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 19 th
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