Ecological malaise, or environmental illness, has emerged as a major concern in world politics. At its worst, ecological ill health threatens humankind’s biological existence. It affects both developed and developing nations. The depletion and waste of resources; population growth wildly in excess of available food, land, water, and energy; the depletion of the ozone layer and global warming and climate change; and air and water pollution—these are all real threats to hopes for a better tomorrow. In particular, ecological dangers may prevent developing nations from overcoming poverty, threaten the prosperity of developed nations, and may facilitate violent conflict between nation-states as they maneuver to control valuable and increasingly scarce resources, such as water.

We are challenged by a wide array of global environmental issues, and the response of the international community to these growing concerns has been mixed at best. A number of global environmental conferences have been held, resulting in numerous declarations of intent for better environmental management, but few effective mechanisms have emerged. One area of some success is that several agreements have been negotiated to limit and ultimately ban the release into the atmosphere of the harmful gases that are a major cause of ozone depletion and global warming.

Chapter 15 presents a number of alternative approaches for dealing with environmental problems. Proponents of the liberal conservation approach maintain that modest reforms can do the job. They emphasize the feasibility of conserving scarce resources, limiting family size, and safeguarding the environment. Programs such as conservation campaigns, family planning, and environmental protection have been helpful. But are reforms that build on existing policies enough? Critics maintain that these kinds of reforms do not come to grips with the radical problems of scarcity, overpopulation, and pollution, and they argue that current forms of conservation only postpone the day of reckoning.

The guarded optimists believe that many environmental problems have been grossly exaggerated and that problems of population, hunger, energy, raw materials, and pollution are solvable with the use of cutting-edge technology and through economic growth. Critics contend that this kind of thinking is fanciful and point to the alarming costs of technological solutions.

Advocates of sustainable development, a concept widely accepted in the United Nations, call for a two-pronged management approach. First, there must be a high degree of responsible and rational management of growth at the national level. Second, sustainable development requires a high level of international cooperation and agreed-upon norms of environmental protection. Rules for environmental management must be enforceable. This approach is appealing because it does not reject the notion of growth but claims that growth must be combined with more international programs of planet management. Critics claim that sustainable development smacks of “having one’s cake and eating it too.” Moreover, the approach implies some major adjustments in standard of living in the developed world, and such adjustments may be difficult to implement.

Advocates of a steady-state philosophy are convinced that the present ecological crisis is a deep-seated, ongoing reality and cannot be dealt with through superficial reform or technological fixes. They argue that radical policies will be necessary to achieve a basic long-term balance between the demands of a population and the environment that supplies its wants. Steady-state thinking is closely akin to sustainable development, but it is not as sympathetic to economic growth. Critics of steady state assert that people are simply not willing to pay the costs of steady state—reduced economic growth, more modest lifestyles, and the expenses of pollution control.

Finally, some critics are convinced that the dangers of ecological ill health cannot be met in a democratic and constitutional way. They maintain that only benevolent authoritarianism can prevent disaster. A benevolent elite (which understands the ecological dangers, has the common good and posterity in mind, and has the courage and will to act) must use coercive, authoritarian means to rescue humankind. Opponents of this approach quite naturally feel that the medicine is worse than the disease and that ecological health can be regained in ways more compatible with democratic and constitutional government.

Our ecological problems require a momentous political response that taxes the human capacity for wise judgment.