Ecological Justice

Health care is ubiquitous in the lives of industrialized people. Yet, every medical development, technique, and procedure impact the environment. Green Bioethics synthesizes environmental ethics and biomedical ethics, thus creating an interdisciplinary approach to sustainable health care. Notably, Green Bioethics addresses, not the structure of environmental sustainability in health care institutions, but the sustainability of individual health care offerings.

Green Bioethics parallels traditional biomedical ethics by providing four principles for ethical guidance. Through these four principles, Green Bioethics presents a coherent framework for evaluating the sustainability of medical developments, techniques, and procedures. The principles of Green Bioethics are:
- Distributive Justice (Allocate Basic Medical Resources before Special Interest Access)
- Resource Conservation (Provide Health Care Needs before Health Care Wants)
- Simplicity (Reduce Dependence on Medical Interventions)
- Ethical Economics (Humanistic Health Care Instead of Financial Profit)

The future of our world may very well depend on how effectively we halt ecological destruction and conserve our resources. The principles of Green Bioethics, in tandem with the concrete examples given in this book, will support sustainability in health care.

In an article titled “Robochop,” The Economist reported a practical problem and its technological solution. The problem was that swarms of jellyfish clogged up the pipes of a Swedish nuclear power plant on the Baltic Sea coast, forcing the plant’s temporary shutdown. The proposed solution involved utilizing an invention of “a fleet of killer robots that turn jellyfish into mush.” The devices known as JEROS (Jellyfish Elimination Robotic Swarms) are designed to follow a lead robot and work in formation: they can apparently chop up to 900 kilograms of jellyfish an hour.''

The report raises an irrepressible question: Is there not something wrong—even deeply disturbing—about this picture?

The concept of sustainable lifestyles is said to have reached the limits of its usefulness. As commonly understood, it impedes an effective response to our increasingly complex world, and the associated societal challenges. In this context, the emerging paradigm of relationality might offer a way forward to renew our current understanding and approach. We explore this possibility in this study. First, we systematize if, and how, the current dominant social paradigm represents a barrier to sustainable lifestyles. Second, we analyze how a relational approach could help to overcome these barriers. On the basis of our findings, we develop a Relational Lifestyle Framework (RLF). Our aim is to advance the current knowledge by illustrating how sustainable lifestyles are a manifestation of identified patterns of thinking, being, and acting that are embedded in today’s “socioecological” realities. The RLF revitalizes the field of sustainable lifestyle change, as it offers a new understanding...

This article lifts up the Woman with the Alabaster Jar of Luke’s Gospel, chapter 7. The Pharisee saw her as a sinner because according to Pharisaic laws she was. Jesus, the Teacher at the Pharisee’s house agrees. He says the Woman has sinned much and is forgiven much. This paper explores the importance of forgiveness and the importance of showing hospitality, love, and justice to one’s neighbour. Roman Catholic tradition used to conflate this woman with Mary Magdalene claiming that Mary Magdalene was the sinner forgiven for her great love for the Teacher. In recent years, many people have opposed Roman Catholic tradition because too many Christians were exploiting the image of Mary Magdalene in a negative way to gain power over women and people of other races and faiths. [1] Thus this article opposes both the modern and the old exploited views. It maintains that the Woman of Luke 7 is the bitterly treated woman of the Gospel who overcame and rose with the Teacher as the Christ. She earned the title “Mary” because of the way people bitterly treated her for “breaking” God’s ancient Patriarchal law that scholars and priests were using to chastise and exclude women and their Gentile and Samaritan neighbours from the great banquet of life where God’s Love and eco-justice is for all. She earned the title the “Magdalene” because she is a tower of strength and a great light, a burning torch that the Teacher speaks face to face with in the garden.

Keywords Patriarchal Laws, Forgiveness, God’s Love, Eco-justice

This paper attempts to bring some clarity to the debate among sentientists, biocentrists, and ecocentrists on the issue of who or what can count as a candidate recipient of justice. I begin by examining the concept of justice and argue that the character of duties and entitlements of justice sets constraints on the types of entities that can be recipients of justice. Specifically, I contend that in order to be a recipient of justice, one must be the bearer of enforceable moral claim rights. I then suggest that this has important implications for the dispute among sentientists, biocentrists, and ecocentrists. In brief, I show that sentientists cannot exclude nonsentient entities from the domain of justice merely by denying that they have “the right kind of interests,” and biocentrists and ecocentrists cannot move seamlessly from some feature of living things or ecosystems to entitlements of justice. I further argue that ultimately this disagreement on the bounds of justice bottoms out in a normative disagreement about which entities possess moral claim rights, and that the case for biotic or ecosystem rights has yet to be convincingly established.

This article will discuss social, environmental, and ecological justice in education for sustainable development (ESD) and Education for Sustainable Development Goals (ESDG). The concept of sustainable development and, by extension, the ESD, places heavy emphasis on the economic and social aspects of sustainability. However, the ESD falls short of recognizing ecological justice, or recognition that nonhumans also have a right to exist and flourish. An intervention in the form of an undergraduate course titled Politics, Business, and Environment (PBE) will be discussed. As part of this course, students were asked to reflect on the three pillars of sustainable development: society, economy, and environment, linking these to the fourth concept, ecological justice or biospheric egalitarianism. Biospheric egalitarianism is characterized by the recognition of intrinsic value in the environment and is defined as concern about justice for the environment. Some of the resulting exam answers are analyzed, demonstrating students’ ability to recognize the moral and pragmatic limitations of the anthropocentric approach to justice. This analysis presents ways forward in thinking about the role of “ecological justice” as the ultimate bottom line upon which both society and economy are based.

This paper is a feeble attempt to discuss the Interfaith Engagement; the context, why it is necessary and the church‟s role briefly. Since the topic, if studied in a detailed manner, is vast, we have limited it within the context of India as it serves as a perfect model for Pluralism, making it appropriate for us to study the different faith engagements. Therefore, the group has brought about the religious views on eco-justice by five religions which are more prominent in India.

The recent shift towards the interdisciplinary study of the human-environment relationship is largely driven by environmental justice debates. This article will distinguish four types of environmental justice and link them to questions of neoliberalism and altruism. First, environmental justice seeks to redress inequitable distribution of environmental burdens to vulnerable groups and economically disadvantaged populations. Second, environmental justice highlights the developed and developing countries’ unequal exposure to environmental risks and benefits.
Third, temporal environmental justice refers to the issues associated with intergenerational justice or concern for future generations of humans. In all three cases, environmental justice entails equitable distribution of burdens and benefits to different nations or social groups. By contrast, ecological justice involves biospheric egalitarianism or justice between species. This article will focus on ecological justice since the rights of non-human species lags behind social justice debates and discuss the implications of including biospheric egalitarianism in environmental justice debates.

Law and Ecology: New Environmental Foundations contains a series of theoretical and applied perspectives on the connection between law and ecology, which together offer a radical and socially responsive foundation for environmental law. While its legal corpus grows daily, environmental law has not enjoyed the kind of jurisprudential underpinning generally found in other branches of law. This book forges a new ecological jurisprudential foundation for environmental law - where ‘ecological' is understood both in the narrow sense of a more ecosystemic perspective on law, and in the broad sense of critical self-reflection of the mechanisms of environmental law as they operate in a context where boundaries between the human and the non-human are collapsing, and where the traditional distinction between ecocentrism and anthropocentrism is recast. Addressing current debates, including the intellectual property of bioresources; the protection of biodiversity in view of tribal land demands; the ethics of genetically modified organisms; the redefinition of the 'human' through feminist and technological research; the spatial/geographical boundaries of environmental jurisdiction; and the postcolonial geographies of pollution - Law and Ecology redefines the way environmental law is perceived, theorised and applied. It also constitutes a radical challenge to the traditionally human-centred frameworks and concerns of legal theory.

The two terms ‘Ecological justice’ and ‘Environmental Justice’ may appear to be often conflicting, since both gives the impression that one and the same issue in environmental law and justice is the subject of debates. However, there is a need to differentiate between the human environment, which include built up areas, towns, cities, population centres, and the natural environment that includes biodiversity, ecosystems, and ecosystem goods and services. So no doubt the term ‘Ecojustice’ may be more fitting and less confusing when discussing the association of justice with the Rights of Nature or the Rights of Ecosystems Essentially, this type of justice is mainly ecocentric/biocentric, as opposed to the purely anthropocentric nature of human-centred Environmental Justice.

"As a life-giving but also potentially destructive substance, water occupies a prominent place in the imagination. At the same time, water issues are among the most troubling ecological and social concerns of our time.

Water is often studied only as a "resource," a quantifiable and instrumentalized substance. Thinking with Water instead invites readers to consider how water - with its potent symbolic power, its familiarity, and its unique physical and chemical properties - is a lively collaborator in our ways of knowing and acting. What emerges is both a rich opportunity to encourage more thoughtful environmental engagement and a challenge to common oppositions between nature and culture.

Drawing from a pool of contributors with diverse backgrounds, Thinking with Water presents the work of critics, scholars, artists, and poets in an invitation to pay more attention to the aqueous aspects of our lives.


Contributors include: Ælab (Gisèle Trudel, UQÀM and Stéphane Claude, Oboro), Stacy Alaimo (University of Texas at Arlington), Andrew Biro (Acadia University), Mielle Chandler (York University), Cecilia Chen (Concordia University), Dorothy Christian (University of British Columbia), Adam Dickinson (poet, Brock University), Max Haiven (Nova Scotia College of Art and Design), Janine MacLeod (York University), Daphne Marlatt (poet, British Columbia), Don McKay (poet, Newfoundland), Emily Rose Michaud (Artist, Wakefield, Qc.), Astrida Neimanis (Linköping University), Sarah Renshaw (artist, Rhode Island), Shirley Roburn (Concordia University), Melanie Siebert (poet, University of Victoria), Jennifer B. Spiegel (Concordia University), Veronica Strang (Durham, UK), Rae Staseson (Concordia University), Rita Wong (Emily Carr University of Art and Design), and Peter C. van Wyck (Concordia University).

Available for pre-order on amazon.ca and at
http://www.mqup.ca/thinking-with-water-products-9780773541795.php?page_id=73&
"

Prepared for the Teachers for Social Justice Conference

This workshop looks at rage as an adaptive mechanism spanning the nearly fourteen billion years of cosmic evolution. Recently, the so-called Big History Movement has emerged as a transdisciplinary approach to understanding history as an integrated whole. After providing an overview of key themes and skills such an approach takes (using claimtesters to understand threshold moments, etc.), we will discuss the advantages of seeing socioecological problems as a deprivation of energy glows, using the Big History perspective to evaluate complex problems while proposing innovative solutions in and out of a classroom environment. Finally, we will consider lessons for mass movements and discuss rage as an evolutionary capacity to change our environment, with time devoted to imagining "living cosmology" projects that draw from the teachings of the universe to effectively redistribute its primacy to the earth community.

Preserving global biodiversity depends upon designating many more large terrestrial and marine areas as strictly protected areas. Yet recent calls for addressing biodiversity loss by setting aside more protected areas have been met with hostility from some social scientists and even some conservation biologists. The main objections against the so-called 'nature needs half' movement include the following. First, setting aside protected areas implies that some vulnerable human communities will be displaced to make space for wildlife. Second, separating humans from their environment ignores the fact that humans have always been part of the environments around them, and creates a false dichotomy between nature and culture. Third, conservationists are said to put the blame for biodiversity loss on all humanity, rather than on those who are doing most of the damage. Fourth, many social justice proponents argue that human population growth is not related to biodiversity loss or other sustainability challenges. This article critically addresses these four objections, exposing their robust anthropo-centric bias. Protected area critics reliably demand fairness for human beings at the expense of nonhuman beings, who they treat as morally inconsequential. But justice is not only about just us. Conservation properly understood implies a fair division of Earth's resources between human and nonhuman beings. Justice demands setting aside at least half Earth's lands and seas for nature, free from intensive economic activities.

A great deal of social change is occurring through the action of social movements, activists, and the organized efforts of non-governmental organizations. From networks of eco-activists blocking pipelines, Black Lives Matter activists tying up traffic in response to the patterned killing of African Americans by police, and the rapid rise of far right/‘Alt-Right’ violence, social and political activism has migrated from peripheral to central in the minds of many citizens and governmental institutions. This course examines socio-political change from all manners of the political spectrum—from the electoral to the revolutionary. The course aims to familiarize students with the theoretical models for understanding collective behavior and political identity (i.e. Social Movement Theory), as well as utilize historical case studies to explore specific ideologies and concepts. The course will explore how and why individuals act collectively to put forward socio-political demands, and examine the lifecycles of these efforts. The aim of the course is to allow students to understand the actions, rhetoric, strategies, and tactics of a variety of non-state socio-political movements and the resulting responses from state authorities. Students will focus on how one can study such activism from an inter-disciplinary perspective drawing from Sociology, Peace Studies, Social Movement Studies, Criminology, Communication, Anthropology, and Psychology.

Student Learning Outcomes
1. Familiarize students with the sociological study of social movements and social change through a focus on theories of collective behavior, identity construction and resource mobilization.

2. Explore and practice qualitative and quantitative methods for conducting field research focused on social movements, individual activists, and other agents of socio-political change.

3. Familiarize students with a variety of social movement organizations, prominent individuals, and conflicts as well as provide a comparative framework for evaluating their means and ends.

4. Develop a working taxonomy and vocabulary to discuss social movement tactics, strategies, methods of organization, communication and ideology.

5. Provide students a supportive atmosphere to practice and carryout primary source research including the process of design, data collection/fieldwork, analysis, peer review, public presentation and publication.

Amidst increasing concerns about harmful ecological change brought about by human actions towards the earth, environmental thinkers and activists attempt to envision human relations with the earth in new ways. Such thinking, however, frequently comes up against an inability to conceive of the more than human world as something towards which we can empathize or sympathize or to which we owe justice. As such, a powerful force in environmental discourse sees this problem as intractable and sees ecological change as a problem to be solved and the future of the earth as something to be managed. This paper explores Robert Waters’ art project uncover RECOVER in terms of this problem. His project activates a reflection on human life and social relations that fosters social healing and transformation. Is there a way to activate a similar process, but in terms of a natural healing of the earth and a social transformation of our relations to the earth? In considering this question, I argue that Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari’s concepts of becoming and sympathy offer a way of thinking human relations with earth others that could generate ethical and political responses to ecological change where the more than human world is considered as a co-participant and collaborator in human action and a subject to whom justice is owed. Sympathy with the nonhuman world acknowledges that human capacities are constituted by nonhuman materials and affects that do not respect the boundaries that tend to frame our thinking. Rather than continuing to allow our traditional assumptions about the separation of humans and nature to shape our relations to nonhuman world, imagining the human in new ways makes possible new forms of relations with the earth. I argue that attending to the ways that humans co-become with the nonhuman world affords opportunities for transforming human relations with the more than human world by fostering a new ecological sensibility.

The 17 islands program of DKI is formally not part of NCICD, however the areas are overlapping and the two programs have important synergies. The 17 islands concessions do not have the purpose to protect Jakarta from flooding by the sea.

NCICD will be closely coordinated with the DKI 17 islands development. Related to spatial planning, NCICD and the 17 islands development shall be integrated whereas implementation of the two programs comes under separate management.

Social scientists of conservation typically address sources of legitimacy of conservation policies in relation to local communities’ or indigenous land rights, highlighting social inequality and environmental injustice. This chapter reflects on the underlying ethics of environmental justice in order to differentiate between various motivations of conservation and its critique. Conservation is discussed against the backdrop of two main ethical standpoints: preservation of natural resources for human use and protection of nature for its own sake. These motivations will be examined highlighting mainstream conservation and alternative deep ecology environmentalism. Based on this examination, this chapter untangles concerns with social and ecological justice in order to determine how environmental and human values overlap, conflict, and where the opportunity for reconciliation lies, building bridges between supporters of social justice and conservation.

"With the emergence of education for sustainable development (ESD), robust literature on ethics and ESD has emerged; however, ecocentric perspective developed within environmental ethics is marginalized in current ESDebate. The questions discussed in this article are as follows: Why is the distinction between anthropocentric and ecocentric view of environment salient to ESD? How can this distinction be operationalized and measured? Until now, little has been done to address complement quantitative studies of environmental attitudes by qualitative studies, exploring the sociocultural context in which ecocentric or anthropocentric attitudes are being formed. Neither of existing scales engaged with the interface between environmental ethics and sustainable development.
This article will discuss ESD in the context of environmental ethics and present the results of the case study conducted with the Dutch Bachelor-level students. Results of qualitative evaluation of the scale measuring ecocentric and anthropocentric attitudes will be presented, and the new Ecocentric and Anthropocentric Attitudes toward the Sustainable Development (EAATSD) scale will be proposed.""""

Through the commodification of nature, the framing of the environment as a 'natural resource' or 'ecosystem service' has become increasingly prominent in international environmental governance. The economic capture approach is promoted by international organizations such as the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) through Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD), Payments for Ecosystem Services (PES) and The Economics of Ecosystems and Biodiversity (TEEB). This paper will inquire as to how forest protection is related to issues of social and ecological justice, exploring whether forest exploitation based on the top-down managerial model fosters an unequitable distribution of resources. Both top-down and community-based approaches to forest protection will be critically examined and a more inclusive ethical framework to forest protection will be offered. The findings of this examination indicate the need for a renewed focus on existing examples of good practice in addressing both social and ecological need, as well as the necessity to address the less comfortable problem of where compromise appears less possible. The conclusion argues for the need to consider ecological justice as an important aspect of more socially orientated environmental justice for forest protection.

Anthropologists, political ecologists, and social justice advocates working in biological conservation have mediated between discriminated communities and outsiders, particularly helping to influence public opinion and bring attention to indigenous rights through advocacy work. A less explored area is how indigenous rights relate to ecological justice in Amazonia. As social scientists rarely talk about violence against nonhumans and related wilderness destruction, this case study of conservation in Amazonia explores this new area of concern. Ethical inquiries in conservation also engage with the manifold ways through which human and nonhuman lives are entangled and emplaced within wider ecological relationships, converging in the notion of environmental justice. However, as environmental justice is often conflated with social justice in the distribution of natural resources, it often fails to account for overt violence or exploitation of nonhumans

A worldview if often understood as “a comprehensive model of reality” combining “beliefs, assumptions, attitudes, values, and ideas” (Schlitz, Vieten, & Miller, 2010, p. 19). We all hold basic – although often unconscious – assumptions about the very nature of reality, including our relationship with what is commonly called “nature” or “the environment.” As well, we have assimilated a variety of sensorial habits or filters that affect the way we perceive the world. Perhaps a more comprehensive, embodied definition of a worldview might therefore be “an organic integration of dispositions, habits, feelings, and assumptions that orient the way we perceive, understand, and live in the world” (Hathaway, 2018, p. 9).

Worldviews, then, are not simply a set of conceptual beliefs, but holistic, embodied frames built up through experience that orient both perception and action. This integration of habits, feelings, and assumptions may influence our ability to perceive the problems we face and also limit our imaginations, making it more difficult to conceive of a path toward ecological sustainability and social well-being. As Albert Einstein noted, “the significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same level of thinking we were at when we created them.” We may need a new vision of reality, or even a new modality of consciousness – a more ecological worldview – in order to address our most urgent crises and to create a more just and sustainable human society.

ENV333 explores how worldviews – including those with roots in scientific, religious, philosophical, and economic perspectives – have contributed to environmental and related social problems and how changes in our worldview might contribute to the solution of these problems. To delve into these questions, the course will examine the understanding of nature and environment in western, eastern, and Indigenous traditions. As well, the course will explore a variety of ecological worldviews including deep ecology, ecofeminism, and social ecology as well as cosmogenic and liberatory perspectives. Finally, the course will explore the nature of ecological wisdom and how it might be cultivated in practice

One of the main outcomes of the Rio + 20 Conference was the agreement
to set Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The most common terms in
the17 goals are economic growth, resilience and inclusion, all of which are
critically examined in this article. This article discusses how these goals are
reflected within existing sustainability programs at a vocational college, and
at the undergraduate and postgraduate university levels in The Netherlands.
Within all three institutions the author has integrated lectures on sustainable
development with specific emphasis on the SDGs. The aim was to engage
students in critical discussion, allowing reflection on the issues and
paradoxes that characterise the larger discourse of sustainability. The case
studies illustrate how curriculum aimed at this awareness can be developed
stimulating the students’ recognition of critique of economic development,
inclusion and resilience. As a result of the courses, the students were able
to develop a certain degree of critical, imaginative, and innovative thinking
about sustainable development in general and the SDGs in particular.
Cradle to cradle and circular economy approaches were named as more
promising for current production systems. This article concludes with the
recommendation as to how the SDGs can be critically taught.

""Anthropological literature addressing conservation and development often blames ‘conservationists’ as being neo-imperialist in their attempts to institute limits to commercial activities by imposing their post-materialist eco-ideology. The
author argues that this view of conservationists is ironic in light of the fact that the very notion of ‘development’ is arguably an imposition of the (Western) elites. The anthropocentric bias in anthropology also permeates constructivist ethnographies of
human–animal ‘interactions,’ which tend to emphasize the socio-cultural complexity and interconnectivity rather than the unequal and often extractive nature of this ‘interaction.’ Anthropocentrism is argued to be counteractive to reconciling conservationists’ efforts at environmental protection with the traditional ontologies
of the interdependency of human-nature relationship.""

Justice for nature remains a confused term. In recent decades justice has predominantly been limited to humanity, with a strong focus on social justice, and its spin-off – environmental justice for people. We first examine the formal rationale for ecocentrism and ecological ethics, as this underpins attitudes towards justice for nature, and show how justice for nature has been affected by concerns about dualisms and by strong anthro-pocentric bias. We next consider the traditional meaning of social justice, alongside the recent move by some scholars to push justice for nature into social justice, effectively weakening any move to place ecojustice centre-stage. This, we argue, is both unethical and doomed to failure as a strategy to protect life on Earth. The dominant meaning of 'environmental justice' – in essence, justice for humans in regard to environmental issues – is also explored. We next discuss what ecological justice (ecojustice) is, and how academia has ignored it for many decades. The charge of ecojustice being 'antihuman' is refuted. We argue that distributive justice can also apply to nature, including an ethic of bio-proportionality, and also consider how to reconcile social justice and eco-justice, arguing that ecojustice must now be foregrounded to ensure effective conservation. After suggesting a 'Framework for implementing ecojustice' for conservation practitioners, we conclude by urging academia to foreground ecojustice.

There is emerging global agreement that environmental change is one of the greatest threats to ecosystems, culture, health, and economies of humankind. In response to these environmental changes and the expected human vulnerability they will continue to produce, the American Academy of Social Work and Social Welfare has highlighted intervention to address the human impacts of the changing climate as one of the profession's grand challenges. This article troubles the often anthropocentric worldview from which such responses emerge and proposes a framework informed by the wisdom of deep ecology and ecofeminism. Born from critical methodologies that question the rigid bifurcation and valuation of male/female and human/nonhuman, these perspectives invite social workers to think in novel ways about environmental challenges. We argue that the social work profession, which has historically sought to disturb power dynamics and reprioritize society's needs, is uniquely situated to think holistically about responding to this crisis. By honoring the interrelated nature of human and nonhumankind, social workers can more mindfully lead the social planning and advocacy efforts necessary to meet this grand challenge.

Environmental anthropologists attempt to accommodate social justice while seeking to reconcile more-than-human relations and responsibilities towards their habitats. This article acknowledges areas of tension between local livelihoods and international conservation efforts, between indigenous peoples and wildlife, between traditional lifeways and development, and finally between different types of ethical assumptions that underlie anthropological advocacy. A number of dichotomies that are inherent in these tensions are discussed. With regard to the ecocentric/anthropocentric dichotomy, I argue that while human and environmental interests are sometimes intertwined, ecocentrism is necessary if non-humans are to be protected outside of utilitarian interests. With regard to the ‘neoliberal conservation/local communities’ dichotomy, I argue that blaming conservation for the violation of social justice depoliticises the issue of ecological injustice. Through a critical discussion of these dichotomies, this article examines the role of environmental anthropology in addressing today’s pressing environmental issues, particularly the loss of biodiversity, with respect to the ‘conservation’ of communities and that of protected areas

Stefan Bengtsson’s commentary about policy hegemony discusses the alternative discourses of socialism, nationalism, and globalism. However, Stefan does not adequately demonstrate how these discourses can overcome the Dominant Western Worldview (DWW), which is imbued with anthropocentrism. It will be argued here that most policy choices promoting sustainability, and education for it, are made within a predetermined system in which the already limiting notion of environmental protection is highly contingent on human welfare.  What would really contest the dominant assumptions of Vietnamese policy and, more specifically, education for sustainable development (ESD) is an alternative discourse that challenges the DWW. That alternative discourse embraces philosophical ecocentrism and practices of ecological justice between all species, and deep ecology theory - all perspectives fundamentally committed to environmental protection.

This article will briefly discuss the implications of recognition of ecological justice in relation to environmental education
(EE) and education for sustainable development (ESD). It is argued that the present conception of environment taught
through EE and ESD negates the subjectivity of non-human species and ignores the ethical imperatives of ecological
justice. Evocating environmental ethics, major directions integrating ecological justice into EE and ESD are proposed.

The concept of sustainable lifestyles is said to have reached the limits of its usefulness. As commonly understood, it impedes an effective response to our increasingly complex world, and the associated societal challenges. In this context, the emerging paradigm of relationality might offer a way forward to renew our current understanding and approach. We explore this possibility in this study. First, we systematize if, and how, the current dominant social paradigm represents a barrier to sustainable lifestyles. Second, we analyze how a relational approach could help to overcome these barriers. On the basis of our findings, we develop a Relational Lifestyle Framework (RLF). Our aim is to advance the current knowledge by illustrating how sustainable lifestyles are a manifestation of identified patterns of thinking, being, and acting that are embedded in today's "socioecological" realities. The RLF revitalizes the field of sustainable lifestyle change, as it offers a new understanding for further reflection, and provides new directions for policy and transformation research.

In  this  chapter,  communal  activities  towards  peace  are  discussed  from  the perspective of feminist posthumanism, which sees the world as a network of interrelations between  human  and  non-human.  Employing  participatory  methodologies,  particularly  the problem tree and the testimonies of the inhabitants of the community of Pueblo Bello, Turbo, Antioquia, Colombia, this article explores how the inhabitants themselves face their experiences of suffering caused by the armed conflict. It is argued that the community rebuilds the social fabric from an ethical stand by deconstructing power relations even if intuitively. Their survival is nourished by the activities carried out by the community leaders and the recognition of the interrelation between the humans and non-humans. This exercised governance demands both from the State and the academia to rethink the conventional meaning of violence and justice by means of the presented organic solution mode.

The paper analyses six international-scale responses to the financial and climate change 'double crisis' in order to: review how they define problems and solutions, analyse what underpins the policy choices revealed in these responses (the 'green turn'), reflect on the implications of the proposed solutions in terms of sustainability and global environmental justice, and to suggest three elements for a paradigm shift towards an 'alternative' turn embedded in ecological economics theory. The analysis reveals that responses by leading international organisations continue to appeal to the precepts of neoclassical economy. We argue that from an ecological economics perspective, policy responses under the various labels of green economy, green growth, sustainable growth, green new deal, fall well short of what is needed to fight the environmental crisis and rising inequality across and within countries. The idea of justice and equity that underpins the mainstream approach seems inadequate in terms of sustaining our environmental base and global environmental justice. Based on this critical review, we propose an 'alternative turn', centered on three elements of a paradigm shift leading to a new economy where the environmental base and global environmental justice are at the centre of the discourse.

This book defends an account of justice to nonhuman beings – i.e., to animals, plants etc. – also known as ecological or interspecies justice, and which lies in the intersection of environmental political theory and environmental ethics. More specifically, against the background of the current extinction crisis this book defends a global non-ranking biocentric theory of distributive ecological/interspecies justice to wild nonhuman beings, because the extinction crisis does not only need practical solutions, but also an account of how it is the outcome of large-scale injustice. This book not only provides a novel theoretical framework that supports such a claim, but it also develops the theoretical tools to find just compromises between the entitlements of intraspecies and intra-human global distributive justice to ecological space for the purpose of working towards a vision of just conservation.

Content:
1. Introducing Ecological Justice
2. Political Non-Ranking Biocentrism
3. The Community of Justice
4. The Currency of Distributive Justice
5. The Principles of Distributive Justice
6. Ecological Justice and the Capabilities Approach
7. Biodiversity Loss: An Injustice?
8. Who Owns the Earth?
9. Visions of Just Conservation
10. Outlook for Implementation

Philosophy Kitchen, n. 15, 2021, pp. 25-36.
This paper explores power ontology as an alternative to the traditional passivist view that has justified some human attitudes toward the environment. Once we see powers as a part of nature and every being as endowed with peculiar powers, it becomes possible to see them as normative indications prescribing how to regulate our relationship with the rest of the world. The more consistent instance of power metaphysics is probably offered by Whitehead; however, the legacy of his philosophy of the organism is more often associated with the rebirth of panpsychism. Even if as an ecological strategy panpsychism has the merit to encourage a more charitable attitude toward non-humans, it presents some flaws that make the pluralism of power ontology more desirable, as it considers not only thought but every kind of power as a claimant to value. Finally, a particular kind of power ontology named “materialicism” will be sketched: a study of the powers immanent to materials. Materialicism help us to understand how human projects depend abundantly on the so far neglected powers of matter and how such powers ask for a consideration that can no longer be negated them after the ongoing ecological crisis. The powers of materials express themselves as nomoi (to borrow the concept from Deleuze and Guattari), which consist in what a legislator aware of the active nature of the world should take into consideration for a policy- making suitable to the future of the planet.