Wild Earth 1, no. 3
Wild Earth 1, no. 3 with essays on hydro development in North America, trans-boundary ecosystem preservation, the central Appalachian wilderness, and the need for deep ecological language.
Wild Earth 1, no. 3 with essays on hydro development in North America, trans-boundary ecosystem preservation, the central Appalachian wilderness, and the need for deep ecological language.
Wild Earth 1, no. 4. on Canadian wilderness laws and national parks, how a proposed copper mine in Canada is threatening the rivers Tatshenshini and Alsek, and the hidden costs of developing natural gas reserves.
Using the case study of the Bhopal gas disaster, S. Ravi Rajan articulates a framework of questions for the next generation of research and advocacy.
Miller suggests a new heuristic, the ecology of freedom, which highlights past contingency and hope, and can furthermore help guide our present efforts, both scholastic and activist, to find an honorable, just way of living on the earth.
Hultman’s paper introduces and investigates the notion of ‘ecomodern masculinity,’ through the assemblage of Schwarzenegger’s gender identity, environmental politics, and image in Sweden.
Wild Earth 1, no. 1, with the theme “Ecological Foundations for Big Wilderness,” discusses ecosystem restoration in Florida, corridors in the Klamath Mountains, and a Yellowstone ecosystem Marshall Plan.
Brian Baxter makes an argument in favour of person-centricism over ecocentricism.
Avner De-Shalit discusses how the neglect of environmental philosophy in historical discourse of the environmental movement mistakenly identify “political ecology” with right-wing ideologies.
Anja Nygren analyses the social and political discourses related to environment and sustainable development in Costa Rica.
Wilfred Beckerman and Joanna Pasek discuss criticisms of contingent valuation (CV) and allied techniques for estimating the intensity of peoples’ preferences for the environment, concluding that little progress will be made until both sides in the debate recognise what is valid in their opponents’ arguments.