The Skeptical Environmentalist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World

Hardcover edition
Author	Bjørn Lomborg
Original title	Verdens sande tilstand
Translator	Hugh Matthews - responsible for translation of the original title from Danish
Subject	Natural Resources
Genre	Non-fiction
Publisher	Cambridge University Press
Publication date	2001
ISBN	0-521-01068-3
OCLC	45618321
Dewey Decimal	363.7 21
LC Class	GE149 .L65 2001
Followed by	Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming

The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World (Danish: Verdens sande tilstand, literal translation: The True State of the World) is a book by Danish environmentalist author Bjørn Lomborg, controversial for its claims that overpopulation, declining energy resources, deforestation, species loss, water shortages, certain aspects of global warming, and an assortment of other global environmental issues are unsupported by statistical analysis of the relevant data. It was first published in Danish in 1998, while the English edition was published as a work in environmental economics by Cambridge University Press in 2001.

Due to the scope of the project, comprising the range of topics addressed, the diversity of data and sources employed, and the many types of conclusions and comments advanced, The Skeptical Environmentalist does not fit easily into a particular scientific discipline or methodology. Although published by the social sciences division of Cambridge University Press, the findings and conclusions were widely challenged on the basis of natural science. This interpretation of The Skeptical Environmentalist as a work of environmental science generated much of the controversy and debate that surrounded the book.

The author

Bjørn Lomborg

Prior to becoming the Director of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and Adjunct Professor at the Copenhagen Business School, Bjørn Lomborg was an Associate Professor of Political Science at the University of Aarhus.

Some critics focus on his lack of training or professional experience in the environmental sciences or economics. Supporters argue his research is an appropriate application of his expertise in cost-benefit analysis, a standard analytical tool in policy assessment. His advocates further note that many of the scientists and environmentalists who criticized the book are not themselves environmental policy experts or experienced in cost-benefit research.

Origins

In numerous interviews, Lomborg ascribed his motivation for writing The Skeptical Environmentalist to his personal convictions, making clear that he was a pro-environmentalist and Greenpeace supporter. He has stated that he began his research as an attempt to counter what he saw as anti-ecological arguments by Julian Lincoln Simon in an article in Wired, but changed his mind after starting to analyze data. Lomborg describes the views he attributes to environmental campaigners as the "Litany", which he at one time claims to have affirmed, but purports to correct in his work.

Methods

The general analytical approach employed by Lomborg is based on cost-benefit analyses as employed in economics, social science, and the formulation and assessment of government policy. Much of Lomborg's examination of his Litany is based on statistical data analysis, therefore his work may be considered a work of that nature. Since it examines the costs and benefits of its many topics, it could be considered a work in economics, as categorized by its publisher. However, The Skeptical Environmentalist is methodologically eclectic and cross-disciplinary, combining interpretation of data with assessments of the media and human behavior, evaluations of scientific theories, and other approaches, to arrive at its various conclusions.

In arriving at the final work, Lomborg has used a similar approach in each of his work's main areas and subtopics. He progresses from the general to the specific, starting with a broad concern, such as pollution or energy, dividing it into subtopics (e.g. air pollution; fossil fuel depletion), and then identifying one or more widely held fears and their source (e.g. our air is growing increasingly toxic, by X measure, according to Y). From there, Lomborg chooses data that he considers to be the most reliable and reasonable available. He then analyzes that data to prove or disprove his selected proposition. In every case, his calculations find that the claim is not substantiated, and is either an exaggeration, or a completely reversed portrayal of an improving situation, rather than a deteriorating one. Having established what he calls "the true state of the world", for each topic and subtopic, Lomborg examines a variety of theories, technologies, implementation strategies and costs, and suggests alternative ways to improve not-so-dire situations, or advance in other areas not currently considered as pressing.

Contents

The Skeptical Environmentalist's subtitle refers to the State of the World report, published annually since 1984 by the Worldwatch Institute. Lomborg designated the report "one of the best-researched and academically most ambitious environmental policy publications," but criticized it for using short-term trends to predict disastrous consequences, in cases where long-term trends would not support the same conclusions.

In establishing its arguments, The Skeptical Environmentalist examined a wide range of issues in the general area of environmental studies, including environmental economics and science, and came to an equally broad set of conclusions and recommendations. Lomborg's work directly challenged popular examples of green concerns by interpreting data from some 3,000 assembled sources. The author suggested that environmentalists diverted potentially beneficial resources to less deserving environmental issues in ways that were economically damaging. Much of the book's methodology and integrity have been subject to criticism which argue that Lomborg distorted the fields of research he covers. Support for the book was staunch as well.

The Litany

"The Litany" comprises very diverse areas where, Lomborg claims, overly pessimistic claims are made and bad policies are implemented as a result. He cites accepted mainstream sources, like the United States government, United Nations agencies and others, preferring global long-term data over regional and short-term statistics.

The Skeptical Environmentalist is arranged around four major themes:

1. Human prosperity from an economic and demographic point of view
2. Human prosperity from an ecological point of view
3. Pollution as a threat to human prosperity
4. Future threats to human prosperity

Lomborg's main argument is that the vast majority of environmental problems—such as pollution, water shortages, deforestation, and species loss, as well as population growth, hunger, and AIDS—are area-specific and highly correlated with poverty. Therefore, challenges to human prosperity are essentially logistical matters, and can be solved largely through economic and social development. Concerning problems that are more pressing at the global level, such as the depletion of fossil fuels and global warming, Lomborg argues that these issues are often overstated and that recommended policies are often inappropriate if assessed against alternatives.

1. Human prosperity from an economic and demographic point of view

Lomborg analyzes three major themes: life expectancy, food and hunger, and prosperity, finding that life expectancy and health levels have dramatically improved over the past centuries, even though several regions of the world remain threatened, in particular by AIDS. He dismisses Thomas Malthus' theory that increases in the world's population lead to widespread hunger. On the contrary, Lomborg claims that food is widespread, and humanity's daily intake of calories is increasing, and will continue to rise until hunger's eradication, thanks to technological improvements in agriculture. However, Lomborg notes that Africa in particular still produces too little sustenance, an effect he attributes to the continent's dismal economic and political systems. Concerning prosperity, Lomborg argues that wealth, as measured by per capita GDP, should not be the only judging criterion. He points to improvements in education, safety, leisure, and ever more widespread access to consumer goods as signs that prosperity is increasing in most parts of the world.

2. Human prosperity from an ecological point of view

In this section, Lomborg looks at the world's natural resources and draws a conclusion that contrasts starkly to that of the well known report The Limits to Growth. First, he analyzes food once more, this time from an ecological perspective, and again claims that most food products are not threatened by human growth. An exception, however, is fish, which continues to be depleted. As a partial solution, Lomborg presents fish farms, which cause a less disruptive impact on the world's oceans. Next, Lomborg looks at forests. He finds no indication of widespread deforestation, and notes that even the Amazon still retains more than 80% of its 1978 tree cover. Lomborg points out that in developing countries, deforestation is linked to poverty and poor economic conditions, so he proposes that economic growth is the best means to tackle the loss of forests. Concerning energy, Lomborg asserts that oil is not being depleted as fast as is claimed, and that improvements of technology will provide people with fossil fuels for years to come. The author further asserts that many alternatives already exist, and that with time they will replace fossil fuels as an energy source. Concerning other resources, such as metals, Lomborg suggests that based on their price history they are not in short supply. Examining the challenge of collecting sufficient amounts of water, Lomborg says that wars will probably not erupt over water because fighting such wars is not cost-effective (one week of war with the Palestinians, for instance, would cost Israel more than five desalination plants, according to an Israeli officer). Lomborg emphasizes the need for better water management, as water is distributed unequally around the world.

3. Pollution as a threat to human prosperity

Lomborg considers pollution from different angles. He notes that air pollution in wealthy nations has steadily decreased in recent decades. He finds that air pollution levels are highly linked to economic development, with moderately developed countries polluting most. Again, Lomborg argues that faster growth in emerging countries would help them reduce their air pollution levels. Lomborg suggests that devoting resources to reduce the levels of specific air pollutants would provide the greatest health benefits and save the largest number of lives (per amount of money spent), continuing an already decades-long improvement in air quality in most developed countries. Concerning water pollution, Lomborg notes again that it is connected with economic progress. He also notes that water pollution in major Western rivers decreased rapidly after the use of sewage systems became widespread. Concerning waste, Lomborg notes once again that fears are overblown, as the entire waste produced by the United States in the 21st century could fit into a square 100 feet thick and 28 km along each side, or 0.009% of the total surface of the United States.

4. Future threats to human prosperity

In this last section, Lomborg puts forward his main assertion: based on a cost-benefit analysis, the environmental threats to human prosperity are overstated and much of policy response is misguided. As an example, Lomborg cites worries about pesticides and their link to cancer. He argues that such concerns are vastly exaggerated in the public perception, as alcohol and coffee are the foods that create by far the greatest risk of cancer, as opposed to vegetables that have been sprayed with pesticides. Furthermore, if pesticides were not used on fruit and vegetables, their cost would rise, and consequently their consumption would go down, which would cause cancer rates to increase. He goes on to criticize the fear of a vertiginous decline in biodiversity, proposing that 0.7% of species have gone extinct in the last 50 years (as compared to a maximum of 50%, as claimed by some biologists). While Lomborg admits that extinctions are a problem, he asserts that they are not the catastrophe claimed by some, and have little effect on human prosperity.

Lomborg's most contentious assertion, however, involves global warming. From the outset, Lomborg "accepts the reality of man-made global warming" though he refers to a number of uncertainties in the computer simulations of climate change and some aspects of data collection. His main contention involves not the science of global warming but the politics and the policy response to scientific findings. Lomborg points out that, given the amount of greenhouse gas reduction required to combat global warming, the current Kyoto protocol is grossly insufficient. He argues that the economic costs of legislative restrictions that aim to slow or reverse global warming are far higher than the alternative of international coordination. Moreover, he asserts that the cost of combating global warming would be disproportionately shouldered by developing countries. Lomborg proposes that since the Kyoto agreement limits economic activities, developing countries that suffer from pollution and poverty most, will be perpetually handicapped economically.

Lomborg proposes that the importance of global warming in terms of policy priority is low compared to other policy issues such as fighting poverty, disease and aiding poor countries, which has direct and more immediate impact both in terms of welfare and the environment. He therefore suggests that a global cost-benefit analysis be undertaken before deciding on future measures. The Copenhagen Consensus that Lomborg later organized concluded that combating global warming does have a benefit but its priority compared to other issues is "poor" (ranked 13th) and three projects addressing climate change (optimal carbon tax, the Kyoto protocol and value-at-risk carbon tax), are the least cost-efficient of its proposals.

Conclusions

Lomborg concludes his book by once again reviewing the Litany, and noting that the real state of the world is much better than the Litany claims. According to Lomborg, this discrepancy poses a problem, as it focuses public attention on relatively unimportant issues, while ignoring those that are paramount. In the worst case, The Skeptical Environmentalist argues, the global community is pressured to adopt inappropriate policies which have adverse effects on humanity, wasting resources that could be put to better use in aiding poor countries or fighting diseases such as AIDS. Lomborg thus urges us to look at what he calls the true problems of the world, since solving those will also solve the Litany.

Reaction

The Skeptical Environmentalist was controversial even before its English-language release, with anti-publication efforts launched against Cambridge University Press. Once in the public arena, the book elicited strong reactions in scientific circles and in the mainstream media. Opinion was largely polarized. Environmental groups were generally critical.

Anti-publication pressures

Dr. Chris Harrison (Publishing Director of social science publishing for Cambridge University Press), anticipating the level of controversy a book like The Skeptical Environmentalist would likely provoke, took extra care with the book's peer-review process. Instead of choosing candidates from the usual list of social science referees, Cambridge University Press chose from a list provided by their environmental science publishing program. Four were chosen: a climate scientist, an expert in biodiversity and sustainable development, a specialist on the economics of climate change (whose credentials include reviewing publications for the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)) and a "pure" economist. All four members of Cambridge's initial review panel agreed that the book should be published.

While criticism of the book was to be expected, the publisher was apparently surprised by the pressure brought against it to not publish The Skeptical Environmentalist. The complaints of some critics included demands that Cambridge convene a special panel to review the book in order to identify errors (despite existing pre-publication peer review), that Cambridge transfer their publishing rights to a "non-scholarly publishing house" and that they review their own policies to prevent publication of any book described as "essentially a political tract" in the future.

In the article, entitled "Peer review, politics and pluralism", Dr. Harrison noted that "many of the critical reviews of The Skeptical Environmentalist went beyond the usual unpicking of a thesis and concentrated instead on the role of the publisher in publishing the book at all. The post tray and e-mail inbox of editors and senior managers at the press bore witness to a concerted campaign to persuade Cambridge to renounce the book." He went on to describe complaints from environmentalists who feared the book would be "abused by corporate interests". Cambridge University Press felt it necessary to issue a formal, written statement, in order to "explain the editorial decisions that led not just to publishing the book but also to Cambridge's resistance to concerted pressure to withdraw it from the market." With these complaints and the publication of a Scientific American issue regarding the book (described below), Cambridge stated, in response to those who claimed the book lacked peer-review credentials, "it would be quite wrong to abandon an author who had satisfied the requirements of our peer-review system."

Cambridge took the additional step of inviting submissions of publishing proposals for books which offered an opposing argument to Lomborg's but noted that they had, to the best of Chris Harrison's knowledge, seen no attempt by any of the critics to submit such a proposal. This is seen by some to suggest that criticism of the book was political rather than academic. Subsequent to Cambridge's unequivocal assertion that The Skeptical Environmentalist had been subject to peer-review, Harrison noted that

we were surprised and disappointed to see the critics' letter being quoted in an issue of Time magazine (2 September 2002)... in which the authors repeated their charge that the book had not been peer-reviewed despite the assurances to the contrary that they had by then received by the press... It has become part of the anti-Lomborg folklore that this book bypassed the usual Cambridge peer-review process... This is a charge that is repeated in many of the public and private attacks in the press, and it is unfounded.

Cambridge University Press maintained their position and the book was published.

Criticism of the material and methods

The January 2002 issue of Scientific American contained, under the heading "Misleading Math about the Earth", a set of essays by several scientists, which claim that Lomborg and The Skeptical Environmentalist misrepresent both scientific evidence and scientific opinion. The magazine then refused Lomborg's request to print a lengthy point-by-point rebuttal in his own defence, on the grounds that the 32 pages would have taken a disproportionate share of the month's installment. Scientific American allowed Lomborg a one-page defense in the May 2002 edition, and then attempted to remove Lomborg's publication of his complete response online, citing a copyright violation. After receiving much criticism, the magazine published his complete rebuttal on its website, along with the counter rebuttals of John Rennie and John P. Holdren.

Nature also published a harsh review of Lomborg's book, in which Stuart Pimm of the Center for Environmental Research and Conservation at Columbia University and Jeff Harvey of the Netherlands Institute of Ecology wrote: "the text employs the strategy of those who, for example, argue that gay men aren't dying of AIDS, that Jews weren't singled out by the Nazis for extermination, and so on."  Lomborg has also been criticized for using straw man arguments, with charges that his Litany of environmental doom-mongering does not accurately represent the mainstream views of the contemporary green movement.

The "separately written expert reviews" further detail the various expert opinions. Peter Gleick's assessment, for example, states:

There is nothing original or unique in Lomborg's book. Many of his criticisms have appeared in... previous works—and even in the work of environmental scientists themselves. What is new, perhaps, is the scope and variety of the errors he makes.

Jerry Mahlman's appraisal of the chapter he was asked to evaluate, states:

I found some aspects of this chapter to be interesting, challenging, and logical. For example, the author's characterizations of the degree of difficulty in actually doing something meaningful about climate change through mitigation and coping/adaptation are perceptive and valuable. In principle, such characterizations could provide a foundation for more meaningful policy planning on this difficult problem. Unfortunately, the author's lack of rigor and consistency on these larger issues is likely to negate any real respect for his insights.

David Pimentel, who was repeatedly criticized in the book, also wrote a critical review.

Criticism of media handling

One critical article, "The Skeptical Environmentalist: A Case Study in the Manufacture of News", attributes this media success to its initial, influential supporters:

"News of the pending book first appeared in the UK in early June of 2001 when a Sunday Times article by Nayab Chohan featured an advanced report of claims made by Lomborg that London's air was cleaner than at any time since 1585. Headlined "Cleanest London Air for 400 Years," the publicity hook was both local and timely, as the tail end of the article linked the book's questioning of the Kyoto climate change protocol to U.S. president George W. Bush's visit the same week to Europe, and Bush's controversial opposition to the treaty. The Times followed up the report the next day with a news article further detailing the book's Kyoto protocol angle."

"With The Times reports, Lomborg and his claims had made the Anglo media agenda. As is typically the case, other media outlets followed the reporting of the elite newspaper. Articles pegging the claims of The Skeptical Environmentalist to Bush's European visit ran later that week in the U.K's The Express and Daily Telegraph, and Canada's Toronto Star."

The media was criticized for the biased selection of reviewers and not informing readers of reviewers' background. Richard C. Bell, writing for Worldwatch noted that the Wall Street Journal, "instead of seeking scientists with a critical perspective," like many publications "put out reviews by people who were closely associated with Lomborg", with the Journal soliciting a review from the Competitive Enterprise Institute's Ronald Bailey, someone "who had earlier written a book called The True State of the World, from which much of Lomborg's claims were taken." Bell also criticized the Washington Post, whose Sunday Book World assigned the book review to Denis Dutton, identified as "a professor of philosophy who lectures on the dangers of pseudoscience at the science faculties of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand", and as the editor of the web site Arts and Letters Daily. Bell noted that:

"The Post did not tell its readers that Dutton's web site features links to the Global Climate Coalition, an anti-Kyoto consortium of oil and coal businesses, and to the messages of Julian Simon --the man whose denial that global warming was occurring apparently gave Lomborg the idea for his book in the first place. It was hardly surprising that Dutton anointed Lomborg's book as 'the most significant work on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, in 1962. It's a magnificent achievement.'"

The "unrealistic" critique

Some critics of The Skeptical Environmentalist took issue not with the statistical investigation of Lomborg's Litany, but with the suggestions and conclusions for which they were the foundation. This line of criticism considered the book as a contribution to the policy debate over environment rather than the work of natural science. In a BBC column from August 23, 2001, veteran BBC environmental correspondent Alex Kirby wrote:

"I am neither a statistician nor a scientist, and I lack the skill to judge Lomborg's reworkings of the statistics of conventional wisdom. But I am worried that on virtually every topic he touches, he reaches conclusions radically different from almost everybody else. That seems to suggest that most scientists are wrong, short-sighted, naïve, interested only in securing research funds, or deliberately dancing to the campaigners' tune. Most I know are honest, intelligent and competent. So it beggars belief to suppose that Professor Lomborg is the only one in step, every single time."

Kirby's first concern was not with the extensive research and statistical analysis, but the conclusions drawn from them:

"What really riles me about his book is that it is so damnably reasonable. In the rational world that Bjørn Lomborg thinks we all inhabit, we would manage problems sensibly, one by one...But the real world is messier, more unpredictable - and more impatient."

On September 5, 2001, at a Lomborg book reading in England, British environmentalist author Mark Lynas threw a cream pie in Lomborg's face. In a September 9, 2001, article, "Why I pied Lomborg", Lynas stated:

"Lomborg specialises in presenting the reader with false choices - such as the assertion that money not spent on preventing climate change could be spent on bringing clean water to the developing world, thereby saving more lives per dollar of expenditure. Of course, in the real world, these are not the kind of choices we are faced with. Why not take the $60 billion from George Bush's stupid Son of Star Wars program and use that cash to save lives in Ethiopia? Because in a world where political choices are not made democratically at a global level, but by a small number of rich countries and corporations, the poor and the environment are never going to be a priority."

The December 12, 2001 issue of Grist devoted an issue to The Skeptical Environmentalist, with a series of essays from various scientists challenging individual sections. A separate article examining the book's overall approach took issue with the framing of Lomborg's conclusions:

"Lomborg begins by making the entirely reasonable point that accurate information is critical to informed decision-making. If information is skewed to paint a bleaker environmental picture than is justified by reality, as he claims, then we will in turn skew our limited resources in favor of the environment and away from other important causes. ... Then Lomborg proceeds to weigh the causes championed by the environmental movement against a deliberately circumscribed universe of other possible "good causes." It is up to us, he says, to make responsible decisions about whether to protect the environment or "boost Medicaid, increase funding to the arts, or cut taxes. ... The worse they can make this state appear, the easier it is for them to convince us we need to spend more money on the environment rather on hospitals, kindergartens, etc." A few pages later he again claims that the purpose of the Litany is to cause us to prioritize the environment over "hospitals, child day care, etc." ... But who is really failing to consider how our money is spent? As Lomborg notes, "We will never have enough money," and therefore, "Prioritization is absolutely essential." Why, then, does he weigh the environment only against hospitals and childcare, rather than against, say, industry subsidies and defense spending?"

Addressing the apparent difficulty of scientists opposing The Skeptical Environmentalist in criticizing the book strictly on the basis of statistics and challenging the conclusions about areas of environmental sciences that were drawn from them, Lynas contends:

"One of the biggest problems facing the environmental community in analyzing Lomborg’s book is that his work, as flawed as it is, has clearly been very time-consuming and meticulous. In a busy and under funded world, few people have the time or background knowledge to plow though 3,000 footnotes checking his sources. It is impressively interdisciplinary."

Support

Influential UK newsweekly The Economist weighed in at the start with heavy support, publishing an advance essay by Lomborg in which he detailed his Litany, and following up with a highly favorable review and supportive coverage. It stated that "This is one of the most valuable books on public policy—not merely environmental policy— to have been written for the intelligent general reader in the past ten years...The Skeptical Environmentalist is a triumph."

Among the general media, the New York Times stated that "The primary target of the book, a substantial work of analysis with almost 3,000 footnotes, are statements made by environmental organizations like the Worldwatch Institute, the World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace." The Wall Street Journal deemed Lomborg's work "a superbly documented and readable book.". A Washington Post review claimed that "Bjørn Lomborg's good news about the environment is bad news for Green ideologues. His richly informative, lucid book is now the place from which environmental policy decisions must be argued. In fact, The Skeptical Environmentalist is the most significant work on the environment since the appearance of its polar opposite, Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, in 1962. It's a magnificent achievement." Rolling Stone wrote that "Lomborg pulls off the remarkable feat of welding the techno-optimism of the Internet age with a lefty's concern for the fate of the planet."
In March 2003 the New York Law School Law Review published an examination of the critical reviews of Skeptical Environmentalist from the Scientific American, Nature and Science magazines by Professor of Law David Shoenbrod and then Senior Law Student Christi Wilson of New York Law School. The authors take the perspective of a court faced with an argument against hearing an expert witness in order to evaluate whether Lomborg was credible as an expert, and whether his testimony is valid to his expertise. They classify the types of criticisms leveled at Lomborg and his arguments, and proceed to evaluate each of the reasons given for disqualifying Lomborg. They conclude that a court should accept Lomborg as a credible expert in the field of statistics, and that his testimony was appropriately restricted to his area of expertise. Of course, Professor Shoenbrod and Wilson note, Mr. Lomborg's factual conclusions may not be correct, nor his policy proposals effective, but his criticisms should be addressed, not merely dismissed out of hand.

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty raised concern about the responses of certain sections of the scientific community to a peer reviewed book published under the category of environmental economics. The groups worried that the receptions to Lomborg were a politicization of science by scientists. This unease was reflected in the involvement of the Union of Concerned Scientists and Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty in "When scientists politicize science: making sense of controversy over The Skeptical Environmentalist", where Roger A. Pielke argued:

The use of science by scientists as a means of negotiating for desired political outcomes – the politicization of science by scientists – threatens the development of effective policies in contested issues. By tying themselves to politics, rather than policy, scientists necessarily restrict their value and the value of their science.

In "Green with Ideology - The hidden agenda behind the "scientific" attacks on Bjørn Lomborg’s controversial book, The Skeptical Environmentalist", Ronald Bailey stated that "The bitter anti-Lomborg campaign reveals the hidden crisis of what we might call ideological environmentalism." He further wrote:

The Skeptical Environmentalist obviously should be held to high standards of accuracy, but to insist that it read like a scientific paper is both specious and disingenuous. The book is essentially a response to such popular environmentalist tracts as the State of the World report and the reams of misinformation disseminated by Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the Union of Concerned Scientists, The Ecologist, the Turning Point Project, Grist, Wild Earth, and the rest of the sprawling eco-media propaganda complex.

Accusations of scientific dishonesty

After the publication of The Skeptical Environmentalist, Lomborg was accused of scientific dishonesty. Several environmental scientists brought a total of three complaints against Lomborg to the Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty (DCSD), a body under Denmark's Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation. Lomborg was asked whether he regarded the book as a "debate" publication, and thereby not under the purview of the DCSD, or as a scientific work; he chose the latter, clearing the way for the inquiry that followed. The charges claimed that The Skeptical Environmentalist contained deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions. Due to the similarity of the complaints, the DCSD decided to proceed on the three cases under one investigation.

DCSD investigation

On January 6, 2003, a mixed DCSD ruling was released, in which the Committees decided that The Skeptical Environmentalist was scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg was innocent of wrongdoing due to a lack of expertise in the relevant fields:

"Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."

The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

• Fabrication of data;
• Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
• Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
• Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
• Plagiarism;
• Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

MSTI review and response

On February 13, 2003, Lomborg filed a complaint against the DCSD's decision with the Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation (MSTI), which oversees the group.

On December 17, 2003, the Ministry found that the DCSD had made a number of procedural errors, including:

• Not using a precise standard for deciding "good scientific practice" in the social sciences;
• Defining "objective scientific dishonesty" in a way unclear in determining whether "distortion of statistical data" had to be deliberate or not;
• Not properly documenting that The Skeptical Environmentalist was a scientific publication on which they had the right to intervene in the first place;
• Not providing specific statements on actual errors.

The Ministry remitted the case to the DCSD. In doing so the Ministry indicated that it regarded the DCSD's previous findings of scientific dishonesty in regard to the book as invalid. The Ministry also instructed the DCSD to decide whether to reinvestigate. On March 12, 2004, the Committee formally decided not to act further on the complaints, reasoning that renewed scrutiny would, in all likelihood, result in the same conclusion.

Response of the scientific community

The original DCSD decision about Lomborg provoked a petition among Danish academics from 308 scientists, many from the social sciences, who criticised the DCSD's investigative methods.

Another group of Danish scientists collected signatures in support of the DCSD. The 640 signatures in this second petition came almost exclusively from the medical and natural sciences, and included Nobel laureate in Chemistry Jens Christian Skou, former university rector Kjeld Møllgård, and professor Poul Harremoës from the Technical University of Denmark.

Continued debate and criticism

A group of scientists published an article in 2005 in the Journal of Information Ethics, in which they concluded that most criticism against Lomborg was unjustified, and that the scientific community had misused their authority to suppress the author.

Kåre Fog

The claim that allegations against Lomborg were unsubstantiated was challenged in the next issue of Journal of Information Ethics by Kåre Fog, one of the original DCSD petitioners. Fog reasserted his contention that, despite the ministry's decision, most of the accusations against Lomborg were valid, and rejected what he called "the Galileo hypothesis", which portrays Lomborg as a brave young man confronting an entrenched opposition.

Fog has established a curated catalogue of criticisms against Lomborg, which includes a section for each page of every Skeptical Environmentalist chapter. Fog enumerates and details what he believes to be flaws and errors in Lomborg's work. He explicitly indicates if particular mistakes may have been made deliberately by Lomborg, in order to mislead. According to Fog, since none of his denunciations of Lomborg's work have been proven false, the suspicion that Lomborg has misled deliberately is maintained. Lomborg has written a full text published online as Godehetens Pris (Danish)  that goes through the main allegations put forward by Fog and others.

Environmental ethics

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Environmental ethics is the part of environmental philosophy which considers extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to including the non-human world. It exerts influence on a large range of disciplines including environmental law, environmental sociology, ecotheology, ecological economics, ecology and environmental geography.

 

There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the environment. For example:

• Should humans continue to clear cut forests for the sake of human consumption?
• Why should humans continue to propagate its species, and life itself? 
• Should humans continue to make gasoline-powered vehicles?
• What environmental obligations do humans need to keep for future generations?
• Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the convenience of humanity?
• How should humans best use and conserve the space environment to secure and expand life?
• What role can Planetary Boundaries play in reshaping the human-earth relationship?

The academic field of environmental ethics grew up in response to the work of scientists such as Rachel Carson and events such as the first Earth Day in 1970, when environmentalists started urging philosophers to consider the philosophical aspects of environmental problems. Two papers published in Science had a crucial impact: Lynn White's "The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis" (March 1967) and Garrett Hardin's "The Tragedy of the Commons" (December 1968). Also influential was Garett Hardin's later essay called "Exploring New Ethics for Survival", as well as an essay by Aldo Leopold in his A Sand County Almanac, called "The Land Ethic," in which Leopold explicitly claimed that the roots of the ecological crisis were philosophical (1949).

The first international academic journals in this field emerged from North America in the late 1970s and early 1980s – the US-based journal Environmental Ethics in 1979 and the Canadian-based journal The Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy in 1983. The first British based journal of this kind, Environmental Values, was launched in 1992.

Marshall's categories

Some scholars have tried to categorise the various ways the natural environment is valued. Alan Marshall and Michael Smith are two examples of this, as cited by Peter Vardy in "The Puzzle of Ethics". According to Marshall, three general ethical approaches have emerged over the last 40 years: Libertarian Extension, the Ecologic Extension and Conservation Ethics.

Libertarian extension

Marshall’s Libertarian extension echoes a civil liberty approach (i.e. a commitment to extend equal rights to all members of a community). In environmentalism, though, the community is generally thought to consist of non-humans as well as humans.

Andrew Brennan was an advocate of ecologic humanism (eco-humanism), the argument that all ontological entities, animate and in-animate, can be given ethical worth purely on the basis that they exist. The work of Arne Næss and his collaborator Sessions also falls under the libertarian extension, although they preferred the term "deep ecology". Deep ecology is the argument for the intrinsic value or inherent worth of the environment – the view that it is valuable in itself. Their argument, incidentally, falls under both the libertarian extension and the ecologic extension.

Peter Singer's work can be categorized under Marshall's 'libertarian extension'. He reasoned that the "expanding circle of moral worth" should be redrawn to include the rights of non-human animals, and to not do so would be guilty of speciesism. Singer found it difficult to accept the argument from intrinsic worth of a-biotic or "non-sentient" (non-conscious) entities, and concluded in his first edition of "Practical Ethics" that they should not be included in the expanding circle of moral worth. This approach is essentially then, bio-centric. However, in a later edition of "Practical Ethics" after the work of Næss and Sessions, Singer admits that, although unconvinced by deep ecology, the argument from intrinsic value of non-sentient entities is plausible, but at best problematic. Singer advocated a humanist ethics.

Ecologic extension

Alan Marshall's category of ecologic extension places emphasis not on human rights but on the recognition of the fundamental interdependence of all biological (and some abiological) entities and their essential diversity. Whereas Libertarian Extension can be thought of as flowing from a political reflection of the natural world, ecologic extension is best thought of as a scientific reflection of the natural world. Ecological Extension is roughly the same classification of Smith's eco-holism, and it argues for the intrinsic value inherent in collective ecological entities like ecosystems or the global environment as a whole entity. Holmes Rolston, among others, has taken this approach.

This category might include James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis; the theory that the planet earth alters its geo-physiological structure over time in order to ensure the continuation of an equilibrium of evolving organic and inorganic matter. The planet is characterized as a unified, holistic entity with ethical worth of which the human race is of no particular significance in the long run.

Conservation ethics

Marshall's category of 'conservation ethics' is an extension of use-value into the non-human biological world. It focuses only on the worth of the environment in terms of its utility or usefulness to humans. It contrasts the intrinsic value ideas of 'deep ecology', hence is often referred to as 'shallow ecology', and generally argues for the preservation of the environment on the basis that it has extrinsic value – instrumental to the welfare of human beings. Conservation is therefore a means to an end and purely concerned with mankind and inter-generational considerations. It could be argued that it is this ethic that formed the underlying arguments proposed by Governments at the Kyoto summit in 1997 and three agreements reached in Rio in 1992.

Humanist theories

Peter Singer advocated the preservation of "world heritage sites," unspoilt parts of the world that acquire a "scarcity value" as they diminish over time. Their preservation is a bequest for future generations as they have been inherited from human's ancestors and should be passed down to future generations so they can have the opportunity to decide whether to enjoy unspoilt countryside or an entirely urban landscape. A good example of a world heritage site would be the tropical rainforest, a very specialist ecosystem that has taken centuries to evolve. Clearing the rainforest for farmland often fails due to soil conditions, and once disturbed, can take thousands of years to regenerate.

Applied theology

Play media

Pope Francis’s environmental encyclical Laudato si' has been welcomed by many environmental organisations of different faiths - Interfaith march in Rome to call for climate action

The Christian world view sees the universe as created by God, and humankind accountable to God for the use of the resources entrusted to humankind. Ultimate values are seen in the light of being valuable to God. This applies both in breadth of scope - caring for people (Matthew 25) and environmental issues, e.g. environmental health (Deuteronomy 22.8; 23.12-14) - and dynamic motivation, the love of Christ controlling (2 Corinthians 5.14f) and dealing with the underlying spiritual disease of sin, which shows itself in selfishness and thoughtlessness. In many countries this relationship of accountability is symbolised at harvest thanksgiving. (B.T. Adeney : Global Ethics in New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology 1995 Leicester)

Abrahamic religious scholars have used theology to motivate the public. John L. O'Sullivan, who coined the term Manifest destiny, and other influential people like him used Abrahamic ideologies to encourage action. These religious scholars, columnists and politicians historically have used these ideas and continue to do so to justify the consumptive tendencies of a young America around the time of the Industrial Revolution. In order to solidify the understanding that God had intended for humankind to use earths natural resources, environmental writers and religious scholars alike proclaimed that humans are separate from nature, on a higher order. Those that may critique this point of view may ask the same question that John Muir asks ironically in a section of his novel A Thousand Mile Walk to the Gulf, why are there so many dangers in the natural world in the form of poisonous plants, animals and natural disasters, The answer is that those creatures are a result of Adam and Eve's sins in the garden of Eden.

Since the turn of the 20th century, the application of theology in environmentalism diverged into two schools of thought. The first system of understanding holds religion as the basis of environmental stewardship. The second sees the use of theology as a means to rationalize the unmanaged consumptions of natural resources. Lynn White and Calvin DeWitt represent each side of this dichotomy.

John Muir personified nature as an inviting place away from the loudness of urban centers. "For Muir and the growing number of Americans who shared his views, Satan's home had become God's Own Temple." The use of Abrahamic religious allusions assisted Muir and the Sierra Club to create support for some of the first public nature preserves.

Authors like Terry Tempest Williams as well as John Muir build on the idea that "...God can be found wherever you are, especially outside. Family worship was not just relegated to Sunday in a chapel." References like these assist the general public to make a connection between paintings done at the Hudson River School, Ansel Adams' photographs, along with other types of media, and their religion or spirituality. Placing intrinsic value upon nature through theology is a fundamental idea of Deep ecology.

Anthropocentrism

Anthropocentrism is the position that humans are the most important or critical element in any given situation; that the human race must always be its own primary concern. Detractors of anthropocentrism argue that the Western tradition biases homo sapiens when considering the environmental ethics of a situation and that humans evaluate their environment or other organisms in terms of the utility for them. Many argue that all environmental studies should include an assessment of the intrinsic value of non-human beings. In fact, based on this very assumption, a philosophical article has explored recently the possibility of humans' willing extinction as a gesture toward other beings. The authors refer to the idea as a thought experiment that should not be understood as a call for action.

Baruch Spinoza reasoned that if humans were to look at things objectively, they would discover that everything in the universe has a unique value. Likewise, it is possible that a human-centred or anthropocentric/androcentric ethic is not an accurate depiction of reality, and there is a bigger picture that humans may or may not be able to understand from a human perspective.

Peter Vardy distinguished between two types of anthropocentrism. A strong anthropocentric ethic argues that humans are at the center of reality and it is right for them to be so. Weak anthropocentrism, however, argues that reality can only be interpreted from a human point of view, thus humans have to be at the centre of reality as they see it.

Another point of view has been developed by Bryan Norton, who has become one of the essential actors of environmental ethics by launching environmental pragmatism, now one of its leading trends. Environmental pragmatism refuses to take a stance in disputes between defenders of anthropocentrist and non-anthropocentrist ethics. Instead, Norton distinguishes between strong anthropocentrism and weak-or-extended-anthropocentrism and argues that the former must underestimate the diversity of instrumental values humans may derive from the natural world.

A recent view relates anthropocentrism to the future of life. Biotic ethics are based on the human identity as part of gene/protein organic life whose effective purpose is self-propagation. This implies a human purpose to secure and propagate life. Humans are central because only they can secure life beyond the duration of the Sun, possibly for trillions of eons. Biotic ethics values life itself, as embodied in biological structures and processes. Humans are special because they can secure the future of life on cosmological scales. In particular, humans can continue sentient life that enjoys its existence, adding further motivation to propagate life. Humans can secure the future of life, and this future can give human existence a cosmic purpose.

Status of the field

Only after 1990 did the field gain institutional recognition at programs such as Colorado State University, the University of Montana, Bowling Green State University, and the University of North Texas. In 1991, Schumacher College of Dartington, England, was founded and now provides an MSc in Holistic Science.

These programs began to offer a master's degree with a specialty in environmental ethics/philosophy. Beginning in 2005 the Department of Philosophy and Religion Studies at the University of North Texas offered a PhD program with a concentration in environmental ethics/philosophy.

In Germany, the University of Greifswald has recently established an international program in Landscape Ecology & Nature Conservation with a strong focus on environmental ethics. In 2009, the University of Munich and Deutsches Museum founded the Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society, an international, interdisciplinary center for research and education in the environmental humanities.

Ecospirituality

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

Ecospirituality connects the science of ecology with spirituality. It brings together religion and environmental activism. Ecospirituality has been defined as "a manifestation of the spiritual connection between human beings and the environment." The new millennium and the modern ecological crisis has created a need for environmentally based religion and spirituality. Ecospirituality is understood by some practitioners and scholars as one result of people wanting to free themselves from a consumeristic and materialistic society. Ecospirituality has been critiqued for being an umbrella term for concepts such as deep ecology, ecofeminism, and nature religion.

 

Proponents may come from a range of faiths including: Islam; Christianity (Catholicism, Evangelicalism and Orthodox Christianity); Judaism; Buddhism and Indigenous traditions. Although many of their practices and beliefs may differ, a central claim is that there is "a spiritual dimension to our present ecological crisis." According to the environmentalist Sister Virginia Jones, "Eco-spirituality is about helping people experience 'the holy' in the natural world and to recognize their relationship as human beings to all creation.

Ecospirituality has been influenced by the ideas of deep ecology, which is characterized by "recognition of the inherent value of all living beings and the use of this view in shaping environmental policies"  Similarly to ecopsychology, it refers to the connections between the science of ecology and the study of psychology. 'Earth-based' spirituality is another term related to ecospirituality; it is associated with pagan religious traditions and the work of prominent ecofeminist, Starhawk. Ecospirituality refers to the intertwining of intuition and bodily awareness pertaining to a relational view between human beings and the planet.

Origins

Ecospirituality finds its history in the relationship between spirituality and the environment. Some scholars say it "flows from an understanding of cosmology or the story of the origin of the universe."  There are multiple origin stories about how the spiritual relationship with people and the environment began. In Native America philosophy, there are many unique stories of how spirituality came to be. A common theme in a number of them is the discussion of a Great Spirit that lives within the universe and the earth represents its presence.

Ecospirituality has also sprung from a reaction to the Western world's materialism and consumerism, characterized by ecotheologian Thomas Berry as a "crisis of cosmology." Scholars have argued that "the modern perspective is based on science and focused on the human self with everything else being outside, resulting in the demise of the metaphysical world and the disenchantment with the cosmos."  Therefore, ecospirituality originates as a rebuttal to the emphasis on the material as well as Western separation from the environment, where the environment is regarded as a set of material resources with primarily instrumental value.

Ecological crisis

Ecospirituality became popularized due to a need for a reconceptualization of the human relationship with the environment. Terms such as environmental crisis, ecological crisis, climate change, global warming all refer to an ongoing global issue that needs to be addressed. Generally the ecological crisis is referring to the destruction of the earth’s ecosystem. What this encompasses is a highly controversial debate in scientific and political spheres. Globally we are faced with pollution of our basic needs (air, and water) as well as the depletion of important resources, most notably food resources.

Annette Van Schalkwyk refers to the environmental crisis as “man-made”. It is arguably the result of a “mechanistic and capitalistic world view”. Whether it is man-made, or as some argue, a natural occurrence, humans are not helping. Pollution and depletion of resources play a major role in the ecological crisis. Bringing religion into the ecological crisis is controversial due to the divide between religion and science. Ecospirituality is prepared to acknowledge science, and work in tandem with religion to frame the environment as a sacred entity in need of protection.

Mary Evelyn Tucker notes the importance of religion and ecology connecting with sustainability. Due to the environmental crisis, perceptions of sustainability are changing. Religion and ecology, and the way people experience ecospirituality, could contribute to this changing definition of sustainability.

Research on ecospirituality

Ecospirituality has been studied by academics in order to understand a clearer definition of what individuals label as ecospirituality and the framework in which they create this definition. One study focused on holistic nurses, who themselves characterize their profession as having a fundamentally spiritual nature and a sense of the importance of the environment. Researchers performed a phenomenological study where they assessed the nurses' ecospiritual consciousness. For the purpose of their study, they defined ecospiritual consciousness as "accessing a deep awareness of one's ecospiritual relationship." They then narrowed down their findings to the five principles of ecospiritual consciousness, which are: tending, dwelling, reverence, connectedness, and sentience.

1. Tending was defined as "being awake and conscious," with "deep, inner self-reflection."
2. Dwelling was defined as "a process of being with the seen and the unseen."
3. Reverence was defined as "rediscovering the mystery present present in all creation and is embodied sense of the sacred," focusing on the earth.
4. Connectedness was defined as an "organic relationship with the universe." 
5. Sentience was defined as "a sense of knowing."

Another study looked at medical effects of ecospirituality by having patients with cardiovascular disease practice "environmental meditation" and log regular journal entries about their experiences. Researchers started out with the research question of, "What is the essence of the experience of ecospirituality meditation in patients with CVD?" CVD is an acronym for cardiovascular disease. From analyzing journal entries of participants, researchers abstracted four major themes of ecospirituality meditation: entering a new time zone, environmental reawakening, finding a new rhythm, and the creation of a healing environment.

1. Entering a new time zone was described by researchers as "the expansion of time during meditation."
2. Environmental Reawakening was described by researchers as "opened participants’ eyes to vistas not previously noticed"
3. Finding a new rhythm was described by the researchers as "enhanced relationships with their family, friends, coworkers, and even their pets."
4. The creation of a healing environment was described by the researchers as "With raised consciousnesses, they became aware of the choices they had regarding what types of intentions and energy that wanted to put out in their environment"

This research was driven by the goal of raising awareness among healthcare professionals about ecospirituality and the medical importance of both self and environmental consciousness. Anecdotal evidence showed a decrease in blood pressure. However, the psychological benefits of environmental meditation were the main focus for the researchers.

Dark Green Religion

Dark Green Religion is one way in which people, both secular and religious, connect with nature on a spiritual level. Bron Taylor defines Dark Green Religion as "religion that considers nature to be sacred, imbued by intrinsic value, and worthy of reverent care" in his book Dark Green Religion: Nature Spirituality and the Planetary Future.  Nature religion is an overarching term of which Dark Green Religion is a part of. A key part of Dark Green Religion is the "depth of its consideration of nature." Dark Green Religion differs from Green Religion. Green Religion claims that it is a religious obligation for humans to be environmental stewards, while Dark Green Religion is a movement that simply holds nature as valuable and sacred. Spiritual types of Dark Green Religion include Naturalistic and Supernaturalistic forms of Animism and of Gaianism. The diverse views within Dark Green Religion are not without the idea that the earth is sacred and worthy of care. The perceptions of Dark Green Religion are global and flexible. Taylor's use of the word 'Dark' gestures toward these negative possibilities. According to Taylor, Dark Green Religion has the possibility to "inspire the emergence of a global, civic, earth religion." Dark Green, Green and Nature Religions are arguably all a part of ecospirituality. The term ecospirituality is versatile and overarching.

Ecofeminism and spirituality

The umbrella term "ecospirituality" covers the feminist theology called Ecofeminism. The term ecofeminism was first coined by the French writer Françoise D'Eaubonne in her book, Le Féminisme ou la Mort in order to name the connection between the patriarchal subjugation of women and the destruction of nature. In it, she argues that women have different ways of seeing and relating to the world than men. These differences can give rise alternative insights on interactions between humans and the natural world when women's perspectives are considered. The suppression and control of woman and the natural world are connected. On the ecofeminist view, women are controlled because they are thought to be closer to primitive nature. By understanding the connection between femininity and nature and by exploring feminine ways of seeing and relating, ecofeminism asserts that humans can realize positive ways of interacting with the natural world and with each other.

Ecofeminism and Christianity on the ecological crisis

A significant figure in Christian ecofeminism is Rosemary Radford Ruether. Ruether argues that feminism and ecology share a common vision, even though they use different languages. In her work, Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing Ruether provides three recommendations on ways to move forward with repairing and "healing" the ecological crisis. The first recommendation is that "the ecological crisis needs to be seen not just as a crisis in the health of nonhuman ecosystems, polluted water, contaminated skies, threatened climate change, deforestation, extinction of species, important as all these realities are. Rather one needs to see the interconnections between the impoverishment of the earth and the impoverishment of human groups, even as others are enriching themselves to excess." The second recommendation is that "a healed ecosystem – humans, animals, land, air, and water together – needs to be understood as requiring a new way of life, not just a few adjustments here and there." The third and final recommendation is that the need for a new vision is necessary: "one needs to nurture the emergence of a new planetary vision and communal ethic that can knit together people across religions and cultures. There is rightly much dismay at the role that religions are playing in right-wing politics and even internecine violence today. But we need also to recognize the emergence of new configurations of inter-religious relations."

Ecofeminism and Christianity in liberation theology

According to Ivone Gebara, in Latin America, particularly in Christian Churches in Brazil, it is difficult to be a feminist, but more difficult to be an ecofeminist. Gebara explains ecology as one of the "deepest concerns of feminism and ecology as having a deep resonance or a political and anthropolocial consequence from a feminist perspective." Gebara believes that it is the task of different groups of Latin American women to "provide a new order of meaning including marginalized people." This task is both challenging and political. Gebara says: "We can choose the life of the planet and the respect of all living beings or we choose to die by our own bad decisions."

World Religions and ecospirituality

Ecospirituality and paganism

Paganism is a nature-based religion that exists in a multitude of forms. There is no official doctrine or sacred text that structures its practice. Due to its lack of structure, many Pagans believe that it should be used as a tool to combat the current ecological crisis because it is flexible and can adapt to the environment's needs. Ecospirituality advocates contend that an ecology-based religion that focuses on the nurturing and healing of the earth is necessary in modernity. As paganism is already based in nature worship, many believe it would be a useful starting point for ecospirituality. In fact, neopagan revivals have seen the emergence of pagan communities that are more earth-focused. They may build their rituals around advocacy for a sustainable lifestyle and emphasize complete interconnectedness with the earth. Paganism understands divine figures to exist not as transcendent beings, but as immanent beings in the present realm, meaning that their divine figures exist within each of us, and within nature. Many pagans believe in interconnectedness among all living beings, which allows them to foster moments of self-reflection before acting. These pagan ideals coincide with ecospirituality because pagans understand the environment to be part of the divine realm and part of their inner self. Therefore, in their view, harming the environment directly affects their wellbeing. Pagans have already recognized the importance of incorporating environmental ideologies with their own religious beliefs. The Dragon Environmental Network is a pagan community based in the UK. They are committed to practicing "eco-magic" with the intention of recognizing the earth as sacred and divine. Their four goals are as follows:

1. Increase general awareness of the sacredness of the Earth.
2. Encourage pagans to become involved in conservation work.
3. Encourage pagans to become involved in environmental campaigns.
4. Develop the principles and practice of magical and spiritual action for the environment.

Paganism combines religion with environmental activism. Pagans organize protests, campaigns, and petitions with the environment in mind while staying true to their religious beliefs. Bron Taylor, argues that their core Pagan beliefs greatly improves their environmental activism. Additionally, the Pagan community has recently released a statement on the ecological crisis. It explains that Pagans lead lives that foster “harmony with the rhythms of our great Earth" and that they view the Earth as their equal in stating “we are neither above nor separate from the rest of nature”. It states that we are part of a web of life, and are fully interconnected with the biosphere. This connection to all living beings is seen as spiritual and sacred. And in turn it provides a framework that Pagans can use to combine their religious beliefs with environmental activism. It calls for a return to ancient understandings of the earth by listening to ancient wisdom. It asks Pagans to practice their religion in all aspects of their lives in order to give the Earth room to heal. The statement concludes by stating “building a truly sustainable culture means transforming the systems of domination and exploitation that threaten our future into systems of symbiotic partnership that support our ecosystems”.

Ecospirituality and Christianity

Most Christian theology has centered on the doctrine of creation. According to Elizabeth Johnson, in recent years, this has led to growing ecological awareness among Christians. The logic of this stance is rooted in the theological idea that since God created the world freely, it has an intrinsic value and is worthy of our respect and care. In 1990, Pope John Paul II wrote a letter on ecological issues. He concluded the letter with a discussion of Christian belief and how it should lead to ethical care of the earth. He ended the letter with the principle "respect for life and the dignity of human person must extend also to the rest of creation."

The doctrines of Christ that Christians follow also have the potential for ecological spirituality for they support interpretations that are consistent with ecospirituality. According to Elizabeth Johnson, Jesus' view of the Kingdom of God included earthly wellbeing. According to Thomas Berry, Christians recognize a need for an Earth Ethic. The Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew, leader of the Greek Orthodox Church, has organized major religion and science symposia on water issues across Europe, the Amazon River and Greenland. He has issued statements – including a joint statement with John Paul II in 2002 – calling destruction of the environment "ecological sin." Bishop Malone, president of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops has said: "The Church stands in need of a new symbolic and affective system through which to proclaim the Gospel to the modern world." In the ecotheology of the late Thomas Berry, he argues that Christians often fail to realize that both their social and religious wellbeing depend on the wellbeing of Earth. Earth provides sustenance for physical, imaginative and emotions, and religious wellbeing. In Thomas Berry's view, the Christian future will depend on the ability of Christians to assume their responsibility for Earth's fate. An example of such responsibility-taking can be seen in the founding of an association called "Sisters of Earth," which is made up of nuns and laywomen. This network of women from diverse religious communities is significant, both for the movement of general concern for the natural world and for the religious life in Christian contexts.

Ecospirituality and Hinduism

Many teachings in Hinduism are intertwined with the ethics of ecospirituality in their stress on environmental wellbeing. The Hindu text called the Taittariya Upanishad refers to creation as offspring of the Supreme Power, paramatman. Thus, the environment is related to something that is divine and therefore deserves respect. Since the late 1980s when the negative effects of mass industrialization were becoming popularized, India instituted administrative policies to deal with environmental conservation. These policies were rooted in the ways that the Hindu religion is tied to the land.

In the Hindu text Vajur Veda (32.10), God is described as being present in all living things, further reinforcing the need to show respect for creation. Passages such as this lead some Hindus to become vegetarian and to affirm a broader type of ecospiritual connection to the Earth. Vishnu Purana 3.8.15. states that, "God, Kesava, is pleased with a person who does not harm or destroy other non-speaking creatures or animals."  This notion is tied in with the Hindu concept of karma. Karma means that the pain caused to other living things will come back to you through the process of reincarnation.

Ecospirituality can also be seen in the Prithivi Sukta which is a "Hymn to Mother Earth." In this text, the Earth is humanized into a spiritual being to which humans have familial ties. Through ecospirituality, the notion of praising and viewing the Earth in this way brings about its strong connections to Hinduism.

Ecospirituality and Jainism

Contemporary Jaina fatih is “inherently ecofriendly.” In terms of the ecological crisis, Jains are “quite self-conscious of the ecological implications of their core teachings.”

Jain teachings center on five vows that lead to reverse the flow of or release karma. One of these vows is ahimsa or non-violence. Ahimsa “is said to contain the key to advancement along the spiritual path (sreni). This requires abstaining from harm to any being that possesses more than one sense” The principles of the Jaina tradition are rooted in environmental practices. The Jaina connection to nature is conducive to ecospirituality.

Ecospirituality and Islam

Some scholars argue that while looking at the scriptural sources of Islam, you can see it is an ecologically orientated religion. Looking at textual sources of Islam, the shari'a preach a number of environmentally focused guidelines to push environmentalism, in particular, "maintenance of preserves, distribution of water, and the development of virgin lands." Much of Muslim environmentalism is a result of the Qur'anic stress of stewardship which is explained through the Arabic concept khilafa. A quote translated from the hadith states, "verily, this world is sweet and appealing, and Allah placed you as vice-regents thereinl he will see what you do." Within the Islamic faith, there is a set importance to following the messages set forth in scripture, therefore the environmentalism spoken through them has led to a spirituality around the environment. This spirituality can also be seen with Qur'anic concept of tawhid, which translates to unity. Many Muslim environmentalists see this meaning spiritually as "all-inclusive" when in relation to the Earth.
A majority of Muslim writers draw attention to the environmental crisis as a direct result of social injustice. Many argue that the problem is not that, "humans as a species are destroying the balance of nation, but rather that some humans are taking more than their share." Muslim environmentalists such as Fazlun Khalid, Yasin Dutton, Omar Vadillo, and Hashim Dockrat have drawn a correlation between the capitalist nature of the global economy to being un-Islamic and essentiality leading to ecological crisis.

The issues of environmental degradation are especially important to Muslims as majority of Muslims live in developing countries where they see the effects of the ecological crisis on a daily basis. This has led to conferences discussing Islam and the environment to take place in Iran and Saudi Arabia as well as the introduction of environmental nongovernmental organizations.

Ecospirituality and Buddhism

Buddhism has been around for hundreds of years, however with the modern knowledge on topics such as global warming, many Buddhist scholars have looked back at how Buddhist teaching would respond to the environmental crisis and created what is called Green Buddhism. One of the key players in this introduction was Gary Snyder who brought to light where Buddhist practice and ecological thinking intertwine. Green Buddhism made waves in the 1980s when they publicly address the ecological crisis to create awareness and in 1989 when the Dalai Lama won a Noble Peace Prize for the proposed introduction of Tibet as an ecological reserve. Buddhism has been open to working with other world religions to combat the environment crisis seen at an international conference for Buddhist-Christian studies that addressed the environment. Although Green Buddhism has not commented much on technical issues such as air and water pollution, they use their spirituality to focus heavily on "rich resources for immediate application in food ethics, animal rights, and consumerism."