This problem has another serious aspect, which is that the Earth Charter fails to admit the possibility of conict in actual cases - always possible, and virtually inevitable - between these various ideals, especially between the interests of human and non-human nature. It thus falls short of an ecocentric ethic as I have defined it above, and as compared with the Manifesto for Earth. And the overwhelmingly dominant ethical consensus is anthropocentric and/or light green at best: an imbalance that urgently needs redressing. So Mosquin and Rowe's more uncompromising stance, which firmly places human concerns within an ecocentric context, is preferable. This is not just a strategic point; we do all live on (or rather in, since it includes the breathable atmosphere), and depend on, the Earth. Despite its virtues, that is a truth which the Charter makes it too easy to ignore or fudge in practice; whereas the Manifesto, quite rightly, makes it that much harder.
Some of this ground we have discussed in other but related contexts: the distinction between Shallow Ecology or 'environmentalism' and Deep Ecology (which, indeed, derives from Naess); ecological holism; and the idea of intrinsic value. Subject to what has already been discussed, these important aspects of Deep Ecology need no further comment. One peculiarity, however, is that the Platform Principles make no explicit reference to the Earth as such, emphasizing instead life-forms. That means Deep Ecology could well be identified as a biocentric mid-green or intermediate ethic. However, I am going to argue that the import of Deep Ecology is ecocentric nonetheless, both in the intentions of its founders and (more importantly) how it has been commonly understood. Within the Deep Ecology movement, the terms 'biocentric' and 'ecocentric' tend to be used interchangeably, and it is significant that the main activist movement Deep Ecology inspired was called 'Earth First' The common adoption by Deep Ecologists of Leopold's injunction to 'think like a mountain' points to the same conclusion.
Second, its focus is an unambiguously ecocentric one which does not restrict ethical consideration to either the animate (thus excluding ecosystemic places) or individuals (thus excluding wholes and relations). Leopold recognized the Earth itself as possessing 'a certain kind and degree of life' (1991: 95), and infers from his grasp of ecology how it is not only context but creator. Unlike any of the ethics we have so far discussed, the Land Ethic thus qualifies as a dark green or deep one.5 Third, its clarity and simplicity are also very helpful in getting the message across - no small matter.