Any social change, even the most beneficial, meets some resistance. Some groups, with a stake in the old order, struggle to protect their privilege. Challengers to existing systems are seen as disturbers of the peace. The rise of democracies, the end of colonialism, the abolition of slavery often came at the cost of wars. Given the human and ecological costs of war, it cannot be commended, and nonviolent methods of social change, appeals to rationality, and moral suasion in the implementation of change need encouragement.

Change rarely comes without some kind of pressure. Rarely does moral persuasion alone lead any group to abandon its status and privilege. Creative changes have come when organized pressure against an old order have met some moral recognition of its rightness.

Thus for centuries, conscience alone was ineffective in removing discrimination based on race and gender. Societies began to move when organized groups pushed for change. They were most successful when the entrenched power elites felt both pressure from outside and pressures of conscience from within. Ethical sensitivity is an authentic impulse to social change. But so long as great differences in power exist, ethical motivation is often swamped by the power imbedded in institutional structures. Churches are right to emphasize education and goodwill as forces for change; they are wrong if they neglect attention to the distribution of power.

Forces for change operate on many levels of society. Economically, the market itself has some benefits. Theoretically, scarcity of resources leads to higher prices, which promote conservation. But this system has two flaws. The market has a short vision, and a future scarcity or even exhaustion of resources has little effect on immediate prices. Second, higher prices penalize the poor and leave the wealthy relatively untouched.

Individuals can make a difference. Dramatic personalities in religion, science, art, economic or political life may be sources of inspiration, and individuals adopting new lifestyles may be heralds of the future. All individuals have some economic role as consumers, choosing more or less polluting goods and means of transportation, etc. Some have roles as voters, workers, employers, as educators and persuaders. Others initiate movements that soon engage communities. But individual effort, with its tiny impact on global destruction of present magnitudes, needs multiplication.

Organized groups are making their impact. For example, there are trade unions considering preference for environmental protection over wage increases. Some employers accept the principle of a move towards more environmental taxation and less tax on labour. Voluntary organizations are working for social justice and protection of environment. Coalitions of such organizations cooperate on many specific issues. But the disturbing fact remains that future generations cannot organize to represent their interests yet-to-come. Some hope may be taken from the fact that child labour has been abolished or restricted in a few societies, without a children's lobby or pressure group. It will take greater social imagination and cohesion to achieve standards today on behalf of unborn generations.

Corporations, sensitive to costs, have made some remarkable achievements in reducing waste and increasing energy efficiency. But corporations have a financial advantage in externalizing costs, e.g., in discharging wastes into waterways or the atmosphere rather than accepting the expense of cleaning up their own pollution or preventing it. Some corporations, whose incomes exceed the GNP of several nations, have inordinate power to protect their immediate interests despite the longer-term cost to the environment.

Governments, therefore, have an indispensable role. Taxation (for example, an energy tax) may operate with the market to encourage economic sustainability and, in various degrees, to redistribute wealth. Taxation need not always be an increase in the total tax burden; substitution of taxes on hazardous forms of consumption may partially replace income taxes or value-added taxes. It is not enough to tax hazardous projects; some must be forbidden. Governments are doing some of that, and more will come. While usually acting in the national interest, governments have some capacity to identify these preoccupations with broader interests, especially faced with an ecological peril that respects no national boundaries. But too often national laws ignore global accountability, as when corporations engage in practices in other countries that are prohibited in their home jurisdiction.

Governments also must develop political and legal orders that recognize and protect the rights of unborn generations, future citizens with basic ecological interests and needs. Current political and legal concepts must be improved to take into account the claims of the long-term future. This calls for new developments in constitutional law (ecological rights and institutional representation of future citizens) and in private law (concepts like the "public trust" inherent in the United National Law of the Sea, or "the common heritage of humankind," which place resources beyond the reach of short-term market forces).

In the shadow of the great international issue of radical disparities between rich and poor, it is hard to be cheerful. The old hope of overcoming the gap by making everybody rich was always an evasion from reducing consumption in places wealth had accumulated first. New awareness of ecological limits makes the hope of universal riches even more fraudulent. Though the difficulties surrounding our expectations of closing the gap are sobering, we continue to testify to the need and look for answers.

All these proposals require a will to change. Some of the changes will require coercion. All taxation, all law enforcement involves compulsion. But legislative coercion will not come unless there is a will to legislate. And the enforcement of legislation is most healthy and most effective when people voluntarily recognize its desirability. The more authentic the community, the less need to rely on coercion.

International organizations have an essential role. They are not panaceas; for many purposes it is desirable and necessary to retain local government structures directly responsible to people. But many ecological perils, like acid rain and the CO₂ effect, transgress political boundaries. Here the United Nations is often pathetically weak in the face of national sovereignty and the power of corporations. But nations have already agreed on the restraint of chlorofluorocarbons (that deplete the protective ozone in the upper atmosphere). The 1992 UNCED Conference  initiated other steps, far too timid but offering signs of hope. Non-governmental organizations have shown some genuine effectiveness participating in the UNCED process, influencing its agenda and enhancing its impact at national levels.

to Chapter 5