ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Environmental ethics believes in the ethical relationship

between human beings and the natural environment. Human

beings are a part of the society and so are the other living

beings. When we talk about the philosophical principle that

guides our life, we often ignore the fact that even plants and

animals are a part of our lives. They are an integral part of the

environment and hence have a right to be considered a part of

the human life. On these lines, it is clear that they should also

be associated with our guiding principles as well as our moral

and ethical values.

The Earth Day celebration of 1970 was also one of the factors,

which led to the development of environmental ethics as a

separate field of study. This field received impetus when it was

first discussed in the academic journals in North America and

Canada. Around the same time, this field also emerged in

Australia and Norway.

Environmental ethics brings about the fact that all the life

forms on Earth have a right to live. By destroying the nature,

we are depriving these life forms of their right to live. We are

going against the true ethical and moral values by disturbing

the balance in nature. We are being unethical in treating the

plant and animal life forms, which coexist in society.

Human beings have certain duties towards their fellow beings.

On similar lines, we have a set of duties towards our

environment. Environmental ethics says that we should base

our behavior on a set of ethical values that guide our approach

towards the other living beings in nature.

Environmental ethics is about including the rights of non-

human animals in our ethical and moral values. Even if the

human race is considered the primary concern of society,

animals and plants are in no way less important. They have a

right to get their fair share of existence.

We, the human beings, along with the other forms of life make

up our society. We all are a part of the food chain and thus

closely associated with each other. We, together form our

environment. The conservation of natural resources is not only

the need of the day but also our prime duty.

THE NEED FOR ETHICS

Most people recognize that some agreed-upon guidelines or

general rules should exist between individuals when they

interact with one another because if they did not, nothing in our

lives would be predictable or safe. In other words, people need

to know that besides actual laws, there are some basic,

common ethics or principles of what is right and what is wrong

that everyone agrees upon and usually follows or lives by.

Ethics is sometimes called moral philosophy because it is

concerned with what is morally good and bad or what is right

and wrong. As a specialized part of ethics, environmental ethics

is concerned with the morality (right and wrong) of human

actions as they affect the environment or the natural world we

live in.

APPROACHES IN ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

The three main approaches in environmental ethics are:

a) Anthropocentric

b) Extensionist

c) Holistic (non-extensionist).

Each one of these approaches deals differently with both the

criteria for deciding who or what has moral standing, and the

adjudication amongst those with moral standing.

ANTHROPOCENTRIC APPROACH

The Anthropocentric approach derives its criteria for moral

standing from human qualities. Anthropocentric ethical theories

are characterized by criteria (for moral standing) such as: the

status of being human, personhood, potential personhood,

rationalism, linguistic capability, and sentience. In this

conceptualization only humans can have moral standing. Non-

humans are granted certain consideration in so far as they are

valued by humans with moral standing.

A major strength of anthropocentric theories is their

amenability to methods of adjudication. To have moral

standing, one must be human and that is it. Many years have

been spent within Western society perfecting a procedure for

adjudication, and this procedure is advanced and well-defined.

None of the other ethical approaches have so well-defined a

method of adjudication.

The overwhelming weakness of anthropocentric theories is

their focus on humans. Being human-centred, these ethical

theories are severely limiting: thus, their moral criteria are

unjustifiable.

EXTENSIONIST APPROACH

The extensionist approach derives its criteria in basically the

same way as the anthropocentric approach. The only difference

is that it extends moral standing (usually by analogy) to non-

human animals. Within society, anthropocentric approaches

grant non-paradigm human’s moral standing, even though they

may lack the relevant criteria (eg. self-awareness, an ability to

perceive oneself in the future, or an ability to feel pain).

Extensionism basically extends the category beyond non-

paradigm humans to include non-humans. The extensionist

approach

calls for criteria that are justifiable. To be justifiable, criteria

cannot be racist, sexist, ageist, speciesist, and so on (the list

goes on and on). For the reason of justifiability, existentionists

reject criteria which can easily be slapped with any of the

above 'ist' labels (eg. speciesist). In the case of one

extensionist ethical theorist, Singer, the criteria for moral

standing are derived from a being's ability to feel pain. Methods

for adjudicating amongst those who can feel pain are not

clearly set out by Singer. Regan, on the other hand, does not

even appear to ask the question of how to adjudicate.

Vandeveer is another extensionist theorist who clearly attempts

to deal with the adjudication problem and he has moderate

success with his two-factor egalitarianism. A major strength is

the extensionist rejection of overly human-centred criteria. Its

weakness lies in its failure to reject hierarchal orderings of the

moral community (more on hierarchies below).

HOLISTIC (NON-EXTENSIONIST) APPROACH

Holism, or non-extensionist ethical theories, takes an entirely

different approach from the above two ethical systems: in fact

holism was founded in opposition to them. Holism tries to look

at ethics from as much of a non-anthropocentric point of view

as possible. As mentioned above, Anthropocentrism and

Extensionism take a quality found in humans and apply moral

standing to all of the other creatures who have those qualities

(all who meet those criteria). Holistic theories attempt to

conceptualize the Earth as a single whole made up of all that

exists on it. The interconnectedness of everything is one of the

primary tenets of this approach and this is where adjudication

is dealt with. Being a relatively new field of ethics, Holism is

very ill-defined and ill-formed as of yet. Perhaps this is why

moral standing and adjudication are not easily determined on

the basis of many holistic theories.

One notable exception among holistic theories is Aldo Leopold's

land ethic. The land ethic confers moral standing upon all parts

of the Earth's ecosystem, depending on their relation to the

whole. Adjudication, according to Leopold's theory, is achieved

by deciding who has greater importance within the ecosystem

as a whole. If one of the competing entities has no apparent

value to the whole, while the other is of fundamental

importance to the whole, then the latter entity would win

(would remain in the lifeboat). Leopold explains:

A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability,

and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends

otherwise (Leopold p82). Unfortunately the actual method of

adjudication is vague, and as for who decides what is more

important to the whole, this is a very complex and debatable

issue. The other holistic theories are as of yet too new to deal

with the two questions of this course.

One of the more important strengths of holism is its rejection of

hierarchy. Hierarchy, no matter on what it is based, is

unjustifiable in some sense or another and therefore theories

which avoid hierarchies are that much more justifiable. Holism's

major weakness seems to be its exclusion of individuals from

the ethical arena. This exclusion can be noted especially in the

land ethic and deep ecology. It is debatable whether or not

individual moral standing is relevant within holistic theories, but

individual standing is a fundamental tenet of Western society

and is not just going to disappear.

ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS IN

DIFFERENT AREAS

ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECTS OF FOSSIL FUEL

USE

FOSSIL FUEL AND ITS IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT

The technical definition of fossil fuels is "incompletely oxidized

and decayed animal and vegetable materials, specifically coal,

peat, lignite, petroleum and natural gas". The technical

definition of fuel is "material that can be burned or otherwise

consumed to produce heat". In our modernized western world,

fossil fuels provide vast luxurious importance. We retrieve

these fossil fuels from the ground and under the sea and have

them converted into electricity. Approximately 90% of the

world's electricity demand is generated from the use of fossil

fuels.

There is a growing concern regarding the collaboration between

fossil fuels and environmental pollution. Debates regarding this

contamination have become commonplace in today's effort to

sustain the earth's health. Fossil fuels are not considered a

renewable energy source and aside from the environmental

impact, the cost of retrieving and converting them is beginning

to demand notice. Seemingly this issue has many different

angles that need to be addressed in order to ensure future

generations a sustainable living.

Combustion of these fossil fuels is considered to be the largest

contributing factor to the release of greenhouse gases into the

atmosphere. In fact it is believed that energy providers are the

largest source of atmospheric pollution today. There are many

types of harmful outcomes which result from the process of

converting fossil fuels to energy. Some of these include air

pollution, water pollution, accumulation of solid waste, not to

mention the land degradation and human illness.

Evidence of the ill effects of fossil fuels is endless, and can take

on many forms. Some forms are not easily seen by the human

eye, although the disastrous results such as the loss of aquatic

life can be seen somewhat after the fact. Carbon dioxide is

considered the most prominent contributor to the global

warming issue. The impact of global warming on the

environment is extensive and affects many areas. In the

Antarctica, warmer temperatures may result in more rapid ice

melting which increases sea level and compromises the

composition of surrounding waters. Rising sea levels alone can

impede processes ranging from settlement, agriculture and

fishing both commercially and recreationally.

POLLUTION: Almost all fossil fuel use is by burning (or

"combustion"). Burning produces waste products due to

impurities in the fuel, especially particulates and various gases

such as sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic

compounds. These waste products may affect our environment

or people, in harmful ways. We have gone to great lengths to

minimize the adverse effects of fossil fuel combustion, and

continue to make progress.

Then too, there are serious disagreements over whether some

effects of fossil fuel use are harmful at all. In some cases the

amount of waste is so small that the effect, if any, is difficult to

detect. Mercury from coal burning is an example.

Air pollution is another problem arising from the use of fossil

fuels, and can result in the formation of smog. Other than

causing human illness, smog can also affect the sustainability

of crops. Smog seeps through the protective layer on the

leaves and destroys essential cell membranes. This result in

smaller yields and weaker crops, as the plants are forced to

focus on internal repair and do not thrive.

Many toxic substances are released during the conversion or

retrieval process including "Vanadium" and "Mercury".

According to the "New Book Of Popular Science", "it is

suspected that significant quantities of Vanadium in the

atmosphere results from residual fuel oil combustion".

When coal is burned, it releases nitrous oxide. Unfortunately

this is kept in the atmosphere for very long time. The harmful

impact of this chemical could take up to a couple of hundred

years to make itself known. It is very difficult to prevent or to

diminish an impact when you are not even aware of what it

may be. The only solution in this case is to reduce the

formation of nitrous oxide. Nearly 50% of the nitrogen oxide in

the atmosphere and 70% of sulfur dioxide are direct result of

emissions released when coal is burned.

Converting fossil fuels may also result in the accumulation of

solid waste. This type of accumulation has a devastating impact

on the environment. Waste requires adequate land space for

containment and/or treatment, as well as financial support and

monitoring for waste not easily disposed of. This type of waste

also increases the risk of toxic runoff which can poison surface

and groundwater sources for many miles. Toxic runoff also

endangers surrounding vegetation, wildlife, and marine life.

Delivery of fossil fuels can result in oil spills, and many of us are

familiar with the impacts of this type of disaster. Seepage from

foundations like that of oil rigs and pipelines can also result in

similar destruction for habitat and wildlife. According to the

Department Of The Interior, vast damage to waterways can be

attributed to the extraction of coal. Coal extraction may very

well be the leading the source of water pollution today.

Use of unleaded gas has helped to reduce the release of lead

into the environment. Although in third world countries, the

safer unleaded gas has not been fully utilized and is still a

major concern. Unfortunately for developing countries, the

economy and technology available to them is quite behind

what we are used to. With this in mind many environmental

issues are treated at an international level, which allows for

more efficient handling.

We have become a very energy greedy generation and our

demands for electricity are very high. As far as reducing these

harmful effects, we must first reduce our demand. Science may

be able to find alternative, healthier sources, although not ones

that meet the required supply. These types of horrendous

impacts are felt globally and should not be considered one

countries problem. Sometimes social limitations and/or

economic stability can make the process of change very

difficult. One thing is for sure, that by being more energy

efficient and conservative, we will be helping to alleviate the

toll on environmental and human health.

CLIMATE CHANGE: At the other extreme, all burning produces

carbon dioxide and water vapour as by products. This is

because carbon is part of what makes fossil fuel useful. But

whether these by-products are harmful, or beneficial, are a

matter of intense public debate. Some argue that they are

beneficial, because water and carbon dioxide are necessary for

plant life on earth, which is the basis for all life. Some people

believe, however, that our carbon dioxide emissions contribute

to harmful global warming and climate change, either now or in

the future. Those who fear climate change have proposed new

government policies to drastically reduce the use of fossil fuels.

Those who do not fear climate change are skeptical of these

proposed policies. There is also great debate about the science

of climate change.

ETHICS IN SAND MINING

Sand mining is a practice that is becoming an environmental

issue as the demand for sand increases in industry and

construction. Sand is mined from beaches and inland dunes

and dredged from ocean beds and river beds. It is often used in

manufacturing as an abrasive, for example, and it is used to

make concrete. As communities grow, construction requires

less wood and more concrete, leading to a demand for low-cost

sand. Sand is also used to replace eroded coastline.

A related process is the mining of mineral sands, such as

mineral deposits, grain, and wheat, diamond which contain

industrial useful minerals, mainly gold and silver. These

minerals typically occur combined with ordinary sand. The sand

is dug up, the valuable minerals are separated in water by

using their different density, and the remaining ordinary sand is

re-deposited.

Sand mining is a direct and obvious cause of erosion, and also

impacts the local wildlife. For example, sea turtles depend on

sandy beaches for their nesting, and sand mining has led to the

near extinction of ghariyals (a species of crocodiles) in India.

Disturbance of underwater and coastal sand causes turbidity in

the water, which is harmful for such organisms as corals that

need sunlight. It also destroys fisheries, causing problems for

people who rely on fishing for their livelihoods.

Removal of physical coastal barriers such as dunes leads to

flooding of beachside communities, and the destruction of

picturesque beaches causes tourism to dissipate. Sand mining

is regulated by law in many places, but is still often done

illegally.

BHARATAPUZHA SAND MINING

SAND MAFIA | TO KILL A RIVER

C V Sukumaran, Jun 2, 2009 (THE TIMES OF INDIA)

At a time when rivers world over are at the receiving end of

man's abuse, Bharatapuzha in Kerala is no exception. Even with

a meagre length of 250 km, she is the longest river in Kerala.

She is believed to have an aura of holiness about her, so

Keralites regard her as the Ganga of Kerala, though she is a

midget in contrast to the great northern stream. I found myself

accompanying her one morning, a victim of sand mining, at

Thirunavaya in South Malabar. The previous night's rains had

left her slightly swollen. I saw them then, the minors, members

of the sand mafia who lined their pockets by robbing the river.

A dozen men, youngsters all, dipped themselves repeatedly

into the river and every time they surfaced, with dolphin-like

swiftness, they did so with fistfuls of sand. The newspapers of

Kerala often cry foul over sand mining without avail. The mafia

is presumably in cahoots with the powers that be.

Bharatapuzha, whose best days are behind her, once yielded

water to the needy and now the greedy milk her for sand. In

the mafia's dispensation, water has taken a backseat to sand.

The river dries up in summer, thanks to sand mining, and the

exposed riverbed looks like a potholed road with puddles of

water here and there. Years ago, one had indulgently swum in

the cool waters of the river at Thirunavaya with abandon.

But last summer there was no river in sight. I located her

eventually, but immediately rued the discovery. What one saw

was a shallow, sluggish stream, drowned under weeds and

garbage like empty plastic bottles and cellophane bags. For the

poets, a river is a lovely maiden, streaming her way

expectantly towards her lover, the sea. But alas, for many

rivers the sea is a far cry now. They dry up miles short of their

destination, thanks to man's waywardness. Like a villain in a

movie who frustrates the heroine's attempts to reach her lover,

man intercepts the river. Once the hero in a Malayalam movie,

standing on the bank of Bharatapuzha, assured his sweetheart

romantically that his love would be as lasting as the river. A

discerning hero should look for something more perennial than

a dying river to swear by. Maybe the sand mafia can fill the bill!

ETHICS IN MINING

There are a number of environmental issues with mining.

Environmental issues can include erosion, formation of

sinkholes, loss of biodiversity, and contamination of soil,

groundwater and surface water by chemicals from mining

processes. In some cases, additional forest logging is done in

the vicinity of mines to increase the available room for the

storage of the created debris and soil. Besides creating

environmental damage, the contamination resulting from

leakage of chemicals also affects the health of the local

population. Mining companies in some countries are required to

follow environmental and rehabilitation codes, ensuring the

area mined is returned to close to its original state. Some

mining methods may have significant environmental and public

health effects.

Erosion of exposed hillsides, mine dumps, tailings dams and

resultant siltation of drainages, creeks and rivers can

significantly impact the surrounding areas, a prime example

being the giant Ok Tedi Mine in Papua New Guinea. In areas of

wilderness mining may cause destruction and disturbance of

ecosystems and habitats, and in areas of farming it may disturb

or destroy productive grazing and croplands. In urbanized

environments mining may produce noise pollution, dust

pollution and visual pollution.

Mining can have adverse effects on surrounding surface and

ground water if protective measures are not taken. The result

can be unnaturally high concentrations of some chemicals,

such as arsenic, sulfuric acid, and mercury over a significant

area of surface or subsurface. Runoff of mere soil or rock debris

-although non-toxic- also devastates the surrounding

vegetation. The dumping of the runoff in surface waters or in

forests is the worst option here. Submarine tailings disposal is

regarded as a better option (if the soil is pumped to a great

depth). Mere land storage and refilling of the mine after it has

been depleted is even better, if no forests need to be cleared

for the storage of the debris. There is potential for massive

contamination of the area surrounding mines due to the various

chemicals used in the mining process as well as the potentially

damaging compounds and metals removed from the ground

with the ore. Large amounts of water produced from mine

drainage, mine cooling, aqueous extraction and other mining

processes increases the potential for these chemicals to

contaminate ground and surface water. In well-regulated

mines, hydrologists and geologists take careful measurements

of water and soil to exclude any type of water contamination

that could be caused by the mine's operations.

The reducing or eliminating of environmental degradation is

enforced in modern American mining by federal and state law,

by restricting operators to meet standards for protecting

surface and ground water from contamination. This is best done

through the use of non-toxic extraction processes as

bioleaching. If the project site becomes nonetheless polluted,

mitigation techniques such as acid mine drainage (AMD) need

to be performed.

The five principal technologies used to monitor and control

water flow at mine sites are diversion systems, containment

ponds, and groundwater pumping systems, subsurface

drainage systems, and subsurface barriers. In the case of AMD,

contaminated water is generally pumped to a treatment facility

that neutralizes the contaminants.

OK TEDI MINE

The Ok Tedi Mine is located near the headwaters of the Ok

Tedi River, in the Star Mountains Rural LLG of the North Fly

District of the Western Province of Papua New Guinea. The

mine is operated by Ok Tedi Mining Limited (OTML) which is

majority owned by the PNG Sustainable Development Program

Limited (PNGSDPL). Prior to 2002, it was majority owned by BHP

Billiton—the largest mining company in the world since a

merger in 2001.Located in a remote area of PNG, above

2,000 m (6,600 ft) on Mount Fubilan, in a region of high rainfall

and frequent earthquakes, mine development posed serious

challenges. The town of Tabubil was built to serve the mining

operation.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF OK TEDI

In 1999, BHP reported that the project was the cause of "major

environmental damage”. The mine operators discharge 80

million tons of contaminated tailings, overburden and mine-

induced erosion into the river system each year.

The discharge caused widespread and diverse harm, both

environmentally and socially, to the 50,000 people who live in

the 120 villages downstream of the mine. Chemicals from the

tailings killed or contaminated fish, which subsequently caused

harm to all animal species that live in the area as well as the

indigenous people. The dumping changed the riverbed, causing

a relatively deep and slow river to become shallower and

develop rapids thereby disrupting indigenous transportation

routes. Flooding caused by the raised riverbed left a thick layer

of contaminated mud on the flood plain the plantations of taro,

bananas and sago palm that are the staples of the local diet.

About 1300 square kilometers (500 mi²) were damaged in this

way. Although the concentration of copper in the water is about

30 times above the standard level, it is still below the World

Health Organization (WHO) standards.

ENVIRONMENT ETHICS AND BUSINESS

Environmental ethics is becoming an important issue for many

companies and businesses as there is a greater push for

corporate responsibility. Leaders of organizations of all sizes

and in all sectors face a growing number of issues related to

ethical behaviour, particularly in terms of environmental

responsibility. As global understanding of the significant

ecological and environmental ethics issues we face expands

and moves to the forefront of debates, it is even more

important for leaders to take action to both remedy the causes

of the problem and to act as models for other organizations and

individuals. Although there are many examples of responsible

corporate and organizational environmental governance and

behaviour, there is yet to emerge a global initiative aimed at

changing the face of environmentally ethical and responsible

action that will promote further corporate responsibility. This

lack of understanding of issues of environmental ethics and

corporate responsibility occurs for a number of reasons, one of

which could be because of a lack of global consensus on the

importance of taking the necessary steps to remedy the

problem.

EXAMPLES OF ENVIRONMENTALLY UNSOUND

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Although most companies are guilty of varying degrees of

environmental irresponsibility, some extreme cases vividly

illustrate irresponsibility at its worst. A first case involves

resistance to air pollution control measures. In the early 1950s,

Union Carbide built a series of metal and chemical plants in the

Ohio valley, between Ohio and West Virginia. Mountains on

both sides of the valley trap in soot, ash, and other air

pollutants, which resulted in increased incidents of respiratory

disease among local residents. During the 1960s, Union

Carbide refuse to participate public discussions about the

problem and ignored a governmental request for an onsite

inspection. The company soon became a symbol of corporate

resistance to pollution control. Part of their resistance owes to

the fact that the environment was not an issue in the 1950s

and new pollution control measures were both expensive and

untested. Also, Union Carbide was less susceptible to consumer

boycotts since only 20% of its products were direct consumer

goods that we might purchase in a department store, such as

antifreeze. In 1970s they became the target of the

investigation by the newly formed Environmental Protection

Agency, which instructed Union Carbide  on several pollution

control measures. Union Carbide responded by shutting down a

boiler plant and laying off workers, claiming that was the only

way they could comply with the required pollution reduction.

Critics charged that Union Carbide’s tactics amounted to

environmental blackmail, threatening to cut jobs if they had to

be environmentally responsible. Ultimately, Union Carbide

restructured their company and adhered to pollution control

standards.

            A second case of environmental irresponsibility involves

nuclear power accidents. There are currently around 400

nuclear power plants worldwide, providing about 15% of the

world’s electricity. For the past few decades, the nuclear power

industry has been under attack by environmentalists and few

new plants have been started. Ironically, the original intent of

nuclear power was to provide a safe, clean, and cheap

alternative to coal and oil, which are notoriously damaging to

the environment. Nuclear power produces no smoke or carbon

dioxide, and only harmless steam. It also doesn’t require

environmentally intrusive mining or drilling efforts. Two major

disasters contributed to the now tarnished image of the nuclear

power industry, both the result of safety violations and human

error. First occurred at the Three Mile Island nuclear power

plant in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. In 1979, a series of

mechanical and human failures contributed to a partial core

meltdown to one of its reactors. Radiation was released into the

local community, and, although connections with health

problems were difficult to prove, a family of a Down’s syndrome

child received 1 million dollars in compensation. A much more

serious nuclear power disaster occurred in 1986 in the

Ukrainian city of Chernobyl, then part of the Soviet Union.

Partly from negligence and partly from design problems, a

steam explosion and fires threw tons of radioactive material

into the environment. 31 people were killed and 1,000 injured

from direct exposure to radioactive material by means of

inhaling radioactive gasses and dust, and ingesting

contaminated food or water. 135,000 people were evacuated

from the surrounding area, hundreds of square miles of land

was contaminated, and the long term health effects of the

accident are still being assessed. Financial losses reached $3

billion, and countries throughout Europe claimed losses into the

hundreds of millions of dollars.

            Although the Soviet government owned the Chernobyl

plant -- and not private industry -- the disaster had a decisive

impact on the entire nuclear power industry. In addition to the

risks of catastrophic disasters such as Chernobyl, nuclear

power plants create other environmental problems that involve

nuclear waste disposal. Nuclear waste is deadly to animal life,

and remains toxic for a very long time. After Three Mile Island

and Chernobyl, critics called for a moratorium on the

construction all future nuclear power plants, and a systematic

closing of the ones currently in use. Defenders, though, argue

that nuclear energy is necessary in view of the limitations of

alternative energy sources, such as coal, oil, and solar

technology. They also argue that nuclear waste sites need to

confine wastes for only a few thousand years since after 1,000

years the ingestion toxicity is comparable to that of the original

uranium from which the wastes were derived. Finally,

defenders say that we can reasonably expect a decrease in

nuclear accidents even if we increase nuclear power use,

similar to how airline travel has increased while their accident

rate has decreased. Defenders recommend that clustered

reactors provide better operational support, security, and

handling of wastes.

            A third and final case of environmental disaster involves

large-scale oil spills. In 1989, an Exxon oil tanker called the

Valdez struck a reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound and

created the largest crude oil spill in US waters. The captain of

the ship, 42 year old Joseph Hazelwood, was with Exxon for 20

years. He had a reputation as a drinker, which some

departments at Exxon knew about, and at the time of the

disaster his blood alcohol level was .06. The tanker trip was

part of a routine convoy from Alaska to Long Beach California

that was successfully made by other tankers over 8,000 times.

Hazelwood assigned the piloting of the vessel to a less

experienced officer and then retired to his quarters. Icebergs

were in the path of the ship, which an ineffective radar system

failed to detect earlier. The ship was so large that it took a full

minute to respond to steering changes. Attempting to navigate

around an iceberg, the piloting officer miscalculated and ran

the ship into a reef. Oil poured from the ship and, when the

weather changed, it sloshed onto the beaches for hundreds of

miles. Initially viewing it as only a public relations problem,

Exxon was slow to respond with cleanup efforts, which made

the situation worse. The spill had a terrible impact on plant and

animal life in the area, which the news media vividly captured

in pictures and on television. The cleanup was also expensive;

the average cost of rehabilitating a seal was $80,000.

Hazelwood was ultimately fired for not being on the bridge at

the time of the disaster and was convicted of negligent

discharge of oil, with a punishment of 1000 hours of community

service in the cleanup. Exxon paid in excess of 2 billion dollars

in the cleanup efforts and, just as significantly, suffered an

almost irreplaceable loss of reputation because of the disaster.

40,000 Exxon credit card holders destroyed their cards.

ETHICS AND DEFORESTATION

Deforestation is a particularly difficult issue in certain areas.

The best-known problem area is the Amazon rain forest.

Deforestation is defined as the cutting down and removal of all

or most of the trees in a forested area. Deforestation results

from removal of trees without sufficient reforestation this

process alters the hydrologic cycle, altering the amount of

water in the soil and groundwater and the moisture in the

atmosphere. Deforestation can erode soils, contribute to

desertification and the pollution of waterways, and decrease

biodiversity through the destruction of habitat. Deforestation is

considered to be a main contributor to the greenhouse effect.

Some of the major environmental problems related with

deforestation are lowering biodiversity, desiccation of soil that

used to be moist, increase in temperature extremes, less

recycling of water, global warming, more desertification, and

soil erosion. Forests support considerable biodiversity,

providing valuable habitat for wildlife. In this website, the

environmental ethics of deforestation will be evaluated in terms

of facts, technical issues, leadership issues, and ethical issues.

According to some estimates, more than 50 percent of the tree

cover has disappeared due to human activity. Although humans

have been practicing deforestation since ages, it was in the

mid-1800s that forests began to be destroyed at an

unprecedented rate. As a matter of fact, throughout the earlier

part of the medieval age, Europeans used to live amongst vast

areas of forested land. But later, they began deforestation at

such a high rate that they started to run out of wood for

cooking and heating. Also, due to the depletion of their natural

habitat, wild game too began disappearing, which the

Europeans largely depended upon for their nutritional

requirements. Today, parallels can clearly be observed in the

deforestation that is occurring in most developing countries. In

Pakistan, particularly mountain areas such as Frontier province

and Northern areas, the deforestation has become a source of

economic assistance. Although the several governmental and

non-governmental organizations have taken cognizance of this

practice and declared it a penal crime in preferred areas, but

practice is still ongoing, which resulted increasing the

temperature and change in the weather and climate of such

areas.

ETHICS AND GLOBAL WARMING

Climate change accelerates the spread of disease primarily

because warmer global temperatures enlarge the geographic

range in which disease-carrying animals, insects and

microorganisms—as well as the germs and viruses they carry--

can survive. Analysts believe that, as a result of global

temperature rises, diseases that were previously limited only to

tropical areas may show up increasingly in other, previously

cooler areas. For example, mosquitoes carrying dengue fever

used to dwell at elevations no higher than 3,300 feet, but

because of warmer temperatures they have recently been

detected at 7,200 feet in Colombia’s Andes Mountains. And

biologists have found malaria-carrying mosquitoes at higher-

than-usual elevations in Indonesia in just the last

few years. These changes happen not because of the kinds of

extreme heat we’ve experienced in recent months, but occur

even with minuscule increases in average temperature. But

extreme heat can also be a factor, and the nexus of global

warming and disease really hit home for North

Americans in the summer of 1999, when 62 cases of West Nile

virus were reported in and around New York City. Dr. Dickson, a

Columbia University public health professor, reports that West

Nile Virus is spread by one species of mosquito that prefers to

prey on birds, but which will

resort to biting humans when its normal avian targets have fled

urban areas during heat waves.

Bird flu is another example of a disease that is likely to spread

more quickly as the Earth warms up, but for a different reason:

A United Nations study found that global warming--in concert

with excessive development--is contributing to an increased

loss of wetlands around the world. This trend is already forcing

disease-carrying migrating birds, who ordinarily seek out

wetlands as stopping points, to instead land on animal farms

where they mingle with domestic poultry, risking the spread of

the disease via animal-to-human and human-to-human contact.

A recent assessment of climate change and health conducted

predicted that global warming will cause or increased

incidences of malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever, encephalitis

and respiratory diseases throughout the world in coming

decades. The assessment also concluded that insect- and

rodent borne diseases would become more prevalent

throughout the U.S. and Europe.

The news is not good for less developed parts of the world

either. Researchers have found that more than two-thirds of

waterborne disease outbreaks (such as cholera) follow major

precipitation events, which are already increasing due to global

warming. In South West Asia particularly, the picture is more

horrible than other areas. On the Frontiers of Mountains the

glaciers are victims of the global warming besides the

deforestation which is contributing factor in spreading diseases.

It is worth mentioning in context of the global warming earth

weather and climate has been changed terribly. The surface of

the planet radiates energy derived from the sun back into the

space. Atmospheric gases (carbon dioxide, water vapour and

other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy retaining heat

somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse. Without this

natural greenhouse effect, temperature would be much lower

than they are now, and life as know today would have not been

possible. However the problem may appear when the

atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric

concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased by nearly

30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and

nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These

increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the

earth's atmosphere. Sulphate aerosols, a common air pollutant,

cool the atmosphere by reflecting light back into space.

However, sulphates are short-lived in the atmosphere and vary

regionally. Scientists generally believe that the combustion of

fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason

for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant

respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release

more than 10 times the CO2 released by human

activities. These releases have generally been in balance

during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with

carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the

oceans. What has changed in the last few hundred years is the

additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil

fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and

businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98%

of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions,

and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. In 1997, the United States

emitted about one fifth of total global greenhouse gases.

Estimating future emissions is difficult, because it depends on

demographic, economic, institutional, policy and technological

developments. Several emissions scenarios have been

developed based on differing projections of these underlying

factors. By 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies,

carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be 30-150%

higher than today's levels. It means surface temperatures have

increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century. The 20th

century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of

the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record.

The snow covers in the northern hemisphere and floating ice in

the Arctic Ocean have both decreased. Globally, sea level has

risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation

over land has increased by about one percent.

Another reason of global warming is deforestation which has

tremendously contributed towards generation of heat on the

earth’s surface. Trees are vitally important to the environment,

animals, and of course for us humans. They are important for

the climate of the Earth, they act as filters of carbon dioxide,

they are habitats and shelters to millions of species, and they

are also important for their aesthetic appeal. However, the

trees on our planet are being depleted at a very fast rate.

In order to curb such practices which are contributing factor in

the global warming, environmental ethics can play a vital role.

As such environmental ethics believes in the ethical

relationship between human beings and the natural

environment. Human beings are a part of the society and so

are the other living beings. When we talk about the

philosophical principle that guides our life, we often ignore the

fact that even plants and animals are a part of our lives. They

are an integral part of the environment and hence have a right

to be considered a part of the human life. On these lines, it is

clear that they should also be associated with our guiding

principles as well as our moral and ethical values. We are

cutting down forests for our needs. We are continuing with an

excessive consumption of natural resources. Their excessive

use is resulting in their depletion, risking the life of our future

generations. Is this ethical? This is the issue that environmental

ethics takes up.

Scientists like Rachel Carson and the environmentalists who led

philosophers to consider the philosophical aspect of

environmental problems, pioneered in the development of

environmental ethics as a branch of environmental philosophy.

When industrial processes lead to destruction of resources, is it

not the industry's responsibility to restore the depleted

resources? Moreover, can a restored environment make up for

the originally natural one? Mining processes hamper the

ecology of certain areas; they may result in the disruption of

plant and animal life in those areas. On the other hand, most of

the human activities lead to environmental pollution. The

overly increasing human population is increasing the human

demand for resources like food and shelter. As the population is

exceeding the carrying capacity of our planet, natural

environments are being used for human inhabitation. Thus

human beings are disturbing the balance in the nature. The

harm we, as human beings, are causing to the nature, is

coming back to us by resulting in a polluted environment and

spreading several diseases which we have discussed in the

beginning. The imbalance in nature that we have caused is

going to disrupt our life as well.

But environmental ethics brings about the fact that all the life

forms on Earth have a right to live. By destroying the nature,

we are depriving these life forms of their right to live. We are

going against the true ethical and moral values by disturbing

the balance in nature. We are being unethical in treating the

plant and animal life forms, which coexist in society. Human

beings have certain duties towards their fellow beings. On

similar lines, we have a set of duties towards our environment.

Environmental ethics says that we should base our behavior on

a set of ethical values that guide our approach towards the

other living beings in nature.

Environmental ethics is about including the rights of non-

human animals in our ethical and moral values. Even if the

human race is considered the primary concern of society,

animals and plants are in no way less important. They have a

right to get their fair share of existence. We, the human beings,

along with the other forms of life make up our society. We all

are a part of the food chain and thus closely associated with

each other. We, together form our environment. The

conservation of natural resources is not only the need of the

day but also our prime duty. We need to observe environmental

laws and ethics not only in industrial sector, but in our day-to-

day life, we have some moral duties to keep our surroundings

pollution free.

THE FUTURE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ETHICS

Given the increasing concern for the environment and the

impact that our actions have upon it, it is clear that the field of

environmental ethics is here to stay.

However, it is less clear in what way the discipline will move

forward. Having said that, there is evidence for at least three

future developments. First of all, environmental ethics needs to

be and will be informed by changes in the political efforts to

ameliorate environmental problems. Environmental ethics

concerns formulating our moral obligations regarding the

environment. While this enterprise can be, and often is, quite

abstract, it is also meant to engage with the real world. After

all, ethicists are making claims about how they think the world

ought to be. Given this, the effectiveness of states and

governments in “getting there” will affect the types of ethics

that emerge. For example, the Kyoto Protocol might be

regarded as the first real global attempt to deal with the

problem of climate change. However, without the participation

of so many large polluters, with the agreed reductions in

greenhouse gas emissions so small, and with many countries

looking like they may well miss their targets, many

commentators already regard it as a failure. Ethicists need to

respond not just by castigating those they blame for the failure.

Rather they must propose alternative and better means of

resolving the problems we face. For example, is it more

important to outline a scheme of obligations for individuals

rather than states, and go for a bottom-up solution to these

problems? Alternatively, perhaps businesses should take the

lead in tackling these problems. Indeed, it may even be in the

interests of big business to be active in this way, given the

power of consumers. It is quite possible then, that we will see

business ethics address many of the same issues that

environmental ethics has been tackling.

However, the effects of environmental ethics will not be limited

to influencing and informing business ethics alone, but will

undoubtedly feed into and merge with more mainstream ethical

thinking.

After all, the environment is not something one can remove

oneself from. In light of this, once it is recognized that we have

environmental obligations; all areas of ethics are affected,

including just war theory, domestic distributive justice, global

distributive justice, human rights theory and many others. Take

global distributive justice as an example: if one considers how

climate change will affect people throughout the world so

differently – affecting individuals’ homes, sanitation, resistance

from disease, ability to earn a living and so on – it is clear that

consideration of the environment is essential to such questions

of justice. Part of the job of the environmental ethicist will thus

be to give such disciplines the benefit of his or her expertise.

Finally, environmental ethics will of course be informed by our

scientific understanding of the environment. Whether it be

changes in our understanding of how ecosystems work, or

changes in the evidence concerning the environmental crisis, it

is clear that such change will inform and influence those

thinkers writing on our environmental obligations.

REFERENCES

"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_ethics

Environmental Ethics Issue on Oil Spills - Term Papers -

Awebb12345.htm

Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.htm