Thinking into the Future

The article “Canadian rivers in trouble, study warns” (De Souza, 2009) discusses the state of 10 Canadian rivers. The study says that if something isn’t done soon, rivers in Canada will be perilously close to disappearing. The main idea in this news article is that economic and infrastructure developments are the biggest factors in the disappearance of rivers. This blog will explore why the issue of losing rivers should be addressed now, and why it shouldn’t be left for our children to sort out.
An idea brought out in the book Environmental Principles and Policies: an interdisciplinary introduction, is that of ‘The Equity Principle’ (Beder, 2006). A division of that is Intergenerational Equity. This is
“the need for a just distribution of rewards and burdens between generations,
and fair and impartial treatment of future generations” (Beder, 2006).
In other words, we are responsible for leaving a healthy and habitable environment for the generations to come. Since the people of the future can’t stand up for themselves right now, a few guidelines have been put down.
The first of these guidelines is Justice. In this case, it is only fair that we give the future what we were given. While growing up and living in Canada, we were allowed to use these rivers. Even if the uses weren’t always the most economically or environmentally friends, they were there. As a result it would go against most humans’ morals to deny these amazing resources to the coming generations.
The second guideline is Responsibility. As organisms who have a concept of the relationship between actions and consequences, we must take responsibility for our actions. This is where the Precautionary Principle steps in. If we don’t know what the result of something is going to be, (especially if there’s a chance that it might be a negative effect,) then we shouldn’t do it. We’ve already passed the early stages of that type of consideration. But we can now say that continued action in the same direction will definitely have a negative effect on the surrounding ecosystems (and as a result negatively effect life on Earth). Although these negative effects probably won’t be seen fully in our lifetime, they should be appreciated in our lifetime. We should take responsibility for our actions, because we have “the capacity to bring about these consequences” and “have the choice to do otherwise” (Beder, 2006).
The third guideline (and final one being addressed in this blog) is Avoiding Harm. We may not have the duty to make the life of future generations better than the lives we currently lead, but we must at least see that destroying their chances at survival is wrong. In all likelihood, they will need the same things to survive that we need now: nutritional food, clean water, habitable environment, shelter, etc… If we were to allow these rivers to run dry during our lifetime, then the bodies of water that the feed (and are fed by) would be greatly and almost certainly irreversibly altered. Without drinking water, future generations won’t be able to survive. Thus, protecting today’s rivers and other water supplies is a small act that can play a major role in ensuring future life on Earth.
In conclusion, today’s generation has a duty to maintain the current water levels in Canadian rivers, and other water sources around the globe. Avoiding harm to future generations is the just and responsible thing to do.


References

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.

De Souza, Mike. "Canadian rivers in trouble, study warns." Vancouver Sun - Canadian breaking news, sports, business, entertainment, B.C. 15 Oct. 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. .

An Incentive for Fisheries: Used for Resource Protection or for Economical Purposes?

The decline in fish species has been an unaddressed problem until recently. Even today, it is a major problem and although it is claimed that it has been confronted, the decline seems to be becoming more and more problematic. One incentive that has been suggested in certain cases (e.g. the orange roughy fishery case (Beder, 2009)) to stop this loss is the use of tradable fishing quotas, also called individual trading quotas (ITQ). At first glance, ITQs seem logical and effective. The total allowable catch (TAC) for a fishery is separated, individual quotas are given out, and people can trade these quotas if they desire to fish more. This should allow for the right amount to be fished, which would cause enough fish to remain for reproduction. However, due to problems caused by big quota holders and by a lack of rule enforcement, these quotas do not seem to be stopping people from overfishing.

In a blog post written by Benjamin Leard, the use of ITQs is seen as a good alternative to fishing regulations. Leard mentions the fact that with ITQs, there would be no more “pressure to harvest” (Leard, 2009), as there would be enough fish for all who own an ITQ. He also explains that a “strict monitoring system” (Leard, 2009) would be essential, and that satellites are helpful for this, using the European Union’s use of them as an example. Finally, he states that the National Oceanic Atmospheric Association (NOAA) has already taken steps towards the use of ITQs. If ITQs were to work as planned, these points would be true and the solution to collapsed fisheries would be solved. Nevertheless, the goal of ITQs is "to make the fleet more economically efficient” (Beder, 2009). The focus is therefore not on reducing the amount of species fished, but rather on making the fishing more successful economically. The trading of ITQs is encouraged so that fewer boats are used for fishing, reducing the amount of personal boats and increasing the amount of large powerful boats.

Large nets are used, able to “‘catch anything from a shrimp to a whale’ as well as ‘swordfish, sharks, birds and marine mammals’” (Hagler 1995:77, as cited by Beder, 2006). The nets often catch large quantities of immature fish, which are thrown back into the water and usually die from this. Nets used by large companies are usually dragged along the bottom of the fishery, destroying aquatic environments and therefore killing more of the fish and other valuable animals.

The problem with ITQs is that they do not account for all the fish that are thrown back into the water, and these are usually more numerous than the fish collected (Beder, 2006). The “pressure to harvest”, as mentioned by Leard, would then still exist and could even be higher than in the past, as there would be such a large amount of fish not considered when calculating the TAC. To prevent this, Leard suggested the use of satellites, but this is not possible for all countries. According to Beder, it is even expensive to have people monitoring onboard, making satellites absolutely out of the question. Other problems include people being dishonest about the amount fish in order to receive a higher quota, as well as people recording valuable species as similar, not as valuable species.

Individual trading quotas originally seem like an advantageous way of ensuring that only a certain amount of fish are taken out of their ecosystems. However, after considering the consequences linked to big fishing companies with their reckless fleets as well as the lack of proper monitoring, ITQs may actually be the cause of higher declines in fish species. A considerable amount of investment must be made to help regulate the amount of unusable fish being taken out and to improve monitoring systems in order to benefit from ITQs and to successfully preserve the ecosystems.

Resources

(As cited by the author): Sharon Beder, ‘The Corporate Agenda for Environmental Property Rights’, Property Rights and Sustainability, NZ Centre for Environmental Law Conference 2008, Auckland, April 2009. http://www.uow.edu.au/~/sharonb/property.html

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies. Sydney: UNSW Press, and London: Earthscan, 2006. Print.

Benjamin Leard. “Are Property Rights Key to Saving U.S. Fisheries?” http://www.aier.org/research/briefs/1793-are-property-rights-key-to-saving-us-fisheries. AIER, July 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2009.

Possible lake explosion endangers millions

http://trak.in/news/rwandan-lake-runs-risk-of-turning-into-freshwater-time-bomb/24570/

The article “Rwandan lake runs risk of turning into freshwater time bomb”(November 17, 2009) by ANI talks about Lake Kivu, a freshwater lake found between the countries Congo and Rwanda. This large body of fresh water contains dangerous amounts of carbon dioxide and methane gas, and because of this Lake Kivu is at risk of explosion. The circumstances of this lake bring about issues which involve the human rights principle and the precautionary principle. Both principals will be explained further in this blog.

Within the article it states “approximately 2 million people, many of them refugees, live along the north end of the lake.”(ANI, 2009) All of these people are at risk because of the unpredictable state of lake Kivu. There are a number of different catalysts found within the lake, which keep the carbon dioxide at the bottom of the lake stabilized. However, if these catalysts were to destabilize the lake would explode, and could result in a earthquake or even a volcanic explosion. This event would leave the 2 million people living in a vulnerable state. The human rights principle states that every human deserves the right to life; however Lake Kivu is putting local communities in danger. Therefore it would be plausible to assume that further research needs to be conducted to determine the hazardous affects that the fatal gas would have on the communities around the lake. Knowing these affects, fundamental human rights could be put in to action to allow everyone to have the right to life, human health and well-being (Beder, 2006).

The precautionary principle uses the reasoning that action should be taken to avoid very serious or permanent damage despite of lack of scientific certainty. In the case of Lake Kivu there is a lack of scientific certainty due to the lack of conclusive evidence. Therefore it is right to employ the precautionary principle, because it is better to take action in this instance as soon as possible. This is because the safety of the people around Lake Kivu is most important. If action is postponed because of research it could be disastrous to the community.

This research may be a lengthy process which would put the large amount of people in this area in serious danger. Therefore the precautionary principle should be employed to aid the well being of the community of people in this region. In order to initiate such action, the community that lives around this lake must be forced to evacuate the surrounding area. In this situation people living here must be evacuated sooner rather than later for their own safety. It may be a difficult process to move 2 million people whom live around the lake, but it benefits their right to life because they are better off to not be in close proximity to a Lake that has the capacity to explode.

Lake Kivu is a highly unstable lake, which increases the risk of those communities that live around it. Because of this, the principles of human rights are violated and the precautionary principle needs to be put into place. To avoid any harm to the communities, they should be relocated to a safer place. Until any reasonable scientific certainty can be obtained showing that lake Kivu is a safe place to live, the precautionary principle should be applied. When these environmental principles are applied, it is clear that the people need to evacuated from the lake Kivu region.

Kendra Bester

Sources:

ANI. "Rwandan lake runs risk of turning into freshwater time bomb Source: Rwandan lake runs risk of turning into freshwater time bomb carbon dioxide and methane, lake kivu, methane gas, saline springs, volcanic explosion." Web log post. Trak In News. 17 Nov. 2009. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. <http://trak.in/news/rwandan-lake-runs-risk-of-turning-into-freshwater-time-bomb/24570/>.

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.

Fresh water: is the world’s most important resource in need of the precautionary principle?

The need for clean, fresh water has become a growing concern over the decades, and according to a new study fresh water is going to become even higher in demand in the upcoming years. This study was carried out in four specific areas in the world where a combined 42% of the projected water demand will be located. The study, conducted in China, India, South Africa and Sao Paulo state in Brazil, determined that by the year 2030, global fresh water usage will be “40 per cent higher than current supplies and agriculture is predicted to suck up 65 per cent of all [fresh water] resources” (The Straits Tines, 2009). Specifically in India, the study found that in 2030, fresh water supplies will need to be double what they are today in order to satisfy the needs of this ever growing nation’s population.

In the study, it is stated that “'…the situation is getting worse. There is little indication that left to its own devices, the water sector will come to a sustainable, cost-effective solution to meet the growing water requirements” (The Straits Times, 2009). Water basins in India are currently the main source of fresh water for millions in the nation, and are at a great risk if no action is taken to protect this important resource. If no immediate action is taken, these basins are at risk of depleting greatly in size, and even vanishing completely, leaving these millions who depend on them without any fresh water source.

Due to the fact that India’s population is constantly on the rise, the need for food is also going to continue to increase. Demand for these foods, such as rice, wheat and sugar will mean that India’s agricultural division will utilize approximately 1.5 trillion cubic metres of water by 2030. It may be hard to control the use of water in India due to these rising numbers in population and the demand for food; however it is a necessary precaution that must be taken in order to ensure that future generations in India have any water at all. Therefore it can be determined that in order to avoid these massive increases in fresh water demands the precautionary principle must be implemented.

The Precautionary Principle is defined as being a solution used when an action or activity raises threat or harm to human health or the environment. In a case where the precautionary principle is necessary, there may be some cause and effect relationships not fully established scientifically. The basis of the principle is to do as little harm currently as possible in order to benefit as many people as possible in the future. By implementing the precautionary principle, such taxing companies and agricultural facilities that regularly use fresh water in processes, the amount of fresh water needed in the future may be reduced.

The Aarhus Convention, adopted in 1998, recognizes that “every person has the right to live in an environment adequate to his or her health and well-being…to protect and improve the environment for the benefit of present and future generations…”(Environmental Principles and Policies, 2006). By examining this statement, a conclusion can be drawn in the issue of depleting fresh water resources all around the world. In order for future generations to develop and strive, it is necessary that we take drastic action today by means of implementing the precautionary principle.

Resources

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies; An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Earthscan: London, 2006

The Straits Times. “India water needs set to double”. The Straits Times. 24 November 2009. http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_458438.html

Envrionmental Earth Perspectives. “The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science” September 2001. http://www.ehponline.org/members/2001/109p871-876kriebel/kriebel-full.html#def

Emily Hartwig

Wetlands: Our Most Valuable Water Resource

One of the most underappreciated and vital water resources are the marshes, swamps, bogs and fens of North America. These ecosystems not only provide water filtration and storage for human populations, they also are home to a huge number of plant and animal species. Other functions of wetlands include pollution control, ground water recharge, drought mitigation, shoreline protection and recreational opportunities. (Beder 2009) Yet despite these benefits, wetlands have been and are still being destroyed at an alarming rate. The blog post Wetland Restoration: The Best Alternative to Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies by Jeremy Jacquot highlights another reason that wetlands should be protected: they are a valuable form of carbon storage. Perhaps this benefit will finally be the key to wetland survival.

Carbon is stored primarily in the peat soils formed in undisturbed wetlands. Plants photosynthesize throughout their lifetime, absorbing carbon dioxide. When they die, the carbon containing plant matter settles to the bottom of the marsh to form a peat soil. Oxygen does not reach this submerged soil so decomposition occurs very slowly, resulting in little release of that stored carbon dioxide. Now that it is known what a valuable combatant to global warming wetlands can be, there needs to be a way to protect them from further degradation.

Many conservation methods have been attempted throughout the world. One technique is to give people the right to a resource, because if they own it, or are entitled to it, they are more likely to protect it for the future. Communally owned wetlands are degraded because it benefits the individual to use them up before someone else does. This entitlement puts a market on conservation because people would be able to buy and sell these resource rights. Although it may seem that this would give the environment some standing in an economic world, tradable rights to a resource actually degrade the environment further. This will be outlined in the following example of attempted wetland conservation.

The most common method of wetland conservation, as outlined in Sharon Beder’s Environmental Principles and Policies, is the use of Wetland Mitigation Banking. This form of economic environmental protection attempts to preserve the net amount of wetland remaining. Compensation for building can be achieved through the restoration of another wetland. This is challenging for large companies to do, because they lack the expertise. Instead, another company can improve and remediate a wetland independently and then sell the credits earned to the large company. In theory this is intended to create large tracks of protected wetland and stop the net loss of this valuable resource.

This is not a perfect solution. If you totally destroy 5 hectares of marsh and then remediate 5 hectares somewhere else, there is still a net lost of 5 hectares of wetland. Also, the benefit of the wetland is locally important. Usually companies pay for the improvement of a wetland that is far from the area that has been destroyed, maybe even in another watershed. This leaves no purification, flood protection or biodiversity for the area with the brand new shopping mall. Location also is important when considering what species can live in it, and even what kind of wetland it is. If all of the restored and protected wetlands are located in one spot, the diversity of many smaller marshes, bogs, fens and swamps is lost. Finally, there are some wetlands that are much cheaper to create and/or restore. Larger ponds with a rim of wetland are far easier to create but are worth the same amount of credit as deep peat swamps. The more ecologically diverse and beneficial types, such as bogs and swamps, are far more expensive. They are also the best at carbon dioxide absorption.

I think that if resources such as wetlands are going to be bought and sold on a market, there needs to be a much better system of evaluating their dollar value. There must be some division between the types of wetlands, and the services they provide can not be undestimated. It seems that in most cases the environment is devalued when put on the market. To improve ecomonic conservation, valuation methods need to be changed. Mitigation banking has some merit and could probably be reformed into a much better method of environmental conservation. Restored wetlands would have to be located in the same region as the wetland that was destroyed and the replacement for a wetland would have to be more than just that area restored somewhere else. Maybe twice as much restoration in exchange for the complete annihilation of a wetland would suffice.

Although I hate to think that wetlands might one day all be individually owned and not for the enjoyment of the public, it does make sense that they would be better looked after that way. Although many would litter on a public beach, they probably won’t dump garbage on their own dock. It would work the same way for wetlands.

Overall, the mitigation banking system has many faults, but if it was implemented for the purpose of protecting wetlands then it is a step in the right direction. We depend on these riparian ecosystems more than most realize, making it worth the effort to protect what is left. Hopefully the need to offset global warming will give wetland conservation priority in the years to come.

- Amy Adair

References

Beder, S. (2006). Environmental Principles and Policies. Sterling: Earthscan.

Jacquot, J. E. (2009, October 22). Wetland Restoration: The Best Alternative to Carbon Capture and Sequestration Technologies. Retrieved November 21, 2009, from treehugger: http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/10/wetland-restoration-ccs.php

Endocrine Disruptors Harmful to People and Ecosystems

A recent study in Alberta discovered that many pesticides are common and widespread in the province’s surface water. 44 different types of pesticides were found in 65% of the samples located mostly in agricultural areas of the province (Water Matters, 2009). The large amount of pesticides found are believed to be responsible for sex changes in fish as many of these pollutants act as endocrine disruptors interfering with hormones. Since these endocrine disruptors are known to be harmful to fish, people have begun to wonder how they will be affected by these potential toxins.

The Participation Principle states that, “Environmental Issues are best handled with participation of all concerned citizens, at the relevant level. At the national level, each individual shall have appropriate access to information concerning the environment that is held by public authorities, including information on hazardous materials and activities in their communities, and the opportunity to participate in decision making processes.” (Rio Declaration 1992, as cited by Beder, 2006). Essentially, people have the right to know about potential dangers in their community and should be involved in processes to eliminate these threats. This information must be made accessible to them at all times, and if it is not the government should be held accountable.

There are many risks associated with Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals (EDC) as the University of Calgary discovered. While the impacts that EDC’s have on humans are not well known, they are believed to be quite harmful. They include an increased risk of cancer, neurological impairment, developmental effects, reproductive effects, organ damage and hormone interference (Water Matters 2009). At this point in time, a maximum allowable concentration (MAC) is not known, so precautions must be taken. It is important for governments to act in a proactive manner providing maximum disclosure to their citizens through publications, promotion of open government, making sure that disclosure does not take precedence over other laws (Beder, 2006).

Most EDC’s are released through municipal wastewater in the form of laundry detergent or even prescription drug residue. If the wastewater is not properly treated, it emerges in many freshwater ecosystems harming the organisms who inhabit it. Since this is not from a single point, it makes it very difficult to pinpoint who the actual polluters are. The wastewater treatment plant obviously requires new infrastructure to reduce pollution, and this could be obtained by implementing an overall pollution tax. This idea would support the Polluter Pays Principle which believes that the person or company responsible for the pollution be the one to pay to rectify the damage. Unfortunately it would be difficult to support this principle in this situation as the pollution is not caused by a single point source but by entire cities.

Water pollution has become a very serious issue affecting large amounts of the world’s already scarce freshwater supplies. In todays large industrialized cities, people are able to literally dump large amounts of pollutants down their drains and are given safety in numbers as it would be quite impossible to track down who discarded what and where. Controlling how and where harmful substances are disposed is necessary in order to preserve water.

-Elisabeth Shapiro

Sources:

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies; An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Earthscan: London, 2006

Water Matters. What's in your water? Understanding Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals. www.water-matters.org, 2009.

To Control or to Charge?

The article “Wells Voters decide on Water Extraction Regulation” discusses a regulation that is being voted on in the town of Wells. This regulation was originally proposed in 2008, after talks between Poland Spring and the Wells Water District. Poland Spring is a part of the Nestle corporation, and it’s purpose is selling bottled water. Presently, the town has placed a ban on large ground water extraction (i.e. from aquifers). This ban is only meant to be temporary. The upcoming vote is meant to find a permanent solution for the debate over bottling Wells’ freshwater resources.
The proposed regulations are meant to monitor the amount of water being removed from the area, as well as ensuring the least amount of environmental changes. In order to be considered for water extraction, companies must outline every single part of what they expect to do. They have to provide a reason for the water extraction, as well as analyses of recharge rates, and resulting (added) vehicular traffic. For the environmental side, they need to list potential effects of the operation (good or bad). They also show a map of any plots of land being used, and what they are going to be used for. All of this information is given to a “Planning Board” which has the ability to grant or deny the applicant permission to water extraction. Each approval only stands for three years. After the three years are up, the applicant goes through the entire process again. The final major aspect of this proposed regulation is that the Board may rescind their approval if something goes wrong (the extraction limits are exceeded).
Another approach to this problem could be economic incentives. Monetary restrictions and offers are very useful tools when dealing with anyone, from big corporations to smaller individuals. One possibility could be charging per gallon. The town has chosen large scale extraction to be “extraction of water from ground water sources, aquifers, springs, wells, and similar sources in a total amount on any given day of 20,000 gallons or more (Kanak, 2009).” After this 20,000 gallon mark is reached, the price per gallon can be raised significantly to reduce the chances of exceeding this level. A second possibility could be to sell permits for the use of Wells water. The town can sell a certain number of permits for water extraction and distribute them amongst the approved applicants. This would ensure that their ideal extraction amount is never exceeded. If the company that has the permit doesn’t extract all of the water allowed under the permit there are three options. The town could (a) let the company sell the remaining amount to another company, (b) let the company sell the remaining amount back to the town, or (c) allow the remaining amount to carry over to the next day.
I think that the permit idea would work the best out of the options listed above. Selling permits would make sure that no matter how many people or companies want to extract water, the ‘acceptable’ amount would not be passed. It would still be necessary to get proposals from the parties interested in extraction. This would be to prevent any possible environmental change or damage. If permits are in place, it is then up to the ‘extractors’ to allot amounts among themselves, as opposed to a proposal board deciding who can extract how much after each application.


References:
Kanak, Jim. "Wells Voters to decideon Water Extraction Regulation." The Weekly Sentinel. 30 Oct. 2009. Web. 14 Nov. 2009. .

Freshwater Fish: An Invaluable Resource

The choice of regulatory control as opposed to economic incentives is a very debated topic. Many rationalists tend to agree that in order to measure a population’s effects on the environment, it is logical to create a monetary value for everything and to use these monetary values to compare the benefits and costs of doing certain actions. The opposing thought would be that certain things in life, for example clean air, simply cannot be measured monetarily, and that it would be immoral to do so.

In a policy statement created for the regulation of fish species in Victoria, Australia, the concept of regulatory control is favoured. The purpose of this policy statement was to illuminate the fact that many native species of fish are disappearing from Victorian freshwater waterways, mostly due to today’s human’s actions. In order to maintain a good amount of self-reliant native fish, Native Fish Australia (NFA) decided the waterways should be separated into three distinct categories, that is to say, Native Fish Waters, Trout Waters, and Mixed Fishery Waters. The separation would ensure that trout and exotic fish would not interfere with the native fish, and that the Trout Waters and Mixed Fishery Waters would provide good amounts of fish for recreational use. The Native Fish Waters would also be separated into sub-categories, with the intention of keeping or breeding certain species, depending on the amount remaining in the waterways.

The regulatory control is applied in the cases of the different categories and subcategories, permitting or restricting certain actions. Such restrictions include limiting the size or the amount of bags of resources fished per species; having ‘closed’ seasons to prevent over exploitation; having total closures for certain parts of the waterways; regulating the methods of fishing (i.e. maximum number of rods per person); and banning the use of live bait to prevent diseases.

On the other hand, if economic incentives were to be used rather than regulatory control, excise taxes might have been a good way of managing the amount of fish remaining in the waterways. The idea is that a certain percentage be paid by the consumer, depending on the amounts and species fished, as well as the location (higher taxes for the areas with endangered species). Excise taxes could help protect certain species from being over-fished, and the money raised through these taxes could go toward research into conservation and harvesting of new fish.

I believe the policy of economic incentives is beneficial if used wisely. That being said, I disagree with certain economic ways of calculation such as cost-benefit analysis, since certain aspects of the environment do not get their full value in consideration. I also disagree with the idea of “willingness to pay” since a person who has less money will usually be willing to pay less, and so his or her lifestyle will be less respected than that of a richer person since they “cost less” to the government. However, when used properly such as with taxes on the resources used or with marketable permits, the results can be rewarding.

Both regulatory control and economic incentives can aid in keeping resources at a desired level. What is important to keep in mind is that everything has a value and that certain natural resources cannot be revived once they are over-exploited. Our natural resources are a gift and their upkeep requires important thought and discussion.

Resources:

Native Fish Australia. NFA (Victoria) Freshwater Fisheries Management Policy, 1993. http://www.nativefish.asn.au/fwpolicy.html#objective. 17 Nov. 2009.

Waterloo Regional Water Usage

The Waterloo regional policy of household water usage is a policy that holds much controversy. In this article written by Peter Shawn Taylor he analysis’s some of the downfalls to Waterloo’s water regulations. In addition he discusses improvements that would make the water regulation more effective and equal for all households within Waterloo region. This topic of Waterloo’s water usage will be analyzed further by using economic incentives within this blog post.

Living in Waterloo, Ontario comes with strict water regulations in the summer. These regulations make much confusion, because of all the detailed rules that include “only watering your lawn by sprinkler once a week, only hand spraying your garden every other day. But only during certain hours.” (Taylor, 2009) When these regulations are not followed the region of Waterloo’s policy dictates a fine to a household of 150 dollars, which will be set upon these offenders. This kind of regulation is not the most reasonable and rational approach to handle the amount of water consumption used in the summer. Different more simplistic approaches could be taken to improve the amount of fresh water used rather then paying a fee for not following unnecessary strict rules that are implicated within Waterloo water regulations.

In the article, written by Peter Shawn Taylor his view of Waterloo’s regional regulations towards water usage is seen as an irresponsible way to handle such a precious natural resource. Taylor states in his article “If we really want people to think carefully before using it, we should charge more for it.” (Taylor, 2009) This explains if the region really wants to control Waterloo’s water usage a fluctuating price could be place on water during peek seasons. A good example that is mentioned in this article is about how “We pay for more strawberries in winter. Why shouldn’t we pay more for water in the summer?.” (Renzetti, 2009) This example gives a good idea to a new way of conserving water, when people have to put out money it is most likely there willing to think before they use it.

On top of Taylor’s idea of putting a price on the amount of water during different seasons, there are many different approaches to make households conserve fresh water. The regulations that the Waterloo region placed on water, which are shown in this blog and also in the article proves that the regulation is not the best way to conserve the amount of water that Waterloo is using. The Waterloo region may benefit by handling the conservation problem in terms of using an economic incentives. This would mean using a type of tax exemption or a kind of government refund to control water usage. This sort of method would be better in comparison to enforcing a regulation on the citizens of Waterloo. When there is some type of benefit involved for the people, they are more likely to following rules and guidelines. Therefore in the case of conserving water, it can be more beneficial for the future of the people within the region to have an economic incentive instead of regulation placed upon them.

The water policy of Waterloo is full of confusing regulations that leaves the residents of Waterloo in confusion. If Waterloo residents are perplexed with these regulations it will most likely to leave them with a fine of 150 dollars. This may not be the best way for Waterloo to regulate and conserve fresh water. A plausible alternative to this problem could be easily solved by an economic incentive, or an idea along the lines of Peter Shawn Taylor’s as described above. The regional of Waterloo needs to revise its regulations to reserve a natural resource that will be essential in years to come.

Kendra Bester

Resources

Taylor, Peter S. "Putting the water back in Waterloo Region." (2009). The Record. 07 Aug. 2009. Web. 17 Nov. 2009. .

Regulatory Control vs. Economic Incentives: Which is better for the fresh water shortage in Florida?

Currently in the state of Florida, inhabitants consume on approximately 7 billion gallons of fresh water per day. It has been estimated that by 2025, and increase of up to 2 billion gallons more will be consumed per day. This fact is staggering considering that Florida is already facing freshwater shortages and with irrigation regulations already in affect. In some parts of the state mining has already begun in order to access groundwater from the Lower Hawthorn aquifer from depths up to 1000 feet below the surface of the earth. In order for this water to be deemed suitable for human consumption, it must be first treated by reverse osmosis, which is an expensive process which only increases as the cost of energy increases as well. As a result to the problem, a solution that has been proposed includes enforcing regulatory control by implementing a “state water czar”.

This idea of implementing a “water czar” was introduced in 2003 by the Tampa-based Council of 100, an influential business lobby group in the state, to solve the problem of depleting water sources. The main goal of the proposal was to allow for fresh water from the northern regions of the state, where water is more abundant, to be shared equally with those in the southern regions of the state where fresh water is scarce.

Presently in Florida laws are being enforced which regulate water resources based on regional locations in order to manage the agricultural, environmental and domestic needs, and conservation and recycling of the resource is being encouraged. There are five existing water management regions, which have the responsibility to employ programs, collect and evaluate data, construct and maintain flood control facilities, and plan for future water related projects with local municipalities. However no law is in place to ensure that more water is not consumed by one region than another. Due to the fact that each of these five regions can regulate and distribute water as they please within their own region, no common regulation is in place. From this it can be determined that a water czar, who by definition is “any person exercising great authority or power in a particular field” (Dictionary.com, 2009) could be greatly useful in order to determine equality and fairness in water distribution and use between all regions in the state.

Problems that may arise with the use of this regulatory control include the use of a “safeguard” to ensure that areas with vast amounts of water and low populations are able to retain water for use in the future, and that not all water is distributed from these areas to regions with little fresh water resources. Also, the appointed “water czar” may be subject to political implications, such as bribery for the allowance of more water.

Another solution to the fresh water scarcity of Florida may be to impose economic incentives. Such incentives could include a law where a state controlled amount of water per day is set out, and a refund could be made available to those who use under this set out amount of water. Another incentive could involve deductions on monthly energy bills according to the amount of water saved by households. By marketing this solution of saving water and making money individuals would have the notion that they are helping the environment by reducing water use and also helping themselves by making a profit by doing something positive for the environment. These incentives would promote water reduction by individuals in order to obtain monetary gain, which in these times of economic need would be very beneficial for these individuals.

From examining the two options that could be used, regulatory control and economic incentives, I believe that in order to make a serious effort of reducing water use and conversing existing fresh water, both methods should be used. By implementing a “water czar” a universal method, by way of one person overseeing all water use, would allow for the equality in fresh water distribution and use between all regions in the state. By using economic incentives the individuals are more inclined to want to reduce water use due to monetary gain, and the notion that they are helping the environment.

Resources:
Gaddy, Peter. 11 November 2009. “Water wars may be the wave of the future”. Collier Citizen (2009)
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2009/nov/11/peter-gaddy-water-wars-may-be-wave-future/
Accessed: November 17th 2009
Dictinary.com. “Czar”. (2009)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/czar
Accessed: November 17th 2009

Emily Hartwig

Command and Control, or Persuasion?

The Native Reserves of Ontario have in the past been mainly subject to their own rules and regulations concerning environmental protection. A recent audit by the Auditor General Shelia Fraser calls for a change in that policy. She has believes that the government of Canada is neglecting their environmental duties on First Nations Reserves. Although laws do exist to control environmental degradation, they are neither severe enough nor well enough enforced to be effective. The minimal laws present do not include rules for sewage treatment, solid waste disposal, drinking water quality or landfill locations on reserves, despite these laws being the present throughout the rest of Ontario. This lack of regulation is decreasing water quality significantly on reserves. To change this, Fraser believes the Canadian government should use regulatory control.

Regulatory control is the use of a law or policy to change an environmental problem. In this case, the auditor general believes that introducing stricter pollution regulations and enforcing these regulations will prevent further damage. This could be a lengthy and costly method of environmental protection. The laws will first have to be drafted, reviewed and passed, taking months to years. Then many people will have to be paid to enforce these laws. Another course of action would be to use economic incentives.

Economic incentives are methods of environmental protection that use a dollar value to prevent environmental degradation. The costs of polluting are made to be more then the cost of reducing. Examples include taxes, subsidies, deposits, bonds, liability insurance and pollution permits. Instead of the Canadian government implementing regulatory control on Native reserves, they could use economic regulation. The government would not have to be as forceful and in many ways the community can benefit.

One major source of pollution highlighted as needing regulatory control is industrial waste water. Taxes or subsides would work well to reduce this type of pollution. A tax on the amount of toxic water produced would make the companies reduce to the point where the cost of abating is the same and the cost of paying the tax. Similarly, if a subsidy was paid for every unit of pollution reduced, companies would abate until they would no longer profit from the subsidy. By choosing the correct dollar value per unit of pollution, the government can decide the level of pollution produced. These levels should be compatible with what lakes and streams can accept.

Although taxes and subsides both achieve the same end, subsidies would be much better received by the residents of the reserve. The land on Native Reserves was set aside to belong to the residents of that reserve. Therefore in many ways they have the right to pollute their water as they wish. To tax the polluter goes against the ownership right. Subsidies however acknowledge that right by paying the owner to do something that an outside party wants. It is the owner’s land, so for the government to have that land protected, it must pay for it.

Another problem was the disposal of residential garbage. No regulations are present to control where landfill sites are located in relation to bodies of water. Pollution permits would be a good economic incentive to use to prevent harmful disposal of this waste. To reduce the amount of waste, permits could be issued to each household for the amount of solid garbage produced. These could be traded or sold depending on each home’s garbage production, but over all there would then be a cap on the total garbage produced. Deposits could also be used to encourage recycling.

For the actual disposal of this waste, another type of permit system would be required to prevent landfills from being close enough to contaminate water. If companies had to buy permits to start a landfill, the permits close to a lake could be made more expensive. Sites further from the lake would then be used because it would not cost as much to buy the permit.

Finally, water treatment plants were lacking in both regulation of waste water and drinking water quality. Fraser felt that regulatory control was the solution. However, instead of forcing a form of water treatment on the plants, the government could implement a tax on pollution above a set amount. The company could then reduce their water pollution in the cheapest and perhaps most innovative way.

I believe that in this situation a combination of regulatory control and economic incentives would work the best for both the government and the residents of the reserve. Some more specific regulations with substantial penalties need to be created and some enforcement will of course be needed to establish them. Drinking water quality should not be left up to economic incentives because there is a standard of health involved. However, beyond the basics, economic incentives will work much better. Subsidies would be well received because there is the potential to make money. Deposits would have no negative effect on the polluter because their money is refunded. And taxes, although not initially desirable, can be reinvested in the community. Economic incentives allow for environmental protection at the lowest cost. They also promote innovation to try and reduce emissions in new and cheaper ways.

In most cases I think a combination of regulatory control and economic incentives are needed for good environmental protection. Ground rules are set and enforced and then additional goals are obtained through incentives.

- Amy Adair

References

Rennie, S. (2009, November 9). Environmental rules more lax on reserves, Fraser finds. Retrieved November 14, 2009, from thestar.com: http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/auditorgeneral/article/720498--environmental-rules-more-lax-on-reserves-fraser-finds

Regulatory Control Vs. Economic Incentive

As of late, bottled water has been a topic of great discussion. While it has been recognized that bottled water can be very useful when water resources are tainted, or in case of emergency, it should not be used when there is clean drinking water available. Many associations have been arguing for stricter regulations on bottled water, hoping to put an end to it being used as a substitute for safe, publicly available tap water. Recycling rates for bottled water are also quite low, Ontario’s plastic recycling rate was a mere 35% despite the fact that there are approximately 70 other uses for recycled bottles (McLaren 2008). People also dislike the idea that water- a resource that is available to the public, is being turned into profitable product. Regulatory control is necessary to reduce bottled water consumption, but economic incentives for consumers must also be implemented for this to be a success.

McLaren suggests a few different types of regulatory control with regards to bottled water. She points out that Health Canada is currently considering changes to bottled water regulations and labeling. She argues that consumers should know about ozone content, which is added to water during the treatment process to remove odours, but can actually create carcinogens in water. To fix this, companies would have to properly label how the water is treated and make it well known to the consumer. People are obviously less likely to buy things if there’s a slight chance it might have a negative impact on their health. Another example of this is the bisphenol-a scare last spring, after which many people immediately switched to metal or even glass bottles. This scare affected more than just the bottled water industry as people immediately became skeptical of nearly all plastic products.

An economic incentive would be a water levy, where consumers are charged a fixed amount for each bottle they purchase. This small change in cost is often enough to make people think twice about their purchases. Chicago was the first U.S city to implement a water tax in 2008. The tax amounts to five cents per bottle, and thMce money is put towards maintaining the city’s water infrastructure. This works quite well as people are less likely to buy bottled water and the city benefits by having a surplus of money to keep water infrastructure well maintained. This tax also reduces the amount of plastic bottles that end up in landfills each year since their overall use goes down. (Phillip, 2008).

While regulation is often quite effective as it strictly details what can and cannot be done, economic incentive might be a more valuable tool in this situation. Bottled water consumption is driven by consumers, and regulations will not control their spending habits. It will only control the manufacturing of bottled water. Increasing what consumers must pay will have a great impact on their spending habits overall which will result in an overall reduction in bottled water sales. Technically this is a type of governmental regulation that involves economic incentive but no matter what it is called, the importance is the effect is has on consumer trends and recycling during this time of water scarcity and overuse.

Sources:

McLaren, Diana. "Time to Turn Back to the Tap?". theglobeandmail.com (2008).

Phillip, Jason. "Groundbreaking Bottled Water Tax Raises Dustup in Chicago." www.sustainablog.com (2008).

-Elisabeth Shapiro

The Landfill or the Salmon

     Who or what counts morally is one of the most discussed but never agreed upon topics that I have come across in environmental science so far. This discussion is all part of what is called the ‘Demarcation Problem.’ The Demarcation Problem asks us to list everything that applies morally to an action or idea. There are many different view points that need to be taken into consideration. The ones we will consider fall under consequentialist and non-consequentialist. To answer the Demarcation Problem, we must have an idea of what we consider to count morally.    The article this is being applied to is “Landfill a threat to salmon: conservation group (CBC.CA)” from the CBC. The article talks about The Atlantic Salmon Federation being opposed to a new landfill in northern Newfoundland.

     From a consequentialist point of view (more specifically a utilitarian view,) we consider how many people benefit from both the landfill and the salmon. There are the people who use the landfill by putting garbage out on the curb every week, as well as those whose job it is to take the garbage from the curb to the landfill. If the landfill weren’t to be put in place the garbage would have to go somewhere, so more people and animals would be displaced. On the other side there are the fishermen whose livelihood depends on these salmon. Many people and animals use salmon for food. This point of view literally considers the consequences of taking (or not taking) an action.

     From a non-consequentialist point of view (specifically a deontological view,) we look at the rights of all things affected by this action. From a rights view we argue that the salmon have a right to live, and a right to a healthy habitat. The fishermen also have a right to make a living. But if there are no salmon left, then this isn’t possible. Then there is the idea that rights generate duties. So we have a duty to keep the salmon’s environment as unpolluted as possible. As well there is the duty to not take away a major source of income for the fishermen. But we (the garbage-producers) have rights as well. We don’t really think about it much in our daily lives, but all the waste that we produce has to go somewhere. It is commonly accepted (in many parts of so-called ‘developed nations’) that it isn’t necessary to live our lives surrounded by garbage. We seem to have a right to live a sanitary and unpolluted life, just as much as the salmon do. There is also the right for the garbage collectors to be able to make a living.

     In this example of the landfill and the salmon, there are a couple of things that we seem to consider as ‘counting morally.’ There are the salmon, the fishermen, the environment being changed by the landfill, the consumers and the garbage collectors. Now the question is which ones among these few count the most. Since there are already other landfills in place, the probable (moral) outcome would be to protect the fish.

 

 

References:

 

"CBC News - Nfld. & Labrador - Landfill a threat to salmon: conservation group." CBC.ca - Canadian News. Web. 03 Nov. 2009. .

Dam building by the Chinese government; one dam, three negatively affected countries

An article was recently published in China, entitled simply “China building dam on Brahmputra River” the problem outlined in the article however is far from simple. In this particular case, the issue has many ethical implications that need to be considered. This case involves the damning of a water system in Tibet by the Chinese government. This particular water system (known as the Brahmputra River – or as the Tsangpo River by the people of Tibet) is extremely important to India and Bangladesh due to the fact the river flows into these countries “[the] Brahmaputra River basin is in India…accounts for nearly 30% of the total water resources and about 40% of the total hydropower potential of the country” (The Morung Express, 2009). While the dam is a great resolution to using non renewable sources of energy production for China, the restriction of the water would greatly affect the amount of water India and Bangladesh receive, as well as overrun the area of Tibet where the proposed dam will be built. The Chinese government claims that “could provide cheap electricity for India, Nepal and Bangladesh, and that the dam could facilitate flood control in the Brahmaputra-Ganges basin” and also help to “refill the dying Yellow River, which now runs dry for much of the year” (The Morung Express, 2009). However what China fails to take into consideration is that during the dry season, India and Bangladesh may receive very little to no water run off from the damn controlled waterway. The building of the dam could also cause many problems, such as flooding for the villages and the people who live along the river banks.

In this situation, there are two methods to examine the ethical problem at hand; the consequentialist view and the non- consequentialist view. The consequentialist view entails that the outcomes of an action will determine if set action is morally correct, and an example of this would be utilitarianism which states that “the moral worth of an action is determined solely by its contribution to overall utility: that is, its contribution to happiness”(Business Dictionary, 2009). In this particular example, it can be assessed that the action of building the dam would not be morally correct due to the fact that the results from damning water would not make the vast majority of those it affects ‘happy’. The dam could hinder India and Bangladesh’s water supply during the dry months which is a major issue seeing as the river provides approximately 30% of India’s water resources. This issue could also bring up further tension between the countries concerning water resources.

The other method to examine the issue in this case is the non-consequential view, which involves taking into consideration the method which was used to reach the end result of a problem. An example of this method would be deontology which is an “approach to ethics that determines goodness or rightness from examining acts, rather than the consequences of the act” (Your Dictionary, 2005). In the article, it is mentioned that China has secretly gone about building this dam in neighbouring Tibet “…there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the Zangmu hydroelectric project was inaugurated on March 16 this year and the first concrete was poured on April 2” (The Morung Express, 2009). Therefore the method used is immoral due to the fact that India and Bangladesh were unaware of this dam being proposed and built, and the possible problems it would create for all those living in the immediate areas of the river and those who rely on water from the Brahmputra River.

From examining these two views (consequentialism and non- consequentialism) it can be determined that in this case that this possible solution to creating clean energy is riddled with ethical problems involving several different parties; the people of India, Bangladesh & Tibet. There are two many ethical implications involved in the building of a dam on the Brahmputra River to make up for the positive outcomes that the dam would provide.

Resources
The Morung Express, 2009, “China building dam on Brahmputra River”
October 15th 2009, accessed November 3rd 2009
http://www.morungexpress.com/regional/35424.html

Buissness Dictionary
Accessed November 3rd 2009
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/utilitarianism.html

Your Dictionary
Accessed November 3rd 2009
http://www.yourdictionary.com/deontology

Emily Hartwig

No More Water Permit Process for Washington

In the State of Washington, a policy statement was issued by the department of ecology that states the “Washington resident can collect and store rooftop or guzzler collected rainwater for on-site use without having to go through the permit (water right) process of RCW 90.03.” (Department of Ecology, State of Washington, 2009) For many years in Washington it was required by law to have a water rights permit to use any type of water that was found on, below or above the surface within the state. The guzzlers are a type of equipment that can catch store and provide drinking water for wildlife, when water sources are insufficient. Within this blog article, different types of views and issues about Washington's policy will be discuss and evaluated. These include demarcation problems, utilitarian's view, and deontologist view.

The government of Washington is overcoming the demarcation problem of collecting rainwater because of the science of ecology that is providing facts that in times of insufficient sources of water. Guzzlers can provide much water to organisms in need, such as livestock and wildlife. The department of Ecology in Washington has taken action in fixing water rights policy to make it easier for the residents of Washington to obtain water in a stainable way to better the life of everyone in much easier and accessible manor.

The process of collecting rainwater without having to obtain a permit, has a very strong utilitarian view. This is because without having to go through the struggle of obtaining a permit, all the residents of Washington can very easily use the rain water for many uses instead of wasting water that has been treated. The collecting of rain water is good for the conversation of fresh water resources, the people of washington, and also the many living organisms can benefit from the water guzzlers in times of insufficient water.

The deontologist view of the problem can be obtain from the department of ecology of Washington because they would be more likely to analysis the action the guzzlers have on the relation between the organisms and environment. Such that when people are able to collect rain water without a permit, it will then encourage more people to have a guzzler. This change will have a positive affect on the organisms in harsh environment conditions where there is a lack of water. This would be known as the deontologist view of collecting rain water because the department of ecology will only look at the action of collecting water and not the causes that it may create.

The policy statement issued by the department of ecology in Washington provides a solution to the demarcation problem by providing facts that guzzlers will provide water to livestock and wildlife in time of limited water. The policy of collecting rain water without having to receive a permit provides a utilitarian view because it benefits all forms of life in Washington. Also not having to receive a permit provides a deontologist view because the department of ecology just views this policy as a good action between the organisms and the environment.

Resources:

"Focus on Rainwater Interpretive Policy." Ecy.wa.gov. Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Nov. 2009. <http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0911026.pdf>.

Dunagan, C. "Rainwater harvesting at home given a ‘thumbs up’." Web log post. Kitsap Sun. 15 Oct. 2009. Web. 3 Nov. 2009. <http://pugetsoundblogs.com/waterways/2009/10/15/rainwater-harvesting-at-home-given-a-thumbs-up/>.

Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways

Coal power plants provide electricity to millions of people around the world. Electricity heats our homes, cooks our food and runs every kind of device imaginable. It also pollutes. Air pollution pouring from the huge smokestacks of power plants is a well known occurrence. What is less familiar is the water pollution created through air pollution control. The article Cleansing the Air at the Expense of Waterways by Charles Duhigg focuses on the relationship between these pollutants produced by a power plant on the Monongahela River in Pittsburgh Pennsylvania. When the owner of this plant, Allegheny Energy, installed scrubbers to remove harmful toxins from the air, it seemed as though environmental headway was being made. However, that pollution had to go somewhere, making the Monongahela a dump site for waste water. Now residents of the area and government workers from The Environmental Protection Agency are trying to develop new regulations that prevent not only air pollution but water pollution as well. Instead of altering the form of waste they want to make it mandatory for the plants to install more complete waste treatment facilities.

To determine the most ethically correct course of action we must first determine what entities are affected and what ones are going to be considered morally. Water and air pollution has very widespread effects. For example, air pollution ruins the air quality of the closely surrounding areas, but it also is spread by wind currents to other countries as acid rain. Water pollution of the Monongahela River will introduce harmful toxins to local ecosystems predominately but also to the lakes and other rivers that it feeds. Also, farms that rely on the Monongahela for irrigation will spread toxins in the food to countless areas. These widespread effects make it challenging to decide what components to ethically consider.

We will generally create four distinct groups for consideration of what counts morally; humans, sentient organisms, non-sentient living organisms, and the abiotic components of an ecosystem. For this purpose we will consider all beings classified as animals to be sentient and any protista, archaea, bacteria and plants to be non-sentient. Although it would be ideal to consider the needs of all of the components, that is a next to impossible task. Hopefully by considering the needs of what we deem to be morally significant we will also look after the ecosystem as a whole.

The main dividing point in these two groups seems to be between sentient and non-sentient beings. This is a reasonable division because, as discussed in class, non-sentient beings do not make plans for the future. A rock or a tree will continue to exist without acknowledging changes in pollution levels. Sentient beings on the other hand will notice the changes around them as well as how these changes affect their lives. Using sentient beings as entities of moral significance coincides with the article’s view of the demarcation problem. Charles Duhigg only considers the impact of air and or water pollution on human populations, which most would agree, are the most morally relevant and sentient individuals. His statistics highlight the effects of air pollution on human respiratory disease and the effects of water pollution on drinking water quality. Duhigg does not consider the needs and wants of the ecosystem.

When considering water verses air pollution in relation to humans and animals, consequentialists would probably consider the current pollutant control methods adequate. Consequentialists consider moral action to be right or wrong based on the outcome of the action. Maximizing total happiness is often sufficient reason to proceed with a morally wrong action. The outcomes are considered good or bad depending on how they affect those of moral significance. The outcome of water pollution is not yet known. Even which chemicals are in the pollution is under debate. Air pollution however is known to cause respiratory disease (Duhigg, 2009). Duhigg also explains how current pollution control methods are increasing the happiness of humans: “when Allegheny Energy decided to install scrubbers to clean the plant’s air emissions, environmentalists were overjoyed” (Duhigg, 2009). From the consequentialist point of view it seems as though we are currently in a very happy state which the installation of more expensive pollution control methods is not guaranteed to improve.

The non-consequentialists have an opposite method of judging moral action. From this viewpoint actions are right or wrong in and of themselves. Consequences do not determine whether the cause was right or wrong. Based on this definition, continuing to pollute water is morally wrong. Animals and people as morally valuable beings have a right to a clean environment. By polluting our water or air we compromise this right. Therefore money should be spent to install additional methods of pollution control. The deontologists would argue that it is morally wrong to pollute our environment when we have methods at our disposal to reduce that pollution.

The Environmental Protection Agency is adopting a non-consequentiatist view of coal pollution. They are attempting to initiate regulations that will tell “power plants that they need to genuinely clean up pollution, rather than just shift it from the air to the water.” (Duhigg, 2009) Despite power companies insisting that they have installed the most up to date air and water treatment methods, the EPA has realized that it is ethically wrong to pollute the air and water that morally relevant beings depend on.

- Amy Adair

References

Duhigg, Charles. "Cleaning the Air and the Expense of Waterways." The New York Times 13 October 2009: A1.

Shrinking of Lake Chad an Ethical Issue

The Chad River borders Cameroon, Niger, Nigeria and Chad in Africa and these nations depend upon it for drinking water and agriculture. In the last 40 years Lake Chad has shrunk 90 percent and it is estimated that unless action is taken, it could disappear in the next twenty years. The people inhabiting this region are already impoverished and the loss of their water source will only make their situation worse. The United Nations has finally recognized that “..a humanitarian disaster looms due to the shrinking of the lake and this must be urgently addressed (Castelfranco 2009).” Since experts have recognized the magnitude of this problem, they are currently trying to determine the best way to mitigate some of this damage. In order to get a full grasp of the degree of this problem, it is very important to look at it from all ethical points of view.

The continuous shrinking of Lake Chad poses both a humanitarian and ecological disaster. There are currently millions of people living in the lake basin and 30 to 40 million of these people have already been affected by the loss of this freshwater source. In light of the demarcation problem, we must decide what factors are and aren’t important. The millions of people who are affected by the shrinking of Lake Chad, definitely rank high in terms of importance, as does the entire ecosystem as a whole. The lake is undoubtably home to a number of species, and there are most likely terrestrial animals other than humans who rely on the Lake as their primary water source. It would be ethically wrong to allow these millions of people to suffer through this and do nothing to try to mitigate the damage. The article does offer a solution to part of this problem, as suggested by Parviz Koohafkan, the director of Land and Water division at the FAO:

"Helping the local communities to better use resources, through participatory approach, through development, through capacity building, through helping them in coping with water scarcity, with land degradation, development projects but particularly in investment," (Castelfranco 2009).

Everyone would benefit from this type of education and regulation, including the citizens who rely on Lake Chad, and the ecosystem. It would even help the economy, because so many people rely on Lake Chad for agricultural purposes. These people already live in such impoverished conditions, that this might not have an enormous impact on their standard of living economically, but in terms of basic human rights they require this water and it should be made available to them.

Deontologically, the outcome of preserving Lake Chad is of no importance. From this viewpoint it is important to take action because we are duty bound to help our fellow human beings. These people are very vulnerable and cannot do very much on their own to improve their situation. From this ethical viewpoint, we recognize that these people require our assistance in order to survive this ecological disaster and we grant it to them. It would be wrong not to help our fellow human beings despite whether or not the outcome of preserving a lake is something that is ethically agreed with.

Consequentially, the same action should be taken- that of working to help preserve Lake Chad. It is ethically right to preserve the lake, and by preserving the lake we assist both the organisms who inhabit it and the people who rely on it for their livelihood. The action is right and the consequence is a positive one, therefore consequentialists would work to help preserve Lake Chad

Another possible solution to this problem that has been suggested is to transfer water from the Lake Congo basin to the Lake Chad basin. Deontologically, this route may not be supported as the act of taking water from one basin is not right. It could be compared to stealing water from one to give it to another which is not ethically supported by this viewpoint. Consequentialists may be split over such a suggestion. Doing this could help save Lake Chad, a consequence they would fully support, but it might also degrade the Lake Congo basin which is something that would not be supported by them. Of course this would not be done without extensive research into its feasibility, if it was believed to be feasible, then consequentialists would most likely support this decision.

In Castelfranco’s article, she presents a serious problem- the depletion of Lake Chad water levels and offers possible solutions to it. Though this is effective, she does not explain the situation from different ethical viewpoints. Saving Lake Chad may seem like the straightforward solution to many people, but to others it may be a difficult choice to make given the many different ethical viewpoints that exist today.

Sources:

Castelfranco, Sabina. Experts Look for Ways to Save Lake Chad, (2009). Voice of America, http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-10-16-voa22.cfm

-Elisabeth Shapiro