the Ecocentrics, there is division between those on the right;‘ Deep Ecologists’, who put a greater emphasis on the limits to growth or carrying capacity of the earth, and those on the left,‘ Moderate Ecologists’, who believe in decentralised political and social institutions. Deep Ecologists believe in compulsory restraints on human population growth and on resource consumption.
Economically, Anthropocentrics are neo-classicists, believing economic growth is possible, and rejecting intervention to tax or incentivise sustainability measures, the market is king. This stance is beginning to change and evolve in capitalist economies with an increase in the scope of environmental legislation. For example, in 2010 the disclosure of energy consumption in commercial buildings in Australia became mandatory( Warren & Huston, 2011) and in the UK similar legislation, Energy Performance Certificates( EPCs), was mandated in 2007( DirectGov, 2012). There is also mounting evidence that mandatory approaches to sustainability in the built environment are more effective that voluntary approaches( Wilkinson et al, 2015, Wilkinson, 2014). The carbon pricing mechanism, or Carbon Tax was contentious legislation in Australia, which commenced in July 2012, and met significant resistance in the parliament during 2011. There was concern about the potential impact on the economy and the amount of the carbon price compared to other countries; it was rescinded after the 2013 election when a neo-liberal party displaced a labour administration. The Australian government had largely offset the potential negative political and economic impacts of the pricing mechanism with generous government assistance to households. It was a temporary shift in the neo-classical economic philosophy to Accommodating Environmentalism, which has returned to a Cornucopian position. Another concern is that within the built environment, improved economic performance through a perceived increase in capital value is the main argument used to persuade owners and investors to adopt sustainability( Eichholtz et al 2009, Fuerst & McAllister 2011, Newell 2008). Thus a spectrum of ideas and values exist within the concept of sustainability which goes from dark green to light green, or as some have suggested to grey; implying that the pursuit of weak sustainability does not deliver sustainable outcomes( Cooper 1994, Washington 2015). The range of views identified in the literature is shown in Table 1 below. Five groups were identified, two being classed as Anthropocentric( Accommodating and Cornucopian Environmentalism) and three as Ecocentric( Transpersonal, Deep and Moderate Ecology).
In Table 1 the most radical group,‘ Transpersonal Ecologists’ are so embroiled in ecosophical debate they are unable to form a coherent group who are capable of action( Dobson, 1990). The‘ Deep Ecologists’ and‘ Moderate Ecologists’ share some beliefs, such as, both groups believe capitalism is unsustainable, but also have distinct and separate positions on issues.‘ Deep Ecologists’ believe in bio-ethics and the intrinsic value of nature, where‘ Moderate Ecologists’ believe in the primary value of ecosystems; which is a less extreme view. A similar situation exists for Anthropocentrics. The two Anthropocentric groups share views on the value of science and rational thought. They diverge on the‘ rights of humans’, which are dominant in the‘ Cornucopian Environmentalists’ group,‘ Accommodating Environmentalists’ however, hold there is instrumental value in nature. These beliefs are shown figuratively in figure 1 as the spectrum of sustainability.
64 ZEMCH 2015 | International Conference | Bari- Lecce, Italy