Friday, October 30, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
by request
Is sustainable development compatible with human welfare?
The purpose of this essay is to argue both that sustainable development is and is not compatible with human welfare. In order to make this argument, first, I will define sustainability. Second, I will provide reasons for why it’s problematic within the context of environmental ethics. Third, I’ll discuss the benefits of sustainability. Finally, I’ll conclude that there’s not enough evidence to make a definitive determination.
Sustainable development has been defined by
Sustainability has the following complications: to truly live sustainably, there would have to be certain “mandatory minimums” in place—these could be minimums in terms of carbon, number of people on the planet, aggregate number of resources used, etc. For population, for example, Jared Diamond explains that population is one of 12 variables that are necessary to control in order to live more sustainably. Every new person has/makes demands on the planet’s resources. How then are we to achieve population reduction? Simply asking people to limit the number of children will be fruitless (pun intended). It would seem that some type of government programs that is enforceable would be necessary. There would also need to be a regulatory apparatus that enforce (police), adjudicate (courts) and punish (penal systems). Even if all of this was in place, however, the US could not enforce this across international boundaries. Thus, sustainability is problematic because it has the potential to undermine democratic processes and institutions. Any enforcement of population laws, for example, would necessarily conflict with broad democratic principles.
Sustainability does have advantages. Most importantly, if environmentalists are correct, then we are at a potentially species threatening juncture. Valuing human life, it seems to be an intrinsic good for the human population to survive. That said, even if these estimates are overblown, it cannot be denied that we’re facing extreme ecological conditions which adversely impact us. For example, the number of landfills that are at or near capacity has dramatically increased in the last 15 years. Consequently, well water and underground leakage has commensurately increased. This has placed people, particularly the economically disadvantaged, in an even more vulnerable position, as cancer rates (testicular, breast, bone) have radically increased.
ANOTHER EXAMPLE HERE. In sum, the benefit of living more sustainably is creating more healthy living environments and possibly thwarting ecological calamity.
Given the consequence to democracy, and the threat of extinction, there are no easy choices to be made. I don’t think that this question has a correct answer. There are simply too many variables and too many conflicting deontological interests. How does one, for example, weigh clean air against the possibility of electing officials that discharge the will of the people? Or, how can we accurately asses, “weigh” or measure clean water, lower cancer rates, etc., against the fact that we may be beyond the tipping point? We simply do not have the tools to make an accurate assessment of the issue.
Finally, I’ve argued that sustainability has pros and cons. At this juncture, frankly, I’m not sure what I believe. We simply do not have enough evidence to make an accurate determination of the issue.
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Friday, October 23, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Coal
read
"In 2005, Congress set about finding out just what these external
costs of energy production and use amount to. It requested that the
National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Science)
attempt to place a number on them. On Monday, the NRC released its
report: “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy
Production and Use.”
"First, note that the report did not attempt to quantify the damage to
ecosystems and agriculture wrought by climate change. It did not
attempt to quantify the national security costs of securing energy
supplies. It did not attempt to quantify the land-use costs of
biofuels. It didn’t attempt to quantify the costs of mercury
pollution, which as Bill Chameides documents, are substantial. It
didn’t attempt to quantify the impact on taxpayers that subsidies to
the coal industry impose.
"So a huge chunk of costs were written out, meaning the results are
extremely small-c conservative. Nonetheless, the NRC found that hidden
costs amounted to $120 billion in 2005.
"Of that $120 billion, a whopping $62 billion—over half—came from one
source: coal-fired electricity plants."
"In 2005, Congress set about finding out just what these external
costs of energy production and use amount to. It requested that the
National Research Council (part of the National Academy of Science)
attempt to place a number on them. On Monday, the NRC released its
report: “Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy
Production and Use.”
"First, note that the report did not attempt to quantify the damage to
ecosystems and agriculture wrought by climate change. It did not
attempt to quantify the national security costs of securing energy
supplies. It did not attempt to quantify the land-use costs of
biofuels. It didn’t attempt to quantify the costs of mercury
pollution, which as Bill Chameides documents, are substantial. It
didn’t attempt to quantify the impact on taxpayers that subsidies to
the coal industry impose.
"So a huge chunk of costs were written out, meaning the results are
extremely small-c conservative. Nonetheless, the NRC found that hidden
costs amounted to $120 billion in 2005.
"Of that $120 billion, a whopping $62 billion—over half—came from one
source: coal-fired electricity plants."
Monday, October 19, 2009
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)