INTERNATIONAL SOCIETYFOR ENVIRONMENTAL … California’s Water Politics ... Danny Shahar...

1 ISEE Newsletter Fall 2015

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS NEWSLETTER

VOLUME 25, NUMBER 3FALL 2015ISSN 82248250

ADVANCING THE FIELD OFENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS AND

PHILOSOPHY SINCE 1990

PRESIDENTPHIL CAFARO

VICE-PRESIDENTBENJAMIN HALE

SECRETARYWILLIAM GROVE-FANNING

TREASURERALLEN THOMPSON

NEWSLETTER EDITORMATT FERKANY

WEBSITE MANAGERALINE RAMOS

2ISEE Newsletter Fall 2015

IN THIS ISSUE

General announcements 3

Article: What will Catholics do now about 6climate change?

New publications: Books 10

New publications: Non-philosophy 13journals

ISEE business 18

GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTS



REPORT FROM THE PRESIDENT ON THE 12THANNUAL CONFERENCE IN KIEL, GERMANY

The 12th annual conference of theInternational Society for Environmental Ethicswas held July 22nd to July 25th in Kiel,Germany, at the ChristianAlbrechtsUniversitat. Hosted by Konrad Ott and a crackteam of organizers from CAU, this year’sconference was titled “Environmental Ethicsbetween Action and Reflection.” 160 scholarsparticipated, from six continents and as faraway as South Africa and New Zealand,making this the largest ISEE conference yet.

Papers given covered a full range of issueswithin environmental ethics, from differentiatedresponsibilities to mitigate global climatechange to the ethics of deextinction.Compared to previous years, participantsseemed more critical of mainstream economicapproaches to environmental problems.Keynote speakers included Clare Palmer(Texas A&M University) on “Staying in PlaceWhile the Climate Changes: FacilitatedAdaptation and the Wildness of Wild Animals,”Thomas Potthast (Tübingen University) with anecological talk titled “Biocoenosis or LivingCommunity,” Darrel Moellendorf (GoetheUniversity Frankfurt) on “Poverty andDangerous Climate Change,” and Alan Warde(University of Manchester) on “SustainableConsumption: Practices, Habits and Politics.”The full program can be found here.

In addition to the scholarly talks and paneldiscussions, conference participants enjoyedhalfday excursions to nearby Geltinger Birkand the Dosenmoor, one of the last healthybogs left in the area, and a full day trip toWadden See National Park on the North Seacoast. There was also a lovely conferencedinner at the Forstbaumschule, a biergarten inan urban forest. All in all, the conference was agreat success, thanks to all the good work putin by Konrad, Lieske, Christian, Gunda and the

gang in organizing it. Next year’s will be atPace University in New York City, June 29th toJuly 2nd. Hope to see you there!

Phil Cafaro, outgoing ISEE President


ISEE SESSIONS AT THE AMERICAN

PHILOSOPHICAL ASSOCIATION (APA) 2016

ISEE is planning an excellent slate of groupsessions for next year's meetings of theEastern, Central, and Pacific APA. The Easternand Central sessions below are confirmed andthe Pacific sessions are planned but notconfirmed.

AT THE EASTERN APA

January 6th to 9th

Washington Marriott Wardman ParkWashington, District of Columbia

Wednesday, January 6: 3:00–6:00 p.m.

Rebekah Spera (Emory University) “A Historyof California’s Water Politics”

David M. Pena Guzman (Emory University)“The Ethical Challenges Posed by the CrisisToday”

Jessica Locke (Emory University) “The Crisis ina Global Context”

Friday, January 8: 11:15 a.m.–1:15 p.m.

Justin Donhauser (University at Buffalo–SUNY)“The Value of Weather Event Attribution forAdaptation DecisionMaking and the Shape ofthe UNFCCC Policy Framework GoingForward”

Danny Shahar (University of Arizona) “A Tale ofTwo Systems”

Ian Smith (Washburn University) “Why DeExtinction Is Not Possible”

AT THE CENTRAL APA

March 2nd to 5th

Palmer House HiltonChicago, Illinois

Dates and times still to be determined.

Session I (2 hours)

ISSUES IN CLIMATE JUSTICE

"Climate Change and IntrinsicDeontologicalTheories of Human Rights", C

"Geoengineering: A Neocolonial Discourse",Thomas E. Randall, Sir Sandford FlemingCollege

"Understanding Collective Guilt and Shameabout Climate Change: One Step towardRestorative Climate Justice", Sarah E.Fredericks, University of Chicago DivinitySchool

Session II (3 hours)

"NATURE" AND DELIBERATIVE DISCOURSE

"Assessing the Critique of the Appeal to'Nature' in Environmental Ethics", J. MichaelScoville, Eastern Michigan University

"The Environment as a Public Good:Information and Citizen Participation", M.Teresa La Valle, Universidad Tres de Febrero

DAOISM AND ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

"Beyond Corporate Social Responsibility:Chinese Daoism and its Contribution toEnvironmental Ethics", Alicia Henning, HarbinInstitute of Technology

"Harnessing the Power of Nature: Heidegger,Daoism, and Sustainable Energy", ChristopherK. Tong, Washington University in St. Louis


AT THE PACIFIC APA*

March 30th to April 3rd

The Westin St. FrancisSan Francisco, California

*These proposed sessions are subject tochange.

Session 1

Session Chair: Geoffrey Frasz (College ofSouthern Nevada)

“Enhancing Welfare Without Welfarism: AnIntegrated Approach to Climate Justice,” IdilBoran (York University)

Commentator: Avram Hiller (Portland StateUniversity)

“Does Individual Responsibility Matter for aHuman RightsBased Approach to ClimateChange?,” Corey Katz (Saint Louis UniversityCorey Katz)

Commentator: Lorraine Code (York University)

“'Chemicals Compatible With Life': Science,Ethics, and Precaution's Outer Limits inDeployment of New Synthetic Compounds,”Amy Knisley (Warren Wilson College)

Commentator: Chris Cuomo (University ofGeorgia)

“Caring for Novel Ecosystems,” AndreaGammon (Radboud University)

Commentator: Mark Woods (University of SanDiego)

Session 2

Session chair: Chris Cuomo (University ofGeorgia)

“Challenges of Narrative Construction in Nonanthropocentric Environmental Ethics, or,Should I Become a Druid?,” Loren Canon(Humboldt State University)

Commentator: Brian Treanor (LoyolaMarymount University)

“How Should We Tell the Story of SpeciesExtinction?,” Philip Cafaro (Colorado StateUniversity)

Commentator: Brian Treanor (LoyolaMarymount University)

“Ethical Imperatives in Pope Francis’ LaudatoSi’ and Beyond: Similarities with SecularEnvironmental Ethics,” Jame Schaefer(Marquette University)

Commentator: Corey Katz (Saint LouisUniversity Corey Katz)

“Rethinking Aldo Leopold’s Land CommunityConcept,” Roberta Millstein (University ofCalifornia/Davis)

Commentator: Geoffrey Frasz (College ofSouthern Nevada)



ARTICLE

What will Catholics do now aboutclimate change? A discussion of thesignificance and probable impact ofLaudato Se with Gretel Van Wieren

Gretel Van Wieren is Assistant Professor ofReligious Studies at Michigan State University.Her work focuses on religion, ethics, and theenvironment and she is author of the book,Restored to Earth: Christianity, EnvironmentalEthics, and Ecological Restoration(Georgetown University Press, 2013). I spokewith Gretel in September about whether PopeFrancis' recent encyclical (a) really marks asea change in Catholic thinking and whether(b) it is likely to have much impact on theenvironmental values of Catholics and (c) otherChristians. The short answer is “yes and no,”“maybe but not clearly” and “more likely.” Findout why below.

Ferkany: So we have this new, big event in theworld of faith and environmental ethics, thisencyclical. I'm wondering what's new here. As Ilooked at the document, I saw a lot of noddingto previous statements by previous popes onthe importance of relationship to the naturalenvironment and having a stewardlyrelationship. What's going on here that'sinteresting and new? What's consistent?What's come before? So far as you know,what's quite different?

Van Wieren: Encyclicals have to do this to acertain extent in terms of listing the continuitywith the tradition. Pope Francis does mentionvarious popes that have promoted a sense ofreligious ecology. Pope Paul VI, Pope JohnPaul II who, of course, called Francis thepatron saint for those who promote ecology,sounding similar to Lynn White, Jr. in hisfamous 1967 essay in Science. But thenFrancis also cites the leader of the EasternOrthodox Church, Patriarch Bartholomew, whohas called ecological destruction a sin.

I'm not sure what's entirely new if anythingabout the encyclical, although I do think someaspects are distinctive. Francis advance a

very harsh critique of industrial capitalism andglobal socioeconomic inequity, for example. Ithink the wedding of this critique with climatechange is distinctive. Also, he calls forconcrete political actions, noting theimportance of global conventions aroundtransitioning to renewables, such as the ViennaConvention and the Montreal Protocol.

The term he uses to refer to the sort ofcosmology that he’s interested in promoting,“integral ecology,” is somewhat novel for theChurch. Additionally, he states in the encyclicalthat it is important that indigenous peoples areprinciple dialogue partners, and so the integralecology that he talks about is this vision of realhuman interdependence with the natural world,even though in traditional Christianity humansare considered to be the only ones with divineimage. Nevertheless, this integral ecology as acosmology does significantly decenter humansin the broader scheme of things. There mightbe something significant there in terms of justhow integral his view of humans and nature is.

I think probably the most significant thing aboutthe encyclical is that Francis has chosenclimate change as the most significant globalissue of the day. Then these other issues, hesees as intrinsic to that—global, socialinequality and global industrial capitalism, andso forth—he sees as part of all of this. Stillmany Catholics don't choose climate changeas the principal significant moral issue of today.They choose instead issues such as abortionor the economy.

Ferkany: Okay, so it's a combination of acritique of global industrial capitalism, adifferent kind of cosmology in which the humanis displaced a little bit in the hierarchy ofsignificance, and then the choice of climatechange as the focal issue or problem. Onething that I seem to pick up a lot from the presswas also this feeling that the view orperspective the pope had taken on climatechange, either the science of it or theimperative to mitigate the problem, was


somehow distinctive. You didn't say quite that.So is there any sense in which that's true orwas the big thing more simply him havingchosen that issue as such a focal concern?

Van Wieren: Well, his agreement withconsensus science that anthropogenic climatechange is real and that religion needs scienceas a dialogue partner, I think is significant. Butamong the Catholic academic elite, which atsome level I would consider the Pope, therereally hasn't been resistance to consensusscience, particularly in the last decade. So thealignment with consensus science, at the levelof the elite anyway, is not especially new. I dothink there's definitely been a resistance toconsensus science among other lay groups orother even bishops groups in the RomanCatholic Church. But I'm not sure that I wouldsay that was the real distinctive part of theencyclical. Certainly though Francis is veryclear in the encyclical that scientific informationabout anthropogenic climate change needs tobe recognized and the church needs to workwith this as a source of information in order totake faithful action. It's a strong point that hemakes.

Ferkany: That's interesting. The next thing Iwanted to ask you about is what influence youthink this will have, and how broad a scope thatinfluence will have. You're just suggesting that,within the Catholic elite, intellectual elite orwhatever it is, leadership elite, this position isn'texactly novel or new, although for some wingsof Catholicism it might be altogether new anddifferent. How much of an influence will thishave on those groups in the broaderconstituency of Catholics in general, especiallyin say the U.S. where climate change denial ispretty prominent?

Van Wieren: I think globally it's very difficult tosay because Roman Catholicism is a hugefaith group — approximately 1.2 billion people,50% of all Christians worldwide, and 16% ofthe total global population. In terms of U.S.Catholics different studies say different things.

For example, one study conducted before theencyclical—a large randomized telephonesurvey by the Public Religion Research

Institute, PRRI, in November 2014—found thatoverall approximately 50% of Americans saythat climate change is a very significant issue.But interestingly, a significantly higherpercentage of Hispanic Catholics in the U.S.,approximately 66% say that. So that was preencyclical.

But the PRRI also did a more recent study, andwhat it found is that there appear to to be twocamps, a Francis camp and a bishops camp.The Francis camp tends to be democraticallyliberal and more social justice oriented. Thebishops camp tends to be more conservativesocially and politically, prioritizing abortion oversocial justice issues. Another Gallup pollconducted shortly after the encyclical foundthat the Francis effect actually dropped amongU.S. Catholics — from about 70% to 59%.

Still the problem with social scientific researchon religious effects on environment is that theyare so general, especially if they are largescale. So we're really not sure often times,which aspect of religious belief or practice maybe driving particular environmental views. Interms of effects on voting Catholics, I wouldguess the climate encyclical is going to have apositive effect among more liberal Catholics,but among more conservative Catholicsperhaps there may even be some backlash interms of an antiFrancis effect, perhapscausing an even deeper digging into climateskepticism.

Ferkany: Okay, so maybe a backlash emerges.You were saying earlier that part of what cameout was this more broad social criticism with aneconomic component. Might it be that reactionsto the bit about climate change are tied intogether with opposition to that kind of ideologythat they're hearing and that they maybe don'tlike so much?

Van Wieren: I do think that. But also researchhas shown that only 40% of all Catholics hadeven heard of the encyclical weeks after itcame out. Only about 30% of Catholicchurches mentioned it or preached anythingrelated to it in the pulpit. I did a little anecdotalpoll in my intro to environmental ethics class,where I have a 100 students. I asked: "How


many of you have heard of the pope'sencyclical against climate change?" and noone raised their hands. And then I said, "Wellhow many of you grew up, however loosely,Roman Catholic?" There were probably 25total students. Then I said, "Keep your handsup. How many of you have heard of it?" Noneof them said that they had heard of it.

Ferkany: None of them? Wow!

Van Wieren: Many professionally trainedenvironmental ethicists, myself included, maythink the encyclical is a big deal, and it is in asense. But whenever religious statementsissued by church leadership come out, one hasto ask what the actual effect is or will be on thelay population, particularly with a religioustradition such as Roman Catholicism that is sohuge.

Ferkany: Yeah, so if the impact within theCatholic faith is unpredictable, if not nil, thenprobably its impact in the broader world of faithand with respect to environmental issues isinsignificant if anything.

Van Wieren: Well, if anything I think it mighthave more in a sense. It might have more of abroad cultural and crossreligious effect thansay, affecting particular actions amongindividual Catholics. So for example the Pope’svisit to Congress next week, where he willundoubtedly speak about climate change, willlikely have more of an effect at the public levelthan necessarily changing individual Catholicsor even communities of Catholics.

Ferkany: Okay, well that's really interesting ifnot quite what I would have expected. Beingfor all practical purposes an atheist whodoesn't really think much about religion or faith,this struck me as pretty momentous in terms ofprogress of the Catholic church and faith onenvironmental issues, or even the social justiceissues that you flagged earlier. It made mewonder, so what does it say about the state offaith, traditions, and environmental ethicsgenerally. Maybe you can put that in terms ofthe old debate about this idea that religiouscosmologies of certain kinds, includingChristian cosmologies, devalue the natural

environment inherently. And others who think,"No, that stuff's nonsense. It's something else."Does this tell us anything about the state ofthat argument right now?

Van Wieren: Obviously the famous argumentof Lynn White's that Christianity was the mostanthropocentric religion the world had everseen kicked off a huge debate. A whole slew oflargescale, social scientific studies followed onWhite's hypothesis. There is empiricalevidence that certain aspects of what we mightcall a more conservative theological view—soviews of dominion, belief in inerrancy of theBible, things like that—are related to lack ofenvironmental concern.

I do think that there is social scientific evidencethat more conservative Christian views,including evangelical views in general, exhibitlower levels of environmental concern than thegeneral public or other religious cosmologies.Early studies, again focusing ondenominational divides—which I'm not sure isthe most helpful divide to be making—foundthat, say, liberal Catholics are just as likely oreven more likely than the general public toelicit environmental concern. But thenacademic theologians from all faiths have beenrevising their cosmologies since White'scritique, and obviously philosophers have donethat in a secular way with ecocentric ethics.

So there is some evidence that certaintheological views put pressure onenvironmental concern. But one would want toknow whether this is because religious ideasare affecting cultural beliefs, or, in aDurkheimian sense, it’s the other way around.I don't think I would come out one way or theother on whether recent events resolve theargument.

I'm a religion scholar, so I do think that religionmatters in some sense for shaping worldviewand shaping what people do in the world. I dothink religion matters, whether “religion” isintended in a more traditional conventionalsense (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism,etc.) or whether one calls religion somethingmore secular, like a deep spiritual affinity withthe natural world.


So I would say religious cosmology, in somesense, shapes environmental concern or lackthereof. But also I don't think there's just onething at work here. I think there’s a problemwith the ongoing need of some philosophersand theologians, and scientists for that matter,to have the one grand cosmology that's goingto be the best for creating more cooperativerelationships between people and land. I don’treally think that’s how it goes.

Ferkany: Yes, thank you. Well it seems a priorisensible to think that religion is going to havesome influence on what people think andbelieve, and therefore, do. But it's onecomponent of a person's motivational set andhow it's going to interact with the rest of thepieces of the set is hard to say, and it could bevery different for different groups as you havesuggested.

Van Wieren: For the past several years I havebeen involved (with Bron Taylor and BernieZaleha) with a giant review of the entireliterature of social scientific studies sinceWhite, trying to figure out what we knowempirically about how religion shapesenvironment. I think we have something like600 articles in our review database as of now.So far, there does not appear to be very muchsocial scientific evidence that the world'sreligious traditions are in some sense shapingbetter environmental behavior. Still 99% of theempirical studies have been focused on U.S.Christianity, especially denominationaldifferences. So we do not really know a wholelot empirically speaking. It's yet to be seen asmore research emerges, especially on themore affective dimensions of people’srelationship to the natural world.

Ferkany: Okay. Well, thanks, Gretel for talkingwith me today. Is there anything else you wouldwant to add in terms of the state of faith andreligion and the environmental movement thatwe haven't touched on?

Van Wieren: Not really. I think it's only positive,of course, that the pope has come out with astatement. It's a 190page document, so it's notsomething that everyone is going to bereading. But, nevertheless, he's obviously had

a big public presence and maybe it's havingmore an effect on nonCatholics thanCatholics. I'm looking forward to seeing whatthe conversation is going to be in Congressnext week. But yeah, thanks for doing this.

Ferkany: My pleasure.



NEW PUBLICATIONS:ENVIRONMENTAL BOOKS

Global Ethics and Climate Change. Paul G.Harris, Edinburgh University Press, 2016.

This book combines the science of climatechange with ethical critique to expose itsimpact, the increasing intensity of dangeroustrends – particularly growing global affluence,material consumption and pollution – and theintensifying moral dimensions of changes tothe environment. It shows you that globaljustice is vital to mitigating climate change.New for this edition:

Includes recent climate diplomacy andinternational agreements Presents current data and information onclimate science Updated statistics; e.g. in chapters andsections that look at poverty and wealth Expanded learning guide for students andlecturers

The Battle for Yellowstone: Morality and theSacred Roots of Environmental Conflict.Justin Farrell, Princeton University Press,2015.

Yellowstone holds a special place in America’sheart. As the world’s first national park, it isglobally recognized as the crown jewel ofmodern environmental preservation. But thepark and its surrounding regions have recentlybecome a lightning rod for environmentalconflict, plagued by intense and intractablepolitical struggles among the federalgovernment, National Park Service,environmentalists, industry, local residents, andelected officials. The Battle forYellowstone asks why it is that, with the flood ofexpert scientific, economic, and legal efforts toresolve disagreements over Yellowstone, thereis no improvement? Why do even seeminglyminor issues erupt into impassioned disputes?What can Yellowstone teach us about theworsening environmental conflicts worldwide?Justin Farrell argues that the battle forYellowstone has deep moral, cultural, andspiritual roots that until now have beenobscured by the supposedly rational and

technical nature of the conflict. Tracing inunprecedented detail the moral causes andconsequences of largescale social change inthe American West, he describes how a “newwest” social order has emerged that hasdevalued traditional American beliefs aboutmanifest destiny and rugged individualism, andhow morality and spirituality have influencedthe most polarizing and technocentric conflictsin Yellowstone’s history. This groundbreakingbook shows how the unprecedented conflictover Yellowstone is not all about science, law,or economic interests, but more surprisingly, isabout cultural upheaval and the construction ofnew moral and spiritual boundaries in theAmerican West.

What We Think About When We Try Not toThink About Global Warming: Toward A NewPsychology of Climate Action. Per EspenStoknes, Chelsea Green Publishing, 2015.

The more facts that pile up about globalwarming, the greater the resistance to themgrows, making it harder to enact measures toreduce greenhouse gas emissions and preparecommunities for the inevitable change ahead. Itis a catch22 that starts, says psychologist andeconomist Per Espen Stoknes, from aninadequate understanding of the way mosthumans think, act, and live in the world aroundthem. With dozens of examples—from theprivate sector to governmentagencies—Stoknes shows how to retell thestory of climate change and, at the same time,create positive, meaningful actions that can besupported even by deniers. In What We ThinkAbout When We Try Not To Think About GlobalWarming, Stoknes not only masterfullyidentifies the five main psychological barriers toclimate action, but addresses them with fivestrategies for how to talk about global warmingin a way that creates action and solutions, notfurther inaction and despair. These strategieswork with, rather than against, human nature.They are social, positive, and simple—makingclimatefriendly behaviors easy andconvenient. They are also storybased, to help


add meaning and create community, andinclude the use of signals, or indicators, togauge feedback and be constantly responsive.Whether you are working on the front lines ofthe climate issue, immersed in the science,trying to make policy or educate the public, orjust an average person trying to make sense ofthe cognitive dissonance or grapple withfrustration over this looming issue, What WeThink About When We Try Not To Think AboutGlobal Warming moves beyond thepsychological barriers that block progress andopens new doorways to social and personaltransformation.

Unprecedented: Can Civilization Survivethe CO2 Crisis? David Ray Griffin, ClarityPress, 2015.

“Unprecedented is a valuable book in that it notonly delineates the nature and magnitude ofthe climatic threat to Mankind and the urgencyof taking action, but also sets this global crisiswithin its proper moral dimension involving ourethics and religious sense. It makes the veryimportant point that anthropogenic climatechange didn't just happen it is the result ofchoices that we as a species made to givepreference to greed and exploitation ratherthan to caring stewardship of our limitedspaceship. Any salvation depends on a moralchange as much as a technical effort." PETERWADHAMS, Center for MathematicalSciences, Cambridge

Religion Without God. Ronald Dworkin,Harvard University Press, 2013.

In his last book, Ronald Dworkin addressesquestions that men and women have askedthrough the ages: What is religion and what isGod’s place in it? What is death and what isimmortality? Based on the 2011 EinsteinLectures, Religion without God is inspired byremarks Einstein made that if religion consistsof awe toward mysteries which “manifestthemselves in the highest wisdom and themost radiant beauty, and which our dullfaculties can comprehend only in the most

primitive forms,” then, he, Einstein, was areligious person. Dworkin joins Einstein’ssense of cosmic mystery and beauty to theclaim that value is objective, independent ofmind, and immanent in the world. He rejectsthe metaphysics of naturalism—that nothing isreal except what can be studied by the naturalsciences. Belief in God is one manifestation ofthis deeper worldview, but not the only one.The conviction that God underwrites valuepresupposes a prior commitment to theindependent reality of that value—acommitment that is available to nonbelieversas well. So theists share a commitment withsome atheists that is more fundamental thanwhat divides them. Freedom of religion shouldflow not from a respect for belief in God butfrom the right to ethical independence. Dworkinhoped that this short book would contribute torational conversation and the softening ofreligious fear and hatred. Religion withoutGod is the work of a humanist who recognizedboth the possibilities and limitations ofhumanity.

The New Wild: Why Invasive Species WillBe Nature's Salvation. Fred Pearce, Boston:Beacon Press, 2015.

For a long time, veteran environmentaljournalist Fred Pearce thought in stark termsabout invasive species: they were the evilinterlopers spoiling pristine “natural”ecosystems. Most conservationists andenvironmentalists share this view. But what ifthe traditional view of ecology is wrong—whatif true environmentalists should be applaudingthe invaders? In The New Wild, Pearce goeson a journey across six continents torediscover what conservation in the twentyfirstcentury should be about. Pearce exploresecosystems from remote Pacific islands to theUnited Kingdom, from San Francisco Bay tothe Great Lakes, as he digs into questionableestimates of the cost of invader species andreveals the outdated intellectual sources of ourideas about the balance of nature. Pearceacknowledges that there are horror storiesabout alien species disrupting ecosystems, butmost of the time, the tens of thousands ofintroduced species usually swiftly die out or


settle down and become model ecocitizens.The case for keeping out alien species, hefinds, looks increasingly flawed. As Pearceargues, mainstream environmentalists are rightthat we need a rewilding of the earth, but theyare wrong if they imagine that we can achievethat by reengineering ecosystems. Humanshave changed the planet too much, and naturenever goes backward. But a growing group ofscientists is taking a fresh look at how speciesinteract in the wild. According to these newecologists, we should applaud the dynamism ofalien species and the novel ecosystems theycreate. In an era of climate change andwidespread ecological damage, it is absolutelycrucial that we find ways to help natureregenerate. Embracing the new ecology,Pearce shows us, is our best chance. To be anenvironmentalist in the twentyfirst centurymeans celebrating nature’s wildness andcapacity for change.

Ecolinguistics: Language, Ecology and theStories We Live by. Arran Stibbe, Taylor &Francis, 2015.

The increasingly rapid destruction of theecological systems that support life is callinginto question some of the fundamental storiesthat we live by: stories of unlimited economicgrowth, of consumerism, progress,individualism, success, and the humandomination of nature. Ecolinguistics shows howlinguistic analysis can help reveal the storieswe live by, open them up to question, andcontribute to the search for new stories.Bringing together the latest ecolinguisticstudies with new theoretical insights andpractical analyses, this book charts a newcourse for ecolinguistics as an engaged form ofcritical enquiry. Featuring:

A framework for understanding the theory ofecolinguistics and applying it practically in reallife; Exploration of diverse topics fromconsumerism in lifestyle magazines toJapanese nature haiku; A comprehensive glossary giving concisedescriptions of the linguistic terms used in thebook;

Discourse analysis of a wide range of textsincluding newspapers, magazines,advertisements, films, nonfiction books, andvisual images.

This is essential reading for undergraduates,postgraduates and researchers working in theareas of Discourse Analysis and Language andEcology.

Thinking Like A Mall: EnvironmentalPhilosophy After the End of Nature. StevenVogel, MIT Press, 2015.

Environmentalism, in theory and practice, isconcerned with protecting nature. But if wehave now reached “the end of nature,” as BillMcKibben and other environmental thinkershave declared, what is there left to protect? InThinking Like a Mall, Steven Vogel argues thatenvironmental thinking would be better off if itdropped the concept of “nature” altogether andspoke instead of the “environment”—that is, theworld that actually surrounds us, which isalways a built world, the only one that weinhabit. We need to think not so much like amountain (as Aldo Leopold urged) as like amall. Shopping malls, too, are part of theenvironment and deserve as much seriousconsideration from environmental thinkers asdo mountains. Vogel argues provocatively thatenvironmental philosophy, in its ethics, shouldno longer draw a distinction between thenatural and the artificial and, in its politics,should abandon the idea that somethingbeyond human practices (such as “nature”) canserve as a standard determining what thosepractices ought to be. The appeal to naturedistinct from the built environment, hecontends, may be not merely unhelpful toenvironmental thinking but in itself harmful tothat thinking. The question for environmentalphilosophy is not “how can we save nature?”but rather “what environment should weinhabit, and what practices should we engagein to help build it?”



“Laudato Si': On Care for Our CommonHome,”Pope Francis, 24 May 2015. [1]

In this Encyclical, Francis urgently appeals“for a new dialogue about how we areshaping the future of our planet. We need aconversation that includes everyone, sincethe environment challenge we areundergoing, and its human roots, concernand affect us all.” “The ecological crisis,”he argues, “is also a summons to profoundinterior conversion. It must be said thatsome committed and prayerful Christians,with the excuse of realism and pragmatism,tend to ridicule expressions of concern forthe environment. Others are passive; theychoose not to change their habits and thusbecome inconsistent. So what they all needis an ‘ecological conversion’, whereby theeffects of their encounter with Jesus Christbecome evident in their relationship withthe world around them. Living our vocationto be protectors of God’s handiwork isessential to a life of virtue; it is not anoptional or a secondary aspect of ourChristian experience.”

“U.S.Brazil Joint Statement on ClimateChange,” The White House, Office of thePress Secretary. June 30, 2015.

Presidents Barack Obama and Dilma Rousseffcommit to intensify collaboration betweenthe United States and Brazil, both bilaterallyand under the United Nations FrameworkConvention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), asour countries work to address the challengesposed by climate change. The globalscientific community has made clear thathuman activity is already changing theworld’s climate system, causing seriousimpacts, putting ever larger numbers ofpeople at risk, posing challenges tosustainable development, affecting

particularly the poor and most vulnerable,and harming economies and societies aroundthe world, including in the United Statesand Brazil. [2]

“Faith and Science Can Find CommonGround,”David M. Lodge, Nature, VOL 523,July 2015.

David M. Lodge, Protestant biologist, isdirector of the University of Notre DameEnvironmental Change Initiative, Indiana,and editor (with historian ChristopherHamlin) of Religion and the New Ecology(2006). He argues that faith and science,especially when it comes to saving creationand biology, mix quite well.

“The Ethics of Adaptation to ClimateChange,” Kathleen Dean Moore, Center forHumans and Nature, N.d. [3].

In this essay Moore wants “to call attentionto the danger that the same moral failingsthat characterize climate change itself arebeing replicated and amplified in many ofthe plans to adapt to it—as if storm andextinction had taught us nothing aboutjustice or reverence for life.” She arguesthat “we can armor shorelines, modify thegenetics of trout, build giant dams, and incountless ways change the Earth, buteffective and honorable adaptation will beginto take place only when we changeourselves.”

NEW PUBLICATIONS:NON-PHILOSOPHY ARTICLES


“Accelerated modern human–inducedspecies losses: Entering the sixth massextinction,” Gerardo Ceballos, Paul R.Ehrlich, Anthony D. Barnosky, AndrésGarcía, Robert M. Pringle and Todd M.Palmer, Science AdvancesVol. 1, No. 5,June 2015.

The oft-repeated claim that Earth’s biota isentering a sixth “mass extinction” dependson clearly demonstrating that currentextinction rates are far above the“background” rates prevailing between thefive previous mass extinctions. Earlierestimates of extinction rates have beencriticized for using assumptions that mightoverestimate the severity of the extinctioncrisis. We assess, using extremelyconservative assumptions, whether humanactivities are causing a mass extinction.First, we use a recent estimate of abackground rate of 2 mammal extinctionsper 10,000 species per 100 years (that is, 2E/MSY), which is twice as high as widelyused previous estimates. We then comparethis rate with the current rate of mammaland vertebrate extinctions. The latter isconservatively low because listing a speciesas extinct requires meeting stringent criteria.Even under our assumptions, which wouldtend to minimize evidence of an incipientmass extinction, the average rate ofvertebrate species loss over the last centuryis up to 100 times higher than thebackground rate. Under the 2 E/MSYbackground rate, the number of species thathave gone extinct in the last century wouldhave taken, depending on the vertebratetaxon, between 800 and 10,000 years todisappear. These estimates reveal anexceptionally rapid loss of biodiversity overthe last few centuries, indicating that a sixthmass extinction is already under way.Averting a dramatic decay of biodiversityand the subsequent loss of ecosystemservices is still possible through intensifiedconservation efforts, but that window ofopportunity is rapidly closing.

“We Have Never Been Natural: AsEnvironmentalism Fragments, CompetingStories about the Anthropocene Emerge,”Jim Proctor, The Breahthrough, April 5,2013. [4]

Environmentalism is no longer about savingnature alone: increasingly, it's about savingpeople given their dependencies on nature(witness the sustainability movement) andsince environmental problems are oftensymptoms of deeper social problems (witnessdumping in Dixie). Yet concepts of naturestill suffuse the movement—perhaps nolonger just wilderness, national parks, andGaia, but also a spirit of wildness,community gardens, and an optimal 350-ppm-CO2 atmosphere. It is not surprisingthat manifold notions of nature are foundthroughout contemporary environmentalism,since that is what environment means tomost people.

“North American scientists call for end totar sands mining,”Suzanne Goldenberg, TheGuardian, 10 June 2015. [5]

More than 100 US and Canadian scientistspublish letter saying tar sands crude shouldbe relegated to fuel of last resort because itcauses so much pollution.

“A Mojave Solar Project in the Bighorns'Way,” Thomas E. Lovejoy and Edward O.Wilson, The New York Times, September 11,2015. [6]

Two important environmental imperatives,ecosystem protection and renewable energydevelopment, are squared off against eachother in the Soda Mountains of California’sMojave Desert. The area is home to aresurgent population of bighorn sheep,


declining numbers of desert tortoises andother creatures adapted to survive in whatseems, on the surface, to be a bleak andunforgiving environment. It is also wherethe Bechtel Corporation is seeking to build a264-megawatt photovoltaic facility on about1,900 acres of federal land along Interstate15 near Baker, Calif., less than a mile fromthe Mojave National Preserve. The plantwould convert the sun’s energy intoelectricity to power 79,000 homes withoutgenerating the greenhouse gases that areheating up our planet.

“The Sunniest ClimateChange StoryYou've Ever Read,” Jonathan Chait, NewYork, Sept. 7 2015. [7]

This fall, as world leaders prepare to gatherin Paris for the United Nations climate-change conference in December andbureaucrats bureaucratize, onlookers couldbe excused for treating the whole affair withweariness... But guess what everyone’s beenmissing in the middle of their keening forthe dear, soon-to-be-departed Earth? Thereis good news. And not just incremental goodnews but transformational good news,developments that have the potential tomitigate the worst effects of climate changeto a degree many had feared impossible.Those who have consigned the world to itsdoom should reconsider. The technologicaland political underpinnings are at last inplace to actually consummate the first globalpact to limit greenhouse-gas emissions. Theworld is suddenly responding to the climateemergency with — by the standards of itsprevious behavior — astonishing speed. Thegame is not over. And the good guys arestarting to win.

“U.S. protected lands mismatchbiodiversity priorities,” Clinton N. Jenkins,Kyle S. Van Houtan, Stuart L. Pimm, andJoseph O. Sexton, Proceedings of the NationalAcademy of Sciences of the United States ofAmerica, Vol. 112, No. 16, 2015.

Because habitat loss is the main cause ofextinction, where and how much societychooses to protect is vital for saving species.The United States is well positionedeconomically and politically to pursuehabitat conservation should it be a societalgoal. We assessed the US protected areaportfolio with respect to biodiversity in thecountry. New synthesis maps for terrestrialvertebrates, freshwater fish, and trees permitcomparison with protected areas to identifypriorities for future conservation investment.Although the total area protected issubstantial, its geographic configuration isnearly the opposite of patterns of endemismwithin the country. Most protected lands arein the West, whereas the vulnerable speciesare largely in the Southeast. Private landprotections are significant, but they are notconcentrated where the priorities are. Toadequately protect the nation’s uniquebiodiversity, we recommend specific areasdeserving additional protection, some ofthem including public lands, but manyothers requiring private investment.

"Evaluating whether nature’s intrinsic valueis an axiom of or anathema toconservation," John A. Vucetich, Jeremy T.Bruskotter, and Michael Paul Nelson,Conservation Biology 29(2015):1-12

That at least some aspects of nature possessintrinsic value is considered by some anaxiom of conservation. Others considernature’s intrinsic value superfluous oranathema. This range of viewsamong mainstream conservation professionalspotentially threatens the foundation ofconservation. One challenge in resolving thisdisparity is that disparaging portrayals ofnature’s intrinsic value appear rooted in


misconceptions and unfounded presumptionsabout what it means to acknowledgenature’s intrinsic value. Thatacknowledgment has been characterized asvacuous, misanthropic, of little practicalconsequence to conservation, adequatelyaccommodated by economic valuation, andnot widely accepted in society. We reviewedthe philosophical basis for nature’s intrinsicvalue and the implications foracknowledging that value. Our analysis isrooted to the notion that when somethingpossesses intrinsic value it deserves to betreated with respect for what it is, withconcern for its welfare or in a just manner.From this basis, one can only conclude thatnature’s intrinsic value is not a vacuousconcept or adequately accommodated byeconomic valuation. Acknowledging nature’sintrinsic value is not misanthropic becauseconcern for nature’s welfare (aside from itsinfluence on human welfare) does not in anyway preclude also being concerned forhuman welfare. The practical import ofacknowledging nature’s intrinsic value risesfrom recognizing all the objects ofconservation concern (e.g., many endangeredspecies) that offer little benefit to humanwelfare. Sociological and cultural evidenceindicates the belief that at least someelements of nature possess intrinsic value iswidespread in society. Our reasoningsuggests the appropriateness of rejecting theassertion that nature’s intrinsic value isanathema to conservation and accepting itsrole as an axiom.

“Anthropogenic environmental changesaffect ecosystem stability viabiodiversity,”Yann Hautier, David Tilman,Forest Isbell, Eric W. Seabloom, Elizabeth T.Borer, Peter B. Reich, Science VOL 348ISSUE 6232, April 2015, pp. 336-340.

Human-driven environmental changes maysimultaneously affect the biodiversity,productivity, and stability of Earth’secosystems, but there is no consensus on thecausal relationships linking these variables.

Data from 12 multiyear experiments thatmanipulate important anthropogenic drivers,including plant diversity, nitrogen, carbondioxide, fire, herbivory, and water, showthat each driver influences ecosystemproductivity. However, the stability ofecosystem productivity is only changed bythose drivers that alter biodiversity, with agiven decrease in plant species numbersleading to a quantitatively similar decreasein ecosystem stability regardless of whichdriver caused the biodiversity loss. Theseresults suggest that changes in biodiversitycaused by drivers of environmental changemay be a major factor determining howglobal environmental changes affectecosystem stability

“Gratitude and the Environment: TowardIndividual and Collective Ecological Virtue,”Reed Elizabeth Loder, 2011 JOURNALJURISPRUDENCE383 (2011)

This project aims to examine environmentalgratitude systematically as a moral virtue, orwell-developed disposition to experiencepositive emotions across appropriatesituations and develop attitudes and patternsof conduct accordingly. Specifically, thevirtue of environmental gratitude is a finelytuned propensity to notice and feel gratefulfor one’s surroundings on a regular basis,which generates pervasive attitudes ofconcern for planetary welfare andcommitment to contribute ecological benefitsto the extent of one’s ability. My thesis isthat individuals can cultivate virtuousenvironmental gratitude, convertingrudimentary feelings of thankfulness intogeneralized sensibilities, improvedknowledge, sustaining motivation, andeffective action. I contend further that socialinstitutions can foster such developmentcollectively, and that law can play asignificant role in this process.


External Links

[1] http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html

[2] https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/30/us-brazil-joint-statement-climate-change

[3] http://www.humansandnature.org/earth-ethic---kathleen-dean-moore-response-81.php

[4] http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/conservation-and-development/we-have-never-been-natural

[5] http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jun/10/tar-sands-mining-ban-scientists

[6] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/12/opinion/a-mojave-solar-project-in-the-bighorns-way.html?_r=0

[7] http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2015/09/sunniest-climate-change-story-ever-read.html



ISEE OFFICERS

President: Philip CafaroAddress: Department of Philosophy, ColoradoState University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1781 USATel: 970-491-2061Fax: 970-491-4900Email: [email protected]: Organizing ISEE at theAnnual Joint ISEE-IAEP Meeting onEnvironmental Philosophy

Vice-President: Ben HaleAddress: Philosophy and EnvironmentalStudies, 1333 Grandview, UCB 0488,University of Colorado, Boulder, Boulder,CO, 80309Tel: 303-735-3624Fax: 303-735-1576Email: [email protected]: Organizing ISEE sessions atthe Eastern APA

Secretary: William Grove-FanningAddress: Department of Philosophy,University of Portland, 5000 N. WillametteBlvd., Portland, OR, 97203, USAEmail: [email protected]: Organizing ISEE sessions atPacific APA

Treasurer: Allen ThompsonAddress: Department of Philosophy, OregonState University, 102C Hovland Hall,Corvallis, OR, 97331-3902, USATel: 541-737-5654Fax: 541-737-2571Email: [email protected]: Organizing ISEE sessions atthe Central APA

Newsletter Editor: Matt FerkanyAddress: Department of Philosophy,Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI,48824, USATel: 517-353-6470Email: [email protected]: Assemble and circulate thenewsletter 3 times annually

Website and listserve manager: Aline RamosAddress: CRC en Théorie de la Connaissance,Université du Québec à Montréal, PavillionThérèse-Casgrain (W), 455, Boulevard René-Lévesque Est, 5e. Étage, Local W-5245,Montréal, QC, CANADA H2L 4Y2Email: [email protected]

Editor of Environmental Ethics: EugeneHargroveAddress: Department of Philosophy andReligious Studies, University of North Texas,P.O. Box 310980, Denton, TX 76203-0980,USATel: 940-565-2266 Fax: 940-565-4448Email [email protected]

NEWSLETTER SUBMISSIONSPlease send any announcements, membernews, bibliographic information or othernews items via email (preferred) or snailmail to Matt Ferkany at his address listedabove.

WEBSITE/LISTSERVE SUBMISSIONSPlease send any calls for papers, jobpostings, or related news items via email(preferred) or snail mail to Aline Ramos ather address above.


We continue to update and expand ourregional representation. Here is the currentlist. If you are a member of ISEE in acountry not on this list, please contactPhilip Cafaro at [email protected] you are interested in representing ISEE.

Africa:SOUTH AFRICA: Johan P. Hattingh,Department of Philosophy, University ofStellenbosch, 7600 Stellenbosch, SouthAfrica. Hattingh heads the Unit forEnvironmental Ethics at Stellenbosch. OfficePhone: 27 (country code) 21 (city code) 808-2058. Secretary Phone: 808-2418. HomePhone: 887-9025. Fax: 886-4343. Email:[email protected].

Australia:William Grey, Room E338, Department ofPhilosophy, University of Queensland, 4067,Queensland 4072 Australia. Email:[email protected].

Asia:CHINA: Yang Tongjing, Institute ofPhilosophy, Chinese Academy of SocialSciences, Beijing, 100732, China. Email:[email protected].

PAKISTAN AND SOUTH ASIA: Nasir AzamSahibzada, Founder Member, IndependentTrust for Education (ITE), T-28 SahibzadaHouse, Zeryab Colony, Peshawar City(NWFP), Pakistan. Postal Code. 25000.Phone: (92) (91) 2040877). Cell Phone:0334-9081801. Email:<[email protected]> [email protected].

TAIWAN: King Hen-Biau, President, Society ofSubtropical Ecology, 4th Fl. #3, Lane 269,Roosevelt Road, Section 3, 106 Taipei,Taiwan. Phone: 886-2-2369-9825. CellPhone: 886-9-3984-1403. Fax: 886-2-2368-9885. Email: [email protected].

Europe:EASTERN EUROPE: Jan Wawrzyniak, Prof. UAMdr hab., Institute of Linguistics UAM, Al.Niepodleglosci 4, 61-874 Poznan, POLAND.Phone: +48 / 61 / 8293691 and +48 / 61 /8293663. Mobile: +48 / 66 / 3787032. Fax:+48 / 61 / 8293662. Email:[email protected].

FINLAND: Markku Oksanen, Department ofSocial Policy and Social Psychology,University of Kuopio, P.O. Box 1627, 70211,Finland. Email: [email protected] [email protected].

THE NETHERLANDS: Martin Drenthen, ISIS,Faculty of Science, Radboud University ofNijmegen, Postbox 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen,the Netherlands. Office Phone: 31 (countrycode) 24 (city code) 3612751. Fax: 31-24-3615564. Home Address: Zebrastraat 5,6531TW Nijmegen, the Netherlands. HomePhone: (31) – (24) –3238397. Email:[email protected].

UNITED KINGDOM: Isis Brook, Centre forProfessional Ethics, University of CentralLancashire, Preston, Lancashire, UnitedKingdom PR1 2HE. Phone: +44(0)1772892542. Email: [email protected].

GREECE: Stavros Karageorgakis, Theofilou 26,54633, Thessaloniki, Greece. Email:[email protected].

South America:Ricardo Rozzi, Department of Philosophyand Religion Studies, P.O. Box 310920,University of North Texas, Denton, TX76203-0920. Phone: 940-565-2266. Fax: 940-565-4448. Email: [email protected].

REGIONALREPRESENTATIVES


Mexico and Central America:Teresa Kwiatkowska, Universidad AutonomaMetropolitana-Iztapalapa, Departamento deFilosofia, Av. Michoacan y Purissima s/n,09340 Mexico D.F., Mexico. Office Phone: (5)724 47 77. Home Phone: (5) 637 14 24. Fax:(5) 724 47 78. Email:[email protected].

North America:CANADA:Thomas Heyd, Department of Philosophy,University of Victoria, P.O. Box 3045,Victoria, British Columbia V8W 3P4, Canada.Office Phone: 250-721-7512. Fax: 250-721-7511. Email: [email protected].

Nathan Kowalsky, Philosophy, St. Joseph'sCollege, University of Alberta, Edmonton, ABT6G 2J5, Canada. Office phone: 780-492-7681 ext. 257. Email: [email protected]

UNITED STATES:Ned Hettinger, Philosophy Department,College of Charleston, Charleston, SouthCarolina 29424, USA. Office Phone: 843-953-5786. Home Phone: 843-953-5786. Fax: 843-953-6388. Email: [email protected].

Holmes Rolston III, Department ofPhilosophy, Colorado State University, FortCollins, Colorado 80523, USA. Office Phone:970-491-6315. Fax: 970-491-4900. Email:[email protected].

Jack Weir, Department of Philosophy,Morehead State University, UPO 662,Morehead, Kentucky 40351-1689, USA. OfficePhone: 606-783-2785. Home Phone: 606-784-0046. Fax: 606-783-5346 (include Weir’sname on Fax). Email: [email protected].


MEMBERSHIP AND

DUES FORM

Please enroll me as a member of the International Society for Environmental Ethics.

Annual regular dues are: $35 Regular Membership, $20 Student Membership. Membersoutside the United States should send the equivalent of US dollars, based on currentexchange rates.

Enclosed are dues: ________.

Name andAffiliation:____________________________________________________________

Address (Include PostalCode):____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Phone: (______) ________________________

Fax: (_______)________________________

Email:_________________________________

ISEE now distributes the Newsletter electronically. Send with payment to: Allen Thompson,Department of Philosophy, Oregon State University, 102C Hovland Hall, Corvallis, OR,97331-3902, USA. Or become a member or renew memberships using PayPal from themembership page of the ISEE website by using a credit card.

INTERNATIONAL SOCIETYFOR ENVIRONMENTAL … California’s Water Politics ... Danny Shahar...

Documents

Transcript of INTERNATIONAL SOCIETYFOR ENVIRONMENTAL … California’s Water Politics ... Danny Shahar...