The term “deep ecology” comes up regularly. It is part of the fully open debate on whether ecology should be radical or not in order to prevent climate change. However, the use of the term is often vague and does not allow for a constructive debate. In this article, we dive deep into the concept of deep ecology, from its origins to the reasons for the many criticisms that undermine this still modern-thinking theory.

—

The Foundations of Deep Ecology

Deep ecology is first of all the fruit of the reflection of an atypical character, Arne Naess. After studying in the capital of Oslo, the Norwegian philosopher decided to return to live as close as possible to nature in an isolated chalet on a mountain.

Naess was moved in 1962 by Rachel Carson’s book “Silent Spring” on the harmful effects of pesticides. Then, a philosopher of science and language, he turned to the importance of the environment and the study of Spinoza and Gandhi’s writings, both of which underlined the importance for man to remain connected to nature.

Far from the world, he will only gain worldwide notoriety years later, thanks to the 1973 article “The shallow and the deep, long‐range ecology movement. A summary”. The piece criticises “shallow ecology”, which he describes as a mainstream pro-environment approach limited to wanting to change the consequences of climate change, rather than going back to the causes behind it, mainly human activities. Deeply anthropocentric, shallow ecology would be a vain attempt to keep humans, especially those in developed countries, almighty over nature, with minimal adjustments in order to preserve life on earth.

Arne Naess offers another approach. He focuses on the concept of “deep ecology”. According to Naess, humans are only part of nature and as such cannot see their needs supersede the general environmental balance. The only way to prevent climate change is a total switch  in the human way of life and a drastic reduction in population.

About ten years later, in 1984, Naess and fellow author George Sessions published a short dispatch containing the eight main fundamental values of deep ecology:

1. Inherent value: All things, human and non-human, have value.
2. Diversity: Richness and diversity of life forms contribute to the realisation of these values and are also values in themselves.
3. Vital Needs: Humans have no right to reduce this richness and diversity except to satisfy vital needs.
4. Population: The flourishing of human life and cultures is compatible with a substantial decrease in human population. The flourishing of non-human life requires such a decrease.
5. Human Interference: The present human interference with the non-human world is excessive, and the situation is rapidly worsening.
6. Policy Change: Policies must therefore be changed.
7. Quality of Life: The ideological change is mainly that of appreciating life quality rather than adhering to an increasingly higher standard of living.
8. Obligation of Action: Those who subscribe to the foregoing points have an obligation directly or indirectly to try to implement the necessary changes.

A Heavily Criticised Theory

With Spinoza, Gandhi or Carson seen as spiritual fathers and praised by millions of people for their theories and values, it is surprising to see how much deep ecology is decried today.

Early on, like any political theory, Naess’ was challenged by seemingly intelligible arguments. The current of feminist ecology has criticised it for regarding humans as being the ones responsible for climate change, without pointing out the greater responsibility of men. Social ecologists, on the other hand, have criticised the absence of acknowledgement of the responsibility of the highest social classes. Authors have also denounced a form of pantheism in deep ecology, in other words, a religious veneration of nature.

However, far from these constructive criticisms, deep ecology is mostly criticised by association with other currents of thought which claim to be based on it. Deep ecology is unfairly associated with two currents of thought close to ultra-conservative circles – “ecofascism” and “integral ecology”.

Ecofascism is a relatively new trend that has manifested itself following the 2019 attack in Christchurch, New Zealand and the shooting in El Paso, Texas. The first massacre was a terrorist attack on two mosques, where 51 people lost their lives, while the latter involved a 21-year-old man who killed 23 people and injured 22 others at a Walmart store. The two perpetrators of the attacks had justified their actions with a reasoning that the environment is in danger due to overpopulation, and non-Western populations are responsible for the situation the world find itself in.

Regardless of the horror that ecofascism represents, its connection to deep ecology makes no sense. The only attempt to link the two together, is by claiming that deep ecology is promoting radical actions. Nevertheless, far from ecofascism and even eco-terrorism, deep ecology has as one of its foundations the thought of Gandhi, a well-known believer in nonviolence. Moreover, if the “obligation of action” is part of the deep ecology’s principles, those actions are in no way necessarily violent. The nauseating association that is made between eco-fascism and deep ecology looks like an easy way to try to discredit radical heterodox thoughts.

Just as unsubtly, deep ecology is often compared to integral ecology. If this name is less dubious than the one of eco-fascism, it is nevertheless somewhat problematic. Integral ecology comes from a radical conservative background, influenced especially by Catholics. Integral ecology is notably an attempt to bring a Catholic vision of sustainable development. This is for instance what Pope Francis’s Laudato si’ encyclical attempted to do in 2015. It emphasises the importance of the relationship between man and nature, which indeed brings it closer to deep ecology, but is part of the classic vision of Catholicism according to which men are masters of creation. Deep ecology professes the equality of species and does not adhere to any monotheistic religion.

An Up-To-Date Theory to Keep In Mind When Considering Radical Ecologism

Far from easy attempts to discredit deep ecology and from necessarily subscribing to its thinking, deep ecology is a topical theory. At a time when the quest for a radicalism that does not degenerate into uncontrolled violence arises, deep ecology is rich in lessons. Its concepts, whether it be the relation to nature, the questioning of anthropocentrism or its anti-speciesism, are all avenues of reflection for a successful ecological transition.

The existence of particularly radical ecological currents, claiming to be deep ecology, should not cast a veil over this whole theory. Deep ecology is above all a family of reflection whose principles are so broad that it is destined to have many sub-currents of thoughts.

For example, a movement referring to the deep ecology is that of Les Knight who created in 1991 the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement, which promotes the end of the human race by stopping procreation. This is only a subgroup of deep ecology and cannot essentialise or discredit all of a thought claiming for a radicalism deemed necessary in order to change our system in time.

You might also like: World Population Hits 8 Billion: What Now?

The post Deep Ecology: An Often Misunderstood Theory appeared first on Earth.Org.

While discussions about the climate crisis continue to dominate international headlines, the Ministry of Ecology is rather discreet, and public expectations about them seem quite low. The situation is completely different vis-à-vis Ministries such as those of the Economy, Defense or Agriculture depending on the country, as everything they do is highly scrutinised. Due to its crucial mission, it is time to do the same with the Ministry of Ecology.

—

Defining the Ministry of Ecology

The name of the Ministry of Ecology inspires a mixture of sympathy and great responsibility. Instinctively, this institution and its Minister are imagined as being fervent defenders of the climate cause. However, more or less recent political events have already proved the opposite.

In September 2016, Donald Trump’s appointment of Myron Ebell as head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) – the equivalent of the Ministry of Ecology in the United States – sparked a huge backlash around the world. Ebell, a long-time lobbyist for the energy industries, is well known for his continues attempts to lessen the gravity of climate change and minimising the detrimental impacts of human activities on our planet. In his words, he questions “global warming alarmism” and opposes energy-rationing policies. 

This event is not isolated. In January 2023, Albert Rösti, former head of the SwissOil, an association that strives to defend the interests of fossil fuel companies, became Switzerland’s Minister of Ecology.

These examples illustrate how much a Minister of Ecology is not necessarily the best ally of ecology. It may, in some cases, even be his own worst enemy. These types of tragicomic situations urge us to reflect on what these ministries’ prerogatives truly are. Concretely, what can a Ministry of Ecology do? 

The answer to this question is not straight-forward and a general vagueness surrounds it. This imprecision is felt in the very name of this Ministry. Depending on the country, the context, the government or the era, the Ministries of Ecology invariably change qualification in their official name: “Ministry of the Environment”, “Ministry of Ecology”, “Ministry of Sustainable Development”, “Ministry of Sustainable Energies”, etc. Do these differences in names imply differences in capacities and importance for these institutions?

A first element of response is that changes in the names of ministries happen frequently. Unfortunately, this is mainly a characteristic feature of smaller ministries. The sovereign domains of the State are generally gathered in a few Ministries known to all. History has sometimes even given them a particular name. We will thus speak of the “Chancellor of the Exchequer” to refer to the Minister of Finance in the United Kingdom or even of the “Secretary of State” for the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the United States. Their names inevitably reflect their political weight, their special place and seniority.

The hesitations on the contours of the Ministry of Ecology, even in its name, refer to its young existence and its fragility. However, at a time when the environmental issue is a priority simply because it conditions the continuity of life on Earth as we know it, it is up to us to clarify this in order to effectively combat climate change.

The Creation of the “Ministry of the XXI Century”

The creation of a Ministry of Ecology is the fruit of a decade, that of the 1960s, during which the subject of the environment gained traction. At first, it did so by being embedded in the anti-war and civil rights movements. Significant events will strike the spirits, whether it is Rachel Carson’s 1962 book Silent Spring, which is addressing the risks of pesticides for the first time, or the infamous first oil spill following the grounding of the oil tanker Torrey Canyon off the coast of the United Kingdom in 1967.

This popular and intellectual effervescence will result in a pivotal year: 1970. 

In Europe, the Council of Europe called it the “Conservation year”. This translated into an important meeting that took place in France in February 1970, bringing together all the member countries of the Council. On April 22, 1970, demonstrations took place in the US following a series of oil spills and emerging public consciousness about air and water pollution, giving rise to largest secular observance in the world: Earth Day. The pressure worked. In October 1970, the UK appointed Peter Walker as the country’s first Minister of the Environment. The US followed with the creation of the EPA in December. France did the same in January 1971.

The 1970s will consolidate the ecological cause mainly due to the multiplication of environmental disasters. In this regard, we can cite the 1976 Seveso disaster, the explosion of a small chemical plant located approximately 20 kilometres north of Milan, Italy that resulted in a leak of a large cloud of pesticide which killed thousands of farm animals. In 1978 a second oil spill occurred off the French coast with the grounding of the Amoco Cadiz. In 1979, in a prelude to Chernobyl’s nuclear disaster seven years later, the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania melted, resulting in the release of a significant amount of radioactivity into the air.

Despite growing awareness of the environmental impacts of these accidents, the contours of this new Ministry remained unclear for a long time.

The Ministry of Ecology Comes in All Shapes and Sizes 

The competences of a Ministry of Ecology can vary in proportions that are difficult to imagine. The best way to illustrate this is by looking at ministries in two different continents, which bear an almost identical name. 

In 1980, India instituted the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, which is responsible for protecting the environment, conserving the country’s natural resources, ensuring animal welfare, fighting against deforestation, and preventing the risk of pollution. Nine years prior, Canada instituted a Ministry of Environment and Climate Change which, however, has somewhat different goals: clean growth and fighting against climate change, preventing pollution, conserving nature, predicting weather and environmental conditions.

To simplify, the Ministries of Ecology can have three main categories of attributions. The first is to preserve the environment. This mainly entails the fight against deforestation and pollution of aquatic environments as well as the degradation of the richness of the soil or air pollution. A second axis is related to climate change and it is all about a clean economy. The last point is research. Ministries such as those in Canada or the US play an important role in collecting data on these subjects.

The choice to prioritise one axis over another is eminently political. The dichotomy between environmental conservation and action against climate change is found in the very names of these entities. What differentiates the Ministries of India and Canada is that one is more focussed on the environment, while the other supports the dimension of climate change. Consequently, at the same level as the competences of these Ministries can vary, their names matter. A particularly influential Ministry for the ecological cause would naturally be called a Ministry of Sustainable Development.

Sustainable Development As the Strong Arm of an Omnipotent Ministry

This is where things get complicated. These Ministries relate to sustainable development. But what exactly is that? 

The term dates back to the 1960s with the work of the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). However, the term was not popularised until 1987 with the famous Brundtland report of the World Commission on Environment and Development of the United Nations and the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro.

The concept of sustainable development has since evolved further. In 1972, a report by the Club of Rome, a think tank historically linked to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), introduced the idea that there is a danger of infinite growth in a finite world. In 1979, the economist René Passé conceptualised this idea with the theory of the three spheres. He explains that for years, for the sake of meeting basic needs, governments around the world have prioritised the economic sphere. However, this sphere is highly interconnected to a second one, the social sphere. The development of the economy puts pressure on the latter. For Passé, a third sphere – the environmental sphere – has long been forgotten. This third dimension is under pressure from the socio-economic developments of societies. 

Passé’s work has since been redesigned in order to establish the commonly accepted definition of sustainable development. Sustainable Development is the intersection of the three aforementioned spheres: environment, economy and social. It is only by combining these three areas with contradictory objectives that we achieve sustainability within a society.

This is the essence of ecology and the exceptional potential of its Ministries: they are intended to have competence or at least a say on all societal and therefore governmental subjects. Their ability to fulfil this mission depends on the political power assigned to them.

A Ministry Plunged in the Political Arena

The Ministries live and die according to their political weight. This is why the Ministry of Ecology needs to impose its priorities in relation to other Ministries such as those of the Economy, Finance, or Agriculture.

However, there is no doubt that the Ministries of Ecology are generally not very influential. When we consider their protocol rank in most of the Governments of our world, they are generally second class: 12th ministry in Germany, 11th in France, 27th in Canada, 15th in the United Kingdom, 23rd in Indonesia. A counter-example is Spain, where the Third Vice-President of the Government is in charge of Ecological Transition.

The low political weight is also confirmed when we consider that being a Minister of Ecology is not a stepping stone towards becoming Head of State. Since 1970, the ten leading economic powers in the world (United States, China, Japan, Germany, India, United Kingdom, France, Canada, Italy and Brazil) combined have had a total of 132 heads of state. Of these, only two had previously covered the role of Ministers of Ecology: Angela Merkel in Germany and Liz Truss in the UK.

Aside from complicating its task of imposing its decisions, the political weakness of the Ministry of Ecology inevitably also limits its ability to demand a budget commensurate to its task.

To break this circle, it is imperative to have higher standards for our Ministries of Ecology. In order for them to be influential, they must get more of a political role, clear functions and an ability to express themselves in all areas relating to sustainable development. This is the only way to promote such a critical institution in times of ecological crisis.

Featured image by David Mark on Pixabay.

You might also like: 5 World Leaders Damaging the Environment

The post The Ministry of Ecology, Explained appeared first on Earth.Org.

The US Department of Agriculture has conditionally approved the first vaccine for honeybees in history. The new vaccine protects bees from a deadly disease known as the “American Foulbrood”. The news comes at a critical time when environmental degradation caused by encroaching climate change is threatening bees and other insect pollinators who are essential for the health of people and the planet.

—

The First Vaccine for Honeybees

Developing a vaccine for insects is no easy task and the difficulties lie in their immune system, which is quite different from the ones of mammals. For the latter, vaccine solutions work thanks to their ability to produce new antibodies. Insects, however, do not have an “immune memory” capable of recording information against a disease and reproducing it in the future.

In the early 2010s, two Finnish scientists, Heli Salmela and Dalial Freitak, began working on a scientific solution to this – so far insoluble – insect vaccine problem. After studying how diseases affect bees, the team developed a better understanding of how their immune memory works. Indeed, there is a possibility, through the queen of the hive, to transmit immunity against a disease to its offspring. The vaccine is inserted into the food brought back by the worker bees. In turn, the latter will transmit it to the royal jelly which is reserved for the hive’s queen. Once ingested, the queen will pass along the vaccine to all larvae and future bees.

Now the ball is in the hands of US-based start-up Dalan Animal Health. The company, co-founded by Freitak, was granted permission from the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to market the vaccine for the next two years. According to the terms of the authorisation, the distribution must be limited in quantity to commercial beekeepers. Once the two-year period is over, the USDA will evaluate the results of the vaccine and could then give it a full right to commercialisation without restraints. 

“Our vaccine is a breakthrough in protecting honeybees. […] We are ready to change how we care for insects,” said Annette Kleiser, CEO of Dalan Animal Health. 

Is This the End of the Deadly Disease?

The American Foulbrood is a well-known and much feared disease among beekeepers worldwide. Indeed, the disease has many dreadful particularities. It is extremely contagious while slowly destroying all life in a hive and it is quite difficult to detect quickly enough to act upon it.

The American Foulbrood kill cycle has a pattern. As a spore, the disease is brought back into the hive by worker bees, where it rapidly spreads among larvae, killing most of them. The spore will then continue to spread in the hive as the corpses of the larvae attempt to be evacuated by the bees. Once all the inhabitants of the hive are infected by the disease, they will slowly be weakened until they all die. The destruction does not stop here as the disease often spreads to surrounding hives, either through other bees or through the tools used by beekeepers that move from one hive to another.

Until now, few solutions existed. At an early stage of the disease, beekeepers could try to use antibiotics in the hope that they would not be resistant to it. This had a low success rate. However, the best solution was often to set the hive on fire in order to prevent the disease from spreading further.

Why Do Pollinators Matter? 

Bees are pollinators. In other words, these small insects actively participate in the fertilisation and therefore the reproduction of flowering plants. Pollinating insects, including beetles, butterflies, flies, and of course bees, are responsible for 75% of the reproduction of flowering plants and thus play a crucial role in food production and ecosystem preservation.

Despite their importance, human activities such as the use of pesticides and deforestation as well as climate change are compromising their existence. The Colony Collapse Disorder (CCD) is a term used to designate the abnormally high mortality of these insects since 1998 in Europe and 2006 in the United States. This has led to the disappearance of one species of bees out of four worldwide since the 1990s.

The consequences of this disaster for biodiversity are constantly pointed out by scientists. For example, experts warned that larger species of bees are disappearing to make way for the smaller ones. Smaller bees show greater adaptability to global temperature changes. This is also the reason why many European species of bees migrate north to new ecosystems in order to avoid rising temperatures. The abandonment of their old environment will have consequences which are, for now, difficult to fully assess. 

In this context, the creation of a vaccine for honeybees is a major turning point for their protection and paves the way for new solutions to protect all pollinators and insects. 

 You might also like: How Climate Change Is Threatening Honey Bees and Other Endangered Bee Species

The post Scientists Develop World’s First Vaccine for Honeybees to Protect Pollinators From Deadly Disease appeared first on Earth.Org.

On December 6, 2022, the European Union took an important step in the fight against global deforestation. On this date, a political agreement between the European Council and the European Parliament for the upcoming adoption of a law that would tackle the issue was announced.

—

The New EU Law to Fight Global Deforestation

Just days before the start of COP15, the UN conference on biodiversity, the European Union announced a new law to fight global deforestation as part of the Green Deal, an ambitious package of measures to meet the EU climate change goals of cutting at least 55% of greenhouse gas emissions from 1990 levels by 2030 and reaching net-zero by 2050. 

Despite still not being formally adopted, the new bill will make sure that the EU keeps track of where the products commercialised on its territory are coming from and prohibit the ones contributing to deforestation.  

In practice, the bloc will produce two lists that will be regularly updated according to needs and trends. The first list will contain products known to be especially at risk of contributing to deforestation, including palm oil, cattle, soy, coffee, cocoa, wood, and rubber. The second list will focus on identifying the countries where deforestation is most severe in the world. Based on these lists, it will be up to private companies involved in importing products into European territory to prove that these did not contribute to deforestation that took place after December 31, 2020. They will also have to prove that the products are legal, meaning they comply with relevant laws imposed by the country they were produced in.

The new law sets “strong mandatory due diligence rules for companies that want to place relevant products on the EU market or export them,” the European Commission explained in a statement. 

From the moment when the text is formally adopted, companies have 18 months to comply with the new rules. After this deadline, if a European company fails in its obligation, it will be up to the country it is based in to hold it accountable for its actions.

With the new legislation in place – which is yet another step forward in the bloc’s race to climate neutrality by 2050 – European products that respect these standards will be labeled as “zero deforestation products.”

Since 1990, 420 million hectares of forest have been lost as a result of human activity including land clearing for agricultural farming and logging

You might also like: 10 Deforestation Facts You Should Know About

The EU’s announcement is undoubtedly good news. However, the process of formally adopting the new legislation can be very long. 

The law has already been years in the making. The debate began in 2013 when the European Commission commissioned a report on the impact of global trade on deforestation, which revealed a very alarming situation. It was pointed out that European texts on the subject were contradictory between a need to promote the economy and to safeguard the climate. What’s worse, the strategy to fight deforestation at the time was centreed on bilateral negotiations with states outside the European Union, which was not bearing fruit. Finally, the technical report emphasised how the European Union cannot limit its actions against deforestation to its own territory but must act with international interests in mind.

The legislative process was only launched in 2019 and a year later, the European Parliament and European Council presented their “settlement proposal”. The political agreement announced last month guarantees the existence of its texts, some details of which may be further refined at the time of its formal adoption in 2024.

How Commercial Imports Are Harming World’s Forests 

The agreement announced by the European Union comes at a time when deforestation is increasingly scrutinised. According to a 2020 report by the French Economic, Social and Environmental Council, deforestation has been a worrying phenomenon since the 1990s but has dangerously accelerated since 2018 due to demographic pressure. Each year, the world has been chopping down an average of 10 million hectares of trees to make space to grow crops and livestock, and to produce materials such as paper. This accounts for about 16% of total tree loss cover. 

Deforestation has many consequences, including biodiversity loss, climate, and ecosystem disruption as well as impacts on Indigenous communities.

You might also like: How Does Deforestation Affect the Environment?

According to a 2021 publication by World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the European Union is greatly responsible for world deforestation because of its importation of products, including soybeans, palm oil, and beef marketed in Europe but coming from abroad. In order to access these resources, gigantic patches of forests are cut down in their countries of origin.  The European Union is responsible for 16% of it, followed by India (9%), the United States (7%), and Japan (5%). Only China is worse with 24%. WWF also points out that Europe’s five largest European economies (Germany, France, the United Kingdom before Brexit, Italy, and Spain) are the ones most responsible for this situation. 

Despite making significant strides in the fight against global deforestation in recent years, the report still concludes that the 27-bloc’s efforts are still insufficient in relation to the dangerousness of the phenomenon. While there are a number of texts that condemn deforestation, they are primarily soft laws, i.e. rules to which a state commits but is not legally binding. Hence, those texts hardly put enough pressure on a country to act. The only way to minimise the impact of European imports on forests is to pass binding legislation, just like the one announced in December. 

Several international organisations and NGOs have reacted to the political agreement by welcoming the initiative.

“This is a major breakthrough for forests and for the people who stood up to protect them.” said Greenpeace EU spokesperson John Hyland. But despite celebrating the fact that the law “will make some chainsaws fall silent and stop companies profiting from deforestation,” he added that there are still two dangerous limitations to the text. First, the European Union is still not taking nearly enough into account the rights and the situation of Indigenous people affected by deforestation. Second, the definition of the term “forest degradation” is too loose because of intense lobbying. This, Hyland argues, will allow for many forms of deforestation to continue without being covered by this law.

You might also like: Solutions to Deforestation: Indigenous Communities as Gatekeepers of a Greener Society

The post The EU’s Game-Changing Law to Fight Global Deforestation appeared first on Earth.Org.