In Ohio, the environmental ethics dilemma could be seen as the end result of a clash between two views. The clash occurs as the deliberate distortion of coal as a source of economic growth and prosperity collides with empirical facts shared by the scientific community about the adverse nature of burning coal. Through means of assessing both views from a consequentialist ethical standpoint, we could form a conclusion about the legitimacy of each view’s claims; hence, we can decide which view is ethically superior, in other words, which view is efficient from an environmental standpoint.
The first view is mainly shared by the coalmining and electricity generation industries. Advocates of this standpoint base their agendas primarily on the need to represent coal as a tool of prosperity and economic growth. However, the coalmining industries repeatedly fail to produce any statistical facts to support their claims; instead, they depend primarily on bravado-deceiving forms of propaganda. For instance, in their ad the economy comeback, coal advocates portrayed the U.S. economic condition as a fighting ring, in which an American flag was shown in the background (American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, 2011)ACCCE. Concurrently, several people from multiple ethnicities, were shown knocked down on the floor. The narration began as the referee started to count, and the anchor went on to announce “Our economy, our work force, we have all been taking big hits, but this is America” (ACCE, 2011). Suddenly, movements of those knocked down occurred as the announcer said “but this is America”. Unexpectedly, all participants started to energetically bounce around showing a desire to fight. Simultaneously, the announcer went on to say:
“...
... middle of paper ...
...licit time in this view is long term impacts from the business as usual case. Rather than focusing on short term gains, this view is devoted towards incorporating efforts to preserve the ecosystem as well as the wellbeing of future generations. The theory of authority in this view is based on a deep moral belief that good and bad consequences of any set of actions has to be identified and addressed in a way that prohibits the bad consequences from taking place. The theory of change here is emanated from the need to present the true cost of coal to the public. This in turn will allow the public to start to assess the business as usual case from an entirely different angle – consequentialist approach. Finally the theory of agency will come in place in forms of policy recommendations that will provide stability and true overall prosperity to the State of Ohio.
Cases have been widely used in medical ethics and law. In both fields, numerous books and articles about cases have appeared, including book-length catalogs of cases. I argue that pluralistic casuistry provides an adequate approach to environmental ethics. It retains the strengths while avoiding the weaknesses of the other approaches. Importantly, it resolves some broader theoretical issues and provides a clear, explicit methodology for education and praxis.
In the beginng of try to answer the ethical question of was mountaintop removal mining right or wrong for West Virginia, I decided to look at the environmental hazards first, exploring all the possible...
Upon weighing both sides of the issue, and considering the severity of ethical implications we can easily see that environment is a priceless asset to our future generations and us. Natural systems possess a value in them that makes them worth preserving, even at the cost of our needs.
Analyzing human obligation pertaining to all that is not man made, apart from humans, we discover an assortment of concerns, some of which have been voiced by philosophers such as Tom Regan, Peter Singer and Aldo Leopold. Environmentally ethical ideals hold a broad spectrum of perspectives that, not only attempt to identify a problem, but also focus on how that problem is addressed through determining what is right and wrong.
Being rich in natural resources, the region contains some of the richest mineral deposits in America (Daugneaux 1981). The coal, timber, oil, gas, and water contained within the Appalachian Mountains are resources that have historically influenced the economic characteristics of the region. The Region's economy has been highly dependent on mining, forestry, agriculture, chemical industries, and heavy industry, among which coal mining appears to be the largest financial contributor to the economy. Although half of the U.S. electricity comes from coal energy, many Americans now precious little about the earth-ravaging mining practice called mountaintop-removal mining used to extract coal in Southern Appalachia. The radical strip-mining process literally blow the tops off mountains with thousands of pounds of explosives to reach thin seams of coal. They then dump millions of tons of rubble and toxic waste into the streams and valleys below the mining sites. The mining poisons drinking water, destroys beautiful forests and wildlife habitat, increases the risk of flooding, and wipes out entire communities. There are four distinctive people groups that are involved in the mountaintop removing process, the coal companies, the Appalachians, environmental groups and the federal court. To fully understand the way natural resources have been understood, used, and allocated, it is important to recognize this diversity. In this paper I will identify the approach to resource management of these four groups in this mountaintop-removal mining case respe...
As the world is literally heating up, so is the pressing, controversial topic of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) publishes a climate change report every 5 years; the 2014 report is the most alarming report thus far. The long report is the collaborative work of more than 800 climate scientists and governmental representatives. The report is shocking, and it should be. The IPCC concludes that human activity is the cause of climate change, just as smoking causes cancer. The increasing living standards of industrialized nations are resulting in an increased use of coal energy. Along with the growing population, coal is being used at extravagant rates and increasing. Unfortunately, coal poses a threat to the future of humanity, and we are the direct cause (Richardson, 2014).
In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, John Muir, a naturalist, and Marsden Manson, an engineer for the city of San Francisco, engaged in a heated debate over the construction of a dam in Hetchy Hetchy Valley. Muir wanted to preserve nature for the future, so he objected to the dam because he felt it would destroy the beauty of the area. On the other hand, Manson believed building a dam would provide water and electricity to the thousands of people who lived in the city of San Francisco, and this would preserve the well being of the human race for the future. Both men had good points and arguments to support their views; however, in the end you have to look out for your own kind. If there is a choice about the well being of the human race or nature, I believe there is only once choice to be made – the future support of the human race.
Anthropocentrism as defined by Williston is “The view that we need look only to what humans value to discover all of our duties (413) “unfortunately, too often we lose sight of the fact that economic efficiency is only one value, and it may not be the most important one” (Williston 114). Although, environmental justice also expands its research to assess air and water quality, the case studies that I have outlined in this paper emphasize a more anthropocentric point of view on environmental justice. Moreover, environmental justice came to be because of the effect of pollution among people who are of a racial minority and those who are poorer. Although later environmental justice developed to focus on air, water, soil, etc, it still places its focus on how it affects humans rather than plants and
The natural resource that I am writing this paper on is coal. Coal is a cheap, dirty fossil fuel which we burn to create power. Coal is the most abundant in North America and in Russia, including the area around it. China also has a fairly good amount of coal in it too. Coal, like all of the other fossil fuels is nonrenewable and will eventually run out, in the not so near future. Coal is very important to many of the countries of the world. The countries that use the most coal are China, the United States, India, Russia, and Japan. These five countries “account for 76% of total global coal use.” (World Coal Association, 2014).
The development of science and technology has led to people considering using alternative fuels to generate electricity. There are many alternative fuels that can generate electricity, such as natural gas, nuclear energy, wind energy, hydraulic power and so on (Fossil Fuels Used to Generate Electricity Power Plant Emissions of North America). According to the statistics by the U.S. Energy Information Administration in 2009, the usage of coal was still the largest source to generate the power. Sources of electricity in the United States were generated by 44.9% of coal, 20.3% of nuclear, 23.4% of natural gas, 1% of petroleum, 6.9% of hydroelectric conventional and 3.6% of others (Electric Power Monthly with Data for February 2014). Coal is the main source of electricity in many parts of the world, including the United States. One of the reason why most countries prefer to use coal to generate the electricity is that the cost of using coal is cheaper than other sources but powerful. The coal power stations are much easier to set up than other power station. There are many advantages in generating power from coal. Coal as a source of electricity is economic, safe, effective and it is easy to eliminate the secondary pollutions and so on. As a result, the usage of coal should remain its status and cannot be replaced by other fuels.
Ecological theories and environmental ethics are reciprocally and dynamically linked. Inquiry into this thesis can provide epistemological and ethical insights for ecologists and environmental philosophers. First, for ecologists it clarifies that environmental ethics is not purely a normative corpus that we should adopt under the pressure of an environmental crisis. Ethical conceptions participate in the genesis and evaluation of ecological theories. Second, environmental philosophers have tended to focus on how ecological sciences could inform environmental ethics. I emphasize, in turn, that it is valuable to analyze and to discuss how ethical conceptions can and do inform ecological sciences.
The worst imaginable environmental catastrophe that could occur in Maryland has just become a reality. The lifeblood of Southern Maryland's Watermen has been forever affected. The ecosystems of the Patuxtent River and Chesapeake Bay have been irreversibly contaminated. The Three Mile Island and Chernobyl Nuclear Accidents have affected the world ecosystems; but the Chalk Point oil spill has reached us here in Southern Maryland. The ethical considerations with generating electricity from fossil fuels, specifically oil, has a profound impact on us all. We all use electricity to make our lives easier and more productive. By using this electricity have we given our permission for the oil companies free reign in order to provide us with the service we demand?? Are we just as responsible for the oil spill as the corporate leaders who run the companies? As citizens we are in a position to develop and enforce regulations to protect ourselves. Do we also protect the environment; or is the environment just something for us to use? These and many other moral dilemmas exist for modern man.
A human induced global ecological crisis is occurring, threatening the stability of this earth and its inhabitants. The best path to address environmental issues both effectively and morally is a dilemma that raises concerns over which political values are needed to stop the deterioration of the natural environment. Climate change; depletion of resources; overpopulation; rising sea levels; pollution; extinction of species is just to mention a few of the damages that are occurring. The variety of environmental issues and who and how they affect people and other species is varied, however the nature of environmental issues has the potential to cause great devastation. The ecological crisis we face has been caused through anthropocentric behavior that is advantageous to humans, but whether or not anthropocentric attitudes can solve environmental issues effectively is up for debate. Ecologism in theory claims that in order for the ecological crisis to be dealt with absolutely, value and equality has to be placed in the natural world as well as for humans. This is contrasting to many of the dominant principles people in the contemporary world hold, which are more suited to the standards of environmentalism and less radical approaches to conserving the earth. I will argue in this essay that whilst ecologism could most effectively tackle environmental problems, the moral code of ecologism has practical and ethical defects that threaten the values and progress of anthropocentricism and liberal democracy.
* Shirk, Evelyn. “New Dimensions in Ethics: Ethics and the Environment.” Ethics and the Environment. Proc. of Conf. on Ethics and the Environment, April 1985, Long Island University. Ed. Richard E. Hart. Lanham: University Press of America, 1992. 1-10.
Burning and mining coal for fuel is harmful to the environment but because how cheap and easy it is to find many people are unwilling to give it up as a fuel source. One of the problems with coal is that they are limited and are non-renewable so once it has been used we won’t be able to use it again.