Exam 3- Philosophy 211

The Value of Nature

-A radical approach to environmental ethics challenges the human-centered assumption that preserving the environment is good only because it is good for us. Characteristic human attitude that nature has no intrinsic value- it only has value because people value it. -William Baxter- DDT and penguin population- penguins only important because humans enjoy seeing them. People-oriented. Oney for the benefit of man, not for preserving nature for its own sake. -Holmes Rolston III- Naturalistic Ethic- Some natural objects are morally considerable in their own right, apart from human interests, or that some ecosystems have intrinsic values, such as aesthetic beauty, from which we derive a duty to respect these landscapes. Nature can have value in and of itself, apart from human beings. -Proponents of naturalistic ethic- we have a particularly strong obligation to preserve species from extinction. Every year- 3,000 animal and plant species disappear and rate of extinction is accelerating so rapidly that over the next hundred years or so- the earth can lose have of its species. Other scientists believe these numbers to be exaggerated. Regardless, do species have value above and beyond the individuals that make them up? Species are always coming into and going out of existence. How valuable is this diversity of species, and how far are we morally required to go in maintaining it? -Adopting a naturalistic ethic would change our way of looking at nature, but many philosophers are skeptical of the idea that nature has an intrinsic value. Having interests is a precondition, they contend, of something's having rights or of having moral duties to that thing. Natural objects, however, have no interests. -Philosophers who discuss moral rights- not enough for plants being alive to have rights. To have rights, a thing must have genuine interests, and to have interests, most theorists contend a thing must have beliefs and desires. Vegetative life lacks cognitive awareness. -Even if a plant lacks rights, can it still have intrinsic value? Can we still have a moral obligation to respect that world and not abuse it? Or are the only morally relevant values the various interests of human beings and other sentient creatures? Difficult questions- no consensus on how to answer them.

How John Rawls' ideas may be used to answer questions about our obligations to future generations

-John Rawls- Obligations to future generations reflects his general theory of justice. The members of each generation put themselves in the "original position." Then, without knowing what generation they belong to, they could decide what would be a just way of distributing resources between consecutive generations. Have to balance how much they are willing to sacrifice for their decedents against how much they wish to inherit from their predecessors. The original position and the veil of ignorance might be used to determine our obligations to future generations- how much each generation should save for use by those who inherit the earth from it.

Our Treatment of Animals

-Above a certain level of complexity, animals do have at least rudimentary cognitive awareness. Many contemporary philosophers argue that because animals have genuine interests, they have genuine moral rights; despite the fact that they cannot claim their rights and we can't reason with them, and they themselves lack a moral sense. Animals, it is more and more widely contended, do not have to be equal to human beings to have certain moral rights that we must respect. -Utilitarians- stress that higher animals are sentient- they are able to feel pain. No justifiable reason for excluding their pleasures and pains from the overall utilitarian calculus. Jermey Bentham- question is not can they reason nor can they talk, but can they suffer? Our actions have effects on those animals and the consequences cannot be ignored. moral course of action- the pleasures and pains of animals must be taken into account. -Business affects the welfare of animals very substantially. Experimentation and testing on animals. Peter singer- vast majority of experiments and tests cannot be justified on moral grounds. -Utilitarians are willing to permit testing and experimentation on animals, provided the overall results justify their pain and suffering. this is frequently ignored and humans disregard the price the animals must pay. Factory Farming: -Business' largest and most devastating impact on animals is through the production of animal-related products- in particular meat. Most of the products we eat are from factory farms. -Hens in cages- 95% of our eggs. They suffer -Pigs are also confined in spaces -the desire of the meat and animal products industries to economize leads to their treating animals in ways that many reject as cruel and immoral Is it Wrong to Eat Meat? -Moral Vegetarians- reject eating meat on moral grounds. The raising of animals for meat, especially with factory farming, sacrifices the most important and basic interests of animals to satisfy human tastes. The pleasure we get from eating meat cannot justify the price the animals must pay. -Some philosophers contend that it is permissible to raise animals for food if their lives are, on balance, positive. Other moral theorists challenge this view- at least higher animals have a right to life and should not be killed. -Economic reality, mass production of meat at affordable prices currently dictates factory farming, although increased consumer concern for animal welfare could conceivably change this economic logic. The important moral issue, in any case, is the real suffering and unhappy lives that billions of creatures experience on the way to our dinner tables. Raises challenging questions for business and consumers alike. -Hopeful signs that human attitudes toward animal suffering in general, and factory farming are changing. Legislation passed to protect animals. -Other countries are ahead of the US with respect to their treatment of animals.

Who Should Pay the Costs?

-Air pollution- cost of compliance to be outweighed 5-7x by the economic benefits from reductions in hospitalization, ER visits, premature deaths, and lost workdays. Cleaner air- 5+ months to life expectancy in US. Money spent to minimize pollution also benefits those paid to clean/prevent pollution. Restoring the environment- source of jobs, profits, and poverty alleviation. Still, environmental protection and restoration- not cheap and determining who should pay necessary costs= tough question for social justice. Those Responsible -Seems fair, but who exactly is responsible for the pollution? Who are the polluters. -Both versions of the polluter-should-pay the bill thesis- the business or consumers- largely ignore the manifold, deep rooted causes of environmental deflation. Population growth and increasing concentration of population in urban areas= 2 of them. Increasing demand for goods and services, natural resources, energy, and industrial production. -Another root cause of environmental problems= rising affluence. As people get more money to spend, they buy and consume more tangible goods, discard more quickly, and produce more waste; leading to degration. -Enemy in the war against environmental abuse is all of us. No solution to the question of who should pay can ignore this fact. Those who would benefit -Those benefiting from environmental improvement should pay the costs. -Workers in certain industries and people living in certain neighborhoods or regions benefit more than other people from environmental controls. Trouble with this argument= every individual, rich or poor, and every institution, large or small stands to benefit in some way from environmental protection and restoration, although not to same degree. Those saying only those who benefit should pay the costs= problematic because pollution touches everyone. -If this position means that individuals and groups should pay to the degree they benefit, wonder how could this possibly be determined. It also leaves out responsibility as a legitimate criterion. Who benefits most and how much should they pay? -Any solution to the problem of who should pay the bull should take into account responsibility as well as benefit. All contribute to pollution, but certain areas of industry are chronic polluters. Some companies have really bad environmental records. -A fair and just program for assigning costs begins with a recognition that we all bear some responsibility for our environmental problems and that we all stand to benefit from correcting them. Even if we agree everyone shares the cost- we can still wonder about how the bill ought to be paid. What would be the fairest and most effective way of handling these costs.

Obligations to future Generations

-Almost everyone- it would be wrong to employ the globe of resources or to irreparably contaminate the environment that we pass on to future generations. What moral obligations we have to future generations- hard to answer and discussion among philosophers has not resolved all of the important theoretical issues. -Can we talk meaningfully of those future generations having a right that we do not make earth uninhabitable? Our remote descendants are not yet alive and thus cannot claim a right to a livable environment. Can't be said to have any interests at all- how can they then have rights? -Joel Feinberg- whatever future human beings turn out to be life, they will have interests that we can affect, for better or worse, right now. Even though we don't know who they'll be- we do know they will have interests and what the general nature of those interests will be. This is enough, both to talk coherently about their having rights, and to impose a duty on us to not leave ecological time bombs for them. -Feinberg concedes that it doesn't make sense to talk about gutter people having a right to be born. the rights of future generations are "contingent" on those future people coming into existence. This qualification does not affect his main contention- interests of future people are sure to have when they come into being...cry out for protection from invasions that can take place now. -What are the rights of future generations and how they are to be balanced against the interests and rights of present people. How much economic growth must we sacrifice to try to prevent climate change from damaging the lives and interests of future people? If the benefits of some environmental policy outweigh the costs, then a strong case can be made fro adopting the policy. But what if its the present generation that receives the benefits and future generations that pay the costs? Would it be unfair? Would it violate the rights of future people? -Policies we adopt will affect who is born the the future (p. 266). -Subsequent generations cannot complain about an environmental policy choice we make today that causes them to have fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living. -Annette Baier- mistake to focus on the rights and interests of future people as individuals. Need to recognize our obligations to consider the good of the continuity of human community. Utilitarian perspective- seeks to maximize total human happiness throughout time- but comes with problems. If concerned with total happiness, we may be required to increase greatly the earth's population. Even if individuals on an overcrowded earth do not have much happiness, they may still be more total happiness than there would be if we followed a population-controlled policy that resulted in fewer but better off people. Utilitarians modified their theory- with regard to population policy, we should aim for the highest average happiness, rather than the highest total happiness. this too- problematic, because in theory one could increase the average happiness by eliminating unhappy people. -John Rawls- Obligations to future generations reflects his general theory of justice. The members of each generation put themselves in the "original position." Then, without knowing what generation they belong to, they could decide what would be a just way of distributing resources between consecutive generations. Have to balance how much they are willing to sacrifice for their decedents against how much they wish to inherit from their predecessors. The original position and the veil of ignorance might be used to determine our obligations to future generations- how much each generation should save for use by those who inherit the earth from it.

Incentives

-Approach to problem of cost allocation for environmental improvement= government investment, subsidy, and other economic incentives. Ex- tax breaks for purchasing and using pollution-controlled equipment, or matching grants to companies that install such devices. -Advantage= minimizes government interference in business and encourages voluntary action rather than coercing compliance, as in the case of regulation. More at their own pace and avoids unfairness of not being able to meet regulatory standards. An incentive approach provides economic reason for going beyond the minimum; financial inducement to do more than meet EPA standards. Disadvantages: -An incentives-based approach is likely to be: 1. Slow, and 2. Sometimes amounts to paying polluters not to pollute. Raises questions about the justice of benefiting not the victims of pollution, but some of the egregious polluters. 3. Incentive programs can be abused, and determining their cost-effectiveness can be problematic. Environmental gain they bring may not be worth the cost.

Business and Ecology (P. 249-258)

-Business' responsibilities for the environemnt- business uses energy and materials, discharges waste, and generates products and services in an ecological system. Ecology= the science of interrelationships among organisms and their environments. interdependence among all entities in the evironment. humans- intricately connected with and interrelated to the natural environment.

Achieving our Environmental Goals

-Citizens need to be environmentally informed. Business and government must work together to achieve environmental goals. Government- initiates programs that prod business to behavior in more environmentally friendly ways. Challenging moral and economic task= to determine fair and effective methods for doing so. -Three distinct approaches to environmental protection 1. Regulations 2. Use of incentives 3. Use of pricing mechanisms and pollution permits The approaches are similar in some respects, but can carry different assumptions about the role of government and business, as well as about what's fair and just. Each has distinct advantages and weaknesses; each raises some questions of social justice.

The Ethics of Environmental Protection

-Much of what we do to reduce, eliminate, or avoid pollution and the depletion of scarce natural resources is in our collective self-interest. Many measures we take are steps that benefit all of us, collectively, and individually. Still a free rider problem- the temptation to shirk individual responsibility. People or companies may rationalize that the little bit they add to the total pollution problem doesn't make any difference. They benefit from the efforts of others to prevent pollution, but free- ride by not making the same effort themselves. -Unfairness= obvious. The failure of companies to internalize environmental externalities spells unfairness. Others- forced to pick up the tab when companies don't. Broad view- business and society have implicit social contract; reflects what society hopes to achieve by allowing business to operate; sets the rules of the game governing business activity. Companies that are free riders or refuse to address spillover or external costs of business activity violate this contract. -We need to view the environment differently if we are to impose our quality of life and even continue to exist. William T Blackstone- each of us has a right to a livable environment. this is a human Right. Right to a livable environment for us to fulfill our human capacities. -Recognition of a right to a livable environment would strengthen further the ethical reasons for business to respect the integrity of the natural world. In addition, it would provide compelling grounds for establishing a legal right to a livable environment through legislation, and perhaps through a constitutional amendment or an environmental bill of rights. This would enhance our ability to go after polluters and other abusers of the natural environment. -Acknowledging a human right to a livable environment, however, leaves unsolved many of the difficult problems facing us. To conserve irreplaceable resources, protect environment from further degration, and restore it to its former quality- still faced with difficult choices, each with tis economic and moral costs.

The costs of Pollution Control

-Consider a number of things. 1) The quality of the environment we want. can vary from an environment resorted to its preside state and fully protected from future harm to one minimally improved over its current condition. 2) The question of precisely what is necessary to bring about the kind of environment we want. May lack the technological capacity to fully accomplish our environmental goals. 3) The calculation of what it will cost. -Cost-benefit analysis- determine whether its worthwhile to incur a particular cost- ex: cost of employing a particular pollution- control device. Evaluate a project's direct and indirect costs and benefits- net result for society. -Cost-benefit analysis can quickly get complicated. Ex: to determine whether it would be worthwhile to initiate more stringent air-pollution standards for a particular industry, a multitude of factors must be considered. Possible costs- lower corporate profit, higher prices for consumers, unfavorable effects on employment, and adverse consequences for the nation's balance of payments. Benefits- reduction in airborne particles over urban areas would reduce illness, diseases, by some percentage, increase in productivity, and reduced property and crop damage from air pollution- saving more money. -Extreme difficultuity of making reliable estimates of actual costs and benefits, of putting price tags on the different effects of the policy being considered. Empirical prediction in a case like this- controversial. Compounded by the fact that decision makers are unlikely to know for certain all future results from the policy being studied. Estimating effects= difficult, but also some future effects may be entirely unanticipated. -Ecological economics= attempts to expand boundaries of environment cost-benefit analysis by calculating the value of an ecosystem in terms of what it would cost to provide the benefits and services it now furnishes us. Conventional economists- dismiss idea of equating the value of something with its replacement cost rather than what people are willing to pay for it, ecological economists- traditional market pricing fails to capture the economic benefits that nature provides, such as nutrients that a forest recycles. -Cost- benefit analysis of rival environmental policies will frequently prove controversial because they inevitably involve making value judgements about non monetary costs and benefits. Costs can include time, effort, discomfort, and loss of opportunities. Benefits- also non-monetary forms: health, comfort, employment, scenic beauty, self-fufillment, freedom of odor, etc. Costs and benefits- difficult to quantify. Conflicting value judgements are at stake. -An assessment of costs and benefits inevitably involves value judgements and factual uncertainties. Especially true in situations where environmental concerns clash. Environmental tradeoffs.

Global Environmental Fairness

-Consider our obligations to those who live outside our society. Ex: US= 4.6% of world population, but uses 30% of the world's refined oil. Demand increases and dependency on foreign nations to supply our needs. -Energy consumed by people in the US is exorbitant compared to other countries. Americans also contribute far more than their proportional share to global warming- 25% of all greenhouse gases. Smaller populations in states but a large amount of pollution. American lifestyles require large inputs of minerals and energy and undermine the planet's life support capacity. US also exports overseas that now litter many poor nations. -Tropical Rain forests- of concern right now. Earth's richest, oldest, and most complex ecosystems. Major resovoirs of biodiversity, home to 40-50% of all types of living things; yet millions of acres of forest are destroyed each year. 1/2 of the globe's original rain forest has disappeared, and 2/3 of what remains is fragmented, making it more vulnerable to being cleared. Often chopped down to provide farms for growing 3rd world populations, but the affluence of people in rich nations such as the US is responsible for much forest destruction. Central American forests- cleared for pasture land to make pet food and convenience food slightly cheaper in the US. A prosperous American living thousands of miles away might be the cause of more tropical forest destruction than a poor person living within the forest itself. -Globally- US and other developed nations- responsible for the bulk of the greenhouse gases that are destabilizing the world's climate and which stem from the industrialization that has Brough those countries their extraordinary affluence. Poorer nations who have done the least to cause the problem are suffering the most from it. Also the least able to cope with it. -Inequities of the world's environmental troubles raises the question of the nature and extent of the obligation, if any, of the advanced industrialized nations to assist poorer nations to deal with the effects of climate change and environmental degredation, which we- not they- have Brought about. Our bloated levels of consumption and our dependence on foreign resources to satisfy our needs raises two further equally pressing issues: -1. The question of how the continued availability of foreign resources is to be secured. Will our need for their resources lead us to try to control other countries, politically and economically. To do so is morally risky; political and economic domination almost always involves violations of the rights and interests of the dominated population as well as of our own moral ideals and values. -2. The question of whether any nation has a right to consume the world's irreplaceable resources at a rate so grossly out of proportion to the size of its population. We pay to consume oil and other resources that other nation's own, but in the view of many, the fact that those nations acquiesce in our disproportionate consumption of resources does not resolve the moral problem of our doing so. Are we respecting the needs and interests of both our present co-habitants on this planet and the future generations who will live on this Earth? Human demand for natural resources has outstripped the biosphere's regenerative capacity.

Regulations

-Direct public regulation and control in determining how the pollution bill is paid. State and federal legislation and regulations formulated by agencies such as EPA set environmental standards, which are then applied and enforced by those agencies, other regulatory bodies, and the courts. Ex: Emmissions standards. -Advantage to this regulatory approach- standards would be legally enforceable. Firms not meeting them could be fired or shut down. Also from view of morality- standards are fair because apply to all industries in the same way. 4 Disadvantages: -1) Pollution statutes and regulations generally require polluters to use the strongest feasible means of pollution control. Requires EPA or other agency to investigate pollution-control technologies and economic conditions in each industry to find the best technology that companies can afford. 10s of thousands of documents, and legal proceedings may be necessary before the courts give final approval to the regulation. Expecting EPA to master economics and technology of dozens of industries may be unreasonable. Bound to make mistakes and ask too much of some companies. -2) Although environmental standards are fair in the sense that they apply to all equally- this raises questions about their effectiveness. Question the equity and economic sense of requiring compliance with universal standards, without regard for distinct nature of each industry or circumstances of individual firms. Is it reasonable to make them all pay the same amount for differing amounts of environmental damage? -3) Regulation can also take away an industry's incentive to do more than the minimum required by law. Firms have incentive not to let EPA know they can pollute less. Government agency may have desire to regulate pollution but lack the information to do it efficiently. Industry may have the information and the technology but no desire to use it. -4) Problem of displacement costs resulting from industrial relocation or shutdown due to environmental regulations. Loss of jobs, etc. Not being able to pay for meeting the standards. -If regulations are tougher for new entrants to an industry than for existing firms, as they often are, then new investment may be discouraged- even if newer plants would be cleaner than older ones.

Pollution

-Everything we have is produced in such a way where pollution occurs. -Negative externality- consequences of production. Produce the product and the resulting pollution. -What do you do with externality? Need to be responsible for it. -2. (Shaw Cont'd) All of our production also produces negative externalities. -Garrett Hardin- tragedy of the commons- cheaper to pollute. Central area and farms built outside of it. Square= communally owned and food for animals. Farmers have livestock and land but expensive to upkeep. In competition with each other so incentives are perverse. Graze on own land or graze on commons? Cheaper to do it on commons. Problem- all do it and the commons becomes a wasteland. Perverse incentives because the land will go barren. All resources will be used up. Leave enough alone so that next year you can have things regrow and have soil to replenish. If you deplete soil strength- becomes a wasteland. -Air you breathe and ocean are commons and other things that are not owned. the land is too. Unowned/publically owned land= a commons a bing thing not owned by anyone or very difficult to own. Dumping into the atmosphere. Once one member of the competition does this, the others follow suit. Perverseness of having unowned things in places we do business. Temptation to pollute. -Function of self-interest in tragedy of commons creates an ecological disaster. How do we prevent this from happening? See that there's a problem and be creative in figuring out ways to encourage companies to internalize their externalities- not produce them- filtering system to clear noxious stuff. How do you convince companies to internalize their externalities? Change their mindset- in a bigger picture. Ethical- get people to think about their responsibilities to the environment and to all of us. -Could use the press and social pressure or formal authorities (the police, etc). Realize we have problems if we neglect- could turn into tragedy of commons. Ethical and legal obligations.

Philosophical problems- ethics, business and the environment

-Global issue- with the environment and pollution. Can't separate from environmental issues everywhere. Issues are global in nature. -Part of the world that produces the most pollution is the US. has a lot of industry and businesses and that means the developed nations of the world produces a lot of pollution. Not every nation is a developed nation and a lot are trying to be but not arrived there yet. -Developing nations trying to be more independent with their industry- pollution. Environmental regulations put a flat on their economic independence- Economic fairness is an issue. They want to be successful but need to balance growth and environmental goals. Requires negotiation and compromise.

Environment

-Information about what ecosystems are like. Economics and business and parts of the environment that are not owned (the air and oceans) -Ecosystem= emphasized as something we need to take into account. Need to protect all parts of it. They're all interconnected. A web of relationships between different species. Affecting one part affects the others. You can do something to change part of the web, but if you do, there will be unintended consequneces- sometimes good, sometimes bad. Ex: Yellow Stone Park and Wolves- got rid of the wolves- the people running the park noticed things were unhealthy without them, so brought them back; this changed the behavior of elk afraid of them. Changed other things in the environment. If you damage one part, has systemic effects on other parts.

Our Treatment of Animals

-Peter Singer- "Animal Liberation"- 1970s. Takes from Jermey Benthem- do animals suffer? do they feel pain? Singer thought- we don't have a good track record on how we treat animals. Singer Influenced in 2 Ways: 1. Factory farming: Focused on affordable eggs and how business' would factory farm; hens laying eggs and take them and put them in small cages and put hormones in them to produce at greater faster rate. Hormones would have bad effects on hens. Harsh to the hens. Singer- Snuck into the factories- published pictures in the book and made awareness of the industry. Now- in most grocery stores- eggs are cagefree; free range. Industries don't want to be associated with factory farming. 2. Animal testing: Science and business ethics issue. Testing products on animals because unethical to test them on human beings. In many cases- go to government agency and test on animals. If new product is toxic and unsafe- effects on animals. Singer- animal testing is necessary and unsafe and unethical. Other ways to test that doesn't involve animal testing. Now- stores products say "Not tested on animals" Industry- moving away from animal testing. Change of attitude toward treatment of animals. Might be some testing, but otherwise most testing is cruel and unnecessary (Singer).

Pricing Mechanisms and Pollution Permits

-Programs designed to charge the firms for amount of pollution they produce. Pricing mechanisms- spell out the cost for a specific kind of pollution. Ex: carbon tax sets a price on CO2 emissions. Prices might also be tied to the amount of damage cased in a specific place at a specific time. Whatever the set of prices, the more a firm pollutes, the more it pays. -Advantage: Places the cost of pollution control squarely on the polluters. Costs are internalized and firms are encouraged to do more than the minimum. Could be charged for any amount of pollution and not just incur penalties whenever it exceeded an EPA standard. Pollution costs would become production costs. -The government could charge companies for pollution permits or could auction off a limited number of permits. Give companies permits to discharge a limited amount of pollution and allow them to buy and sell the right to emit pollutants. With pollution permits, companies with low pollution levels can make money by selling their pollution rights to companies with poorer controls. Each firm can estimate the relative costs of polluting as opposed to investing in cleaner procedures. government can set prices amount of pollution it is prepared to allow, and by lowering the amount permitted over time, can reduce or even eliminate it. -Economic and scientific reasons- pricing mechanisms and pollution permits don't work well in all situations and for all environmental problems. Still economists generally favor using them whenever possible. Trouble enviornmentalists- the price tags for polluting seems arbitrary. What is a fair price? Environmentalistis dislike pricing mechanisms and pollution permits and view with suspicion anything that sounds like a license to pollute. Immoral to buy the right to pollute. -There is no single ideal approach to our environmental problems- a combo of regulations, incentives, effluent charges, and permits is probably called for. Take into account effectiveness and fairness to those paying. Input from all sectors of society. -Measures to protect the environment often force firms to become more efficient. Increases productivity and innovation pollution= economic waste and inefficiency. They can save by recycling -Going green improves efficiency and saves companies money. Kenneth Arrow and Robert Solow- Measures to reduce greenhouse gases need harm the economy and may improve productivity in the long run. Investment in new technology- enhances efficiency and reduces pollution.

Business's Traditional Attitudes Toward the Environment

-Several related attitudes, prevalent in our society in general and in business in particular, have led to or increased environmental problems. One of these= tendency to view the natural world as something that is free and without limit, something we can exploit, even squander, without regard for the future. -Traditionally, business has considered the environment to be a free, nearly limitless good. Water, air, land, and other natural resources from coal to beavers were seen as available for business to use as it saw fit. Pollution and depletion of natural resources- involve using up something that is in limited supply. Pollution- uses clean air and water. Extraction- uses up minerals or oil in ground. Beliefs that both sorts of resources are unlimited and free promotes their wasteful consumption. -Garrett Hardin- Consequences of this attitude- parable- the Tragedy of the Commons- Villagers who allow their animals to graze in the commons- collectively shared village pasture. Interest of each person to permit their animal to graze without limit on the public land- the result of doing so is that the commons is overgrazed making it of no value to anyone. -International fishing industry- overfishing is reducing the amount of fish, threatening to undermine the whole industry. When it comes to public or communal goods such as air, water, and wilderness- problems arise as the result of individuals and companies following their own self-interest. Each believes that his or her own use of the commons has only a negligible effect, but the commutative result can be the gradual destruction of public domain, which is bad for everyone. opposite of Adam Smith's invisible hand- each person's pursuit of self-interest makes everyone worse off. -Tragedy of commons- general point that there can be a difference between the private costs and the social costs of a business activity; externalities. -People are forced to absorb the costs and public social costs= an externality or spillover. In viewing things strictly in terms of private industrial costs, business overlooks spillover. Ex: paper is underpriced and overproduced, thus leading to a misallocation of resources. moral problem0 purchasers of paper are not paying its full cost. Part of the cost of producing it is being unfairly imposed on other people. -Several factors have combined to create the serious environmental problems we have today. Externalities or spillover effects, pursuit of private interest at the expense of the commons, and a view of the environment as limitless have combined with an irngorance of ecology and of the often fragile interconnections and interdepencies of the natural world- problems facing us today. Attitudes are now changing . Rethinking the whole relation of business to the natural environment. Sustainability- integral to business' mission. Social responsibility and environmental sustainability= core business competencies, not fringe activities.

Dealing Deeper into Environmental Ethics

-So far- environmental ethics focused on business' obligation to understand its environmental responsibilities, acknowledge and internalize its externalities, and to avoid free riding. Stressed extent to which environmental protection is in out collective self-interest, and has looked at the operational and moral dilemmas involved in dealing with the costs of pollution. More deep than this.

267-268 The Theory of Value

-Some things are valuable and some things are not. Ethics- sets up rules and guidelines to help us protect various valuable things. Not attacking values. Value- subjective. -Subjective value- kind of makes value a function of human beings and what they want. -Environmental philosophers have a problem with that. 267- Debate on defoliant used (DDT) in 60s- kills things (trees, insects, etc) and environmentalists concerned about it. Had bad effect on plants and anything that ate it. Can decimate native species. Phase out DDT, disagreed on justification for it- Baxter- no interest in helping nature for its own sake- its just for the benefit of man. Value because humans think they are valuable. Holmes Rolston- the naturalistic ethic- some natural objects are morally considerable in their own right. We have a duty to protect them. Value in least in part constituted from the objective side, not just subjective. Rocky Mountains- valuable in themselves, independent of human beings. We value human beings for their own sake, intrinsic. Natural objects and species are valuable within itself. Objective value. The Subjective (Baxter); only valuable if I say it is. Bad effects on how people treat nature. They think its limitless and overconsume and deplete animals. Danger of threatening nature with subjective value. Recipe for humans decimating populations of something to point where they go extinct. Takes into consideration business ethics.

P. 265- Obligations to Future Generations

-Theory Problem- Confronts us. Ethics- how do I relate to you? and what obligations do we have collectively to each other? Obligation to people in the future- how can we mitigate or improve it for them? A group of people who do not exist yet. -How do we make sense of this- only to our generation or the next ones? How do we do this to people we don't even know yet? -Derek Parfit- fascinated with dealing with future generations. Based upon what you and I do, we will have effects about who those people are. Pollution will cause medical issues for them. What we do now- profound effect on those future generations. -Joel Feinberg: Considered obligations and said we can make sense of our obligation to them- in 100-250 years conditions are very different, but vernally future people are going to have basic physical needs as you have now- food, water, etc. All of these basic needs are same as you and I have now. -What is our obligation?: Can't give everyone a perfect environment, but we can be more realistic and change our behaviors- leave them an environment that is as clean as ours is now. Don't we owe this to them?- Feinberg. Biased to think we should only have what we have now. Should think about the future. They are going to be our family members who have similar concerns/needs. Just like I owe you to not make it worse, now I owe the future the same. Don't make things worse. Keep tab on what your business is doing.

What Obligation ethicists think we owe to future generations

-Theory Problem- Confronts us. Ethics- how do I relate to you? and what obligations do we have collectively to each other? Obligation to people in the future- how can we mitigate or improve it for them? A group of people who do not exist yet. -How do we make sense of this- only to our generation or the next ones? How do we do this to people we don't even know yet? -Derek Parfit- fascinated with dealing with future generations. Based upon what you and I do, we will have effects about who those people are. Pollution will cause medical issues for them. What we do now- profound effect on those future generations. -Joel Feinberg: Considered obligations and said we can make sense of our obligation to them- in 100-250 years conditions are very different, but vernally future people are going to have basic physical needs as you have now- food, water, etc. All of these basic needs are same as you and I have now. -What is our obligation?: Can't give everyone a perfect environment, but we can be more realistic and change our behaviors- leave them an environment that is as clean as ours is now. Don't we owe this to them?- Feinberg. Biased to think we should only have what we have now. Should think about the future. They are going to be our family members who have similar concerns/needs. Just like I owe you to not make it worse, now I owe the future the same. Don't make things worse. Keep tab on what your business is doing. Almost everyone- it would be wrong to employ the globe of resources or to irreparably contaminate the environment that we pass on to future generations. What moral obligations we have to future generations- hard to answer and discussion among philosophers has not resolved all of the important theoretical issues. -Can we talk meaningfully of those future generations having a right that we do not make earth uninhabitable? Our remote descendants are not yet alive and thus cannot claim a right to a livable environment. Can't be said to have any interests at all- how can they then have rights? -Joel Feinberg- whatever future human beings turn out to be life, they will have interests that we can affect, for better or worse, right now. Even though we don't know who they'll be- we do know they will have interests and what the general nature of those interests will be. This is enough, both to talk coherently about their having rights, and to impose a duty on us to not leave ecological time bombs for them. -Feinberg concedes that it doesn't make sense to talk about gutter people having a right to be born. the rights of future generations are "contingent" on those future people coming into existence. This qualification does not affect his main contention- interests of future people are sure to have when they come into being...cry out for protection from invasions that can take place now. -What are the rights of future generations and how they are to be balanced against the interests and rights of present people. How much economic growth must we sacrifice to try to prevent climate change from damaging the lives and interests of future people? If the benefits of some environmental policy outweigh the costs, then a strong case can be made fro adopting the policy. But what if its the present generation that receives the benefits and future generations that pay the costs? Would it be unfair? Would it violate the rights of future people? -Policies we adopt will affect who is born the the future (p. 266). -Subsequent generations cannot complain about an environmental policy choice we make today that causes them to have fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living. -Annette Baier- mistake to focus on the rights and interests of future people as individuals. Need to recognize our obligations to consider the good of the continuity of human community. Utilitarian perspective- seeks to maximize total human happiness throughout time- but comes with problems. If concerned with total happiness, we may be required to increase greatly the earth's population. Even if individuals on an overcrowded earth do not have much happiness, they may still be more total happiness than there would be if we followed a population-controlled policy that resulted in fewer but better off people. Utilitarians modified their theory- with regard to population policy, we should aim for the highest average happiness, rather than the highest total happiness. this too- problematic, because in theory one could increase the average happiness by eliminating unhappy people. -John Rawls- Obligations to future generations reflects his general theory of justice. The members of each generation put themselves in the "original position." Then, without knowing what generation they belong to, they could decide what would be a just way of distributing resources between consecutive generations. Have to balance how much they are willing to sacrifice for their decedents against how much they wish to inherit from their predecessors. The original position and the veil of ignorance might be used to determine our obligations to future generations- how much each generation should save for use by those who inherit the earth from it.

Ecosystems

-Total ecological community, both living and nonliving. Webs of interdependency structure ecosystems. Predators and prey, producers and consumers, hosts and parasites= linked. interlocking mechanisms- checks and balances- stabalizing the system. Change in one element can have ripple effects throughout the system. Wolf example- p. 249 -Every living organism affects its environment, yet Homo sapiens possess the power to upset dramatically the stability of natural ecosystems. Many commercial activities have unpredictable and often disruptive environmental consequences. Ex: farmers in midwest and nitrogen fertilizer, runs off fields, and goes into Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico. Creates a dead zone- devoid of life about 10 feet below the surface. An area the size of Connecticut. -Tampering with ecosystems, does not always have injurious effects. Sometimes unforeseen benefits result- ex: oil and gas drilling expanded into the gulf. The operational docks, pipes, and platforms provided a better place for lower forms of life to attach themselves than the slit-laden sea ever did; increased fish in the area. Regardless, environment intrusions affect the integrity of ecosystems. The introduction of any new element, whether biotic or abiotic can district balance of ecosystems. Dr. Paul Ehrlich- when we change something into something else, the new thing is usually more dangerous than what we had originally. -As it produces the goods and services we need or want, business inevitably intrudes into ecosystems, not all intrusions are risk-free or justifiable. must try to tread lightly, avoiding actions, practice and policies with an undue impact on the environment. There's ample documentation to show that historically, business has been remiss in both recognizing and adequately discharging its obligations in this regard.

What the significance is of the notion of an ecosystem

-Total ecological community, both living and nonliving. Webs of interdependency structure ecosystems. Predators and prey, producers and consumers, hosts and parasites= linked. interlocking mechanisms- checks and balances- stabalizing the system. Change in one element can have ripple effects throughout the system. Wolf example- p. 249 -Every living organism affects its environment, yet Homo sapiens possess the power to upset dramatically the stability of natural ecosystems. Many commercial activities have unpredictable and often disruptive environmental consequences. Ex: farmers in midwest and nitrogen fertilizer, runs off fields, and goes into Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico. Creates a dead zone- devoid of life about 10 feet below the surface. An area the size of Connecticut. -Tampering with ecosystems, does not always have injurious effects. Sometimes unforeseen benefits result- ex: oil and gas drilling expanded into the gulf. The operational docks, pipes, and platforms provided a better place for lower forms of life to attach themselves than the slit-laden sea ever did; increased fish in the area. Regardless, environment intrusions affect the integrity of ecosystems. The introduction of any new element, whether biotic or abiotic can district balance of ecosystems. Dr. Paul Ehrlich- when we change something into something else, the new thing is usually more dangerous than what we had originally. -As it produces the goods and services we need or want, business inevitably intrudes into ecosystems, not all intrusions are risk-free or justifiable. must try to tread lightly, avoiding actions, practice and policies with an undue impact on the environment. There's ample documentation to show that historically, business has been remiss in both recognizing and adequately discharging its obligations in this regard. -Ecosystem= emphasized as something we need to take into account. Need to protect all parts of it. They're all interconnected. A web of relationships between different species. Affecting one part affects the others. You can do something to change part of the web, but if you do, there will be unintended consequneces- sometimes good, sometimes bad. Ex: Yellow Stone Park and Wolves- got rid of the wolves- the people running the park noticed things were unhealthy without them, so brought them back; this changed the behavior of elk afraid of them. Changed other things in the environment. If you damage one part, has systemic effects on other parts. 1. Whatever effects of your production process- they are going to be more extensive than you might think. Nature is a system of ecosystems. They are intrinsically related and interconnected webs of interdependency in nature. Ex: no squirrels= no trees. If you change one thing- ripple effects that change everything else. Ex: wolves in natural parks- yellow stone. Changed behavior of elk when wolves reintroduced. -2. (Shaw Cont'd) All of our production also produces negative externalities -Why important to us?- we don't know the effects of production on nature. You change one thing- has unexpected ripple effects

Pollution

-When we pollute, don't always know our extent, but its not just affecting one part, but many parts of the ecosystem. Should try to minimize pollution. Decrease footprint because we don't know what actual results will be. -Dumping in the ocean- fish have plastic in them- we eat fish and consume plastic. What we do has systematic effects.

Legal Responsibilities

-good regulations, etc to stop externalities. Come up with ways to reduce them and figuring out ways to incentivize companies to do the right thing. -Regulations- fine them and sometimes can work but costly and slow. Socially inefficient. Better to have them internalize. Should do it in the beginning not because of law.

How do we relate Business to the environment?

2 Things Shaw Wants us to think About: 1. Whatever effects of your production process- they are going to be more extensive than you might think. Nature is a system of ecosystems. They are intrinsically related and interconnected webs of interdependency in nature. Ex: no squirrels= no trees. If you change one thing- ripple effects that change everything else. Ex: wolves in natural parks- yellow stone. Changed behavior of elk when wolves reintroduced. -2. (Shaw Cont'd) All of our production also produces negative externalities -Why important to us?- we don't know the effects of production on nature. You change one thing- has unexpected ripple effects

How negative externalities differ from the free rider problem

2. (Shaw Cont'd) All of our production also produces negative externalities Still a free rider problem- the temptation to shirk individual responsibility. People or companies may rationalize that the little bit they add to the total pollution problem doesn't make any difference. They benefit from the efforts of others to prevent pollution, but free- ride by not making the same effort themselves. Unfairness= obvious. The failure of companies to internalize environmental externalities spells unfairness. Others- forced to pick up the tab when companies don't. Broad view- business and society have implicit social contract; reflects what society hopes to achieve by allowing business to operate; sets the rules of the game governing business activity. Companies that are free riders or refuse to address spillover or external costs of business activity violate this contract.

What the Four limitations are to using regulations alone to achieve environmental goals

4 Disadvantages: -1) Pollution statutes and regulations generally require polluters to use the strongest feasible means of pollution control. Requires EPA or other agency to investigate pollution-control technologies and economic conditions in each industry to find the best technology that companies can afford. 10s of thousands of documents, and legal proceedings may be necessary before the courts give final approval to the regulation. Expecting EPA to master economics and technology of dozens of industries may be unreasonable. Bound to make mistakes and ask too much of some companies. -2) Although environmental standards are fair in the sense that they apply to all equally- this raises questions about their effectiveness. Question the equity and economic sense of requiring compliance with universal standards, without regard for distinct nature of each industry or circumstances of individual firms. Is it reasonable to make them all pay the same amount for differing amounts of environmental damage? -3) Regulation can also take away an industry's incentive to do more than the minimum required by law. Firms have incentive not to let EPA know they can pollute less. Government agency may have desire to regulate pollution but lack the information to do it efficiently. Industry may have the information and the technology but no desire to use it. -4) Problem of displacement costs resulting from industrial relocation or shutdown due to environmental regulations. Loss of jobs, etc. Not being able to pay for meeting the standards.

One advantage of the pollution permits approach for allocating pollution compliance costs

Advantage: Places the cost of pollution control squarely on the polluters. Costs are internalized and firms are encouraged to do more than the minimum. Could be charged for any amount of pollution and not just incur penalties whenever it exceeded an EPA standard. Pollution costs would become production costs. -The government could charge companies for pollution permits or could auction off a limited number of permits. Give companies permits to discharge a limited amount of pollution and allow them to buy and sell the right to emit pollutants. With pollution permits, companies with low pollution levels can make money by selling their pollution rights to companies with poorer controls. Each firm can estimate the relative costs of polluting as opposed to investing in cleaner procedures. government can set prices amount of pollution it is prepared to allow, and by lowering the amount permitted over time, can reduce or even eliminate it.

What the naturalistic ethic contends about species close to extinction

Danger of threatening nature with subjective value. Recipe for humans decimating populations of something to point where they go extinct. naturalistic ethic- some natural objects are morally considerable in their own right. We have a duty to protect them. Value in least in part

What Jermey Bentham thought was the most important question about animals

Do they suffer? Our actions have effects on those animals and the consequences cannot be ignored. moral course of action- the pleasures and pains of animals must be taken into account.

The effect of reintroducing wolves into YellowStone National Park

Ex: Yellow Stone Park and Wolves- got rid of the wolves- the people running the park noticed things were unhealthy without them, so brought them back; this changed the behavior of elk afraid of them. Changed other things in the environment. If you damage one part, has systemic effects on other parts.

Problem- Tragedy of the Commons

Garrett Hardin- solutions to the problem. Idea= Middle Ages in Europe there is an open area with set of fields. "the commons" and the area is not owned by 1 individual. Free land to use by the community. Farms are in the community and compete with each other for livestock they sell and compete with regards to whatever they grow too. Adjacent lands where livestock grazes and farmers grow things and bring to market and sell them. Competition to sell to survive. Each farmer has choices: 1. can keep animals penned up on their own farm and graze on their land- cost to this. 2) To open the gate and allow cattle to wonder around in the commons and don't need to pay for that- it isn't owned by anyone. Creates a perverse set of incentives. Don't want that. Suppose that you choose to not have them graze in the commons and keep your stuff on your land and your neighbor does not- lets them go in the commons then don't need to pay the upkeep cost on their own land. Incentive structure to graze in the commons because you're losing money. -The commons gets overgrazed. Creates a tragedy- the commons is like anything else in nature- needs certain conditions in place to replenish what has been replaced. Cannot replenish itself. It becomes barren. Becomes a wasteland where nothing grows. -Every part of nature that is unowned is a commons- the air, the oceans, lakes. A commons is one of the parts of the recipe for perverse incentives. Temptation for people to pollute by own self-interest. Polluting costs less for companies than cleaning up pollution. -Produce product- sell it- creates externalities. When they're produced- water, land, etc, are used to produce the product. Fumes from chemicals go into the air. 2 things produced: 1. the product; 2. the externality. -If they can get away with it, its cheaper to pollute- main idea; perverse when all companies in the industry do it to be competitive. The commons- perverse incentives (to pollute). The opposite of a market- everyone pursuing their self-interest ends up destroying the environment for everyone. How do we prevent incentives and motivations to compete and make profit from undermining the environment? Context around markets doesn't fit in with the system. How do we keep markets from destroying the environment? 1. Change the incentives: Get together and push government to own land so they don't get polluted. Make parts of the common communally owned (the city) and monitor the area, or have other parts of the commons privately owned so they don't get polluted. Changes the incentives- if you dump in private land, you'll be sued. Helps solve some parts. Can't privatize the ocean or air though. Need to come up with other incentives. Other ways to change incentives- call out the polluter and make them look bad. Approval/disapproval= an incentive. Social pressure can have some effect. Deter them with punishment. Temble PR for company to catch them and put them on the news. The press can help you change incentive structure. Shouldn't do it because they'll have a bad image. 2. We can give businesses a financial incentive as a government- if recycling in a program, reducing annual tax burden. Appeals to business' self interest and not paying a high cost. Internalizing externalities. 3. Many companies are interested in your trash- take externality and monetize it and repurpose it for use in something else. Ex: tires- melt them down and use it for some other purpose. Help reduce perverse incentives. Sell trash and other company makes a profit from it. Start to prevent pollution and have it sit there. -Ways of preventing tragedy of the commons- in everyone's self-interest. In our interest to prevent it.

Who introduced the idea of the tragedy of the commons

Garrett Hardin; sociologist/ecologist

What Arrow and Solow think about long-term productivity and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions

Increases in productivity and efficiency with reduction of greenhouse gas emissions Going green improves efficiency and saves companies money. Kenneth Arrow and Robert Solow- Measures to reduce greenhouse gases need harm the economy and may improve productivity in the long run. Investment in new technology- enhances efficiency and reduces pollution.

what pollution is often evidence of, according to Shaw

Inefficiency and money loss. Save money by going green in the long run.

What Joel Feinberg says about the 'interests' of future people

Joel Feinberg: Considered obligations and said we can make sense of our obligation to them- in 100-250 years conditions are very different, but vernally future people are going to have basic physical needs as you have now- food, water, etc. All of these basic needs are same as you and I have now. -What is our obligation?: Can't give everyone a perfect environment, but we can be more realistic and change our behaviors- leave them an environment that is as clean as ours is now. Don't we owe this to them?- Feinberg. Biased to think we should only have what we have now. Should think about the future. They are going to be our family members who have similar concerns/needs. Just like I owe you to not make it worse, now I owe the future the same. Don't make things worse. Keep tab on what your business is doing. -Joel Feinberg- whatever future human beings turn out to be life, they will have interests that we can affect, for better or worse, right now. Even though we don't know who they'll be- we do know they will have interests and what the general nature of those interests will be. This is enough, both to talk coherently about their having rights, and to impose a duty on us to not leave ecological time bombs for them. -Feinberg concedes that it doesn't make sense to talk about gutter people having a right to be born. the rights of future generations are "contingent" on those future people coming into existence. This qualification does not affect his main contention- interests of future people are sure to have when they come into being...cry out for protection from invasions that can take place now. -What are the rights of future generations and how they are to be balanced against the interests and rights of present people. How much economic growth must we sacrifice to try to prevent climate change from damaging the lives and interests of future people? If the benefits of some environmental policy outweigh the costs, then a strong case can be made fro adopting the policy. But what if its the present generation that receives the benefits and future generations that pay the costs? Would it be unfair? Would it violate the rights of future people? -Policies we adopt will affect who is born the the future (p. 266). -Subsequent generations cannot complain about an environmental policy choice we make today that causes them to have fewer opportunities and a lower standard of living.

What Shaw thinks about the relationship between efficiency and pollution reduction

Measures to protect the environment often force firms to become more efficient. Increases productivity and innovation pollution= economic waste and inefficiency. They can save by recycling 2 Things Shaw Wants us to think About: 1. Whatever effects of your production process- they are going to be more extensive than you might think. Nature is a system of ecosystems. They are intrinsically related and interconnected webs of interdependency in nature. Ex: no squirrels= no trees. If you change one thing- ripple effects that change everything else. Ex: wolves in natural parks- yellow stone. Changed behavior of elk when wolves reintroduced. -2. (Shaw Cont'd) All of our production also produces negative externalities Appeal to companies bottom line: Inefficiency in production process itself when polluting. there are technical fixes that save your company money and are more efficient and being ecologically green. Beneficial in long term.

what the debate is about between Baxter and Rolston

On whether nature has value Baxter- subjective- only has value because I say its valuable Rolston- naturalistic ethic; nature has value within itself. -Environmental philosophers have a problem with that. 267- Debate on defoliant used (DDT) in 60s- kills things (trees, insects, etc) and environmentalists concerned about it. Had bad effect on plants and anything that ate it. Can decimate native species. Phase out DDT, disagreed on justification for it- Baxter- no interest in helping nature for its own sake- its just for the benefit of man. Value because humans think they are valuable. Holmes Rolston- the naturalistic ethic- some natural objects are morally considerable in their own right. We have a duty to protect them. Value in least in part constituted from the objective side, not just subjective. Rocky Mountains- valuable in themselves, independent of human beings. We value human beings for their own sake, intrinsic. Natural objects and species are valuable within itself. Objective value. The Subjective (Baxter); only valuable if I say it is. Bad effects on how people treat nature. They think its limitless and overconsume and deplete animals. Danger of threatening nature with subjective value. Recipe for humans decimating populations of something to point where they go extinct. Takes into consideration business ethics.

Why some object to an incentives approach to achieving environmental goals

Pay companies to stop polluting Disadvantages: -An incentives-based approach is likely to be: 1. Slow, and 2. Sometimes amounts to paying polluters not to pollute. Raises questions about the justice of benefiting not the victims of pollution, but some of the egregious polluters. 3. Incentive programs can be abused, and determining their cost-effectiveness can be problematic. Environmental gain they bring may not be worth the cost.

Every company has a physical presence.

Relying on buildings, cable lines, etc. Even online companies have a physical presence. What are the effects on nature? How does your work affect human beings, the air, the land?

what Peter Singer thinks about factory farming and animal testing

Singer Influenced in 2 Ways: 1. Factory farming: Focused on affordable eggs and how business' would factory farm; hens laying eggs and take them and put them in small cages and put hormones in them to produce at greater faster rate. Hormones would have bad effects on hens. Harsh to the hens. Singer- Snuck into the factories- published pictures in the book and made awareness of the industry. Now- in most grocery stores- eggs are cagefree; free range. Industries don't want to be associated with factory farming. 2. Animal testing: Science and business ethics issue. Testing products on animals because unethical to test them on human beings. In many cases- go to government agency and test on animals. If new product is toxic and unsafe- effects on animals. Singer- animal testing is necessary and unsafe and unethical. Other ways to test that doesn't involve animal testing. Now- stores products say "Not tested on animals" Industry- moving away from animal testing. Change of attitude toward treatment of animals. Might be some testing, but otherwise most testing is cruel and unnecessary (Singer).

Incentives

Sometimes government will incentives so not tempted to pollute. find ways of safely disposing negative externality or sell it to companies who want it. Subsidize or tax break from government to prevent negative effects. creative Alternative. Appeal to companies bottom line: Inefficiency in production process itself when polluting. there are technical fixes that save your company money and are more efficient and being ecologically green. Beneficial in long term.

What Merck Sharpe and Dohme wanted to do with chimpanzees and how they were criticized (look up)

Stop testing on animals Criticized for??

What complication there is, involving the US, concerning greenhouse gas emissions

The US's population is not as high or proportionate to the amount of greenhouse gases we produce. -Consider our obligations to those who live outside our society. Ex: US= 4.6% of world population, but uses 30% of the world's refined oil. Demand increases and dependency on foreign nations to supply our needs. -Energy consumed by people in the US is exorbitant compared to other countries. Americans also contribute far more than their proportional share to global warming- 25% of all greenhouse gases. Smaller populations in states but a large amount of pollution. American lifestyles require large inputs of minerals and energy and undermine the planet's life support capacity. US also exports overseas that now litter many poor nations. -Tropical Rain forests- of concern right now. Earth's richest, oldest, and most complex ecosystems. Major resovoirs of biodiversity, home to 40-50% of all types of living things; yet millions of acres of forest are destroyed each year. 1/2 of the globe's original rain forest has disappeared, and 2/3 of what remains is fragmented, making it more vulnerable to being cleared. Often chopped down to provide farms for growing 3rd world populations, but the affluence of people in rich nations such as the US is responsible for much forest destruction. Central American forests- cleared for pasture land to make pet food and convenience food slightly cheaper in the US. A prosperous American living thousands of miles away might be the cause of more tropical forest destruction than a poor person living within the forest itself. -Globally- US and other developed nations- responsible for the bulk of the greenhouse gases that are destabilizing the world's climate and which stem from the industrialization that has Brough those countries their extraordinary affluence. Poorer nations who have done the least to cause the problem are suffering the most from it. Also the least able to cope with it. -Inequities of the world's environmental troubles raises the question of the nature and extent of the obligation, if any, of the advanced industrialized nations to assist poorer nations to deal with the effects of climate change and environmental degredation, which we- not they- have Brought about. Our bloated levels of consumption and our dependence on foreign resources to satisfy our needs raises two further equally pressing issues: -1. The question of how the continued availability of foreign resources is to be secured. Will our need for their resources lead us to try to control other countries, politically and economically. To do so is morally risky; political and economic domination almost always involves violations of the rights and interests of the dominated population as well as of our own moral ideals and values. -2. The question of whether any nation has a right to consume the world's irreplaceable resources at a rate so grossly out of proportion to the size of its population. We pay to consume oil and other resources that other nation's own, but in the view of many, the fact that those nations acquiesce in our disproportionate consumption of resources does not resolve the moral problem of our doing so. Are we respecting the needs and interests of both our present co-habitants on this planet and the future generations who will live on this Earth? Human demand for natural resources has outstripped the biosphere's regenerative capacity.

What alternative there is to having consumers pay for pollution compliance costs

The companies Or Those who would benefit from it (check quizlet card under 'who should pay')

The right that William Blackstone thinks we have

We need to view the environment differently if we are to impose our quality of life and even continue to exist. William T Blackstone- each of us has a right to a livable environment. this is a human Right. Right to a livable environment for us to fulfill our human capacities. -Recognition of a right to a livable environment would strengthen further the ethical reasons for business to respect the integrity of the natural world. In addition, it would provide compelling grounds for establishing a legal right to a livable environment through legislation, and perhaps through a constitutional amendment or an environmental bill of rights. This would enhance our ability to go after polluters and other abusers of the natural environment. -Acknowledging a human right to a livable environment, however, leaves unsolved many of the difficult problems facing us. To conserve irreplaceable resources, protect environment from further degration, and restore it to its former quality- still faced with difficult choices, each with tis economic and moral costs.

Why Michael Sandel Opposes selling pollution permits

it is immoral to buy the right to pollute

What occurs with a negative externality

pollution. Producing a Product also produces a negative externality

What the Tragedy of the Commons is

situation in which people acting individually and in their own interest use up commonly available but limited resources, creating disaster for the entire community -Garrett Hardin- Consequences of this attitude- parable- the Tragedy of the Commons- Villagers who allow their animals to graze in the commons- collectively shared village pasture. Interest of each person to permit their animal to graze without limit on the public land- the result of doing so is that the commons is overgrazed making it of no value to anyone Tragedy of commons- general point that there can be a difference between the private costs and the social costs of a business activity; externalities. Garrett Hardin- solutions to the problem. Idea= Middle Ages in Europe there is an open area with set of fields. "the commons" and the area is not owned by 1 individual. Free land to use by the community. Farms are in the community and compete with each other for livestock they sell and compete with regards to whatever they grow too. Adjacent lands where livestock grazes and farmers grow things and bring to market and sell them. Competition to sell to survive. Each farmer has choices: 1. can keep animals penned up on their own farm and graze on their land- cost to this. 2) To open the gate and allow cattle to wonder around in the commons and don't need to pay for that- it isn't owned by anyone. Creates a perverse set of incentives. Don't want that. Suppose that you choose to not have them graze in the commons and keep your stuff on your land and your neighbor does not- lets them go in the commons then don't need to pay the upkeep cost on their own land. Incentive structure to graze in the commons because you're losing money. -The commons gets overgrazed. Creates a tragedy- the commons is like anything else in nature- needs certain conditions in place to replenish what has been replaced. Cannot replenish itself. It becomes barren. Becomes a wasteland where nothing grows. -Every part of nature that is unowned is a commons- the air, the oceans, lakes. A commons is one of the parts of the recipe for perverse incentives. Temptation for people to pollute by own self-interest. Polluting costs less for companies than cleaning up pollution. -Produce product- sell it- creates externalities. When they're produced- water, land, etc, are used to produce the product. Fumes from chemicals go into the air. 2 things produced: 1. the product; 2. the externality. -If they can get away with it, its cheaper to pollute- main idea; perverse when all companies in the industry do it to be competitive. The commons- perverse incentives (to pollute). The opposite of a market- everyone pursuing their self-interest ends up destroying the environment for everyone. How do we prevent incentives and motivations to compete and make profit from undermining the environment? Context around markets doesn't fit in with the system. How do we keep markets from destroying the environment? 1. Change the incentives: Get together and push government to own land so they don't get polluted. Make parts of the common communally owned (the city) and monitor the area, or have other parts of the commons privately owned so they don't get polluted. Changes the incentives- if you dump in private land, you'll be sued. Helps solve some parts. Can't privatize the ocean or air though. Need to come up with other incentives. Other ways to change incentives- call out the polluter and make them look bad. Approval/disapproval= an incentive. Social pressure can have some effect. Deter them with punishment. Temble PR for company to catch them and put them on the news. The press can help you change incentive structure. Shouldn't do it because they'll have a bad image. 2. We can give businesses a financial incentive as a government- if recycling in a program, reducing annual tax burden. Appeals to business' self interest and not paying a high cost. Internalizing externalities. 3. Many companies are interested in your trash- take externality and monetize it and repurpose it for use in something else. Ex: tires- melt them down and use it for some other purpose. Help reduce perverse incentives. Sell trash and other company makes a profit from it. Start to prevent pollution and have it sit there. -Ways of preventing tragedy of the commons- in everyone's self-interest. In our interest to prevent it. Garrett Hardin- tragedy of the commons- cheaper to pollute. Central area and farms built outside of it. Square= communally owned and food for animals. Farmers have livestock and land but expensive to upkeep. In competition with each other so incentives are perverse. Graze on own land or graze on commons? Cheaper to do it on commons. Problem- all do it and the commons becomes a wasteland. Perverse incentives because the land will go barren. All resources will be used up. Leave enough alone so that next year you can have things regrow and have soil to replenish. If you deplete soil strength- becomes a wasteland. -Air you breathe and ocean are commons and other things that are not owned. the land is too. Unowned/publically owned land= a commons a bing thing not owned by anyone or very difficult to own. Dumping into the atmosphere. Once one member of the competition does this, the others follow suit. Perverseness of having unowned things in places we do business. Temptation to pollute. -Function of self-interest in tragedy of commons creates an ecological disaster. How do we prevent this from happening? See that there's a problem and be creative in figuring out ways to encourage companies to internalize their externalities- not produce them- filtering system to clear noxious stuff. How do you convince companies to internalize their externalities? Change their mindset- in a bigger picture. Ethical- get people to think about their responsibilities to the environment and to all of us. -Could use the press and social pressure or formal authorities (the police, etc). Realize we have problems if we neglect- could turn into tragedy of commons. Ethical and legal obligations.

The reason some think that consumers should help Pay for pollution compliance costs

they purchase the products that continue to pollution. The demand increases the pollution. we're all responsible for pollution and all pay for it. Increasing demand for goods and services, natural resources, energy, and industrial production.