Global Environmental Issues E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
• Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 772

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2012

Beschreibung

Global Environmental Issues, second edition builds on the popularity of the first edition, viewing global environmental problems as complex issues with a network of causes, influenced by a range of actors with differing priorities. The book recognises that science underpins much of what happens in society and therefore it is important to be able to interpret the environmental and social consequences of scientific developments. In addition to discussing the main biophysical causes, the book illustrates how socio-economic and political factors determine why and how people use land, resources and technology, and how this in turn affects natural resource management.

This edition includes new chapters on the politics of science, International environmental regulation and treaties, environmental issues in a globalised world and natural resource management.

Global Environmental Issues, second edition is essential reading for upper level undergraduates and Masters students within departments of Environmental Science and Geography.

• Includes case studies from around the world to provide a real life context for the issues tackled in each chapter
• Considers both the results of human actions and natural environmental change in order to provide balanced, in-depth debate
• Includes coverage of contemporary 'hot topics' such as biodiversity, globalization and sustainable development
• Chapters authored by experts in the field
• Includes new chapters on The politics of science, International environmental regulation and treaties , Environmental issues in a globalised world and Natural Resource Management
• Expanded sections include negotiating multilateral environmental agreements, GM crops, biofuels and marine and freshwater resources

Leseprobe

Contents

Cover

Title Page

Copyright

Dedication

Contributors

Acknowledgements

Part One: Introduction

Chapter 1: Human–Environment Interactions

1.1 Introduction

1.2 Global demands on natural resources

1.3 Ecological footprints

1.4 Environmental justice

1.5 Our relationship with nature

1.6 Conclusion

1.7 Overview of the book

Part Two: Negotiating Environmental Science

Chapter 2: From Science to Policy

2.1 Introduction

2.2 Research

2.3 Influenced by …

2.4 Mediated by perceptions of risk

2.5 The interpretation of science

2.6 Acted upon

2.7 Case study: GM crops in the UK

Chapter 3: Confronting a Multitude of Multilateral Environmental Agreements

3.1 Introduction: what are multilateral environmental agreements?

3.2 The emergence of MEAs on the busy global environmental highway

3.3 Organised chaos or chaotic organisation? Attempting to understand the MEA process

3.4 In search of coherence in the MEA system: concluding concerns

Part Three: The Changing Surface of the Earth

Chapter 4: Grappling with the Global Climate Challenge

4.1 Introduction: a complex global challenge

4.2 Confronting global climate change mitigation and adaptation

4.3 Negotiating around the globe for global climate change agreement

4.4 Linking energy with climate change and development matters

4.5 Grappling with the current climate change impasse

Chapter 5: Understanding and Adapting to Sea-Level Rise

5.1 Sea-level changes

5.2 Past sea-level changes

5.3 Holocene sea-level changes

5.4 Projecting twenty-first-century sea-level rise

5.5 Adapting to sea-level rise

5.6 Conclusion

Chapter 6: Conserving Biodiversity and Natural Resources

6.1 Introduction

6.2 Valuing biodiversity

6.3 The global distribution of biodiversity

6.4 The Convention on Biological Diversity

6.5 Stakeholders in biodiversity conservation

6.6 Threats to biodiversity

6.7 Trends in conservation

6.8 Linking conservation and tourism

6.9 Biodiversity and business

6.10 Conclusion

Part Four: Meeting Our Needs

Chapter 7: Food Production and Supply

7.1 Introduction

7.2 The agri-ecosystem

7.3 Environmental challenges to agricultural production

7.4 Technological approaches to increasing agricultural production

7.5 Towards sustainable agriculture

7.6 Food security

7.7 Conclusion: the environment and the wider agri-food system

Chapter 8: Meeting Society's Demand for Energy

8.1 Introduction

8.2 Global energy issues: the geopolitical background

8.3 What is energy?

8.4 Global energy usage

8.5 Renewable energy

8.6 Issues surrounding renewable energy

8.7 Emergent technologies

8.8 Energy and climate change

8.9 Energy efficiency and conservation

8.10 Energy and society

8.11 Conclusion

Part Five: Coping with Our Impact

Chapter 9: Sustainable Urbanisation

9.1 Introduction: the growth of the urban

9.2 The nature and extent of the ‘urban’

9.3 Managing urbanisation sustainably

9.4 Challenges to sustainable urbanisation

9.5 Strategies for achieving sustainable human settlements

9.6 Conclusion

Chapter 10: Coping with Pollution: Dealing with Waste

10.1 Why are pollution and waste global environmental issues?

10.2 Pollution defined

10.3 The root causes of pollution

10.4 The special case of waste

10.5 Issues for the management of pollution and waste

Part Six: Conclusion

Chapter 11: Sustainable Development: Negotiating the Future

11.1 Introduction

11.2 Interpretations of sustainable development

11.3 Achieving sustainable development – addressing current issues

11.4 Future scenarios

11.5 Approaches to change

11.6 Challenges to sustainable development

List of Abbreviations and Acronyms

References

Index

This edition first published 2012 © 2012 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Wiley-Blackwell is an imprint of John Wiley & Sons, formed by the merger of Wiley's global Scientific, Technical and Medical business with Blackwell Publishing.

Registered Office: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Offices: 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford, OX4 2DQ, UK The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030-5774, USA

For details of our global editorial offices, for customer services and for information about how to apply for permission to reuse the copyright material in this book please see our website at www.wiley.com/wiley-blackwell.

The right of the author to be identified as the author of this work has been asserted in accordance with the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by the UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, without the prior permission of the publisher.

The views expressed are those of the individual authors and do not represent the views of the organisations for which they work. The publisher and the author make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation warranties of fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales or promotional materials. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for every situation. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting, or other professional services. If professional assistance is required, the services of a competent professional person should be sought. Neither the publisher nor the author shall be liable for damages arising herefrom. The fact that an organization or Website is referred to in this work as a citation and/or a potential source of further information does not mean that the author or the publisher endorses the information the organization or Website may provide or recommendations it may make. Further, readers should be aware that Internet Websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read.

Designations used by companies to distinguish their products are often claimed as trademarks. All brand names and product names used in this book are trade names, service marks, trademarks or registered trademarks of their respective owners. The publisher is not associated with any product or vendor mentioned in this book. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information in regard to the subject matter covered. It is sold on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. If professional advice or other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent professional should be sought.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Global environmental issues / edited by Frances Harris. – 2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-470-68470-2 (cloth) – ISBN 978-0-470-68469-6 (pbk.) 1. Environmental sciences. I. Harris, Frances (Frances M. A.) GE105.G563 2011 363.7–dc23 2011021484

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

This book is published in the following electronic formats: ePDF 9781119950998; oBook 9781119950981; ePub 9781119952084; Mobi 9781119952091

First Impression 2012

For Thomas and Eleanor and their generation.

Contributors

Anilla Cherian Consultant Advisor, Environment and Energy Group Bureau for Development Policy, United Nations Development Programme New York, NY [email protected], [email protected]

Frances Harris Centre for Earth and Environmental Science Research School of Geography, Geology and the Environment Kingston University Penrhyn Road Kingston-upon-Thames Surrey KT1 [email protected]

Kenneth Lynch Department of Natural and Social Sciences Frances Close Hall University of Gloucestershire Swindon Road Cheltenham, GL50 [email protected]

Patrick D. Nunn Head, School of Behavioural, Cognitive and Social Sciences University of New England Armidale, NSW 2351 [email protected]

Nick Petford Vice Chancellor The University of Northampton Avenue Campus St George's Avenue Northampton NN2 [email protected]

Guy M. Robinson Director, Centre for Regional Engagement, Director, Centre for Rural Health and Community Development University of South Australia 111 Nicolson Avenue Whyalla South Australia 5608 [email protected]

Ros Taylor Founding Director, Sustainability Hub Kingston University Penrhyn Road Kingston-upon-Thames Surrey KT1 [email protected]

Acknowledgements

This revised edition would not have been possible without the effort of each of the contributing authors, for which I am very grateful. Claire Ivison has prepared most of the figures with her usual skill and dedication, which is greatly appreciated. Editorial assistance was provided by Christine Fears. Throughout, Fergus Lyon has been an excellent advisor and very supportive.

The contributors would like to thank those who have given their permission to reproduce their figures and tables.

Part One

Introduction

Chapter 1

Human–Environment Interactions

Frances Harris

1.1 Introduction

Environmental issues have been a concern for many years. Yet somehow they are problems that we have not been able to resolve, despite research, media attention, increased public awareness about environmental problems, campaigns by environmental pressure groups, and international agreements. Our environment is dynamic, constantly changing and evolving in response to stimuli. Yet in the last century it became apparent that mankind is having an increasing effect on the planet's ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles, so much so that our activities are now causing environmental change which is overriding the natural dynamism of the earth. Yet despite the evidence of environmental problems such as biodiversity loss, land cover change observable from satellite imagery, records of climate change and many examples of pollution, we still pursue activities which perpetuate the problems. As the world's population increases, and the per capita consumption of natural resources increases, we will have an even greater effect on these environmental problems, exacerbating them further.

Why are such problems so hard to resolve? There are three broad reasons: first, the science of environmental problems is complex. We are dealing with many interrelated dynamic systems, within which and between which feedback mechanisms occur. Second, there are many stakeholders involved in both the causes and the solutions to environmental problems. Organising all of these stakeholders to act in a co-ordinated manner is difficult. Third, resolving global environmental issues will require changes in our own consumption and pollution of natural resources, which will mean changes to lifestyles. This will require commitment at the personal level, which not everyone is willing to make.

Human–environment interactions involve not only the question of resource use per person, but also our ability to understand the science of the environment, our ability to regulate our impact on the environment, our beliefs in the value of the environment, our attitudes to the future, particularly risk, and our ability to negotiate solutions both at the local and the global level. This book aims to discuss environmental issues from a scientific and socio-economic viewpoint, so that they are understood not only as contested science concerning natural resources, but also as political and social issues. In this way, the reader gains a fuller understanding of the complexity of environmental issues and the challenges we are faced with in order to resolve them. ‘The science of the environment is socially and politically situated, rather than unambiguous or separable from the subjective location of human perception’ (Stott and Sullivan, 2000, p. 2).

1.2 Global demands on natural resources

Throughout the world, people earn their livelihoods through the use of whatever resources are available to them. Our livelihoods are ultimately natural resource dependent. Natural resources provide us with the land and water for agriculture (whether for subsistence needs or to serve a wider market), trees for firewood and timber, ocean and freshwater resources for fisheries, wildlife for meat, animal products, tourism, oil, gas and coal for energy, and also mineral resources (rocks, minerals, gems, coal …). Many economies are dependent on natural resources. At the household and community level, this can be in the form of agriculture or natural resource products gathered and sold (e.g. wild foods, honey). At the national level, most countries rely on their natural resource base to meet basic needs and provide the resources for economic development, for example, through cash crops, forestry or mining. Globally we rely on natural resources for ecosystem regulation. Even where people do not rely on natural resources for their day-to-day livelihood-generating activities, the role of natural resources and ecosystem services in maintaining the environment is still crucial. The role of ecosystem services has been recognised in recent years (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005), raising the importance of the conservation of biodiversity. There is no substitute for the global climate regulation mechanism. Neither can the effects of land cover change be reversed to recreate the natural environment which existed prior to land degradation and urban sprawl. Although we can save some seeds of plants, and keep some animals in zoos, recreating ecosystems is a much greater challenge.

In 1798, Malthus predicted that human population growth would be checked by food supply. Although Malthus’ prediction concerned specifically food, wider concerns that the human population's needs will outstrip the planet's resources have been of ongoing concern. Ehrlich (1968) argued that population growth rates at that time would exceed the world's resources. Furthermore, as most population growth, and also declining food production, were found to occur in developing countries, he advocated population control. However, these arguments assumed a steady ‘carrying capacity’ of the earth, whereas in reality, technological developments alter the ability of land to produce food, and rising standards of living alter the demands for food. Boserüp (1965) argued increasing populations can be the driving force for agricultural intensification, which increases food output per unit area of land. For example, the Green Revolution had an enormous impact on agricultural productivity, particularly that of rice and wheat. (Subsequently it was realised that the Green Revolution also created new social and environmental problems, as discussed in section 7.4.1, but its effect on the population–food debate remained.) Simon (1981) also argued that more people bring positive change, as this results in more ideas, more experimentation, and more technological innovation which can help resolve the problems of resource limitations. In contrast, Dyson (1996) maintains that food production increased and outstripped population growth in the last decades of the twentieth century and Bennett (2000) points out, ‘There seems to be no evidence that our ability to produce food has been a lasting brake on population growth.’ Michaelson (1981, p. 3) stated that ‘Overpopulation is not a matter of too many people, but of unequal distribution of resources. The fundamental issue is not population control, but control of resources and the very circumstances of life itself.’ Globally, sufficient food is produced to feed people. However, food shortages occur because of variations in land productivity, and also because of problems in food distribution, due to poverty, conflict and failing markets (Bennett, 2000). Problems of inequality and existing power struggles affect people's access to resources and people's entitlements to food and other natural resources (Sen, 1982; Leach et al., 1997) on which their livelihoods depend.

The global population is currently estimated to be near 7 billion, and there is wide consensus that it will reach 9 billion by 2050 (Lutz and Samir, 2010). It is anticipated that the global population will reach a plateau within this century. However, anticipating food requirements of this population is a complex process, do to changing cultures, settlement patterns, and diets. Furthermore, these social changes need to be assessed in the light of changing environmental conditions, particularly the impact of climate change, and increasing land use competition, as well as rising prices of energy, which underpin all agricultural production. Since 1940, industry and services have been an equal or larger sector of the global economy than the primary sector, and since 1980, they have employed more people than the primary sector (Satterthwaite et al., 2010). In 2008, the global population shifted from being predominantly rural to predominantly urban (Satterthwaite et al., 2010). This has implications for the number of people producing food, as well as the number requiring food to be supplied to them. Urbanisation also corresponds with increased affluence and disposable income, as well as a more sedentary workplace, which affects both dietary choices and public health. For those who are on extremely low incomes, their vulnerability to food price rises is exacerbated by their move away from subsistence agriculture (Liverman, 2008). The challenges of providing food for a growing and changing population are discussed in Chapter 7.

The impact of population on the environment is determined by the size of the population, its affluence (and hence consumption per capita) and the type of technologies used. These arguments are summarised in the equation (Ehrlich and Ehrlich, 1990; see also section 10.3.3):

Therefore an extremely large but poor population using low impact technology could have the same impact as smaller but more affluent population using highly polluting technology. The impact depends not only on the size of the population, but also on whether the technology used is highly polluting or ‘green’ (i.e. reliant on renewable energy or non-polluting). It should also be remembered that in some cases, ‘green’ technology requires affluence, and hence is not necessarily associated with the developing world.

The rising global population will affect the environment in several ways. The sheer numbers of people may seem daunting when the need to provide food, water, a healthy environment and to cope with pollution and waste are taken into consideration. Estimates suggest that just under 15 per cent of the population do not have access to sufficient food, and an equal amount are over-fed (Godfray et al., 2010), therefore the distribution of food among the population is also a concern.

The demand for food is partly affected by absolute population numbers, but also by the diet of the global population. Rising affluence of emerging economies is resulting in increasing numbers adopting a more complex diet based on meat and dairy products. This nutrition transition (Kearney, 2010) will result in increased demands on food systems. Average grain production per capita in 1997/98 was 356 kg grain. A grain-based diet requires 180 kg grain per capita per year, whereas a meat-based diet required 930 (Millstone and Lang, 2003). Thus the implications of moving from a predominantly vegetarian and grain-based diet to the meat and dairy-based diet of a more affluent society is clear: more primary production is required. Meat-based diets required higher levels of grain as grain is needed to feed livestock. There are also implications for the amount of water required, as well as for the amount of energy. In addition, livestock production produces greenhouse gases, particularly methane, which contribute to climate change. In addition to requiring more food, the nutrition transition also results in a greater diet-related disease burden: non-contagious health problems such as coronary heart disease, diabetes, and obesity. Dealing with these health issues places an additional burden on countries, one that some predict could be crippling for emerging economies such as India (Caballero and Popkin, 2002).

Agricultural production also faces additional challenges such as the impact of climate change. Increased CO2 levels have been linked to the concept of ‘carbon fertilisation’, an increased input of carbon in the system which may increase photosynthesis. However, not all crop plants are predicted to respond well to this. Furthermore, rising temperatures may increase pests and diseases, as well as increase water stress, which could limit plant growth. It is also anticipated that there may be an increase in extreme weather events, including storms and droughts, whereas agriculture requires a more regular supply of rain. Storm events result in excess water, causing erosion, floods, and increased run-off, and are therefore not beneficial to crop plants. On a larger scale, increased temperatures will affect glaciers, changing the hydrology of major catchments and rivers. Sea-level rise will impact on coastal agriculture (Godfray et al., 2010). With so much uncertainty, it is hard to quantify exact effects and thus predict what will happen (Gornall et al., 2010).

In addition to climate change, there are concerns about world energy supplies. The agricultural industry is heavily reliant on energy, for machinery, for agro-chemicals, for transportation and distribution of inputs and products, and especially for the production of nitrogen fertiliser. Concerns to find more environmentally sustainable forms of energy have meant that growth of biofuels has increased worldwide. Growth of biofuel production has had an impact on agricultural productivity (through diverting land from food production) and biodiversity (through clearing land of other vegetation to make space for biofuel crops) (section 8.5.5). Increasing competition for land use among urbanisation, agriculture, biofuels and recreation has had an impact on basic ecosystem services previously either unrecognised or taken for granted. The role of ecosystems in producing less obvious, non-harvestable benefits is highlighted in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA), and it is argued that these need to be valued more clearly to ensure the long-term benefits of biodiversity are not sacrificed to immediate needs for growth and development (MEA, 2005).

Human–environment interactions are not just about meeting the global population's food needs, or even about meeting natural resource needs. The human population also affects the environment through what it leaves behind. The impact of the human population on the environment is seen as, among other things, land use change (forest clearance, reduced wildlife, changes in agricultural landscapes as farming systems intensify), urbanisation, pollution of water, seas and landscapes. In some cases, our impact is less visible, at least immediately, such as gaseous pollution and changing atmospheric composition. Harrison (1993) argues that it is the effect of pollution which will drive a ‘third revolution’ for change in the world. The arguments concerning population–environment theories range from debates based on numbers of people and food resources, more complex arguments concerning the effect of environment and technology on carrying capacity, to social and political factors affecting access and entitlement to natural resources.

1.3 Ecological footprints

The ecological footprint of a specified population or economy can be defined as the area of ecologically productive land (and water) in various classes – cropland, pasture forests, etc. – that would be required on a continuous basis to (a) provide all the energy/material resources consumed, and (b) absorb all the wastes discharged by the population with prevailing technology, wherever on Earth that land is located.

(Wackernagel and Rees, 1996, pp. 51–52)

As such, ecological footprints are an ‘accounting tool … to estimate the resource consumption and waste assimilation requirements of a defined human population or economy in terms of a corresponding productive land area’ (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996, p. 9).

The concept of ecological footprints has caught the attention of many due to the simplicity of the basic concept and the ability of the ecological footprint tool to be used in an educational manner to highlight and compare individual, community, regional, or national effects on the environment. Ecological footprints link lifestyles with environmental impact. Ecological footprints are determined by calculating the amount of land and water area required to meet the consumption (food, energy, goods) of a population in a given area, and assimilate all the wastes generated by that population (Wackernagel and Rees, 1996). Obviously such a calculation relies on the accuracy of the data provided, and of the ‘conversion factors’ used in determining agricultural productivity of the land providing food, and the forest area required to meet energy needs. Indeed, there are those who have made serious criticisms of the method (van den Bergh and Verbruggen 1999), some of which may be valid. However, as a comparative tool, it has its value in making individuals or societies think about the implications of their lifestyle on the environment. Calculation methods have been adjusted slightly in subsequent years. For example, electricity generated by nuclear energy is no longer included in calculations as the demands and impacts (although not negative) are hard to equate with the ecological footprint accounting systems (WWF, 2008). Furthermore, methods have been refined so that ecological footprints are now also subdivided into carbon footprints and water footprints. The following discussion focuses on national ecological footprints. Urban ecological footprints are discussed in section 9.3.2, and the role of waste in ecological footprints in section 10.3.4.

Obviously, many people are not ‘living off the land’, especially nearby land. Most people rely on some imported goods. International trade has gone on for centuries, and provides us with many of the staples we rely on. Jevons (1865) stated that:

The plains of North America and Russia are our [British] corn-fields; Chicago and Odessa our granaries; Canada and the Baltic are our timber-forests; Australasia contains sheep-farms, and in Argentina and on the western prairies of North America are our herds of oxen; Peru sends her silver, and the gold of South Africa and Australia flows to London; the Hindus and Chinese grow tea for us, and our coffee, sugar and spice plantations are all in the Indies. Spain and France are vineyards and the Mediterranean our fruit garden, and our cotton grounds, which for long have occupied the Southern United States, are now being extended everywhere in the warm regions of the Earth.

In the intervening centuries, world trade has increased, and in addition to food imports, trade also provides many non-perishable goods and commodities. Consumption, whether through trade or from local sources, creates an ecological footprint. This is then augmented by the waste generated, some of which is generated overseas in the creation of the imported goods (e.g. sugar refineries or leather tanneries). If we create demand for a waste-generating product, then we are in some way responsible for the associated waste, even if it is not produced in our country. Furthermore, some waste, such as gaseous emissions, is dumped in the atmosphere: a global ‘no man's land’ whose degradation has implications for all of us. Dumping rubbish and waste in the world's seas and oceans is another problem. Pollution of the global commons is proving hard to regulate, and where funds are required to resolve problems of pollution in this area, there can be huge disagreement concerning who should bear responsibility and pay. If resource depletion, and the pollution and waste caused by consumption are generated at a distance, the impact on the ecological footprint (via pollution in production and transportation processes) is less visible to the consumer, but ecological footprint analysis does bring it into account. Ecological footprints are a truly global measurement of the impact of people on ecosystems.

Figure 1.1 shows the ecological footprint per capita of a sample of 16 countries. What is most apparent from Figure 1.1 is that countries with ecological footprints higher than the world's ecological footprint are in the developed world, whereas those with lower ecological footprints are more likely to be in the developing world. Although the developing countries include nations with high population densities (Nigeria, China, India, Bangladesh), the number of people does not seem to be the problem; rather it is the developed countries, where affluence is greater and technology is in greater use, which have the large footprints. It is also possible to relate a country's ecological footprint to the natural resources available to that country. An ecological deficit means that the needs of a country's population cannot be met from the resources within that country. Countries such as Australia and Brazil, with large, sparsely populated areas and large forest reserves, may have large ecological footprints, but can usually meet these from their own resources. This may be partly due to the fact that the mechanism whereby ecological footprints are calculated converts energy requirements into equivalent fuel wood (van den Bergh and Verbruggen, 1999), and so countries with large forested areas are able to compensate for high energy use, whereas countries without forests do less well in the calculation, even if they could provide energy by other renewable means such as hydroelectric power. Some 50 per cent of the world's biocapacity can be found in eight countries: the United States, Brazil, Russia, China, Canada, India, Argentina and Australia, however, three of these (India, China and the United States) are ecological debtors. More than three-quarters of the world's population live in countries which are ecological debtors (WWF, 2008). Countries such as the UK, Spain, Portugal and Egypt have ecological footprints more than 150 per cent greater than their biocapacity, and emerging economies such as India, China and Mexico have an ecological footprint 100–150 per cent greater than their biocapacity. Ecological debtors survive through mining their own resources, importing resources, or assuming the atmosphere will absorb greenhouse gases, or a mixture of all three (WWF, 2008). Of course, national statistics are the result of averages, and individual household ecological footprints could vary enormously. The ecological footprint concept is useful in helping individuals or societies to think about their contribution to global environmental issues.

Figure 1.1 The ecological footprint and ecological deficit of 16 countries, compared with the global ecological footprint. (Compiled from Global Footprint Network, 2010)

The water footprint of a nation is similar to the ecological footprint, but calculations focus only on the water required to produce food and other products for consumers. The average water footprint for a country is 1240 m3/person/year, with a range from 700 m3/person/year for China to 2480 m3/person/year for the USA (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007). India, China, the United States, the Russian Federation, Indonesia, Nigeria, Brazil and Pakistan together make up 50 per cent of the global water footprint. Water footprints are influenced by consumption (related to affluence), climate and water use efficiency in agriculture (Hoekstra and Chapagain, 2007). Rice is the crop which requires the largest amount of water, but wheat also requires significant amounts of water. There has been much discussion of the impact of vegetables imported into Europe from water-stressed countries in Africa (e.g. East African green beans). European consumers are benefitting from their scarce water supplies, leaving local people with less water to meet their own needs. Drought-prone countries can benefit enormously from importing highly water-demanding crops such as wheat, which stores and travels well, saving precious water for other demands. It is argued that Israel uses this strategy (Allan, 2003), benefitting from the ‘virtual water’ that was used to grow the crop.

Ecological footprints show that any change in the global ecological footprint will require a change in lifestyles, consumption and pollution from all nations, especially those in the developed world. There is considerable disparity between the North and the South concerning environmental pressures and pollution. The ecological and water footprint analysis shows that the North's lifestyle (affluence, technology, consumption levels) is having a bigger impact than that of southern countries. As countries that were below the world average move towards living standards similar to those in the West, the global ecological footprint will be enormous. This raises the argument that if the North is more responsible for some of the global environmental issues (e.g. climate change), should it bear more of the responsibility to overcome and resolve these problems, even if this means changing lifestyles to moderate its effect on the environment? This raises issues of ethics, justice and our relationship to distant others and future generations.

1.4 Environmental justice

The concept of environmental debtors raises the issue that some groups in society have borne the consequences of economic development without receiving all the benefits of development. For example, those whose environments are damaged by mining, deforestation, or intensive cropping, as well as those affected by pollution. The environmental justice movement merges concerns about equity, social justice and environmental sustainability, taking community, international and intergenerational perspectives. The concept of environmental justice has its roots in the United States, drawing on civil rights and social justice movements but working in response to environmental problems and inequalities. Brown argues that ‘ethnic communities suffer disproportionately from poor quality environmental conditions, and are usually left out of the processes which could serve to address these conditions’ (Brown, 2000). The concept of environmental justice is particularly relevant in relation to industrial processes, through which some (often distant) people benefit, while others are left with the burden of environmental pollution. Frequently, those who are disadvantaged come from marginalised groups, whether they are immigrants, or have differing ethnic or religious backgrounds from the mainstream. However, environmental justice can also take an intergenerational perspective, where it takes on the concerns of future generations and unborn children. Examples include those affected by the Union Carbide gas leak in Bhopal, India, industrial pollution of water in Minamata Bay, Japan (mercury poisoning), toxic land dumps (Love Canal, USA), victims of industrial pollution in Eastern Europe, and those affected by environmental pollution along the petrochemical corridor along the Mississippi in Louisiana, USA. The environmental justice movement also concerns itself with those displaced by major development projects such as new dams in China (the Three Gorges) and India (the Sardar Sarovar dam on the Narmada), those suffering the consequences of desertification in the Sahel, people who face displacement from farm land to accommodate other developments, those suffering from flooding caused by upstream erosion (Brahmaputra delta due to Himalayan deforestation), and those affected by coastal and delta inundation due to global warming. Victims of environmental injustice may face physical or mental injury, a negative impact on their livelihood, or displacement from their homes. Frequently those most affected by environmental injustices are those least able to defend themselves as they may be from marginalised groups, be less educated, or be poorly represented in democratic institutions.

The environmental justice movement differs from the mainstream environmental movement, which stemmed from interests in nature conservation, and is dominated by the white middle class. Whereas the environmental movement tends to be composed of better educated people who can debate scientific/technical evaluations, deal with legislative approaches, and engage in political lobbying (see Chapter 2), the environmental justice movement is a grass-roots movement of victims who are generally too poor to choose to move away from affected areas (Stephens, 2007). Such groups may lack the education and political leverage to engage in effective protest and make their voices heard. There is widespread environmental concern among disadvantaged groups, but language and perceptions about environmental groups are off-putting for these groups, which results in the exclusion of voices and perspectives of racial minorities and working-class populations from environmental policy-making (Brown, 2000).

Environmental justice at an international level is evidenced by the overuse of scarce global commons by some groups, leaving others to cope with the ramifications of a depleted natural resource base. Thus environmental justice requires that individual countries do not use more than a fair share of the globe's ability to absorb pollution or absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. This relates environmental justice directly to questions of ecological and water footprints. What is the impact on other communities of the use of raw resources consumed by the UK to maintain its lifestyle? Ecological footprints can be seen as evidence of environmental injustice.

Some (Stephens et al., 2001) consider the concept of environmental justice from a historical viewpoint, taking into consideration recompense required for resource extraction during colonial periods, the export of natural resources under unequal terms of trade, historical and current intellectual appropriation of ancestral knowledge, and the use of water, air, the best land, and human energy to establish export crops, jeopardising the local environment and local people. The same authors look to the future and identify areas of concern for intergenerational injustice such as activities that will impose costs on future generations without balancing benefits, e.g. nuclear waste, reducing the ability of the environment to provide non-substitutable resources and services, creating ongoing negative environmental impacts through climate change, and the use of technologies with unknown potential long-term effects, e.g. persistent artificial chemicals in the environment.

1.5 Our relationship with nature

In any discussion of global environmental issues it is important to be aware that there are many different attitudes associated with valuing the environment. The value which individuals, communities and nations place on their environment is affected by cultural and religious values as well as economic and social systems. These are sometimes referred to as cultural filters (Pepper, 1986), and can affect the way we perceive the environment and ‘scientific evidence’ about it. Significantly, these attitudes underpin the development of strategies and priorities to conserve the environment.

A fundamental issue is humanity's relationship with nature. Are we a part of nature, and one of many animals in a global ecosystem, or are we separate from nature, placed ‘above’ nature and entitled to control it and use it to further our own needs regardless of the effect on the remaining ecosystem? The answer to this question affects how we treat the environment. The world's religions have addressed this issue. Stewardship is central to Judaic, Christian and Islamic beliefs. Religious texts can be cited stating that man can rule over and subdue the earth (Genesis 1:28–30), or that the world belongs to God, with humanity in the role of a servant or trustee, accountable to God concerning the stewardship of the Earth (Attfield, 1999). The Great Chain of Being also places humans within a hierarchy, above nature, but below God. However, as each link in that chain is equally important, and mutually dependent, the Chain of Being also implies an equality between humans and nature (Pepper, 1986). Religious texts can be cited to support either side of the argument. The Bible says, ‘Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground”’ (Genesis 1.26, New International Version). Later verses say, ‘fill the earth and subdue it’ (Genesis 1.28). Such views are reiterated in Psalm 8 where the writer talks about man saying, ‘You have made him ruler over the works of your hands; you have put everything under his feet: all the flocks and herds, and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim the paths of the seas’ (Psalm 8: 6–8). Islam also sees the world as belonging to God, with humanity in the role of a servant, a trustee of the earth, accountable to God concerning its stewardship of the earth (Attfield, 1999). Buddhism promotes respect for all forms of life, and encourages individuals to ‘give back to the earth what one has taken away’ (National Environment Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan, 1998, p. 12). All the major religions believe that a judgement will be passed on acts in this life before progression to the next. Hence there is an incentive to follow religious teachings. For those who do not believe in an over-ruling God or religion, there are ethical arguments for stewardship of the environment based on our obligations to future generations (Attfield, 1999). Of course, people do not always live up to ideals. People of all religions may fall short of the teachings they profess to adhere to. Those who argue that we should conserve the environment on strictly moral and ethical (rather than religious) grounds may also fall short of achieving their ideal. Thus belief in the value of the environment does not necessarily translate into actions which conserve the environment. The assumption of human–environment duality underpins much of the writing on environmentalism in the West.

Religion and spiritual values are not the only factors which affect our attitudes to the environment. Philosophical and political values can also have a strong influence. O’Riordan (1981) divides environmentalists into two broad groups: technocentrics and ecocentrics. Technocentrics have more faith in science and technology. They believe in man's dominance over nature, and furthermore are more optimistic that future scientific and technological developments will enable us to overcome environmental problems and constraints. Ecocentrics, on the other hand, believe in a greater degree of equality between humans and nature, and even the subordination of man to nature. As such, they believe we are just one part of a global ecosystem, which must be respected. Important issues shaping the extent to which someone is technocentric or ecocentric include their faith in the ability of science and technology to resolve environmental problems, and belief or scepticism regarding science and technology as driving forces in economic development.

How do these factors affect global environmental issues? The debates about global environmental issues and the sustainability of the planet are also debates about the values and priorities of the populations relying on that environment. Any international debate about global environmental issues will include representatives of many cultures, political systems, and values. Each may hope to impose their own views of human–environment interactions onto others. Thus the predominantly Western technocentric view based on economic development as the pathway to development will be juxtaposed with more ecocentric views such as those of Bhutan, a nation whose environmental strategy stresses the fact that ‘socio-economic development and environmental and cultural integrity are not mutually exclusive, but are equally critical to the long-term viability of the Bhutanese nation’ (National Environment Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan, 1998, p. 18). This more holistic approach is guided by Bhutanese culture and Buddhist values, and a belief that ‘Gross National Happiness is more important that Gross National Product’ (His Majesty King Jigme Singye Wangchuk, as quoted in National Environment Commission, Royal Government of Bhutan, 1998, p. 18).

There is growing recognition of the need for an alternative to gross domestic product (GDP) (and its basis on consumption) to measure ‘success’. The Happy Planet Index (HPI) (Abdallah et al., 2009) refers to the happiness of the environment and planet, and so measures well-being delivered per unit of environmental impact. It is based on the idea that consumption does not lead to higher well being, and that well-being does not necessarily require excessive consumption of world resources. The HPI contrasts with the Human Development Index (HDI) to measure well-being through life expectancy, life satisfaction, ecological footprint, and claims to measure ‘the real efficiency with which nations convert the planet's natural resources into long and happy lives for their citizens’ (Hennig, 2009).

The HPI is calculated based on existing statistics such as life expectancy at birth, an assessment of well-being (based on individual vitality, opportunities to engage in meaningful activities leading to competence and autonomy, life satisfaction, education, relationship and employment status and other social factors) (Abdallah et al., 2009). This method shakes up the league tables for development. Costa Rica has the highest score with the highest life satisfaction and life expectancy, and an ecological footprint of 2.3 global hectares per person. For OECD countries, HPI scores were higher in 1961 than in 2005. Although life satisfaction and life expectancy have increased over this time period, so too have ecological footprints. Of the G20 nations, Brazil comes highest in ninth place. All but one of the top ten countries are in Latin America. Small island states also tend to do well. Rich developed nations are middle ranking in the HPI. However, Sub-Saharan countries still fare poorly, taking the lower ten scores. The lowest scoring country is Zimbabwe. Notably, ‘no country successfully achieves all three goals of high life satisfaction, high life expectancy, and one planet living’ (Abdallah et al., 2009).

The concept of measuring an alternative to GDP is increasing in popularity, with France and Britain both considering how to measure progress to happiness and life satisfaction. In 2008, the UK's Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) included life satisfaction among its indicators for sustainable development, and in 2010 the Prime Minister, David Cameron, expressed a desire to assess progress by an alternative mechanism, accepting that GDP would not necessarily be as good a measure in turbulent economic times as well-being, life satisfaction or happiness.

1.6 Conclusion

This introductory discussion aims to provide an analytical framework to the next ten chapters. As this book deals with environmental problems on a global scale, we need to step back from our particular cultural viewpoint and local or national needs to consider other points of view and priorities. Taken together, the previous sections on environment and culture, global demands on natural resources, ecological footprints, environmental justice and our relationship with nature show that environmental issues are not just scientific issues based on a global ecology; they are also political and social issues, framed by our cultural filters, political power struggles, aspirations for quality of life as well as the environment in which we live. We need to accept that there are many ways of valuing the environment, and philosophies concerning how we, as humans, should interact with the environment.

The traditional Malthusian population–natural resource debate has been adjusted over the years as we have acknowledged the adaptability of humans in the face of changing environmental conditions, and the role that technology can play with regards to our impact on the environment (both good and bad). The interpretation of environmental science by non-scientists, and its translation into effective policy- and decision-making, is important in influencing how we react to global environmental issues (Bryant, 1998). Cherian (Chap-ter 3) discusses the politics of negotiations concerning controlling global warming and CO2 emissions, something discussed more than a decade ago by Rees (1997). Nunn (Box 5.1) discusses the role of politics in influencing the interpretation of sea-level gauges in the South Pacific.

It is apparent that there are huge distortions in food availability, lifestyles, quality of life, and standards of living across the globe, which can be broadly seen as a division between developed and developing countries or a North–South divide. This gross global inequity invites us to consider the difference between rights, needs, demands, and desires. The adaptability of populations as a result of environmental change, and the willingness of populations to curb lifestyles and activities to avoid environmental damage, is important for our collective future. This is mediated by our perceptions of risk, discussed in more detail in Chapter 2. As Newby (1991) states, the solutions to environmental problems rarely result from technical fixes alone, but rather from the interplay between technology and humans.

Since the first edition of this book, there have been many new developments. Climate change has moved from being a topic for environmentalists to being a mainstream topic. Since 2000, climate change has appeared increasingly in the media, until by 2009 it was a daily phenomenon. Everyone had heard of climate change, and many people were being urged to ‘do their bit’ whether through changing light bulbs, buying a more fuel-efficient car, or reducing flights. Rooftop windmills to generate electricity increased in popularity, especially promoted by David Cameron when he became leader of the Conservative Party in the UK. The Stern Review (Stern Review, 2006) established the economic rationale for acting on climate change; the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Report (2007a) confirmed the scientific premise of the Stern Report. There was a growing hope that after the Bush era in the USA, there would be new impetus and leadership towards a global agreement to address climate change. As the Copenhagen Summit on climate change loomed, hopes were high for dramatic changes in carbon emission targets. However, just prior to the Copenhagen Summit damning criticisms of the science were made. The ‘Climategate scandal’ centred on two issues: academic conduct and data handling at the University of East Anglia; and inaccuracies in the IPCC report. ‘Climate-gate’ undermined public confidence in the scientific data which underpinned any calls for changes in CO2 emissions. These scientific doubts, when added to disagreements over how emissions cuts should be distributed across the global population, and poorer countries’ concerns for financial assistance to help them cope with the effects of climate change already impinging on livelihoods and economic productivity, meant that the Copenhagen talks did not end as hoped. Disappointed delegations returned to their home countries, wondering if they could ever muster the same momentum for change again. In the longer term, enquiries established the scientific merit of the research at University of East Anglia, and the source of one error of data in the IPCC report. It was concluded that the overwhelming body of evidence remained robust (Oxburgh, 2010). Sadly this was too late for the negotiations.

Climate change is of overarching importance as it impinges on many of the other global environmental issues in this book. However, there have also been developments in other areas. In biodiversity, the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005) has provided a clearer picture of biodiversity issues. A new focus on ecosystem services has prioritised the role ecosystems make through provisioning and regulating functions. In Western countries there has also been an increased awareness of the role of cultural ecosystem services, particularly their role in health, relaxation, and environmental education. This brings a new, and for many more tangible, way of valuing biodiversity. It is also a reaction to our increasing distance from nature through development.

Food production continues to be an area of contention. Debates over organic, ethical, local, and genetically modified (GM) foods remain. These are heightened due to increasing knowledge and concerns about the effects of agro-chemicals on the environment, the role of trans-national corporations deeply involved in food production, from selling seeds and farming inputs to distributing global food products. GM remains contested for a range of reasons (see Chapters 2 and 7). However, the food debates are now grappling with a larger demand for food, both due to increased global population, as well as increased demand for food, particularly meat, as populations grow in wealth, and want a correspondingly better diet.

Concerns about climate change go hand in hand with concerns about energy. Whereas once the concept of ‘peak oil’ was viewed as an environmentalist scaremongering tactic, it is now seen as not only realistic, but more imminent than supposed. Add to this the current wars and conflicts which seem to pit the Arab world (where much of the world's oil reserves remain) against the West, and there are many concerns about future energy security. Meanwhile, the renewable sector continues with limited public funding and investment, honing the technology and ideas (e.g. wind, wave, solar) that have been known for quite some time. Public and environmental concerns against windmills or wave energy limit their wider application. Significantly, many of the energy companies are now offering energy-saving devices, and also investing in renewables. However, the scale of renewable energy production remains low compared to conventional energy. Biofuels (section 8.5.5) are the one area where there has been significant change. A ‘renewable obligation’ in fuel has resulted in a growth in biofuel production. However, there remain concerns about the environmental impact of biofuel production, as well as social impact (as food crops are displaced by biofuels) and the efficiency of growing biofuels (in terms of energy use).

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill (see section 10.5) in the Gulf of Mexico which has resulted in barrels of oil pouring out into the sea will change oil exploration. This crisis is partly the result of energy companies’ determination to harvest more remote supplies of oil (deeper, further off shore, or in more complicated forms, for example, the oil sands in Alberta, Canada). Oil spills result in an enormous loss of oil, horrendous environmental pollution, and large economic losses when all the knock-on effects on local industry are taken into account. In the case of the Deepwater Horizon spill, Obama's stance has been to demand that the oil company pays all damage, including associated economic, employment and social costs. This has resulted in huge liabilities for the oil company, and will change the way oil companies assess cost-benefit analysis of these types of more risky oil extraction. It also signifies a significant change in attitude and relations between the US government and the oil industry. A growing concern is the role of large multinational corporations, operating in many cases above the law, and seemingly beyond the control of any individual country. The concept of environmental justice has also gained prominence (Agyeman et al., 2002). Hurricane Katrina highlighted the plight of many people who were victims of environmental disasters (the combination of the hurricane, and legacy of pollution in the Mississippi delta). It was all the more shocking and high profile for being in a developing country, where it was assumed these things could never happen. However, environmental injustices happen many times in developing countries, where media links, and the ability to speak out and be heard, are not as strong. Whether it is oil exploration in the Niger delta, sea-level rise on atoll states, or electronic pollution in China, environmental injustices are increasingly common. Environmental justice was an element of the climate change deal which sought to provide support for countries already being affected by climate change. There are hopes for a new environmental economy. Environmental restoration: cleaning up pollution, developing renewables, and providing more environmentally friendly solutions to environmental problems, is a new growth industry. Green investment funds are seen as viable in the longer term (Cunningham, 2008).

Overall, there has been an increased awareness of the role and importance of international treaties and laws, and the way they lead to action on international environmental problems. Therefore a new chapter has been added to address this. International agreements are no longer of concern to special interest groups alone. These agreements have trickle-down effects which determine how individuals live and behave in households, and how communities use chemicals (e.g. CFCs in freezers, agrochemicals), manage energy, and deal with waste (e.g. recycling). They affect the cost of travel (particularly flying), and what we eat (e.g. GM foods). The growing impact of international agreements on what we consume and how we behave in our homes means that there is a need for the public to become more engaged in policy and treaty making, and play a role in voicing opinions and concerns. Thus there is also a new chapter exploring the links between science and policy (Chapter 2), taking into consideration the public voice through pressure groups.

The past decade has seen a wide range of international reports highlighting the urgency of human behaviour change to cope with environmental change. The Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MEA, 2005), the International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development (IAASTD) (McIntyre et al., 2009) concerning food and agriculture, the Stern Report on economic incentives to address climate change sooner rather than later, the IPCC reports on climate change. Each makes a case for addressing problems now, rather than deferring change until later. Each promotes adaptation, rather than the later expense of mitigation. The UK's chief scientific adviser talks of a ‘Perfect Storm’ of the impacts of climate change, energy depletion and food shortages, which will result in mass migration, cross-border conflict and public unrest (Beddington, 2009). To avoid this, a renewed enthusiasm for tackling environmental problems and negotiating change is required.

1.7 Overview of the book

This book is divided into six parts. Part One provides an introduction to human–environment interactions. Part Two considers negotiations of environmental science, considering the links between science and policy (Harris, Chapter 2), and also the way international environmental agreements are negotiated (Cherian, Chapter 3). Part Three focuses on ‘The changing surface of the earth’, through chapters on three broad topics: climate change (Cherian, Chapter 4), fluctuations in sea level (Nunn, Chapter 5), and changing ecosystems and biodiversity (Harris, Chapter 6). Part Four considers the challenges facing us as we seek to ensure food (Robinson and Harris, Chapter 7) and energy supplies (Petford, Chapter 8) for the global population. Part Five considers our impact on the environment and how we cope with it. Urbanisation (Lynch, Chapter 9) and pollution (Taylor, Chapter 10) are the two topics focused on here. The final part of the book discusses environmental issues in a globalised world, including the concept of sustainable development (Harris, Chapter 11), and seeks to consider this within the framework set out in the Introduction, and in the light of the information provided in previous chapters. Given the scope of the book and the space available, the chapters do not seek to present all the scientific information concerning each global environmental issue. Instead the aim is to provide a geographical perspective on environmental problems which are currently of global concern. Therefore, in addition to discussing the biophysical aspects of global environmental issues, each chapter will illustrate the interaction of environmental, technical, socio-economic and political factors in determining why and how people use and manage natural resources. This perspective considers how human–environment interactions affect global environmental issues.

The book seeks to challenge readers to consider how choices made in our own environment affect livelihoods across the globe, and the ethics of current management of global environmental issues. Each global environmental issue has been presented in an individual chapter, but in reality they are interconnected. For example, changes in climate affect sea-level change, biodiversity and agriculture, and changes in energy affect climate change, sea-level rise and pollution. Any attempts to resolve global environmental issues and work towards sustainable development will need to take into consideration the interrelationships between global environmental issues and the ramifications of changes in one issue on all of the others. As we seek to achieve sustainable development, we shall need to be responsive to the dynamics of the global ecosystem as new developments in technology and resource exploitation, and changes in the distribution of resources, alter the global environmental system we are dealing with. Thus the concept of sustainable development is complex, linking environmental, ecological, social and political issues surrounding each global environmental issue, the interactions between global environmental issues, the role of society in adapting to, and causing, environmental change and the uncertainty of the future. Achieving sustainable development will require management of natural resources underpinned by good biophysical science alongside actions that confront social, political and economic issues as well as technological changes. The nature of resource distribution between North and South is a constant theme in this book, and global, as well as intergenerational, equity is an important principle underlying many of the discussions of global environmental issues. In the final chapter, the concept of sustainable development is discussed, acknowledging that management of natural resources must be underpinned by good biophysical science, but that sustainable development also requires fair and equitable distribution of resources among existing populations (including transparent systems of governance and allocation of resources), plus a concern for stewardship of resources for the benefit of future generations. Thus, sustainable resource management requires changes and actions that confront social and political economic causes as well as technical and ecological changes.

Further reading

Agyeman, J., Bullard, R.D. and Evans, B. (2002) Just Sustainability: Development in an Unequal World. London: Earthscan. An introduction to concepts and examples of environmental justice.

Allan, T. (2011) Virtual water. Tackling the Threat to Our Planet's Most Precious Resource. London: I.B. Taurus. A thorough discussion of the concept of virtual water.

Harrison, P. (1993) The Third Revolution: Population, Environment and a Sustainable World. London: Penguin. A very readable book considering the implications of population growth, rising consumption and damaging technologies for the environment. It debates the effect of man's environmental impact on sustainable development.

Hickman, L. (2005) A Life Stripped Bare: My Year Trying To Live Ethically. Cornwall: Eden Project Books. A readable, engaging book outlining the struggles of trying to adopt an environmentally benign lifestyle. Raises many pertinent issues and debates, leaving the reader to decide the answers.

Pepper, D. (1986) The Roots of Modern Environmentalism. London: Routledge. This book provides an excellent background to modern environmental ideology.

WWF (2008, 2010) Living Planet Report. London: WWF. A biannual publication providing a thorough assessment of the environmental status of the planet, including details of ecological footprint calculations.

Part Two

Negotiating Environmental Science

Chapter 2

From Science to Policy

Frances Harris

2.1 Introduction