Shallow and Deep Ecologism Flashcards
criticisms that have been made of both the deep and the shallow ecology approaches to climate change
the divide between shallow and deep green ecologists has made it very difficult to reach agreement on how to mitigate global warming and tackle climate change
shallow ecology does not go far enough and by prioritising human interests, it prevents necessary and possibly more radical action being taken to tackle climate change
the radicalism of deep ecology is often criticised for being too extreme and unrealistic
the divide between shallow and deep green ecologists has made it very difficult to reach agreement on how to mitigate global warming and tackle climate change
perhaps the most significant criticism that has been made of both the deep and shallow ecology approaches to climate change is that the divide between shallow and deep green ecologists has made it very difficult to reach agreement on how to mitigate global warming and tackle climate change
this is largely because there is disagreement between shallow and deep ecologists over whether to pursue gradual policies to discourage environmentally damaging behaviour or whether to take a more radical approach, which would risk lower levels of economic growth
shallow-green ecologists support sustainability (the capacity to endure), believing that sustainable development is possible and that economic growth is compatible with environmental protection
however, deep-green ecologists reject anthropocentrism (the prioritisation of human interests) in favour of an approach where nature takes priority
these disputes have prevented consensus about how best to tackle climate change, suggesting that the adversarial nature of these two approaches is an area of criticism
shallow ecology does not go far enough and by prioritising human interests, it prevents necessary and possibly more radical action being taken to tackle climate change
a criticism that can be made of shallow ecology is that it does not go far enough and by prioritising human interests, it prevents necessary and possibly more radical action being taken to tackle climate change
it believes that in order to mitigate the potentially damaging effects of over-consumption, humans can curtail activities that are damaging to the environment
this may involve some decline in living standards, or at least lower rates of economic growth
but shallow-greens believe that a balance can be struck between economic growth and environmental concerns – known as sustainable development, which meets the needs of the present, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs
environmental costs can be factored into economic decisions, so that it is more costly and less profitable to engage in activities or practices that are damaging to the environment
examples of this are taxes on polluting practices or subsidies for the production of green energy
however, this can be criticised for continuing to place human interests over that of the environment
many argue that climate change is a much more serious issue that requires rapid and radical action immediately rather than small and relatively inconsequential action that merely alters human activity gradually
it is also argued that this anthropocentric approach of placing human interests above that of the environment is unjust because nature is equal if not superior to human interests, especially since animals and plants have been in existence long before human beings
the radicalism of deep ecology is often criticised for being too extreme and unrealistic
deep ecologists instead take a more radical approach to the environment, rejecting the reformist shallow-green position of sustainable development because they argue that economic growth is what has caused environmental damage
the capitalist desire for profit has not only led to the exploitation of workers, but also to the plundering of the environment
however, the radicalism of deep ecology is often criticised for being too extreme and unrealistic
their solutions to climate change and degradation involve a paradigm shift away from a capitalist economic system to a more sustainable, less materialistic economic system, which seems highly unlikely given that economic globalisation has caused the spread of capitalist, liberal economies and democracies that value growth and profit above all else
they also advocate human population control as a way to minimise the human impact on the environment and promote wilderness and biodiversity, which many view as far too extreme and also unrealistic as it is hard to name states that would be willing to undertake such action
many actors in global politics do not express the views of deep ecology, even the most committed NGOs and environmental campaign groups follow the ideas of shallow ecologists and try to persuade governments and others of the need to protect the environment for the sake of human security and well-being
