MA SOCIOLOGY P-XII

SOCIOLOGY OF ENVIRONMENT

Sucharita Mishra
 Unit-I

Environmental Sociology:

1.0 Man and Environment

1.1Impact of Human Activities on Environment:

1.2Meaning of Environmental Sociology
1.3Sociological Perspectives on Environment
1.3.1 The Realist Approach
1.3.2 The Constructionist Approach
1.3.3 The Reformist Approach

1.4Environmental Sociology as a Field of Enquiry

1.5The Rise of Environment in Sociological Theory
1.6Emergence of an Environmental Sociology
1.7Resurgence of Environmental Sociology
1.8Environmental Concerns and Social Sciences in India
1.9Conclusion
1.10 Model Questions
 Unit-I

Environmental Sociology

Introduction

1.0 Man and Environment:

Environment can be defined as the sum total of materials and forces surrounding
the living organism. Gisbert defined environment as “anything immediately
surrounding an object and exerting a direct influence on it.” It is the sum total of
conditions that surrounds us at a given point at space and time. Thus,
environment is comprised of the interacting systems of physical, biological and
cultural elements and these are interlinked individually and collectively in various
ways.
The word environment is derived from the French verb ‘environer’ which
means to ‘encircle or surround.’ Thus our environment can be defined as
the physical, chemical and biological world that surround as well as the
complex of social and cultural affecting an individual or community. This broad
definition includes the natural world and the technological environment as well
as the cultural and social context that shape human lives. It includes all factors
living and non living that affect an individual organism or population at any point
in the life cycle. Set of circumstances surrounding a particular occurrence and all
the things that surround us.

It is essentially a multidisciplinary approach and its components include biology,

geology, chemistry, physics, engineering, sociology, health sciences,
anthropology, economics, statistics and philosophy. .Environmental science is
a Interdisciplinary subject which deals with each and every aspect of life i.e.
related with us. It requires the knowledge of various other subjects like biology,
chemistry, physics, statistics, micro-biology, bio-chemistry, geology, economics,
law, sociology etc.

Environmental science integrates physical and biological sciences, to the

study of the environment, and the solution of environmental problems.
Environmental science provides an integrated, quantitative, approach to
the study of environmental systems. Related areas of study
include environmental studies and environmental engineering. Environmental
studies incorporate more of the social sciences for understanding human
relationships, perceptions and policies towards the environment. Environmental
engineering focuses on design and technology for improving environmental
quality in every aspect. Environmental scientists work on subjects like the
understanding of earth processes, evaluating alternative energy systems,
pollution control and mitigation, natural resource management, and the effects
of global climate change. Environmental issues almost always include an
interaction of physical, chemical, biological and socio-cultural processes.
Environmental scientists bring a systems approach to the analysis of
environmental problems.

Environmental science came alive as a substantive, active field of scientific

investigation in the 1960s and 1970s driven by (a) the need for a multi-
disciplinary approach to analyze complex environmental problems, (b) the arrival
of substantive environmental laws requiring specific environmental protocols of
investigation and (c) the growing public awareness of a need for action in
addressing environmental problems. It is a relatively new field of study which
has evolved from integrated use of many disciplines. It creates awareness and
understanding of environmental concepts which may be scientific, social and
ecological systems thereby providing a platform for solution to various
environmental problems.

Environment regulates the life of the organisms including human beings. Man
being the most intelligent creature, interacts with the environment more
vigorously than does any other organism. There is no end to human needs. With
the growth of human civilization, there has been an exponential increase in the
demands for materials. As a result, man has started exploiting nature mercilessly
to meet the demands of his comfort and to feed the mouths of increased
population. Though deterioration of environmental condition is brought about by
extreme events like natural catastrophes and calamities, man-made hazards,
physical pollution and social pollution, man has a major role in it.
The earth has only a certain amount of air, water, soil, raw materials and
minerals- the natural resources. But these resources are being recklessly
exploited, consumed or wasted. It is feared that many of these non-renewable
resources will be exhausted soon. It is impossible to replace or recreate fuels like
coal, gas and oil. Thus, we human beings, exploit, alter, destroy and pollute the
environment around us. But as a rational and social creature we also realize the
importance of environment and hence make efforts for its conservation or
protection in order to ensure for ourselves a healthy and comfortable living.

1.1 Impact of Human Activities on Environment:

Man is the most intelligent animal on the surface of the earth. Intelligence and
creativity have led man to discover, to invent, to manipulate, to exploit, to
construct and also to destroy things around him. Civilization and rapid growth of
human population have engaged man in various activities- both constructive and
destructive. But the outcomes of most of the human activities have contributed
significantly to the degradation of the environment around us. Human activities
have given rise to problems like urbanization, deforestation, and increased
consumption of natural resources, production of solid, liquid and gaseous wastes,
ground water depletion, production of toxic substances, extinction of wild life, soil
erosion as well as environmental pollution.

1.2 Meaning of Environmental Sociology

The association between societal well-being and environmental quality is

increasingly becoming a topic of sociological interest. Environmental sociology is a
sub discipline within the field of sociology that studies of the interactions
between the physical environment, social organization, and social behavior.
Environmental sociologists typically place special emphasis on studying the social
factors that cause environmental problems, the societal impacts of those
problems, and efforts to solve the problems. They also look at the social
processes by which certain environmental conditions become socially defined as
problems.

For instance, environmental sociologists aim to understand environmentalism as

a social movement, the ways in which members of society perceive
environmental problems, and the origins of human-induced environmental
decline. Another area of environmental sociological research is the unequal
distribution of environmental hazards. These researchers examine the process by
which socially disadvantaged populations come to experience greater exposures
to various environmental hazards, including natural disasters.

Sociology of the environment is a new field of sociology that has developed in

relation to people’s growing concern about environmental issues. It has a dual
focus. On the one hand it deals with the ways in which people in society relate to
the natural world. On the other hand it deals with ‘environmentalism’ as a social
movement; the development of concern about the environment and the social
context of actions about the environment. It could be argued that the way people
relate to the natural world has always been a concern of sociologists. When Karl
Marx talks about ‘production’ he is talking about a relationship between workers
and the natural objects they work up as products. Anthropologists have always
believed that natural objects have symbolic significance and this approach can
also be used by sociologists. What is the social meaning of the kangaroo, for
example? The environmentalist movement as a topic of sociology can be related
to the growing concern with environmental problems. The birth of the movement
is normally dated to the publication of Silent Spring by Rachel Carson in 1962, a
book which documented the effect of toxic pesticides on birds and other animals.
The ‘hippy’ movement that developed later in the 1960s was the first large-scale
popular subculture to develop themes from environmentalism.

The technical definition of environmental sociology is the sociological study

of how humans interact with the various aspects of the environment. In other
words; how people treat the various aspects of the environment such as
pollution, conservation and recycling. This type of study is one that is vital
when it comes to helping find better ways for both nature and mankind to
interact, propagate and thrive.

There are two schools of thought when it comes to environmental sociology;

constructivism and realism. The constructivist’s tend to be those individuals who
develop ways that will help to improve the environment, however, they do tend
to be on the more extremist side in their methods. The realists are those who
want to help find the solutions needed to improve the environment.
The association between societal well-being and environmental quality is an
important topic of Sociological inquiry. Environmental Sociology as a sub
discipline within Sociology explores the various forms of interaction between
human society and the environment. Catton and Dunlap A New Ecological
Paradigm made them present Environmental Sociology as the study of
interaction between society and its biophysical environment with a certain
insistence given to the idea that every human society is dependent on the
ecosystems in which it exists.

The environmental sociology of the 70’s centers its attention on the study of
green movement, energy issues, risks of catastrophes, public attitudes towards
environmental questions, environmental policies and the quality of environment
as a social problem.

Environmental sociology is also interested in a more general manner in human

causes and social factors of environmental pollution, as well as in the social
impacts of this pollution and of diminishing natural resources that is in the
reciprocal relations between human societies and their biophysical environment.

Environmental sociology has different dimensions to it that their own research

foci, environmental attitudes and the environmental movement, social impact
analysis, risk assessment, responses to toxic sitting and discovery natural
hazards, research and so forth. The inequitable social distribution of
environmental hazards is another central area of Environmental Sociological
research, with scholars examining the processes by which socially disadvantaged
populations come to experience greater exposures to myriad environmental
hazards including natural disasters and unequal distribution of natural
resources..It also helps to formulate equitable strategies to drive
environmental degradation and also to build sustainable relationship between
humans and the environment. Public opinion about environmental issues and
environmental policies and the influence of the Green movement on these
policies.

Environmental Sociologists seek to understand a variety of topics, including

agrifood systems, the origins of human-induced environmental decline, the
relationship between population dynamics, health, and the environment, and
the role that elites play in harming the environment, environmental regulatory
agency dynamics.

Today in sociology, two approaches to sociology of the environment battle it out

in Contemporary academic writing: the realist approach and the constructionist
approach. These are different approaches to what sociology does. Does sociology
talk about how humans relate to the environment and the social factors that
influence that? Or is it mainly about how humans perceive their relationship to
the environment—a sociology of perspectives on the environment?

1.3 Sociological Perspectives on Environment

1.3.1. The realist approach

In the realist approach, the problems of the environment are quite real.
Inevitably, social scientists will follow the lead of the natural sciences in
identifying the problems. The task of sociology is to explain the social causes of
environmental problems. Also, what social alternatives could produce a better
environmental outcome? In this approach, sociologists are in the same boat as
most other commentators on environmental problems. Academics in many
disciplines—for example environmental scientists, economists, and
psychologists—argue about what the problems are and what can be done. If
sociology has anything special to offer, it is a deeper and more systematic
understanding of the social roots of environmental problems and the processes of
social change.

1.3.2. The constructionist approach

A second approach attacks realism and argues that there is no one ‘reality’ of
environmental problems. Different people have their own differently constructed
and equally valid interpretations of the environment. This second perspective
comes from a sociological tradition which says that society is not a real thing—it is
socially constructed. In this view social and other realities do not exist
independently of the meanings people create about them. Applied to
environmental issues, this approach maintains that ‘there is no singular “nature”
as such, only a diversity of contested natures; and that each such nature is
constituted through a variety of socio-cultural processes from which such natures
cannot be plausibly separated’. So sociologists should investigate how the
environment is understood by different sections of the population, how
environmental issues are constituted as social Problems and how people respond
to these discourses of environmental trouble. It is hard to deny the force of the
constructivist claim that our understanding of environmental problems is
constructed in specific social contexts. Realists cope with this awkward truth by
saying that ‘the objective world is real and independent of our categorizations but
filtered through subjective conceptual systems and scientific methods that are
socially conditioned’. So they admit that society influences the way we look at the
natural world but they insist that there is a reality out there.

1.3.3 The reformist approach

The reformist approach aims to make small reforms to the economic and political
structures of current society to deal with environmental problems. A much-read
book with this approach is Natural Capitalism.

Within this approach markets are the main means to distribute products—
products are bought and sold for money. According to Hawken and colleagues,
‘natural capitalism does not aim to discard market economics’. Instead what is
necessary is the steering of markets ‘in more creative and constructive directions’.
Other aspects of the capitalist economy such as money, private ownership of the
means of production (factories and farms, and so on) and wage labour are also
retained.
In the reformist model economic growth continues. It is argued that this can take
Place at the same time as environmental damage is cut back. For example,
according to Hawken et al., ‘even if the global economy expanded by 6- to 8-fold,
the rate of releasing carbon by burning fossil fuel could simultaneously decrease’.
In fact, new environmental technology is a growth industry in this account and
stimulates growth— ‘reducing the economy’s dependence on fossil fuels can be
seen as an investment and job creation opportunity’. Environmental reforms
come about because people lobby politicians for change— with the threat of
voters turning away from parties that do not enact environmental reforms.
Markets ‘demand . . . responsible citizenship to keep them functioning properly’.
This is what is expected to take place in rich countries; proponents of the
reformist model never consider how the model could possibly work in poor and
undemocratic countries.
Environmental reforms also come about partly through lifestyle changes by
ordinary citizens who make different market decisions. But a central aspect of
change is various kinds of government intervention—for example, regulations to
prevent environmentally damaging practices, taxes such as a carbon tax on the
use of fossil fuels, incentives and subsidies for new technologies such as solar hot
water services or wind power, and international agreements like the Kyoto
Protocol designed to get countries to agree to environmental reforms. One idea is
to replace all taxation based on income with environmental taxes—governments
would be totally funded by taxes on harmful environmental activities. According
to the reformist account, all these environmental reforms benefit the economy,
first, because energy efficiency is cheaper; you are not wasting money on energy
you don’t need. Second, environmental reforms create new industries and new
jobs— for example new energy infrastructure such as wind energy plants or
energy-efficient double-glazed windows.

1.4 The Emergence of Environmental Sociology

The contemporary environmental sociology is embedded historically and
introduces the sociology of the environmental issues and nature. There is a vast
discussion led within the field of environmental sociology about the significance
of the environment for classical sociologists. Dunlap and Catton [1978] claim that
sociology largely ignored the natural environment Their belief stands on the
assumption that all social sciences are based on the separation of the natural
world Dunlop and Cotton called this “Human exemptionalism Paradigm” and with
this theory they laid the foundations for the formulation of the environmental
sociology Alexandrescu 2009:48. The view that sociology was oblivious to
environmental topics throughout its history is being disproved by several authors
and it is possible to find that also sociological classics had an insight into the
relationship between the society and the environment and the dynamics of this
relationship.
Before the 1970s, Western sociology had not paid a lot of attention to the
biophysical environment. Yet, with the rise of concern about the environment,
the sociological community recognized this area as worthy of sociological
attention but still, the environment did not have an enduring position within this
social science. This antipathy towards the natural environment might originate
from the classical theorists’ desire to distinguish sociology from natural sciences
by focusing on the social causes of social phenomena as per Dunlap and Murdoch

Nevertheless, classical theories are very important for the formulation of

environmental sociology. That is because environmental sociology either builds
upon them some of its arguments or because it creates its own discourse by
expressing the differences between their bases.

For instance, what environmental sociology shares with Marxism is an activist

approach and perception of environmental degradation as a discrepancy with
modern development. Contrarily, environmental sociology takes a step aside from
Marxism because of the consequences for nature of the trust in Marxism among
soviet countries in the second half of twentieth century. Weber’s sociology and
especially neo-Weberian scholars played an important part in the development of
environmental sociology. Weber’s contribution is seen mainly in his focus on the
link between subjective meaning and social action and in his formulation of
alienation from nature Dunlap 2002 Moreover, Beck sees an ecological subtext in
Weber’s writings claiming that “in Weber’s view industrial capitalism generates an
insatiable appetite for natural resources which undermines its own material
prerequisites.” Beck on 2010 say However, there are several areas to which
environmental sociology has a different stand, such as technology and the effects
of rationalization. Even though Durkheim’s main concepts are social facts
explained by other social facts (so there is no concern in nature per se), we can
discover certain contribution to environmental sociology also in Durkheim’s
sociology. Durkheim’s division of labor created a basis for demographic human
ecology from which latter environmental sociologists’ proceeds.

The younger sociology of the (mid-) twentieth century could be seen as more
distant to the environment than classical sociological theories since the society of
the twentieth century with the technical developments is the industrial society
par excellence. But various points are seen as conducive to the articulation of
environmental sociology.

For instance, the followers of Parsons’ theories, especially Luhmann and his thesis
that subsystems in modern society fail to communicate are resonating in the
incompetence of political systems to accomplish the demands for natural
protection, economic development and justice in society. Another example might
be observed in the Critical Theories. Habermas’ emphasis on communication and
meaning might be important. Also Benjamin’s work referring to the master of
nature might be significant for environmental sociology. World-system theory is
attractive for environmental sociologists because of its global-scale point of view.
That is why it could address issues such as global warming, resource depletion,
ozone holeetc

Therefore the claim that sociology had been totally oblivious to the nature and
environment would be wrong. Alexandrescu [2009] disproved it by an analysis of
American sociological text books from the late nineteenth century till the late
twentieth century. And according to Beck, classical sociologists “… did have an
idea of an unintended dynamics of capitalist modernization…” which influences
the attitude towards the nature and the use of natural resources.

Although we may find traces of environmental sociology in the whole history of

sociology itself; the main development of the specific subject on its own started in
the second part of the twentieth century. In the 1960s and 1970s a number of
sociologists began to recognize the importance of environmental questions and
started a research related to this area so that the subject of environmental
sociology began to be more and more complex According to Alexandrescu, it was
Dunlap and Catton’s article “Environmental Sociology: a New Paradigm”
published in 1978 that created the environmental sociology as such.

In the period of the late twentieth century, this rise of environmental concern was
typical among the general public as well. Hannigan presents four main reasons for
this growth of environmental consciousness among both experts and public
(represented by New Social Movements). The first explanation is the Reflection.

hypothesis, which says that the rise of the concern about the environment started
after the second world war as a reaction to worsening situation secondly the post
materialist thesis explains the rise of the environmental concern as a broader shift
in values. This thesis is linked to Inglehart’s scale of Postmaterialism. The next
explanation strongly focuses on the social location of those people who are more
concerned with nature. This New Middle-class thesis calls these people “social
and cultural specialists”. The last, fourth, explanation is the Regulationist/Political
closure approach. According to this approach, the reason for the rise of the
environmental concern is the defensive reaction to the tension in the political
system in Western Europe. All four explanations have both their advocates and
critics Nevertheless, all of them bring us a new point of view of the public
participation in the environmental issues.

The theory that bridges both classical concerns about the environment and the
early twentieth century concerns and also the theories of environmental
sociology itself is “New Environmental Paradigm”. As was already mentioned at
the beginning of this section, this theory stands at the initiation of the existence
of environmental sociology. The “New Environmental Paradigm” was developed
as the opposite to, and a new tendency for, the presumed heritage of classical
sociology – the set of traditions and assumptions that lead to the lack of concern
for nature and biophysical environment(“Human Exemptionalist Paradigm”). This
distinction between “Human Exemptionalist Paradigm” and “New Environmental
Paradigm” provoked many questions and misunderstandings. Afterwards, it leads
to a deep polemic between various academics and sociologists. What Dunlap and
Catton wanted to propose with the “New Environmental Paradigm” is a “…new
way of looking at modern, industrialized societies by calling attention to their
ecosystem dependence”

Ulrich Beck is a great contributor to the later environmental sociology. He is not

included in the debate over the appropriate paradigm for the (environmental)
sociology but he brings about a full integration of the theory of risks into a
contemporary society and he broadens the environmental point of view.

1.5 Environmental sociology as a field of inquiry

‘Earth Day 1970’ is often said to represent the debut of the modern
environmental movement. Starting as a modest proposal for a national teach-in
on the environment, it grew into a multi-faceted event with millions of
participants. What most distinguished Earth Day, however, was its symbolic claim
to be ‘Day 1’ of the new environmentalism, an interpretation which was widely
embraced by the American mass media, thus affording the environmental issue
instant and widespread recognition.

When Earth Day inaugurated the ‘Environmental Decade’ of the 1970s,

sociologists found themselves without any prior body of theory or research to
guide them towards a distinctive understanding of the relationship between
society and the environment. While each of the three major classical sociological
pioneers – Émile Durkheim, Karl Marx and Max Weber – arguably had an implicit
environmental dimension to their work, this had never been brought to the fore,
largely because their American translators and interpreters favoured social
structural explanations over physical or environmental ones. From time to time,
isolated works pertaining to natural resources and the environment had
appeared, mostly within the area of rural sociology, but these had never
coalesced into a cumulative body of work. In a similar fashion, social movement
theorists gave short shrift to conservation groups, leaving historians to explore
their roots and significance.

To comprehend why this situation arose, it is necessary to consider how both

geographical and biological theories of social development and social change lost
their predominance when sociology emerged as a distinctive discipline in the
early twentieth century.

1.5 The Rise of ‘Environment’ in Sociological Theory

It has been observed that ‘contemporary forms of environmental degradation

present one of the most, if not the most, complex and catastrophic dilemmas of
modernity’. There is a general agreement that the economic expansion of a
century and half has had alarming consequences for the global environment.
Depletion of the ozone layer, air pollution, loss of forests and bio-diversity,
extinction of plants and animal species, loss of marine life, soil and water
pollution have occurred at an alarming rate. Especially in post war years, release
of toxic matters into the environment, worldwide expansion of nuclear energy,
acid rains, new chemical pesticides, non biodegradable plastics and other harmful
chemicals have come to pose a threat to life itself. In the recent decades,
however we have witnessed the growth of environmental movements/conflicts,
of environmental politics which may play an important role in checking the
deterioration of our environment at the local and global levels.

The seriousness of the situation has led the scholars to predict that the 21 st
century will be characterized by a massively endangered natural environment if
the present trends of ecological devastation continue. Further it is predicted that
this aspect will become increasingly dominant in all fields- politics, foreign affairs,
development policy, education, technology and research.

In this context two important issues emerge: the causes and consequences of
environmental degradation in modern societies, and the role environmental
politics can play to curb environmental degradation. Scholars have pointed to the
limitations of the theoretical legacy of classical theory of Marx, Weber and
Durkheim for examining the issues.

Weber’s work shows the least engagement with the natural world. Even Marx and
Durkheim, Goldblatt argues, who saw the relation between human societies and
the natural world as central to historical change, did not pay much attention to
the impact of economic and demographic processes on ecosystems. In fact,
classical social theory was concerned more with how pre-modern societies had
been constrained by their natural environments than with how industry in
modern society led to environmental degradation.

In recent times, however, environmental concerns, both the origins and nature of
environmental deterioration and the emergence of environment centered politics
have been articulated in sociological writings.

1.6 Towards the emergence of an environmental sociology: 1970–2005

There are various reasons why a new scholarly field appears on the academic
horizon. Sometimes this reflects the expanding possibilities bursting forth from a
cutting edge methodology or theoretical breakthrough. For example, Crick and
Watson’s unravelling of the double helix structure of DNA was the catalyst that
sparked the growth of cell biology. At other times, a new specialisation represents
the merger of two previously existing scientific specialities. Finally, a new field can
arise out of the intellectual and political ferment generated by movements for
social reform and change. This probably best describes the case of environmental
sociology.

As we have seen, each of the three widely acknowledged ‘founders’ of the

discipline of sociology – Durkheim, Weber and Marx – addressed some aspect of
nature and society, but this was not really definitive to their work. If
environmental interest was to be found anywhere in North America, it was within
the area of rural sociology, where there was a body of empirical research on
natural resources. These enquiries took two forms: the study of natural resource
dependent communities and research on the burgeoning use of public parkland
for recreational purposes. Alas, by the late 1960s, many of these contributions
had been overlooked or totally forgotten.

There is general agreement that the first explicit use of ‘environmental sociology’
was by Samuel Klausner in his 1971 book On Man in His Environment (page 4).
Dunlap (2002b: 11– 12) remembers that he first came across the term in
Klausner’s book several years later ‘when the term was just starting to be used’.
Throughout the 1960s, Klausner, a sociologist and clinical psychologist, was
engaged in a series of studies of human behaviour under stress. In 1967, he
received a small grant ($7,000) from a think tank, Resources for the Future, to
study ‘social–psychological aspects of environmental research’. Three years later,
he edited a special issue of the Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science on ‘Society and Its Physical Environment’.

By this time, sociological interest in environmental matters had been re-ignited,

primarily by the rising popularity of environmentalism and the environmental
movement. A major catalyst for this had been the publication a decade before of
Silent Spring (1962), Rachel Carson’s bestselling expose of ecosystem damage due
to agricultural pesticide use. Then in the early 1970s, the widespread attention
accorded the apocalyptic predictions contained in The Limits of Growth (Meadows
et al. 1972), combined with the ‘energy crisis’ in the United States, deepened this
environmental concern among academics. In addition, it broadened the scope of
sociological interest in environmental matters to include issues related to
resource scarcities and energy use. One sociologist who was particularly swayed
by this was William Catton. Upon his return from New Zealand to the University of
Washington in 1972, Catton expanded his earlier research interest in national
parks and wilderness visitors to a more theoretical concern with overpopulation
and declining fossil fuels. This coalesced with the publication in 1980 of the
influential book Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Social Change.

Environmental sociology has also been established since the early 1990s in Japan
and Korea. One of the first environmental researchers in Japan was Nobuko Iijima
who wrote her Master’s thesis on the impact of Minimata disease on the local
community. In 1992, she helped found the Japanese Association for
Environmental Sociology (JAES) and served as its first president. By 1999, the JAES
had over 450 members and its own publication, the Journal of Environmental
Sociology (Kankyo Shakaigaku Kenkyu). In Korea, environmental sociology began
to be taught from the early 1990s. Following a 1993 international conference held
under the title ‘Environment and Development’, the Research Group for
Environmental Sociology was established in 1995. This led to the founding of the
Korean Association for Environmental Sociology in June 2000. In October 2001, at
the Kyoto Environmental Sociology Conference, a research network, the Asian
Pacific Environmental Connection was founded with the brief of solving societal
and environmental problems in the Asia–Pacific region.

1.7 Resurgence of Environmental Sociology

In contrast to the larger society, mainstream sociology in the 1970s was almost
oblivious to the significance of environmental problems. This blindness stemmed
from a long period of neglect of environmental matters, stimulated by the societal
context in which sociology developed as well as its unique disciplinary traditions.
The Durkheimian emphasis on explaining social phenomena only in terms of other
“social facts,” plus an aversion to earlier excesses of biological and geographical
“determinisms,” had led sociologists to ignore the biophysical world. To legitimize
sociology as a discipline, it was important to move away from explanations of, for
example, racial and cultural differences in terms of biological and geographical
factors, respectively. Yet in the process of developing distinctively social
explanations for societal phenomena, our discipline replaced older determinisms
with sociocultural determinism. For example, as recently as the late 1970s,
sociologists of agriculture argued that it was inappropriate to include factors such
as soil type and rainfall in explanations of soil conservation adoption or farm
energy use because they were not social variables. These disciplinary traditions
were strengthened by sociology’s emergence during an era of unprecedented
growth and prosperity, which made limits to resource abundance and
technological progress unimaginable, and increased urbanization, which reduced
direct contact with the natural environment. With modern, industrialized
societies appearing to be increasingly disembedded from the biophysical world,
sociology came to assume that the exceptional features of Homo sapiens—
language, technology, science, and culture more generally—made these societies
“exempt” from the constraints of nature and thus reluctant to acknowledge the
societal relevance of ecological limits. Given sociology’s neglect of the biophysical
environment—and tendency to equate “the environment” with the social context
of the phenomenon being studied— it is not surprising that efforts to establish
environmental sociology as an area of inquiry included a critique of the larger
discipline’s blindness to environmental matters. Dunlap and Catton’s (1979a)
effort to define and codify the field of environmental sociology was accompanied
by an explication and critique of the “human exemptionalism paradigm” (HEP) on
which contemporary sociology was premised. While not denying that human
beings are obviously an exceptional species, these analysts argued that humans’
special skills and capabilities nonetheless fail to exempt the human species from
the constraints of the biophysical environment. Consequently, Catton and Dunlap
(1978, 1980) suggested that the HEP should be replaced by a more ecologically
sound perspective, a “new ecological paradigm” (NEP), that acknowledges the
ecosystem dependence of human societies.

The call for mainstream sociology’s dominant paradigm to be replaced with a

more ecologically sound one proved to be a rather controversial feature of
environmental sociology. While the exemption list underpinning of mainstream
sociology has been increasingly recognized (Dunlap 2002b), the call for adoption
of an ecological paradigm has been criticized for allegedly deflecting efforts to
apply classical and mainstream theoretical perspectives in environmental
sociology. Nonetheless, environmental sociologists are producing rapidly
expanding bodies of both empirical literature on the relationships between
societal and environmental variables that clearly violates Durkheim’s
antireductionism taboo and theoretical literature representing efforts to develop
more ecologically sound theories that are not premised on the assumption of
human exemptionalism. Both of these trends reflect the declining credibility of
exemptionalist thinking within sociology (Dunlap 2002b).
Sociological interest in the impacts of energy and other resource scarcities
accelerated the emergence of environmental sociology as a distinct area of
inquiry by heightening awareness that “the environment” was more than just
another social problem, and that environmental change can indeed have societal
consequences as well as the obvious fact that human activities can affect the
environment. Studies of the impacts of energy shortages on society facilitated a
transition from the early “sociology of environmental issues”—involving the
application of standard sociological perspectives for analyzing societal responses
to environmental issues—to a distinctive “environmental sociology” focused
explicitly on societal-environmental relations.

1.8 Environmental Concerns and Social Sciences in India

Among the pioneers who showed great sensitivity to the relationship between
humans and their environment was Patrick Geddes, the founder of the
department of Civics and Sociology in Mumbai. Technological advances and
urbanization had profoundly altered that relationship. He devoted much of his
time to the task of planning the urban environment with the clear purpose of ‘
preservation of the best historical traditions of the past, the involvement of the
people in their own betterment and rediscovery of past traditions of city building
which deliberately expressed the aesthete ideal of the community’.

More recently since the seventies, a large number of information on the nature
and the extent of environmental degradation has become available. The
publication of the State of India’s Environment Reports in 1982 and 1985 by Delhi
based centre for Science and Environment marked an important beginning. A
large number of journalists have been reporting on a variety of issues related to
environmental degradation, peoples protest and mass controversies regarding
the development projects of the Government. Several studies have focused on
the social and environmental consequences of colonial state intervention, its
effect on the indigenous social, cultural institutions and practices of resource
management and social protest against control of resources.

The depletion of natural resources in the contemporary context, the changed

used and management of these resources and their effect on local communities
and the need for an alternative resource management have been the subjects of
many studies conducted by social scientists in general. Although it is recognized
that environmental degradation threaten all, irrespective of people’s wealth,
priviliege, status or class, the fact remains, especially in developing countries like
India, that the weak, the poor and the underprivileged are the worst victims of it.
Displacement, marginalization and deterioration of the quality of life of large
sections of population, the tribals, nomadic communities, craftsmen, the urban
and the rural poor and women, as a result of the economic policies of the
Government have concerned both social scientists and activists alike. The aim is
to work out an alternative framework of development which would combine
sustainability with equity and social justice

1.9 Conclusion

More recently, a course on environment and society should form a part of

sociology curriculum at the post graduate and under graduate levels. It could
include the following themes among others: the changing human nature
relationship in history and the role of science and technology, perspectives on
environment/ ecology and society in sociology and anthropology including the
recent contributions of social science theorists on the nature and causes of
environmental degradation in modern society, environmental critique of
development, gender and environment and environmental politics/ movements.
With specific reference to India, emphasis could be laid on the nature and impact
of environmental degradation in colonial and post-colonial contexts, traditional
system of resource management, depletion of resources and its effects on local
communities, environmental struggles/ conflicts, recent experiments at resource
management by the local communities/groups, and social and environmental
impact of development projects.

1.10 Model Questions:

1. Discuss the concept of environmental sociology. What does it mean and what
are its attributes?
2. Describe the emergence of environmental sociology.
3. Write a short note on the relations of man and environment.
4. Classify and describe in brief the rise of environmental sociology.
5. What are the theories of environmental sociology?
6. Give an account of resurgence of environmental sociology.
7. What are the major environmental concerns in India?
 Unit-II

2.0. The Concept of Environment

2.1. Environmental Issues

2.2. Environmental issues of urban areas

2.3. Environmental problems of rural areas

2.4. Population growth and environment

2.5. Impact of population on environment

2.6. Environmental pollution

2.7. What is pollution?

2.8. Factors of environmental pollution

2.9. Factors of environmental pollution

2.10Types of pollution

2.11. Energy resources

2.12. Urban development and its impact

2.13. Model questions

 UNIT-II

The Environmental Issues

2.0.The Concept:

The environment, we understand all those conditions that surround us and

influence every activity of life in some or other ways.

As per the Oxford Dictionary, ‘Environment’ literally means surroundings/

surrounding objects/ conditions/ circumstances of life of person or society.

The word ‘environment’ may be defined to include everything external to man/

organism. It covers the region, surroundings or circumstances in which anything
exists.

The ‘environment’ is considered as a composite term for the conditions in which

an organism lives, and therefore, consists of air, water, soil, sunlight, food, etc.
which are the basic needs of all organisms to survive.

Definitions:

C.C. Park (1980) has defined the ‘environment’ as “the sum total of conditions
which surrounds a man at a given point in space and time.”

A. Goudie (1984) has defined “the environment” as “the representative of

physical components of the earth where in man is the important factor
influencing his environment.”

2.1. Environmental Issues:

There are many environmental issues in India. Air pollution, water pollution,
garbage, and pollution of the natural environment are all challenges for India. The
situation was worse between 1947 through 1995. According to data collection
and environment assessment studies of World Bank experts, between 1995
through 2010, India has made one of the fastest progress in the world, in
addressing its environmental issues and improving its environmental quality. Still,
India has a long way to go to reach environmental quality similar to those enjoyed
in developed economies. Pollution remains a major challenge and opportunity for
India. Environmental issues are one of the primary causes of disease, health
issues and long term livelihood impact for India.

2.2. Environmental Issues of Urban Areas:

A municipality or N.A.C. (notified area council or corporation or metropolitan city

whose population is more than 400 people/sq.km. is called an urban area. Thus,
urban areas are the places of high population density. The problems of these
densely populated urban areas are:

i. Development of slum
ii. High production of solid wastes
iii. Increased consumption of natural resources
iv. Want of open space
v. Violation of Floor Space Index (FSI)
vi. Noise pollution
vii. Air pollution
viii. Water scarcity
ix. Traffic and floating population
x. Scarcity of fresh vegetables and fish
xi. Water-logging and drainage of liquid waste and sewage.

i. Development of Slum:

Poor people from rural areas migrate in large numbers to urban areas in
search of some kind of employment. They occupy any open space or vacant
land on the outskirts of the city or town. They construct their dwellings in such
places making use of any material like rusted tins, empty tar barrels,
cardboards, polythene, tarpaulin, jute sacks etc. these areas are overcrowded
and are without any civic amenities like light, water supply, drainage, roads,
transport facilities, toilets and medical facilities. All such areas with no civic
and basic amenities in cities and towns are called slums. Over 25 million
people live in slums of urban areas of India. About 40% of slum dwellers are
living in big cities.

ii. Production of solid waste and its management:

As urban areas are densely populated and as urban lifestyle requires use and
consumption of large quantities of materials, production of solid waste is very
high in urban areas. The solid wastes (garbage, animal wastes, rubbish, ashes,
glasses, polythenes, plastics, papers, construction wastes etc.
), industrial wastes (rubbish, ashes, heavy metals, toxic wastes etc.) and
hazardous wastes (radio isotopes, biological wastes, nuclear wastes, pesticides
etc.). With the increase of population, solid waste production increases. This
creates a lot of problems so far as its disposal is concerned. In the long-run
these wastes produce foul smell and poisonous gases and become breeding
grounds of vectors of different diseases (e.g., flies, mosquitoes etc.).

iii. Increased consumption of natural resources:

Natural resources include energy, water, fossil fuels, forest products etc. As
more industrialized and urban people have expensive lifestyle. Rate of
consumption of natural resources is very high in urban areas. For example,
though U.S.A has 5% of world’s population, 74% of its total population lives in
urban areas who consume 25% of the total energy consumed by the entire
world population. One of the most acute problems of urban areas of India is
scarcity of potable water especially the groundwater.

iv. Open Space:

Most of the urban areas of the world are overpopulated or overcrowded or

highly congested areas without open spaces for parks, playgrounds and social
gatherings. This results in non-availability of free and clean air and space for
playing and recreation.

v. Violation of urban planning rules:

Craze for urban life leads to violation of rules laid down for establishing ideal
urban settlements where one can lead healthy and comfortable life. Most
often building codes are violated. In other words, prescribed Floor Space Index
(FSI) or Floor Area Ratio is violated.

vi. Noise pollution:

More people means more business and more vehicles leading to production of
more noise or sound. Sound pollution in urban areas causes psychological and
physical ailments.

vii. Air pollution:

High population density, continuous human activities, large number of plying

automobiles, industries etc. make the air of urban areas highly polluted. The
polluted air contains carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, oxides of nitrogen,
hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide, organic vapours, particulate lead, dust, ashes,
chlorine, fluorine, metallic traces, pesticide granules, pollen and spores of
plants etc. which are detrimental to human health.

viii. Water Scarcity:

Since a large number of people live in a particular urban area, a large quantity
of potable water is required to meet their daily demands. The groundwater of
urban areas has been depleting, the causes being construction of concrete
structures and the pressure of large populations. Metropolitan cities like
Chennai and Mumbai face acute shortage of potable water.

ix. Traffic and floating population:

Heavy traffic and floating population create a lot of environmental problems in

urban areas. They not only cause all kinds of pollution but also contribute in
the rise of heat of urban environment.

x. Water-logging and Drainage:

Because of unplanned settlements, large amount of solid wastes, violation of

building codes, influx of poor and uneducated people without any civic sense,
etc., many parts of urban areas become highly congested, drains are blocked,
unauthorized structures are raised on public places, roads and drains. These
activities block all outlets for drainage of rainwater and domestic sewage in
cities and towns.

2.3. Environmental Problems of Rural Areas:

Rural areas are comparatively less polluted than the urban areas. But due to
ignorance, illiteracy, superstitions and poverty of rural people, rural areas
suffer from many environmental problems of their own. These are as follows:

i. Salination, desertification and degradation of lands.

ii. Utilization of agricultural lands for housing purposes.
iii. Indiscriminate use of pesticides and agrochemicals.
iv. Lack of roads and drainage facilities.
v. Poor sanitation and hygiene.

i. Sanlination, desertification and degradation of lands:

Because of ignorance and illiteracy the crop fields of rural areas are over-
cultivated and water meant for irrigation is misused. These unplanned
activities of rural people lead to salination, desertification and land
degradation.

ii. Utilization of agricultural land for housing:

With steady growth of rural population, more and more agricultural lands are
being utilized for housing purposes both by government and private agencies.
This results in decreased per capita availability of cultivated land. Recent
estimation reveals that there is only less than one acre of cultivable land per
every Indian. This is the cause of over-cultivation in the remaining cultivable
land.

iii. Indiscriminate use of pesticides and other agrochemicals:

 Pesticides and fertilizers are the products of green revolution. To feed the
mouths of growing population, there has been a continuous effort to increase
crop production. Pesticides have been developed to kill all kinds pests infesting
crop and vegetable plants and fertilizers for providing extra nutrients to the
plants to increase production. But all such agrochemicals like bacteriocides,
fungicides, nematocides, weedicides, insecticides, fertilizers etc. are also
proved to be hazardous for human health. While many of the pesticides are
non-biodegradable and hence accumulate in the bodies of organisms, many
constituents of fertilizers cause health problems in humans and other animals.

iv. Roads and drainage facilities:

Villages or rural areas lack good roads and drainage systems. In the absence of
transport facilities rural people fail to have access to better healthcare,
education, market and interaction with other people. Lack of drainage makes
the rural areas filthy and unhygienic which help in spreading of diseases.

v. Poor sanitation and hygiene:

Poverty, illiteracy and callous attitude of the administration make the people
of rural areas unaware of the importance of cleanliness, sanitation and
hygiene. As a result, rural areas become polluted and epidemics break out.

2.4. Population Growth and Environment

Many people (including national leaders) worry that population growth depletes
resources and can trigger social or economic catastrophe if it is not contained.
The developing countries have faced many challenges in recent decades, including
low levels of education, poor health standards, poverty, scarce housing, natural
resource depletion, wars, and economic and political domination by other
countries.

The impact of population growth on economic development is a complex issue. As

might be imagined population growth has positive and negative effects on
development. The rapid population growth and economic development in
country are degrading the environment through the uncontrolled growth of
urbanization and industrialization, expansion and intensification of agriculture,
and the destruction of natural habitats. One of the major causes of environmental
degradation in India could be attributed to rapid growth of population, which is
adversely affecting the natural resources and environment. The growing
population and the environmental deterioration face the challenge of sustained
development without environmental damage. The existence or the absence of
favorable natural resources can facilitate or retard the process of economic
development. The three fundamental demographic factors of births, deaths and
migration produce changes in population size; composition, distribution and these
changes raise a number of important questions of cause and effect. Population
Reference Bureau estimated the 6.14 billion world's population in mid 2001.
Contribution of India alone to this population was estimated to be 1033 millions.
It is estimated that the country’s population will increase to 1.26 billion by the
year 2016. The projected population indicates that India will be a first most
populous country in the world and China will be second in 2050 (Population
Reference Bureau, 2001). The increase of population has been tending towards
alarming situation. India is having 18 percent of the world's population on 2.4
percent of its land area has great deal of pressure on its all natural resources.
Water shortages, soil exhaustion, deforestation, air and water pollution afflicts
many areas. If the world population continues to multiply, the impact on
environment could be devastating.
As the 21st century begins, growing number of people and rising levels of
consumption per capita are depleting natural resources and degrading the
environment. The poverty-environmental damage nexus in India must be seen in
the context of population growth as well. The pressures on the environment
intensify every day as the population grows. The rapid increase of human
numbers combines with desperate poverty and rising levels of consumption are
depleting natural resources on which the livelihood of present and future
generations depends. Poverty is amongst the consequences of population growth
and its life style play major role in depleting the environment either its fuel
demands for cooking or for earning livelihood for their survival. The unequal
distribution of resources and limited opportunities cause push and pull factor for
people living below poverty line that in turn overburdened the population density
in urban areas and environment get manipulated by manifolds, consequently,
urban slums are developed in urban areas.
The growing trends of population and consequent demand for food, energy, and
housing have considerably altered land-use practices and severely degraded
India's forest vis-à-vis environment also. The growing population put immense
pressure on land extensification at cost of forests and grazing lands because the
demand of food could not increase substantially to population. Thus, horizontal
extension of land has fewer scopes and relies mostly on vertical improvement
that is supported by technical development in the field of agriculture i.e. HYV
seeds, Fertilizers, Pesticides, Herbicides, and agricultural implements. All these
practices causing degradation and depletion of environment with multiplying
ratio.
The relationship between population growth, resource depletion and
environmental degradation has been a matter of debate for decades. The
argument has been between those who view population numbers per se as the
main culprit in increasing pressure on the environment and those who place more
blame on economic development, non sustainable agricultural and industrial
practices, and excessive and wasteful consumption. In fact, both population
growth and no sustainable development are cause for concern in India. Though
the relationship is complex, population size and growth tend to expand and
accelerate these human impacts on the environment.

What is more concern, the number of population rise will increase to such an
extent in future that it will cause overall scarcity for resources. Decades of
economic expansion and population growth have degraded its land, air and
water.

2.5. Impact of Population on Environment

The human population has been increasing at an extremely high rate in the last
century and unfortunately, not much has been done to slow down this process.
Undoubtedly, overpopulation is a global issue. It is global because it pertains to all
of humanity, but global also means that it affects the whole world, i.e. the
environment. Almost all human activities impact negatively the environment in
one form or another, and as human population expands, the damaging effects on
the environment multiply. Here are some of the most imminent environmental
problems that results from human population growth:
1. Water supply. Water is one of the basic elements of live, and it is needed to
preserve the balance of every ecosystem. It cools down and cleanses the
environment and is used by plants and animals to carry out vital functions. As
human population increases, so does the consumption of water. In the past fifty
years, the per capita availability of fresh water has decreased by one third. Fresh
water supply is a problem in most of the developing countries, especially those
located in arid climates such as in Africa, South America and Asia. In some African
countries, fresh water needs to be carried daily from sources more than two
hours walking distance. Water supply is an issue in urban areas as well. In Beijing,
the water table falls down with as much as two meters annually.

2. Water pollution. The problem with water is not only overconsumption, but also
pollution. "More than 95% of urban sewage in developing countries is discharged
untreated into the nearest waterway or field." The main contributors to water
pollution are factories and open mines, discarding waste water with heavy
metals, toxic substances and solid waste, which are virtually impossible to purify.
The situation is even worse when it comes to ocean exploitation and pollution.
Overfishing changes the balance in coastal ecosystems and decreases fish
populations. Sometimes it might even lead to extinction of certain marine species.
Overfishing also damages coral reefs, because it allows algae to overgrow them. It
turns out that the ocean is "the ultimate garbage dump " because eventually all of
the sewage, sediment from forest clearing, fertilizer and pesticide run-off flow
into it. It is important to preserve the ocean, not only because it is an important
source of food, but also because it plays a major role in climate regulation. The
circulation of cold and warm water protects the earth from extreme temperature
fluctuations. In addition, oceans absorbs between 30 and 40% of the CO2 given
off as a result of human activity, thus keeping global warming at stake.

3. Soil Degradation. Population growth results increases the demand for food
production. Since the arable land in many of the overpopulated regions is limited,
farmers begin to cultivate dry, hilly, nutrient-poor areas that are not very suitable
for farming. Exploiting such lands makes them easily susceptible to erosion and
loss of nutrients. For example, in search for farmland in Indonesia, peasants have
been planting their crops on steep slopes. As a result, almost one half of Java's
land is now in danger of erosion. Globally, the statistics are even more
frightening. It is estimated that 1.2 billion hectares of land, approximately the size
of Europe, U.S. and Mexico combined, have lost much of their agricultural output
capability in the last 50 years.

4. Deforestation. The search for more farmland causes other damaging

agricultural practices such as slash-and-burn cultivation. Basically, a forest area is
burned and converted into pasture, but due to poor soils, it looses its productivity
in about three years. This initiates a vicious circle which results in the
deforestation of large areas, mostly in tropical regions. Deforestation is also
caused by the use of wood as fuel, since 9 out of 10 African households use wood
for cooking and heating. This is the reason why Ghana lost almost a third of its
dense forest from 1938 to 1980. In addition, the building of roads and the
expansion of residential areas have contributed to the loss of primary forest.

5. Loss of biodiversity. All of the previously described effects of overpopulation on

the environment lead to the destruction of the natural habitat of many wildlife
species. The natural flora and fauna have been under constant pressure to adapt
to a quickly changing environment. Since they have been unable to do so, they
have been displaced from their natural ecological niche. The constant clearing of
the Amazon forest has had devastating effect on many rare tropical species. It has
been estimated that 10% of the species in the region have become extinct.

All of the above environmental issues clearly indicate that the natural assets that
humans take for granted are in grave danger. Most of the damage on the
environment caused by human expansion is long-lasting and in some cases
permanent. There is no doubt that the human population will continue increasing
and the condition of the environment will exacerbate. Therefore, only a
sustainable approach toward conserving what currently exists as natural
resources could counteract the detrimental effects of overpopulation on the
natural world.

2.6. Environmental Pollution

Pollution is one of the most important problems of the 21st century. We all
depend on our environment. Earth provides oxygen for breathing, clean water for
drinking and many raw materials, mankind needs to survive. Environment
protection means trying to save these basic principles of life for all creatures.

The mad race among nations over the globe for development has jeopardized the
health of man. Progress in agriculture and industry is taken a general criterion of
development. This craze has resulted into unlimited exploitation of every bit of
natural resources available. The splendid plenty fullness of nature is a heritage
that should be conserved for future generation and not be spoiled.

Such activities of man had adverse effect on all forms of living organisms in the
biosphere. Unlimited exploitation of nature by man has disturbed the delicate
ecological balance between living and non-living components of biosphere. The
unfavourable condition created by man himself has threatened the survival of not
only of man himself but also the other living organisms. A number of species likely
to become rare, threatened, endangered or near extinction.

2.7. What is Pollution?

Pollution is an undesirable change in the physical, chemical or biological

characteristics of air, water and soil that may harmfully affect the life or create a
potential health hazard of any living organism. Pollution is thus direct or indirect
change in any component of the biosphere that is harmful to the living
components and in particular undesirable for man, affecting adversely the
industrial progress, culture and natural assets or general environment.

Definition of Pollution:

We use the word “pollution” all the time, and the word carries certain
connotations, but most of us would have difficulty in defining the term
specifically. Pollution is the introduction by man, directly of indirectly, of
substances or energy into the environment to such a degree that environmental
conditions change.

Some definitions of pollution include the extraction of energy or substances from

the environment, if it is done to such a degree that environmental conditions
change. The point is that man causes it, and it results in a change in the
environment.

2.8. The Pollutants:

A pollutant is any solid, liquid, or gaseous substance present in such a

concentration as may be or tend to be injurious to the environment. The
pollutants are of two types: Non degradable and bio-degradable.

a. Non-degradable pollutants:
These includes poisonous compounds such as aluminium cans, mercuric
salts, phenolic compounds, plastics and DDT, which do not easily degrade
into simpler forms. Occasionally, they may combine with other compounds
in the nature to produce additional toxins.
b. Bio-degradable pollutants:
They include very common unstable substances of domestic sewage, which
can be easily decomposed by natural processes. Thus, these toxins can be
removed by natural waste treatment mechanisms. Degradable pollutants
appear to be more problematic, when the input into the environment
exceeds the decomposition capacity.
The degradable pollutants provide energy (in the form of organic matter)
and nutrients (as carbonates, phosphates etc) which increase the
productivity of ecosystem, if rate of input is moderate. When input is
increased, a critical range is reached, characterized by severe oscillations as
algal blooms. Additional input brings out the poisoning of the system. In
other words, if input is moderate, it will be useful by increasing
productivity; otherwise high rate of input spoils the system. In case of non-
degradable pollutants, toxic substances are harmful from the very
beginning and as they increase, the productivity decreases.
There has grown up serious concern all over the world about the rivers
turning murky, fish rotting on sea shores, tree withering, cities choking with
foul air, toxic chemicals being cycled into food stuffs, disease epidemics
appearing so frequently, acid rain, global warming, ozone layer depleting.
 Environment pollution has become an international problem with
environmental protection being a global pursuit of every government,
receiving urgent attention by planners and legislators. Thus, control of
pollution through enactment of laws was deemed necessary and is one of
the concrete steps towards achieving a clean environment.

2.9. Factors of environmental pollution:

There are people who believe that environmental pollution is primarily a problem
of the rich and the more affluent countries. The same kind of argument was
advanced in the Stockholm Conference. If we accept this argument then the
problem of environmental pollution should not be a matter of concern for the
developing countries. But the fact is that the developing countries are also
suffering from environmental deterioration and probably heading towards more
pollution with their higher rate of population growth and efforts for
industrialization. At present, the problem of environmental deterioration in the
developing countries is not due to industrialization but to their poverty and lack
of development.

Three factors are responsible for environmental pollution: population growth,

increase in affluence and industrialization.

1. Population growth:
More people lead to more demands on food, energy housing, clothing,
transportation, all of which cause the environmental pollution. Problems of
domestic sewage and solid waste disposal are directly related to the
number of people. To meet the growing needs, fertilizers, pesticides,
factories, fuel, nuclear energy etc. are required. These in turn lead to water
pollution, air pollution, thermal pollution and radioactive wastes which,
together with the sewage and solid wastes of people result in
environmental pollution. Apparently more people mean more
environmental pollution.
2. Affluence:
The race among the countries to achieve a higher rate of growth is a
significant dimension of the environmental pollution problem. Economic
 growth means more consumption of resources. Rapid consumption of
natural resources and waste disposal by increasing number of people put a
great stress on environment. At the present rate of consumption, it has
been estimated that many vital natural resources will be exhausted by the
end of another two decades.
3. Industrialization:
It is not difficult to see how advances in technology and industrialization
have accelerated the destruction of the environments. Mountains were
detonated and leveled, and sea bottoms scraped and drilled to yield
minerals and fossil fuels. Agricultural lands were tilled faster by tractors and
fertilizer to yield several times the old harvest. More efficient fishing gear
caught shiploads of fish only to deplete the sources. In using the new
technology, we have exploited more than rehabilitated the natural
environment. We forgot that our rate of developing and using of resources
is destroying the nature faster than it could recover. We are overlooking
the rights of future generations to the non-renewable resources that we
are using up. We failed to see that the waste materials released by
technological processing could build up to toxic levels.

2.10. Types of Pollution:

Water pollution:

Water pollution means contamination of streams, lakes, seas, underground

waters or oceans by substances which are harmful to living things. Water is
necessary for life on earth. Some organisms need water to live in; others to
drink, but all contain water. For example in our body there is about 80% of
water. Plants and animals require water that is moderately pure, and they
cannot survive if their water is loaded with toxic chemicals or harmful
micro-organisms. Water pollution can kill large numbers of fish, birds, and
other animals, in some cases killing all members of a species in an affected
area. Pollution makes streams, lakes, and coastal waters unpleasant to look
at, to smell, and to swim in. fish and shellfish harvested from polluted
waters may be unsafe to eat. People who ingest polluted water can
become ill, and with prolonged exposure may develop cancers or bear
children with birth defects. In some cases it can cause death.
Major types of water pollutants:

The major water pollutants are chemical, biological, or physical materials

that degrade water quality. Pollutants can be classed into eight categories,
each of which presents set of hazards.

Petroleum products:
Oil and chemicals derived from oil are used for fuel, lubrication, plastics
manufacturing, and many other purposes. These petroleum products get
into water mainly by means of accidental spills from ships, tanker trucks,
pipelines, and leaky underground storage tanks. Many petroleum products
are poisonous if ingested by animals, often causing death. In addition,
spilled oil may be contaminated with other harmful substances, such as
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs).
Heavy metals:
Heavy metals, such as copper, lead, mercury, and selenium get into water
from many sources, including industries, automobile exhaust, mines, and
even natural soil. Like pesticides, heavy metals become more concentrated
as animals feed on plants and are consumed in turn by other animals.
When they reach poisonous, or can result in long-term health problems
similar to those caused by pesticides and herbicides.

Hazardous wastes:
Hazardous wastes are chemical wastes that are either (poisonous), reactive
(capable of explosive or toxic gases), corrosive (capable of corroding steel),
or ignitable (flammable). If improperly treated or stored, hazardous wastes
can pollute water supplies. PCBs, a class of chemicals once widely used in
electrical equipment such as transformers, can get into the environment
through oil spills and can reach toxic levels as organisms eat one another.
Pesticides and herbicides:
Chemicals used to kill unwanted animals and plants, for instance on farms
or in suburban yards, may be collected by rainwater runoff and carried into
streams, especially if these substances are applied too lavishly. Some of
these chemicals are biodegradable and quickly decay into harmless or less
harmful forms, while others are non biodegradable and remain dangerous
for a long time.
Excess organic matter:
Fertilizers and other nutrients used to promote plant growth on farms and
in gardens may find their way into water. At first, these nutrients
encourage the growth of plants and algae in water. However, when the
plant matter and algae die and settle underwater, micro-organisms
consume oxygen that is dissolved in the water. Oxygen levels in the water
may drop to such dangerously low levels that oxygen- dependent animals in
the water, such as fish, die. This process of depleting oxygen to deadly
levels is called eutrophication.
Sediment:
Sediment, soil particles carried to a streambed, lake or ocean, can also be a
pollutant if it is present in large enough amount. Soil erosion produced by
the removal of soil trapping trees near waterways, or carried by rainwater
and floodwater from croplands, strip mines and roads can damage a stream
or lake by introducing too much nutrient matter. This leads to
eutrophication. Sedimentation can also cover streambed gravel in which
many fish, such as salmon trout, lay their eggs. Many disease- causing
organisms that are present is small numbers in most natural waters are
considered pollutants when found in drinking water. Such parasites as
Giardia lambila and Cryptosporidium parvum occasionally turn up in urban
water supplies. These parasites can cause illness, especially in people who
are very young and in people who are already suffering from other
diseases.
Thermal pollution:
Water is often drawn from rivers, lakes or the ocean for use as a coolant in
factrories and power plants. The water is usually returned to the source
warmer than when it was taken. Even small temperature changes in a body
 of water can drive away the fish and other species that were originally
present and attract other species in place of them. Thermal pollution can
accelerate biological processes in plants and animals or deplete oxygen
levels in water. The result may be fish and other wildlife deaths near the
discharge source.
Health effects of water pollution:
Health effects of chemicals commonly found in drinking water are:
1. Damage of lever, kidney and nervous system.
2. Sterility in males.
3. Genetic mutations.
4. Cancer
5. Fetal damage
6. Infant deaths

Biological (water borne- diseases)

1. These caused by the presence of an infective agent.

a. Viral: viral hepatitis A, hepatitis E, polio myelitis, rotavirus diarrhoea in
infants.
b. Bacterial: typhoid and paratyphoid fever, bacillary dysentery, coil
diarrhoea, cholera.
c. Protozoal: amoebiasis, giardiasis.
d. Helminthic: round worm, thread worm, hydatid disease.
e. Lepotospiral: weils disease.
2. Those due to the presence of an aquatic host:
a. Snail: schistosomiasis.
b. Cyclops: guinea worm, fish tape worm.

Prevention and control of water pollution:

The various ways/techniques suggested to control the water pollution are as

follows:

1. Stabilization of the ecosystem:

 This is the most scientific way to control water pollution. The principles
involved are the reduction in waste input, harvesting and removal of
biomass, trapping of nutrients, fish management and aeration. Various
methods may be used to restore species diversity and ecological balance in
the water body to prevent pollution.
2. Reutilization and recycling of wastes:
Various kinds of wastes include industrial effluents, sewage of municipal
and other system and thermal pollutants may be recycled to beneficial use.
For instance urban waste may be recycled to generate cheaper fuel gas and
electricity.
3. Removal of pollutants:
Various pollutants (radioactive, chemical, biological) present in water body
can be removed by appropriate methods such as absorption, electodialysis,
ionexchange, reverseosmosis etc. Reverse-osmosis is based on the removal
of salts and other substances by forcing the water through a
semipermeable memberance under a pressure exceeding the osmotic
pressure. Due to this, flow occurs in reverse direction. Reverse- osmosis is
commonly used to and can also be used to desalinate the brackish water
and also for purifying water from sewage.

Future outlook:

Though water (prevention and Control of Pollution) Act was promulgated in 1974
(and amended in 1988), a serious cconcern about water quality control could be
generated only recently. The CPCB in collaboration with SPCBs is tackling this
problem at war footing.

The water (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Cess Act, 1977 could recognize
the value of this resource. Every drop of water used in the industry levied. There
should be less waste of water.

Chronic power crisis is a limited factor on pollution control. Waste treatment

needs power. We must evolve low power requiring technology. Sewage pollution
from large human settlements is the major cause of water pollution in our
country.
To avoid establishment of new industries without pollution control at source, we
must revise the policy of licensing and subsequent follow-up-action. While setting
up a new industry, environment impact assessment is necessary for making
correct decisions about possible negative impacts, in urban sector, a proper land
use plan is to be evolved to contain the stress of environmental pollution on
residents.

Air Pollution

Air pollution can cause health problems and it can also damage the environment.
It has caused thinning of the protective ozone layer of the atmosphere, which is
leading to climate change. Modernization and progress have led to air getting
more and more polluted over the years. Industries, vehicles, increase in the
population and urbanization are some of the major factors responsible for air
pollution. The following industries are among those that emit a great deal of
pollutants into the air: thermal power plants, cement, steel, refineries, petro
chemicals and mines. Air pollution results from a variety of causes, not all of
which are within human control. The source of pollution may be in one country
but the impact of pollution may be felt elsewhere.

Health impacts of air pollution:

Since the onset of the industrial revolution, there has been a steady change in the
composition of the atmosphere mainly due to the combustion of fossil fuels used
for the generation of energy and transportation. Air pollution is a major
environmental health problem affecting the developing and the developed
countries alike. The effects of air pollution on health are very complex as there
are many different sources and their individual effects vary from one to another.
It is not only the ambient air quality in the cities but also the indoor air quality in
the rural and the urban areas that are causing concern. In fact in the developing
world, the highest air pollution exposures occur in the indoor environment. Air
pollutants that are inhaled have serious impact on human health affecting the
lungs and the respiratory system; they are also taken up by the blood and
pumped all round the body. These pollutants are also deposited on soil, plants,
and in water further contribution to human exposure.

Sources of Air pollution:

1. Automobiles: the air is mostly polluted by the exhaust gases of automobiles

which constitute 60% of the air pollution. The automobiles exhausts
contain compounds like carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen,
hydrocarbons, sulphur dioxide, aldehydes, organic vapours and particulate
lead. A hydrocarbon, 3-4 benzopyrene is released to the air when fuels
burn incompletely.
2. Industries: pollutants like flyash, soot and sulphur dioxide are released from
thermal power plants using coal. The sulphuric and phosphoric acid units of
fertilizer plants produce oxides of sulphur, particulate matter and fluorine.
Plants utilizing nitrogen produces ammonia, nitrogen oxides and
hydrocarbons. The major pollutants produced by the textile industry are
cotton dust, nitrogen oxide, chlorine, naphtha vapour and sulphur dioxide.
Chemical plants and pesticide plants release chlorine gas. Steel plants
generate carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide, fluorine and
dust.
3. Burning of wood and fossil fuels: smoke and carbon dioxide are produced
during burning of wood for cooking in homes, hotels and other public
places. Burning of fossil fuels like coal, kerosene, petrol etc. produce carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide, oxides of nitrogen,
hydrocarbons, particulate matter and metallic traces.
4. Ionic radiation: air and water are contaminated by radioactive dusts
generated from nuclear tests which find their way into the food chain.
Ionizing radiations emanated from radioactive wastes of nuclear reactors
ionize protoplasm in the living organisms.
5. Agriculture: air pollution is also caused by pesticides and fertilizers used
indiscriminately in the agricultural fields. A majority of the pesticides do not
degrade into simple forms. As they remain stable in the environment, they
enter the food chain. Air is also polluted by spray dusts and granules of
pesticides produced during spraying of pesticides over infected plants.
 6. Natural pollutants: pollens and spores produced by the seasonal plants
cause allergic reactions when reach us carried by air. Breakdown of
photosynthesis pigments in algae produce carbon dioxide. Volcanic
eruption, forest fires, decomposition of natural organic and inorganic
materials produces harmful particles and gases which also pollute air.

Effects of Air Pollution:

1. Global Warming (Greenhouse effect)

The heat balance of the earth gets affected with the increase in the
concentration of CO2 in the troposphere. Usually when solar radiation
enters atmosphere, most of it passes down and reaches earth. When heat
from the earth is reflected back, the thick layer of CO2 in the atmosphere
does not allow it to radiate out. Most of the heat reflected from the earth is
absorbed by CO2 layer and the water vapours present in the atmosphere.
Thus while the thick CO2 layer allows the solar radiation to pass through it
to reach earth’s surface, it prevents the heat from the earth’s surface to
radiate back to the outer space. As a result, atmosphere gets heated up.
There is an increase of the temperature of atmosphere with the increase of
CO2 concentration in the troposphere. In this process the earth becomes
warmed. This is called ‘Greenhouse Effect’.
Plants are grown in a greenhouse in cold weather. The roof and side walls
of a greenhouse are made up of glass. Solar radiation easily enters into a
greenhouse through the glass roof and side walls but the glass prevents the
heat from within the greenhouse to radiate out to the atmosphere. As a
result, the inside of a greenhouse remains warmer in the cold weather
facilitating better growth of plants.
2. Ozone layer depletion:
Ozone gas is mostly present in the stratosphere layer of atmosphere. In
addition to stratosphere, low concentration of ozone is also found in
troposphere. The ultraviolet (UV) radiations coming from the sun is mostly
absorbed by the ozone in the stratosphere. Thus it acts as a shield
protecting the living organisms from the harmful effects of ultraviolet
radiation. The concentration of ozone in the stratosphere is approximately
 10 mg/kg of air. But when air becomes polluted, the ozone layer in the
stratosphere becomes depleted. At present the depletion of ozone layer
due to air pollution led to the formation of a big hole, the size of a big
continent, in the ozone layer above Antarctica. As a result of this, the UV
radiation from the sun can reach the earth directly and can cause many
health hazards. The pollutant that chiefly causes the depletion of ozone
layer is chlorofluorocarbon used as refrigerant and propellant. Nitrogen-
oxide and hydrocarbons are the other agents of ozone layer depletion.
3. Acid Rain:
Combustion of fossil fuels like coal, mobil and petrol produce sulphur
dioxide which is oxidized to sulphuric acid in humid conditions. Nitrogen
oxides are a group of primary pollutants which are produced by automobile
exhausts. Both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides react with moisture in
the air to produce sulphuric acid and nitric acid. These two acids come
down to earth along with rain affecting the lives of plants and animals.
Effects of Acid Rain:
i. Turns leaves of plants yellow and brown.
ii. Accelerates senescence in plants.
iii. Lowers productivity of forests, grasslands and crops.
iv. Changes soil quality and soil fertility.
v. Kills aquatic animals and plants and thus lowers productivity of
aquatic ecosystems.
vi. Causes skin and respiratory diseases in man.
vii. Causes damage to the lime stone and marble monuments
viii. Increases dissolved metals in soil and water which get into food
chain.
4. Photochemical Smog:
When the air pollutants like hydrocarbons and nitrogen oxides react with
one another in the presence of sunlight, they produce nitrogen dioxide,
ozone and a compound called peroxylacetyl nitrate

Control of Air Pollution:

i. Industries can use smokeless fuels

 ii. Precipitators, scrubbers and filters can be used by industries to check
the production of particulate matter
iii. By using smokeless chullahs, solar cookers, and biogas, production of
smoke can be controlled.
iv. Industries can use large chimneys
v. Positive crank case ventilation and catalytic converter can be used to
reduce automobile emissions.
vi. To control sulphur dioxide concentration in air, the recommended
methods are (a) use of low sulphur fuels, (b) removal of sulphur from
the fuel before use and (c) use of scrubbers
vii. Antipollution devices can be fitted to automobiles to filter the
emissions.
viii. Alternate fuels can be developed for automobiles that can reduce the
pollutants in their exhausts.
ix. Public awareness regarding hazards of air pollution, deforestation and
importance of plantation should be created.

Soil Pollution:

Soil, is the upper layer of earth’s crust. Plants grow on soil. Hence the growth of
the plants is directly affected by the texture, composition and water content of
the soil. Like air and water soil is also polluted by human activities.

Chief pollutants of the soil are the solid wastes like metals, plastics, polythene,
human and animal excreta, glass, paper, rubber, building materials like
sand,cement, bricks etc. many of these solid pollutants are not biodegradable.
They not only pollute the surrounding environment by generating foul smell and
poisonous gases but also change the texture and composition of soil affecting the
animals and plants inhabiting on it.

Sources of soil pollution:

1. Domestic wastes
2. Industrial wastes
3. Agricultural wastes
 4. Animal wastes
5. Community wastes

Effects of soil pollution:

In towns and cities, a large amount of solid wastes is dumped on the adjoining soil
daily, where soil pollution has become a major problem. As the solid wastes in
such thickly populated areas are not collected, disposed or dumped properly, the
soil of those human habitats becomes highly polluted and causes a lot of
problems as follows:

i. Breeding of disease carriers like flies and mosquitoes can take place on
the decomposed organic solid wastes.
ii. Organic matters may breed microbes.
iii. Decomposed organic matters produce foul smell.
iv. Solid wastes can be washed away by run-off water during rainy season
and pollute other water bodies.
v. They can block drains and cause water-logging, thus helping in breeding
of mosquitoes.
vi. Non-biodegradable solid wastes like polythene, plastic, glass metals, etc.
when dumped on soil, create problems for plants.

Control of soil pollution:

Soil pollution can be controlled by the following three ways:

1. Throw-away output approach

Dumping of solid wastes on land or water bodies or burning is known as
throw-away output approach of solid waste disposal. But instead of
protecting the environment, this approach pollutes the place of dumping or
burning.
2. In-put approach
By reducing the production of solid wastes, we can prevent soil pollution
caused by their harmful effects.
3. Resource recovery output approach
 Recycling of solid wastes can be undertaken to convert them into many
useful products. Thus, they can be a resource rather than a liability. The
following are some of the examples of this resource output approach.
a. Packing card boards, hand-made drawing sheets, newsprint,
unbreakable dolls and many other durable items can be produced from
recycled waste papers.
b. Many reusable items can also be produced from recycled solid wastes
like glasses, plastics, polythene etc.
c. Compost can be prepared from organic wastes by dumping them under
soil. This compost is a rich source of nutrients for plants when used as
manure.
d. Biogas can be produced from excreta of man and other animals for use
as fuel and for lighting houses.
e. Ash is a solid waste produced from thermal power plants run on coal.
This hazardous environmental pollutant can be used to make bricks and
concrete and as manure in agricultural fields.

Noise Pollution

Noise can be defined as any sound that is unwanted and unpleasant and causes
discomfort and annoyance. Both health and mind of an individual get affected by
noise. Sound is measured by a unit called decibel. Sound becomes injurious to our
ear when it is of more than 130 decibels. Again sound is unwanted when it
crosses 100 decibel mark.

Sources of sound

a. Industries:
Machineries of industries run in compact spaces produce unpleasant sound
of higher decibels. Such sounds are injurious to the health and mind of
workers.
b. Traffic:
 Number of automobiles on the roads has been increasing day by day. The
vehicles like motor cycles, scooters, cars, buses, trucks, autorickshaws,
areoplanes etc. not only pollute air by producing harmful gases in their
exhausts but also produce irritating, unpleasant and unbearable sound.
These sounds can cause physical and psychological illness, especially in
people of urban areas adjacent to major roads.
c. Communities and gatherings:
Gatherings of people in festivals, processions, marriages, meetings, rallies
etc. is another major source of noise. The sounds produced from chanting,
slogans, high pitched music, speeches, songs, use of microphones etc.
associated with such gatherings are also injurious to our health.
d. Electrical and electronic gadgets:
Frequent use of electrical and electronic gadgets like radio, TV, telephone,
grinder mixture, washing machine, cookers and many such applicances also
becomes a major source of unpleasant sound.

Effects of Noise Pollution

Noise is always irritating, annoying, unpleasant, unbearable and injurious to our

health. It affects the work of people of places like hospitals, schools, offices,
libraries etc. which require a calm, peaceful and serene atmosphere. The
followings are some of the important effects of sound or noise pollution:

i. Irritation, annoyance
ii. Reduction of work efficiency
iii. Impairment of loss of hearing
iv. Insomnia or sleeplessness
v. Hypertension(or increase in blood pressure)
vi. Nervous disorders and brain damages
vii. Sweating, nausea and fatigue
viii. Aliments of stomach and brain
ix. Increase in cholesterol level in blood leading to hypertension, heart
ailments and strokes.

Control of Noise Pollution:

1. Control of noise production at the source
i. By locating the chief sources of sound production i.e. industries,
aerodromes, highways etc. away from human settlements.
ii. By discouraging or preventing or banning establishment of human
habitations close to industries, aerodromes, highways etc.
iii. By making the use of silencing devices in automobiles, aeroplanes,
industries and other such sound producing machines or electronic and
electrical gadgets mandatory.
iv. By planting trees on both sides of highways, streets, factory premises
and near airports and at different places of towns and cities since plants
can absorb noise efficiently.
2. Control of transmission of noise
If the sound production areas are covered and enclosed by sound-proof
tiles and high rise walls respectively, the transmission of irritable sound can
be prevented or reduced. This purpose can also be served if thick
plantation can be undertaken around the factories or industries.
3. Control by protecting the victims of sound pollution
Devices like earplugs and earmuffs should be provided to people who have
constant and continuous exposure to harmful irritable proof and all such
places of work sound-proof.
4. Control by enacting laws
Laws should be enacted to ban or control production of irritable sound
from loud speakers, crackers, processions, transportations, machines etc.
during sleeping hours especially in the places where hospitals, schools,
colleges, libraries etc. are located. Adequate laws should also be enacted
for banning high pitch horns in the vehicles without silencers and for
limiting volume of radios, music systems, TVs while listening.
5. Control of noise pollution by creating public awareness and education
Awareness with regard to harmful effects of sound pollution should be
created through print and electronic media, pamphlets, posters, roadside
shows, seminars, symposia, hoardings and education.
2.11. Energy Resources

The sun sends out energy as solar radiation. Solar radiation can pass through
space and the gases in the atmosphere. Solar energy heats anything that it hits.
Plants use solar energy in the chemical reaction called photosynthesis, to live and
grow.

Over many millions of years, chemical and physical processes can change
substances from dead animals and plants to coal, oil and natural gas, or fossil
fuels. These processes are still not fully understood but we know the energy
stored in these fossil fuels come originally from the sun. When we burn these
fuels, they form carbon dioxide gas and water, and release heat energy. We use
the heat energy to drive machines that are essential for our modern way of life.

In the past few hundred years, we have burned fossil fuels that took millions of
years to form. They would take million years to form again. We call these sources
of energy non-renewable. However, if we can use solar energy directly, or use
plant or animal products for fuel, then we have a renewable source of energy as
renewable as the sun that shines every day. Energy is the ability to do work.
When we move something by pushing of pulling, we are doing work. When we
move something by pushing of pulling, we are doing work. Energy is necessary for
anything to move or change.

Energy cannot be made or destroyed, but it can change from one form to
another. Energy is either potential energy (stored energy) or kinetic energy
(movement energy). The water at the top of waterfalls has potential energy. This
potential energy changes to kinetic energy as the water falls.

We can also describe energy as having different forms, for example atomic energy
(nuclear energy), chemical energy, electrical energy, heat energy, light energy,
mechanical energy, and radiation energy (including solar radiation).

The increase in use of non-renewable fossil fuels may have increased the amount
of carbon dioxide and other gases in the atmosphere to produce what is called
the global greenhouse effects. The temperature of the earth is believed to have
increased and some scientists think this may lead to climate changes and
widespread flooding of low-lying areas as the increased temperature causes the
sea to expand because of the melting of ice. It makes sense then to be cautious
and conserve non-renewable fuels for use by future generations and to control
the global greenhouse effect. So, we should judicious as regards to energy use,
and to change to renewable sources of energy.

Types of Energy Resources

1. Renewable or Non-conventional sources of Energy

These sources are being continuously consumed by man but renewed by
nature. Such resources are inexhaustible. These energy sources are solar
energy, wind energy, tidal energy, wood, biomass energy, bio-fuels,
geothermal energy etc.
i. Solar energy:
Solar energy is the biggest source of non-conventional source of energy.
The simple and commonest mode of solar energy utilization is solar
thermal conversion. Efforts are being made for solar refrigeration, air-
conditioning. Solar photovoltaic panels, cookers, heaters and solar
battery driven cars are being found cost effective and technically better
adopted, since we get effective sunshine for 250-300 useful days in a
year.
ii. Wind energy:
The wind energy can be used for water pumping and power generation.
The wind power is converted into mechanical and electrical energy.
Areas like Kutch and Okha (Gujarat), Puri (odisha), Tuticorin (Tamilnadu)
have wind turbines used for electricity generation.
iii.Tidal energy:
The possibility of generating tidal energy is being studied in the Rann of
Kutch in Gujarat and Sundarbans in West Bengal. The world’s only major
tidal power station settled in France.
iv.Hydropower:
 The water flow of the rivers is being collected in rivers with the heep of
a dam. The potential energy of stored water in a dam is converted into
kinetic energy of water by allowing it to fall through pipes from top of
the dam to its bottom. This flowing water rotates the turbines as a
consequence of which, the armature coil of the generator rotates so
that electricity is generated.
v. Ocean Thermal Energy:
The energy produced due to difference in temperature of water at
surface of ocean and at deeper levels is called ocean thermal energy. For
efficient operation of Ocean Thermal Energy Conversion (OTEC), a
difference of 20 degree Celsius or more is needed between surface
water and deeper water.
vi.Geothermal energy:
The energy harnessed from hot rocks present inside earth is called
geothermal energy. In places like Manikaran, Kulu and Sohma (Haryana),
Taptapani (Odisha), hot water comes out from soil. Hot water coming
out with pressure can be used to run the turbine of a generator to
produce electricity.
vii. Bio-mass energy:
Organic matter like wood, cattle dung, sewage, agricultural wastes
produced by plants is called biomass. The energy produced from these
organic matters is known as biomass energy.
viii. Bio-gas:
Biogas is an important solution to present day energy crisis, especially in
rural areas. The gas produced by action of bacteria on biomass is called
biogas. Cow-dung is being used as a raw material to produce biogas in
rural areas.
ix. Bio-fuels:
Alcohols like ethanol and methanol can be produced through
fermentation of biomass. Sugar cane can be used for the production of
ethanol. Methanol, like ethanol is clean, non-polluting fuel and can be
obtained from woody plants. It burns at lower temperature than
gasoline or diesel.
 x. Hydrogen:
When hydrogen burns in air, large quantities of energy is released.

Non-Renewable Resources of Energy:

i. Coal: About 6,000 billion tonnes of coal lies under the earth. Till 2004 over
200 billion tonnes have been used. Major coal fields in India are:
Raniganj, Jharia, East Bokaro and West Bokaro, Panch Konkam,
Singnoulli, Talcher, Canada. The major states best known for coal
deposits are Jharkhand, Odisha, West Bengal, M.P. A.P. and
Maharashtra. India has about 5% of total world’s coal deposits. Coal is
the major source of power source of power and is of great importance
as industrial fuel.
ii. Petroleum: World’s crude oil deposits are diminishing at a greater rate and
can be available only up to next 40 years. OPEC (Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries) consisting of 13 countries have 67%
petroleum deposits. These crude oils are being refined and purified by
distillation. Major products are available namely petrol, diesel,
kerosene, lubricating oil, plastic during the distillation process.
iii.Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG): The petroleum gases are being converted
into liquid under pressure to form LPG- the cooking gas. The LPG is being
marketed as household gas for kitchens.
iv.Natural Gas: The natural gas is composed of chiefly methane with small
quantity of propane and ethane. In our country natural gas (fossil fuel)is
a gift of nature. The natural gases are being used as energy sources and
raw materials in petrochemical industry.
v. Compressed Natural Gas (CNG): in present days the CNG is being used in all
major cosmopolitan cities to run vehicles. The CNG use has greately
reduced the vehicular pollutions.
vi.Synthetic Natural Gas (SNG): the low quality coals are being converted to
SNG in combination with carbon monoxide and hydrogen.
 vii. Nuclear energy: A very small amount of radioactive substance can
produce sufficient quantity of energy. Nuclear reactors are required to
produce atomic energy. In India we have four nuclear power stations.

The nuclear energy is being used for production of electricity, as fuel for
marine vessels, and spacecrafts and for heat generation in chemical processing
plants.

Conservation of Energy Sources

At present we are adopting the following methods for conservation of energy

sources being recommended by the experts.

1. Efficiency in production of energy.

2. Conservation of energy in transportation sector.
3. Conservation in utilization of energy.

Government of India has given high priority for conservation of petroleum

products. Following methods are being undertaken for conservation in utilization
of energy:

a. Adoption of measures and practices conducive to increased fuel efficiency

and training programmes in transport sector.
b. Development and promotion of use of fuel efficient equipments like LPG
and kerosene stoves in domestic sector.
c. Standardization of fuel efficient irrigation pumps for making them more
energy efficient in agricultural sector.
d. To create massive awareness amongst people about the uses of energy
efficient appliances for saving energy and money.
e. Awareness generation amongst people is also necessary to use natural
resources like sun, wind, geothermal energy and trees for heat and cooling.

2.12. URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ITS IMPACT:

When considering the future development of the urban sphere, especially in its
European and EU context, one very important key strategic aspect has to do with
sustainability considerations, i.e. the systemic interplay between
environmental/ecological, economic and socio-cultural (sometimes here together
referred to as “green”) factors (in the sustainability context). Within this realm,
you find challenges dealing with climate change, water availability and natural
resource flows, including waste streams and their uses. When discussing “green”
issues in connection with urban challenges, a starting point is the sustainability
challenges connected with the urban space itself. However, you also find highly
relevant considerations dealing with what the urban development implies for
other activities distributed in geographical space as mirrored e.g. by the urban-
rural connections in the form of the connection between urban space and its
natural resources supporting “hinterland”. Thus the impacts of the urban
activities on the surrounding world is here at heart - in all its different ecological
dimensions, such as water quality and quantity, biodiversity erosion, implications
of the chemical impact on the ecological systems of the hinterland - and in terms
of the competition over land use among different functions.

The urban-rural connection is not always to be considered “negative” in character

and the urban space as “intruder”, “eroder” and sometimes “destroyer”. Instead
there is often an intricate interplay between functions in the urban space and
those connected directly to the rural space that carries mutual benefits, e.g. in
terms of distribution of functional responsibilities of implementation. The two
different spaces may thus manifest themselves as symbiotically linked and
mutually reinforcing not least the vitality for survival of both. This does not mean
that there does not exist an ecological footprint from the urban space on the
global “hinterland”. In addition, the social aspects of urban life (e.g. demographic,
value orientation, preferences and issues around well being and human
satisfaction) often have “green” connotations, e.g. how a climate change induced
new water availability situation can strongly impinge on social life, and thus point
at the issue of how societal priorities are allocated in such a situation. In earlier
historical cases, desert towns provide vivid examples of such types of
phenomena.
Many of the “green” types of challenges, e.g. climate change, are general
phenomena (often planetary in scope) and not necessarily specifically connected
to urban space. Their global and general features do not say anything about their
specific impacts on urban phenomena. A scrutiny over a number of such general
“grand challenges” thus has to indicate more precisely how such causal links to
urban situations may be perceived in terms of what has already happened, but
also exploring what could happen in the future. In order to do so, there is a need
to first outline the general landscape of various “grand challenges” which also
emerge as “drivers” of change in various systems, including the urban ones. Such
a two-step outline of those relationships will be attempted in this text, in a form
that will highlight a number of such phenomena and their potential nature. All
this serves the increased capacity to explore various future options, including how
to design criteria for the types of possible actions that may be entailed, and to
make suggestions for incorporation in various policy packages at local, regional,
national and EU levels respectively.

The current EU political context has several facets – some of very recent and
some of older origin. The knowledge production side for sure has its roots in the
Lisbon agreements. The urban aspects of EU “green” considerations have several
threads, most of them over and above those that are directly oriented towards
urban issues.

The economic crisis of 2008-10 has demonstrated the need for many fresh
approaches to the economic problems at hand and those perceived at deeper
level for the future. The ‘smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ slogan at the
centre of the Europe 2020 agenda, points at possible lines of action for socio-
economic development over the next decade. Also, longer-term approaches to
deeper transformations will have to be designed and implemented. This holds
true not least for the urban challenges in their connections to green challenges
for European policy, such as the need to shift to a low carbon paradigm. This is
only one example of the frame of drivers of a global kind that Europe is facing,
and which sometimes are called the ‘grand challenges’. Specifically, the ‘smart’
component of the solution package is highlighted in the Europe 2020 agenda,
with its connotation of ‘knowledge and innovation as drivers of future growth’.
The urban area exemplifies this to a large extent. The need to confront all these
challenges will also draw into the picture the coherence of policy approaches and
avoidance of unnecessary overlaps.
Impact of Urbanisation on Environment:

1. High rate of population growth due to migration.

2. Rich people, traders, industrialists and politicians grab all the prime land,
develop pooh colonies and lead luxurious life whereas poor and deprived
class are pushed to unhealthy slums.
3. Prices of land go up beyond the reach of common people. Streets become
congested and due to lack of open space, free clean air becomes scarce.
4. Depletion of vegetation and greenery.
5. Industries, factories, automobiles and sewage pollute the environment
significantly.
6. Because of increasing urban population more and more vacant lands are
used for housing purposes by real estate dealers, builders and other
people. As a result, crop fields, orchards, gardens, forests, playgrounds,
grazing fields and even graveyards adjoining the urban areas are converted
into housing plots.
7. Number of dwellings in an urban area is far less than the number of people
inhabiting it. As a result, a small dwelling is occupied by many people,
streets become congested and poor people are compelled to live in
unhygienic makeshift shelters built on unauthorized land of slums. These
slums are not only illegal but also lack all basic and civic amenities and thus
the slum-dwellers lead very miserable lives.
8. Migrations from rural areas create great problems for the city planners,
local administrators and civic authorities. As there is always a large floating
population of unknown number in a city, a lot of stress develops on basic
civil amenities like water, electricity, transport health services etc. Due to a
large floating population urban environment deteriorates as it causes traffic
jam, pollution, solid wastes, heat, dust, diseases and above all law and
order problems.

2.13. Model Questions:

1. Discuss major environmental issues.
2. What are the impacts of population on Environment?
3. Define Pollution and discuss its types.
4. Explain the major sources of energy.
5. Discuss urban development and discuss its impact on environment.
 Unit-III

3.0. Development

3.1. Different approaches to development

3.2. Development and forced displacement

3.3. Inclusive development

3.4. Rural infrastructure and inclusive development
3.5. Non-inclusive development
3.6. Displacement
3.7. Development induced displacement
3.8. Causes of displacement
3.9. Forced displacement
3.10. Rehabilitation
3.11. Environmental problem
3.12. Sources of environmental problem
3.13. Impacts on environmental problem
3.14. Solutions to environmental problems
3.15. Environmental Impact Assessment
3.16. Origin of EIA
3.17. History of EIA
3.18. EIA in India
3.19. Environmental Assessment
3.20. Model questions
 UNIT-III

3.0. Development

We all have ideas for ways we can improve living conditions in our communities.
For example, maybe in your community, people would like to build a new school
or a better health clinic. Maybe there are some roads that need to be repaired or
wells and pipes that need to be built to improve access to clean drinking water.
Maybe members of your community are interested in a new job training program
or developing irrigation systems to provide water for crops and animals during
the dry season.

These are all examples of ideas for development of your community—ways to

improve quality of life, opportunity and well-being. Different communities and
individuals will have many different ideas about what good development means
to them.

Government officials, companies, and other groups may have different ideas for
development. For example, sometimes governments and companies declare that
big projects—such as roads, mines, hydropower dams, or modern buildings—are
necessary for the development of the whole country.

Sometimes these big projects can have negative impacts on local communities. If
local people say they do not want these projects, they are often told that they are
opposed to the development of their country.

But are these projects always really development? What happens if you disagree
with a proposed development project because of the harm it will cause? Who
should decide what kinds of projects and policies will be best for the future of
your communities and country?
There are many different ideas and models for development, so there is no single
definition or type of project that is development. The decisions that are made
about the development of one area will have a big impact on the lives of all
people in that area.

For this reason, everyone should have a voice in defining what kind of
development happens in their community and their country.

3.1. DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO DEVELOPMENT

When most people think about plans for development, they think about projects
which focus on improving people’s quality of life. This may include projects that
help to support families, build homes, protect the environment, improve access
to food, Preserve culture and increase opportunities to learn and work. This might
involve small projects within a community or it might involve big projects carried
out by the government or companies. Sometimes development projects and
policies can benefit some people but harm others. Good development projects
include the ideas of all people who will be affected by the project and find ways
to avoid causing harm when they are implemented. For example, a company
might decide to build a factory in a rural village to create jobs and make the
country richer. However, the factory might also pollute a river that a neighboring
community relies on for fishing. This project may benefit the people who get jobs
in the factory but harm the fishing families from the nearby village. For the
factory to be a good development project, the company will need to find a way to
avoid polluting the river and causing harm to the nearby communities. Those
responsible for the development will also need to talk to people in the fishing
village and ask for their ideas about how to avoid harming their livelihoods and
the environment. This approach to development is called inclusive development,
because it includes local people in planning and decision-making and focuses on
directly improving the lives and opportunities of local people.

Sometimes development projects and policies can benefit some people but harm
others. Good development projects include the ideas of all people who will be
affected by the project and find ways to avoid causing harm when they are
implemented. For example, a company might decide to build a factory in a rural
village to create jobs and make the country richer. However, the factory might
also pollute a river that a neighboring community relies on for fishing. This project
may benefit the people who get jobs in the factory but harm the fishing families
from the nearby village.

Unfortunately, around the world, there are many development projects that are
Non-Inclusive because they have not taken local communities’ ideas and
problems into account. These projects can involve taking natural resources away
from local communities, or forcing people to move from their homes so that more
modern buildings can be built. These are often projects that local communities
have no involvement in, and instead of solving their problems they often create
new ones. These projects sometimes do not have much benefit for poor people,
but mainly benefit people who are already rich and powerful.

3.2. DEVELOPMENT AND FORCED DISPLACEMENT

One of the worst impacts of non-inclusive development is forced displacement. In

the name of development people are sometimes evicted from their homes and
forced to move out of the way. Many people around the world have become
poorer due to forced displacement. This is because in addition to losing their
homes, they lose access to the land or resources they depend on for many
aspects of their lives, including their food and livelihoods. When people are
displaced, in addition to losing their homes, they often lose access to local
resources and services. Lost resources might include forests, rivers and farmland.
Lost services might include community centers, schools or health clinics.
Displacement often leads to the breakdown of communities and social and
support networks. When inclusive development processes are used by
communities, governments and companies, there is less risk of forced
displacement and these negative impacts happening. This is because local
communities who are affected by development projects are asked for their
opinions and ideas about the project and how they would like to see their
problems being solved. If people are required to move because of a project,
inclusive development ensures that they are included in the discussions and
decisions about moving. Consultations should happen and action should be taken
so that the living conditions of affected people are not negatively affected, or
there could even be discussion on how they can be made better. With this
approach to development, people’s human rights are respected. In the next
sections of the Guide, you will learn about human rights and how respect for
human rights can improve the way development occurs.

1. DEVELOPMENT: Improvement of the quality of life, opportunity and well being.

Development can happen at the community level or at the country level. It can be
anything from building schools and improving access to health care to building
the economy and improving trade with other countries.

2. INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT: An approach to development which includes local

people in planning and decision-making and focuses on improving the lives and
opportunities of affected people. Inclusive development also respects people’s
rights. Many people are excluded from development because of their gender,
ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, disability or poverty. The effects of such
exclusion are staggering, deepening inequality across the world. The richest ten
percent of people in the world own 85 percent of all assets, while the poorest 50
percent own only one percent. Development can be inclusive - and reduce
poverty - only if all groups of people contribute to creating opportunities, share
the benefits of development and participate in decision-making. Inclusive
development follows UNDP's human development approach and integrates the
standards and principles of human rights: participation, non-discrimination and
accountability. There are many elements for a nation to consider in pursuing
inclusive development. A vital one is how to create productive and gainful
employment. This should be paired with effective and efficient social safety nets
to protect those who cannot work or who earn too little. To reach the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), many developing countries will also need to enhance
public services by building schools and hospitals, training teachers and doctors,
and providing access to water, sanitation and transportation, all of which requires
public spending. Well-designed fiscal policies - the way a government collects and
spends public resources - can play a major role in stimulating growth and reducing
poverty. UNDP works with developing countries to improve how inclusive
development policies and programmes like those mentioned are designed and
implemented. It provides policy advice in areas such as employment strategies,
job creation and social safety nets. We help develop the capacity of governments
to formulate strategies and fiscal policies that stimulate pro-poor growth, reduce
poverty and achieve the MDGs. At the same time, UNDP advocates for a stronger
role for the state, enhanced public investment and economic governance to
ensure that everyone has access to vital public services.

3.3. WHAT IS INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT?

In addressing the question of what is meant by inclusive development, two issues

arise. First, the distinction between growth and development, and second, the
import of the term “inclusive.” “Development” brings into play dimensions of well
being beyond simply income, while “inclusive” focuses attention on the
distribution of wellbeing in society. Further intricacies arise, as will be seen,
because the answers to these two questions are in fact interrelated. In principle
the distinction between growth and development should be clear at a general,
abstract level. Growth refers to economic growth, in other words, increase in per
capita income. This is a narrowly defined technical concept that is measurable and
is indeed measured by statistical agencies the world over. Development, on the
other hand, is not at all well defined, at least not as precisely defined, as growth.
At different times the term has been used to refer to (i) just economic growth, (ii)
changes in economic structure of production (rising share of industry and then
services from an agricultural base), (iii) spatial distribution of population
(increasing urbanization), (iv) improvements in “social indicators” of education
and health, etc. The “modernization” debate in the social sciences has partly been
about the normative significance of the trajectory of a country which might go
through the above changes—is it a good thing and should countries aim to go
through this trajectory? Perhaps the best known exemplar of the distinction
between growth and development, certainly the best known in terms of
indicators that are on par quantitatively with economic growth as an indicator, is
the Human Development Index (HDI). As is well known, this index combines per
capita income of a country with two other indicators two arrive at a single index
of “development”. The two other indicators relate to education (measured by
literacy rate) and health (measured by life expectancy). The objectives of those
who formulated and developed the HDI included the explicit broadening of the
evaluation of country performance from sole reliance on per capita income to
other dimensions of human well being. I will return to the distinction between
solely incomes based versus more broadly constructed measures of well being.
Let us now turn, however, to a discussion of what is meant by “inclusive.” Fairly
clearly, it refers in some sense to the distribution of well being, however
measured. A given average for a population can be distributed in an infinite
number of ways, ranging from perfect equality to extreme equality. And we can
evaluate this distribution in a number of different ways, depending on what
specific social welfare function is used in evaluating individual well being and then
aggregating the evaluation to a social level. One specific form of a social welfare
function defined on income, for example, would lead to the well known Foster-
Greer-Thorbecke (FGT) class of poverty indices, which have now become the
workhorse of empirical income poverty analysis among researchers and in
international agencies. This class of indices includes the standard “head count
ratio measure” (the fraction of population below the poverty line), “the income
gap measure” (the shortfall of poor incomes from the poverty line normalized by
the poverty line and total population) and “the squared income gap measure”
(using the square of the shortfall, to emphasize the wellbeing of the poorest of
the poor). Thus this class of indices can capture values judgments by varying the
degree of “poverty aversion”. Another member of this family, as the “poverty
aversion” becomes infinitely large, coincides with the Rawlsian maxi min
measure—evaluation is determined solely by the lowest level of well being, in this
case the lowest level of income. Let us then pursue the notion of inclusiveness as
being captured in some sense by poverty.

For a given level of average income, inclusiveness can be measured simply by the
degree of poverty. As for changes in average income, growth, its inclusiveness can
thus be measured by the change in poverty. Specifically, we can calculate poverty
change per unit of increase in per capita income, convert this into elasticity, and
use this as a measure of the inclusiveness of growth. Such exercises are now
common, and yield useful insights into the nature of growth. Fairly clearly, a given
increase in per capita income—a given growth rate—is consistent with a range of
changes to poverty (including, even, an increase in poverty). This leads then to the
idea of “pro-poor growth” which at this level is indistinguishable from “inclusive
growth.” Both could be measured by the “growth elasticity” of poverty
reduction.” But consider now the behavior of the income distribution above the
poverty line, and more generally the inequality in the overall distribution, as
growth takes place. For example, if inequality in the overall distribution falls with
growth, this would have some claim to be labeled “inclusive growth”. If there is
growth, and a fall in overall inequality, poverty will fall so on this case growth will
be “pro-poor” as well. But if there is growth and an increase in inequality, then we
could have the case that poverty falls because the growth effect dominates the
inequality effect. In this case growth is “pro-poor”, in the sense that poverty has
fallen; but it is not “inclusive”, in the sense that inequality has risen. These are not
just definitional games. The recent experience of most fast growing economies, in
Asia and elsewhere, precisely matches this stylized pattern. Using these
definitions, we might say that inclusive growth is necessarily pro-poor, but non
inclusive growth (in the sense of inequality increasing with growth) is not
necessarily anti poor, provided it is not “too” non-inclusive (i.e. the inequality
rising effect does not dominate the growth effect on poverty). However, making
the same rate of growth more inclusive (inequality falling more or not raising so
much) must make that growth more pro-poor. And, since there is a range of
possibilities for distributional change associated with any given growth rate,
inclusiveness itself can be more or less pro-poor—certain types of inequality
decrease (for example those that increase middle level incomes) reduce poverty
by less than other types of inequality decrease (for example, those that increase
the lowest incomes). To summarize on income, therefore, the focus of policy for
poverty reduction must be growth with as much inclusiveness as possible, and
with as much inclusiveness of the poorest as possible. Clearly, the same
framework above that is now widely applied to income could in principle be
applied to non-income dimensions of well-being. For example, if literacy were
conceptualized as a continuous variable, then the literacy rate used in the HDI
would be seen as the analog of the “head count ratio”, where the “poverty line” is
a minimum level of reading and writing ability. The same issues would arise along
this dimension of inclusiveness. There could be an improvement in the average
level of literacy, with little or no improvement in literacy below the minimum cut
off. On health, average life expectancy across all individuals could improve, but
with little or no improvement below some acceptable minimum. Inequalities in
health outcomes have become a matter of growing interest in developing and
developed countries alike, and some conceptual energy has been devoted to
measuring health inequality. Then if development, beyond growth, is to do with
improvements in average levels of attainment along dimensions other than
income, inclusive development is to do with the distribution of these
improvements. Inclusive development occurs when average achievements
improve and inequalities in these achievements fall. By analogy with the income
case, we can define pro-poor development as occurring when improvements in
average attainments are accompanied by improvements of achievements below a
critical threshold. Thus when development is inclusive it is also pro-poor. But
development can be pro-poor even though it is not inclusive, inequality in this
non-income dimension increases, provided that this increase in inequality is not
large enough to offset the impact on “non-income poverty” of the average
improvement along this dimension. Thus a move from just growth to inclusive
development involves two steps— a move to evaluate the distribution as well as
the average level of well being along any dimension considered, and a move to
include dimensions other than income in the assessment of performance. The
move from, growth to inclusive growth takes only the first step, staying focused
on the income dimension. The move from growth to development takes only the
second step, by bringing in non-income dimensions but staying focused on
average achievements. Inclusive development as a concept invites and requires
both steps to be taken. Is the Human Development Index (HDI) a measure of
inclusive development? It certainly satisfies the second requirement, because it
brings in education and health alongside income in constructing an overall
measure of well being or performance for a country. However, it shows a concern
for distribution only along one of these dimensions. This dimension is education
because, as argued earlier, literacy, measured as the achievement of minimum
levels of reading and writing, can be seen as being analogous to income poverty—
it focuses attention on the lowest levels of educational achievement. But along
the income dimension the HDI uses only per capita income, not its distribution
and not income poverty measures. Similarly, along the health dimension the
measure is average life expectancy, which can in principle improve while its
distribution worsens. Thus the HDI is not a measure of inclusive development. It
should be noted, however, that there have been several attempts to modify the
HDI to make it distribution ally sensitive, for example by introducing income
poverty rather than average income, or gender sensitive, but taking into account
the distribution of education and health across the genders. But the core HDI, the
“headline” HDI, does not have these features. What of the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs)? How close do they come to capturing inclusive
development? The answer is that in their totality they do represent a decisive
shift away from the pure economic growth assessment of country performance,
both because they bring in more dimensions than income, and because they bring
in distributional considerations along the dimensions. Thus the two key indicators
of the first goal (end poverty and hunger), to halve between 1990 and 2015 the
proportion of people whose income is less than $1 per day and to halve the
proportion of people who suffer from hunger, focus on distribution as well as
going beyond just income (to bring in nutrition). The second goal, to achieve
universal primary education, obviously goes beyond income but focuses attention
on the lowest rung of educational achievement. The third, fourth and fifth goals
(on gender equality, child health and maternal health) also emphasize
distributional improvements of non-income dimensions. The sixth goal,
combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, has as a target, for example, the
achievement of universal access to treatment for HIV/AIDS to all those who need
it. This is certainly a non-income goal, but what of its distributional characteristic?
If we conceptualize HIV/AIDS on a continuum from worst to less bad, then
universal access to treatment is like equalizing the shortfall of “good health” from
the critical minimum. In this sense it can be viewed as analogous to an income
poverty target. But suppose HIV/AIDS afflicts primarily those who have higher
incomes. Then in addressing distribution along one dimension we might give
additional resources to those who are better off along another dimension. This
raises the question of aggregation along different dimensions, which I will take up
presently. The seventh MDG goal, of environmental sustainability, has several
components, some of which are distribution ally sensitive, but others of which are
not. Thus the sub-goal of halving the proportion of population without
sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation is analogous to
halving income poverty. But the distributional aspects of another sub-goal, that of
reducing biodiversity loss, are not self-evident since biodiversity cannot be ranked
across individuals in the same way that income, or education, can. It is not clear
who will benefit from reducing biodiversity loss at the national or global level.
Once again, it leads us into following through the impact of acting on one
dimension on the distributional characteristics of other dimensions—for example,
will reducing biodiversity loss benefit the income poor or the income rich?
Growth is a unidimensional measure of performance. As discussed above, pro-
poor growth or inclusive growth, while still focused on income, face issues of
aggregation across individuals—poverty indices are one way of effecting this
aggregation, and more general social welfare functions are essentially methods of
aggregating the myriad changes in income across individuals into a single national
level index for evaluation. The concept of development introduces dimensions of
well being beyond income, but this raises the question of aggregating across
these dimensions to arrive at a single measure of performance. What if income
rises but health or education worsens? Even if all dimensions move in the same
direction, if changes are at different rates in different countries for different
dimensions, the evaluation question remains. The HDI resolves this in a particular
way—it takes an equal weighted average of the indicators along the three
dimensions of income, education and health. But it is not clear on what basis
these weights, or indeed any other set of weights can be chosen. The extensive
debate on the question has not resolved the issue. We should consider four things
in assessment and evaluation: (i) economic growth, (ii) measures of income
distribution, including income poverty, (ii) measures of average performance
along dimensions other than income, in particular education and health, (iv)
measures of distribution along non-income dimensions of wellbeing, including
distribution not only across individuals but across salient groups such as gender or
ethnicity. In many ways, the MDG approach does this. There is an inevitable
untidiness about the MDG approach since it has many dimensions and many
indicators, but this is inevitable if we want to move from growth to inclusive
development as the objective of policy. Finally, I want to clarify that the focus of
discussion here has been on assessment and evaluation of the outcomes of policy
and the development process. These outcomes are multidimensional, and
assessment is correspondingly complex. But this does not say anything about how
these outcomes arise, or how they can be improved. That is a separate question,
and will be taken up in the next section, focusing in particular on infrastructure
interventions. But it is as well to address a tendency in some parts of the
literature, that one set of outcomes are essentially all that we need to focus on,
because the other dimensions track these outcomes very closely, statistically, and
causally. This argument is indeed made for income—traditionally for economic
growth, but more recently for income poverty. Thus, it used to be argued, and is
still argued, that education and health, for example, track income fairly closely, so
we might as well focus policy on the income dimension. There are two problems
with this argument. First, there is the straightforward statistical argument that
education and health do not in fact track income perfectly. Even when there is a
significant statistical relationship on average, there is considerable variation
around the average, and countries at the same level of per capita income can
have widely different achievements in non-income dimensions. This holds also at
the relationship across individuals. Second, and more importantly, even the
significant statistical relationship does not establish causality, at least not uni-
directional causality from income to the other dimensions. There is significant
evidence that education and health feedback positively on income. There is thus
no substitute for careful analysis of each intervention and its impact on
multidimensional outcomes taking into account feedback effects from each
dimension on to the others. And, as a practical matter, the MDGs provide a useful
way of structuring the outcomes to focus on.

3.4. Rural Infrastructure and Inclusive Development-: Investing in infrastructure,

rural infrastructure in particular, is a policy instrument available to governments
to advance their objectives. What light does the objective of inclusive
development, as characterized in the previous section, throw on the instrument,
and what guidance does it provide for the deployment of the instrument? We
focus on the differences with the objective of growth, which means paying
attention to two issues—outcomes beyond income, and distribution of these
outcomes. As argued above, the MDGs provide a good way of implementing these
concerns. Infrastructure is a broad term. The standard usage is of course in terms
of roads. But electricity, telephone connections, water supply, buildings to house
markets, all fall into this category. In what follows I will use roads as the leading
example, and will mostly have roads in mind when I use the term infrastructure,
with qualifications noted as they arise. The relationship between infrastructure
and the levels and growth of income at the country level is much discussed in the
literature. There could in principle be excessive investment in infrastructure with
the growth objective, in the sense that the economic rate of return from the
investment is below the opportunity cost of funds, but a significant body of
literature argues that the issue in most developing countries is too little
infrastructure to support rapid growth. The most obvious case is road connections
between production centers (whether manufacturing or natural resource
extraction) and points of export. Thus, for example, it is argued that one of the
reasons why “structural adjustment” did not have as much success as expected in
Africa was because of the poor state of infrastructure. “Getting the prices right”
to incentivize agricultural production for export was not of much use if the
produce could not be got to the port in time and in good condition. But cuts in
public expenditure and especially in public investment, worsened an already bad
situation and negated the pricing reforms. Coming right up to date, recent
discussions on infrastructure constraints to India’s growth prospects have led to
an agreement on the need for massive investment if Indian growth is to be
sustained. However, while it is the assessment of this author that infrastructure
dose play a central role in economic growth, it should be made clear that the
literature is not united in ascribing causality from infrastructure to economic
growth. At least, cross-country regression analysis that tries to establish this link
has been questioned by some authors. The relationship between infrastructure
and economic growth is perhaps best seen as being positive but nuanced. Equally,
there is a lively debate on how exactly infrastructure can play this role, and
whether such a role should even be envisaged for it, or whether the government
should simply stick to deploying infrastructure in supporting a growth strategy.
The issue is important, because different types of infrastructure investment have
different outcomes, and real choices have to be made. Let us start then with
roads and their role in inclusive growth. Spatial disparities in income and income
growth have long been remarked upon in developing countries. It is well
documented that these disparities have been growing in the last two decades,
accompanying globalization and high national level growth rates. Internal
divergence between rural and urban areas, between coastal and inland areas, and
between sub national regions more generally, which tracks unequal development
of infrastructure across these divides has become a worrying aspect of recent
growth experience. What should be the policy response to this? The consensus
view is that a reversal of the opening up of economies to global integration, which
has created opportunities but also inequalities, is not really an option. No country
has attained sustained growth without access to global markets, global
investment and global know how. Rather, the question is how the growing
inequalities can be managed. Since the evidence and analysis identifies some of
the cause of regional divergence, in the face of growth opportunities, as lying in
divergence in the level and quality of infrastructure, the policy response is seen to
lie in addressing infrastructure deficits in lagging regions. This applies both to
infrastructure within these regions, as well as infrastructure that links lagging
regions to advancing regions and to the global economy. Thus the perspective of
inclusive growth leads to a natural focus on rural roads. Rural areas contain the
bulk of national poor, globally in aggregate but particularly in Asia, and it is these
are among the areas that have been lagging in terms of income growth. This is
apparent both in terms of direct comparison of income growth in rural and urban
areas, but also in the observations that lagging regions are more rural in their
composition than advancing regions in nearly all countries. Putting together the
evidence on the causal connection between road connections and income
growth, and the evidence on relatively low levels and growth of

3.5. NON-INCLUSIVE DEVELOPMENT: Development that does not take affected

communities’ ideas and problems into account. Non-inclusive development
projects can involve taking natural resources away from local communities, or
forcing people to move from their homes so that more modern buildings can be
built.
 3.6. DISPLACEMENT

Displacement can be defined as the forcing of communities and individuals out of

their homes, often also their homelands, for the purposes of economic
development. - Coercion and violation of Human Right

1. Displacement is defined as the act of moving someone or something from one

position to another or the measurement of the volume replaced by something
else.
a. An example of displacement is when war requires people to move from
their homes due to the danger.
b. An example of displacement is the weight of the water that is replaced by
an ocean liner.
Displacement

• Displacement is seen as the result of a model of development that enforces

certain technical and economic choices without giving any serious consideration
to those options that would involve the least social and environmental costs.

• Most displacement has been involuntary. There has been very little meaningful
participation of affected people in the planning and implementation of the dam
project, including the resettlement and rehabilitation aspects. The displaced and
other affected people have often been the last to receive any meaningful
information on the dam project. What information they have received has
typically been limited and provided very late in the planning and implementation
of mitigation measures. There have been instances of the submergence of land
and other property, and of displacement without prior and sufficient warning of
the impending filling of the reservoir. The displacement literature bears testimony
to traumatic forced and delayed relocation, and to the denial of development
opportunity for years and often decades due to a long and uncoordinated
displacement and resettlement process. The numbers of both directly and
indirectly affected people have frequently been underestimated, and there has
been an inadequate understanding of the exact nature and extent of the negative
effects involved. The State and other project proponents, largely viewing
displacement from the standpoint of its causes, consistently maintain that
displacement is justified in the larger national interest. It is argued that while
some displacement may be inevitable in large development projects, the long
term good these projects will bring merits the sacrifice of a few in favour of the
larger good. This notion of displacement as sacrifice has influenced thinking on
displacement considerably. It has stripped displacement of its political content,
the fact that displacement involves the loss of people’s rights to land and
resources. This has also led to a perception of resettlement and rehabilitation as
are ward for the sacrifice rather than as a basic right or entitlement.

Those who view displacement from the point of view of its outcomes would in
effect say that though some level of displacement may be inevitable its negative
consequences are not. It is acknowledged that displacement causes severe social,
economic, and environmental stresses that translate themselves into
physiological, psychological, socio-cultural, economic, and ecological damage. At
the same time it is maintained that by expanding resettlement objectives beyond
merely aiming to improve the standards of living of the people, it would be
possible to offset these disabilities. Thus moving towards such a just resettlement
and rehabilitation is the focus of this school of thought. As a result displacement
is large viewed from the perspective of resettlement and rehabilitation and its
attendant complexities. The concern of this school of thought is with effective
rehabilitation, which it maintains can manage displacement. So much so that very
often displacement and resettlement are used interchangeably in this context,
typically as involuntary resettlement in the case of the World Bank, for example.
The meaning of displacement has come to be more or less taken for granted,
particularly in most academic literature. It is very important to understand that
displacement is a multidimensional phenomenon of which physical relocation is
only one of the most significant outcomes. The displaced peoples movements
have challenged this view of displacement with physical relocation at its centre
and instead has as its core the historical experience of millions of displaced
people.
This understanding of displacement highlights (i) the alienation of the individual
and community legal and customary rights and dislocation of the social and
economic organization, and (ii) the politics of legal and policy instruments that
sanctions such disenfranchisement. The focus is thus on the experience as well as
the structures of displacement. In this context displacement refers not only to
those who are forced to physically relocate in order to make way for the project
and its related aspects but also includes those who are displaced from their
resource base and livelihoods. It is commonly experienced through the loss of
land and the disruption of social and economic relationships.

3.7. DEVLOPMENT INDUCED DISPLACEMENT-: Development-induced

displacement and resettlement (DIDR) is the forcing of communities and
individuals out of their homes, often also their homelands, for the
purposes of economic development. It is a subset of forced migration. It
has been historically associated with the construction of dams
for hydroelectric power and irrigation purposes but also appears due to
many other activities, such as mining and the creation of military
installations, airports, industrial plants, weapon testing grounds,
railways, road developments, urbanization, conservation projects,
forestry, etc. Development-induced displacement is a social problem
affecting multiple levels of human organization, from tribal and village
communities to well-developed urban areas.
According to Bogumil Terminski (2012) approximately fifteen million people each
year are forced to leave their homes following big development projects (dams,
irrigation projects, highways, urbanization, mining, conservation of nature, etc.).
Anthony Oliver-Smith (2009) and Michael M. Cernea (2006) are also estimating
that current scale of DIDR amounts to 15 million people per year.
Development-induced displacement or the forced migration in the name of
development is affecting more and more people as countries move from
developing to developed nations. The people that face such migration are often
helpless, suppressed by the power and laws of nations.
The lack of rehabilitation policies for migrants means that they are often
compensated only monetarily - without proper mechanisms for addressing their
grievances or political support to improve their livelihoods.
Displaced people often internalize a sense of helplessness and powerlessness
because of their encounter with the powerful external world, although there are
also several examples of active resistance movements against development-
induced displacement. In every category, particularly among marginalized groups,
women are the worst hit and pay the highest price of development. A study
carried out by the National Commission for Women in India (NCW) on the impact
of displacement on women reveals that violence against women is increased. An
increase in alcoholism due to displacement has led to a marked rise in domestic
violence in India. In the Lincoln Park Community of Chicago, Illinois, where Jose
(Cha-Cha) Jimenez founded the human rights Latino organization: Young Lords,
Mayor Richard J. Daley displaced tens of thousands Puerto Ricans and the poor.
This displacement helped to prolife rate growing street gangs. Today these gangs’
enterprises with murder for hire arson for profit and drug sales as its prime
motivation. Displacement has made men feel helpless or insecure and turned
women and children into scapegoats. Displacement also leads to deterioration in
health and high mortality rates as services in those selected areas are the first to
be cut. The nutrition and health of women, which is worse than that of men even
under normal circumstances, is bound to go down in the event of an overall
worsening in health caused by displacement.
Humanitarian aid agencies and government programs should target their efforts
when intervening to assist victims of forced economic displacement, to ensure
their work does not run counter to processes aimed at addressing the
fundamental roots of the conflict. The Overseas Development Institute advocates
the search for durable solutions to the recovery of displaced persons which go
beyond short-term return, relocation and local integration processes.
The Norwegian Refugee Council, Internal Displacement Monitoring Center, has an
online review: Development-Induced Displacement.
3.8.CAUSES OF DISPLACEMENT-: According to Michael M. Cernea the main
causes of development-induced displacement include: water supply (construction
of dams, artificial reservoirs, irrigation projects), urban infrastructure,
transportation (roads, highways, canals); energy (mining, power plants, oil
exploration and extraction, pipelines), expansion of agriculture, parks and forest
reserves and population redistribution schemes
SOME EXAMPLE OF DISPLACEMENT-:

 Three Gorges Dam in China - about 1.13 million displaced (recently increased
to 4 million, but many could return).
 Tokuyama Dam in Japan - some 600 displaced.
 Donji Milanovac for Đerdap hydroelectric power plant
 Sardar Sarovar Dam in India - between 1 and 2 million displaced

3.9. FORCED DISPLACEMENT: When people or communities are made to leave

their homes and lands. Forced displacement often happens because of non-
inclusive development.

3.10. Rehabilitation

Rehabilitation programmes have predominantly focused on the process of

physical relocation rather than on the economic and social development of the
displaced and other negatively affected people. This has severely eroded the
development effectiveness of rehabilitation programmes and heightened the
impoverishment risk of the rehabilitator. According to Cernea (1998) risks to
adversely affected people are not a component of conventional project analysis.
The key economic risks to affected people are from the loss of livelihood and
income sources such as arable land, common property resources such as forests,
grazing land, ground and surface water, fisheries, etc and changed access to and
control of productive resources. The loss of economic power with the breakdown
of complex livelihood systems results in temporary or permanent, often decline in
living standards leading to marginalisation. Higher risks and uncertainties are
introduced when diversified livelihood sources are lost. Loss of livelihood and
disruption of agricultural activity can adversely affect household food security,
leading to under- nourishment. Higher incidence of diseases associated with
deteriorating water quality can result in increased morbidity and mortality. High
mortality rates, immediately after involuntary resettlement in Kariba and High
Aswan dams, are cases in point. As Cernea notes (1998), forced displacement
tears apart the existing social fabric, leading to socio-cultural disarticulation.

• Most projects have long planning horizons and the actual physical relocation
comes a long time after the initial notifications. The interim period is one full of
uncertainties and enormous psycho-social anxieties for the to-be-relocated
communities. Numerous examples exist of communities being subjected to
multiple displacements by successive development projects.

• The costs of the rehabilitation programme have invariably been underestimated

and under-financed. It is often the case that it is always the resettlement and
rehabilitation budget that is reduced whenever the project runs into financial
problems.

• Institutional weaknesses, marked by confusions between various departments

and the lack of capacity as well as continuity, have been major problems in
ensuring effective resettlement.

• In the absence of policy and legal instruments and an effective mechanism to

monitor compliance, even well-structured institutions with trained staff have
failed in consistent implementation of effective rehabilitation programme.

• Generally, participation of the affected people has been superficial or treated as

unimportant by those responsible for the project. More often they have been
manipulated, co-opted, or directly excluded.

• Evidence suggests that for a vast majority of the indigenous/tribal peoples

displaced by big projects the experience has been extremely negative in cultural,
economic, and health terms. The outcomes have included assetlessness,
unemployment, debt-bondage, hunger, and cultural disintegration. For both
indigenous and non-indigenous communities studies, show that displacement has
disproportionately impacted on women and children.

• Rehabilitation sites are invariably selected without reference to availability of

livelihood opportunities, or the preferences of displaced persons themselves.
Sometimes even temporary shelters are unavailable, and the first few months in
the new site are spent in the monsoon rains under the open sky. House-sites are
often much smaller than those in which the resettled people lived in the village,
and temporary structures where they exist are made of tin or other inappropriate
material and design.

• The question of livelihoods is a major issue in rehabilitation policy. There is

reluctance on the part of governments and lending agencies to adopt and make
operational policies requiring that the loss of agricultural land be compensated
with alternative land, especially in the face of increasing pressure on land and the
limited availability of arable land as well as its high price. This is despite the fact
that most non- land-for-land programmes have failed to foster successful self-
employment and other non-land-based livelihood strategies, especially in the
critical areas of employment, skills, and capacity building.

• Forced relocation usually results in people being transplanted from a social

ecology in which they were primary actors to one in which they are aliens; they
are not only very vulnerable but also end up in most cases as an underclass in
their new socio-cultural milieu.

• Communities of displaced people are invariably fragmented and randomly

atomized, tearing asunder kinship and social networks and traditional support
systems. Communities and often even large families are broken up and resettled
over a wide area. The outcomes are psychological pathologies and alcoholism etc,
common among displaced populations. It has been documented that this greatly
enhanced psychological and psycho-social stress caused by involuntary
rehabilitation heightens morbidity and immorality.

• The special vulnerabilities and specific needs of indigenous and tribal peoples
have been inadequately addressed.
• Rehabilitation sites have been under-prepared in terms of basic amenities and
essential infrastructure such as health, schooling, and credit.

•Generally, displacement as result of acquisition is legally sanctioned while, with

few exceptions, there is no legal framework that governs the process of
displacement itself.

• The existence of nation-wide norms and legally approved rehabilitation policy

has played a role in improving outcomes for affected people. However, in the
absence of these, the role of multilateral development institutions has assumed
significance. In the 1980s, the World Bank played a significant role in influencing
the development of rehabilitation policies or institutional framework to manage
displacement and rehabilitation.

• Both in the case of national laws and international agency policies, there has
been a wide gap between the laws and policies and their actual implementation.
Cases include the Sardar Sarovar Project where apparently progressive state
government and World Bank policies have failed to prevent widespread
impoverishment and suffering among displaced people, and the Three Gorges
Project in China where a national rehabilitation and resettlement law has not
prevented numerous problems from emerging.

In many cases the focus of resettlement programmes is simply to get people to

move out of the way to the rehabilitation sites as quickly and smoothly as
possible. A number of submissions and cases in the WCD ís review highlighted the
exercise of intimidation, violence, and even murder to compel communities to
move (see the discussion under Human Rights). Once people are relocated or
even shifted out the rehabilitation programme usually fizzles out or loses
momentum, with the displaced people now at their most vulnerable. The
resettled people are most vulnerable to be forgotten once the physical relocation
is complete, a waning of interest sometimes referred to as developer’s fatigue
(Argentina Report 1999).

Forced relocation disrupts, or even destroys, social organization of production,

networks of relationships, allocation of resources, and an entire complex of rights,
individual and communal. These cannot be restored by the mere provision of
alternative land and housing.

Once it becomes known that people are to be relocated, a process of deferred

investment sets in on the part of those to be rehabilitated, as well as of outside
sources, such as government and entrepreneurs. People in areas from which
rehabilitation is to take place thus become poorer, even before they are moved.
Rehabilitation in the absence of active development initiatives is thus likely to
become impoverishment - the opposite of what it is intended to be.

Rehabilitation of displaced people is thus a process that is acknowledged as

entailing several risks. As discussed above, Cernea identifies the risks as
landlessness, joblessness, homelessness, marginalization, increased morbidity and
mortality, food insecurity, loss of access to common property and services, and
social disarticulation (1998: 43-44). These risks render rehabilitation inherently
problematic, and indeed impoverishment and disempowerment have been the
rule than the exception with respect to rehabilitated people around the world.

Simply restoring the status quo ante in terms of material assets will thus leave
people worse off than before. Therefore the main objective of a rehabilitation
programme must be to improve the standard of living and not just restoration of
pre-relocation standards of living. While the restoration of prerelocation
standards is still echoed in several rehabilitation programmes there is enough
evidence to indicate that this goal is limited and inadequate (Scudder, T. 1997).

Rehabilitation and Development-;

Rehabilitation can be envisioned as a process that would reverse the risks of

resettlement. Cernea suggests a risk and reconstruction model of rehabilitation
that would be marked by a series of transitions from:

• landlessness to land-based resettlement;

• joblessness to re-employment;

• food insecurity to safe nutrition;

• Homelessness to house reconstruction;

• increased morbidity and mortality to improved health and well being, and

•social disarticulation and deprivation of common property resources to

community reconstruction and social inclusion (Cernea M.M. 1998:47).

Rehabilitation is only possible where development takes place. Thus resettlement

must be planned as an integral part of the comprehensive development project (
Jain, L.C. 2000). In this sense rehabilitation is really an outcome of resettlement
that is conceived not as physical relocation or mere restoration of incomes but as
development. This brings us to the question of development in the context of
resettlement and rehabilitation.

One useful way of understanding development in the context of resettlement and

rehabilitation of negatively affected people is, in terms of the real freedoms that
the citizens enjoy, to pursue the objectives they have reason to value, and in this
sense the expansion of human capability can be, broadly, seen as the central
feature of the process of development (Dreze J. & Sen A. 1996:10).

A resettlement programme in order to qualify as development must therefore

centre around: (i) enhancement of capabilities; and (ii) the expansion of social
opportunities by addressing the social and personal constraints that restrict
peoples choices. This would mean that resettlement with development entails
questions of resources and rights that would affect the quality of life of the
people.

The success of development programmes cannot be judged merely in terms of

their effects on incomes and outputs, and must, at a basic level, focus on the lives
that people can lead. This would mean (i) tangible benefits like lower morbidity
and mortality, an increasing level of education, increasing incomes through
opportunities for employment and livelihood; and (ii) empowering the displaced
people through building capacities by their participation in the entire decision-
making process of the development project and resettlement.
We will once again return to the issue when we discuss the question of what
constitutes the fundamentals of a successful developmental resettlement
programme. One overarching issue is the need to move from a context where
forced evictions or involuntary resettlement is assumed to be the norm, to one
where displacement becomes voluntary and takes place on the basis of
negotiated agreements between developers and affected people.

3.11. ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM

Our environment is constantly changing. There is no denying that. However, as

our environment changes, so does the need to become increasingly aware of the
problems that surround it. With a massive influx of natural disasters, warming and
cooling periods, different types of weather patterns and much more, people need
to be aware of what types of environmental problems our planet is facing.

Global warming has become an undisputed fact about our current livelihoods; our
planet is warming up and we are definitely part of the problem. However, this
isn’t the only environmental problem that we should be concerned about. All
across the world, people are facing a wealth of new and challenging
environmental problems every day. Some of them are small and only affect a few
ecosystems, but others are drastically changing the landscape of what we already
know.

Our planet is poised at the brink of a severe environmental crisis. Current

environmental problems make us vulnerable to disasters and tragedies, now and
in the future. We are in a state of planetary emergency, with environmental
problems piling up high around us. Unless we address the various issues prudently
and seriously we are surely doomed for disaster. Current environmental problems
require urgent attention.

1. Pollution: Pollution of air, water and soil require millions of years to recoup.
Industry and motor vehicle exhaust are the number one pollutants. Heavy metals,
nitrates and plastic are toxins responsible for pollution. While water pollution is
caused by oil spill, acid rain, urban runoff; air pollution is caused by various gases
and toxins released by industries and factories and combustion of fossil fuels; soil
pollution is majorly caused by industrial waste that deprives soil from essential
nutrients.

i. Air Pollution: Pollution of air, water and soil take a huge number of years to
recover. Industry and engine vehicle fumes are the most obvious toxins.
Substantial metals, nitrates and plastic are poisons in charge of pollution. While
water contamination is brought about by oil slicks, acid rain, and urban sprawl; air
contamination is created by different gasses and poisons discharged by
businesses and manufacturing plants and burning of fossil fills; soil contamination
is majorly created by mechanical waste that takes supplements out of the soil.

ii: Soil and Land Pollution: Land pollution simply means degradation of earth’s
surface as a result of human activities like mining, littering, deforestation,
industrial, construction and agricultural activities. Land pollution can have huge
environmental impact in the form of air pollution and soil pollution which in turn
can have adverse effect on human health.

2. Global Warming: Climate changes like global warming is the result of human
practices like emission of Greenhouse gases. Global warming leads to rising
temperatures of the oceans and the earth’ surface causing melting of polar ice
caps, rise in sea levels and also unnatural patterns of precipitation such as flash
floods, excessive snow or desertification.

3. Overpopulation: The population of the planet is reaching unsustainable levels

as it faces shortage of resources like water, fuel and food. Population explosion in
less developed and developing countries is straining the already scarce resources.
Intensive agriculture practiced to produce food damages the environment
through use of chemical fertilizer, pesticides and insecticides. Overpopulation is
one of the crucial current environmental problem.

4. Natural Resource Depletion: Natural resource depletion is another crucial

current environmental problems. Fossil fuel consumption results in emission of
Greenhouse gases, which is responsible for global warming and climate change.
Globally, people are taking efforts to shift to renewable sources of energy like
solar, wind, biogas and geothermal energy. The cost of installing the
infrastructure and maintaining these sources has plummeted in the recent years.

5. Waste Disposal: The over consumption of resources and creation of plastics are
creating a global crisis of waste disposal. Developed countries are notorious for
producing an excessive amount of waste or garbage and dumping their waste in
the oceans and, less developed countries. Nuclear waste disposal has tremendous
health hazards associated with it. Plastic, fast food, packaging and cheap
electronic wastes threaten the well being of humans. Waste disposal is one of
urgent current environmental problem.

6. Climate Change: Climate change is yet another environmental problem that

has surfaced in last couple of decades. It occurs due to rise in global warming
which occurs due to increase in temperature of atmosphere by burning of fossil
fuels and release of harmful gases by industries. Climate change has various
harmful effects but not limited to melting of polar ice, change in seasons,
occurrence of new diseases, frequent occurrence of floods and change in overall
weather scenario.

7. Loss of Biodiversity: Human activity is leading to the extinction of species and

habitats and and loss of bio-diversity. Eco systems, which took millions of years to
perfect, are in danger when any species population is decimating. Balance of
natural processes like pollination is crucial to the survival of the eco-system and
human activity threatens the same. Another example is the destruction of coral
reefs in the various oceans, which support the rich marine life.

8. Deforestation: Our forests are natural sinks of carbon dioxide and produce
fresh oxygen as well as helps in regulating temperature and rainfall. At present
forests cover 30% of the land but every year tree cover is lost amounting to the
country of Panama due to growing population demand for more food, shelter and
cloth. Deforestation simply means clearing of green cover and make that land
available for residential, industrial or commercial purpose.

9. Ocean Acidification: It is a direct impact of excessive production of CO2. 25% of

CO2 produced by humans. The ocean acidity has increased by the last 250 years
but by 2100, it may shoot up by 150%. The main impact is on shellfish and
plankton in the same way as human osteoporosis.

10. Ozone Layer Depletion: The ozone layer is an invisible layer of protection
around the planet that protects us from the sun’s harmful rays. Depletion of the
crucial Ozone layer of the atmosphere is attributed to pollution caused by
Chlorine and Bromide found in Chloro-floro carbons (CFC’s). Once these toxic
gases reach the upper atmosphere, they cause a hole in the ozone layer, the
biggest of which is above the Antarctic. The CFC’s are banned in many industries
and consumer products. Ozone layer is valuable because it prevents harmful UV
radiation from reaching the earth. This is one of the most important current
environmental problems.

11. Acid Rain: Acid rain occurs due to the presence of certain pollutants in the
atmosphere. Acid rain can be caused due to combustion of fossil fuels or erupting
volcanoes or rotting vegetation which release sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides
into the atmosphere. Acid rain is a known environmental problem that can have
serious effect on human health, wildlife and aquatic species.

12. Water Pollution: Clean drinking water is becoming a rare commodity. Water is
becoming an economic and political issue as the human population fights for this
resource. One of the options suggested is using the process of desalinization.
Industrial development is filling our rivers seas and oceans with toxic pollutants
which are a major threat to human health.

13. Urban Sprawl: Urban sprawl refers to migration of population from high
density urban areas to low density rural areas which results in spreading of city
over more and more rural land. Urban sprawl results in land degradation,
increased traffic, environmental issues and health issues. The ever growing
demand of land displaces natural environment consisting of flora and fauna
instead of being replaced.

14: Public Health Issues: The current environmental problems pose a lot of risk to
health of humans, and animals. Dirty water is the biggest health risk of the world
and poses threat to the quality of life and public health. Run-off to rivers carries
along toxins, chemicals and disease carrying organisms. Pollutants cause
respiratory disease like Asthma and cardiac-vascular problems. High temperatures
encourage the spread of infectious diseases like Dengue.

15. Genetic Engineering: Genetic modification of food using biotechnology is

called genetic engineering. Genetic modification of food results in increased
toxins and diseases as genes from an allergic plant can transfer to target plant.
Genetically modified crops can cause serious environmental problems as an
engineered gene may prove toxic to wildlife. Another drawback is that increased
use of toxins to make insect resistant plant can cause resultant organisms to
become resistant to antibiotics.

The need for change in our daily lives and the movements of our government is
growing. Because so many different factors come into play; voting, governmental
issues, the desire to stick to routine, many people don’t consider that what they
do will affect future generations. If humans continue moving forward in such a
harmful way towards the future, then there will be no future to consider.
Although it’s true that we cannot physically stop our ozone layer from thinning
(and scientists are still having trouble figuring out what is causing it exactly,) there
are still so many things we can do to try and put a dent in what we already know.
By raising awareness in your local community and within your families about
these issues, you can help contribute to a more environmentally conscious and
friendly place for you to live.

16. Increased Carbon Footprint: Temperature increases, like climate change, are
the consequence of human practices, including the use of greenhouse gasses.
When the atmosphere changes and the heat increases, it can cause a number of
problems and start to destroy the world we live in.

17. Genetic Modification: Genetic modification utilizing biotechnology is called

genetic engineering. Genetic engineering of food brings about expanded poisons
and sicknesses as qualities from a hypersensitive plant can exchange to target
plant. Some of these crops can even be a threat to the world around us, as
animals start to ingest the unnatural chemicals and such.
18. Effect on Marine Life: The amount of carbon in the water and the atmosphere
is continuing to be a problem in the world around us. The primary effect is on
shellfish and microscopic fish, and it has similar effects to osteoporosis in humans.

19. Mining: Mining results in extraction of minerals from earth’s core. These
minerals also bring out harmful chemicals from deep inside the earth to the
earth’s surface. The toxic emissions from mining can cause air, water and soil
pollution.

20: Natural Disasters: Natural disasters like earthquakes, floods, tsunamis,

cyclones, volcanic eruption can be unpredictable, devastating and can cause
irreparable damage. They can cause huge loss of life and property ……….

21: Nuclear Issues: Radioactive waste is a nuclear fuel that contains radioactive
substance and is a by-product of nuclear power generation. The radioactive waste
is an environmental concern that is extremely toxic and can have devastating
effect on the lives of the people living nearby, if not disposed properly.
Radioactive waste is considered to be harmful for humans, plants, animals and
surrounding environment.

22. Loss of Endangered Species: Human overpopulation is prompting

the elimination of species and environmental surroundings and the loss of various
biomes. Environmental frameworks, which took a huge number of years to come
into being, are in risk when any species populace is huge.

23: Agricultural Pollution: Modern day agriculture practices make use of chemical
products like pesticides and fertilizers to deal with local pests. Some of the
chemicals when sprayed do not disappear and infact seeps into the ground and
thereby harms plants and crops. Also, contaminated water is used for irrigation by
farmers due to disposal of industrial and agricultural waste in local water bodies.

24: Light and Noise Pollution: Noise pollution is another common form of
pollution that causes temporary disruption when there is excessive amount of
unpleasant noise. Construction activities, industrialization, increase in vehicular
traffic, lack of urban planning are few of the causes of noise pollution.
25: Medical Waste: Medical waste is any kind of waste that is produced in large
quantity by healthcare centers like hospitals, nursing homes, dental clinics and is
considered to be of a bio-hazardous nature. The waste can include needles,
syringes, gloves, tubes, blades, blood, body parts and many more.

26: Littering and Landfills: Littering simply means disposal of piece of garbage or
debris improperly or at wrong location usually on the ground instead of disposing
them at trash container or recycling bin. Littering can cause
huge environmental and economic impact in the form of spending millions of
dollars to clean the garbage of road that pollute the clean air.

Landfills on the other hand are nothing but huge garbage dumps that make the
city look ugly and produce toxic gases that could prove fatal for humans and
animals. Landfills are generated due to large amount of waste that is generated
by households, industries and healthcare centers every day.

There is little doubt that environmental problems will be one of humanity’s major
concerns in the twenty-first century, and it is becoming apparent that sociologists
can play an important role in shedding light on these problems and the steps that
need to be taken to cope with them. While the study of environmental issues is
an inherently interdisciplinary project, spanning the natural and social sciences as
well as humanities, the crucial role of the social sciences in general and sociology
in particular are increasingly recognized (e.g., Brewer and Stern 2005). This stems
from growing awareness of the fact that environmental problems are
fundamentally social problems: They result from human social behavior, they are
viewed as problematic because of their impact on humans (as well as other
species), and their solution requires societal effort. It is, therefore, not surprising
that sociologists have shown growing interest in environmental issues in recent
decades and that environmental sociology has become a recognized field. Yet
sustained sociological investigation of environmental problems did not come
easily, and is a relatively recent development in the field

Although there was scattered sociological attention to both urban problems and
natural resource issues prior to the 1970s, environmental sociology developed in
that decade as sociology’s own response to the emergence of environmental
problems on the public agenda. At first, sociologists tended to limit their attention
to analyzing societal response to environmental problems, rather than examining
the problems themselves. But as sociologists gradually paid more attention to
environmental issues, some began to look beyond societal awareness of
environmental problems to examine the underlying relationships between
modern, industrial societies and the biophysical environments they inhabit. The
result was the emergence of environmental sociology as a field of inquiry (Buttel
1987; Dunlap and Catton 1979a). We briefly discuss how and why environmental
sociology represents a major departure from sociology’s traditional neglect of
environmental phenomena, describe the field’s institutionalization, examine the
key environmental foci of research in the field, and review both early and more
recent research emphases in the field. Early emphases mainly involved analyses of
societal awareness of environmental issues, whereas recent emphases continue
this line of research but also include considerable work on the causes, impacts,
and solutions of environmental problem.

ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY,PROBLEM AND THE DISCIPLINE

In contrast to the larger society, mainstream sociology in the 1970s was almost
oblivious to the significance of environmental problems. This blindness stemmed
from a long period of neglect of environmental matters, stimulated by the societal
context in which sociology developed as well as its unique disciplinary traditions.
The Durkheimian emphasis on explaining social phenomena only in terms of other
“social facts,” plus an aversion to earlier excesses of biological and geographical
“determinisms,” had led sociologists to ignore the biophysical world (Benton
1991; Dunlap and Catton 1979a). To legitimize sociology as a discipline, it was
important to move away from explanations of, for example, racial and cultural
differences in terms of biological and geographical factors, respectively. Yet in the
process of developing distinctively social explanations for societal phenomena,
our discipline replaced older determinisms with sociocultural determinism
(Carolan 2005a, 2005b). For example, as recently as the late 1970s, sociologists of
agriculture argued that it was inappropriate to include factors such as soil type
and rainfall in explanations of soil conservation adoption or farm energy use
because they were not social variables (Dunlap and Martin 1983).
These disciplinary traditions were strengthened by sociology’s emergence during
an era of unprecedented growth and prosperity, which made limits to resource
abundance and technological progress unimaginable, and increased urbanization,
which reduced direct contact with the natural environment. With modern,
industrialized societies appearing to be increasingly disembedded from the
biophysical world, sociology came to assume that the exceptional features of
Homo sapiens—language, technology, science, and culture more generally—
made these societies “exempt” from the constraints of nature (Catton and Dunlap
1980) and thus reluctant to acknowledge the societal relevance of ecological
limits (Dunlap 2002b).

Given sociology’s neglect of the biophysical environment—and tendency to

equate “the environment” with the social context of the phenomenon being
studied— it is not surprising that efforts to establish environmental sociology as
an area of inquiry included a critique of the larger discipline’s blindness to
environmental matters. Dunlap and Catton’s (1979a) effort to define and codify
the field of environmental sociology was accompanied by an explication and
critique of the “human exemptionalism paradigm” (HEP) on which contemporary
sociology was premised. While not denying that human beings are obviously an
exceptional species, these analysts argued that humans’ special skills and
capabilities nonetheless fail to exempt the human species from the constraints of
the biophysical environment. Consequently, Catton and Dunlap (1978, 1980)
suggested that the HEP should be replaced by a more ecologically sound
perspective, a “new ecological paradigm” (NEP), that acknowledges the
ecosystem dependence of human societies. The call for mainstream sociology’s
dominant paradigm to be replaced with a more ecologically sound one proved to
be a rather controversial feature of environmental sociology. While the
exemptionalist underpinning of mainstream sociology has been increasingly
recognized (Dunlap 2002b), the call for adoption of an ecological paradigm has
been criticized for allegedly deflecting efforts to apply classical and mainstream
theoretical perspectives in environmental sociology (Buttel 1987, 1997).
Nonetheless, environmental sociologists are producing rapidly expanding bodies
of both empirical literature on the relationships between societal and
environmental variables that clearly violates Durkheim’s antireductionism taboo
and theoretical literature representing efforts to develop more ecologically sound
theories that are not premised on the assumption of human exemptionalism.
Both of these trends reflect the declining credibility of exemptionalist thinking
within sociology (Dunlap 2002b).

THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOCI OF THE FIELD-:

Whether defined narrowly as the study of societal environmental relations

(Dunlap and Catton 1979a, 1979b) or more broadly as covering all sociological
work on environmental issues (Buttel 1987), what makes environmental sociology
a distinct field is its focus on the biophysical environment. However, the
environment is an enormously complex phenomenon, open to various
conceptualizations and operationalizations, and this leads to diverse foci in the
work of environmental sociologists (Dunlap and Michelson 2002; Redclift and
Woodgate 1997). One way of making sense of this diversity draws on ecologists’
insight that the biophysical environment performs many services for human
beings (Daily 1997). At the risk of oversimplification, we can sort these numerous
services into three general types of functions that the environment or, more
accurately, ecosystems serve for human societies (and all living species). Adopting
this ecological perspective enables us to highlight the various aspects of the
environment that environmental sociologists examine as well as to note some
general trends in how these foci have changed over time (Dunlap 1994; Dunlap
and Catton 2002).

To begin with, the environment provides us with the resources necessary for life,
most critically, clean air and water, food, and shelter. Ecologists thus view the
environment as providing the “sustenance base” for human societies, and we can
also think of it as a “supply depot” of natural resources. Many environmental
sociologists focus on issues surrounding the extraction, transport, use, and
conservation of resources such as fossil fuels, forests, and fisheries. Second, in the
process of consuming resources humans, like all species, produce “waste”
products; indeed, humans produce a far greater quantity and variety of waste
products than do any other species. The environment must serve as a “sink” or
“waste repository” for these wastes, either absorbing or recycling them into
useful or at least harmless substances. When the waste products exceed an
environment’s ability to absorb them, the result is pollution. A growing number of
environmental sociologists examine social processes related to pollution
problems, ranging from the generation of pollution to its social impacts. Finally,
like all other species, humans must also have a place to live, and the environment
provides our home—where we live, work, play, and travel. In the most general
sense, the planet Earth provides the home for our species. Thus, the third
function of the environment is to provide a “living space” or habitat for human
populations and other species. Environmental sociologists have focused on a
variety of living space issues, traditionally ranging from housing to urban design
but more recently encompassing macrolevel issues such as the impacts of
deforestation, desertification, and climate change on human settlements and
habitats.

When humans overuse an environment’s ability to fulfill these three functions,

“environmental problems” in the form of pollution, resource scarcities, and
overcrowding and/or overpopulation are the result. Furthermore, not only must
the environment serve all three functions for humans but when a given
environment is used for one function its ability to fulfill the other two can be
impaired. Impairment of ecosystem functions may yield more complex
environmental problems. Functional incompatibilities between the living space
and waste-repository functions are apparent, for example, when the use of an
area for a waste site makes it unsuitable for living space. Similarly, if hazardous
materials escape from a waste repository and contaminate the soil or water, the
area can no longer serve as a supply depot for drinking water or for growing
agricultural products. Finally, converting farmland or forests into housing
subdivisions creates more living space for people, but means that the land can no
longer function as a supply depot for food timber or habitat for wildlife.

Analytically separating these three functions provides insight into the evolution of
environmental problems as well as the expanding foci of environmental sociology.
In the 1960s and early 1970s, when awareness of environmental problems was
growing rapidly in the United States, primary attention was given to air and water
pollution and the importance of protecting areas of natural beauty and
recreational value. Early sociological work focused on these topics (e.g., Catton
1971; Molotch and Follett 1971). The “energy crisis” of 1973–1974 highlighted the
dependence of modern industrialized nations on fossil fuels, added credibility to
those espousing “limits to growth” (Meadows et al. 1972), and generated
sociological interest in the impacts of energy shortages and scarcity more
generally (e.g., Catton 1976; Schnaiberg 1975). The living space function came to
the fore in the late 1970s when it was discovered that the Love Canal
neighborhood in upstate New York was built on an abandoned chemical waste
site that was leaking toxic materials, and this generated sociological attention to
local environmental hazards (e.g., Levine 1982). More recently, problems
stemming from functional incompatibilities at larger geographical scales, ranging
from deforestation and loss of biodiversity to the truly global-level phenomena of
ozone depletion and global warming, have attracted attention from sociologists
(e.g., Canan and Reichman 2001; Dietz and Rosa 1997; Rudel and Roper 1997).

The above examples of how human activities are affecting the ability of the
environment to serve as our supply depot, living space, and waste repository
involve focusing on specific aspects of particular environments such as a given
river’s ability to absorb wastes without becoming polluted. It is more accurate,
however, to note that it is not “the environment” but “ecosystems” and
ecological processes that provide these three functions for humans—and for all
other living species. Furthermore, it is increasingly recognized that the health of
entire ecosystems, including the Earth’s global ecosystem, is being jeopardized as
a result of growing human demands being placed on them. Exceeding the capacity
of a given ecosystem to fulfill one of the three functions may disrupt not only its
ability to fulfill the other two but also its ability to continue to function at all.
Whereas historically the notion that human societies face “limits to growth” was
based on the assumption that we would run out of food supplies or natural
resources such as oil (Meadows et al. 1972), contemporary “ecological limits”
refer to the finite ability of the global ecosystem to serve all three functions
simultaneously without having its own functioning impaired (see, e.g., Vitousek et
al. 1997; Wackernagel et al. 2004).
The late Frederick Buttel noted on a number of occasions (Buttel 2004:333; Buttel
and Gijswijt 2001:46) that researchers in the field employ overly simplistic
conceptualizations of the environment, often limiting their attention to
“ecological withdrawals and additions” or the supply depot and waste repository
functions. Despite its simplicity, the three-function model offers major advances.
First, as illustrated above, the model clarifies the characteristics and sources of
environmental problems, how they change over time, and thus the expanding foci
of environmental sociological research. Second, the model acknowledges the
function of living space (and spatial phenomena in general), which is essential for
examining the flows of resources and pollution across political boundaries in the
modern world that are receiving increasing attention from environmental
sociologists (Bunker 2005; Mol and Spaargaren 2005). Third, the model is
consistent with conceptualizations of the biophysical environment employed in
sophisticated measures of “ecological footprints” and “human appropriation of
net primary production” that are increasingly used in empirical research by
environmental sociologists and environmental scientists (Haberl et al. 2004).

INSTITUTIONALIZATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL SOCIOLOGY-

Sociological interest in the impacts of energy and other resource scarcities

accelerated the emergence of environmental sociology as a distinct area of
inquiry by heightening awareness that “the environment” was more than just
another social problem, and that environmental change can indeed have societal
consequences as well as the obvious fact that human activities can affect the
environment. Studies of the impacts of energy shortages on society facilitated a
transition from the early “sociology of environmental issues”—involving the
application of standard sociological perspectives for analyzing societal responses
to environmental issues—to a distinctive “environmental sociology” focused
explicitly on societal-environmental relations. The nascent environmental
sociology of the 1970s was quickly institutionalized via the formation of
organizations within U.S. national sociological associations. These groups
provided an organizational base for the emergence of environmental sociology as
a thriving area of specialization, and attracted scholars interested in all aspects of
the environment, from built to natural (Dunlap and Catton 1979b, 1983). The late
1970s was a vibrant era of growth for American environmental sociology, but
momentum proved difficult to sustain during the 1980s because this decade was
a troublesome period for the field and social science more generally. Ironically,
however, stimulated by major accidents such as those at Chernobyl in the then
USSR and Bhopal in India and growing evidence of global environmental
problems, interest in environmental issues from a sociological perspective was
taking root internationally. By the late 1980s and early 1990s, environmental
sociology was not only reinvigorated in the United States but also was being
institutionalized in countries around the world and within the International
Sociological Association (ISA) (Dunlap and Catton 1994; Redclift and Woodgate
1997). ISA’s Research Committee on Environment and Society, RC 24, has become
an especially important vehicle for facilitating the global spread of environmental
sociology (Mol 2006).

SOCIETAL AWARENESS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEMS-:

The emergence of “the environment” on the U.S. national agenda in the late
1960s and early 1970s led sociologists to study factors that contributed to societal
awareness of environmental degradation. While there were a few early efforts to
analyze the overall processes involved (e.g., Albrecht 1975), most studies focused
on specific factors such as environmentalism. The environmental movement
played the major role in placing environmental issues on the nation’s agenda, and
studies of environmentalism were a primary emphasis of early sociological work
not only inNorth America but also subsequently in Europe, South America, and
Asia. The growth of public awareness and concern stimulated by environmental
activists and personal experience with degradation also received a good deal of
attention. These two emphases have continued over time, while in recent
decades attention to the roles played by the media and especially science in
generating societal attention to environmental problems has increased. These
strands of research have contributed to a broader concern with understanding
how environmental problems are “socially constructed.”

Environmentalism-:
In the United States, the modern environmental movement evolved out of the
older conservation movement and the social activism of the 1960s, and
sociologists helped document this evolution. Early studies focused heavily on the
characteristics of people who joined national environmental organizations,
finding that organizations such as the Sierra Club drew members who were above
average in socioeconomic status, predominately white, and primarily urban.
While this pattern led to charges of “elitism,” it was noted that most voluntary
and political organizations have similar membership profiles and that
environmental activists were hardly economic “elites” (Morrison and Dunlap
1986).

Sociologists also studied the organizational characteristics of large national

organizations such as the Sierra Club and Natural Resources Defense Council.
Attention was given to their strategies and tactics, especially their efforts to
influence national policy making via lobbying and litigation and their successful
use of direct mail advertising to recruit a large but only nominally involved
membership base (Mitchell 1979). These organizations grew rapidly in the late
1960s and early 1970s and ended up following a typical pattern observed for
social movement organizations: As they became larger and more successful in the
political arena, they also became more bureaucratic, professionalized,
unresponsive to their memberships, willing to compromise, and conservative in
their tactics (Mertig, Dunlap, and Morrison 2002).

One result is that by the 1980s, as more people discovered environmental hazards
in their communities, a large number of local, grassroots organizations formed
independently of the mainstream national organizations (Szasz 1994). The
discovery that a disproportionate share of environmental hazards were located in
minority and low income communities led to charges of environmental racism
and injustice (Bullard 1990), the development of an “environmental justice
frame” (Capek 1993) and the emergence of an “environmental justice” movement
that gradually merged grassroots environmentalism centered in both minority
and white, blue-collar communities (Pellow and Brulle 2005). Environmental
justice organizations have been joined by a vast array of other local
environmental groups with a range of foci, including land and wildlife protection,
that display diverse organizational forms and are sometimes linked to national
organizations or belong to loose coalitions and networks (Andrews and Edwards
2005).

Besides describing and analyzing the organizational complexity and dynamics of

contemporary environmentalism, sociologists have conducted long-term
historical analyses of the growth of conservation/environmental organizations,
both nationally (McLaughlin and Khawaja 2000) and locally (Andrews and
Edwards 2005), and of the increasingly diverse set of environmentally relevant
discourses to document the evolution of modern environmentalism out of
traditional conservation concerns (Brulle 2000).

Also receiving a good deal of attention has been the emergence of environmental
movements and Green parties in Europe (Rootes 2003) and, more recently, in
Asia and Latin America (see Redclift and Woodgate 1997:pt. III). Transnational
environmental activism is receiving increasing attention, including studies on
topics such as how environmentalism in less-developed nations is influenced by
international pressures (Barbosa 2000), how relations between transnational
environmental organizations are influenced by ties to international governmental
organizations such UN agencies (Caniglia 2001), and the factors that affect
transnational environmental organizations’ decisions to fund debt-for-nature
“swaps” in less-developed nations (Lewis 2000). Some studies suggest that
environmentalism is becoming a potent political force within many nations as well
as at the international level (Shandra et al. 2004), whereas others are more
cautious in their assessment of the potential influence of environmentalism at the
global level (Frickel and Davidson 2004).

Within the United States, the increasing mobilization of the conservative

movement as an antienvironmental countermovement has begun to receive
some attention (Austin 2002), particularly the degree to which conservative think
tanks have been successful in influencing U.S. environmental policy making
(McCright and Dunlap 2003). The effectiveness of conservatives in opposing
American environmentalism was signaled by the recent release of a controversial
report by two self-avowed environmentalists titled The Death of
Environmentalism (Schellenberger and Nordhaus 2004). The authors argue that
mainstream environmental organizations focus too narrowly on solutions for
specific problems such as global warming while failing to link their goals to widely
held values, and thus fail to counter conservatives’ success in tying their
antienvironmental agenda to traditional American values (see the symposium on
the controversy edited by Cohen 2006b).

The inability of environmentalists to halt the weakening of federal environmental

regulations by the current administration (Kennedy 2005) has highlighted the ill
health, if not moribund state, of environmentalism in a post-9/11 era, and it is
unclear if the movement will be able to regain the momentum of earlier decades.
Sociologists are actively involved in analyzing the state of environmentalism and
offering prescriptions for its resurgence, including issuing calls for more active
support for technological innovations to ameliorate environmental problems by
major organizations (Cohen 2006a), for a stronger coalition between labor unions
and environmentalists (Gould, Lewis, and Roberts 2004), and for a fundamental
restructuring of environmental organizations and their funding (Brulle,
forthcoming).

Environmental Awareness and Concern-:

As environmental problems gained a foothold on the public agenda, both public

opinion pollsters and social scientists began conducting surveys to examine levels
of public awareness of environmental problems and support for environmental
protection efforts. Initial efforts were confined to documenting growing levels of
public awareness and concern for the environment among residents of the United
States and other wealthy nations and to examining variation in “environmental
concern” across differing sectors of society—by levels of education, age, and
residence, for example (Albrecht 1975). Syntheses of available findings indicated
that age, education, and political ideology were the best predictors, with young
adults, the well-educated and political liberals being more concerned about the
environment than their counterparts. Urban residents and women were also
sometimes found to be more environmentally concerned than were rural
residents and men, although these relationships often varied with the measure of
environmental concern employed (Jones and Dunlap 1992).

Longitudinal studies have also been conducted, tracking trends in public opinion
on environmental issues over extended time periods (Dunlap 2002a). A few
studies examined correlates of environmental concern with longitudinal data,
finding them to be relatively stable over long periods of time (Jones and Dunlap
1992). However, the lack of a public backlash against what is widely seen as the
anti environmental orientation of the Bush administration (Kennedy 2005),
comparable with that which occurred during the first term of the Reagan
administration, has led to speculation that concerns over national security in a
post-9/11 era may have fundamentally altered Americans’ concern with
environmental quality (Brechin and Freeman 2004).

A more recent contribution of sociologists has been to extend work on

environmental attitudes to the international level. A key finding is that citizen
concern for the environment is not limited to wealthy nations as often assumed
but rather has diffused throughout most of the world (Dunlap and Mertig 1995;
Brechin 1999). These studies challenge the notion that concern for environmental
protection is a “postmaterialist” value that emerges only when nations become
relatively affluent and citizens’ basic needs are reasonably well met.

Although the above studies have provided useful information on the distribution
and evolution of environmental concern, they often employ single-item indicators
or other simple measures and shed little light on the complexity of such concern.
Gradually, more attention has been paid to the conceptualization and
measurement of environmental concern, and sociologists and other scholars have
developed a wide range of measures of this concept (Dunlap and Jones 2002). In
particular, the “new ecological paradigm (NEP) scale,” which measures basic
beliefs such as the existence of ecological limits and the importance of
maintaining a balance of nature, has become the most widely used measure of
environmental concern, employed in scores of studies worldwide (see Dunlap et
al. 2000 for a revised NEP scale).
Other sociological contributions have been the development of a norm-activation
model of environmental concern and behavior, clarification of the attitude-
behavior relationship in the environmental domain, and the creation of a
comprehensive value-belief-norm theory of environmental attitudes and activism
(Stern et al. 1999). The latter has become an influential theoretical framework for
helping guide the current emphasis on understanding the value basis of
environmental concern (Dietz, Fitzgerald, and Shwom 2005).

In short, sociological studies of environmental concern have documented high

levels of public awareness and concern over environmental quality, a crucial
aspect of the emergence of environment as a social problem. These studies have
shown that, unlike most social problems, environmental problems have had
considerable staying power (Dunlap 2002a). It remains to be seen if this longterm
trend will be fundamentally altered by 9/11 (Brechin and Freeman 2004).

Media and Science-:

It is widely assumed that the media play a vital role in setting the policy agenda,
and sociologists among others have examined the role of media coverage in
generating societal attention to environmental problems. In general, it has been
found that newspaper coverage of environmental issues increased dramatically
throughout the late 1960s and reached an early peak at the time of the first Earth
Day in 1970, presumably contributing to the concomitant rise in public concern
during the same period (Schoenfeld et al. 1979). More recently, Mazur (1998) has
shown how changing patterns of media coverage of global environmental
problems such as ozone depletion and global warming appear to have influenced
the waxing and waning of attention given to such problems by the public and
policymakers. Also, Dispensa and Brulle (2003) have documented how U.S. media
coverage conveys more scientific uncertainty regarding anthropogenic climate
change than does that of other advanced nations—presumably due to the greater
influence of the petroleum industry in the United States.

It was common for sociologists to credit Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring and other
scientific contributions in accounting for the rapid emergence of societal
attention to environmental problems in the 1960s. Mitchell (1979) highlighted the
dual emphasis on science and litigation in newer environmental organizations
such as the Environmental Defense Fund and the Natural Resources Defense
Council. However, a detailed analysis of the significant role played by science in
environmental issues has emerged as a major emphasis in environmental
sociology only in the past decade or so. Analysts such as Yearley (2005), for
example, have emphasized that the environmental movement’s heavy reliance on
science is a mixed blessing for several reasons: (1) demands for scientific proof
can be used to stall action, particularly by unsympathetic politicians; (2) the
probabilistic and tentative nature of scientific evidence falls short of the definitive
answers lay people and policymakers seek; and (3) reliance on scientific claims
makes environmentalists vulnerable to counterclaims issued by “skeptic
scientists” supported by industry. Such insights have led environmental
sociologists to focus more broadly on the role of environmental science in
generating societal interest in environmental issues, ranging from analyses of how
lay persons work to document the deleterious health impacts of local pollution
(Brown 1997) to the role of experts in generating consensus on the need to take
action to ameliorate the thinning of the ozone layer (Canan and Reichman 2001).

Social Construction of Environmental Problems and the Constructivist--:

Sociologists have long argued that conditions do not become social “problems”
unless they are defined as such by claims makers, who are then successful in
having their definitions publicized by the media, legitimized by policymakers and
thus placed onto the public agenda. Environmental sociologists have applied this
“social constructivist” perspective to a wide range of environmental problems and
to “environmental quality” more generally,highlighting the crucial roles played by
environmental activists, scientists, and policy entrepreneurs (Yearley 1991). Some
have synthesized relevant work on environmentalism, environmental science,
media attention, and public opinion into detailed models of the social
construction of environmental problems and, in the process, helped explain how
environmental quality has remained a significant social issue for over three
decades (Hannigan 1995). Constructivist work demonstrates that environmental
problems do not simply emerge from changes in objective conditions, scientific
evidence is seldom sufficient for establishing conditions as problematic, and the
framing of problems (e.g., as local or global) is often consequential (Yearley
2005)—representing a vital sociological contribution. However, in the 1990s some
constructivists followed postmodern fads and “deconstructed” not only
environmental problems and controversies but also “the environment” (or, more
typically, “nature”) itself. Proclamations that “there is no singular ‘nature’ as such,
only a diversity of contested natures” (Macnaghten and Urry 1998:1) were not
uncommon (e.g., Greider and Garkovich 1994). This provoked a reaction from
environmental sociologists in the “realist camp,” who argued that while one can
deconstruct the concept of nature, an obvious human (and culturally bound)
construction, this hardly challenges the existence of the global ecosystem and by
implication various manifestations of ecosystem change construed as “problems”
(Dunlap and Catton 1994). Realist critics further argued that a “strong
constructivist” approach that ignores the likely validity of competing
environmental claims slips into relativism, undermines environmental science and
plays into the hands of its critics, precludes meaningful examination of societal-
environmental relations seen as fundamental to environmental sociology, and at
least implicitly resurrects the disciplinary tradition of treating the biophysical
environment as insignificant (Benton 2001; Dickens 1996; Murphy 2002).

In response, defenders of social constructivism replied that they were not denying
the reality of environmental problems, as their postmodern rhetoric sometimes
suggested, but were simply problematizing environmental claims and knowledge
(Burningham and Cooper 1999; Yearley 2002). In eschewing relativism in favor of
“mild” or “contextual” constructivism (e.g., Hannigan 1995), most constructivists
have moved toward common ground with their realist colleagues. The latter, in
turn, have moved toward a “critical realist” perspective that, although firmly
grounded on acceptance of a reality independent of human understanding,
recognizes that scientific (and other) knowledge is imperfect and evolving
(Carolan 2005a, 2005b). The result is that the “realist-constructivist battles” of the
1990s are subsiding, and environmental sociologists continue to make use of
constructivist concepts such as framing to shed light on environmental
controversies without slipping into relativism (e.g., Capek 1993; Shriver and
Kennedy 2005).
CURRENT RESEARCH EMPHASES-:

The foregoing work on societal awareness of environmental problems can be

technically considered as the sociology of environmental issues, but in recent
decades it has become common to find research that clearly involves
investigations of societal-environmental interactions or relations (Gramling and
Freudenburg 1996). While sometimes involving examinations of perceptions and
definitions of environmental conditions held by differing interests, such work is at
least implicitly and more often explicitly “realist” in orientation—and clearly
ignores the Durkheimian dictum that social facts be explained only by other social
facts that hampered early environmental sociology (Dunlap and Martin 1983).
Rather than problematizing environmental claims, this work typically investigates
how changing environmental conditions (often in interaction with social factors)
produce societal impacts or, more commonly, how social factors affect
environmental conditions. Although space constraints prevent us from providing
a comprehensive review of such work, we highlight environmental sociologists’
contributions to three particularly important topics: the sources of environmental
problems, the impacts of such problems, and the solutions to these problems.

3.12 Sources of Environmental Problems-:

Given that environmental sociology emerged in response to increased recognition

of environmental problems, it is not surprising that a central concern of the field
has been to explain the sources of environmental degradation and why such
degradation appears endemic to modern industrial societies. Early work often
involved analyses and critiques of the rather simplistic views of the causes of
environmental degradation that predominated in the popular literature,
particularly monocausal explanations highlighting population growth emphasized
by Paul Ehrlich or technological development stressed by Barry Commoner. The
ecological complex or POET model (highlighting relations among population,
technology, social organization and the environment) was used to explicate the
competing explanations and point out the limitations of their narrow foci (Dunlap
and Catton 1979b, 1983).
The most influential analysis was offered by Schnaiberg (1980), who provided a
cogent critique of the emphases on population growth, technological
developments, and materialistic consumers as the key sources of environmental
degradation. Schnaiberg’s alternative “treadmill of production” model drew on a
range of neoMarxist and other political-economy perspectives to offer a
sophisticated alternative that stresses the inherent need of market-based firms to
grow, to replace costly labor with advanced technologies, and the inevitable
increase in resources used as inputs in expanding production processes. He
further clarified how a powerful coalition of capital, state, and labor develops in
support of continued growth, making it difficult if not impossible for
environmental advocates to halt the resulting “treadmill.”

Because the treadmill presents a compelling analysis of how and why increasing
levels of environmental degradation inevitably accompany the expansion of
capitalism, it has an inherent “face validity” that makes it appealing to
environmental sociologists (Gould, Pellow, and Schnaiberg 2004). Yet despite this
appeal, it has proven difficult to test empirically, particularly on a macrolevel, and
has been used primarily to analyze localized opposition to treadmill processes
(Buttel 2004). It has been used, for example, to explain the lack of success of local
recycling programs and environmental campaigns (Gould, Schnaiberg, and
Weinberg 1996; Pellow 2002; Weinberg, Pellow, and Schnaiberg 2000), and
evoked a rebuttal in the case of recycling (Scheinberg 2003). At this point, the
appeal of the treadmill model rests heavily on the fact that the growth of
capitalism has been accompanied, particularly at the national and global levels, by
increasing levels of environmental degradation (York 2004).

Finer-grained analyses of the linkages between economic activity and

environmental degradation are needed to examine the validity of the treadmill
model’s assumption of an inevitable relationship between the two. Two examples
of such analyses include Freudenburg’s (2005) work suggesting that tiny fractions
of the American industrial economy, often single plants within an industry,
account for an enormously disproportionate share of pollution, and work by
Grant and his colleagues (Grant and Jones 2003; Grant, Jones, and Bergesen 2002)
showing that large chemical plants and those that are subsidiaries of other
companies account for a disproportionate share of toxic releases. In addition,
growing recognition of the importance of consumption in contemporary societies
(Carolan 2004; Shove and Warde 2002; Spaargaren 2003; Yearley 2005) raises
questions about the treadmill model’s dismissal of consumer behavior.

The integration of the treadmill model with another political economy

perspective, world systems theory (WST), is needed to advance our
understanding of the relationship between economic globalization and
environmental degradation. According to Wallerstein (1974), the modern world
system emerged in the early 1500s and is comprised of three structural positions:
core, semiperiphery, and periphery. While the structure of the system has been
stable since its genesis, which nations occupy each of the three positions can
change somewhat over time. Core nations tend to specialize in profitable
manufacturing, whereas peripheral nations tend to provide raw materials and
cheap labor for both core and, increasingly, semiperipheral nations (Burns, Kick,
and Davis 2003). Although ignored in the original formulation of the theory,
environmental issues have attracted increasing attention from WST researchers
(Roberts and Grimes 2002). The late Stephen Bunker, who pioneered the
application of WST to environmental questions in his pathbreaking work on
resource extraction in the Amazon (Bunker 1985), has noted the difficulties as
well as benefits of merging the insights of the treadmill model with those of WST
(Bunker 2005). While the time is ripe for following Bunker’s lead, WST theorists
largely ignore the insights offered by the treadmill model (Roberts and Grimes
2002) and treadmill proponents continue to ignore the insights of WST (Gould,
Pellow, and Schnaiberg 2004).

The rapid growth of work on environmental issues by WST proponents in the past
decade has included both longterm historical analyses of environmental
degradation (Chew 2001) and the role of ecological factors in capitalist
development (Moore 2003), and a spate of cross-national empirical studies
investigating the relationship between countries’ positions in the world system
and, for example, national levels of deforestation (Burns et al. 2003), CO2
emissions (Roberts and Grimes 1997), and ecological footprints (Jorgenson 2003).
These large-scale, cross-national studies—typically finding that core nations
contribute disproportionately to global levels of environmental degradation—
complement more narrowly focused analyses of the export of both hazardous
wastes (Frey 2001) and polluting industries (Frey 2003) from core to peripheral
nations, as well as the export of natural resources from the peripheral to core
nations (Bunker 1985; 2005).2 Finally, Barbosa’s work (2000) sheds light on how
the world system not only encourages the exploitation of the Brazilian Amazon
but also weakens efforts to protect it.

Adherents of WST have offered vital insights into the sources of environmental
degradation. However, they must do more than demonstrate that world system
position has a significant effect in regression equations predicting various forms
of environmental degradation. Studies that examine patterns of environmental
degradation within differing sectors of the world system (Burns et al. 2003) offer
an advance, but more work on less-developed nations that clarify how
involvement in the world capitalist system stimulates treadmill processes (e.g.,
privatization of natural resources) is needed—including attention to the role of
international institutions such as the World Bank in expanding global capitalism,
even under the guise of sustainable development (Goldman 2005).

Ironically, given the dismissal by Schnaiberg and many other sociologists of the
perspectives of Ehrlich and Commoner, a recent alternative to the treadmill and
WST models draws explicitly from the “IPAT equation” (holding that
environmental impact is a function of population, technology, and affluence) that
evolved from debates between the two ecologists. IPAT is isomorphic with the
POET model developed by sociological human ecologists and used by early
environmental sociologists (Dunlap 1994; Dunlap, Lutzenhiser, and Rosa 1994).
Thus, the derivative “STIRPAT” (or “stochastic impacts by regression on
population, affluence, and technology”) model developed by Dietz and Rosa
(1994) is rooted in what Buttel (1987) termed the “new human ecology”
perspective in environmental sociology (see Benton 2001 for an updated
overview of work representing this perspective).

The STIRPAT model provides a statistically rigorous technique for empirically

examining the relative contributions of potential sources of environmental
degradation, including the economic variables central to political economy
models, and thus offers an improvement over IPAT (York, Rosa, and Dietz 2003b).
An early STIRPAT analysis of national-level CO2 emissions found that population
and affluence explained cross-national variation extremely well (Dietz and Rosa
1997), giving some credibility to the neo-Malthusian perspective (e.g., Catton
1980, 1987) that has generally been disregarded in the field. A recent and more
sophisticated STIRPAT analysis of cross-national variation in ecological footprints
(a comprehensive measure of ecological load encompassing the three functions of
the environment noted earlier) again found population (size and age distribution)
to be the most important contributor to national-level footprints, although
environmental conditions such as land mass and latitude (reflecting climate
variation) and economic variables such as affluence also have an effect (York,
Rosa, and Dietz 2003a).

While the STIRPAT model helps provide great insight into the sources of
environmental degradation, it will likely be subjected to criticism (in part because
its emphasis on the importance of population may prove unpalatable to some
environmental sociologists) and refinement. The “human ecology” perspective on
which it builds is a broad orienting framework—calling attention to the ecological
embeddedness of human societies—rather than a coherent theoretical
perspective (Dietz and Rosa 1994),3 and the degree to which “ecological theory”
can be directly applied to Homo sapiens remains a problematic and contentious
issue (e.g., Freese 1997). While a strength of the STIRPAT model is that it can
incorporate an endless range of variables, including those suggested by
alternative theoretical perspectives, the selection of predictor variables beyond
indicators of population and affluence thus far appears to be rather ad hoc
(compare, e.g., Dietz and Rosa 1997 with York et al. 2003a, 2003b). This is
important because we can expect to see varying conclusions drawn from studies
that incorporate differing variables into the model, as suggested by Shandra et al.
(2004). Future work with STIRPAT might benefit from the concepts of “societal
metabolism” and “colonization of nature” employed by Fischer-Kowalski and
colleagues (arguably the leading exponents of a human ecological perspective in
Europe), as well as from the examples of in-depth longitudinal studies of the
environmental impacts of specific nations guided by those concepts (e.g., Fischer-
Kowalski and Amann 2001; Fischer-Kowalski and Haberl 1997; Haberl and
Krausmann 2001).

The recent rapid development of theoretically and empirically sophisticated

analyses of the sources of environmental degradation, particularly quantitative,
crossnational studies, means that knowledge is evolving rapidly. It is not
surprising that studies differ in findings and conclusions when they use differing
samples of nations as well as varying indicators of an array of predictor variables,
to say nothing of focusing on differing forms of environmental degradation. Also,
there is a fundamental difference in logic between, for example, Jorgenson’s
(2003) effort to demonstrate that world system position is the key factor
influencing nations’ ecological footprints and York et al.’s (2003a) effort to explain
variation in national footprints as fully as possible by employing a wide range of
variables. We can expect considerable debate as well as eventual progress,
especially if proponents of differing theoretical perspectives begin to focus on the
same topics, in developing improved understanding of the sources of
environmental degradation. Clearly, the field has come a long way since the early
efforts to clarify debates over the key sources of such degradation (Dunlap and
Catton 1979b, 1983; Schnaiberg 1980).

3.13 Impacts of Environmental Problems-:

As noted earlier, environmental sociology was just emerging at the time of the
1973–1974 energy crisis, so it is not surprising that identifying real as well as
potential social impacts of energy and other natural resources was emphasized in
this early period. While diverse impacts— from regional migration to consumer
lifestyles—were investigated, heavy emphasis was placed on investigating the
“equity” impacts of both energy shortages and the policies designed to
ameliorate them (Rosa, Machlis, and Keating 1988). A general finding was that
both the problems and policies often had regressive impacts, with the lower
socioeconomic strata bearing a disproportionate cost due to rising energy costs
(Schnaiberg 1975).
Equity has been a persistent concern in environmental sociology, and researchers
gradually shifted their attention to the distribution of exposure to environmental
hazards (ranging from air and water pollution to hazardous wastes). Numerous
studies have generally found that both lower socioeconomic strata and minority
populations are disproportionately exposed to environmental hazards (Brulle and
Pellow 2006), and clarifying the relative importance of income and race-ethnicity
has begun to receive attention (Szasz and Meuser 2000). While these findings
have played a key role in generating attention to “environmental racism” and
stimulating efforts to achieve “environmental justice” (Pellow and Brulle 2005),
there are many methodological challenges to be overcome if researchers are to
provide stronger documentation of environmental injustice (Saha and Mohai
2005; Bevc, Marshall, and Picou 2006).

At a broader level, international equity is attracting the attention of

environmental sociologists such as WST researchers investigating the export of
hazardous wastes and polluting industries from wealthy to poor nations, the
exploitation of Third World resources by multinational corporations, and the
disproportionate contribution of wealthy nations to many global-level problems—
while the consequent hurdles these phenomena pose for international
cooperation has also received attention (Redclift and Sage 1998). Mounting
evidence of the disproportionate impact of environmental problems on
peripheral nations and the lower strata within most nations calls into question
Beck’s (1992) “Risk Society” thesis that modern environmental risks transcend
class boundaries (Marshall 1999).

Sociologists have not limited themselves to investigating the distributional

impacts of environmental problems, and studies of communities exposed to
technological or human-made hazards offer particularly rich portrayals of the
diverse impacts caused by environmental and technological hazards. Whereas
natural disasters—such as floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes—have been found
to produce a therapeutic response in which communities unite in efforts to help
victims, repair damage, and reestablish life as it was before the disaster struck,
technologically induced disasters (particularly toxic releases) have a corrosive
effect on community life (Freudenburg 1997; KrollSmith, Couch, and Levine 2002).
Although a putative hazard may appear obvious to some residents, the
ambiguities involved in detecting and assessing such hazards often generate a
pattern of intense conflict among different community groups (Shriver and
Kennedy 2005). In many cases, such conflicts have resulted in a long-term erosion
of community life as well as exacerbation of the victims’ personal traumas
stemming from their exposure to the hazards (Kroll-Smith et al. 2002).

Even when there is general agreement among residents concerning the impact of
a disaster, there can be long-term socioeconomic damage to the community and
psychological stress to its residents, as illustrated by longitudinal work on the
impact of the 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska (Picou et al. 2004). In the
aftermath of such disasters, three factors tend to impede recovery and contribute
to long-term psychological stress and community damage: (1) perceptions of
governmental failure; (2) uncertainty regarding the mental and physical health of
victims; and (3) protracted litigation (Marshall, Picou, and Schlichtmann 2004).
For the plaintiffs of Cordova, Alaska, the litigation process following the Exxon
Valdez Oil Spill served as the strongest source of psychological stress and
community damage (Picou et al. 2004).

It has been argued recently that the social-psychological distinction between

natural and technological disasters is losing its empirical import, especially with
the recent emergence of a third type of disaster—terrorism (Marshall, Picou, and
Gill 2003; Webb 2002). Indeed, the blurring of the distinction is suggested by
anecdotal evidence indicating that Hurricane Katrina is perceived as a natural
disaster (storm surge damage along the Gulf Coast), technological disaster
(breached levee system causing flooding in New Orleans), and a case of
environmental injustice (low income people disproportionately trapped by rising
flood waters in New Orleans). Such ambiguities indicate the need for fresh
perspectives in sociological work on hazards and disasters. More generally, the
rising incidences of human exposure to environmental hazards and technological
disasters, particularly as less-developed (semi-peripheral and peripheral) nations
experience more industrial growth and/or resource exploitation, suggests that
environmental sociologists will pay increasing attention to the impacts (as well as
the sources) of environmental degradation.
3.14Solutions to Environmental Problems-:

Environmental sociologists have typically focused more attention on the causes

and impacts of environmental problems than on their solutions, although the
situation has changed in the past decade. Akin to their analyses of causes, early
work by environmental sociologists often involved explications and critiques of
predominant approaches to solving environmental problems. Heberlein (1974)
noted the predilection of the United States for solving environmental problems
via a “technological fix,” and then analyzed the relative strengths and weaknesses
of voluntary and regulatory approaches. Other sociologists (e.g., Dunlap et al.
1994) subsequently identified three broad types of “social fixes” implicit in policy
approaches: (1) the cognitive (or knowledge) fix relying on information and
persuasion to stimulate behavioral change; (2) a structural fix employing laws and
regulations to mandate behavioral change; and (3) a behavioral fix using
incentives and disincentives to encourage behavioral change.

In the 1970s and 1980s environmental sociologists, along with other behavioral
scientists, conducted a variety of studies evaluating the efficacy of these differing
strategies, particularly for energy conservation (Rosa et al. 1988). Sociological
analyses emphasized the degree to which energy (and other resource)
consumption is affected by factors such as building construction and
transportation systems, and thus the limitations of educational and information
programs for achieving conservation (Lutzenhiser 1993; Shove and Warde 2002).
Nonetheless, the changing regulatory climate of recent decades has generated
renewed interest in voluntaristic approaches to environmental policy, and Tom
Dietz and Paul Stern have recently led a comprehensive examination of
environmental policy approaches via the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and
the resulting volume (Dietz and Stern 2002) provides an excellent update of
relevant work by environmental sociologists and other social scientists.

By the 1990s sociological interest in environmental policy took a quantum leap

forward as environmental sociologists in Northern Europe began to analyze what
appeared to be significant environmental amelioration within their nations.
Originally building on models of industrial ecology, which suggest that the
modernization of industry can permit expanding production with decreasing
levels of material input and pollution output, proponents of “ecological
modernization” gradually moved beyond technologically driven explanations of
environmental progress. New forms of collaboration between government,
industry, and civil society were seen as institutionalizing an “ecological rationality”
that not only tempers the excesses of traditional economic decision making but
also stimulates the development of a “green capitalism” that purportedly marries
the pursuit of environmental protection with the power of the market (e.g., Mol
and Sonnenfeld 2000; Mol and Spaargaren 2000). In part because its acceptance
of the presumed inevitability of capitalist expansion makes it compatible with
currently hegemonic neoliberal economic ideology, ecological modernization
theory (EMT) has become a leading perspective within environmental sociology—
particularly in Europe.

Not only do proponents of EMT view the relationship between capitalism and
environmental quality quite differently than do adherents of political economy
perspectives but also their efforts to theorize processes of environmental
improvement have led to a major revision in environmental sociology’s traditional
preoccupation with explaining environmental degradation (Buttel 2003). It is
therefore not surprising that major debates have ensued over the validity of
ecological modernization theory. American scholars from various theoretical
perspectives have issued critiques, particularly dealing with the methodological
inadequacies and resulting limitations of empirical research purportedly
documenting cases of ecological modernization. These include EMT’s emphasis on
institutional change rather than actual environmental improvements; its focus on
atypical plants, corporations, and industries selected to illustrate environmental
improvements; its lack of generalizability beyond a small number of European
nations; and its failure to recognize that environmental improvements in these
nations result from increased use of poorer nations as supply depots and waste
repositories (Bunker 1996; Goldman 2002; Schnaiberg, Pellow, and Weinberg
2002; York 2004; York and Rosa 2003).

Although it initially appeared that such critiques would foster serious debate over
the validity of EMT and especially its applicability outside of Northern Europe
(Mol and Spaargaren 2002), most recently the leading proponents of EMT have
retreated into a postmodernish stance emphasizing “the limitations of empirical
studies in closing theoretical debates” (Mol and Spaargaren 2005:94). However,
given the recent growth of cross-national empirical studies in environmental
sociology, surely the best way to resolve theoretical debates and establish the
generalizability of theoretical claims is for the contestants to reach agreement
concerning key variables, appropriate measures, and reasonable samples and
then to empirically test theoretically derived hypotheses—as suggested by Fisher
and Freudenburg (2001). Thus far it has fallen primarily to American scholars to
provide empirical, crossnational tests of EMT, and preliminary results are at best
mixed. Fisher and Freudenburg’s (2004) claim of some support for expectations
partially derived from EMT has generated an exchange over the adequacy of their
methodological analysis (Fisher and Freudenburg 2006; York and Rosa 2006).
Likewise, investigations of the existence of an environmental Kuznets curve (an
inverted U-shaped relationship between affluence and environmental
degradation, indicating that degradation increases as nations develop
economically but then declines once a reasonable level of affluence is reached), a
central expectation from EMT, has generated conflicting evidence (Burns et al.
2003; Ehrhardt-Martinez, Crenshaw, and Jenkins 2002; Fisher-Kowalski and
Amann 2001; Roberts and Grimes 1997; Rudel 1998; York et al. 2003a, 2003b).

Despite the dubious evidence for ecological modernization, we believe it deserves

continued testing, particularly in the United States. While contemporary U.S.
environmental policy, which might be construed as ecological demodernization,
represents a major anomaly for EMT, the theory may offer insights into why and
how some local governments and a few corporations in the United States appear
to be taking steps in accordance with EMT expectations despite a federal
government that is widely seen as antienvironmental (Kennedy 2005). More
generally, EMT has become just one strand of a larger recent effort within
environmental sociology to contribute to an understanding of processes of
“environmental reform” (Buttel 2003) and “environmental governance”
(Davidson and Frickel 2004), topics once ceded to political science and economics.
Perhaps the most significant sociological contribution in this vein outside of EMT
has been research conducted by proponents of the world civil society (WCS)
perspective, research employing sophisticated quantitative techniques such as
event history analysis to demonstrate the global spread of norms concerning
appropriate governmental responsibilities—including environmental protection.
Emphasizing the role of intergovernmental organizations, transnational
nongovernmental organizations, international treaties, and other vehicles of
diffusion, WCS researchers have documented the global spread of governmental
laws and agencies designed to protect environmental quality or “environmental
regimes” (e.g., Meyer et al. 1997; Frank, Hironaka, and Schofer 2000).

In response to criticism that WCS research documents institutional and policy

changes but not changes in environmental conditions (Buttel 2000), a recent
study reports that institutionalization of a global environmental regime is related
to declining rates of CO2 and chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) emissions (Schofer and
Hironaka 2005). However, while there has been an absolute decrease in global
CFC emissions, reflecting the fact that there were economically attractive
technological alternatives to CFCs, the study finds only a slowing in the rate of
growth of CO2 emissions. Given that data on global ecological footprints suggest
the need for declines in overall levels of environmental degradation (Wackernagel
et al. 2004), a mere slowing in the rate of increase of degradation may be
inadequate for avoiding the possibility of “overshoot” raised by Catton (1980) a
quarter century ago. Thus, it is unclear whether the global diffusion of an
environmental regime touted by WCS proponents, a process compatible with
EMT’s claim of a global trend toward ecological modernization (Mol 2001), will
prove adequate for halting continued degradation (Goldman 2002). This is
particularly the case now that the United States, once a pioneer in terms of
environmental protection, has arguably become the major obstacle to the
effective implementation of a global environmental regime (Kennedy 2005), at
the very time rapid industrialization of nations such as China and India makes the
need for such a regime more crucial than ever.
3.15 Environmental Impact Assessment

An environmental impact assessment is a formal process used to predict the

environmental consequences (positive or negative) of a plan, policy, program, or
project prior the implementation decision, it proposes measures to adjust impacts
to acceptable levels or to investigate new technological solution. Although an
assessment may lead to difficult economic decisions and political and social
concerns, environmental impact assessments protect the environment by
providing a sound basis for effective and sustainable development.

The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that decision makers consider the
environmental impacts when deciding whether or not to proceed with a project.
The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines an
environmental impact assessment as "the process of identifying, predicting,
evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of
development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments
made." EIAs are unique in that they do not require adherence to a predetermined
environmental outcome, but rather they require decision makers to account for
environmental values in their decisions and to justify those decisions in light of
detailed environmental studies and public comments on the potential
environmental impacts.

3.16 Origin of Environment Impact Assessment

Before the First World War, rapid industrialization and urbanization in western
countries was causing rapid loss of natural resources. This continued to the period
after the Second World War giving rise to concerns for pollution, quality of life
and environmental stress. In early 60s, investors and people realized that the
projects they were under taking were affecting the environment, resources, raw
materials and people. As a result of this, pressure groups formed with the aim of
getting a tool that can be used to safeguard the environment in any development.
The USA decided to respond to these issues and established a National
Environmental Policy Act in 1970 to consider its goal in terms of environmental
protection. The USA became the first country to enact legislation on EIA. This was
the first time that EIA became the official tool to be used to protect the
environment. The United Nations Conference on the Environment in Stockholm in
1972 and subsequent conventions formalized EIA. At present, all developed
countries have environmental laws whereas most of the developing countries are
still adopting it (Lee, 1995). Multilateral and bilateral lenders included EIA
requirements in their project eligibility criteria (OECD, 1996).

Environmental impact assessment is the formal process used to predict the

environmental consequences (positive or negative) of a plan, policy, program, or
project prior to the decision to move forward with the proposed action. Formal
impact assessments may be governed by rules of administrative
procedure regarding public participation and documentation of decision making,
and may be subject to judicial review. An impact assessment may propose
measures to adjust impacts to acceptable levels or to investigate new
technological solutions.
The purpose of the assessment is to ensure that decision makers consider the
environmental impacts when deciding whether or not to proceed with a project.
The International Association for Impact Assessment (IAIA) defines an
environmental impact assessment as "the process of identifying, predicting,
evaluating and mitigating the biophysical, social, and other relevant effects of
development proposals prior to major decisions being taken and commitments
made." EIAs are unique in that they do not require adherence to a predetermined
environmental outcome, but rather they require decision makers to account for
environmental values in their decisions and to justify those decisions in light of
detailed environmental studies and public comments on the potential
environmental impacts

3.17 HISTORY of EIA

Environmental Impact Assessments commenced in the 1960s, as part of
increasing environmental awareness. EIAs involved a technical evaluation
intended to contribute to more objective decision making. In the United States,
environmental impact assessments obtained formal status in 1969, with
enactment of the National Environmental Policy Act. EIAs have been used
increasingly around the world. The number of "Environmental Assessments" filed
every year "has vastly overtaken the number of more rigorous Environmental
Impact Statements (EIS). An Environmental Assessment is a "mini-EIS designed to
provide sufficient information to allow the agency to decide whether the
preparation of a full-blown Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is
necessary. Eia is an activity that is done to find out the impact that would be done
before development will occur.
3.18 EIA in India
The Ministry of Environment and Forests (MoEF) of India has been in a great
effort in Environmental Impact Assessment in India. The main laws in action are
the Water Act (1974), the Indian Wildlife (Protection) Act (1972), the Air
(Prevention and Control of Pollution) Act (1981) and the Environment (Protection)
Act (1986), Biological Diversity Act (2002). The responsible body for this is the
Central Pollution Control Board. Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) studies
need a significant amount of primary and secondary environmental data. Primary
data are those collected in the field to define the status of the environment (like
air quality data, water quality data etc.). Secondary data are those collected over
the years that can be used to understand the existing environmental scenario of
the study area. The environmental impact assessment (EIA) studies are conducted
over a short period of time and therefore the understanding of the environmental
trends, based on a few months of primary data, has limitations. Ideally, the
primary data must be considered along with the secondary data for complete
understanding of the existing environmental status of the area. In many EIA
studies, the secondary data needs could be as high as 80% of the total data
requirement. EIC is the repository of one stop secondary data source for
environmental impact assessment in India.
The Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) experience in India indicates that the
lack of timely availability of reliable and authentic environmental data has been a
major bottle neck in achieving the full benefits of EIA. The environment being a
multi-disciplinary subject, a multitude of agencies are involved in collection of
environmental data. However, no single organization in India tracks available data
from these agencies and makes it available in one place in a form required by
environmental impact assessment practitioners. Further, environmental data is
not available in enhanced forms that improve the quality of the EIA. This makes it
harder and more time-consuming to generate environmental impact assessments
and receive timely environmental clearances from regulators. With this
background, the Environmental Information Centre (EIC) has been set up to serve
as a professionally managed clearing house of environmental information that
can be used by MoEF, project proponents, consultants, NGOs and other
stakeholders involved in the process of environmental impact assessment in India.
EIC caters to the need of creating and disseminating of organized environmental
data for various developmental initiatives all over the country.
EIC stores data in GIS format and makes it available to all environmental impact
assessment studies and to EIA stakeholders in a cost effective and timely manner.
So that we can manage that in different proportions such as remedy measures
etc.,

3.19. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

An environmental assessment (EA) is an environmental analysis prepared

pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act to determine whether a federal
action would significantly affect the environment and thus require a more
detailed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The certified release of an
Environmental Assessment results in either a Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) or an EIS.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which oversees the administration of
NEPA, issued regulations for implementing the NEPA in 1979. Eccleston reports
that the NEPA regulations barely mention preparation of EAs. This is because the
EA was originally intended to be a simple document used in relatively rare
instances where an agency was not sure if the potential significance of an action
would be sufficient to trigger preparation of an EIS. But today, because EISs are so
much longer and complicated to prepare, federal agencies are going to great
effort to avoid preparing EISs by using EAs, even in cases where the use of EAs
may be inappropriate. The ratio of EAs that are being issued compared to EISs is
about 100 to 1.
Likewise, even the preparation of an accurate EA is viewed today as an onerous
burden by many entities responsible for the environmental review of a proposal.
Federal agencies have responded by streamlining their regulations that
implement NEPA environmental review, by defining categories of projects that by
their well understood nature may be safely excluded from review under NEPA,
and by drawing up lists of project types that have negligible material impact upon
the environment and can thus be exempted.
CONTENT
The Environmental Assessment is a concise public document prepared by the
federal action agency that serves to:

1. briefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis for determining whether to

prepare an EIS or a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
2. Demonstrate compliance with the act when no EIS is required
3. facilitate the preparation of an EIS when a FONSI cannot be demonstrated
The Environmental Assessment includes a brief discussion of the purpose and
need of the proposal and of its alternatives as required by NEPA 102(2)(E), and of
the human environmental impacts resulting from and occurring to the proposed
actions and alternatives considered practicable, plus a listing of studies conducted
and agencies and stakeholders consulted to reach these conclusions. The action
agency must approve an EA before it is made available to the public. The EA is
made public through notices of availability by local, state, or regional clearing
houses, often triggered by the purchase of a public notice advertisement in a
newspaper of general circulation in the proposed activity area.
PROCEDURE
The EA becomes a draft public document when notice of it is published, usually in
a newspaper of general circulation in the area affected by the proposal. There is a
15 day review period required for an Environmental Assessment (30 days if
exceptional circumstances) while the document is made available for public
commentary, and a similar time for any objection to improper process.
Commenting on the Draft EA is typically done in writing or email, submitted to the
lead action agency as published in the notice of availability. An EA does not
require a public hearing for verbal comments. Following the mandated public
comment period, the lead action agency responds to any comments, and certifies
either a FONSI or a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in its public
environmental review record. The preparation of an EIS then generates a similar
but more lengthy, involved and expensive process.

3.20. Model Questions:

1. What are the different approaches to development?
2. Discuss different types of development.
3. Discuss the causes of displacement.
4. Explain the history of Environmental Impact Assessment in India.
5. Critically examine the major environmental problems.
 Unit-IV

4.0. Global Challenges

4.1. Environmental justice
4.2. Environment
4.3. Environmental discrimination
4.4. Litigation
4.5. Effected group of environmental justice
4.6. Environmental justice strategy
4.7. Environmental justice issues
4.8. Future environmental justice
4.9. Environmental policy
4.10. Instrument of environmental policy
4.11. History of environmental policy
4.12. Environmental policy studies
4.13. Environmental Action
4.14. Approaches to environmental action
4.15. Government
4.16. Environment protection agency
4.17. Major environmental legislation
4.18. EPA’S tasks
4.19. Expanding authority
4.20. Model questions
 UNIT- IV

GLOBAL CHALLENGES

4.0. What are global challenges?

For the purposes of this paper, ‘global challenges’ will be defined as any major
trend, shock, or development that has the potential for serious global impacts and
thus to create humanitarian needs and change the environments in which
humanitarian actors will operate in coming years. Below is a non-exhaustive list of
global challenges we have identified:

• Climate change: With a predicted increase in temperature that will indirectly

lead to the disappearance of territory, spark widespread (and, in many cases,
permanent) displacement (already 20 million people are estimated to have been
temporarily displaced by climate related disasters in 2008, a comparable number
to the 26 million conflict-related IDPs in the same period), change morbidity
disease patterns, and promote a monumental shift in global policies, climate
change will fundamentally transform the way humanity approaches global
security and livelihood sustainability.

• Extreme poverty and inequality: With a marked increase in extreme poverty

and profound inequalities of income and wealth plaguing most nations (as
approximately half the world’s population lives on less than 1% of its wealth),
extreme poverty and inequality continue to leave whole communities and
households in an almost irreversibly devastating state of vulnerability and need.

• Financial and economic crisis: With the world economy now predicted to
contract by 1.7%, remittances which accounted for some 2% of the major
developing countries’ GDP in 2007 having decreased to 1.8% in 2008 and falling
by an additional 0.9% this year, private capital flows dropping by some $700
million compared to previous years, and an additional 90 million people being
pushed into poverty, the financial and economic crisis is leading to
unemployment, an increase in poverty, and the curtailment of critical safety-nets,
thereby threatening an even larger caseload in need of humanitarian assistance.

• Food crisis: With over 1 billion people worldwide (one-sixth of the world
population) suffering from hunger, over 30 cases of food-related unrest having
erupted around the world since 2008, 25,000 children dying daily from
malnutrition, 2 billion people currently suffering from micro-nutrient deficiencies,
local food prices in most developing countries being too expensive for hundreds
of millions of people, disputes over depleting land resources, and projections that
by 2025 food production will not be able to increase by the necessary 50% over
current levels to keep up with population growth, the food crisis will continue to
threaten lives and livelihoods worldwide.

Water scarcity: With the number of people who do not have access to safe water
rising just over 1 billion to 2 billion by 2025 (roughly one third of the world
population), water scarcity represents a major political, economic and human
rights issue driving vulnerability and conflict.

• Energy security: With the projected one and a half times increase in energy
demand by 2030, energy security could cause supply-side gluts stoking fears of
scarcity and reigniting geopolitical rivalries, whilst also providing the impetus to
invest in renewable energies.

• Migration: With the potential for hundreds of millions of people forced to

uproot their lives and rebuild them across borders, continents and oceans,
migration will be one of the biggest challenges both within and across borders.

• Population growth and demographic shift: With a population that will grow
from 6.7 billion today to over 8 billion by 2025, and the number of people aged
over 65 rising from 390 million now to 800 million in the same time frame,
population growth and demographic shifts will put massive strains on global
resources and institutions. Localized demographic trends will also be a source of
challenges: the number of 15 – 24 year olds in the Middle East and North Africa
region is unprecedented and set to rise as a proportion of population. (In an
extreme case, the Palestinian Territories are set to see an 84% increase in youth
population between 2005 and 2025.) This trend, combined with the MENA region
claiming the highest youth unemployment rates in the world, may be a source of
further regional insecurities.

• Urbanization: With an urban population that will double in Asia and increase by
150% in Africa between now and 2050, urbanization will create massive social
inequities and risks as well as tangible health problems, malnutrition rates,
unemployment, and income deficits, which represent an almost permanent
threat to the security of billions.
• Health pandemics and infectious diseases: With projections that any large-
scale influenza pandemic could result in from 2 up to 60 million potential deaths,
and the discovery that infectious diseases that have been controlled historically
are now demonstrating increased virulence, changing incidence, and shifting
vectors of transmission, health pandemics and infectious diseases threaten to
further degrade the lives of many, potentially increasing feelings of injustice and
amplifying the pressures on weak and fragile states.

Ozone Layer Depletion

Earth's atmosphere is divided into three regions, namely troposphere,
stratosphere and mesosphere The stratosphere extends from 10 to 50 kms
from the Earth’s surface. This region is concentrated with slightly pungent
smelling, light bluish ozone gas. The ozone as is made up of molecules each
containing three atoms of oxygen; its chemical formula is 03. The ozone
layer, in the stratosphere acts as an efficient filter for harmful solar Ultraviolet
B (UV-B) rays Ozone is produced and destroyed naturally in the
atmosphere and until recently, this resulted in a well- balanced
equilibrium .Ozone is formed when oxygen molecules absorb ultraviolet
radiation with wavelengths less than 240 nanometres and is destroyed
when it absorbs ultraviolet radiation with wavelengths greater than
290 nanometres. In recent years, scientists have measured a seasonal
thinning of the ozone layer primarily at the South Pole. This phenomenon is
being called the ozone hole.

Ozone Depletion Process-:

Ozone is highly reactive and easily broken down by man-made chlorine
and bromine compounds. These compounds are found to be most
responsible for most of ozone layer depletion. The ozone depletion process
begins when CFCs (used in refrigerator and air conditioners) and other ozone-
depleting substances (ODS) are emitted into the atmosphere. Winds
efficiently mix and evenly distribute the ODS in the troposphere. These ODS
compounds do not dissolve in rain, are extremely stable, and have a long life
span. After several years, they reach the stratosphere by diffusion Strong UV
light breaks apart the ODS molecules. CFCs, HCFCs, carbon tetrachloride,
methyl chloroform release chlorine atoms, and halons and methyl bromide
release bromine atoms. It is the chlorine and bromine atom that actually
destroys ozone, not the intact ODS molecule. It is estimated that one chlorine
atom can destroy from 10,000 to 100,000 ozone molecules before it is finally
removed from the stratosphere.

Effects of Ozone Layer Depletion:

Effects on Human and Animal Health: Increased penetration of solar UV-B
radiation is likely to have high impact on human health with potential risks of
eye diseases, skin cancer and infectious diseases. Effects on Terrestrial Plants:
In forests and grasslands, increased radiation is likely to change species
composition thus altering the bio-diversity in different ecosystems. It could also
affect the plant community indirectly resulting in changes in plant form,
secondary metabolism, etc.

Effects on Aquatic Ecosystems: High levels of radiation exposure in tropics and

subtropics may affect the distribution of phytoplanktons, which form the
foundation of aquatic food webs. It can also cause damage to early
development stages of fish, shrimp, crab, amphibians and other animals, the
most severe effects being decreased reproductive capacity and impaired
larval development.

Effects on Bio-geo-chemical Cycles: Increased solar UV radiation could affect

terrestrial and aquatic bio-geo-chemical cycles thus altering both sources and
sinks of greenhouse and important trace gases, e.g. carbon dioxide (CO2),
carbon monoxide (CO), carbonyl sulfide (COS), etc. These changes would
contribute to biosphere-atmosphere feedbacks responsible for the atmosphere
build-up of these greenhouse gases.

Effects on Air Quality: Reduction of stratospheric ozone and increased

penetration of UV- B radiation result in higher photo dissociation rates of
key trace gases that control the chemical reactivity of the troposphere. This
can increase both production and destruction of ozone and related oxidants
such as hydrogen peroxide, which are known to have adverse effects on
human health, terrestrial plants and outdoor materials. The ozone layer, therefore,
is highly beneficial to plant and animal life on earth filtering out the dangerous part
of sun’s radiation and allowing only the beneficial part to reach earth. Any
disturbance or depletion of this layer would result in an increase of harmful
radiation reaching the earth surface leading to dangerous consequences.

Ozone Depletion Counter Measures

-International cooperation, agreement (Montreal Protocol) to phase out ozone
depleting chemicals since 1974 -Tax imposed for ozone depleting substances -
Ozone friendly substitutes- HCFC (less ozone depleting potential and shorter life)
-Recycle of CFCs and Halons.

Global Warming
Before the Industrial Revolution, human activities released very few
gases into the atmosphere and all climate changes happened naturally.
After the Industrial Revolution, through fossil fuel combustion, changing
agricultural practices and deforestation, the natural composition of gases in the
atmosphere is getting affected and climate and environment began to alter
significantly.
Over the last 100 years, it was found out that the earth is getting warmer and
warmer, unlike previous 8000 years when temperatures have been
relatively constant. The present temperature is 0. 3 - 0.6 oC warmer than it
was 1 00 years ago. The key greenhouse gases (GHG) causing global warming is
carbon dioxide. CFC's, even though they exist in very small quantities, are
significant contributors to global warming. Carbon dioxide, one of the most
prevalent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, has two major anthropogenic
(human-caused) sources: the combustion of fossil fuels and changes in land use.
Net releases of carbon dioxide from these two sources are believed to
be contributing to the rapid rise in atmospheric concentrations since
Industrial Revolution. Because estimates indicate that approximately 80
percent of all anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions currently come from
fossil fuel combustion, world energy use has emerged at the sources of green
house gases.

Sources of Greenhouse Gases

Some greenhouses gases occur naturally in the atmosphere while
other result from human activities. Naturally occurring greenhouse
gases Methane include water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, 12%
nitrous oxide, and ozone certain human activities, however, add to the levels
of most of those naturally occurring gases. Carbon dioxide is released to the
atmosphere when solid waste, fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal), and
wood and wood products are burned. Methane is emitted during the production
and transport of coal, natural gas, and oil. Methane emissions also result from
the decomposition of organic wastes in municipal solid waste landfills, and
the raising of livestock. Nitrous oxide is emitted during agricultural and
industrial activities, as well as during combustion of solid waste and fossil fuels.
Very powerful greenhouse gases that are not naturally occurring include
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride
(SF6), which are generated in a variety of industrial processes. Often, estimates
of greenhouse gas emissions are presented in units of millions of metric tons of
carbon equivalents (MMTCE), which weights each gas by its Global Warming
Potential or GWP value.

Global Warming Potentials

Although there are a number of ways of measuring the strength of different
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the Global Warming Potential (GWP) is
perhaps the most useful. GWPs measure the influence greenhouse gases
have on the natural greenhouse effect, including the ability of greenhouse
gas molecules to absorb or trap heat and the length of time, greenhouse gas
molecules remain in the atmosphere before being removed or broken down. In
this way, the contribution that each greenhouse gas has towards global warming
can be assessed. Each greenhouse gas differs in its ability to absorb heat in the
atmosphere. HFCs and PFCs are the most heat-absorbent. Methane traps
over 21 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide, and nitrous
oxide absorbs 270 times more heat per molecule than carbon dioxide.
Conventionally, the GWP of carbon dioxide, measured across all time
horizons, is 1. The GWPs of other greenhouse gases are then measured
relative to the GWP of carbon dioxide. Thus GWP of methane is 21 while GWP of
nitrous oxide is 270.

Other greenhouse gases have much higher GWPs than carbon dioxide, but
because their concentration in the atmosphere is much lower, carbon dioxide
is still the most important greenhouse gas, contributing about 60% to the
enhancement of the greenhouse effect.

Global Warming (Climate Change) Implications

Rise in global temperature

Observations show that global temperatures have risen by about 0.6 °C over the
20th century. There is strong evidence now that most of the observed
warming over the last 50 years is caused by human activities. Climate models
predict that the global temperature will rise by about 6 °C by the year 2100.
Rise in sea level
In general, the faster the climate change, the greater will be the risk of damage.
The mean sea level is expected to rise 9 - 88 cm by the year 2100, causing
flooding of low lying areas and Food shortages and hunger. Water resources will
be affected as precipitation and evaporation patterns change around the world.
This will affect agricultural output. Food security is likely to be threatened and
some regions are likely to experience food shortages and hunger.
India could be more at risks than many other countries
Models predict an average increase in temperature in India of 2.3 to 4.8oC for the
benchmark doubling of Carbon-dioxide scenario. Temperature would rise more in
Northern India than in Southern India. It is estimated that 7 million people
would be displaced, 5700 km2 of land and 4200 km of road would be lost, and
wheat yields could decrease significantly.

Loss of Biodiversity
Biodiversity refers to the variety of life on earth, and its biological diversity. The
number of species of plants, animals, micro organisms, the enormous diversity
of genes in these species, the different ecosystems on the planet, such as
deserts, rainforests and coral reefs are all a part of a biologically diverse
earth. Biodiversity actually boosts ecosystem productivity where each
species, no matter how small, all have an important role to play and that it is in
this combination that enables the ecosystem to possess the ability to prevent
and recover It is now believed that human activity is changing biodiversity
and causing massive extinctions. The World Resource Institute reports that there is a link
between biodiversity and climate change. Rapid global warming can affect
ecosystems chances to adapt naturally. Over the past 150 years,
deforestation has contributed an estimated 30 percent of the atmospheric
build-up of CO2. It is also a significant driving force behind the loss of genes,
species, and critical ecosystem services.

Link between Biodiversity and Climate change

Climate change is affecting species already threatened by multiple threats

across the globe. Habitat fragmentation due to colonization, logging, agriculture
and mining etc. are all contributing to further destruction of terrestrial habitats.
Individual species may not be able to adapt. Species most threatened by climate
change have small ranges, low population densities, restricted habitat
requirements and patchy distribution. Ecosystems will generally shift northward
or upward in altitude, but in some cases they will run out of space – as 10C
change in temperature correspond to a 100 Km change in latitude, hence,
average shift in habitat conditions by the year 2100 will be on the order of 140 to
580 Km. Coral reef mortality may increase and erosion may be accelerated.
Increase level of carbon dioxide adversely impact the coral building process
(calcification). Sea level may rise, engulfing low-lying areas causing disappearance
of many islands, and extinctions of endemic island species. Invasive species may
be aided by climate change. Exotic species can out-compete native wildlife for
space, food, water and other resources, and may also prey on native wildlife.
Droughts and wildfires may increase. An increased risk of wildfires due to
warming and drying out of vegetation is likely. Sustained climate change may
change the competitive balance among species and might lead to forests
destruction.

Climatic Change Problem and Response

In June 1992, the “United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change”

(UNFCCC) was signed in Rio de Janeiro by over 150 nations. The climate
convention is the base for international co-operation within the climate
change area. In the convention the climate problem’s seriousness is stressed.
There is a concern that human activities are enhancing the natural greenhouse
effect, which can have serious consequences on human settlements and
ecosystems. The convention’s overall objective is the stabilisation of greenhouse
gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The principle
commitment applying to parties of the convention is the adoption of policies
and measures on the mitigation of climate change, by limiting anthropogenic
emissions. greenhouse gases and protecting and enhancing greenhouse gas
sinks and reservoirs. The commitment includes the preparation and
communication of national inventories of greenhouse gases. The Climate
convention does not have any quantitative targets or timetables for
individual nations. However, the overall objective can be interpreted as
stabilization of emissions of greenhouse gases by year 2000 at 1990 levels.
The deciding body of the climate convention is the Conference of Parties (COP).

At the COP meetings, obligations made by the parties are examined

and the objectives and implementation of the climate convention are
further defined and developed. The first COP was held in Berlin, Germany in
1995 and the latest (COP 10) was held in December 2004, Buenos Aires,
Argentina.

The Kyoto Protocol

There is a scientific consensus that human activities are causing global warming
that could result in significant impacts such as sea level rise, changes in weather
patterns and adverse health effects. As it became apparent that major nations
such as the United States and Japan would not meet the voluntary stabilization
target by 2000, Parties to the Convention decided in 1995 to enter into
negotiations on a protocol to establish legally binding limitations or
reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It was decided by the Parties that
this round of negotiations would establish limitations only for the developed
countries, including the former Communist countries.

Negotiations on the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention

on Climate Change (UNFCCC) were completed December 11, 1997,
committing the industrialized nations to specify, legally binding reductions in
emissions of six greenhouse gases. The 6 major greenhouse gases covered by
the protocol are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O),
hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur xafluoridehe
(SF6).

Emissions Reductions

The United States would be obligated under the Protocol to a cumulative

reduction in its greenhouse gas emissions of 7% below 1990 levels for three
greenhouse gases (including carbon dioxide), and below 1995 levels for the
three man-made gases, averaged over the commitment period 2008 to 2012.

The Protocol states that developed countries are committed, individually

or jointly, to ensuring that their aggregate anthropogenic carbon dioxide
equivalent emissions of greenhouse gases do not exceed amounts assigned
to each country with a view to reducing their overall emissions of such gases by
at least 5% below 1990 levels in the commitment period 2008 to 2012.

Developing Country Responsibilities

Another problematic area is that the treaty is ambiguous regarding the

extent to which developing nations will participate in the effort to limit global
emissions. The original 1992 climate treaty made it clear that, while the
developed nations most responsible for the current buildup of greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere should take the lead in combating climate change,
developing nations also have a role to play in protecting the global climate.
Per Capita CO2 emissions are small in developing countries and developed
nations have altered Developing countries, including India and China, do not have
to commit to reductions in this first time period because their per-capita
emissions are much lower than those of developed countries, and their
economies are less able to absorb the initial costs of changing to cleaner fuels.
They have not contributed significantly to today’s levels of pollution that has
been the product of the developed world’s Industrial Revolution. The idea is that
developing countries will be brought more actively into the agreement as new
energy technologies develop.

Actions required from developed and developing Nations

The Kyoto Protocol does call on all Parties (developed and developing) to take a
number of steps to formulate national and regional programs to improve
"local emission factors," activity data, models, and national inventories of
greenhouse gas emissions and sinks that remove these gases from the
atmosphere. All Parties are also committed to formulate, publish, and
update climate change mitigation and adaptation measures, and to cooperate in
promotion and transfer of environmentally sound technologies and in scientific
and technical
Who is bound by the Kyoto Protocol?
The Kyoto Protocol has to be signed and ratified by 55 countries (including those
responsible for at least 55% of the developed world's 1990 carbon dioxide
emissions) before it can enter into force. Now that Russia has ratified, this been
achieved and the Protocol will enter into force on 16 February 2005.

National environmental Action Plan-

India is faced with the challenge of sustaining its rapid economic growth while
dealing with the glob- al threat of climate change. This threat emanates from
accumulated greenhouse gas emissions in the atmosphere, anthropogenically
generated through long-term and intensive industrial growth and high consumption
lifestyles in developed countries. While engaged with the international community to
collectively and cooperatively deal with this threat, India needs a national strategy to
firstly, adapt to climate change and secondly, to further enhance the ecological
sustainability of India's development path.

Climate change may alter the distribution and quality of India's natural resources and
adversely affect the livelihood of its people. With an economy closely tied to its
natural resource base and climate-sensitive sectors such as agriculture, water and
forestry, India may face a major threat because of the projected changes in climate.

Recognizing that climate change is a global challenge, India will engage actively in
multilateral negotiations in the LIN Framework Convention on Climate Change, in a
positive, constructive and forward-looking manner. Our objective will be to
establish an effective, cooperative and equitable global approach based on the
principle of common but differentiated responsibilites and respective
capabilities, enshrined in the United Nations Framework Convention on
Climate Change (UNFCCC). Such an approach must be based on a global vision
inspired by Mahatma Gandhi's wise dictum-The earth has enough resources to meet
people's needs, but will never have enough to satisfy people's greed. Thus we must
not only promote sustainable production processes, but equally, sustainable lifestyles
across the globe.
Finally, our approach must also be compatible with our role as a responsible and
enlightened member of the international community, ready to make our
contribution to the solution of a global challenge, which impacts on
humanity as a whole. The success of our national efforts would be significantly
enhanced provided the developed countries affirm their responsibility for
accumulated greenhouse gas emissions and fulfill their commitments under the
UNFCCC, to transfer new and additional financial resources and climate friendly
technologies to support both adaptation and mitigation in developing countries.

We are convinced that the principle of equity that must underlie the global approach
must allow each inhabitant of the earth an equal entitlement to the global
atmospheric resource. in this connection, India is determined that its per capita
greenhouse gas emissions will at no point exceed that of developed countries even as
we pursue our development objectives.
Principles-:

Maintaining a high growth rate is essential for increasing living standards of the
vast majority of our people and reducing their vulnerability to the impacts of
climate change. In order to achieve a sustainable development path that
simultaneously advances economic and environmental objectives, the National
Action Plan for Climate Change (NAPCC) will be guided by the following principles:

Protecting the poor and vulnerable sections of society through an inclusive and
sustainable development strategy, sensitive to climate change.

Achieving national growth objectives through a qualitative change in direction that

enhances ecological sustainability, leading to further mitigation of greenhouse gas
emissions.

Devising efficient and cost-effective strategies for end use Demand Side Management.

Deploying appropriate technologies for both adaptation and mitigation of

greenhouse gases emissions extensively as well as at an accelerated pace.

Engineering new and innovative forms of market, regulatory and voluntary

mechanisms to promote sustainable development.

Effecting implementation of programmes through unique linkages, including with

civil society and Local government institutions and through public private-partnership.

Welcoming international cooperation for research, development, sharing and transfer

of technologies enabled by additional funding and a global IPR regime that facilitates
technology transfer to developing countries under the UNFCCC.

APPROACH
The NAPCC addresses the urgent and critical concerns of the country through a
directional shift in the development pathway, including through the
enhancement of the current and planned programmes presented in the
Technical Document.
The National Action Plan on Climate Change identifies measures that promote our
development objectives while also yielding co-benefits for addressing climate change
effectively. It outlines a number of steps to simultaneously advance India's
development and climate change-related objectives of adaptation and mitigation.

THE WAY FORWARD-:

NATIONAL MISSION PLAN-:

In dealing with the challenge of climate change we must act on several fronts in a
focused manner simultaneously. The National Action Plan hinges on the
development and use of new technologies. The implementation of the Plan
would be through appropriate institutional mechanisms suited for effective
delivery of each individual Mission's objectives and include public private partnerships
and civil society action. The focus will be on promoting understanding of climate
change, adaptation and mitigation, energy efficiency and natural resource
conservation.

There are Eight National Missions which form the core of the National Action
Plan, representing multi-pronged, long-term and integrated strategies for
achieving key goals in the context of climate change. While several of these
programmes are already part of our current actions, they may need a change
in direction, enhancement of scope and effectiveness and accelerated
implementation of time bound plans.

National Solar Mission

A National Solar Mission will be launched to significantly increase the share of

solar energy in the total energy mix while recognizing the need to expand the
scope of other renewable and non-fossil options such as nuclear energy, wind
energy and biomass India is a tropical country, where sunshine is available for
longer hours per day and in great intensity. Solar energy, therefore, has great
potential as

future energy source. It also has the advantage of permitting a decentralized

distribution of energy, thereby empowering people at the grassroots level.
Photovoltaic cells are becoming cheaper with new technology There are
newer, reflector-based technologies that could enable setting up megawatt
scale solar power plants across the country. Another aspect of the Solar
Mission would be to launch a major R&D programme, which could draw
upon international cooperation as well, to enable the creation of more
affordable, more convenient solar power systems, and to promote
innovations that enable the storage of solar power for sustained,long-term
use.

National Mission for Enhanced Energy Efficiency

The Energy Conservation Act of 2001 provides a legal mandate for the
implementation of the energy efficiency measures through the institutional
mechanism of the Bureau of Energy Efficiency (BEE) in the Central
Government and designated agencies in each state. A number of schemes and
programmes would result in a saving of 1 0,000 MW by the end of 11th Five Year
Plan in 2012. To enhance energy efficiency, four new initiatives will be put in
place. These are:

• A market based mechanism to enhance cost effectiveness; of improvements

in energy efficiency in Energy intensive large industries and facilities,
through certification of energy savings that could be traded.

• Accelerating the shift to energy efficient appliances in designated sectors

through innovative measures to make the products more affordable.

• Creation of mechanisms that would help finance demand side management

programmes in all sectors by capturing future energy savings.

• Developing fiscal instruments to promote energy efficiency

National Mission on Sustainable Habitat

A National Mission on Sustainable Habitat will be launched to make

habitat sustainable through improvements in energy efficiency in
buildings, management of solid waste and modal shift to public transport.
The Mission will promote energy efficiency as an integral component of urban
planning and The Energy Conservation Building Code, which addresses the
design of new and large commercial buildings to optimize their energy
demand, will be extended in its application and incentives provided for
retooling existing building.

Recycling of material and Urban Waste Management will be a major

component of ecologically sustainable economic development. India
already has a significantly higher rate of recycling of waste compared to
developed countries. A special area of focus will be the development of
technology for producing power from waste. The National Mission will
include a major R&D programme, focusing on bio chemical conversion,
waste water use, sewage utilization and recycling options wherever Better
urban planning and modal shift to public transport. Making long term
transport plans will facilitate the growth of medium and small cities in ways
that ensure efficient and convenient public transport. In addition, the Mission
will address the need to adapt to future climate change by improving the
resilience of infrastructure, community based disaster management, and
measures for improving the warning system for extreme weather
events. Capacity building would be an important component of this Mission.

National Water Mission

A National Water Mission will be mounted to ensure integrated water resource

management helping to conserve water, minimize wastage and ensure more
equitable distribution both across and within states. The Mission will take into
account the provisions of the National Water Policy and develop a framework
to optimize water use by increasing water use efficiency by 20% through
regulatory mechanisms with differential entitlements and pricing. It will seek
to ensure that a considerable share of the water needs of urban areas are met
through recycling of waste water, and ensuring that the water requirements of
coastal cities with inadequate alternative sources of water are met through
adoption of new and appropriate technologies such as low temperature clesalk
nation technologies that allow for the use of ocean water. The National Water
Policy would be revisited in consultation with states to ensure basin level
management strategies to deal with variability in rainfall and river flows due
to climate change. This will include enhanced storage both above and
below ground, rainwater harvesting, coupled with equitable and efficient
management structures The Mission will seek to develop new regulatory
structures, combined with appropriate entitlements and pricing. It will seek
to optimize the efficiency of existing irrigation systems, including rehabilitation
of systems that have been run down and also expand irrigation, where feasible,
with a special effort to increase storage capacity. Incentive structures will be
designed to promote water-neutral or water-positive technologies,
recharging of underground water sources and adoption of large scale
irrigation programmes which rely on sprinklers, dripirrigation and ridge and
furrow irrigation

National Mission for Sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem

A Mission for sustaining the Himalayan Ecosystem will be launched to evolve

management measures for sustaining and safeguarding the Himalayan glacier
and mountain eco-system. Himalayas, being the source of key perennial rivers,
the Mission would,inter-alia, seek to understand, whether and the extent
to which, the Himalayan glaciers are in recession and how the problem
could be addressed. This will require the joint effort of climatologists,
glaciologists and other experts.

The Himalayan ecosystem has 51 million people who practice hill agriculture and
whose vulnerability is expected to increase on account of climate change.
Community-based management of these ecosystems will be promoted with
incentives to community organizations and panchayats for protection and
enhancement of forested lands. In mountainous regions, the aim will be to
maintain two thirds of the area under forest cover in order to prevent erosion
and land degradation and ensure the stability of the
National Mission for a Green India

A National Mission will be launched to enhance ecosystem services including

carbon sinks to be called Green India. Forests play an indispensable role in the
preservation of ecological balance and maintenance of bio-diversity. Forests
also constitute one of the most effective carbon-sinks.

The Prime Minister has already announced a Green India campaign for the
afforestation of 6 million hectares. The national target of area under forest and
tree cover is 33% while the current area under forests is 23%.

The Mission on Green India will be taken up on degraded forest land through
direct action by communities, organized through Joint Forest
Management Committees and guided by the Departments of Forest in
state governments. An initial corpus of over Rs 6000 crore has been earmarked for
the programme through the Compensatory Afforestaion Management
and Planning Authority (CAMPA) to commence work. The programme will be
scaled up to cover all remaining degraded forest land. The institutional
arrangement provides for using the corpus to leverage more funds to scale up
activity.

National Mission for Sustainable Agriculture

The Mission would devise strategies to make Indian agriculture more resilient
to climate change. It would identify and develop new varieties of crops and
especially thermal resistant crops and alternative cropping patterns, capable of
withstanding extremes of weather, long dry spells, flooding, and variable
moisture availability. Agriculture will need to be progressively adapted to
projected climate change and our agricultural research systems must be
oriented to monitor and evaluate climate change and recommend changes in
agricultural practices accordingly. This will be supported by the convergence
and integration of traditional knowledge and practice systems, information
technology, geospatial technologies and biotechnology. New credit and
insurance mechanisms will be devised to facilitate adoption of desired
practices. Focus would be on improving productivity of rainfed agriculture.
India will spearhead efforts at the international level to work towards an
ecologically sustainable green revolution.

National Mission on Strategic Knowledge for Climate Change

To enlist the global community in research and technology development and

collaboration through mechanisms including open source platforms, a
Strategic Knowledge Mission will be set up to identify the challenges of, and the
responses to, climate change. It would ensure funding of high quality and
focused research into various aspects of climate change. The Mission will also
have, on its research agenda, socio-economic impacts of climate change
including impact on health, clemography, migration patterns and livelihoods of
coastal communities. It would also support the establishment of dedicated
climate change related academic units in Universities and other academic and
scientific research institutions in the country which would be networked. A
Climate Science Research Fund would be created under the Mission to support
research. Private sector initiatives for development of innovative technologies
for adaptation and mitigation would be encouraged through venture capital
funds. Research to support policy and implementation would be undertaken
through identified centres. The Mission will also focus on dissemination of new
knowledge based on research findings.

India’s Greenhouse Gas Emissions

India has experienced a dramatic growth in fossil fuel CO2 emissions, and as per
study it shows an increase of nearly 5.9 % since 1950. At present India is rated as
the 6th largest contributor of CO2 emissions behind China, the largest contributor
However, our per capita CO2 of 0.93 tons per annum is well below the world
average of 3.87 tons per annum. Fossil fuel emissions in India continue to result
largely from coal burning. India is highly vulnerable to climate change as its
economy is heavily reliant on climate sensitive sectors like agriculture and
forestry. The vast low-lying and densely populated coastline is susceptible to rise
in sea level.
The energy sector is the largest contributor of carbon dioxide emissions in
India. The national inventory of greenhouse gases indicates that 55% of the
total national emissions come from energy sector. These include emissions
from road transport, burning of traditional. Agriculture sector constitutes the
next major contributor, accounting for nearly 34%. The emissions under this
sector include those from enteric fermentation in domestic animals, manure
management, rice cultivation, and burning of agriculture residues. Emissions
from Industrial sector mainly came from cement production.
Indian Response to Climatic Change
Under the UNFCCC, developing countries such as India do not have
binding GHG mitigation commitments in recognition of their small
contribution to the greenhouse problem as well as low financial and
technical capacities. The Ministry of environment and Forests is the
nodal agency for climate change issues in India. It has constituted
Working.

4.1. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

Environmental justice is a movement that grew from the recognition of a

disproportionate number of environmental burdens in certain communities. It
works to ensure a healthy environment for all regardless of race, nationality,
income, gender or age.

The term environmental justice emerged as a concept in the United States in the
early 1980s. The term has two distinct uses. The first and more common usage
describes a social movement in the United States whose focus is on the fair
distribution of environmental benefits and burdens. Second, it is an
interdisciplinary body of social science literature that includes (but is not limited
to) theories of the environment, theories of justice, environmental law and
governance, environmental policy and planning, development, sustainability, and
political ecology.

The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines environmental

justice as "the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless
of race, color, sex, national origin, or income with respect to the development,
implementation and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies

Proponents of environmental justice generally view the environment as

encompassing "where we live, work, and play" (some definitions also include
'pray' and 'learn') and seek to redress inequitable distributions of environmental
burdens (such as pollution, industrial facilities, and crime).
4.2. ENVIRONMENT
When you think about the environment, your mind might conjure up images of
rambling rivers, peaceful woodlands or scenic mountains. However, a broader
definition of environment is the surroundings or conditions in which a person
lives. By this definition, the environment would include your home, place of
work, schools, and community parks. These are the places you spend your time,
and they play a big role in your overall health, happiness and well-being.
Those involved in the movement called environmental justice feel that a healthy
environment is a necessary component of a healthy life. In this lesson, we will
learn about environmental justice and its efforts to make everyone's
environment clean, safe and healthy.
DEFINITION
The United States Environmental Protection Agency defines Environmental Justice
as follows:
“The fair treatment and meaningful involvement of people of all races, cultures,
incomes and educational levels with respect to the development and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. Fair treatment
means that no group of people should bear a disproportionate share of the
negative environmental consequences resulting from industrial, governmental
and commercial operations or policies. Meaningful involvement means that: (1)
people have an opportunity to participate in decisions about activities that may
affect their environment and/or health; (2) the public’s contribution can influence
the regulatory agency's decision; (3) their concerns will be considered in the
decision making process; and (4) the decision makers seek out and facilitate the
involvement of those potentially affected”.

The EPA definition can be analyzed from the taxonomy of distributive, procedural,
corrective, and social justice. Distributive justice in practice has not meant a
redistribution of pollutants equally to all communities, but the enforcement of
the equal protection of the law or pollution preventions strategies so that
pollutions will not be distributive to any community. The Agency places
considerable emphasis upon procedural justice to make rules and regulations
transparent in order for communities to access the decision-making process. We
can also see that corrective justice is one of the main thrusts of the Agency where
it uses legislation, rules and regulations, or lawsuits to reward, compensate, or
punish guilty parties for damages done. Social justice attempts to bring about a
more just and humane society as a whole, which would put this beyond the scope
of EPA policy. Although EPA policy seems to be strongest in support of procedural
and corrective justice, it is weakest in support of distributive and social justice.
The EPA definition and the taxonomy of definitions, except perhaps for social
justice, take a short-term approach to environmental justice.

Policies to address short-term problems are not the solution. To implement such
policies is like fighting a rear guard action. Therefore, we must be visionary and be
willing to plan for the future or we will blunder into it with all the alphabet soup
of social and environmental problems that have been intensified over the years.
The following definition of environmental justice is more visionary and broader in
scope:

“Environmental justice is those cultural norms and values, rules, regulations,

behaviors policies, and decisions that support sustainable development, so that
people can interact with confidence that their environment is safe, nurturing, and
productive. Environmental justice is served when people can realize their highest
potential, without experiencing the “isms”. Environmental justice is supported by
decent-paying and safe jobs; quality schools and recreation; decent housing and
adequate health care; democratic decision-making and personal empowerment;
and communities free of violence, drugs, and poverty. Environmental justice
communities are where both cultural and biological diversity are respected and
highly revered and where distributive justice prevails”.

This definition makes environmental justice much boarder than the EPA
definition. It is not only concerned about short-term policies, but long-term
policies that will affect people and the communities they live in. It gives a vision of
what an environmentally just community would look like; it reads like a
community of the future. To realize this vision of the future will require us to
develop cities and systems that mimic nature. In nature there is virtually no waste
in that the waste for one life-form becomes the food for another one. Therefore
we must build cities and production systems where the waste from one system
becomes the raw materials for the other. We must build cities that mimic nature
where there will no longer be a need to drill for oil or to mine for coal. Although
systems that mimic nature will go a long way to eliminate sickness, death, and
environmental degradation, such systems fail to address the issue of equity,
justice, and fairness, which are critical to an environmentally just society. Without
equity and fairness there can be no justice.
 4.3. ENVIRONMENTAL DISCRIMINATION-:
Environmental discrimination poses several questions: Are minority communities
and individuals burdened with more than their share of environmental risks in this
country, while enjoying fewer of the benefits of environmental regulation than
others? Is environmental justice policy no different from education, criminal and
civil justice, and a host of other socioeconomic institutions in this country in being
tainted by the broad brush of race and class discrimination? If not, what besides
race and class discrimination could possibly explain these differences in
environmental burdens and benefits? What explains the apparent lack of concern
for the uneven impact of environmental policies and activities in most of the
original federal environmental legislation?

Environmental justice advocates frequently make the argument that minority

populations disproportionally undertake or are subjected to environmentally
hazardous activities because they have few economic alternatives and/or are not
fully aware of the risks involved. A combination of this lack of awareness coupled
with their relative lack of political and economic power makes poor minority
communities a frequent target for environmentally hazardous activities. Those
who question the validity of the impact of environmental racism argue that
environmental issues historically have been less important to minority groups
than more pressing socioeconomic issues such as of lack of education, drug
abuse, crime, unemployment, etc.

Minority under-representation in environmental groups can be viewed as an

extension of these groups' placing environmental injustices low on their list of
priorities. One issue that environmental justice seeks to address is that of
environmental discrimination. Racism and discrimination against minorities
center on a socially-dominant group's belief in its superiority, often resulting in a)
privilege for the dominant group and b) the mistreatment of non-dominant
minorities. The combined impact of these privileges and prejudices are just one of
the potential reasons that waste management and highly-pollutive sites tend to
be located in minority-dominated areas. A disproportionate quantity of minority
communities (for example in Warren County, North Carolina) play host to
landfills, incinerators, and other potentially toxic facilities.
Environmental discrimination has historically been evident in the process of
selecting and building environmentally hazardous sites, including waste
disposal, manufacturing, and energy production facilities. The location of
transportation infrastructures, including highways, ports, and airports, has also
been viewed as a source of environmental injustice. Among the earliest
documentation of environmental racism was a study of the distribution of toxic
waste sites across the United States. Due to the results of that study, waste
dumps and waste incinerators have been the target of environmental justice
lawsuits and protests. Energy production has also been a significant source of
environmental discrimination complaints, with minority, poor, and rural
communities arguably most affected both by energy extraction (such as coal
mining (including mountaintop removal),uranium mining and enrichment, oil
drilling and refining, unconventional oil and gas extraction; and by electricity
production in coal- and gas-fired power plants and nuclear reactors. Alternative
energy sources, including solar, wind, bio-mass, natural gas, and "clean coal",
promise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, reducing the disproportionate
burdens that global climate change will place on poor communities in the U.S. and
the global South. However, they may bring new environmental risks.

One way to grasp the enormity of the issue of environmental injustice is through
studying 'Treatment, Storage and Disposal Facilities', or TSDFs. Before the passage
of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act in the United States, there were
no checks and balances on toxic waste. This legislation, passed in 1976,
authorized the EPA to monitor TSDFs in accordance with new, more
environmentally-friendly standards. Based on information from the EPA's website,
inspectors examine the "use and management of containers, tank systems,
surface impoundments, waste piles, land treatment, landfills, incinerators, drip
pads,[and] miscellaneous other units", as well as making sure that companies are
"complying with air emission standards for process vents, equipment leaks, tanks,
surface impoundments, and containers, in addition to requirements for
containing buildings"
Environmental justice advocates frequently encounter the question, "If I'm not a
minority, why should I care about this?" A common response is that
environmental inequality is bad for the environment, which in turn, is bad for
everyone. James Boyce sums it up this issue in his 2007 report for PERI, of
the University of Massachusetts Amherst:

“By respecting nature's limits and investing in nature's wealth, we can protect
and enhance the environment's ability to sustain human well-being. But how
humans interact with nature is intimately tied to how we interact with each
other. Those who are relatively powerful and wealthy typically gain
disproportionate benefits from the economic activities that degrade the
environment, while those who are relatively powerless and poor typically bear
disproportionate costs. All else equal, wider political and economic inequalities
tend to result in higher levels of environmental harm. For this reason, efforts to
safeguard the natural environment must go hand-in-hand with efforts to
achieve more equitable distributions of power and wealth in human societies.
Globalization – the growing integration of markets and governance worldwide –
today poses new challenges and new opportunities for both of these goals”
4.4. LITIGATION-:
Some of the most successful environmental justice lawsuits are based on
violations of civil rights laws. The first case to use civil rights as a means to legally
challenge the sitting of a waste facility was in 1979, in Bean vs. Southwestern
Waste Management. Attorney Linda McKeever Bullard, the wife of "father of
environmental justice" Robert D. Bullard, represented residents of Houston's
Northwood Manor and successfully opposed the decision of the city and
Browning Ferris Industries to construct a solid waste facility near their mostly
African-American neighborhood.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is often used in lawsuits that claim
environmental inequality. Section 601 prohibits discrimination based on race,
color, or national origin by any government agency receiving federal assistance.
To win an environmental justice case that claims an agency violated this statute,
the plaintiff must prove the agency intended to discriminate. Section 602 requires
agencies to create rules and regulations that uphold section 601. This section is
useful because the plaintiff must only prove that the rule or regulation in question
had a discriminatory impact. There is no need to prove discriminatory intent. Seif
v. Chester Residents Concerned for Quality Living set the precedent that citizens
can sue under section 601. There has not yet been a case in which a citizen has
sued under section 602, which calls into question whether this right of action
exists.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which was used
many times to defend minority rights during the 1960s, has also been used in
numerous environmental justice cases.
4.5. EFFECTED GROUP OF ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE-:
Among the affected groups of Environmental Justice, those in high-poverty and
racial minority groups have the most propensities to receive the harm of
environmental injustice. Poor people account for more than 20% of the human
health impacts from industrial toxic air releases, compared to 12.9% of the
population nationwide. This does not account for the inequity found among
individual minority groups. Some studies that test statistically for effects of race
and ethnicity, while controlling for income and other factors, suggest racial gaps
in exposure that persist across all bands of income
African-Americans are affected by a variety of Environmental Justice issues. One
notorious example is the "Cancer Alley" region of Louisiana. This 85-mile stretch
of the Mississippi River between Baton Rouge and New Orleans is home to 125
companies that produce one quarter of the petrochemical products
manufactured in the United States. The United States Commission on Civil
Rights has concluded that the African-American community has been
disproportionately affected by Cancer Alley as a result of Louisiana's current state
and local permit system for hazardous facilities, as well as their low socio-
economic status and limited political influence
Indigenous groups are often the victims of environmental injustices. Native
Americans have suffered abuses related to uranium mining in the American West.
Churchrock, New Mexico, in Navajo territory was home to the longest continuous
uranium mining in any Navajo land. From 1954 until 1968, the tribe leased land to
mining companies who did not obtain consent from Navajo families or report any
consequences of their activities. Not only did the miners significantly deplete the
limited water supply, but they also contaminated what was left of the Navajo
water supply with uranium. Kerr-McGee and United Nuclear Corporation, the two
largest mining companies, argued that the Federal Water Pollution Control Act did
not apply to them, and maintained that Native American land is not subject to
environmental protections. The courts did not force them to comply with US
clean water regulations until 1980.
The most common example of environmental injustice among Latinos is the
exposure to pesticides faced by farm workers. After DDT and other chlorinated
hydrocarbon pesticides were banned in the United States in 1972, farmers began
using more acutely toxic organophosphate pesticides such as parathion. A large
portion of farm workers in the US are working illegally, and as a result of their
political disadvantage, are not able to protest against regular exposure to
pesticides. Exposure to chemical pesticides in the cotton industry also affects
farmers in India and Uzbekistan. Banned throughout much of the rest of the
world because of the potential threat to human health and the natural
environment, Endosulfan is a highly toxic chemical, the safe use of which cannot
be guaranteed in the many developing countries it is used in. Endosulfan, like
DDT, is an organ chlorine and persists in the environment long after it has killed
the target pests, leaving a deadly legacy for people and wildlife.
Residents of cities along the US-Mexico border are also
affected. Maquiladoras are assembly plants operated by American, Japanese, and
other foreign countries, located along the US-Mexico border. The maquiladoras
use cheap Mexican labor to assemble imported components and raw material,
and then transport finished products back to the United States. Much of the
waste ends up being illegally dumped in sewers, ditches, or in the desert. Along
the Lower Rio Grande Valley, maquiladoras dump their toxic wastes into the river
from which 95 percent of residents obtain their drinking water. In the border
cities of Brownsville, Texas and Matamoros, Mexico, the rate
of anencephaly (babies born without brains) is four times the national average
One reason for toxic industries to concentrate in minority neighborhoods or
poor neighborhoods is because of their lack of political power. Whether it be
lack of homeownership or just because of a general inability to participate
politically, these groups are treated unfairly. This lack of political participation
could indicate why latinos are the most affected by environmental injustice in
the US, since many latinos are illegal immigrants and thus cannot participate in
the political system
States may also see placing toxic facilities near poor neighborhoods as beneficial
from a Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) perspective. Viewing a state's wealth through
the lens of CBA's, it would be more favorable to place a toxic facility near a city
of 20,000 poor people than it would be to place it by a city of 5,000 wealthy
people.
Steel works, blast furnaces, rolling and finishing mills, along with iron and steel
foundries, are responsible for more than 57% of the total human health risks
from industrial pollution this means that if the government wanted to make
major reformative legislation for Environmental Justice, they could easily do so
by targeting these industries
4.6. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE STRATEGY-:
Pursuant to the President’s Executive Order, the EPA developed an
environmental justice strategy aimed at integrating environmental justice into
the Agency’s programs and policies. The stated goal is to ensure that “*n+o
segment of the population, regardless of race, color, national origin, or income,
as a result of the EPA’s policies, programs, and activities, suffers
disproportionately from adverse human health or environmental effects, and all
people live in clean, healthy, and sustainable communities
In accordance with the Executive Order’s emphasis on grassroots community
involvement, the EPA based its strategy on three guiding principles: (1)
environmental justice begins and ends in communities; (2) helping affected
communities gain access to information will enable them to participate
meaningfully in activities; and (3) effective leadership will advance
environmental justice. Following these principles, the EPA developed an
approach focused on establishing common sense standards and procedures for
conducting the Agency’s programs. This “Common Sense” Initiative attempts to
bring together communities, environmentalists, industry, states, tribes, and
others to develop cleaner, cheaper, and smarter solutions to environmental
problems. Along with four other mission topics, the Common Sense Initiative
focuses on “public participation, accountability, partnerships, and
communication with stakeholders.”78 Based on the realization that effective
environmental justice strategies require early involvement by affected
communities and other stakeholders, the Agency will actively seek to
incorporate the expertise of local, affected community members throughout
this process. Foremost among the EPA’s projects to address and remedy
environmental injustice is its Brownfields program. The program is designed to
address the problems associated with abandoned commercial and industrial
properties (known as “brownfields”), which are located overwhelmingly in
minority and poor communities. The EPA hopes this program will: stem the
environmentally damaging and racially divisive phenomenon of urban sprawl
and Greenfields development; focus on problems that are inextricably linked
with environmental justice; allow communities to offer their vision for
redevelopment; apply environmental justice principles to the development of a
new environmental policy; and provide greater awareness of and opportunities
for partnership building between the EPA and affected communities and other
stakeholders. The Brownfields program clearly embodies the Executive Order’s
emphasis on grassroots community involvement.83 By making a concerted
effort to work with community groups, investors, lenders, developers, and other
affected parties, the Brownfields program recognizes that communities directly
affected by a problem or project are imminently qualified to participate in the
decision-making process. By providing services such as training and support for
community groups and technical assistance grants, the Brownfields program
seeks to establish mechanisms to ensure the full and meaningful participation of
all affected parties. By actively seeking community input and involvement, the
Brownfields program, in theory, enables poor and minority communities to
influence the decision-making process; thus, addressing the problem of
powerlessness by providing these disadvantaged communities with a modicum
of political empowerment.
4.7. Environmental Justice Issues
Examples of environmental burdens that may be considered under the umbrella
of environmental justice cover many aspects of community life. These burdens
can include any environmental pollutant, hazard or disadvantage that
compromises the health of a community or its residents. For instance, one of
the environmental justice issues and examples is inadequate access to healthy
food. Certain communities, particularly lower-income or minority communities,
often lack supermarkets or other sources of healthy and affordable foods.
Another issue is inadequate transportation. While public transportation may be
available in urban areas, policies must be monitored to avoid cuts in service and
fare hikes that make it difficult for community residents to pursue employment
or an adequate living standard.
Air and water pollution are major environmental justice issues. Because many
lower-income or minority communities are located near industrial plants or
waste disposal sites, air and water quality can suffer if not properly monitored.
These communities may also contain older and unsafe homes. Older homes are
more likely to have lead-based paint that can chip and finds its way into the dust
and soil surrounding the home, leading to illness. These houses may also be
prone to structural problems, mold or other hazards that put residents at higher
risk of health problems.

4.8. The Future of Environmental Justice

Over the years environmental justice has evolved and gone from resisting and
changing discriminatory practices of sitting polluting facilities in communities of
color and communities of low-income to addressing the impact of global climate
change. Lessons to date from the signs of global warming suggest that we must
divorce ourselves from the fossil fuel economy. People of color and low-income
are disproportionately impacted by the toxins from fossil fuel industries that
poison ambient air quality that lead to toxic-induced and aggravated disease and
general health disparities. People of color and low-income groups are not only
disproportionately impacted by pollutants in the short-term, but will be least able
to protect themselves in a warming climate caused by fossil fuel-induced
greenhouse gases. As global warming takes place, resulting in flooding in some
areas and droughts in others, structural inequalities will become more visible as
millions of people migrate across geo-political boundaries in search of dry land,
food, jobs, and shelter causing regional conflicts and even wars. Tropical diseases
will move north making more people vulnerable to a variety of illnesses.
Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath may be a harbinger of the future, particularly
if we continue along this perilous trend of warming the planet. Global climate
change may be the largest environmental justice crisis of all. To build an
environmentally just society not only calls for a cleaner environment, but it calls
for the eradication of structural inequality which contributes to world terrorism
and world disequilibrium.

4.9. ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY-:

Communities of all sizes, from townships to the national government, establish

laws that govern how individuals acting within the community are to conduct
themselves. The environment is arguably one of the newest considerations to be
decided by and incorporated into the body of the law. The body of law relevant to
the environment includes full dedicated statutes, smaller pieces of larger
legislation, international treaty agreements, and the immense body of regulatory
law, which is promulgated by federal, state, and local agencies. In the 21st
Century, the environment has also become a consideration in all types of laws
from building codes, customs and shipping laws, finance law, and even space law.
This section examines the law (both current laws and the evolving process of
legislation), the agencies that administer and develop the law, and the policies
that influence developing and current law.

Environmental policy refers to the commitment of an organization to the laws,

regulations, and other policy mechanisms concerning environmental
issues and sustainability. These issues generally include air and water pollution,
solid waste management, biodiversity, ecosystem management, maintenance of
biodiversity, the protection of natural resources, wildlife and endangered species.
Policies concerning energy or regulation of toxic substances including pesticides
and many types of industrial waste are part of the topic of environmental policy.
This policy can be deliberately taken to direct and oversee human activities and
thereby prevent harmful effects on the biophysical environment and natural
resources, as well as to make sure that changes in the environment do not have
harmful effects on humans.

It is useful to consider that environmental policy comprises two major

terms: environment and policy. Environment refers to the physical ecosystems,
but can also take into consideration the social dimension (quality of life, health)
and an economic dimension (resource management, biodiversity) Policy can be
defined as a "course of action or principle adopted or proposed by a government,
party, business or individual”. Thus, environmental policy focuses on problems
arising from human impact on the environment, which retroacts onto human
society by having a (negative) impact on human values such as good health or the
'clean and green' environment.

Environmental issues generally addressed by environmental

policy, management, ecosystem management, biodiversity protection, the
protection of natural resources, wildlife and endangered species, and the
preservation of these natural resources for future generations. Relatively
recently, environmental policy has also attended to the communication of
environmental issues

4.10.INSTRUMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY-:

Environmental policy instruments are tools used by governments to implement

their environmental policies. Governments may use a number of different types
of instruments. For example, economic incentives and market-based
instruments such as taxes and tax exemptions, tradable permits, and fees can be
very effective to encourage compliance with environmental policy. Bilateral
agreements between the government and private firms and commitments made
by firms independent of government requirement are examples of voluntary
environmental measures. Another instrument is the implementation of greener
public purchasing programs. Several instruments are sometimes combined in a
policy mix to address a certain environmental problem. Since environmental
issues have many aspects, several policy instruments may be needed to
adequately address each one. Furthermore, a combination of different policies
may give firms greater flexibility in policy compliance and reduce uncertainty as to
the cost of such compliance.

Government policies must be carefully formulated so that the individual measures

do not undermine one another, or create a rigid and cost-ineffective framework.
Overlapping policies result in unnecessary administrative costs, increasing the
cost of implementation. To help governments realize their policy goals,
the OECD Environment Directorate collects data on the efficiency and
consequences of environmental policies implemented by the national
governments. The website, www.economicinstruments.com, provides database
detailing countries' experiences with their environmental policies.

The current reliance on a market-based framework is controversial, however, and

many environmentalists contend that a more radical, overarching approach is
needed than a set of specific initiatives, to deal with the climate change. For
example, energy efficiency measures may actually increase energy consumption
in the absence of a cap on fossil fuel use, as people might drive more fuel-efficient
cars. Thus, Aubrey Meyer calls for a 'framework-based market' of contraction and
convergence. The Cap and Share and the Sky Trust are proposals based on the
idea.

Environmental impact assessments (EIA) are conducted to compare impacts of

various policy alternatives. Moreover, it is assumed that policymakers make
rational decisions based on the merits of the project. Eccleston and March argue
that although policymakers normally have access to reasonably accurate
information, political and economic factors often lead to environmentally
destructive decisions in the long run. The decision-making theory casts doubt on
this premise. Irrational decisions are reached based on unconscious biases,
illogical assumptions, and the desire to avoid ambiguity and uncertainty.
Eccleston identifies and describes five of the most critical environmental policy
issues facing humanity: water scarcity, food scarcity, climate change, the peak oil,
and the population paradox.

4.11.HISTORY OF ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY-:

The 1960s marked the beginning of modern environmental policy making.

Although mainstream America remained oblivious to environmental concerns, the
stage had been set for change by the publication of Rachel Carson's New York
Times bestseller Silent Spring in 1962. Earth Day founder Gaylord Nelson, then a
U.S. Senator from Wisconsin, after witnessing the ravages of the 1969 massive oil
spill in Santa Barbara, California. Administrator Ruckelshaus was confirmed by the
Senate on December 2, 1970, which is the traditional date we use as the birth of
the agency. Five months earlier, in July 1970, President Nixon had signed
Reorganization Plan calling for the establishment of EPA in July 1970. At the time,
Environmental Policy was a bipartisan issue and the efforts of the United States of
America helped spark countries around the world to create environmental
policies. During this period, legislation was passed to regulate pollutants that go
into the air, water tables, and solid waste disposal. President Nixon signed the in
1970 which set the USA as one of the world leaders in environmental
conservation.
In the European Union, the very first Environmental Action Programmed was
adopted by national government representatives in July 1973 during the first
meeting of the Council of Environmental Ministers. Since then an increasingly
dense network of legislation has developed, which now extends to all areas of
environmental protection including air pollution control, water protection and
waste policy but also nature conservation and the control of chemicals,
biotechnology and other industrial risks. EU environmental policy has thus
become a core area of European politics.
Overall organizations are becoming more aware of their environmental risks and
performance requirements. In line with the ISO 14001 standard they are
developing environmental policies suitable for their organization. This statement
outlines environmental performance of the organization as well as its
environmental objectives. Written by top management of the organization they
document a commitment to continuous improvement and complying with legal
and other requirements, such as the environmental policy objectives set by their
governments.
4.12.ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY STUDIES-:

Given the growing need for trained environmental practitioners, graduate

schools throughout the world offer specialized professional degrees in
environmental policy studies. Due to the lack of standard nomenclature,
institutions use varying designations to refer to academic degrees they award.
However, the degrees typically fall in one of four broad categories: master of
arts, master of science, master of public administration, and PhD in
environmental policy. Sometimes, more specific names are used to reflect the
focus of the academic program. For example, the Monterey Institute of
International Studies awards Master of Arts in International Environmental Policy
(MAIEP) to emphasize the international orientation of the curriculum.

4.13.ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION-:
Environmental Action is a practice of protecting the natural environment on
individual, organizational or governmental levels, for the benefit of both the
natural environment and humans. Due to the pressures of population and
technology, the biophysical environment is being degraded, sometimes
permanently. This has been recognized, and governments have begun placing
restraints on activities that cause environmental degradation. Since the 1960s,
activity of environmental movements has created awareness of the
various environmental issues. There is no agreement on the extent of the
environmental impact of human activity, and protection measures are
occasionally criticized.
4.14.APPROACHES TO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTION-:
Voluntary environmental agreements
In industrial countries, voluntary environmental agreements often provide a
platform for companies to be recognized for moving beyond the minimum
regulatory standards and thus support the development of best environmental
practice. In developing countries, such as throughout Latin America, these
agreements are more commonly used to remedy significant levels of non-
compliance with mandatory regulation. The challenges that exist with these
agreements lie in establishing baseline data, targets, monitoring and reporting.
Due to the difficulties inherent in evaluating effectiveness, their use is often
questioned and, indeed, the environment may well be adversely affected as a
result. The key advantage of their use in developing countries is that their use
helps to build environmental management capacity.
Ecosystems approach
An ecosystems approach to resource management and environmental protection
aims to consider the complex interrelationships of an entire ecosystem in decision
making rather than simply responding to specific issues and challenges. Ideally the
decision-making processes under such an approach would be a collaborative
approach to planning and decision making that involves a broad range of
stakeholders across all relevant governmental departments, as well as
representatives of industry, environmental groups and community. This approach
ideally supports a better exchange of information, development of conflict-
resolution strategies and improved regional conservation.

International environmental agreements

Many of the earth’s resources are especially vulnerable because they are
influenced by human impacts across many countries. As a result of this, many
attempts are made by countries to develop agreements that are signed by
multiple governments to prevent damage or manage the impacts of human
activity on natural resources. This can include agreements that impact factors
such as climate, oceans, rivers and air pollution. These international
environmental agreements are sometimes legally binding documents that have
legal implications when they are not followed and, at other times, are more
agreements in principle or are for use as codes of conduct. These agreements
have a long history with some multinational agreements being in place from as
early as 1910 in Europe, America and Africa. Some of the most well-known
multinational agreements include: the Kyoto Protocol, Vienna Convention on the
Protection of the Ozone Layer and Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development.

4.15. GOVERNMENT-:

Discussion concerning environmental action often focuses on the role of

government, legislation, and law enforcement. However, in its broadest sense,
environmental protection may be seen to be the responsibility of all the people
and not simply that of government. Decisions that impact the environment will
ideally involve a broad range of stakeholders including industry, indigenous
groups, and environmental group and community representatives. Gradually,
environmental decision-making processes are evolving to reflect this broad base
of stakeholders and are becoming more collaborative in many countries.

Many constitutions acknowledge the fundamental right to environmental action

and many international treaties acknowledge the right to live in a healthy
environment. Also, many countries have organizations and agencies devoted to
environmental action. There are international environmental action
organizations, as the United Nations Environment Programme.

Although environmental action is not simply the responsibility of government

agencies, most people view these agencies as being of prime importance in
establishing and maintaining basic standards that protect both the environment
and the people interacting with it.

4.16.ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY. Following a decade of growing concern

about pollution, and less than two months after the first Earth Day celebration in
1970, President Richard M. Nixon proposed creating the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Nixon presented the EPA proposal to Congress as a
reorganization plan to consolidate the Federal Water Quality Administration, the
National Air Pollution Control Administration, the Bureau of Solid Waste
Management, and the Bureau of Water Hygiene, along with certain functions of
the Council on Environmental Quality, the Atomic Energy Commission, and
various other agencies into one agency. The primary mission of the new agency
was to research the adverse effects of pollution and to establish and enforce
standards to protect human health and the environment. Congress approved, and
on 2 December 1970, the EPA opened its doors.
Nixon chose thirty-eight-year-old Assistant Attorney General William D.
Ruckelshaus as EPA's first administrator. Dubbed Mr. Clean, Ruckelshaus wasted
no time explaining that the EPA's primary obligation was the protection of the
environment, not the promotion of commerce or agriculture. Under Ruckelshaus,
the EPA first attempted to establish and enforce air quality standards. It also went
after water polluters. Immediately, EPA threatened Cleveland—whose Cuyahoga
River was so polluted that it had recently caught fire—Detroit, and Atlanta with
lawsuits if they did not clean up their waterways. The EPA warned business and
local governments that it would use the power of the courts to enforce the
nation's environmental laws. Initially, however, the agency's authority was limited
because few strong federal environmental laws existed.
4.17.Major Environmental Legislation

The Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA), signed into law only a month before the EPA
began operations, gave the EPA significant new powers to establish and enforce
national air quality standards and to regulate air pollution emitters from
smokestacks to automobiles. To take just one of many examples, under the CAA,
the EPA began phasing out leaded gasoline to reduce the amount of poisonous
lead in the air. The Clean Water Act of 1972 (CWA) did for water what the CAA
had done for air—it gave the agency dramatic new authority to establish and
enforce national clean water standards. Under these laws, the EPA began an
elaborate permitting and monitoring system that propelled the federal
government—welcome or not—into almost every industry in America. The EPA
promised industry a chance to make good faith efforts to implement the new
standards, but warned that federal enforcement actions against violators would
be swift and sure.
The EPA also took quick action under other new environmental laws. The Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act of 1972 (FIFRA) authorized the agency
to regulate a variety of chemicals found in pesticides. Under its authority, the EPA
banned the use of DDT, once viewed as a miracle chemical and sprayed in
neighborhoods across America to stop the spread of malaria by killing
mosquitoes, but later discovered to cause cancer and kill birds. The use of DDT
had driven many avian species, including the bald eagle, to the brink of extinction
and had inspired Rachel Carson to write Silent Spring (1962), which many credit as
the clarion call for the modern environmental movement. In 1974, the passage of
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) supplemented the CWA by granting the EPA
power to regulate the quality of public drinking water.
The EPA's regulatory powers, however, did not stop with air, water, and
pesticides. In 1976, Congress passed the Resource, Conservation, and Recovery
Act (RCRA), which authorized the agency to regulate the production,
transportation, storage, and disposal of hazardous wastes. That same year,
Congress passed the Toxic Substance Control Act (TSCA), authorizing the EPA to
regulate the use of toxic substances. Under TSCA, the EPA, for example, began the
phase out of cancer-causing PCB production and use. The leaking of chemical
containers discovered at Love Canal, New York, in 1978 drew the nation's
attention to the problem of hazardous and toxic wastes already disposed of
unsafely in sites across the country. To address this problem, Congress in 1980
enacted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Recovery Act (CERCLA), which provided a federal Superfund for hazardous waste
cleanup and authorized the EPA to identify contaminated sites and go after those
responsible for the contamination.
4.18.The EPA's Tasks

The Superfund measure was the last major environmental law passed by Congress
during the twentieth century. Although Congress passed other important
environmental legislation after 1980 and added important amendments to
existing laws, CAA, CWA, SDWA, FIFRA, RCRA, TSCA, and CERCLA defined the basic
parameters of EPA's regulatory powers. And the agency has since had its hands
full. For example, each law required the EPA to identify any substance found in
air, water, drinking water, pesticides, buildings, and waste—almost any substance
found in the environment—that might be harmful to human health or the
environment. The EPA then has had to identify how these substances do harm
and at what doses. This has involved scientific investigation of gargantuan
proportions, and the EPA is far from finished with the process.
The environmental laws have also required the EPA to determine threshold levels
of regulation, another colossal task, and one that has involved more than just
science. Often without much guidance from Congress, the agency has had to
make difficult decisions about acceptable risks. Is a single death in one million
acceptable? One in 100,000? One in 10,000? Despite its mission, politics and
reality have dictated that economics play an important part in the EPA's
regulatory scheme. Some substances are harmful at any level, but banning them
entirely would cause catastrophic economic disaster, and in some cases would
require devolutionary, and generally unacceptable, changes in the structure of
modern society. The EPA's science, therefore, has always been tempered by
economic and political reality.
4.19.Expanding Authority
That said, the EPA's regulatory role continued to grow during the 1980s, despite
the conservative administrations of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush.
Following a nuclear accident at Three Mile Island in 1979, the EPA began to
monitor nuclear waste and fallout (though other agencies have the primary
power to regulate nuclear waste). Hazardous waste leaks at Times Beach,
Missouri, in 1982 accelerated the EPA's regulation of dioxins. A year later, cleanup
action of the Chesapeake Bay prompted the agency to begin regulating pollution
from so-called "non-point" sources, primarily urban and agricultural runoff. In
1985, scientists discovered a hole in the earth's ozone layer, and after the signing
of the Montreal Protocol two years later, the EPA began regulating the phase out
of ozone-depleting chlorofluorocarbons. In 1989, theExxon Valdez spilled eleven
million gallons of crude oil in Alaska's Prince William Sound. The EPA fined the
Exxon Corporation $1 billion, the largest criminal environmental damage
settlement in history.
During the 1990s, the EPA continued its attempt to fulfill its obligations under
existing laws, and responded to the requirements of new laws and to the
exigencies of environmental disaster and scientific discovery. The Pollution
Prevention Act of 1990 forced the EPA to focus on the prevention—not just the
correction—of environmental damage. In 1991, the agency created a voluntary
industry partnership for energy efficient lighting and for reducing toxic chemical
emissions, and a year later the agency began the Energy Star program to help
consumers identify energy efficient products. In 1994, President William Clinton
ordered the EPA to make environmental justice part of its mission, meaning that
it would have to be certain that its regulations did not have a disparate impact on
minority and low-income groups. On an old front, the EPA launched new
initiatives, battling secondhand smoke in the name of indoor air pollution and
creating a market-based permit trading program to reduce the sulfur dioxide
emissions that cause acid rain. By the end of the decade, it faced many new
challenges, including a rapidly depleting ozone layer and global warming.
By the year 2000, the EPA had become the federal government's largest
regulatory agency. It wielded a budget of nearly $8 billion and employed more
than eighteen thousand people. Its ever-growing number of rules had cost the
regulated community $180 billion at the twentieth century's end. The EPA's
growth earned the agency many enemies in industry and among conservative
politicians. It has even clashed with traditionally liberal political interests, like
labor unions that fear environmental regulations will cost jobs and minority
groups who resent the fact that too often environmental regulation has meant
locating polluting industries and hazardous waste sites in low-income,
predominantly minority communities, which have little political clout. The EPA
has also received almost unending criticism from environmental groups, which
believe that it has not done enough.

4.20.Model Questions:
1. What are the global challenges related to environment?
2. What is Environmental Justice?
3. Discuss Environmental Discrimination.
4. What are the major issues of environmental justice?
5. Discuss the major instruments of environmental policy.
6. Explain the history of environmental policy.
7. Discuss the major environmental legislation.
8. Explain the different approaches to environmental action.