Business Ethics: Concepts & Cases: Chapter 5 Outline
Ethics and the Environment

Introduction

• Modern industry has been a two edged sword
• producing unparalleled prosperity for "us"
• but also creates strains on & threats to the environment
• pollution
• depletion of resources
• Trends
• Accelerating industrialization of the world
• the global economy has quintupled in size since 1950.
• In the ten years from 1985-1995 the world economy grew by more than from the beginning of civilization to 1950.
• Population Explosion: Population has doubled since 1950.
• Result: spiraling human demands for resources
• beginning to outgrow the capacity of the earth's natural systems
• evidence
• collapsing fisheries
• falling water tables
• shrinking forests
• soil erosion
• dying lakes
• disappearing species
• global warming
• Gloomy forecast
• [A]s human societies are confronted with dwindling resources in the midst of mounting accumulations of wastes, and a steadily deteriorating environment, we can only foresee social paroxysms of an intensity greater than any we have so far known.  The problems are so varied and so vast and the means for their solution so far beyond the resources of the scientific and technological know how on which we have relied that there simply is not time to avoid the impending catastrophe.  We stand, therefore, on the threshold of a time of judgment more severe, undoubtedly, than any mankind has ever faced before in history.  (William Pollard: Velasquez, p. 252)
• Above all -- more than the resources, I should say -- we lack the will
• Questions raised
• Factual: is this gloomy assessment correct?
• Normative
• if disaster is impending
• for civilization
• for human individuals
• for other sentient beings: animals
• for the earth itself: the ecosystem
• shouldn't we be doing everything in our power to stave it off
• for the sake of future generations
• and the earth itself?

5.1 The Dimensions of Pollution and Resource Depletion

• Resource depletion involves the consumption of finite or scarce resources.
• Pollution involves the undesirable contamination of the environment by the manufacture or use of commodities.
• since "contamination of air, water, or land diminishes their beneficial qualities"
• pollution can be viewed as "a type of resource depletion" itself

Air Pollution

• A result of industrial production & certain industrial products. Especially,
• industrial smokestacks
• utilities
• and automobiles
• Global warming: Rising carbon dioxide & other "greenhouse gas" levels create a "greenhouse effect"
• explained: the atmosphere becomes like a blanket keeping more heat in
• high wavelength light radiation comes in & warms things up
• lower wavelength heat radiation can't get out
• trends
• 25% increase in CO₂ levels since the dawn of the industrial revolution
• CO₂ levels currently increasing at 1.4% per year
• rising average global temperatures
• measured: now .1° C warmer than 1900
• forecast: to rise 1.5° to 4.5° C during this century
• ongoing & expected consequences
• expansion of the world's deserts
• melting of the polar ice caps causing
• rising sea levels
• flooding of coastal lands
• assorted ill effects
• extinction of species
• disruption of farming
• increase in the severity of respiratory diseases
• Ozone depletion
• explained
• the ozone layer, high in the stratosphere, screens the earth from harmful UV radiation
• chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) destroy ozone & their release into the air causes deterioration of the ozone layer
• CFC facts
• CFCs take 7-10 years from release to rise to the level o the ozone layer
• remain there destroying ozone for 75-130 years
• due to international agreements to phase out CFCs their emissions have dropped by 87% since their 1988 maximum, however gasses already released will continue to rise upwards for many years
• ill effects & threats
• skin cancer
• destruction of plankton: small ocean plants on which the entire ocean food chain ultimately depends
• crop destruction: 75% of the world's major food crops are UV sensitive
• unexplained decrease in frog & other amphibian populations: "canaries in the mine" hypothesis
• Airborne toxins: associated with increased cancer rates.
  • 2.4 billion pounds of airborne toxins released annually in the U.S. alone
  • EPA estimate: just 20 of the more than 320 toxics released cause more than 2000 cases of cancer per year
• Acid rain
  • explained
    • nitrogen oxide & sulfur oxide emissions
    • react with water in the atmosphere
    • to form nitric and sulfuric acid
  • ill effects
    • kills fish & vegetation in lakes
    • deforestation: "many researchers feel that future emissions will devastate the world's forests."
• Air quality: Other "pollutants": assorted gasses and particulates
• explained: contribute to photochemical smog
• S and N oxides also contribute here along with
• hydrocarbons
• particulate matter: memories of Ecorse & Trenton
• Ill effects
• interferes with respiratory function
• contributes to respiratory disease
• progress (in the U. S.)
• total emissions of all major air pollutants fell in the decade from 1995-2005
• reduction in air pollution since 1970, it is believed, now saves about 14,000 lives/year
• U.S. Office of Management and Budget cost benefit analysis for effects of emissions regulations from1992-2002
  • costs: $18-$21 billion
  • benefits: $117-$177 billion

Water Pollution

• Notable Pollutants & their effects
• organic wastes & phosphorus compounds
• most important sources
• organic wastes
• sewerage
• runoff from animal feedlots
• wastes from the pulp and paper industries
• phosphorus compounds
• detergents
• fertilizers: agricultural runoff
• ill effects
• bacterial contamination (organic wastes)
• direct human health risks
• hepatitis, cholera (especially from sewerage)
• E Coli (from feedlot runoff)
• oxygen depletion in lakes & streams: kills fish
• explosive algae growth:
• phosphates are fertilizers
• organic wastes are nutrient rich
• inorganic pollutants
• heavy metals: e.g., chromium (Erin Brockovich)
• effects: find their way into the food chain
• consumed by fish which are consumed by us & other animals
• resulting in various afflictions & toxic effects: especially endangering unborn children
• heat
• due to use of water as a coolant
• disturbs aquatic ecosystems & kills fish
• oil spills
• causes: offshore drilling, tanker discharges & accidents
• effects
• directly lethal to wildlife
• losses to tourism & fisheries
• expensive cleanup
• Ocean & underground water pollution
• oceans
• sources
• what goes into the lakes & rivers finds its way eventually to the sea
• oceans have been used as disposal sites for low-level radioactive & other wastes
• effects: materials work their way up the food chain & into the fish we eat
• heavy metals
• other toxins (e.g. PCBs)
• underground water supplies: "ground water contamination"
• sources
• landfills, waste piles, and legal & illegal dumps
• surface reservoirs (Erin Brockovich)
• risks
• associated with various afflictions (Erin Brockovich)
• groundwater is the source for more than 50% of U.S. drinking water

Land Pollution

• Toxic substances: substances that can cause an increase in mortality rates, or an increase in irreversible or incapacitating illness, or that have other seriously adverse health effects.
  • Examples
    • acidic chemicals
    • pesticides herbicides
    • inorganic metals
    • flammable solvents
    • radioactive waste (treated separately below)
  • Trends:
    • 10 times more chemicals were being used in the mid-80s than in 1970.
    • many of them toxic.
  • Uncertainty
    • health effects of many substances is hard to determine
    • carcinogens (cancer causing substances) for instance
      • generally only result in cancers 15 to 30 years after exposure
      • making it hard to identify the cause of the cancer when it develops
• Solid Waste
  • Residential Garbage
    • Facts & Figures  (residential garbage = 369 million tons/yr) {up from 160 million: previous edition!}
      • Each U.S. adult produces, on average, almost 7 lbs. per day {up from 4 lbs.: pervious edition!}
      • only 25% of residential wastes are recovered through recycling due to {up from 10%}
        • lack of financial backing for recycling operations
        • the small size of markets for recycled products
        • toxic chemicals present in recyclable garbage
    • Effects: city garbage dumps are significant sources of ground water pollution
      • only 25% even test for groundwater contamination
      • less than 16% have insulating liners
      • less than 5% separate out & collect polluting liquid wastes
      • less than 50% put restrictions on types of liquid wastes they'll accept
  • Industrial garbage dwarfs the residential
    • Facts & Figures:
      • industrial = 7.6 billion tons per year
        • oil & gas production: 2-3 billion
        • mining operations: 1.4 billion
      • there are more than 220,000 industrial waste heaps
      • about 80% of such waste is estimated to be deposited in ponds, lagoons, and unlined landfills
      • 1980-86: 24,000 uncontrolled hazardous sites identified: estimated clean up cost: $28.4 to $55 billion
    • Effects
      • harm due to direct human exposure
      • groundwater contamination
• Nuclear Wastes
  • Three types
    1. high-level: emit gamma rays which can penetrate all but the thickest shielding
       • significant types
         • cesium 137 & strontium 90: become harmless after 1000 years
         • plutonium: 250,000 to 1,000,000 years
       • disposal
         • must be isolated from the environment until no longer hazardous
         • at present, no safe and permanent long-term method of disposal is known
    2. transuranic:
       • contain same chemicals as above at lower levels
       • disposal
         • until recently by burial in shallow trenches
         • seepage from such trenches has recently become a worry
         • may be necessary to exhume & predispose of them at enormous expense
    3. low-level
       • contaminated clothing from nuclear plants
       • uranium mine tailings
       • nuclear plants themselves after decommissioning
         • remain dangerously radioactive for 1000s of years
         • sites must continue to be quarantined for centuries
  • Effects & Risks
    • Health risks
      • fatal in small doses: inhalation of as little as a millionth of a gram of plutonium can cause death within a week
      • carcinogenic even in small doses
      • reproductive effects in humans & animals
        • sterility
        • birth defect causing mutations
    • Security risks
      • plutonium the stuff atom bombs are made of
      • so there's risk of power plants' supplies falling into the wrong hands
        • criminals
        • terrorists
  • Current situation & trends
    • U. S. phase out
      • no new plant construction has been begun since the 1970s
      • phase-out due to political pressure
      • many still in operation
        • still producing wastes
        • we still don't know how to safely & permanently dispose of
      • research has continued
      • renewed interest due to global warming
        • coal and gas burning power plants are big greenhouse gas emitters
        • nuclear plants don't produce greenhouse gasses
    • Worldwide: mixed trends
      • Japan, China, & India have remained active in developing nuclear power
      • France and Finland are actively pursuing nuclear power programs
      • Other parts of Europe and Asia, meanwhile have been phasing it out.

Depletion of Species and Habitats

• Chief business related causes of extinction of species
• pollution
• deforestation
• Facts & Forecasts
• deforestation: rainforests being destroyed at a rapid rate estimated at 1% per year
• estimated that between 15 to 20% of earth's species are at risk of extinction in the near future: between a half million & two million species

Depletion of Fossil Fuels

• Most important fossil fuels
• petroleum: oil & natural gas
• coal
• Trend until the 1980s
• these were being depleted at an exponentially increasing rate
• would have led to complete depletion in a relatively short time
• 100 years coal
• 40 years oil
• The "good" news:
• exponential rate could not continue
• as resources get depleted
• they become increasingly difficult & costly to extract
• so rates of extraction & depletion peak
• and eventually go down.
• peaked rate:
• point of complete depletion never reached
• small consolation: depletion continues until it's too expensive to extract anymore
• adjusted forecast
• coal extraction will peak in 150 years then decline to nil over the next 150
• oil extraction
  • U.S. rates peaked around 1970
  • world rates will peak around 2010 according to some predictions though others say not until around 2040
• U.S. natural gas extraction has already peaked & is expected to decline over the next 30-40 years
• Catastrophic consequences threatening
• widespread use of fossil fuels
• in industry
• power generation
• & automobiles
• Possible substitutes & their drawbacks
• nuclear: dangers associated therewith
• hydroelectric
• dams cause environmental damage
• water power is also a limited resource
• other alternatives: renewable fuels: mainly still in or barely off the drawing boards
• alcohol & renewable fuels
• solar & geothermal
• electro-chemical: e.g., battery powered cars

Depletion of Minerals

• By the year 2000 the U. S. had exhausted
• 90% of domestic aluminum reserves
• 80% of our iron 0 70% of our lead
• 90% of our manganese
• 80% of our mercury
• 90% of our tungsten
• 70% of our zinc
• Difficulties in predicting the future course & impact of world resource depletion
  • mining technologies may continue to develop enabling cheaper extraction from poorer grade ores
  • recycling may reduce the need to mine
  • substitutes may be found for depleted minerals
• World Reserves: the case of copper
• rate of extraction expected to continue to rise rapidly over the next hundred years
• peak about 2100
• then slowly decline
• rich copper ores expected to be exhausted circa 2070
• mining copper from poor sources will be drastically more expensive
• Possible expedients & remedies
• recycling: can't supply increasing demands of future industry & population
• substitute manufacturable materials, e.g., plastics
• manufacture contributes to pollution
• most commonly used plastics at present are petroleum based: increased use of these will contribute to petroleum depletion
• Gloomy conclusion
• all such resources are finite & hence ultimately subject to depletion
• day of reckoning can only be delayed, not avoided

5.2 The Ethics of Pollution Control

• The Innocent Past
• Industry was small
• the waters and skies immense
• firms could view the environment as a unlimited good
• virtually unlimited:
• the minuscule discharges of olden-days industry
• we're as nothing compared to the immense "carrying capacities" of the air and the waters
• effects so slight could be treated as negligible
• and therefore -- since there's unlimited supply there for the taking -- a free good
• there for anyone to use
• without reimbursing anyone for the use
• Lost Innocence
• Larger scale of industry
• Many "negligible" effects can add up some very non-negligable ones
• hundreds of small polluters can add up to one big pollution problem
• Upshot: the "unlimited" carrying capacity is exceeded and the "free" goods start to deteriorate
• Other contributors: besides industrial production
• consumer use of certain industrial products . . . especially automobiles
• residential & other human waste
• Aggravating factors
• world population explosion
• explosive worldwide
• urbanization
• industrialization

Ecological Ethics

• Ecological ethics holds we have a duty to recognize and protect ecosystems
• ecosystem: a system of interrelated and mutually dependent set of organisms and environments
• Example: a lake:
• fish eat small aquatic organisms & plants
• plants & organisms fed & fertilized by decaying plant and fish waste products
• Prime example: "spaceship earth"
• the planet's ecosystem is our life-support system
• Gaia hypothesis
• the global ecosystem is bigger than any of us
• bigger than all of us put together
• the ecosystem -- life on this planet -- has an intrinsic value
• over and above the values of its human inhabitants
• a value all its own, independently of us
• we have a a direct duty to protect the ecosystem
• not just indirect: e.g.,
• in order to insure our own survival we need to protect the environment
• in order to insure the survival off future generations we need to preserve the ecosystem
• direct: "nonhuman parts of the environment" -- and the nonhuman whole of it -- "deserve to be preserved for their own sake"
• biodiversity is a good thing in and of itself
• humans have no right to reduce the richness and diversity of the ecosystem except to satisfy vital needs.
• Fact: the current population/industrialization/urbanization explosion is reducing biodiversity
• program flowing from recognition of that direct duty & that fact
• decrease of human population: the flourishing of nonhuman life requires such a decrease
• ideological change: appreciating the quality of life rather than frenzied pursuit of higher material standards of living
• economic changes: produce & consume less, not more
• altogether
• and per capita
• Variety of Environmental Ethical Claims
• Some utilitarians: Jeremy Bentham (the first utilitarian) Peter Singer (most famously, at present)
• pain is an evil whether is is inflicted on humans or animals: "they suffer" Bentham says
• the pains of animals must be considered equal to comparable human pains
• to do otherwise is speciesism (Singer)
• comparable to racism & sexism
• so we have a direct duty to animals to avoid causing them pain & suffering
• Rights argument
• every animal life has intrinsic value
• so animals have rights
• to be treated with respect
• to have their interests considered in decisions affecting them
• interests in surviving,
• flourishing,
• & not suffering
• More extreme arguments extend rights and an interest in living & flourishing beyond animals to plants
• natural things such as wild rivers, mountains, etc. have rights to have their "integrity, stability, and beauty preserved"
• rights extend beyond individual living things to whole `systems
• locally: biotic communities (e.g., the lake)
• globally: the earth: Gaia

Environmental Rights and Absolute Bans

• William T. Blackstone's proposed human right to a livable environment
• as essential to permitting each to live a human life
• rational
• free & self determining
• imposes a duty on others not to interfere with this right
• this right overrides property rights
• and should be recognized under law
• Actual enactments embodying something like Blackstone's Principle
• National Environmental Policy Act of 1969:
• asserts a right of all Americans to "surroundings" that are
• "safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing"
• Water Pollution Control Act of 1972:
• asserts a duty to firms to "use the best practicable technology" to get rid of pollution
• implies a correlative right to a pollution free environment.
• Drawback of this approach: its inflexibility
• characteristic of all absolute rule or absolute rights based approaches (compare Kant)
• absolute rights give rise to absolute duties
• not to pollute
• regardless of cost
• unable to give "nuanced guidance" involving "trade offs"
• with other human rights
• property rights
• positive rights to economic welfare (which loss of jobs may violate)
• with utility: pollution control in some cases might have high costs in terms of
• decreased productivity
• increased prices
• The more nuanced approach would have to enable us to assess the "trade offs"
• more utilitarian in spirit: balance the benefits against the costs
• current approaches -- since the early 80s -- based on this: Executive Order No. 12291 require all new environmental regulations to undergo a cost-benefit analysis

Markets and Partial Controls

• View environmental problems as "market defects"
• when a firm pollutes
• the market price of its commodities no longer reflects their true price
• fails to incorporate hidden environmental costs, e.g., depletion of air & water resources
• undesirable consequences of this market defect
• misallocation of resources
• waste
• inefficient distribution
• in sum: "society as a whole is harmed and its overall economic welfare declines"
• Utilitarian Conclusion: pollution should be avoided
• it's a kind of inefficiency in the working of markets
• detrimental to the general welfare.
• Private Costs and Social Costs
  • Sometimes part of the cost of producing a product does not fall on the producer
    • suppose I'm burning coal to make steel
      • Private costs: I'm paying for
        • the coal
        • the pig iron & other ingredients
        • the labor
      • external costs (I'm not paying)
        • depletion of public resources: water & air I pollute
        • my neighbors bear the health costs of breathing my factory's fumes
        • also bear the cleanup costs to to the particulates in my emissions settling on their windowsills, etc.
    • Total social cost of production (what production costs society as a whole) =s
      • private costs: borne by the producer +
      • external costs: not borne by the producer
  • Whenever a firm pollutes its private costs are always less then than the total social cost
  • Fundamental problem with pollution, as utilitarians view it, is this divergence between private and true total social cost.
    • since external costs are not reflected in the price of the goods
    • this results in the commodities being
      • under priced
      • overproduced
    • that's bad because
      • society as a whole consumes more of that product than it would if it knew the full price
        • but it's paying the full price
          • the outstanding costs ultimately get paid in the form of
            • environmental degradation
            • depletion of resources
          • society "gets taken"
      • "free" use of air and water resources is a disincentive to efficient use
        • since the producer doesn't bear the external costs
        • the producer has no incentive to minimize them
      • result: unjust pricing and distribution of costs
        • external costs not equally distributed to all of society
        • those who disproportionately bear the external costs are "paying more" for the same product
          • those who live near the power plant not only pay for the electricity on their bill like everyone else
          • they also pay for cleanup, emission related healthcare, etc.
• Remedies: The Duties of the Firm
  • The solution for pollution: internalize the external costs.
    • if costs are all absorbed by the producer this will be reflected in the price of the goods
    • goods will be accurately priced at a rate = true social costs (including the customary rate of profit)
    • producers will be encouraged to minimize "external costs" -- not to pollute
    • and some consumers will no longer end up, in effect, paying more than others for the same goods
  • How to bring this about is controversial
    • Polluters pay plan:
      • The plan: the polluting agent pays all those being harmed an amount equal to the costs imposed on them by the pollution.
      • Example case: Union Oil's drilling in the Santa Barbara Channel
        • caused an oil spill
        • damages to local residents and to state & federal agencies estimated at $16,400,000
          • cleanup and containment
          • loss of tourism, fishing, and recreational opportunities
          • property damage, etc.
        • Union Oil paid
          • 10,400,000 voluntarily: by paying full cost of cleanup & containment
          • 6,300,000 in damages as the result of litigation
      • Drawback: often there are several polluters
        • not clear who is being damaged by whom
        • administrative and legal costs of assessing damages for each distinct polluter can be very substantial
    • Prevention plan (preferable)
      • polluters bear cost of preventing pollution by installing pollution control devices
      • additional benefit: avoids the pollution, which is more efficient
        • "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"
        • locks the barn door before the horses get out
• Justice
  • Internalizing costs seems consistent with demands of distributive justice
    • the external costs of pollution are borne unequally
    • without justification
  • How pollution adversely effects equality: "shit runs downhill"
    • stockholders and customers -- mainly the affluent -- get unfair gains
      • stockholders: excessive profits due to not having to bear the external cost of pollution
      • customers pay less due to lower external costs
    • others -- mainly the poor -- suffer corresponding losses: they bear the costs
      • property values go down in polluted neighborhoods
      • increased health costs & other pollution related costs borne by the poor who end up living there
  • Complications to this picture
    • if the polluting firm produces basic goods & essential services
      • for which the poor spend proportionately more than the rich
      • then internalization of pollution costs can actually be disproportionately burdensome for the poor
    • if the costs of pollution control lead to unemployment
      • the poor will be disproportionately burdened by this also
      • though studies show that the effects of pollution control on employment are limited and transitory
  • Internalizing costs of pollution also seems consistent with the demands of retributive and compensatory justice
    • principles involved:
      • retributive: those who are responsible for and benefit from an injury should bear the burdens of rectifying the injury.
      • compensatory: those who have been injured should be compensated by those responsible for the injury.
    • implications re: pollution
      • retribution: the costs of pollution control should be paid by those who cause it and benefit from it
      • compensation: the benefits of pollution control should go to those injured by it
    • how internalizing external costs meets these demands
      • the costs are borne by shareholders & customers who benefited from the pollution
      • the benefits go to those who have borne -- or would be bearing -- the costs of the pollution if it remained external
• Costs and Benefits
  • How much pollution control to implement
    • diminishing returns
      • 99% of some pollution might be removable from discharges relatively cheaply: here you get big bang for you pollution control buck
      • while the last 1% might be extremely expensive to remove
      • trouble with absolute bans: mandate resource uses that might be socially disadvantageous all things considered
        • absolute bans don't allow for any tradeoffs
        • so if auto exhausts can't be made completely pollution free
        • absolutist approach would seem to mandate a complete ban on autos
          • or at least on internal combustion engines
          • regardless of other social costs.
    • a more flexible approach -- weighing costs v. benefits -- seems needed
    • right amount of pollution control vs. pollution = point at which the total social costs of pollution control = the total social benefits to be gained
      • up to that point pollution control is a winning proposition in terms of the general welfare
      • beyond that point it's a losing proposition.
  • Drawbacks to the cost-benefit approach: compare general criticisms of Utilitarianism
    • Technical difficulties: costs of pollution and benefits of its elimination are difficult to measure even at a rough estimate due to
      • things which aren't easy to put a price on, e.g., lives & health
      • uncertain & unknown effects of various pollutants: problem of estimating risks
        • "perhaps the major problem involved in obtaining the measurements needed to apply cost-benefit analysis to pollution problems"
        • problems for risk estimation
          • unknown long-term effects
          • the human factor: e.g., the risks of nuclear terrorism
          • unforeseeable advances -- or lack of advances -- in technology:
            • e.g., high-level radioactive waste disposal:
              • Some say "science will find a way"
              • Will it?
            • e.g., depletion of nonrenewable resources (e.g. fossil fuels)
              • Some say "science will just find alternative energy sources"
              • Will it?
          • uncertain issue: how much risk is acceptable
            • if we're 90% certain a safe way to dispose of nuclear waste can be found
            • is that enough to warrant building more nuclear power plants?
    • Moral objections:
      • justice: cost-benefit analysis may indicate the least costly & most beneficial course of action would be to to store all U. S. high-level nuclear wastes underground in Michigan
        • this has actually been proposed
          • the salt deposits under our state have the geological properties that make them prime candidates
          • we're relatively non earthquake prone hereabouts
        • but it seems unfair that this entire risk fall on the residents of Michigan
      • violations of right to informed consent
        • right of consent implies that decisions on pollution control should rest with the people who will be affected
        • people have a right not to be forced to undertake risks without their informed consent
        • but costs & benefits might be impossible for lay people to assess
          • often, even the experts disagree
          • as regarding the prospects for nuclear waste disposal (above)
        • so ordinary citizens aren't capable of giving informed consent to risks that cost-benefit analyses might justify exposing them to

Social Ecology, Ecofeminism, and the Demands of Caring

• Shortcomings of utilitarian and rights based approaches
• rights based: inflexible absolute rules allowing no tradeoffs
• utilitarian
• technical difficulties
• moral objections
• neglect of justice
• violations of rights to informed consent
• Prompts a call for alternatives
• Ecofeminism
• ideological essence
• view nature as an other to be cared for
• not an object to be dominated
• practical upshot
• oppose hierarchical structures as part of the problem: democratize & decentralize
• dominators objectify the dominated: use them as means to their ends
• this fosters a similar attitude toward nature
• back to nature
• practice conservation
• deindustrialize
• control population
• criticisms: utopian & impractical

5.3 The Ethics of Conserving Depletable Resources

• Conservation refers to the saving or rationing of resources for future use
• A basic difference between pollution and resource depletion
• pollution
• for the most part pollution affects present generations (with the notable exception of nuclear waste)
• polluted resources are for the most part renewable
• air and water can be renewed by ceasing to pollute them
• and allowing them time to recover
• depletion
• for the most part affects future generations
• concerned with finite nonrenewable resources
• since they cannot be renewed
• what will be around for future generations is just what's left over from the present

Rights of Future Generations

• Would-be argument for conservation
• future generations have an equal right to the planet's limited resources
• by depleting these resources we are depriving them of what is rightfully theirs
• so we ought to do our utmost to practice conservation
• to minimize depletion
• to avoid violating the rights of future generations
• Objection 1: future generations do not have rights
• future generations do not -- and may never -- exist
• only existing individuals have rights
• future generations do not have rights
• Objection 2: according equal rights to future generations would result in the absurd consequence the present generation has almost no rights to use depletable resources
• main argument:
1. Granting future generations rights would mean we that we have no right to use up any of the world's depletable resources
2. So, we would have to sacrifice our civilization.
3. but that's absurd (or unacceptable)
4. therefore, we should not acknowledge any rights of future generations
• argument for premise 1
• suppose each fixture generation, stretching (virtually) infinitely into the future, has an equal right to the world's resources
• so whatever the amount of a resource there is we are entitled to (virtually) none of it
• any amount you choose divided by (virtually) infinity = (virtually) zero
• example of the absurdity
• we would have to limit our per capita consumption to almost nothing -- say thimbleful of petroleum per lifetime
• so that each member of every future generation can have their thimbleful
• but a thimbleful of oil does no good to anyone
• Objection 3: we are unable to say what rights fixture generations will have
• the purpose of rights is to protect interests
• we can't know what interests future generations will have
• the human beings of the future may be a lot different than we are
• with bio-technology & genetic engineering coming into play
• with advances in transplantation and other areas of medicine
• etc.
• the technology of the future may differ vastly from what there is today
• new energy sources & substitute materials may be discovered
• so they'll have no need & no interest in crude oil, coal, etc.
• who would have guessed 100 years ago that our generation would have an interest in uranium ore?
• maybe power from nuclear fusion will replace present sources
• therefore, no one can say what the rights of future generations are
• Velasquez replies
• even if all the above objections were granted
• it does not follow that we have no obligations to future generations
• these obligations may be based on other grounds than rights

Justice to Future Generations

• John Rawls
• two unjust extremes
• to impose disproportionately heavy conservation burdens on the present generation (unfair to us)
• to leave virtually nothing for future generations (unfair to them)
• need to determine the middle point: that's where justice lies
• imagine you didn't know which generation you belong to: this or some future one
• the distribution of resources you would accept as fair & reasonable from behind that "veil of ignorance"
• is the just distribution
• the middle point = the point at which we hand over to the next generation a situation no worse than the one we received
• Seconded by considerations of care
• we have a fairly direct relationship of care and concern towards the immediately following generation
• & less & less towards more and more distant future generations
• seems to imply that we should attempt to see matters from the perspective of the immediately succeeding generations
• which suggests we should "at least leave the succeeding generation a world that is not worse than the one we received"
• Seconded by the following Utilitarian Analysis: each generation has a duty to maximize benefits and minimize costs for succeeding generations as well as themselves
  • a corollary of the utilitarian principle of impartiality: "each counts one, none counts more than one"
    • morally speaking, our generations interests don't count more simply because they're ours
  • Nevertheless consequences need to be discounted (given less weight) in proportion to their uncertainty
    • the further into the future consequences are projected the less certain the projection
    • our responsibility to fixture generations, consequently, diminishes the further into the future we project,
    • due to the increasing uncertainty of the projections
  • Still that leaves us with an powerful duty to the next succeeding generation
    • to avoid those practices whose harmful consequences to the next generation
    • are likely to outweigh the benefits to be derived by the present generation
• Inadequacy of market mechanisms for ensuring adequate conservation
• the market a "live for today" kind of mechanism responding to
•  the effective demands of present participants
• actual supplies currently made available
• future demands and supplies
• so heavily discounted
• they hardly effect prices at all
• six reasons for the heavy discounting or "live for today" character of markets (William Shepherd and Clair Wilcox)
1. Multiple access: if a resource can be used by several different extractors, then the shared access will inevitably lead the resource to be depleted too fast
• for example: several people with straws in the same milkshake
• it will be in the private interest of each to suck faster to get the most for themselves
2. Time preferences and myopia: firms generally have short time horizons
• under the stresses of competition
• apt to give insufficient weight to the demands of future generations
3. Inadequate forecasting: present users may simply fail to foresee future
• consequences · example: DDT spraying in the 5Os
• no one foresaw that it would build up in the environment with harmful effects
4. Special influences:
• short run tax breaks and other incentives
•  encourage overly rapid use of resources
5. External effects:
• resource depletion like pollution an external cost not borne directly by the firm
• so it's in the economic self interest of the firm to ignore this cost
6. Distribution: private market decisions are based on existing patterns of wealth and income distribution
• resource users, in effect, vote with their dollars
• about what to produce in what amounts
• so the richer the individual the more say they have in what the market produces
• future generations -- having as yet no wealth or income -- have as yet no "vote"
• consequence of the inadequacy of market mechanisms for encouraging conservation
• voluntary or politically enforced policies of conservation need to be undertaken
• Practical upshots of Rawls' imperative to leave the world no worse than you found it
• should not sacrifice cultural advances we have made
• should adopt voluntary or legally enforced conservation measures
• to conserve the resources the immediately succeeding generation will need
• to live lives with a variety of available choices comparable to ours
• in particular we should
• preserve wildlife and endangered species
• ensure that rates of consumption of fossil fuels & minerals does not continue to rise
• recycle nonrenewable resources
• search for substitutes for materials we are too rapidly depleting

Economic Growth?

• The anti-growth argument: continued economic growth threatens to degrade the quality of life of future generations
• to preserve enough scarce resources for future generations to maintain their quality of life we must scale down our pursuit of economic growth
• this requires radical changes in our present economies and population control policies
• zero population growth (ZPG): maintenance of population at a steady state
• certainly no greater than at present
• or better, at some level below the present
• first decrease population
• then maintain at some sustainable lower level
• maintenance of resource use at a steady state
• certainly no greater than at present
• or better, at some level below the present
• first decrease use
• then maintain that sustainable lower rate
• The Doomsday Scenario
• the present situation continues
• explosive population growth
• declining death rates
• relatively stable birth rates
• world's economies continue to expand
• causing depletable resources to run out: deplete to point they're insufficient to sustain further growth
• world's growth-based economies (virtually all of them) collapse
• collapse of major economic institutions
• financial
• manufacturing
• communication
• service
• collapse of political and social institutions
• governments
• educational institutions
• health-care systems
• scientific & cultural institutions & pursuits
• precipitous decline in living standards
• anarchy & political disorder
• Somalia-ization of the world
• something like the end the anti-growth argument urges us to pursue will be achieved the hard way
• population levels will be drastically & rapidly reduced by skyrocketing death rates
• Already life-expectancies in Africa have precipitously declined due to AIDs
• Just a bump in the road of progress or a sign of things to come?
• resource use drastically & rapidly reduced by economic collapse
• if not the end of civilization forever
• at least the dawn of another dark age
• like the 1000 or so year long dark age 500-1500
• brought on by the collapse of classical civilization (fall of Rome)
• Criticism of the Doomsday Scenario: based on wrong assumptions
• about future population growth
• about productivity rates
• about our inability to find substitutes for depleted resource
• about the ineffectiveness of recycling
• Velasquez's estimation: given the uncertainties of the situation conservation seems imperative
• Suppose the optimists -- critics of the doomsday scenario -- are right
• if the following occurs
• population stabilizes
• productivity increases
• we find substitutes for depleted resources
• we effectively recycle
• doomsday will be avoided and
• continued economic growth & development may even be sustained
• Even so "a commitment to conservation" seems necessary
• if those things are to occur: they won't just happen by themselves
• the optimist side virtually concedes that were doomed if we don't
• halt explosive population growth
• increase productivity
• find substitutes
• & recycle
• Whether wholesale transformation of our economy is necessary if civilization is to survive
• is a question that remains open
• that we may soon not be able to avoid facing.
• Discussion: This is a great country ain't it?
• Everyone wants to be like us.
• But is that possible: is Americanization of the world a sustainable vision for the future?
• Example of energy use
• U.S.A.
• has 6% of the world's population {up from 5%}
• currently account for 25% of world's energy resource consumption {down from 35%}
• Least developed nations
• ·50% of the world's population
• ·currently account for 8% of the world's energy resource consumption
• Per-capita comparisons: each U.S. resident consumes
• 15 times more energy than each South American
• 24 times more energy than each Asian
• 31 times more energy than each African
• Exploitation issue: are we using up their resources
• U. S. produces only a portion of the energy it consumes
• Net flow of energy out of these low-consuming populations' regions for the sake of our high-consuming lifestyle
• Americans use much of this energy for inessential products & services
• Low-consuming populations: most consumption goes for essential products & services
• Concluding question: "[W]hether a a high-consumption nation is morally justified in continuing to appropriate for its own use the nonrenewable energy resources of other [low-consumption] nations that are too weak economically to use these resources or too weak militarily to protect them." (297

Cases for Discussion

The Ok Tedi Copper Mine

1. What are the systemic, corporate, and individual issues raised by this case?
2. Discuss the actions of the principal agents in this case from the standpoints of virtue and care.
3. Assess the final resolution of the case from the standpoints or utility, rights, and justice.

Gas or Grouse (ABC News CD-ROM)

• Pine Mesa in Southern Wyoming has rich natural gas deposits trapped in sandstone
  • in the 1990s industry developed techniques to get at such deposits by fracturing the sandstone to free the gas
  • Questar drilled a successful test well there in 1998
  • after an environmental impact statement was completed the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) approved drilling of up to 900 wells on federal lands on Pinedale Mesa.
• By 2004 Questar had drilled 76 wells on the mesa with plans for at least 400 more
• Benefits
  • Natural gas is clean source of energy: much cleaner than fossil fuels
• Exploiting this resource helps reduce U.S. dependence on foreign energy supplies
• Businesses and people in the Pinedale area benefit from the jobs, benefits, and tax revenues
• The state of Wyoming benefits: 60% of the state revenues come from royalties received from coal, gas, and oil operations"
• Costs
  • the mesa is prime old growth sagebrush habitat for sage grouse, pronghorn sheep, and other species
  • sage grouse: a species at risk
    • 200 year ago: estimated population 2 million and "were common throughout the west
    • 1970s: estimated population of 400,000 "in scattered pockets in 11 states"
    • If sagebrush habitats are not protected, biologists believe, "the bird will be so reduced in number by 2050 that it will never recover"
  • pronghorn antelope herds at risk
    • the mesa is an important migration route and wintering ground
    • "Environmentalists feared that if the animals were prevented from reaching their winter ranges, or if the winter ranges became inhospitable, the large herds would wither and die off."
    • to a lesser extent the same applied to the herds of moose
• Fish & Wildlife Service determination on the sage grouse
• May 2004: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service undertook a review of the sage grouse's status to determine whether the grouse should be listed as endangered
• Questar & other mining companies opposed this
  • it would put large areas of federal land off-limits for drilling, mining, & development
  • 80% of Wyoming is considered prime grouse habitat
• Questar & other energy companies formed a coalition to oppose such listing by
  • lobbying "key administration plays Washington"
  • encouraging "grass-roots opposition" to "provide political cover"
  • suggesting "funding scientific studies" to show the bird was not endangered
• Jan 2005: "The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service has completed its status review of the greater sage-grouse throughout its range and determined that the species does not warrant protection under the Endangered Species Act at this time" (http://www.fws.gov/news/NewsReleases/R9/4D0B98E6-DE22-18A8-5FBC25A1E928B298.html)
• Bureau of Land Management imposed restrictions
  • to protect grouse
    • Questar's roads, wells, and other structures had to be located at least 1/4 mile from grouse breeding grounds & at least 2 miles from nesting areas
    • Some studies showed these protections were insufficient and recommended increasing the 1/4 mile set back to at least 2 miles also
  • to protect migration routes and wintering grounds of pronghorn and other species
    • disallowed winter drilling (11/15 thru 5/1)
    • prohibited vehicular and foot traffic in the area during winter with the exception of trucks and personnel needed to haul off liquid wastes from existing wells which were allowed to continue pumping in the winter
• Questar's directional drilling proposal
  • This would minimize the land occupied by the wells: instead of separate 2-4 acre "pads" for each well, directional drilling would allow 16 wells per pad. 
  • Since directional drilling is more expensive, Questar's agreed to this only on the condition that it be allowed to drill in the winter.
  • BLM authorized Questar to drill wells at a single pad from 2002-2007 as part of a study of its effects on wintering & migrating herds"
  • BLM preliminary report found "no conclusive data to indicate quantifiable adverse effects"
  • The Upper Green River Valley Coalition "sued the bureau for failing to adhere to its own rules when it allowed Questar ... to drill ... on the mesa during winter and for failing to conduct and analysis of the potential impacts before granting the permits, as required by the Environmental Policy Act."
• 2006: "The Bureau of Land Management continues to expand on a dangerous experiment to erode seasonal drilling stipulations that protect wildlife. Increasingly, the agency is allowing Pinedale Anticline operators to drill year-round in crucial winter range for mule deer, even as biologists have documented a 46 percent decline in the number of wintering mule deer in recent years. Now industry is demanding the removal of all wildlife stipulations, prompting resistance from Gov. Dave Freudenthal, Wyoming Game and Fish, sportsmen groups and conservationists." (http://www.uppergreen.org/new/new.php)
• Links
  • Upper Green River Valley Coalition
  • Questar: environmental policy
  • National Geographic Article

Questions for Discussion

1. What are the systemic, corporate, and individual issues raised by this case?
2. How should wildlife species like grouse or deer be valued, and how should that value be balanced against economic interests of a company like Questar?
3. In the light of the U.S. economy's dependence on oil, and in light of the environmental impact of Questar's drilling operations, is Questar morally obliged to cease its drilling operations on the Pinedale Mesa?  Explain.
4. What, if anything, should Questar be doing differently?
5. In your view, have the environmental interest groups identified in the case behaved ethically?