The contemporary environmental and ecological crisis demonstrates how ecologically dysfunctional our orientation towards the natural environment is. And beneath the level of overt activities, we can see as an underlying factor the prominence of anthropocentrism, a still pervasively prevalent "view that only human beings and their values and interests matter" (Attfield 1999, 27). Ironically, however, it is increasingly evident that the biggest enemy to our vital interests is this narrowly self-centered perspective itself. As Milbrath (1996) succinctly pointed out: "Those who believe that humans should come first must recognize in their own self-interest that our most core value should be the continued viability of life systems" (bold original. 67). But how can we attain such an extensive "cultural revolution" that would successfully transform humanity's orientation to the natural environment? While numerous points may deserve attention, let us specifically note three of them in the following.

　Although the human community has become accustomed to discuss environmental issues, much part of such discussions has been concerned with "the treatment of human stakeholders with regard to the environmental impacts of actions motivated by a desire to enhance human welfare," rather than with "man's relation to the land and to the animals and plants which grow upon it" per se (Young 2001, 184, 183). The time has certainly arrived for humankind to adopt an ecocentric perspective "which puts the Earth at the centre" of our world-view, and deliver an intense attention to the treatment of nature itself (Elliot 1999, 188).

　Another feature of international environmentalism has been the tendency to focus on state responsibilities, with rather scant attention paid to the individual world citizens as its moral agents. To be sure, governments, as the supreme public authorities of respective countries, should hopefully emerge as powerful leaders of the global environmental campaign. However, citizens are potentially capable to make enormous contributions by adjusting their personal life styles and occupational conduct, joining volunteer movements, and participating in public decision-making and policy implementation processes. Conversely, any national leadership that has only marginal environmental citizenship is likely to fail to achieve the needed environmental conservation and restoration.

　Supposedly, a person may commit a pro-environmental action for any of three motivational types: 1) to help improve the environment according to one's own pro-environmental values; 2) to attain associated rewards in exchange for adopting pro-environmental action; or 3) to avoid externally imposed punishment for not acting pro-environmentally. A person who adopts environmental action for either the second or third motive is not as ideal as a person who does so for the first motive, since the last two involve calculations and do not materialize if the positive or negative sanction is absent. (For instance, the second motive disappears if, say, the government cannot provide rewards for taking environmental actions any more; and the third motive does not exist if the person realizes that no one is watching his/her conduct.) The surest (and probably least expensive) way to secure environmental action, therefore, is to promote the internalization of pro-environmental values among peoples in the world.

　 The set of three items above―pointing out the need to transcend "anthropocentric environmentalism," to incorporate citizens into the environmental movement, and to promote genuine (and not opportunistic) environmental motives―collectively point to the paramount importance of cultivating a "real" environmental consciousness among all peoples on the planet. Needless to say, attainment of such a goal is a challenge, and of course requires high-quality learning opportunities involving many. Now let us inquire what kind of environmental education opportunities the human community has provided to itself.