The national spotlight is dominated today with the debate over how much control should the government have in an individual’s life. With this in mind the question is asked, should the government be allowed to dictate the quality of gasoline that individuals use in their vehicles? Unbeknownst to consumers the Environmental Protection Agency recently approved the sale of E15 gasoline which contains harmfully high levels of ethanol. John Tomlin states, a “recent survey showed that a majority of consumers (95 percent) had not heard of E15 gasoline or the damage it may cause” (1). Is it ethical for the government to make this determination without notifying the public? Merriam-Webster dictionary defines ethical behavior as, “following accepted rules of morally right and good behavior” (1). Based on this definition, changing to E15 gasoline without the publics’ knowledge is ethically wrong because it can cause accelerated engine wear, fuel system damage, and ultimately result in car warranties being voided. This change in the quality of gasoline blends has proven to be more cost effective to producers, but in the long run it will end up being more costly to consumers. Tom Taylor states that, “AAA automotive engineering experts have reviewed the available research and believe that’s sustained use of E15 in both new and older vehicles could result in significant problems such as accelerated engine wear and failure”(1). It is irresponsible for the government to approve these changes knowing the negative effects this gasoline will have on consumers. This accelerated engine wear and failure will result in consumers having to spend large amounts of money to repair the damage caused by this product. Furthermore, the use of this gasoline co... ... middle of paper ... ...et without adequate safe guards does not responsibly meet the needs of consumers’” (1). This irresponsible behavior on behalf of the government further proves that they are acting unethically when they change the gasoline blend used by the public without properly informing them. Research has proven that there are serious concerns with E15 gasoline and its effect on motor vehicles. Unfortunately, a majority of car owners have never heard of E15 gasoline and are unaware of the damage it can cause to their vehicles. Changing the quality of gasoline available to consumers without their knowledge is irresponsible and unscrupulous. The fact that the government has chosen to ignore industry concerns pertaining to this new blend of gasoline demonstrates they are not following the accepted rules of morally right behavior and therefore they are guilty of unethical behavior.
Exxon/Mobil, one of the nation’s leading oil producers, has its main refinery located in Beaumont, Texas. Each year, the residents of Beaumont/Port Arthur have to contend with the 39,000 pounds of pollution spewed each year by the Exxon refinery. Exxon’s emissions are 385% above the state refinery average. In 1999, the Texas Natural Resources Conservation Committee (TNRCC) allowed the plant to increase their emissions, without allowing the public to have a say in the matter. Interestingly, 95% of the people living near the plant are of African American descent and are in the poverty range. Some believe that this, along with the lack of education in the area, allows Exxon to get away with such high emissions. Residents in nearby neighborhoods have been complaining of headaches, nausea, eye, and throat irritation for years. Since 1997, Mobil has repeatedly violated health standards in its emissions of two key air pollutants: sulfur dioxide and hydrogen sulfide, These “rotten egg” smells are so strong, one can smell it through a car driving past the refinery. After numerous complaints and one record of a refinery worker becoming unconscious because of the fumes, the EPA awarded Exxon with a $100,000 environmental justice grant in October of 1998. Hopefully, Exxon has put the money to good use and cleaned up their emissions.
This case involves the explosive nature of the Ford Pinto's fuel tank when involved in a rear-end collision. The flawed fuel tank’s structural design, led to a lawsuit and later to over one hundred civil suits as well. Engaging the examination of many concerns, most of which focused on Ford’s use of their cost-benefit analysis, showing it was less expensive to pay the court costs of the claims expected, some $49.5 million, instead of fixing the issue on each car after production, at a cost of $137 million. Leading to public disputes as to the ethics encompassing its corporate judgment to follow the internal cost-benefit.
The Environmental Protection Agency, or EPA is the result of a 1970 executive order by President Richard Nixon for the purpose of protecting the environment of the United States through regulation on business and citizens. Public opinion on the Environmental Protection Agency has been divided fairly evenly across the population of the United States as of recently, as compared to the widespread public concern of the 50’s and 60’s that led to the agency’s creation. Recently the agency has come under scrutiny for its contributions of millions of dollars in grants to researchers in order to hide the potential trade off of its actions in order to further the agency’s agenda. The EPA’s ever-expanding regulation could end up harming more than it actually
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates air pollution through various policies passed through the Supreme Court. The scope of this paper is to investigate the Clean Air Act of 1970, and to analyze the impact it has on businesses and society. It provides a rationale for the policy, and contains a brief overview of governmental involvement in regulating air pollution. Further investigation identifies key stakeholders in business, government, and society, and assesses the pros and cons of regulating air pollution. Finally, the paper concludes with limitations of this analysis and recommendations for future action.
I am a husband and a father of four lovely children. We need a large vehicle to haul all of us around town. And of course I would do anything to keep them safe and I always want to provide them with the best. Therefore, after the birth of our fourth child two and a half years ago, my wife and I decided to upgrade our Ford Explorer to a Ford Expedition. We got everything from the side-curtain airbags to the TV and DVD player. What we did not know was we also purchased a rather large unleaded gas bill. The first time we filled the tank it cost us roughly $35; today it costs us right around $75 to fill the tank. Obviously the price of gas has increased significantly in the last two years. The price increase is due to a fluctuation in the supply and demand of not only gasoline but also crude oil, which is needed to manufacture gasoline. In addition, several other factors are influencing a change in the price of gasoline.
The ethical issues regarding hydraulic fracturing to extract natural gas in the Karoo are abundant and complex. Although it is not a new procedure with new technology, South Africa and especially the Karoo is not use to this term and what it entitles. There is no reason why the shale formations should not be developed to its full potential but the crisis is balancing the development and not effecting the residence living there in a negative manner. Communities was built where water was availability, industries contaminating that supply is simply unacceptable (Potter & Rashid, 2013).
Have you ever been to Hell? No one is quite sure how far underground you have to go to get there or what you have to do to be sent there, but no one truly wants to go. Fracking might be putting people closer to Hell than the government thinks. What is fracking? “…hydraulic fracturing… as a means of extracting natural gas and oil from shale formations located deep underground (Davis and Fisk 1). Fracking has caused many ethical issues due to the many problems it has caused for the people who live around the fracking sites. “…, it has become increasingly controversial because of rising public concerns about drilling-related impacts on environmental quality, local government infrastructure, and public health” (Davis and Frisk 1). The fracking
BP was founded in 1908 under the name Anglo-Persian Oil Company. They changed their name to British Petroleum in 1954 and merged with Amoco in 1998. (BP Public Website, 2010) “The Texas City Refinery is BP’s largest and most complex oil refinery... It was owned and operated by Amoco prior to the merger of BP and Amoco.” (Michael P. Broadribb, 2006) Throughout their history, there have been a number of accidents that have been caused by negligence and disregard of safety precautions. Unfortunately many lives have been cut short or seriously injured as a result. My research will focus on the 2005 Texas City Oil Refinery Explosion. I will attempt to look into the ethical implications that surrounded this disaster before and after the event and suggest what BP could have done to prevent the incident then and in the future.
The future American commuter will undoubtedly have to transition from the use of fossil fuels to new alternatives due to the diminishing availability of the nation’s oil resources. How will America respond to this upcoming issue? It is difficult to predict which alternative fuel source America will ultimately choose, but with the premier of Nissan’s electric powered Leaf and other companies; such as Tesla Motors and Chevy, with their electric cars ready for market, the electric car may be winning the race to become the new standard for the gasoline alternative. Electric cars resolve long standing environmental issues, but it will need to maneuver around many roadblocks to become a marketable consideration for the general public. The cost of electric cars, currently on the market, makes them an impractical purchase for the average consumer. If cost is not the growing concern in today’s economy which prevents the consumer from considering this option; they may deny the technological advance due to battery storage capabilities and the inadequate infrastructure in place to refuel and provide for them.
As humans delve into the twenty-first century, scientific research continues at an exponentially increasing rate. While the work of researchers seems to affect people in positive ways, the common debate among the general population is whether or not there is a limit to how far scientists can take their research and impact the future of society. The changes that scientists induce upon society often escape foresight, such as diseases, dangerous paints, and other products that do not pass the test of time. One big issue that is fiercely debated is how to go about switching to alternative-fuel-source automobiles, given that the world’s supply of oil will run dry relatively soon. The electric car seems to be the best candidate as a replacement for the moment, but many people are still weary about completely discarding the trusty internal combustion engine for an invention barely as old as the people who will buy them. The electric fuel is promising, but it has not been around long enough to undergo the test of time needed for mass acceptance. Here the more direct question arises: is the electric car the solution to a more economically responsible car?
...n the auto industry, the government, consumers, and environmentalists have indispensable roles to play in fulfilling this agenda. Though some opponents of this idea have cited a potential lack of a ready market, it is clear from the discussion that resources can be marshaled towards making new cars affordable. Efficient cars will promote clean and efficient transportation. Alternatives such as hybrid and electric vehicles and technologies such as aerodynamics and direct injection gas engines can be harnessed to make this venture a reality. The economy would benefit a great deal from saving a lot of money that goes into oil importation and many job opportunities would be created. The costs that have resulted from the impacts of global warming are an enormous burden to the economy. It would be a relief to the economy if more efficient cars are produced.
The search for a cleaner burning fuel is not a new one. Although most people know that they?re cars are spewing out toxins that are harmful to the environment, they drive the car anyway. In this modern day when faster is better, cars have become necessities. Air pollution caused by cars hasn?t always been such a big problem. When there were fewer cars on the road, nobody thought anything about the possible consequences. Not thinking ahead has always been human nature though. Environment concerns have only arisen in the past few decades because technology has allowed scientist to m...
The federal government continues to refuse to step in and help out the trucking industry and consumers by releasing some of the United States’ oil reserves and won’t put OPEC into the spotlight to make them increase their production of oil. Their so-called motives are that we can’t afford to use up some of our oil reserves because the fuel shortage is not a dilemma yet, and we may need the fuel more as time goes on. How can the government say that it is not a dilemma? Fuel prices have nearly doubled over the past year! Do they plan on waiting until the affects of their sluggishness brings the whole United States into an utter state of ciaos? As it was shown earlier nearly every activity of our day to day lives is governed by vehicles and machines using petroleum products, from the food we eat, to how we heat our homes, thus as the beginning stages of economic downturn begin, it is quite obvious that the government is not doing enough to give U.S. citizens, and companies our right to get a fighting chance of keeping our economy the solid, prosperous establishment that we see today.
The substantial increase in the demand for EV’s came just in time as we are slowly but surely running out of oil. Some estimate that by the year 2040, 35 percent of all vehicles will be electric (Sullins, 2017). An article from the U.S. Department of Energy stated that “Electric vehicles hold a lot of potential for helping the U.S. create a more sustainable future. If the U.S. transitioned all the light-duty vehicles to hybrids or plug-in electric vehicles, we could reduce our dependence on foreign oil by 30-60 percent, while lowering the carbon pollution from the transportation sector by as much as 20 percent (energy.gov, 2014). It’s obvious that gas-powered vehicles have harmed our planet with their emissions. Although EV’s cannot reverse that damage that has been done, they can eliminate, or at least slow down, the inevitable demise that our planet is headed towards. Along with the beneficial environmental factors that correspond with electric cars, there are also beneficial financial factors. The average American spends about $2,000 on gas annually. In the future, charging stations will charge roughly $12.00 for a full charge, which is about 300 miles. This means that the average American will save about $1,400 per year on these specific car
“Unless humanity is suicidal, it should want to preserve, at the minimum, the natural life-support systems and processes required to sustain its own existence” (Daily p.365). I agree with scientist Gretchen Daily that drastic action is needed now to prevent environmental disaster. Immediate action and changes in attitude are not only necessary for survival but are also morally required. In this paper, I will approach the topic of environmental ethics from several related sides. I will discuss why the environment is a morally significant concern, how an environmental ethic can be developed, and what actions such an ethic would require to maintain and protect the environment.