Fr.
Damianus Abun, SVD, MBA, Ph.D
Introduction
Growing concern
on the environment is increasing because the world is changing. Thomas L.
Friedman (2006) said that the world is getting hot, flat and crowded. The world
is flat because of the technology. Technological revolution levels the global
economic playing field and enables many people around the world to compete,
connect and collaborate. Global/Asian cooperation makes it possible that Asian
countries do not need Visa to travel to other Asian countries for a certain
period or number of days. This is good not only for travels but also for
economy. The market is global not limited to domestic market. There is free
flow of goods without barriers or fewer tariffs. The needs of one country can
be supplied by other countries. We do not need to cry for lack of supply. That’s
good news. The world is also crowded because of the world population is growing.
According to UN’s projection, that by 2053, there will be nine billion people
on the planet. The United Nations Populations Divisions predicted that there
will be an increase of 2, 5 billion over the next 43 years passing from the
current 6,7 billion to 9,2 billion in 2050 ((http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm).
Crowded world make it worse to live when the world is hot because our planet is
experiencing a warming trend which is over and above natural and normal
variations-that is almost certainly due to human activities associated with
large scale of mining and manufacturing. These developments concern us all.
Crowded world and the hot world are related, one really affects the other. Crowded
world could cause a problem of supply and demand. The world resources are
limited while the demand keeps on increasing. Consequently there will be time
that the natural resources will run out. Before things happen, the time to act
is now. The solution is in our hands. Legal solutions are necessary but it may
not answer the problem because the cause of the problem is cultural and ethical.
Thus it needs cultural and ethical overhaul to respond to climate change. .
In view of the increasing population, energy shifts, resource consumption and pollution, the creation of a sustainable world will need massive change in human attitudes and actions, in fact a ‘‘new ethic’’ for humankind. In short, it is a cultural change; a change of views and behavior, a conversion. Changing views means people need to see environment in new way which is ethical way. Ethical perception or views on the environment must be developed so that new ethical behavior in dealing with the environment is followed. This will call a collective and individual change.
UN’s climate
change report, based on input from some 1,500 scientists from around the world,
contains data about the alarming effect that human-caused carbon emissions are
having upon our planet. The chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change says that the report “should jolt people into action.” The time is now
not later ((http://www.unep.org/climatechange/).
People cannot
just ignore with what is happening with the environment. Issues on climate
change and global warming is a call for alarm reminding the world to change way
of life, or change of culture. The 21st century emerged with a gradually
increasing public awareness that the world was entering a troubling age and we
had better pay attention if we wanted to be assured of a sustainable future as
pointed out by It was pointed out by
Dennis and Donella Meadows (1972) and cited by Thompson (2009) that there are ‘‘Limits to Growth’’1) and if
we were to continue at the then current rate of consumption of the Earth’s
resources we would not have a sustainable world in the longer range future.
Aurelio Peccei (1984), the founder of the Club of Rome - which commissioned the
Meadows’ book - called for a ‘‘New Ethic for Mankind’’. It is a call to change
the principles of conduct through change of views. Old ways of doing things or
business as usual is no longer the behavior or the argument of present
generation in dealing with the climate change. The bottom line of this change
is cultural change because it is the culture that affects human attitude and
behavior.
If the Golden
Age of Greece, from around 500 to 300 BC, was built on the energy of slaves but
we are now blessed with energy from an abundant supply of oil and natural
resources. However, this will of course not be so in the longer range future.
Warning signs are abundantly apparent. We do not need to wait until everything
is gone and all species of the world are gone. We will need to plan now for a true transition
to a new age and a new ethic (Thompson, 2009) in solving these problems.
Natural resources are limited and the resources that we have now will not be
sustainable in the near future. The time to change is now and that change is a
call to cultural change.
This paper
argues that human behavior is influenced by of the culture. Culture is our
world views. This is how it works that the culture affects the mind or the views and
the mind affects the attitude and the attitude influences the behavior of the
person. Thus change needs a change of culture.
Cultural Change: What is it?
Cultural change is
changing cultures or changing the old ways of views, behavior and values. The
issue here is change. People need to change because the world is changing. We
cannot remain the same again as of yesterday, today and tomorrow. This is a
challenge. It creates a new dimension and great uncertainty. However such
reason should not dampen our spirit to change. Change is inevitable. It is
difficult task, if not impossible because how we change what others think,
feel, believe and do. But when we are confronted by two choices, between life
and death, then we need to take a stand, we have to change, though it is
difficult. We choose life, we change our way of life, despite the odds.
Before going
further, let us understand what culture is from the point of
anthropologists. Here are two good definitions by two people whom we should
know. Geert Hofstede as cited by Brown (1995) defined a very common set of
models for international cultures, whilst Edgar Schein (1994) is an authority
on a several topics and has written one of the best books on organizational
culture.
“Culture
is the collective programming of the human mind that distinguishes the members
of one human group from those of another. Culture in this sense is a system of
collectively held values.” -- Geert
Hofstede
“Culture
is the deeper level of basic assumptions and beliefs that are shared by members
of an organization that operate unconsciously and define in a basic ‘taken for
granted’ fashion an organization's view of its self and its environment.” -- Edgar Schein
Base on those definitions, culture
is playing important role in programming the mind of an individual. Thus the total
cultural change is the change of mind, behavior and values of the people who
have been formed in a certain pattern of ways of thinking or beliefs, behaving
and relating. In this case, it is a call to revisit again our mind, thought or
concepts, perceptions and held values on
the environment and evaluate whether those thought, views, values are not the
main cause of problem in society. Radical change is necessary. Old ways have to
be changed with the new ways. Thus the culture that damages the relationship,
the society, and environment, then it is our moral responsibility to change
those old views. However building up new behavior and value systems would be a
great challenge. However cultural overhaul is not impossible if the members of
society determine to change.
The challenge would be that “is
it possible to change the culture? Some may argue that a cultural change is
hard but I would argue that it is possible, there is nothing impossible. If the
organizational culture can be changed, then society’s culture can be changed
too. It is just that people needs to feel the urgency to change. There must be
trigger. In our case, we have global warming or climate change. This is not
simple. In this effort, someone or leader of any group should come out to
proclaim that urgency and make people feel that the time is now for change. Unless
people the urgency, then they would not change. The UN has already proclaimed
the urgency. Now people need to reinvent themselves. Reinventing lies not only
in marginally changing the current ways of doing things or behaving, but
creating a totally new approaches, new views, new behavior and new world
because the world is changing and people need to change. Organizational
development expert would argue that a static organizational culture can no
longer be effective. Thus managers or leaders must be able to recognize when
changes are needed and must possess the necessary skills and competence to
implement these changes. The society must try to adapt itself to a dynamic
environment by introducing new views, approaches, behavior and values on how to
deal with the changing world to become more effective (Harvey, Don & Donald
R. Brown, 2001)
The message of change is urgent.
The environment is changing not in the right direction but in the wrong
direction. Climate change and global warming is an urgent call to intervene on
how to prevent a further damage. This time we need to create a winning culture
because it is the cultures that brings us forward or bringing us down. In the
companies, it is the culture that differentiates excellent companies and low
performing companies. Thus to make a better or excellent company, organization
cultural change is important. Therefore, what is important here is how to make
the changes happen.
Cultural resistance to change is
always there. Changing the mind, the behavior, and values of people is not
easy. People are not ready to accept new things; they prefer to stay in their
comfort zones because of uncertainty of the output what is going to happen.
Thus it really takes time for a cultural transformation to take effect. It
needs a process to follow. Thus a change agent must identify what particular
aspects of culture need to change and explain the need to change. After the
identification of the problem and explain the problem and finally inform the
people why they need to change or shift their views. Thus information
dissemination of new sets of beliefs or views must be disseminated. Media can
be the main tools to disseminate new information.
Change our Views and behavior toward the Environment: New Ethics.
The main
question here is how we see the environment. To help us in gaining new ideas on
how we see the environment, we can see and read the statement of Pope Benedict
in one of his speech before the youth during a rally near Ancona, on the
Adriatic coast in September, 2007.
“Before it is too late, we need to make
courageous choices that will create strong
alliance between humankind and the
environment” (Bricker, 2009).
From this
statement we draw an idea that environment is not a mere object to be exploited
but equal alliance. An alliance is equal; one is not greater than the other.
Both sides are dependent and there is mutual relationship that benefits both
sides. Human and environment are equal importance. Human needs a healthy
environment and environment needs human, not to destroy but to take care. In other words, environment is part of the
network that human being need to develop in order to survive. In this case, we
need to develop an ethical relationship, just like ethical relationship between
human and human. We need to treat the environment as we treat human being.
Ethics is
defined in Webster’s dictionary as: "The discipline dealing with what is
good and bad and with moral duty and obligation". In this case, there are moral standards that
we need to apply. There are allowed and not allowed behaviors when we deal with
other human and environment. We have a moral duty to do or to protect the
environment like what do to other human beings. Moral commands like helping the
sick and the poor are also applied to the environment that we should take care
and protect the environment. We have no choice, except to implement it. Such
principles of conduct are not only applied to human but also to the
environment. The transition from a growth society that the developed countries
presently enjoy, to one with a stable world population and economic sustainability,
could require the greatest evolutionary change in the history of humankind. The
changing conduct and ethical base of the world’s population must indeed change.
This is no exaggeration as will be pointed out in the text that follows
(Thompson, 2009).
Changing conduct
and wear a new ethical conduct is a call to all people to have a new view of
environment and a new kind of relationship. What is that new view on
environment? Anything that surrounds us whether they are trees or animals are
independent subject, they are no longer object to be used by human beings. Thus
the new relationship between human and environment is no longer between subject
and object but it is a subject to subject because of equal importance. Both have
mutual relationship and interdependence. Both sides need each other. Mutual
relationship is not applied to subject and object but only subject to subject. In
the language of Marthin Buber, interpersonal relationship (I- Thou/You) must be
applied in which one is treated as independent subject, not an object to be
manipulated (I-It) (Maurice S. Friedman, 1955) Dwelling in this
concept, consequently human should treat the environment as the extension of
himself or herself. He or she herself as part of the environment and destroying
the environment means destroying himself or herself. In this case, respect for
oneself is equal to respect to the environment.
New kind of
relationship will always depend on the way how we see the environment. How I
treat the tree depending on how I see the tree. In the olden time, people do
not just cut down the big trees because they are afraid and they believe that
big trees are the house of the spirit. If they force to cut it, something might
happen to them, they get sick in return. Enforcing such idea into the modern mind might be funny for some but if
we see in the different perspective, such idea enforce harmony with the
environment. Human needs to build a harmony with the environment because
damaging the environment can cause harm to the humans. Destroying the
environment is destroying the harmony. The idea of Baruch Spinoza may support
the argument. He equated God and nature. He disagrees that God alone is perfect
and the natural order less than perfect. Spinoza equates reality with
perfection. Since it is true that nothing in nature could be otherwise than it
is, and all things in nature are a part of God and follow necessarily from his
nature, God would not be complete without the whole natural order. Spinoza
equated God (infinite substance) with Nature, consistent with Einstein's
belief in an impersonal deity. Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the
orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the
fates and actions of human beings (Nabor Nery, 2007).” Dwelling on this idea,
humans need to see themselves as a part of a bigger whole, they are part of a
bigger reality which is God and that God reveals himself in the harmony of
nature. Building a harmonious relationship with others with the nature is the same
with building relationship with God. Destroying nature meaning we are
destroying God and in return we are punished through environmental
disaster.
Consistent with
the above idea, then respect for the environment is not only because of its
instrumental value but because of its intrinsic value and its divine intrinsic
value. Instrumental value is based on the use of the object for human purpose. In
this regard, we protect the environment because it is important for future
generation. We protect the plants because it can be used for research and
medicine. In other words, if the object, the plants or animal are not useful
for human needs or endanger human life, then they can be destroyed. That is an
old view of the environment. While intrinsic value and divine intrinsic is the
value of thing in itself which is created /given by God, it does not depend on
its usefulness to human purpose or needs. We believe that all objects in the
nature have its own value in itself and have its own purpose in itself. And
something that has value in itself, we have a moral responsibility to respect
and to protect (Stanford Encyclopedia, 2002). It is our moral mandate to
protect the environment because of its independent value, its own dignity and
its usefulness for human needs and future generation. This is a new view of the
environment.
Natural resources have its limits and if there
is no intervention in the process, then it will reach to the point that natural
resources will be emptied in the future and everything will completely stop. To
explain the situation, we can borrow the Queuing theory. Queuing Theory says
that a small restriction in supply cannot just slow the process by a small
percentage, but that it comes to a complete stop. For example, a busy highway
is loaded to capacity but flowing rapidly. Then some car or truck slows down to
look at an accident at the side of the road. No obstruction is in the way of
the flow, but it has been slowed by a very small percentage and the whole
system comes to a dead stop. Similarly, the housewife stocks up on sugar when
it is announced that sugar will be rationed. Result: no more sugar on the
shelves and the system shuts down. When such a phenomenon occurs to supplying a
large city, it may well shut down. A power blackout is an example of such an
overloaded system and consequent shutdown. Now, all this is to give a glimpse
of what could happen as resources worldwide get in short supply. The urgency is
apparent and must be dealt with well before it happens (Thompson, 2009). The
answer here is not only through legal solutions in which laws must be
established to protect the environment but human behavior.
New ethic is needed
to prevent further damage of the environment. We need to change our behavior in
dealing with the environment by adopting new understanding of the universe that
we are not the master of the universe but we are steward to cultivate and to
take care of the earth. Genesis 2:15 clearly said that the Lord God then took
the man and settled him in the garden of Eden to cultivate and care for it.
Thus the order to subdue the earth (Genesis, 1:28) is not everything, there is
a limit. The earth and everything in it is the source of food for human kind,
not only for the present human kind but future human kind. Emptying everything
would mean killing the future generation which is immoral. The current crises
need response from all of us.
Collective and Personal response to climate change
Days are getting
warmer and warmer and we keep on complaining why it is getting warmer and
warmer. The climate has changed. It means that if there is no intervention to
prevent further damage, then there will time that everything will be gone, the
planet would be simply a desert and no human species would live on it and
everything would be dead. All of us do not want these catastrophic consequences.
Thus, instead of complaining, it is time to get action collectively and
individually to prevent further damage in the environment. Climate change
affects everyone, rich and poor.
Nowadays we are
facing two crises: first there is a limited supply of fossil fuels. The
consumption has been growing every year and definitely the earth’s resource
will start to dwindle. Such situation will cause price instability. When the
supply continues to be limited, the price will continue to rise. The second
crisis is that when the atmosphere reach its limit to absorb carbon without causing
rapid increase of energy in the atmosphere and oceans. These two crises are
threatening. They are posing a massive challenge to human survival and to
modern civilization (McNerney, 2012). The solution is not impossible.
As a consequence of the limited resources is war. I
am reminded again by jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) that that in the pure state of human nature, Man
is a being in constant state of war against all others (http://braungardt.trialectics.com/philosophy/political-theory/rousseau).
Human beings are motivated by self-interest. This war will be caused by
limited resource available in the nature. Countries will look for more
resources outside of their own territory to support their industry survival and
of their people. One in front of us is China. Its population and its industry are
bigger than the supply and the resources are getting limited and as a
consequence they are desperate to look for more natural resources outside their
own territory. Other Asian countries are under threat because China is
desperate looking for more natural resources to support their industries and
the survival of their people. Islands that are claimed by other countries would
be claimed by China. Military power would come into play. However, war may not
be our concern here but our concern would be how we are going to prevent the
environment disaster as the consequence of the use of the fossil fuel.
In terms of war
as one of the consequences of limited energy can be prevented but climate
change as a consequence of human behavior toward environment and the use of
fossil fuel cannot be prevented unless humans change their behavior or
lifestyle. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its
Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis, which
concludes the warming of the climate system, is unequivocal, human influence on
the climate system is clear, and limiting climate change will require
substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions. This declaration comes as no surprise to
anyone who has been paying the least bit of attention of what is happening in
the climate change. However, it seems that first declaration was not successful
enough to encourage everyone to get involved in preventing climate change. The
first IPCC report, issued in 1990, came to virtually the same conclusion, while
in the interim a great deal of energy and greenhouse gas emissions have gone
into debates over how many degrees the planet will warm and how many inches the
seas will rise, while efforts to substantially and sustainably reduce
greenhouse gas emissions have languished (Jim Baird, 2014). This time the declaration is to reiterate again
the concern over climate change. Would it be good to ignore? The answer is not.
The time is near and transformation is needed. How are we going to get
involved?
The
current economy functions more like a knockout monopoly tournament, where the
objective of the game is to bankrupt everyone else, and only the strongest is
to survive the game. It is no longer an intellectual games but the game of
money. Money is the capital and not the intelligence. Money plays the game in order to succeed.
This game is really motivated by greed and self-interest. These game results to
only few are rich and majority of the world population are poor and almost half
of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population. It is
ridiculous. One might legitimately ask, to what end? It would be one thing if
that one percent was marshalling their wealth on behalf of mankind but for the
most part they are not. They are more likely to be found trying to summit the
Forbes Billionaires list –likely as not through the acquisition of shares in
fossil fuel companies - than tackling climate change and when the latter
becomes a life threatening situation things are likely to get very ugly.
English
law recognizes the defense of necessity. When one is genuinely at risk of
immediate harm or danger and there is a situation of overwhelming urgency then
a person has the right to respond in an otherwise unlawful manner (http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Necessity+defense). Climate
change brings us risks and natural human reaction would necessitate us to
respond in order for us not to be killed. Climate change will soon cross that threshold
and some might say, as in the case of Typhoon Yolanda, at least thousands of
people dead in the Philippines alone, it already has. However, reactive
behavior may not be needed in responding to climate change because it might be
too late like in the Yolanda typhoon case. Preventive action is needed.
We
know who the actors in environmental problems are; they are the capitalists or
the one percent of the world total world population. They are the developed
countries that had amassed the resources of the world for their economy.
Logically they should be the one to solve the climate change problem. Unfortunately
they are the ones who are crying around the world to solve environmental
problems. Why other people should be bothered? The consequence of what they
have been doing is all human kind, though the benefits are theirs. We are not
also staying away and pointing fingers to them because we all are dying, rich
and poor.
As our world slowly and belatedly makes
the complex transition from fossil fuels to renewable-energy sources, leading
climate-change scientists give us a mere five years to radically change how we
power our industrial civilization without causing runaway global warning.
We
may get confused on what to do in this situation. However, staying without
doing anything is to allow the deterioration of the environment. Some proposal
can be forwarded:
Collectively All citizens must become global warming
activism. This is an invitation that all citizens must support for policies
designed to reduce the risk of global warming. In this case all citizens must
participate together with the environmental group to propose activities and
recommend to the policy makers to write laws to protect the environment. Substantively,
global warming policy will only succeed if citizens support these policies in a
variety of political venues, and are also willing to implement these policies
by engaging in recommended environmental behaviors (Mark Lubell Æ Sammy Zahran
Æ Arnold Vedlitz, 2007). The unity principle plays a key role by linking
individual and group actions to make a great impact. If the individual believes
that group unity is necessary for success, then the individual expected value
of collective action is conditional on the behavior of the other group members.
Individually There must be a
change in individual behavior. Each individual should not stay idle and doing
nothing. Engaging in personal environmental behaviors that influence global
warming is a must. Individual must make a difference in adapting behaviors that
help preventing climate change. Behaviors that damage the environment must not
be continued. Definitely views or philosophies that are not supporting for the
reduction of global warming must be changed. In the individual level, it is a
total transformation. All citizens need to wear new ethics, new behavior and
new relationship with the environment. Everyone should see the environment, the
livings things and non living things as subject, not as an object. They are all
good and have value in themselves even though they may not be useful for
humans. Everything that has value in themselves, humans have moral
responsibility to respect, not to destroy.
Adopting new behavior is necessary.
Green behaviors are the immediate answer on the personal level. Everyone should
consider behavior that would not contribute to the pollution and the damage of
the environment. It is the imperative to drastically reduce our own and our
family’s carbon-dioxide footprint. This is something people can do regardless
of the slow response by many business and political leaders to the serious
planetary changes expected as climate change speeds up.
In the coming decades, energy production
will need to be more localized, gasoline usage will shrink — perhaps as much
due to the peak-oil phenomenon as to climate change mandates — and air travel
will decline. People will need to work toward producing more of the energy and
goods they need closer to home. Recycling will become even more important than
it is today — as will using the collected recyclables as a feedstock for local
industries. The amount of energy consumed by transporting current volumes of
world trade is simply not sustainable.
Reducing their
consumption accordingly, others of us have already been voluntarily simplifying
our lives and our consumption patterns in order to reach a more sustainable
level of usage of the planet’s resources (forests, minerals, fossil fuels,
agriculture, water, etc.). Our greediness to consume and to use many things
contributes to the damage of the environment. Life style has to be scrutinized
if that life style contributes to the climate change.
Collective and individual respond to climate change must be immediate
and it does not need to be expensive. According to UN report on Climate Change
conducted by Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that catastrophic climate change can be averted without
sacrificing living standards. The report concludes that the transformation required
to a world of clean energy is eminently affordable. The cheapest and least
risky route to dealing with global warming is to abandon all dirty fossil fuels
in coming decades (IPCC, April 14, 2014). This requires a shift in mind set of
countries and people who are used to use fossil fuels to a renewable energy. Such
report dismisses the earlier speculations that slashing carbon emission would
cost much to the economy. According to the report diverting hundreds of
billions of dollars from fossil fuels into renewable energy and cutting energy
waste would shave just 0.06% off expected annual economic growth rates of
1.3%-3%, the IPCC report concluded. The report is a wakeup call. The action
must be now. The more we wait, the more it will cost and the more difficult it
will become. This is not only a call to the countries, companies but also to
individual persons to shift life style by reducing the use fossil fuels or not
depending on fossil fuel. It means that people need not to use private cars for
travel and for their daily kitchen operation.
Conclusion
Solving
environmental problems is more complex. It is not just the absence of laws that
protect the environment but it is more than that. Human behaviors are
influenced by their culture and their culture affects their minds or their
beliefs and their values and their belief affect their behavior. Those beliefs
and values are formed by the existing culture in which they live and such
culture has been in existence for centuries. This is to remind us that changing
such cultures might take time and a tedious process but it is not impossible.
My argument is that solving environmental problem is a cultural issue. In this
case, total cultural change is necessary. This is not an easy job but it is not
an impossible one. Culture can be changed even though is considered to be hard.
We need to reexamine our own beliefs and values and ask ourselves whether those
beliefs and values are helping us to protect the environment.
If the old view,
we look at the environment as an object to be manipulated or to be subdued but
the new view is that environment is a subject. It is an alliance of human
being. As a subject, it is equal with human beings. Thus our relationship with
the environment is subject to subject. We need to respect one another.
Respecting the
environment is not just because of its instrumental value or because of its
usefulness but because it has its intrinsic value. It has intrinsic value in
itself. And something that has intrinsic value in itself, then we have the
moral duty to respect.
Global warming
is our issue at hand as a result of environmental problem. These environmental
problems are caused by the wrong belief, and wrong values of human. Thus the
answer to solve environmental problem is to change our attitude or our beliefs
and values.
Who are
responsible for solving such problem? It is a huge problem. The world has been
asking the industrial countries or developed countries like USA, UK, Germany
and other European countries to take the lead in solving the problems but
little move to be seen. These countries were the first one to destroy the
environment because of their industries. Waiting for them to solve the problem
might be too late. It is time for us to go hand in hand collectively and
individually in our way to contribute what we can do to solve environmental
problem.
References
Baird, Jim. 2014. The Burning Question: Who is Up to the Climate
Challenge? http://theenergycollective.com/jim-baird/337696/burning-question-who-climate-challenge.
Retrieved, April 10, 2014
Brown,
A., Organizational Culture, Pitman, London, 1995
Bricker, Woodeene Koenig. 2012.
Ten Commandments for the Environment. Paulines Publishing House: Manila.
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. 2002, 2008.
Environmental Ethics. http://www.stanfordencyclopedia.com. Retrieved,
April 2, 2014.
Friedman, L.
Thomas. 2006. Hot, Flat and Crowded: Why we Need a Green Revolution. FSC: USA.
Gleick, James, Chaos
- Making a New Science, Penguin Group, New York, N.Y., 1987 (see formula on
Page 70 of "Chaos")
Harvey, Don & Donald R.
Brown, 2001. An Experiential Approach to Organization Development. Prentice
Hall: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey
IPCC.
2014. IPCC
climate change report: averting catastrophe is eminently affordable. http://www.edie.net/news/6/IPCC-climate-change-report--averting-catastrophe-is-eminently-affordable/ Retrieved,
April 15, 2014.
Jean-Jacques
Rousseau and his Philosophy. http://braungardt.trialectics.com/philosophy/political-theory/rousseau/ Retrieved, October 5,
2014.
Mark Lubell,
Sammy Zahran & Arnold Vedlitz, 2007. Collective
Action and Citizen Responses to Global Warming. http://www.des.ucdavis.edu/faculty/lubell/Research/GlobalWarming.pdf. Retrieved,
April 10, 2014
McNerney, Jerry
& Cheek, Martin. 2012. Clean Energy Nation. AMACOM: New York.
Maurice
S. Friedman. 1955. Martin Buber: The
Life of Dialogue by Maurice S. Friedman. The University of Chicago Press
Meadows, Dennis
and Donella, Limits to Growth Potomac Associates, Washington, D.C., 1972
Necessity.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Necessity+defense.
Retrieved, October 5, 2014.
Schein, E., Organizational Culture and
Leadership, (Jossey-Bass Psychology Series, 1994
Thompson, G.
Fred. 2009. A New Ethic For Humankind: Searching
for solutions
in a troubled
world. Futurescan Consulting: Ottawa, Canada.
UNEP: United
Nations Environment Program. 2014. Climate Change. http://www.unep.org/climatechange/. Retrieved
September 30, 2014.
Waterlow,
Charlotte, The Hinge of History The One World Trust, Great Britain, 1995.
World
World Population
Prospects: The 2012 Revision. http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/index.htm, retrieved
September 30, 2014.
Peccei, Aurelio.
1984. The Alternative of Human Future. http://philpapers.org/rec/PECTAO. Retrieved,
August 5, 2014
