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
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
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
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
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
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)