1. Explain why the increased number of people likely to perform a certain type of action can change the ethics of performing that action. Illustrate with two very specific examples of types of actions, or aspects of lifestyle, that may have been acceptable when the world contained fewer people, but must be restricted today due to the increased population, explaining, in each case, why the actions would have been acceptable at an earlier time, but should not be considered acceptable at this time. Use examples relating to the environment which have not already been used in class to illustrate this point.

Joshua Shelton

As our species quickly approaches the turn of the century, we frequently come face to face with the reality that the planet can only sustain a limited amount of human activity. In the past, when population was relatively low, certain potentially destructive behaviors were not thought of as having any unethical implications. Even when done collectively, these actions were not enough to greatly affect the overall environment, because more than enough resources were available to sustain the number of humans. As the population base rose, however, and more and more people began to behave in such a manner, the impact on the environment greatly increased. Consequently, these one-time ethically acceptable behaviors, soon evolved into those of serious moral concern.

The high levels of resources consumption which characterize most industrial nations had never been ethically contemplated until very recently. In earlier times, when population was relatively small, the amount of consumption per individual was never of any concern. Despite the large amount of waste which was being generated the environment was adequately able to absorb the impact of such behaviors. Today, the human population is projected to reach 6 billions by 1999 (Miller, 1995). Yet, despite this proliferation of offspring, the consumption rate per person has continued to rise. Thus, environmental impact of this lifestyle is very extreme, due to the number of participating individuals. As Jim Bell (1996, p. 19) explains, "Based on contemporary levels of consumption and waste, the average person in the U.S. has 20-100 times more negative impact on the world's ecology". As a result, individual consumption has evolved from being a question containing little ethical relevancy, to one of severe moral significance.

The same ethical transition can be seen in the use of certain technologies. For instance, when the automobile was first invented, questions concerning the ethics of its use were virtually unheard of. As more and more people purchased automobiles, however, the large amount of fossil fuel use began to pollute the air at a devastating rate. More and more roads were also required. Consequently, the increased collective use of automobiles and the harsh consequences associated with it, gradually changed the ethics of this action. Now, the excessive reliance upon the automobile is being seriously reconsidered due to the grave environmental impact of its use. As time goes on, many more actions which at one time seemed to be ethically sound or irrelevant, will be reconsidered, due to the severe collective consequences of an ever increasing population.

References: Miller, G.T. (1995). Environmental Science: Working With the Earth, Belmont, Wadsorth.

Bell, J. (1996) "Economics: Exposing the myth of Economy vs Ecology".

[This paper gives a good explanation of the issues important to topic #1. However, it gives only one (good) example, as opposed to the two called for by the topic. So it was graded down slightly for that omission.]

2. Explain what ecological sustainability is. Mention two important respects in which our current lifestyle is not ecologically sustainable, explaining why these are examples of ways the lifestyle is not ecologically sustainable. Use examples which have not already been discussed in class. Briefly explain what might be done in order to bring our lifestyle into accord with ecological sustainability in the area of these examples. Give at least one valuative practical reason and one ethical reason for making the change, identifying which reason is the practical one and which is the ethical one. You may also need to give a brief explanation of your identification of the different reasons as practical or ethical.

Tiffany Wright

Long before the appearance of cars, housing developments, and shopping centers human beings lived much like other species. Their means of survival was through cooperation with nature, rather than domination over it. "Only in the past few centuries have we drifted away from this Earth-centered, more humble view of humankind to the human-centered view" (Chiras, et al., p. 28). Moving in a sustainable directions does not necessarily mean we have to give up all of our material possessions and resort to a nomadic lifestyle. It simply means we have to develop new ways of functioning as we do now.

One of the most damaging aspects of our current lifestyle is our heavy reliance upon fossil fuels. Not only does their use contribute to the pollution of our air, but there has also been evidence that increased levels of carbon in the atmosphere can lead to harmful climatic changes (Chiras, et al., p. 43). Since alternative sources of energy have already been discovered, our main goal should be to implement their use. Solar heating and electric powered cars need to be as commonplace as fast food restaurants.

Another problem with our lifestyle lies in our current methods of waste disposal. Toxic emissions form incinerators and a growing shortage of suitable landfill sites could be reduced if many of these wastes were reused instead of discarded (Chiras, et al., pp 432-33). Recycling of paper, glass, aluminum, and plastics should be made mandatory. Organic materials should be used as fertilizers, rather than being ultimately flushed into our oceans.

As our supply of natural resources dwindles and pollution of our environment becomes increasingly evident, we must keep in mind that ecological sustainability may be our only hope of maintaining our present conditions. In a practical sense, no one wants to be made sick from the water they drink or the air they breathe. In an ethical one, we owe it both to future generations and other species to leave the world as close as possible to the way in which we found it.

Reference: Chiras, Daniel D. and Owen, Oliver S., Natural Resource Conservation: Management for a Sustainable Future, Prentice-Hall, Inc. New Jersey, 1995, pp 1-565

Kiki Abordo

Simply put, ecological sustainability reflects the concepts of balance, equality and continuity. Theoretically, it is all mankind living harmoniously within Earth's naturally balanced system. However, the very existence of this term rests on the historical fact that man's influence tends only to upset the equilibrium of systems. Ecological sustainability is a goal. It is using earth's resources to adequately and comfortably meet present man's needs without overwhelming the system's capacity to repair, rejuvenated or reproduce it's reserves, thereby sustaining adequate support of future life as well. Our current lifestyle is unsustainable for many reasons, two of which are: 1) the ever-increasing global population and 2) overconsumption by the elite wealthy (Daly, p. 329). The combined effects of these two issues have multiplied the rate of depletion of vital finite resources, as well as intensified the gnarled complexities of social injustices and unrest. "1/4 of the world population lives in industrialized nations and consumes 80% of the world's goods" (Des Jardins, p. 58). The planet can not support the entire human population in the same glutinous style to which Americans are accustomed--though every nation has the right to try...and they do. This is the heart of unsustainability. Currently, there still exists ample resources to comfortably provide for all. Rather than producing and consuming more quantity in order to bridge the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots", balance can be reclaimed by redistribution of the unequal accumulation of wealth and maintained via maximum/minimum income levels as well as a maximum limit on wealth (Daly, pp. 325-379). My practical reason for believing wholeheartedly in this approach is that every human being is part of the ecosystem and so it is in accord with everyone's interest of self-preservation. The ethical reason is that because man is part of the whole system, rather than observing competition against each other, he should not have all while another has none because this imbalance will destroy the whole ecosystem--plants, animals, water, soil, future life all have moral standing.

References: Daly, Herman. "Valuing the Earth", 1993

Des Jardins, Joseph. "Environmental Ethics" second edition

[The explanation of sustainability is outstanding in this paper. The examples are appropriate. But neither is developed as well as it could be. Not much is said about the increasing population problem, but everyone knows that is not sustainable indefinitely. The problem of unfair distribution of resources is developed primarily as a problem of justice, rather than a problem for sustainability. However, excellent use could have been made of this example to illustrate an unsustainable feature of our present (global) lifestyle. Extreme poverty is almost as hard on the biosphere as is extreme overconsumption.]

4. Explain the notion of True Cost Pricing (TCP). Give one detailed example illustrating a common item which is not priced according to true cost pricing at this time. Use an example which has not already been mentioned in class or in the reading. Explain briefly why you say it is not priced according to TCP. Explain exactly what costs would be reflected in the item's cost if it were priced according to TCP.

Doug Anderson

The old concept of "you reap what you sow" is getting a modern update for application in today's environmentally conscious arena with such innovative techniques and concepts as exemplified by the proposed use of TCP. "True Cost Pricing or Full Cost Pricing is a free market strategy aimed at integrating the principles of ecologically sustainability with economically sound business practices." In layman's terms, it is saying "you should pay what it really costs".

The ecological balance of the earth as a biosphere has become more precarious in the past quarter century with growing populations consuming more, and increased powerful technologies harvesting natural resources at increasing speed and efficiency. With the public exposure now available with mass media, almost everyone is aware that there is a world ecological problem. But, to date, the average person has only been confronted and offered the most basic and rudimentary of requested participation to help resolve this problem which is nothing less than a real threat to continued human existence. Sure, I can separate my plastics from paper to recycle, and I can use bio-degradable Amway soap, but I have never thought that just doing this could save the world. But what more could I do?

Enter TRUE COST PRICING: a very feasible and consumer applicable technique to encourage irresponsible manufacturers to be more accountable, curb blatant consumerism, and provide income reserves and cash pools to heal the ecology. For example, take recreational alcoholic beverage consumption. That $1.50 for a six-pack of beer does not really nearly account for all its' true costs to the ecology, impact on economic production, and the overall well being of our citizenry. Costs not currently included in the six-pack would be depletion of aluminum to make the cans, fuel pollutants and wear and tear on the nation's infra-structures from distribution vehicles, cost of health care from alcohol related diseases, increased law enforcement cost to taxpayers related to DUI activity, and loss of national productivity in the workplace from employee absences or accidents due to alcohol consumption. None of these items are presently incorporated into the consumer cost of that six-pack, but yet they are to be paid in some manner by someone. Generally speaking, we all pay for these related alcohol expenses through higher taxes whether we use the product or not. To be truly accurate on the cost of that six-pack, all of the above mentioned expenses would have to be included into its' consumer pricetag.

Our text mentioned that "the people who purchase ecologically harmful and non-recyclable products would pay for any health, cleanup, ..." This sounds appropriate, but our text gave no measures for effective implementation. One possible implementation technique might be to print on the product a breakdown on a per cost basis, the extra items of expense, of each category. This could provide general education to notify consumers of non-cooperating manufacturers, offer information to consumers to evaluate rationally if a certain product is worth the cost of consumption, and encourage manufacturers to be more economically and environmentally competitive.

GOOD ECOLOGY=GOOD SENSE=GOOD LIFE.

[This paper has some minor difficulties, but good understanding of the general idea. And I thought the comparison of TCP costs with nutritional information was an idea worth sharing.]

Todd Reynolds

The notion of True Cost Pricing (TCP) is based on the idea that the worth (cost) of a commodity or service is not necessarily the same as the price for which it can be sold. The 'True Cost' in TCP involves not only the direct cost of materials, labor and overhead but also the cost of replacing the resources which have been altered or displaced by the procurement of the necessary items used up in manufacturing, transporting, packaging and advertising of the product and/or service. Another aspect of the 'True Cost' in TCP is the cost of repairing damage related to the processes involved in creating or disposing of a product.

To illustrate TCP, the life of a typical bottle of water will be analyzed. The first step in creating a bottle of water is to create the package. This package typically consists of a plastic bottle, plastic cap and waxed paper or plastic label. These items are created by extracting certain elements from the environment. This is a one way process and there is currently no cost associated with the replacement or rejuvenation of these elements, only the cost of extraction and transportation is considered. The next step is processing (creating the plastic) which involves machinery putting out gasses (pollution) into the environment to which there is no cost currently attached for the cleanup and medical expense created. These plastics are then changed into their respective shapes, sizes and colors which involves more processing with effects as above. These items are then shipped to the bottler for filling and assembly into a bottle of water. This water, however, is not straight for the tap, it also must go through a purification and/or distillation process. During this process minerals and potential contaminants are removed from the water yielding approximately one gallon for every five processed or worse. Such processes cause a greater strain on the environment providing the water, whether it be an aquifer or an aqueduct. The depletion of ground water or diverting of water supplies is not calculated into the cost of this water nor are the hidden costs to the ecosystems that depend on this water. Once the water has been purified it is often remineralized for just the right balance of individual minerals which affects the 'taste' of the water. These minerals must also be extracted from somewhere causing resource deportation from the extraction area. No cost is associated with this as with the plastics. The final packaged bottle of water is then distributed to stores and warehouses for sale. In many of these steps the items are being transported from one location or another, this causes the burning of fossil fuels which depletes them and also pollutes the air causing damage to the environment and medical expense due to various lung cancers, etc.. These costs are also not included in the price of a bottle of water. Last of all in the life of a bottle of water is it's disposal. Most bottles are not reused and the majority are not even recycled, this causes a burden on our landfills and the environment. The small amount that become litter coupled with the fact that plastics are non-biodegradable means the environment will be impacted by them for a long, long time, another cost not counted.

If the notion of TPC were used in the pricing of products as bottled water one would think that everything would be far too expensive to purchase. However, if this were the case, other more environmentally friendly products would be produced at a cost not only acceptable to people but the ecology as well. The basis of TCP is: any product too costly to purchase under True Cost Pricing is too costly to produce.

[This paper contained the following note: "Note: The information contained herein to bottled water production has been obtained during my employ in the field from Aug.1989 to Nov. 1996.]

5. Explain the difference between a descriptive empirical statement and a causal empirical statement. Give two examples of different forms of each type of statement. Explain normal scientific procedures of establishing causal connections. Explain the particular difficulties of establishing causal connections when: a) the effect is temporally removed from the cause; b) the cause is only one factor increasing the probability of the effect occurring; and c) the situation is relatively isolated (we do not have much experience with situations of the type we are trying to understand). Illustrate each of your major points with an example relevant to environmental issues.

Craig Kelso

A descriptive empirical statement (des) merely states what is, as in the case of natural reality. A des could point out facts about population size for example. A causal empirical statement (ces) refers to a relationship between action (man-made or otherwise) and phenomena. Trying to establish more than just correlation (an almost anecdotal proof which can often be construed as coincidental), a ces seeks to convey a direct and answerable formula to happenings.

Science uses empirical statements to judge the natural world. For my purposes, science first makes a descriptive statement about whatever problem it wishes to study. Secondly, the scientific method uses controls (isolating variables of one kind or another) to achieve the causal statement or conclusion. Falsification is the cornerstone of scientific thought. If an experiment cannot be duplicated by another scientist, so that others might study the same field and expand or restrict the bound of earlier work, the initial study is usually discarded. Thus we come upon an inherent barrier when science studies environmental problems. In the case of causality and the effects of automobile pollution, the ozone layer, or the cumulative effect of world-wide deforestation, immediate and testable impacts might not be forthcoming. Because our existence has, compared to the earth's lifetime, been so short and our scientific reasoning even shorter, we cannot be certain about the impact all of these occurrences are having on the biosphere (the effects or impact might also be thousands of years in the future).

We do know, for example, that the earth's temperature has been rising. Using the foundations of science, we can make some educated guesses about why this occurring. Certain chemicals when produced and released into the air, rise and gather at some point in our atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels, uses of aerosols, and the natural occurrences like volcanoes all act in a poisonous direction upward. The fact that we cannot practically have a control group (in this case a comparable one would be another planet with the same dimensions and so forth) does not preclude us from taking prudent steps in the likelihood of disaster. Proof, in this instance, is probability. No, it is not the most comforting method to use. But at the same time limited empiricisms are all we have to go by, and there is much more to be gained by being careful than by being wrong.