From the "Buddhism is..." page (7 May, 2005):
Fourth on our list is 'socially and ecologically conscious'. Perhaps the 'socially conscious' element is redundant, if we consider society and community to be much the same thing. Society does seem to relate to a larger sphere, in my mind at least; perhaps something more abstract than community. When I think of community, I think of things I can do in my day-to-day life: seeing my neighbors, picking up garbage on the sidewalk, writing a letter to the editor, etc. To relate in society I think we act as communities rather than as individuals. For instance, we can ask how our physical community relates to the larger (state/national) society or how our religious community relates to wider (intra/inter-faith dialogue) society.
Concerning Buddhism's ecological consciousness, I would heartily recommend "Buddhism and Ecology", a collection of essays dealing with contemporary Buddhist and ecological issues. One essay from the book you can read online here, from my former professor Dr. Alan Sponberg. This essay is very good for understanding a great deal of the complexity inherent in addressing this 2500 year old tradition. It also deals with the topics of equality/egalitarianism in a clear and critical way.
In my own experience, I think Buddhism provides the intellectual tools (interdependence primarily, also karma) to realize one's ecological responsibility and to act on this realization. Through seeing our effect on the environment and the environment's effect on us more clearly, it becomes imperative to improve both equally and rapidly. Does it make sense to destroy everything around you as you build up wealth or fame? Of course not. Those who don't see this are too narrowly focussed on the wealth or fame, blind to the forest for the trees, so to speak. It is all to easy in today's comfy western society to couch our happiness on getting something, using it, tossing it, and getting another (ie consumerism). But there are limits that we must pay attention to, both in the world and in our own psychological ability to be amused/made happy by simple sensory stimuli. Children are the easiest to amuse with new 'stuff', people like Socrates or the Buddha would likely have been neither amused with new toys nor angered when such toys broke or were taken away. You and I are in the middle (likely) and need to look at which direction we would like to go and how to get there.
See the full "Buddhism is..." essay.