increasing

soil degradation threatens to undermine

economic development in much of Africa. " e

process of global warming may increase deser-

ti$ cation and lead to poor harvests, which has

led to fears that food shortages may become

more widespread. In some of the world’s most

Figure 5.6 ‘Managed’ water security, the global picture

Source: BBC News, 29 September 2010: www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-

environment- 11435522.


" e Environment 171

one key to averting a future food crisis may be

advances in biotechnology. By manipulating

the genetic composition of basic crops, it is

possible to boost a plant’s rate of photosyn-

thesis to produce bigger yields. " is process

is known as genetic modi$ cation, and plants

that are produced this way are called geneti-

cally modi! ed organisms (GMOs). Genetic

modi$ cation can be carried out for a variety

of purposes. Scientists have produced GMOs

with higher than normal vitamin content, for

example, while other genetically modi$ ed

" e report argues for a coordinated policy

approach and action on four fronts: more food

needs to be produced sustainably, demand for

resource- intensive foods must be contained,

waste in all areas of the food system should

be minimized, and political and economic

governance of the food system needs to be

improved (ibid.: 12–13).

" e Foresight report also argues that no

policy options or technologies should be

closed o! in the quest for a sustainable food

system, and some scientists and politicians see

US

ING

YO

UR

SO

CIO

LO

GIC

AL

IM

AG

INA

TIO

N 5.2 Soil degradation and development in Africa

This article was published in 2006.

The fertility of Africa’s soil is being depleted at a

rate that threatens to undermine the continent’s

attempts at eradicating hunger with sustainable

agricultural development.

A study has found three- quarters of Africa’s

farmland is plagued by severe soil degradation

caused by wind and soil erosion and the loss of

vital mineral nutrients.

This degradation can partly explain why

agricultural productivity in Africa has remained

largely stagnant for 40 years while Asia’s

productivity has increased threefold, the

authors claim. Julio Henao and Carlos Baanante

of the non- pro! t International Centre for Soil

Fertility and Agricultural Development in Muscle

Shoals, Alabama, found bad farming practices

have damaged soil health on the continent

between 1980 and 2004.

Farmers in Africa have traditionally relied

on clearing land to grow crops then leaving

it fallow to regain some of its fertility. ‘But

population pressure now forces farmers to grow

crop after crop, “mining” or depleting the soil of

nutrients while giving nothing back’, the report

says.

‘With little access to fertilisers, the farmers

are forced to bring less fertile soils on marginal

land into production, at the expense of Africa’s

wildlife and forests.’ Mr Henao and Mr Baanante

found that during 2002 to 2004 about 85 per

cent of African farmland was haemorrhaging

mineral nutrients at an annual rate greater than

30 kg per hectare, and 40 per cent of farmland

was losing nutrients at the higher rate of 60 kg

per hectare a year.

‘The very resources on which African

farmers and their families depend for welfare

and survival are being undermined by soil

degradation caused by nutrient mining and

associated factors, such as deforestation, use of

marginal lands and poor agricultural practices’,

the report says.

The worst- affected countries in terms of soil

depletion are Guinea Bissau, the Democratic

Republic of Congo, Angola, Rwanda, Burundi

and Uganda. With a population growth of 3 per

cent per year, the number of malnourished

people in sub- Saharan Africa has grown from

about 88 million in 1970 to more than 200 million

by the end of the last century, the report says.

Source: Connor (2006).

THINKING CRITICALLY

Is it possible that there is a ! nite level of

basic resources on planet Earth, which, in

time, will run out, or will there always be

enough water, food and land to supply the

global human population? If resources are

! nite, how can we best conserve them?

If resources are not ! nite, why do some

countries still not have access to safe water

and adequate food?



marketed so far do not involve this kind of

radical bioengineering.

Scientists claim that a GM strain of ‘super-

rice’ could boost rice yields by as much as 35

per cent. Another strain, called ‘golden rice’

– which contains added amounts of vitamin

A – could reduce vitamin A de$ ciency in more

than 120 million children worldwide. You

might think that such advances in biotechnol-

ogy would be welcomed enthusiastically, but,

in fact, genetic modi$ cation has become one

of the most controversial issues of our age. For

many people, it highlights the $ ne line that

exists between the bene$ ts of technology and

scienti$ c innovation and the risks of environ-

mental destruction.

! e GM food controversy

" e intense debate on GM foods began in the

mid- 1990s, when the $ rst shipment of GM

soya beans from the USA arrived in Europe

crops are resistant to commonly used agri-

cultural herbicides that can be used to kill the

weeds around them, as well as insects and

fungal and viral pests. Food products that are

made from, or contain traces of, GMOs are

known as GM foods, and GM crops are some-

times called ‘transgenic’ crops.

GM crops are di! erent from anything that

has existed before, because they involve

transplanting genes between di! erent organ-

isms. " is is a much more radical intervention

into nature than the older methods of cross-

breeding. GMOs are produced by techniques

of gene splicing that can be used to transplant

genes between animals as well as plants. For

instance, in recent experiments human genes

have been introduced into farm animals, such

as pigs, with a view eventually to providing

replacement parts for human transplants.

Human genes have even been spliced into

plants, although the GM crops that have been

Greenpeace has led some of the anti- GM protests in recent years, such as this attack on a ! eld

of genetically modi! ed corn in Norfolk.


" e Environment 173

promoting the bene$ ts of GM crops to farm-

ers and consumers. By early 1999, 55 per cent

of the soya beans and 35 per cent of the maize

produced in the United States contained

genetic alterations. GM crops at that point

were already growing on 35 million hectares

of land – an area one and a half times the size

of Britain – across the world, in particular in

China.

Monsanto’s sales campaign claimed that

GM crops could help feed the world’s poor

and reduce the use of chemical pollutants,

especially the chemicals used in pesticides

and herbicides. It is claimed, for example,

that GM potatoes need 40 per cent less chemi-

cal insecticide than those grown using tradi-

tional farming techniques. Biotechnology,

according to Monsanto, will allow us to grow

better- quality crops with higher yields, while

at the same time sustaining and protecting

the environment. However, since GM crops

are essentially novel, no one can be certain

about what their e! ects will be once they

are introduced into the environment. Many

ecological and consumer groups became

concerned about the potential risks involved

with the adoption of this largely untested

technology.

before EU labelling rules had been put in place

(Horlick- Jones et al. 2009: 4). Greenpeace

and Friends of the Earth campaigned strongly

against GM, and pressure built on supermar-

kets in Europe not to stock GM food. Concern

was especially widespread in Europe (Toke

2004). In Britain, hostility to the commercial

growing of GM crops was stimulated by the

$ ndings of Dr Arpad Pusztai, an internationally

renowned geneticist working in a government

laboratory in Aberdeen, Scotland. Pusztai had

tested potatoes which had a gene for a particu-

lar natural insecticide inserted – a protein

known as lectin, extracted from a certain type

of & ower. " e results indicated that rats which

ate the GM potatoes experienced signi$ cant

damage to their immune systems and reduced

organ growth. His $ ndings were criticized by

other scientists, and he was dismissed from

his post after speaking on television about his

concerns.

The American company Monsanto was

the leader in developing GM technology.

Monsanto bought seed companies, sold o!

its chemical division and devoted much of its

energy to bringing the new crops to market.

Its chief executive, Robert Shapiro, launched

a huge advertising campaign in America

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Glo

ba

l tr

an

sge

nic

cro

ps

are

a(m

illi

on

he

cta

res)

Glo

ba

l tr

an

sge

nic

cro

ps

ma

rke

t v

alu

e (

$ m

illi

on

)

1998

281,560

1999

402,354

2000

442,429

2001

532,928

2002

593,470

2003

684,046

2004

815,090

2005

905,714

2006

1026,670

2007

1147,773

2008

1259,045

2009

13410,607

2010

14811,219

1997

11591

1996

293

0

Value ($ millions)

Area (million hectares)

Year

Figure 5.7 Global transgenic crops by area and market value (US$), 1996–2010

Source: Peng (2011: 302).



versy in Europe and large parts of Africa. " e

European Union refused patents of new GM

crops between 1998 and 2004, but, in the latter

year, imports of a further GM maize crop were

approved and a scheme was introduced to

label foods containing GM products. However,

the EU’s actions were too slow for the big GM

producers, particularly in the United States.

" ey $ led a complaint with the World Trade

Organization (WTO) in 2003 against the EU’s

failure to authorize the commercialization

of GM crops, claiming that the European

position had no scienti$ c basis and broke

free- trade laws. In 2006 the WTO ruled that

a series of European countries, including

Austria, Germany, Greece, France and Luxem-

bourg, had broken international trade rules by

imposing bans on the marketing and growing

of GM foods (Horlick- Jones et al. 2009: 4). Yet

it is hard to imagine that European consum-

ers, who have consistently refused to buy GM

foods, will suddenly drop their opposition

based purely on this ruling.

In Africa, GM food aid also ran into trouble.

In 2002, Zambia refused to accept American

food- aid donations of corn and soya because

much of it was genetically modified and

reduced the genetic diversity which was essen-

tial for long- term sustainable agriculture.

Zambia’s president, Levy Mwanawasa, called

the imports ‘poison’. By 2004 Zambia had been

joined by Zimbabwe, Malawi, Mozambique,

Lesotho and Angola in refusing genetically

modi$ ed food aid.

Risk and the precautionary principle

" e issue of GM crops highlights the point that

environmental issues always involve complex

combinations of the natural and the social,

and it is not realistic to expect them to be easily

separated. Despite the assertions of the GM

producers, no one can say with certainty that

genetically modi$ ed crops are risk- free. " e

genetic code is highly complicated – adding

new genes into plants or organisms could

produce as yet unpredicted diseases or other

harmful consequences.

In May 2000, the British government admit-

ted that thousands of acres of conventional

Numerous TV and radio debates, chat

shows and phone- ins were organized to

discuss the issue. Many members of the Brit-

ish public registered their opposition to GM

crops. A typical 2003 survey showed that 59

per cent of the UK population strongly agreed

that genetically modi$ ed foods should be

banned (ONS 2005). Campaigners engaged

in ‘direct actions’, pulling GM crops out of the

ground at o% cial trial sites across the country.

Similar responses occurred in a range of other

European countries. In the UK, seven out of

the eight major supermarket chains changed

their policy on GM foods. Five imposed a

complete ban on GM ingredients in their own-

brand products, which is still in place, and all

of them insisted on better labelling. Two large

companies, Unilever and Nestlé, announced

they would withdraw their acceptance of

genetically modi$ ed foodstu! s. Some farmers

in the USA who had been engaged in the large-

scale cultivation of GM crops changed back to

conventional crop production.

The protests of environmentalists and

consumer groups had a major impact on the

fate of Monsanto, causing a serious decline

in its share value. Matsuura (2004) argues

that, in the early days, the biotechnology

industry made two mistakes: $ rst it tried to

ignore public concerns, then it attempted to

address them through purely rational argu-

ments. GM is also an emotional issue. Robert

Shapiro appeared on television to admit that

his company had made major mistakes and

‘irritated and antagonized more people than

we have persuaded’. It was an extraordinary

turnaround, and Monsanto was forced to drop

one of its most controversial plans – the idea

of using a gene called ‘the terminator’. " is

gene would have ensured that seeds which

Monsanto sold to farmers would be sterile after

one generation. " e farmers would have had

to order seeds each year from the company.

Critics claimed Monsanto was trying to lure

farmers into a form of ‘bioslavery’, and the

issue highlights again the inequalities of power

between companies looking to take advantage

of globalization and those at the sharp end.

GM crops continue to generate contro-


" e Environment 175

" e GM controversy is an excellent example

of a ‘manufactured risk’ – that is, an appar-

ently ‘natural’ issue which actually arises

from human intervention. We will discuss

ideas of risk in relation to the environment

later in the chapter, looking speci$ cally at the

important work of Ulrich Beck. However, in

the next section we move on to explore what

has become the most widely debated and

potentially serious environmental issue of the

twenty- $ rst century: global warming.

Global warming

Based on average, surface global temperature,

1998, 2005 and 2010 were the warmest years

on record since reliable measurements began

in the late nineteenth century. Nine of the ten

warmest years ever recorded have occurred

since 2000 (the exception was 1998). " e

e! ects of very hot weather can be catastrophic.

" e Earth Policy Institute, an environmen-

tal think tank, estimated that a heat wave in

2003 killed almost 40,000 people in Europe,

with France su! ering the most, as 14,802

people died from causes attributable to the

high temperatures – with older people being

particularly a! ected (Bhattacharya 2003).

" e environmental issue of global warm-

ing – a form of climate change – is the clearest

example of a genuinely global environmental

problem. Its e! ects will have an impact on

every society on the planet, albeit to varying

degrees. To understand it we have to see ‘the

environment’ in its widest sense – planet Earth

as a whole – as the atmosphere shrouds the

entire planet rather than one region. " e prob-

lem of global warming cannot be understood

without modern science, and sociologists

need to engage with debates on the science

of climate change if they want to say anything

useful about the matter.

What is global warming?

Global warming is regarded by many people

as the most serious environmental challenge

of our time. If scienti$ c forecasts are correct,

then it has the potential to alter irreversibly the

functioning of the Earth’s climate, producing

oilseed rape planted by farmers had been

‘contaminated’ as GM crops pollinated those

nearby. German research published just weeks

later claimed that a gene commonly used to

modify oilseed rape had jumped the species

barrier into bees. In the short period between

these two startling revelations, Monsanto itself

acknowledged that its modi$ ed soybeans – the

GMO that has been cultivated most exten-

sively for commercial purposes – contain

unexpected gene fragments that had previ-

ously gone undetected.

Such $ ndings reinforce what many environ-

mental activists had been warning for some

time. Although genetic modi$ cation may have

enormous potential bene$ ts, the risks involved

are unpredictable and di% cult to calculate.

Once released into the environment, GMOs

may set o! a string of e! ects that will be di% -

cult to monitor and control. In the face of this

dilemma, many environmentalists favour what

is often termed the precautionary principle.

" is proposes that, where there is su% cient

doubt about the possible risks of new technolo-

gies, it is up to producers to prove they will not

cause harm before they are approved for use.

Despite the concerns of environmentalists,

the amount of land given over to growing GM

crops has continued to increase, particularly in

the developing world, where the environmen-

tal movement is not as strongly established

and laws restricting the growth of GM crops

are generally less strict. However, in 2010 the

total global planting area for transgenic crops

reached 1 billion hectares globally and some

13 million farmers worldwide were growing

GM crops (Peng 2011).

THINKING CRITICALLY

In what ways are GM crops/foods a

speci! cally environmental issue? What

makes them so? How realistic is the

‘precautionary principle’ – that we

should always err on the side of caution

with untested new technologies? What

real- world examples of unproven

technologies are there which call this

principle into question?



is absorbed directly, some of it is re& ected

back. " e greenhouse gases act as a barrier

to this outgoing energy, trapping heat within

the atmosphere much like the glass panels

of a greenhouse (see $ gure 5.8). " is natural

greenhouse e! ect is what keeps the Earth at a

reasonably comfortable surface temperature

– about 15.5 degrees Celsius. If it were not

for the role of greenhouse gases in retaining

heat, the Earth would be a much colder place,

with an average temperature of −17 degrees

Celsius.

When concentrations of atmospheric

greenhouse gases rise, the greenhouse e! ect

is intensi$ ed and much warmer temperatures

are produced. Since the start of industrializa-

tion, the concentration of greenhouse gases

has risen significantly. Concentrations of

a series of devastating environmental conse-

quences which will be felt worldwide. Global

warming refers to the gradual rise in the

Earth’s average surface temperature resulting

from changes in the chemical composition of

the atmosphere. " e current scienti$ c consen-

sus is that this is caused in large measure by

humans, because the gases that have built

up and altered the Earth’s atmosphere are

ones that are produced in large quantities by

industrial processes.

Global warming is closely related to the

concept of the greenhouse effect – the

build- up of heat- trapping gases within

the Earth’s atmosphere. The principle is

a simple one. Energy from the sun passes

through the atmosphere and heats the Earth’s

surface. Although most of the solar radiation

Some of the infrared radiation passesthrough the atmosphere, and some isabsorbed and re-emitted in all directionsby greenhouse gas molecules.The effectof this is to warm the earth’s surfaceand the lower atmosphere

Some solar radiationis reflected by theearth and theatmosphere

Solar radiationpasses throughthe clearatmosphere

Most radiation isabsorbed by theearth's surface andwarms it

Infrared radiationis emitted fromthe earth’s surface

Figure 5.8 The greenhouse effect

Source: US Environmental Protection Agency, www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/index.

html.


" e Environment 177

the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries and

the spread of industrialization around the

globe have produced major, world- historical

changes.

" e Intergovernmental Panel on Climate

Change (IPCC 2007) reports that, on the basis

of analyses comparing actual observations

with a model forecast based only on natural

climate changes and a second model based on

natural changes plus anthropogenic climate

change, it is very likely that the increase in

observed temperatures during the twentieth

century is due to increasing anthropogenic

greenhouse gas emissions (see $ gure 5.9).

" is is a stronger conclusion than that arrived

at just six years earlier. Figure 5.10 shows

the upward trend in surface temperatures

between 1900 and 2000 compared to the

models.

carbon dioxide – the main greenhouse gas –

have increased by around 30 per cent since

1880 and have continued to rise since the

1980s. Methane concentrations have also

doubled, nitrous oxide concentrations are

up about 15 per cent, and other greenhouse

gases that do not occur naturally have been

generated by industrial processes (see ‘Global

society 5.2’).

Most climate scientists now agree that

the large increase in carbon dioxide in the

atmosphere can be attributed to the burn-

ing of fossil fuels as well as other human

activities, such as industrial production,

large- scale agriculture, deforestation, mining

and landfill, and vehicle emissions. The

overall impact on the climate of industrial

processes such as these is referred to as

anthropogenic (human- created) climate

change. Clearly the Industrial Revolution of

Global Society 5.2 Guide to greenhouse gases

Some greenhouse gases, such as carbon

dioxide, occur naturally and are emitted to the

atmosphere through natural processes and

human activities. Others (e.g., " uorinated gases)

are created and emitted solely through human

activities. The principal greenhouse gases

that enter the atmosphere because of human

activities are:

• Carbon dioxide (CO2

): Carbon dioxide enters

the atmosphere through the burning of fossil

fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), solid waste,

trees and wood products, and as a result of

other chemical reactions (e.g., manufacture

of cement). It is also removed from the

atmosphere (or ‘sequestered’) when it is

absorbed by plants as part of the biological

carbon cycle.

• Methane (CH4 ): Methane is emitted during the

production and transport of coal, natural gas,

and oil. Methane emissions also result from

livestock and other agricultural practices and

by the decay of organic waste in municipal

solid waste land! lls.

• Nitrous oxide (N2O): Nitrous oxide is emitted

during agricultural and industrial activities, as

well as during combustion of fossil fuels and

solid waste.

• Fluorinated gases: Hydro" uorocarbons,

per" uorocarbons and sulfur hexa" uoride

are synthetic, powerful greenhouse gases

that are emitted from a variety of industrial

processes. Fluorinated gases are sometimes

used as substitutes for ozone- depleting

substances (i.e., CFCs, HCFCs and halons).

These gases are typically emitted in smaller

quantities but, because they are potent

greenhouse gases, are sometimes referred

to as High Global Warming Potential gases

(‘High GWP gases’).

Source: US Environmental Protection Agency:

www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.

html#ggo.



! e potential consequences of global

warming

" e consequences of global warming are likely

to be unevenly experienced, with devastating

outcomes for some regions and countries but

not for all. " e Intergovernmental Panel on

Climate Change’s (IPCC) Fourth Assessment

Report (2007: 50–2) suggested a range of social

impacts, some of the more signi$ cant of which

are listed by region below.

THINKING CRITICALLY

How convinced are you by the

evidence on anthropogenic global

warming presented above? Given the

enormity of this problem, what social

psychological consequences might

knowledge of it have for individuals?

How has knowledge of global warming

affected you personally?

322

318

314

310

306

302

2981978 1982

Nitrous Oxide

Pa

rts

pe

r b

illi

on

(p

pb

)

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

385

375

365

355

345

335

1978 1982

Carbon Dioxide

Pa

rts

pe

r m

illi

on

(p

pm

)

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

1800

1750

1700

1650

1600

15501978 1982

Methane

Pa

rts

pe

r b

illi

on

(p

pb

)

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

600

500

400

300

200

1001978 1982

Pa

rts

pe

r tr

illi

on

(p

pt)

1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

CFC-12CFC-11

Figure 5.9 Global average atmospheric concentrations of ! ve major greenhouse gases,

1978–2008

Note: Global averages of the concentrations of the major, well- mixed, long- lived greenhouse

gases – carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, CFC- 12 and CFC- 11 from the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) global " ask sampling network since

1978. These gases account for about 97 per cent of the direct radiative forcing by long- lived

greenhouse gases since 1750. The remaining 3 per cent is contributed by an assortment of ten

minor halogen gases (see text). Methane data before 1983 are annual averages from Etheridge

et al. (1998), adjusted to the NOAA calibration scale (Dlugokencky et al. 2005).

Source: Encyclopaedia of Earth 2009, www.eoearth.org/.


" e Environment 179

be reduced by 2050, leading to increasing

problems with water security. Coastal areas

are likely to be subject to & ooding, both from

rivers and from the sea. Sickness and deaths

from diarrhoeal diseases will rise as global

warming changes the hydrological cycle,

making & oods and drought more common.

3 In Latin America, eastern Amazonia is likely

to see tropical forests becoming savannah

as soils dry out, and semi- arid vegetation

will be lost. Food security will be reduced

as the productivity of crops and livestock

declines, resulting in more people at risk

1 By 2020, some 75 to 250 million people

across Africa will experience greater stress

on water supplies, and agricultural yields

may fall by as much as 50 per cent, severely

compromising access to adequate levels of

food and increasing levels of undernourish-

ment. " e IPCC also forecasts an increase

in arid land by 2080 of between 5 and 8 per

cent in Africa, while a rise in sea levels would

a! ect the low- lying coastal areas with large

populations.

2 In Central, East, South and South- East

Asia, availability of freshwater is forecast to

Figure 5.10 Global and continental temperature change: natural forcing and natural plus

anthropogenic forcing

Source: IPCC (2007).



7 Rising sea levels are likely to present

major challenges for many small island

communities in the Paci$ c and Caribbean.

Storm surges will be higher and erosion

exacerbated, threatening communities

and infrastructure. By the mid- twenty- $ rst

century, water resources are likely to be

reduced to the point that they will not be

su% cient to meet demand during times of

low rainfall.

Some general consequences of global warm-

ing include rising sea levels as polar ice caps

melt and the oceans warm and expand. Global

warming will also lead to large tracts of fertile

land becoming desert, and the geographical

range and seasonality for organisms such as

mosquitoes may lead to more health prob-

lems. Agricultural yields will potentially fall in

many of the poorest areas of the world, with

populations in South- East Asia, Africa and

Latin America most likely to be a! ected. More

sea storms, & oods, hurricanes and $ res may

result, and some scholars forecast increasing

geopolitical instability – including con& icts,

wars between nations and mass migration –

in the attempt to protect and gain a share of

limited agricultural, freshwater and energy

resources (Schwartz and Randall 2003).

of undernourishment and chronic hunger.

Shifting rainfall patterns will lead to uncer-

tain water supplies for drinking water and

agriculture.

4 In Australia and New Zealand the forecast

is for a loss of biodiversity in some impor-

tant sites, including the Great Barrier Reef.

Water insecurity will increase in south-

ern and eastern Australia and parts of

New Zealand. Agricultural production will

decline in much of southern and eastern

Australia and eastern New Zealand because

of increasing droughts and $ res.

5 In Europe, more frequent coastal & ood-

ing and coastal erosion are expected

due to sea level rises and more severe

storms. Southern Europe will see more

drought and higher temperatures that will

reduce the availability of water and crop

productivity, and higher temperatures will

worsen health problems arising from heat

waves.

6 North America will experience more intense

and frequent heat waves in cities that

already have problems, bringing increasing

health problems. Warming in the western

mountains is likely to cause more & ooding

in winter and reduced & ows in the summer

months.

Low- lying areas are ever more susceptible to " ooding as a result of global climate change,

though the effects on the lives of people in these regions will vary tremendously. The

picture on the left shows emergency supplies of food and medicines being delivered to

a community in Bangladesh. That on the right shows RSPCA of! cers in England rescuing

stranded pets.


" e Environment 181

good evidence that global warming is real but

deny any anthropogenic cause. For this strand

of criticism, global warming is an entirely

natural phenomenon, probably related to the

& uctuating activity of the sun. " ey also claim

that CO2 is not a signi$ cant greenhouse gas.

As solar activity & uctuates, so does the Earth’s

climate, and it is this which explains the

current warming trend. " e majority scienti$ c

view is that, although solar activity does a! ect

surface temperature, there is no evidence of a

positive trend in solar activity since the 1960s

that could have produced the present global

warming. CO2 is certainly not the only green-

house gas (see $ gure 5.8), but it does remain

in the atmosphere for many decades and even

centuries, which leads to a steady accumula-

tion over time from industrial activity. It is this,

say the majority, which mainly accounts for

global warming.

Recent evidence also shows that some

sceptical research and websites are funded

by multinational fossil fuel companies. For

example, in 2011, a Greenpeace investigation

into a leading sceptical climate astrophysicist,

Dr Willie Soon, at the Harvard- Smithsonian

Center for Astrophysics revealed that he had

received more than US$1 million over the

previous ten years from major energy compa-

nies, including ExxonMobil, the American

Petroleum Institute and Koch Industries (Vidal

2011). Soon has been a leading academic

making the case that global warming is the

product of ‘solar variation’ and is unrelated to

human activity. He claims that his scienti$ c

research remains independent regardless

of who provides the funding. Similarly, the

Charles Koch Foundation (Koch Industries

is a large US energy company) has been a

major funder of groups and individuals which

promote sceptical views on global warming.

" e links between wealthy, multinational oil,

gas and coal corporations and global warming

sceptics have e! ectively enabled a minority

viewpoint to gain disproportionate visibility

and in& uence in the mass media.

" ird, even if we accept that global warming

is real and is partly explained by anthropo-

genic impact, some argue that the predicted

Questioning the science of climate

change

" e IPCC (2007) reports that the average

surface temperature of the Earth rose by 0.74

degrees Celsius between 1906 and 2005. But

it also warns that the warming trend between

1955 and 2005 (0.13 degrees Celsius per

decade) is almost double that for the 100 years

between 1906 and 2005. Global warming, it

seems, is gathering pace.

Since its creation in 1988, the IPCC reports

have become much clearer that global warm-

ing is partly the result of anthropogenic causes

such as industrial pollution, vehicle emissions,

deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels,

all of which release greenhouse gases into the

atmosphere. However, although the evidence

base is large, diverse and consistent in show-

ing that global warming is a reality, there are

several contentious debates surrounding the

thesis and its implications which bring the

consensus view into con& ict with a range of

‘climate change sceptics’.

First, some question the evidence that

global warming is actually occurring at all.

For example, Lord (Nigel) Lawson (2009: 1), a

former energy secretary and chancellor in the

British government, argues that global warm-

ing is ‘the latest scare’ in a series that includes

overpopulation and total resource depletion.

Lawson argues that there was a ‘mild warm-

ing’ in the last quarter of the twentieth century,

but this has been followed by a ‘lull’ in the

twenty- $ rst century when warming has appar-

ently ‘stopped’. " e sceptical charge here is

that climate scientists fail to deal adequately

with contrary evidence and either ignore it or

cherry- pick their evidence. However, in 2011,

the government’s chief scienti$ c adviser, Sir

John Beddington, engaged in an exchange

of letters with Lord Lawson, arguing that his

book showed little grasp of climate science,

that short- term temperature trends are not

meaningful in the context of long- term global

warming, and that the scienti$ c evidence from

multiple sources clearly showed that ‘the risks

are real’ (Bo! ey 2011).

Second, some sceptics argue that there is



0.2 degrees Celsius per decade. Such evidence

suggests that the IPCC modelling is, in fact,

quite realistic.

Climate change science was again called into

question in 2009, when the Climatic Research

Unit at the University of East Anglia in the

UK had its email system hacked and around

1,000 emails, including exchanges between

members of the unit and colleagues around

the world, were published on the worldwide

web – an a! air now known as ‘ClimateGate’.

In some of these emails, the director, Professor

Phil Jones, referred to performing ‘a trick’ with

climate data and talks of ‘hiding the decline’

in temperature for one data series. He also

admitted refusing repeated requests to share

data with critics and asking a colleague to

delete all emails relating to the IPCC’s Fourth

Assessment. Jones later argued that the email

comments were taken out of context; the ‘trick’

was simply $ nding a creative way of joining

two data sets, while ‘hiding the decline’ meant

correcting a false impression in one data set

by making a composite set that also included

instrumental data (BBC 2010).

Sceptics see this episode as supportive of

their case that many climate scientists, whose

careers and reputations have become inter-

twined with proving anthropogenic global

warming, are prepared to sacri$ ce key scien-

ti$ c principles of openness and peer review

in order to protect themselves and their

‘unproven’ thesis. " en, in 2010, after criticism

from glaciologists, the vice- chair of the IPCC

admitted that a claim in the 2007 report that

Himalayan glaciers ‘could disappear by 2035’

was wrong. Mistakes such as this, say sceptics,

raise the issue of how many other IPCC predic-

tions are incorrect, calling the existence of

global warming into question.

‘ClimateGate’ was the subject of three inde-

pendent inquiries: a parliamentary inquiry,

a university inquiry into eleven key scien-

ti$ c papers, and a university commissioned

inquiry led by a senior civil servant, Sir Muir

Russell, into the hacked and leaked email

exchanges. All three found no evidence of

scienti$ c malpractice, falsi$ cation of data or

attempts to subvert the peer review process.

consequences are highly speculative at best

and grossly exaggerated at worst. Computer

modelling of the kind used by the IPCC

is notoriously unreliable, especially when

extrapolating current trends far into the future,

and suggestions of a 6 degree Celsius rise by

2100 amount to scaremongering. Politically,

economically and socially, our e! orts would

be better directed at tackling other more

urgent social problems, such as poverty in

developing countries, rather than wasting

valuable resources on an uncertain ‘problem’

(Lomborg 2001).

Although some forecasts at the extreme

end of climate science do suggest an increase

of 6 degrees Celsius is possible by 2100, this

assumes no change in the mitigation poli-

cies of governments, which is surely unlikely.

However, we have to bear in mind that there

are many uncertainties in climate forecasting,

including cloud feedback, changing ice- sheet

& ows in Antarctica and Greenland, land- use

change, technological developments, the

impact of aerosols, the extent of behavioural

changes and a lack of data in some regions,

which hinder accurate modelling. As a result, it

is not possible to rule out much more extreme

and devastating e! ects of global warming.

Nevertheless, the history of environmental

politics in the twentieth century is littered

with failed predictions of global disaster and

catastrophic human collapse. It therefore

makes sense for social scientists to work with

the best available scienti$ c research, which is

currently found in the ongoing IPCC research

programme.

" e IPCC’s best estimate is a warming of

0.2 degrees Celsius per decade for the next

two decades, which would produce only a 2

degree warming by 2100 (IPCC 2007: 45). It

is also correct that computer modelling can

con& ict with real- world evidence, but climate

models are complex and built from evidence

gathered from many sources around the

world. " e Fourth Assessment Report notes

that, since 1990, IPCC forecast values have

averaged 0.15 to 0.3 degrees increase per

decade, which compares favourably with the

observed increase between 1990 and 2005 of


" e Environment 183

produce lower levels than the USA, Europe, the

Russian Federation and Japan, which shows

why some developing countries see their

own ‘survival’ emissions as far less damaging

than the ‘luxury’ emissions of the already rich

countries.

However, there is also a disjunction between

the widespread acceptance of global warming

and people being prepared to change their

routine behaviour to help tackle it. Anthony

Giddens (2011: 2) calls this (unsurprisingly)

‘the Giddens Paradox’. " is paradox states

that, as people experience no clearly tangible

e! ects of the dangers of unchecked global

warming in their everyday lives, they will

not change their environmentally damaging

actions. Yet if they wait until global warming

clearly interferes with their lives, it will be

too late to do anything about it. Before that

happens, ways have to be found to ‘embed

a concern with climate change into people’s

everyday lives, while recognizing the formida-

ble problems involved in doing so’ (Giddens

2009: 12).

Without the positive involvement of the

critical mass of individual citizens, it seems

unlikely that government policies alone will

succeed. But, clearly, a coordinated global

approach to cutting greenhouse gas emis-

sions is made more di% cult in the context

of uneven economic development at the

national level, which produces as much disa-

greement as agreement on how to tackle the

problem.

" e United Nations Framework Conven-

tion on Climate Change was created in 1997 in

Kyoto, Japan, where agreement was reached

to cut emissions signi$ cantly by 2012 in order

to stabilize and eventually reduce greenhouse

gas levels in the atmosphere. Targets ranged

from an average 8 per cent cut for most of

Europe to a maximum 10 per cent increase

for Iceland and an 8 per cent increase for

Australia. " e USA originally committed itself

to a 7 per cent cut, but has never rati$ ed the

protocol. By 2010, the industrialized coun-

tries looked on course to meet their targets.

However, many scientists see the targets as

too modest when it takes more than a century

However, the Russell Review (Russell 2010:

10–11) did criticize the unit for being unhelp-

ful and defensive when requests for data were

made under the Freedom of Information (FoI)

Act. It also criticized the university and the unit

for failing to appreciate the statutory require-

ments of the FoI Act and the potential damage

that could be caused to climate science

research and the university itself by withhold-

ing data. A separate review of the IPCC’s main

forecasts, commissioned by the Dutch govern-

ment in 2010, found no errors that might call

into question the $ nding that anthropogenic

climate change was occurring.

" e ‘ClimateGate’ a! air has been a salutary

experience, not just for climate scientists, but

for the academic community as a whole. In

an increasingly global academic environment

which operates within societies where easy

access to the Internet and ideals of freedom of

information combine to create expectations

of complete open access to information and

data, science seems still to be catching up. It

is certainly not unusual for groups of scien-

tists to guard jealously their raw data in order

to protect their own knowledge claims and,

although it is common to speak of a ‘scienti$ c

community’, it is important to remember that

scienti$ c work, like all other spheres of social

life, is also highly competitive. For the foresee-

able future at least, it is likely that an uneasy

tension between established scienti$ c practice

and the emerging culture of open access to

information will continue.

Responding to global warming

" e industrial countries currently produce

far more greenhouse gases than the develop-

ing world, though China has now overtaken

the USA and emits more carbon dioxide than

any other single country (see $ gure 5.11).

However, emissions from the developing

world are increasing rapidly, particularly in

countries that are undergoing rapid indus-

trialization, and are expected to be roughly

equal to those of industrialized countries

sometime around 2035. When we take popula-

tion size into account and look at emissions

per capita, then China and India currently



Critics continue to argue that global warming

is such a serious problem that these measures

will not reduce greenhouse emissions quickly

enough to prevent global warming of more

than the target of 2 degrees.

As with other manufactured risks, no

one can be sure what the e! ects of global

warming will be. Would a ‘high’ emissions

scenario truly result in widespread natural

disasters? Will stabilizing the level of carbon

dioxide emissions protect most people from

the negative e! ects of climate change? Is it

possible that global warming has already

triggered a series of further climatic distur-

bances? We cannot answer these questions

with any certainty, but international scien-

ti$ c collaboration and political processes do

seem to o! er the most viable ways of dealing

with the problem. In addition, the underly-

ing anthropogenic causes of global warming

require an understanding not just of the basic

environmental science, but also of social

processes. " is means that there is a clear

role for sociological theories which connect

human societies and practices to the natural

environment, and it is to these that we now

turn.

for carbon dioxide to be removed from the

atmosphere through natural processes. In

recent years, several of the largest produc-

ers of greenhouse gases have successfully

cut emissions, including the UK, Germany,

China and Russia – although Russia’s cuts

can be explained largely by the decline in its

economy.

" e Kyoto Protocol took 1990 greenhouse

emission levels as its starting point. But this

was seen by many in the developing world as

favouring the industrialized countries, as it

fails to take into account the latter’s ‘historical

responsibility’ for the problem of global warm-

ing and, hence, avoids attributing blame. It is

also unclear exactly when developing coun-

tries will be asked to reduce their emissions,

or by how much. Will it allow for the inevitably

higher emissions levels as their economic

development catches up with the industrial-

ized world? If it does not, then it may be seen

as unfair and unworkable (Najam et al. 2003).

A successor to Kyoto was formally approved

by the G8+5 countries (the G8 countries

plus China, India, Brazil, Mexico and South

Africa) in the so- called Washington Declara-

tion of 2007. " is would see the introduction

of a global ‘cap and trade’ system (involving

all countries) in which emissions caps will

be introduced alongside a trading system

(focused on carbon trading) that forces pollut-

ers to pay. " e system works by rewarding

those countries that reduce emissions (and

sell credits) and penalizing those which do

not (and are forced to pay for carbon credits).

However, the overall e! ect of the cap and trade

system is to push all countries towards lower-

ing their emissions.

Following acrimonious disagreements and

failure to secure a binding agreement at the

Copenhagen talks in 2009, the 2010 Cancun

meeting was, at last, widely seen as making

progress: 190 countries agreed to bring the

voluntary targets set out in Copenhagen into

the process, to limit temperature rises to 2

degrees Celsius and to set up a green climate

fund as part of a US$100 billion commitment

to help developing countries to move their

economies forward in non- polluting ways.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

China

USA

European M

onetary

Unio

n

India

Russia

n Federa

tion

Japan

02468101214161820

Billions of metric tons

Metric tons per capita

Bil

lio

ns

of

me

tric

to

ns

Me

tric

to

ns

pe

r c

ap

ita

Figure 5.11 The six largest emitters of

carbon dioxide, in absolute terms and per

capita, 2008

Source: World Bank http://data.worldbank.

org/indicator/.


" e Environment 185

Consumerism and environmental

damage

One important issue relating to the environment

and economic development is that of consump-

tion patterns. Consumption refers to the goods,

services, energy and resources that are used by

people. It is a phenomenon with both positive

and negative dimensions. On the one hand,

rising levels of consumption around the world

mean that people are living under better condi-

tions than in the past. Consumption is linked

to economic development – as living standards

rise, people are able to a! ord more food, cloth-

ing, personal items, leisure time, holidays and

cars. On the other hand, mass consumption has

negative impacts too. Consumption patterns

can damage the environmental resource base

and exacerbate patterns of inequality.

Trends in world consumption over the

course of the twentieth century are startling.

In 1900, world consumption levels were just

over $1.5 trillion, but by the end of the century

private and public consumption expenditures

amounted to around $24 trillion – twice the

level of 1975 and six times that of 1950 (UNDP

1998). In developed countries, consumption

per head has been growing at a rate of 2.3 per

cent annually; in East Asia growth has been

even faster – 6.1 per cent annually. By contrast,

the average African household consumes

20 per cent less today than it did thirty years

ago. " ere is widespread concern that the

consumption explosion has passed by the

poorest $ fth of the world’s population.

It has been argued that industrial capitalism

sets societies on a ‘treadmill of production’ lead-

ing to environmental damage, using up natural

resources at a rapid rate, generating high levels

of pollution and waste (Schnaiberg 1980).

However, in the twentieth century it was modern

consumerism which kept that treadmill running

faster in this direction (Bell 2011). Consumption

is something that human beings have to engage

in to survive, but modern consumption is very

di! erent from earlier forms.

Mass production must be accompanied

by large- scale consumption. " e products of

industry have to be bought and consumed,

Sociological theories and sustainable societies

Natural scientists have been at the forefront of

debates on environmental issues. As the exam-

ples above of pollution, resource depletion,

genetic modi$ cation and global warming show,

environmental issues are di! erent from most

sociological subjects, because they involve

getting to grips with natural scienti" c research

and evidence. However, the hybrid character

of environmental issues means that natural

scientists can never have a monopoly on them.

Our brief introduction to the problem of global

warming is the most striking example of this.

The IPCC scientists acknowledge that

twentieth- century global warming was largely

the product of human activities – industri-

alization, urbanization and globalization

processes, for example – and the experts in

these areas are sociologists and other social

scientists such as political scientists, human

geographers and all of those studying develop-

ment and international relations (Urry 2011).

If environmental problems are to be success-

fully comprehended, then social and natural

scientists will have to try to understand each

other rather better than they have done so far.

" is must surely be a positive challenge for the

whole academic community (Sutton 2004).

" e rest of this section will explore some of

the main sociological theories linking social

development with environmental damage,

along with some of the major approaches to

solving global environmental problems.

THINKING CRITICALLY

‘People in the rich developed world

are responsible for causing global

warming and they should be prepared

to accept a lower material standard of

living to rapidly reduce greenhouse

gas emissions.’ What arguments would

you make to persuade people in the

rich world to accept a lower material

standard of living? Do you think they

would be likely to accept them?



production and consumption. Why has it

proved so di% cult to reduce our use of the car?

One survey of attitudes to car- ownership

found a range of consumer types among visi-

tors to National Trust properties in the north-

west of England (Anable 2005). " e largest

group consisted of Malcontented Motorists.

" ey are unhappy with many aspects of their

car use, but feel that public transport has too

many constraints to be a genuine alternative,

so they do not switch. Second are Complacent

Car Addicts, who accept that there are alter-

natives to using the car but do not feel any

pressing moral imperative to change. " ird

are Aspiring Environmentalists. " is group has

already reduced their usage, but feel the car

has advantages that force them not to give it up

altogether. Fourth are Die- hard Drivers, who

feel they have a right to drive, enjoy driving and

have negative feelings towards other modes of

transportation, such as buses and trains. Fifth,

Car- less Crusaders have given up their cars for

environmental reasons and see alternative

modes of travel in a positive light. Last are the

Reluctant Riders, who use public transport but

would prefer to use a car; however, for a vari-

ety of reasons, such as health problems, they

cannot do this, but will accept lifts from others.

" is study shows that blanket appeals to an

emerging environmental awareness are likely

to fail. Instead, ‘the segmentation approach

illustrates that policy interventions need to

be responsive to the di! erent motivations

and constraints of the sub- groups’ (Anable

2005: 77). However, some sociologists argue

that, seen in the long term, the ‘century of the

car’ may be coming to an end anyway, as oil

supplies appear to have peaked, the mitiga-

tion of global warming is leading to a push for

new, ‘low- carbon’ technologies, and rising

population levels make mass individual car-

ownership less likely (Dennis and Urry 2009).

Of course, ‘the car’ remains an important

symbol of the transition to independent living

and adulthood as well as embodying modern

ideals of freedom and liberation. But Dennis

and Urry argue that the twentieth- century

‘car system’ of mass individual ownership

of petrol- fuelled vehicles, driving around

though producing and consuming may well be

carried out in geographically distant locations.

Products are made wherever it is cheapest to do

so and consumed wherever the best price can

be gained. In the past sixty years or so, this has

led to industrial production moving to develop-

ing countries. " e rapid transformation of the

newly industrializing countries (NICs) such

as Hong Kong, South Korea, Singapore and

Taiwan in the 1970s and recent industrial devel-

opment in India, China and Malaysia testify to

this, which is part of the globalization process.

Sociologists have argued that consumerism

is also a way of thinking, a mentality or even an

ideology (Corrigan 1997; Campbell 1992). We

can understand this aspect if we ask why people

continually consume and want to consume.

Perhaps it is simply because consumer goods

have ‘use- value’ for people, helping to save

them time and e! ort. But luxury items $ t this

explanation less well. They show another

side to modern consumerism – its role in the

social status competition within society (see

chapter 8, ‘Social Interaction and Everyday

Life’). Di! erentiated mass consumption allows

for complex, $ ne- grained distinctions to be

made according to the styles and fashions

of the day. People may be prepared to pay a

premium for the latest fashions because these

products allow them to say something about

themselves, to communicate their status or

aspirations in a highly visible way. Even prod-

ucts with a clear use- value, such as clothes, are

also fashionable items that are discarded and

replaced before their ‘use- value’ has expired.

Large amounts of such fashion- fuelled waste

increase pressure on the environment.

Over time, consumer products become

embedded into the routines of everyday life

and are taken for granted. When this happens,

it becomes di% cult to think there is an alter-

native. Perhaps the best example of this is

the private motor vehicle, particularly the car

(Lucas et al. 2011). Many households have

one, two, or more cars, and people use them

even for short trips to the shops or to visit

friends and relatives who live close by. But

large- scale car- ownership and use generates

large amounts of pollution and waste in both


" e Environment 187

Another aspect of modern consumerism

is its pleasurable aspect. But is it pleasur-

able? Some have argued that the pleasure of

consumerism lies not in the use of products

but in the anticipation of purchasing them.

Colin Campbell (1992) argues that this is the

most pleasurable part of the process – the

wanting, the longing after, the seeking out

and desiring of products, not the use of them.

It is a ‘romantic ethic’ of consumption based

on desire and longing. Marketing of prod-

ucts and services draws on this anticipatory

consumerism in seductive ways to create

and intensify people’s desires. " at is why we

keep going back for more and are never truly

satis$ ed.

From an environmental perspective, the

‘romantic ethic’ of consumerism is disas-

trous. We constantly demand new prod-

ucts and more of them. " at means more

production, so the cycle of mass production

and mass consumption continues to churn

out pollution and wastes natural resources.

At the input side of production, natural

resources are used up in enormous quanti-

ties and, at the output end in consumption,

people throw away useful things not because

they are use- less, but because they are no

longer in fashion or fail to represent their

status aspirations.

" e sociology of consumption shows us

that the combination of industrialization,

capitalism and consumerism has transformed

society–environment relations. Many envi-

ronmentalists and more than a few social

and natural scientists have concluded that

continuous economic growth cannot carry

on inde$ nitely. " e resulting pollution might

have been ecologically insigni$ cant if it had

been restricted to a small part of the global

human population. However, when indus-

trialization spreads across the planet, when a

majority of people live in huge cities, and when

capitalist companies become multinational

and consumerism seduces people in all coun-

tries, then the natural environment’s capacity

for recovery and resilience becomes severely

weakened.

Although the rich are the world’s main

extensive road networks, may not survive in its

present form. What will replace it, though, has

yet to take any $ rm outline.

As oil supplies seem to have peaked, will the

private motor car have any place in the low-

carbon societies of the future?

THINKING CRITICALLY

Looking at the typology of car

users above, which category best

describes you? Think of an appropriate

environmental policy aimed at each

consumer type to generate pro-

environmental behaviour in that group.

Are there any general policies that

might have the desired effect on all the

groups?



ronmental movements and public concern

about environmental problems can be traced

back to a famous report $ rst published in

the early 1970s, which set out the case that

economic growth could not continue inde$ -

nitely. " e report and its $ ndings are discussed

in ‘Classic studies 5.1’.

Sustainable development

Rather than simply calling for economic

growth to be reined in, more recent develop-

ments turn on the concept of sustainable

development. " is was $ rst introduced in a

report commissioned by the United Nations,

Our Common Future (WCED 1987). " is is

also known as the Brundtland Report, after the

chair of the organizing committee, Gro Harlem

Brundtland, then prime minister of Norway.

" e report’s authors argued that use of the

Earth’s resources by the present generation

was unsustainable.

The Brundtland Commission regarded

sustainable development as ‘development

which meets the needs of the present genera-

tion, without compromising the ability of

future generations to meet their own needs’

(WCED 1987) – a pithy de$ nition, but one

which carries enormous signi$ cance. Sustain-

able development means that economic

growth should be carried on in such a way

as to recycle physical resources rather than

deplete them and to keep levels of pollution to

a minimum. However, the de$ nition is open

to criticism. How many generations should

be considered – $ ve, ten, or more? How can

we know what are the ‘needs’ of the present

generation? How can we compare human

needs in developing countries with those in

the relatively rich countries? " ese questions

are still being debated, though the concept of

sustainable development – however problem-

atic – continues to motivate many individuals

and voluntary groups.

Following the publication of Our Common

Future, ‘sustainable development’ came to

be widely used by both environmentalists

and governments. It was employed at the

UN Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992

and has subsequently appeared in other

consumers, the environmental damage that

is caused by growing consumption has the

heaviest impact on the poor. As we saw in our

discussion of global warming, the wealthy are

in a better position to enjoy the many bene$ ts

of consumption without having to deal with

its negative e! ects. At the local level, a* u-

ent groups can usually a! ord to move away

from problem areas, leaving the poor to bear

the costs. Chemical plants, power stations,

major roads, railways and airports are often

sited close to low- income areas, and on a

global level we can see a similar process at

work: soil degradation, deforestation, water

shortages, lead emissions and air pollution

are all increasingly concentrated within

the developing world. What is needed is a

perspective which connects the developed

and developing countries in a single project.

Sustainable development was created to do

just that.

Limits to growth and sustainable

development

A central motivating idea for environmental

campaigners has been that of ‘sustainabil-

ity’ – ensuring that human activity does not

compromise the ecology of planet Earth. In

! e Ecologist, a UK campaigning magazine,

Edward Goldsmith and his colleagues set out

the charge against industrial expansion in their

A Blueprint for Survival (1972: 15): ‘" e princi-

pal defect of the industrial way of life with its

ethos of expansion is that it is not sustainable

. . . we can be certain . . . that sooner or later

it will end.’ Such doom- laden forecasts used

to be described as ‘catastrophist’ and were

restricted to the wilder fringes of the environ-

mental movement. However, the idea now has

a wider currency among the general public

and policy- makers, for which the scienti$ c

predictions of global warming are largely

responsible. Anyone who recycles their plas-

tic, paper and glass, conserves water or tries to

use their car less is probably aware that they

too are trying to put into practice the idea of

sustainability.

One important in& uence on the rise of envi-


" e Environment 189

Classic Studies 5.1 Modelling the limits to economic growth

The research problemGlobal human population has grown enormously

since industrialization took hold, and the

resulting pressure on the environment has led to

soil degradation, deforestation and pollution. Are

there any limits to this pattern of development?

Will food supplies keep up with increasing

demand or will the world see mass famine?

How many people can the planet support

without ruining the environment? These hugely

signi! cant questions were asked of a group

of scientists by a global think tank, the Club of

Rome, almost forty years ago. The resulting

book was published as The Limits to Growth

(Meadows et al. 1972).

Meadows and colleagues’ explanationThe Limits study used modern computer-

modelling techniques to make forecasts about

the consequences of continued economic

growth, population growth, pollution and the

depletion of natural resources. Their computer

model – World3 – showed what would happen if

the trends that were established between 1900

and 1970 were to continue to the year 2100.

The computer projections were then altered to

generate a variety of possible consequences,

depending on different rates of growth of the

factors considered. The researchers found

that, each time they altered one variable, there

would eventually be an environmental crisis.

If the world’s societies failed to change, then

growth would end anyway sometime before

2100, through the depletion of resources, food

shortages or industrial collapse.

The research team used computer modelling

to explore ! ve global trends (Meadows et al.

1972: 21):

• accelerating industrialization across the world

• rapid population growth

• widespread malnutrition in some regions

• depletion of non- renewable resources

• a deteriorating natural environment.

The programme was then run to test twelve

alternative scenarios, each one manipulated

to resolve some of the identi! ed problems.

This allowed the researchers to ask questions

about which combinations of population levels,

industrial output and natural resources would

be sustainable. The conclusion they drew in

1972 was that there was still time to put off the

emerging environmental crisis. But, if nothing

was done – and even if the amount of available

resources in the model were doubled, pollution

were reduced to pre- 1970s levels and new

technologies were introduced – economic

growth would still grind to a halt before 2100.

Some campaigners saw this as vindicating the

radical environmental argument that industrial

societies were just not sustainable over the long

term.

Critical pointsMany economists, politicians and industrialists

roundly condemned the report, arguing that

it was unbalanced, irresponsible and, when

its predictions failed to materialize, just plain

wrong. The modelling was largely devoid of

political and social variables and was therefore

just a partial account of reality. The researchers

later accepted that some of the criticisms were

justi! ed. The method used focused on physical

limits and assumed existing rates of economic

growth and technological innovation, but this

did not take account of the capacity of human

beings to respond to environmental challenges.

For example, market forces could be made to

work to limit the over- exploitation of resources.

If a mineral such as magnesium starts to become

scarce, its price will rise. As its price rises it

will be used less, and producers might even

! nd alternatives should costs rise too steeply.

Limits was seen by many as yet another overly

pessimistic, catastrophist tract that engaged in

unreliable ‘futurology’ – predicting the future

from current trends.

Contemporary signi! canceWhatever its limitations, the original report

made a signi! cant impact on public debate and

environmental activism. It made many more

people aware of the damaging consequences of

industrial development and technology, as well

as warning about the perils of allowing pollution

to increase. The report was an important



Linking the concept of ecological sustaina-

bility to that of economic development appears

contradictory at $ rst sight. " is is particularly

pertinent where sustainability and develop-

ment clash – for example, when considering

new roads or retail sites, it is often the case

that the prospect of new jobs and economic

prosperity means sustainability takes second

place, especially in times of economic reces-

sion. This is even more pronounced for

governments in developing countries, which

are badly in need of more economic activity.

In recent years, ideas of environmental justice

and ecological citizenship have come to the

fore (as we see below) partly as a result of the

severe problems associated with the concept

and practice of sustainable development.

It is easy to be sceptical about the future

prospects for sustainable development. Its

aim of $ nding ways of balancing human

activity with sustaining natural ecosys-

tems may appear impossibly utopian.

Nonetheless, sustainable development looks

to create common ground among nation-

states and connects the world development

movement with the environmental move-

ment in a way that no other project has yet

managed to do. It gives radical environ-

mentalists the opportunity to push for full

implementation of its widest goals, but, at

the same time, moderate campaigners can

be involved locally and have an impact. " is

inclusivity can be seen as a weakness, but it

is also a strength of the sustainable develop-

ment project.

meetings organized by the UN, such as the

World Summit on Sustainable Develop-

ment in Johannesburg in 2002. Sustainable

development is also one of the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs), which were

agreed by 191 states aiming to reduce poverty

in the coming decades. Among other relevant

MDGs are the integration of the principles

of sustainable development into national

policies and programmes, reversal of the

loss of environmental resources, reduction

by half of the proportion of people without

sustainable access to safe drinking water,

and achieving a signi$ cant improvement in

the lives of at least 100 million slum- dwellers

– all by 2020.

For more on the Millennium

Development Goals, see chapter 14,

‘Global Inequality’.

Critics see the concept of sustainable devel-

opment as too vague, neglecting the speci� c

needs of poorer countries. It has been argued

that the idea of sustainable development tends

to focus attention only on the needs of richer

countries; it does not consider how high levels

of consumption in the more a� uent countries

are satis� ed at the expense of people in devel-

oping countries. For instance, demands on

Indonesia to conserve its rainforests could be

seen as unfair, because Indonesia has a greater

need than the industrialized countries for the

revenue it must forego.

catalyst for the modern environmental

movement (for a wider discussion, see

chapter 22, ‘Politics, Government and Social

Movements’). Twenty years later, the team

published Beyond the Limits (1992), an even

more pessimistic report, castigating the world’s

politicians for wasting the time, arguing that

ecological ‘overshoot’ was already occurring.

Then, in 2004, their 30- Year Update was

released, arguing that, although some progress

had been made in environmental awareness

and technological development, the evidence

of global warming, declining ! sh stocks, and

much more, showed a world ‘overshooting’

its natural limits. This conclusion was also that

of the UN Millennium Ecosystem Assessment

Board of 2005, which is tellingly titled Living

Beyond our Means. The basic conclusion

from the original Limits report and its updates

continues to resonate.


! e Environment 191

rapidly, producing new forms of risk, we must

constantly respond and adjust to the changes.

Risks today involve a series of interrelated

changes in contemporary social life: shifting

employment patterns, heightened job inse-

curity, the declining in" uence of tradition and

custom on self- identity, the erosion of tradi-

tional family patterns and the democratization

of personal relationships. Because personal

futures are much less � xed than in the past,

decisions of all kinds present risks for individu-

als. Getting married, for example, is a more

risky course today than it was when marriage

was a lifelong commitment. Decisions about

educational quali� cations and career paths

can also feel risky: it is di# cult to predict what

skills will be valuable in an economy that

changes as rapidly as ours. ‘Classic studies 5.2’

(overleaf) explores Beck’s arguments, speci� -

cally in relation to environmental risks.

Ecological modernization

For environmentalists, both capitalist and

communist forms of modernization have

signally failed. ! ey have delivered wealth and

material success, but at the price of massive

environmental damage. In recent years,

groups of academic social scientists have tried

to develop a theoretical perspective called

ecological modernization, which accepts

that ‘business as usual’ is no longer possible

but also rejects radical environmentalist solu-

tions involving de- industrialization. Instead

they focus on technological innovation and

the use of market mechanisms to bring about

positive outcomes, transforming production

methods and reducing pollution at its source.

Ecological modernizers see huge poten-

tial in the leading European industries to

reduce the use of natural resources without

this a$ ecting economic growth. ! is is an

unusual position, but it does have a certain

logic. Rather than simply rejecting economic

growth, they argue that an ecological form of

growth is theoretically possible. An example

is the introduction of catalytic converters and

emission controls on motor vehicles, which

has been delivered within a short period of

Living in the global ‘risk society’

Humans have always had to face risks of one

kind or another, but today’s risks are qualita-

tively di$ erent from those that came in earlier

times. Until quite recently, human societies

were threatened by external risk – dangers

such as drought, earthquakes, famines and

storms that spring from the natural world and

are unrelated to the actions of humans. ! e

Japanese earthquake discussed at the outset

of this chapter shows that external risks of this

kind will continue, as planet Earth is charac-

terized by many natural processes. However,

we are also increasingly confronted by various

types of manufactured risk that are created

by the impact of our own knowledge and

technology on the natural world.

Debates on genetically modi� ed foods and

global warming have presented individu-

als with new choices and challenges in their

everyday lives. Because there are no de� nitive

answers as to the consequences of such risks,

each individual is forced to make decisions

about which risks they are prepared to take.

Should we use food and raw materials if their

production or consumption has a negative

impact on our health and the natural environ-

ment? Even seemingly simple decisions about

what to eat are made in the context of con" ict-

ing information and opinions about the prod-

uct’s relative merits and drawbacks.

Ulrich Beck (1992, 1999, 2009) has writ-

ten extensively about risk and globalization.

As technological change progresses more

THINKING CRITICALLY

Sustainable development is

‘development which meets the needs

of the present generation, without

compromising the ability of future

generations to meet their own needs’.

What are the needs of the present

generation? How might we ! nd out

what the needs of future generations

will be? Can sustainable development

policies be devised from this

de! nition?



Classic Studies 5.2 Ulrich Beck and the global risk society

The research problemThis chapter has explored some of the

environmental consequences of industrial

production and high levels of consumption.

Taking a long- term view, we can see that the

spread of industrialization produces more

widespread and potentially serious side effects

in the form of environmental risks. But is modern

life really more risky, or are we just more

‘risk aware’? Are we worrying unnecessarily

about environmental problems? The German

sociologist Ulrich Beck (1944– ) has been the

foremost sociological theorist of risk, which he

sees as much more signi! cant then sociologists

previously thought.

Beck’s explanationThroughout the nineteenth and twentieth

centuries, the politics of modern societies

was dominated by a major con" ict of interest

between workers and employers – in Marx’s

terms, between the non- owning working class

and the property- owning capitalist class. The

con" ict centred on issues of wealth distribution

as trade unions and labour parties sought a

more equal distribution of the socially produced

wealth. Such struggles still continue, of course.

But Ulrich Beck (1992, 2002, 2009) argues that

this distributional con" ict is losing its signi! cance

as environmental risks rise to prominence. He

says that more people are beginning to realize

that their ! ght for a share of the ‘wealth cake’

is futile if the cake itself is being poisoned as a

result of pollution and environmental damage

(Beck 2002: 128). Beck argues that:

the knowledge is spreading that the sources of

wealth are ‘polluted’ by growing ‘hazardous

side effects’. This is not at all new, but it has

remained unnoticed for a long time in the efforts

to overcome poverty. . . . To put it differently,

in the risk society the unknown and unintended

consequences come to be a dominant force in

history and society. (1992: 20–1)

Industrial societies are slowly dissolving

as environmental problems build up; this is

an unintended consequence of the rush for

economic growth and material prosperity.

Beck (1999) argues that we are, in effect,

moving into a ‘world risk society’ – a new type

of society in which risk consciousness and

risk avoidance are becoming central features

– because environmental pollution does not

respect national boundaries. No matter where

industrial production or consumption takes

place, its consequences can be felt in very

distant locations. The relatively rich countries

are not immune from industrial pollution and

global environmental damage. We will remain

dependent on science and high technology,

though, because it is only through these that

industrial processes can be safely and effectively

managed.

Beck wants to show us that the environmental

issue is moving from the margins of political

concern towards the centre. Most of the risks

we face are the products of human activity; they

are not like the purely natural disasters of ! lm

and television. This means that the environment

becomes an issue for political debate and

decision- making, and we can see the creation

of environmental organizations and Green

political parties in the 1970s as the ! rst step

towards inclusion of environmental issues into

mainstream politics.

Critical pointsOne of the main criticisms of Beck’s overall

thesis is that there is not (yet) enough evidence

to support his theory of the transition to a ‘risk

society’, even though there is today more

awareness of environmental risks (Hajer 1996).

Similarly, the idea that older forms of class-

based politics are losing out to a new politics

of risk seems premature. In most countries,

Green political parties have not broken through

the conventional party system, and globally the

issue of wealth creation and distribution still

tends to dominate over environmental protection

whenever these objectives clash. Finally, it

has been argued that the thesis fails to take

account of cultural variability in de! nitions of risk

(Douglas 1994; Scott 2000). What is de! ned as

‘risk’ in some societies may not be so de! ned in

others, in the same way that what is de! ned as

pollution in wealthy industrial societies is often


! e Environment 193

cal modernization of society (Mol and

Sonnenfeld 2000).

Science and technology have a particularly

crucial role in developing preventative solu-

tions, building in ecological considerations at

the design stage. ! is will transform currently

polluting production systems.

Since the mid- 1990s, three new areas of

debate have entered the ecological moderni-

zation perspective. First, research began to

expand to the developing countries, signi� -

cantly challenging the Eurocentrism of the

original perspective. Second, once ecologi-

cal modernizers started to think beyond the

West, the theory of globalization became more

relevant, and recent research seeks to link

globalization with ecological modernization

(Mol 2001). ! ird, ecological modernization

has started to take account of the sociology of

consumption and theories of consumer socie-

ties. ! ese studies look at how consumers can

play a part in the ecological modernization of

society and how domestic technologies can be

improved to reduce energy consumption, save

scarce resources (such as water) and contrib-

ute to waste reduction through recycling.

The possibilities offered by ecological

modernization can be illustrated by reference

to the waste disposal industry, which gets

rid of the waste products that industries and

consumers generate every day. Until recently,

time and shows that advanced technologies

can make a big di$ erence to greenhouse gas

emissions. If environmental protection really

can be achieved like this, then we can continue

to enjoy our high- technology lifestyles.

Ecological modernizers also argue that, if

consumers demand environmentally sound

production methods and products, then

market mechanisms will be forced to try

and deliver them. Opposition to GM food in

Europe (discussed above) is a good example

of this idea in practice. Supermarkets have not

stocked or pushed the supply of GM foods,

because large numbers of consumers have

made it clear that they will stay on the shelves.

! e theory of ecological modernization sees

that � ve social and institutional structures

need to be ecologically transformed:

1 science and technology: to work towards the

invention and delivery of sustainable tech-

nologies

2 markets and economic agents: to introduce

incentives for environmentally benign

outcomes

3 nation- states: to shape market conditions

which allow this to happen

4 social movements: to put pressure on busi-

ness and the state to continue moving in an

ecological direction

5 ecological ideologies: to assist in persuading

more people to get involved in the ecologi-

seen as a sign of healthy economic development

in poorer developing countries.

Contemporary signi! canceThe concept of risk holds a special place in

current sociological debates on environmental

issues and the direction of social change. Beck’s

risk thesis is useful, because it provides part of

an explanation for why environmental movement

concerns have found such a receptive audience.

Once people become sensitized to risks, the

arguments of environmentalists begin to make

more sense. Beck’s Risk Society has taken

sociological thinking on modernity and its

possible futures in a new and highly original

direction, making us rethink the sociological

tradition, and for this reason it has rightly

become a modern classic of social theory.

THINKING CRITICALLY

How aware are you of risks in your everyday

life? What actions do you routinely take to

minimize personal risk? Do you engage in

any ‘risk- taking activities’ and, if so, why do

you do it? Is risk always a negative part of

modern life or can you think of any positive

aspects?



but whole industries are actively pursuing the

goal of ‘zero waste’ – the complete recycling

of all waste products for future industrial use.

Toyota and Honda have already reached a

level of 85 per cent recyclability for the car

parts they use. In this context, waste is no

longer just the harmful dumping of materials

but a resource for industry and, to some extent,

a means of driving further innovation.

most of this waste was simply processed and

buried in land� ll sites. Today, the whole indus-

try is being transformed. Technological devel-

opments make it much cheaper to produce

newsprint from recycled paper than from

wood pulp. Hence there are good economic

reasons, as well as environmental ones, to use

and reuse paper instead of endlessly cutting

down trees. Not just individual companies,

Rather than ending the modernization process, which some radical Green activists suggest

is necessary to achieve sustainable societies, an ecological form of modernization may be

possible, based on renewable energy and environmentally benign technologies.


! e Environment 195

that ecological modernization is imbued with

technological optimism rather than having

a fully worked- out theory of how to get to a

sustainable society. But the myriad real- world

examples it produces, of practical technolo-

gies and suggestions for change, could collec-

tively make a big di$ erence, especially if ways

can be found to make them � nancially viable

in developing countries. However, these will

also need to be introduced alongside the kind

of international agreements that characterized

the Kyoto Protocol, which could then ensure

the spread of best practice and knowledge of

what works.

Even the strongest advocates of ecological

modernization accept that rescuing the global

environment will require changes in the levels

of inequality that currently exist. ! e aver-

age person in the developed world consumes

natural resources at ten times the rate of the

average individual in less developed coun-

tries. Poverty is itself a prime contributor to

practices that lead to environmental damage

in poor countries, and people living in condi-

tions of economic hardship have no choice but

to make maximum use of the local resources

available to them. What will be needed, then,

are ‘just sustainabilities’ (Agyeman et al. 2003;

Smith and Pangsapa 2008). Achieving ecologi-

cal sustainability demands that concerted

international e$ orts are made to tackle global

inequalities as a necessary condition for

environmental protection.

Signi� cantly, some of the major contribu-

tions to recycling, and therefore to sustainable

development, have come from areas with a

heavy concentration of information technol-

ogy industries, such as California’s Silicon

Valley. Some economic modernizers suggest

that information technology, unlike many

older forms of industrial production, is envi-

ronmentally clean and, the more it plays a part

in industrial production, the greater the likeli-

hood that harmful environmental e$ ects will

be reduced. However, such optimism may be

misguided. IT systems, the Internet and cloud

computing are energy intensive, demanding

huge data- storage facilities. ! ey have been

seen as a new form of ‘heavy industry’ rather

than as part of some ‘weightless economy’

and, as such, do not provide a simple solution

to problems of economic development (Strand

2008).

The issue of energy- intensive

information technology is discussed

in chapter 6, ‘Cities and Urban

Life’. Cloud computing and related

matters can be found in chapter 18,

‘The Media’.

Unlike other perspectives, ecological

modernization is concerned less with global

inequality and more with how businesses,

individuals and non- state actors can all play

a part in transforming society. ! is makes

it di$ erent from sustainable development,

which begins from the premise that reducing

global inequality is a prerequisite for environ-

mental protection. Ecological modernizers

also argue that, if the capitalist economic

system can be made to work for environmen-

tal protection, capitalism will continue; but,

if not, something di$ erent will necessarily

emerge, because the ecological moderniza-

tion of global society is already well under

way.

Critics have seen ecological moderniza-

tion as overly reliant on technological � xes

and relatively ignorant of cultural, social and

political con" icts. It is probably correct to say

THINKING CRITICALLY

Look again at the ! ve social and

institutional structures that constitute

an ecologically modernist approach

to environmental problems. List them

in order of current progress – which

structure has been transformed

the most and which the least? What

obstacles are harder to overcome

in transforming social structures in

environmentally sensitive directions?



takes account of social inequalities and real-

world ‘risk positions’. In the USA, toxic waste

sites have tended to be situated in black and

Hispanic communities, where citizens’ action

groups are relatively less powerful, but Gibbs’s

campaign showed that they are not powerless.

Environmental justice groups can be very

signi� cant. ! eir emergence has the potential

to broaden the support base of environmen-

tal politics to currently under- represented

groups within the wider environmental move-

ment. For instance, Friends of the Earth

International (among others) has expanded

its agenda, recognizing the need to tackle

social problems if pressures on the natural

environment are to be relieved (Rootes 2005).

Environmental justice takes us into the urban

and inner- city areas, where most of the waste

products of modern life wind up, and this

opens environmental politics to people who

may not have thought about their problems as

being at all ‘environmental’.

Perhaps the most signi� cant consequence

of environmental justice groups is that they

o$ er the possibility of linking environmental

politics in the rich countries with that in the

relatively poorer ones. An important example

was the protest against the impact of the multi-

national oil company Shell on the environ-

ment of the indigenous Ogoni people in Nige-

ria. ! e campaign of the Movement for the

Survival of the Ogoni People (formed in 1990)

and the international support it garnered is

just one example of the potentially unifying

concept of environmental justice. Attempts

by the Nigerian government to put down

the resistance movement involved torture,

ransacking of villages and, in 1995, the execu-

tion of nine members of the movement’s lead-

ership, including the writer Ken Saro- Wiwa, in

the face of international protest (Watts 1997).

Such events reinforce the argument that the

relatively powerless are made to bear the brunt

of environmental pollution. Environmental

justice campaigns demonstrate the potential

to link social inequalities and poverty to envi-

ronmental issues, promising to make environ-

mentalism more than just a nature- defence

movement.

Environmental justice and

ecological citizenship

If ecological modernization perhaps leans

too heavily on technological � xes, one way

of balancing this is by promoting the active

involvement of all social groups and classes in

the project of achieving sustainable societies.

For example, environmental and social goals

should be built into modernization projects

at the outset and to involve communities

in decision- making. In a$ ordable housing

projects within urban areas, it is important to

avoid building on land� ll sites in order not

to put potentially vulnerable residents at risk

from such historic hazards. Similarly, as those

taking up a$ ordable housing are likely to be

those least able to a$ ord post- build energy

conservation measures (such as solar heating

and insulation), the latter need to be incorpo-

rated during construction.

Environmental justice is a term that

originated in the USA with the formation of

grassroots networks of activists in working-

class communities (Szasz 1994; Bell 2004: ch.

1; Visgilio and Whitelaw 2003). Many of these

were African- American neighbourhoods,

and the selection of these areas for dumping

hazardous waste and siting incinerators was

seen by activists as a type of ‘environmen-

tal racism’ (Bullard 1993). Environmental

justice campaigns can be seen as an exten-

sion of civil rights discourse into the arena of

environmental issues, focusing on the way that

many environmental problems ‘bear down

disproportionately on the poor’ (Agyeman et

al. 2003: 1).

One touchstone campaign was that of Lois

Gibbs in Niagara Falls, New York, in 1978,

seeking to relocate the Love Canal commu-

nity, which she discovered had been built on a

20,000- ton toxic chemical dump. ! e commu-

nity campaign was ultimately successful when

900 working- class families were relocated

away from the leaking dump in 1980 (Gibbs

2002). Linking environmental quality to social

class inequalities shows that environmental-

ism is not just a middle- class concern, but

can be related to working- class interests and


! e Environment 197

a short- term, free- market or laissez- faire

approach. Finally, all human activity should

be considered with reference to its e$ ects on

the natural environment, and a precaution-

ary principle should be adopted that puts the

onus on developers to justify their actions in

ecological terms.

In essence, then, ecological citizenship

introduces a new demand for people to take

account of their ‘ecological footprint’ – the

impact of human activity on the natural

environment. Clearly, ecological citizen-

ship demands some fundamental changes to

modern societies. Perhaps the most radical

change would be to people themselves, as

ecological citizenship requires a transformed

human experience of nature and the self as

tightly bound together. In the same way that

people had to start to perceive themselves as

citizens with rights in order for political citi-

zenship to take hold, so ecological citizenship

is unlikely to develop fully unless people’s

identities also include the experience of having

an ‘ecological self’.

Conclusion

We cannot foresee whether the next 100

years will be marked by peaceful social and

economic development or by a multiplication

of global problems – perhaps beyond the abil-

ity of humanity to solve. Unlike the nineteenth-

century sociologists, we see more clearly the

dark side of modern industry, technology and

science, and we know their consequences are

by no means wholly bene� cial. Scienti� c and

technological developments have created a

world that contains high- consequence risks

that make possible huge gains and losses.

Especially in the developed world, the popula-

tion is wealthier than ever before, yet the world

as a whole is riven with gross inequalities and

ecological dilemmas.

The sociological imagination offers a

profound awareness of the human authorship

or ‘social creation’ of social institutions, which

helps to avoid our resigning ourselves to an

attitude of despair in the face of such global

One � nal development worthy of note is the

emergence of a type of citizenship linked to the

defence of the natural environment. In recent

years, some sociologists and political scientists

have argued that a new form of citizenship is

emerging, something Mark J. Smith (1998) has

called ecological citizenship and Dobson

and Bell (2006) refer to as environmental citi-

zenship.

! e concept of citizenship is not new and can

be divided into di$ erent types. Civil citizenship

emerged with modern property- ownership,

which imposed certain mutual obligations on

people to respect each other’s rights to prop-

erty. Political citizenship emerged later, during

which voting rights expanded, working- class

groups and women were brought into the

su$ rage, and rights of association (as in trade

unions) and free speech developed. ! e third

stage, social citizenship, saw rights to welfare

and responsibilities for collective provision of

social bene� ts. What Smith and others see is a

fourth stage developing, in which ecological

citizenship rights and responsibilities form the

centrepiece.

See chapter 13, ‘Poverty, Social

Exclusion and Welfare’, for more on

citizenship.

Ecological citizenship involves new obli-

gations: to non- human animals, to future

generations of human beings and to maintain-

ing the integrity of the natural environment

(Sandilands 1999). Obligations to animals

means reconsidering human uses of animals

that infringe their right to lead a natural life

and express their natures. Hence, vivisection,

hunting, farming methods, breeding and

even pet- keeping would all need to be reas-

sessed. Ecological citizenship’s obligation to

future generations of people means working

towards sustainability over a long time period.

If economic development plans threaten the

ability of future generations to provide for their

own needs, then other forms will need to be

designed and planned. Political and economic

planning must become future- oriented and

take a long- term view rather than adopting



Chapter review

1 De� ne ‘the natural environment’ and discuss whether it includes human beings

and their products.

2 Using two examples, explain what is meant by ‘the social construction of environ-

mental problems’. Why should sociologists remain ‘agnostic’ towards the reality of

environmental problems?

3 Critical or environmental realism seeks the underlying causes or mechanisms that

produce environmental problems. What role(s) can sociologists perform in this

task?

4 Most environmental issues involve manufactured risks, as they have been gener-

ated by human activity. Give four examples from the chapter of manufactured

risks.

5 Why should GM foods be welcomed? What are their potential risks? How would

you explain the enthusiastic adoption of GM in North America and its rejection in

Europe?

6 List the evidence in support of the anthropogenic warming thesis and the argu-

ments of sceptics. Is it possible to arrive at a � rm conclusion as to who is right?

7 ‘International agreement will be necessary if global warming is to be e$ ectively

tackled.’ What are the main obstacles in the way of such agreement? How might

they be overcome?

8 What is the ‘treadmill of production and consumption’ and what are its main envi-

ronmental consequences for a) developed countries and b) developing countries?

9 How has the Brundtland Commission’s de� nition of ‘sustainable development’

been criticized? Produce your own revised de� nition in light of the critics’ argu-

ments.

10 What would you say are the main di$ erences between Ulrich Beck’s risk society

thesis and the ideas from ecological modernization? Are they essentially at odds or

could they be compatible?

11 Explain what is meant by ‘environmental justice’ and ‘ecological citizenship’. How

can these concepts be linked to the international politics of the Kyoto process and

its successor?

Research in practice

! ere is a growing body of research which looks at ‘pro- environmental behaviour’

– human action which does not damage or compromise the environment – at the

level of the household, speci� cally exploring everyday domestic routines and their

environmental impact. Read the article below and then answer the questions that

follow.

problems. Instead, it shows us that there exists

at least the possibility of exerting more control

over the destiny of humanity to an extent that

was simply unimaginable to previous genera-

tions. However, as the ‘Giddens Paradox’ and

protracted international climate change nego-

tiations show, ful� lling this promise will be

neither easy nor free of con" ict.


! e Environment 199

Reid, L., Hunter, C., and Sutton, P (2009) ‘Writing it Down: Suggestions for a New

Approach towards Understanding Pro- Environmental Behaviour’, International Jour-

nal of Sustainable Development and World Ecology, 16(6): 369–73.

1 What were the main aims of this study?

2 What research methods did the authors use to achieve these aims? Explain what is

meant by a ‘sequential mixed methods approach’ to research.

3 Why was a ‘household diary’ thought to be particularly useful in generating relevant

data for this project?

4 ! is study sought not only to gather data, but also to educate and in" uence the

behaviour of participants. How would you characterize it? What kind of research is

this?

5 How successful was ‘writing it down’ in encouraging re" exivity and changing partic-

ipants’ behaviour?

6 Is it legitimate for social scientists to try to change behaviour during the research

process? What are the potential pitfalls of going down this route?

Thinking it through

Environmental issues are said to be ‘hybrids’ of nature and society, involving both

natural and social processes. It would seem obvious, then, that interdisciplinary

approaches, bringing together the natural and social sciences, should o$ er a way

forward. But why have such collaborations not routinely happened? Why do the social

and natural sciences tend to go their separate ways? How are their research methods

di$ erent? Do the social and natural sciences enjoy a similar or di$ erent status in soci-

ety at large? Write a short essay exploring these questions and conclude with your own

view of whether more interdisciplinarity is likely in future studies of environmental

issues.

Society in the arts

Global warming is an issue that lends itself to dramatization. However, even in � ction,

it is hard to avoid taking sides between the scienti� c consensus and sceptics on the

anthropogenic causation of climate change. Read one or both of these novels and

answer the questions below.

• Michael Crichton (2005) State of Fear (New York: HarperCollins)

• Marcel ! eroux (2009) Far North (London: Faber & Faber).

Which side, if any, is the story on? How does the novel make its case – primarily through

characterization, story or context? How is the other side of the argument represented, if

at all? Does the author make any use of real- world scienti� c � ndings and/or academic

work? In � ctional works of this kind, would it matter if scienti� c � ndings are misrep-

resented in order to make for a more dramatic read? Is this kind of � ction a help or a

hindrance to the wider public understanding of global warming debates?

Watch ! e Simpsons Movie (2007), directed by David Silverman. ! is animated

comedy, based on characters from the original TV sitcom ! e Simpsons, has some

explicit and implicit environmental themes. However, as in the TV incarnation, there



are also many references to and critiques of consumer culture. Drawing on speci� c

scenes and examples from the � lm alongside sociological theories of consumerism,

write a 1,500- word essay showing how the � lm connects consumerist practices and

attitudes with environmental damage and degradation. Make sure you end with your

own assessment of how successful the � lm is in doing this.

Further reading

A good place to start your additional reading is with Philip W. Sutton’s (2007) ! e

Environment: A Sociological Introduction (Cambridge: Polity), which is a genuinely

introductory- level text covering all the issues discussed in this chapter and

more. Michael M. Bell’s (2011) An Invitation to Environmental Sociology (4th edn,

! ousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press) is also very well written and uses lots of

helpful examples to illustrate key environmental dilemmas.

For something more theoretical, you could try John Hannigan’s (2006) excellent

Environmental Sociology: A Social Constructionist Perspective (London: Routledge),

which includes some very e$ ective constructionist case studies. Peter Dickens’s

(2004) Social ! eory and the Environment: Changing Nature, Changing Ourselves

(Cambridge: Polity) approaches environmental issues from a critical realist

position and explains this with great clarity. Riley E. Dunlap, Frederick H. Buttel,

Peter Dickens and August Gijswijt’s (2002) Sociological ! eory and the Environment:

Classical Foundations, Contemporary Insights (Oxford: Rowman & Little� eld) is also

a � ne edited collection of essays, which covers the classics as well as more recent

theories.

On sustainable development, Susan Baker’s (2005) Sustainable Development

(London: Routledge) is a good introduction. On the risk society, Ulrich Beck’s

(2009) World at Risk (Cambridge: Polity) is quite accessible. And, for ecological

modernization, Arthur P. J. Mol’s (2003) Globalization and Environmental Reform:

! e Ecological Modernization of the Global Economy (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press) is

a nicely balanced summary and evaluation.

For environmental justice and ecological citizenship, try Mark J. Smith and Piya

Pangsapa’s (2008) Environment and Citizenship: Integrating Justice, Responsibility

and Civic Engagement (London: Zed Books). Andrew Dobson and Derek Bell’s

(2006) edited collection Environmental Citizenship (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press)

also contains some thought- provoking essays.

For a collection of original readings on natural and urban environments,

see the accompanying Sociology: Introductory Readings (3rd edn, Cambridge:

Polity, 2010).

Internet links

Additional information and support for this book at Polity:

www.politybooks.com/giddens


! e Environment 201

UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural A! airs – " nd out about UK

government policy on environmental matters:

www.defra.gov.uk/Environment

Environmental Organization Web Directory – US- based repository with lots of

useful resources:

www.webdirectory.com

European Environment Agency – a good resource base with some interesting

surveys and other research:

www.eea.europa.eu

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change – read the Fourth Assessment Report

here:

www.ipcc.ch

Friends of the Earth International – campaigning environmental organization:

www.foei.org

Greenpeace International – campaigning environmental organization:

www.greenpeace.org

OECD – environment site with lots of data from OECD countries:

www.oecd.org/environment

United Nations Development Programme – link to Human Development Reports

and the UN Millennium Goals:

www.undp.org


Documents

GIDDENS 7TH EDITION 2nd REVISE low res - Polity chapter.pdf · GIDDENS (7e) Chapters 1-10 (M2992).indd 157 17/12/2012 11:04. 158 THE ENVIRONMENT the 1980s were successful in raising