Environmental law and social justice

Résumé du document

Arne Naess, researcher in University of Oslo, emphasizes two trends of ecology .

Extraits

[...] Indeed, the researcher succeeds in both highlighting gap between a narrow approach and broader deep ecology movement, and specificities of under versus overdevelopped countries. The lattest approch seems indeed more comprehensive than the opposition made by Redclift between global resource crisis and degradation upon the South, even if this view is closer from the reality (eg Kyoto protocol, adopted at global scale). An important added value of the researcher's work is the normative projection and vision of possible futures, reaping political potentials of Deep Ecology movement. [...]

[...] Compare and contrast the different approaches. In what way do they share ideas and in what way do they differ? Both Naess and Redclift make a distinction between global resource crisis and ecological degradation in under-developped countries. To be noted, Naess' view if the opposition between under and overdevelopped countires, while Redclift differentiates global resource crisis and degradation upon the South. Furthermore, while Naess focuses on the distinction between focused ecology movement versus deep long-range eco movement, Redclift emphasizes specific social formations in the periphery. [...]

[...] Environmental law and social justice What are the key characteristics of the approaches that are outlined in these articles? Arne Naess, researcher in University of Oslo, emphasizes two trends of ecology. Focused ecology movement First, the fight championed against pollution and resource depletion, whose objective is the health and affluence of people in the developped countries. Deep, long-range ecology movement Second, a broader ecology movement, fencing for balance between human life quality and respect of other forms of life (« ecological egalirianism »). [...]