Small Is Beautiful. A Study of Economics As If People Mattered
Small Is Beautiful was first published in 1973 and still offers a crucial message for the modern world struggling to balance economic growth with the human costs of globalization.
Small Is Beautiful was first published in 1973 and still offers a crucial message for the modern world struggling to balance economic growth with the human costs of globalization.
Our Stolen Future examines the ways that certain synthetic chemicals interfere with hormones in humans and wildlife, especially in the development of the fetus in the womb.
Rural villagers in China have a sophisticated awareness of the risks they face due to pollution, yet they often feel that they are helpless to improve their situation.
In episode 42 of Nature’s Past, a podcast on Canadian environmental history, Sean Kheraj interviews David Boyd about his new book The Right to a Healthy Environment: Revitalizing Canada’s Constitution and discusses whether Canadians have a constitutional right to live in a healthy environment.
Miller suggests a new heuristic, the ecology of freedom, which highlights past contingency and hope, and can furthermore help guide our present efforts, both scholastic and activist, to find an honorable, just way of living on the earth.
This article blurs the boundaries of literature, agriculture, public history, grassroots political activism, and public policymaking in order to problematize the current eco-cosmopolitan trajectory of ecocritical theory.
Laura Westra argues that even if we could elicit a truly informed and “free” choice, the “Contingent Valuation” method would remain flawed.
Oluf Langhelle discusses expansion of the Rawlsian framework of global justice in relation to sustainable development.
Karen Green applies Korsgaard’s distinctions—one between intrinsic and extrinsic value, and the other between having value as an end and having value as a means—to some issues in environmental philosophy.
Robyn Eckersley discusses the concepts of “human racism” and ecocentricm in relation to Tony Lynch and David Wells’ argument that any attempt to develop a non-anthropocentric morality must invariably slide back to either anthropocentrism (either weak or strong) or a highly repugnant misanthropy in cases of direct conflict between the survival needs of humans and nonhuman species.