This midterm was already turned in a graded, and received a 95%. Please do not copy and paste. If used, please give credit.
1. Assume that the influence of corporations on pesticide regulation is significant and negative explain why this is so, what should be done to address this, why it should be done and how (what policies, legislation, civil actions, etc).
The book Pesticide Drift and the Pursuit of Environmental Justice by Jill Lindsey Harrison describes the lingering effects of pesticide use and regulation. However, pesticide use and drift overwhelmingly occur in poorer areas that are racially biased and unbalanced. Corporations have influence over pesticide regulation and are responsible for the bilateral and unjust negative effect that pesticide drift has on poor areas. Corporations are responsible for allocating space and land use associated with pesticide use and drift. Pesticide regulation is having a negative effect on Hispanics and poorer, underprivileged people because they are easily bought out by corporations. Although the land and pesticides are paid for and used by the corporations, the lingering effects such as increased cancer rates, poor overall health, and pollution are not. This effect can be seen through the concept of NIMBY (Not In My BackYard). Corporations are willing and eager to regulate and purchase pesticides for use, however, they are not willing to place the burden on upper class or urban development areas. The pesticide use and drift occurs primarily in rural, Hispanic communities that have little to no financial or educational resources. In order to address this issue, corporations must realize the negative effects that they are having on a disproportionate number of Hispanic Americans and poor communities. Members of pesticide use communities must be educated on the issue and effects of pesticide drift and must have resources to combat the effects of pesticide drift. In order to achieve this, legislation and policies must be passed to ensure unilateral pesticide drift and use effects. Although this seems challenging, corporations could purchase rural, unpopulated land in on which to use pesticides. Although it is far-fetched to urge corporations to stop purchasing and using pesticides due agricultural advancement and our current need for expedited crop and resource production, the harmful and often negative effects can be spatially balanced in order to insure that an unequal number of poor and Hispanic Americans aren’t at the receiving end of all the blows.
There is also a negative effect on the organic produce and harvesting industry, which ultimately prevents the agricultural sector from achieving a solution in order to combat the negative effects of pesticide use. Harrison explains that a farm must be certified organic for 5 years before being able to sell under an organic label. However, pesticide use that occurs on nearby farms has a negative impact on farmers who are attempting to eliminate pesticides from their harvest due to airborne pesticide drift, which ultimately effects their crops. This also illustrates why spatial distribution and legislation to combat the effects of pesticide use is necessary.
3. Explain what decision theory is (see Sarkar) and critique its ability to incorporate ethics into environmental decision making.
Sahotra Sarkar defines decision theory as a way of linking science and ethics in light of uncertainty. There are two different types of decision theory: formal and informal. Informal decision theory provides guidelines for ensuring that ethical issues are discussed during environmental decisions. However, for the purpose of his book Environmental Philosophy, Sarkar does not use the informal definition due to the fact that informal versions are really no more than verbal implementations of formal methods that cannot always be repeated (which is a key feature of decision theory). The formal method of decision theory, which Sarkar does embrace is formal decision theory. In formal decision theory, explicit protocols are developed which combine mathematical and logical techniques, which help evaluate and rank policy options and theory.
Formal decision theory is important when it comes to incorporating ethics into environmental decision making because it provides a ranking system of alternatives and proposed policy, often in light of uncertainty. Decision theory is very useful when it comes to decisions that are made by agents and groups of agents. Formal decision theory allows us to rank proposed environmental policies and compare and contrast them against one another. Essentially, a goal is established and in the context of the goal alternatives exist that can either rank better or worse than the other alternatives involved within the policy decision. The agent then would evaluate the rankings and select the alternative that ranks higher than all the rest. An example of this in action (according to Sarkar) could be the design plans for a city park. One could use the shape of the park as a criterion for ranking them amongst one another.
Decision theory is especially important when it comes to environmental decision making because it provides an outlet for ethical concerns and questions. Furthermore, often times proposed environmental policy has uncertain outcomes which cannot be foreseen. Environmental policies are often blindly implemented in order to achieve a long term goal such as habitat restoration or natural resource extraction. However, planning a habitat restoration, or extracting a resource has consequences that must be ranked against a certain criterion (or multi-criterion in many environmental cases) in order to provide an environmental safety net. Formal decision theory helps eliminate some of the guess work and provides ethical viewpoints in a world of environmental decision making.
4. What role should consideration of environmental justice have in environmental policy and why ?
Environmental justice should be considered in all aspects of environmental policy. Often times, environmental and ecological effects of human consumption and technological advancements are unknown, which is where decision theory comes into play. However, if the environmental effects are undetermined or unknown (which is in the majority of cases), then environmental justice must be considered. Sarkar states that environmental ethics and policy should “extend our moral concern to non-human entities, to individual animals and plants, to entire non-human species, and sometimes even to inanimate objects” (Sarkar, pg. 4). When it comes to resources that are non-renewable, we must consider the long-term effects of their depletion. However, the ultimate effect on the environment is relatively unknown. Due to the unknown sector of environmental policy and implementation, environmental justice must be accepted and preferred.
I believe that Herman E. Daly’s article on environmental policies and sustainable development can shed light on the aforementioned situation. Daly supports a theory that entails having a safety net (environmental receipts) when it comes to environmental resources and ecological technology. Essentially, as a culture, we are too far developed and technologically advanced to halt all production and stop extraction of non-renewable resources. However, with that being said, if one resource is being depleted on an exponential basis, then another resource should be padded and compensated for future use. An example of this would be investing in clean (solar and wind) energy while depleting fossil fuels and crude oil which advance and support our current energy models. These sorts of safety nets should be implemented into environmental policy and resource extraction in order to ensure an environmental balance for future generations.
Environmental justice should also be monitored when it comes to its effects and burdens on people. Corporations such as Monsanto must consider environmental justice when it comes to its line of business and its effects on the environmental community. Rights must not be stripped away from self-sustaining communities and populations. Producing a crop for sustainable use should not be criminalized and agricultural patents must be used with caution. Some communities, as seen in the video Bullshit featuring Vandana Shiva, have access to super crops which require little to no water and which are 7-8 times nutritious as genetically produced and modified crops. However, the people with access to these crops have been bought out and monitored by Monsanto, which only creates more environmental problems.
Although resource extraction and GMO’s may seem sustainable and affordable today, they are not environmentally sustainable for future generations. Due to this, environmental justice must be considered when it comes in implementing environmental policy. If environmental justice (harvesting doesn’t surpass regeneration, sustainable use, non-renewable resources, etc) is considered when drafting and enforcing environmental policy, the long term effects on future generations will be better, and the environment will not be depleted at an unsustainable rate.
No comments:
Post a Comment