Value and the Environment
Environmental Ethics: an essay on the Responsibility to Value
by Jon Scott
Phil 310
In a time where frightening truths seem to be at every turn and even at every straight-away for our progressive society, no facts seem more abysmal than the ones presented in Bill McKibben’s 2012 article, Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, about the anthropogenic effects of carbon dioxide emissions in our fragile planet and efforts to sustain these projects. Research suggests that the Earth has a capacity to hold no more than 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to ensure a temperature and sea-level appropriate climate. Fossil fuel companies who invest in coal, oil and natural gas are said to have identified enough fuel resources to emit roughly five times (2,795 gigatons) the amount of carbon dioxide than the Earth is thought to be able to effectively absorb. These fuel reserves are estimated to be $27 trillion in worth. With such incentive as these, companies will likely insist, cajole and threaten to attain these assets; how disturbing. But what is more disturbing than these facts and estimations is the value system adopted by the many in charge of these companies to will such consequences into reality.
The quantities of these numbers are transparent when evaluating our moral obligation to ensure the integrity of the ecosystems in peril. For instance, even if the Earth’s capacity of CO2 absorption was 10,000 gigatons and the reserves had the potential to emit 10 gigatons of CO2, we could not conclude that such acts of aggression against the biotic community are morally permissible. I hold as my firm position on this matter that we, as members of the biotic community, have a moral obligation not to extract and use these resources in consequence of putting humanity’s short-term interests as a priority over the telos driven and self-valuing members who comprise the rest of our community.
In a discussion about morality and how this concept influences
by Jon Scott
Phil 310
In a time where frightening truths seem to be at every turn and even at every straight-away for our progressive society, no facts seem more abysmal than the ones presented in Bill McKibben’s 2012 article, Global Warming’s Terrifying New Math, about the anthropogenic effects of carbon dioxide emissions in our fragile planet and efforts to sustain these projects. Research suggests that the Earth has a capacity to hold no more than 565 gigatons of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to ensure a temperature and sea-level appropriate climate. Fossil fuel companies who invest in coal, oil and natural gas are said to have identified enough fuel resources to emit roughly five times (2,795 gigatons) the amount of carbon dioxide than the Earth is thought to be able to effectively absorb. These fuel reserves are estimated to be $27 trillion in worth. With such incentive as these, companies will likely insist, cajole and threaten to attain these assets; how disturbing. But what is more disturbing than these facts and estimations is the value system adopted by the many in charge of these companies to will such consequences into reality.
The quantities of these numbers are transparent when evaluating our moral obligation to ensure the integrity of the ecosystems in peril. For instance, even if the Earth’s capacity of CO2 absorption was 10,000 gigatons and the reserves had the potential to emit 10 gigatons of CO2, we could not conclude that such acts of aggression against the biotic community are morally permissible. I hold as my firm position on this matter that we, as members of the biotic community, have a moral obligation not to extract and use these resources in consequence of putting humanity’s short-term interests as a priority over the telos driven and self-valuing members who comprise the rest of our community.
In a discussion about morality and how this concept influences
Cited: Baxter, William. People or Penguins: The Case of Optimal Pollution. Page 226. 1974. Web. http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Env_Ethics_Sp_2012/Baxter_Case_for_Optimal_Pollution.pdf Callicott, J. Baird. Holistic Environmental Ethics and the Problem of Ecofascism. Page 125. 1999. Web. http://akbar.marlboro.edu/~wedelglass/Edelglass,%20Osher.%2010.18.%20Reading%202.%20Baird%20Callicott,%20Holistic%20Environmental%20Ethics%20and%20the%20Problem%20of%20Ecofascism.pdf Leopold, Aldo. Thinking Like a Mountain. 1949. Web. http://www.eco-action.org/dt/thinking.html Leopold, Aldo. Environmental Ethics: The Big Question. Pages 193,194,200. 2010. UK. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Book. Rolston III, Holmes. Environmental Ethics: The Big Question. Pages 131,134. 2010. UK. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Book. Singer, Peter. Environmental Ethics: The Big Question. Page 171. 2010. UK. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Book.