A Burning Tire Question

This recent post on the website of the group Energy Justice discusses the implications of burning rubber from discarded tires as fuel for industrial processes, and argues against the practice.

Rubber burned in these processes comes from waste tires that are shredded to become tire-derived fuel, or TDF. This fuel is burnt along with conventional fuels like coal, to power industrial facilities such as cement kilns, pulp and paper mills, incinerators, and power-generation plants, and is generally cheaper than conventional fuels.

One benefit of the practice is that it puts to use the many millions of discarded tires that currently sit in landfills and junkyards throughout the world. According to Energy Justice, 290 million tires are discarded every year in the United States alone. Immense piles of these tires occupy large areas of land. They pose potential threats of large tire yard fires that are often nearly impossible to extinguish.

Facility owners contend that TDF combustion is safe and that its emissions are non-toxic, noting a number of studies and governmental assessments. However, Energy Justice points to other scientific studies that challenge these assessments, finding evidence that TDF combustion releases toxic pollutants. These include dioxins and furans, chlorine-based pollutants, heavy metals and hydrocarbons, all of which are released into the air, posing a danger to human health (particularly to local residents living near the facilities) and to the environment. Energy Justice also speculates that during these governmental assessments, facility owners adjust the combustion operating parameters from normal day-to-day parameters, in order to achieve less toxic emission test results. For these reasons, Energy Justice argues that TDF should not be used in these industrial processes.

When considering who counts morally in this issue, let us look at those who are affected by the operation of, and emissions from TDF-powered facilities. Firstly, owners and employees of these facilities are affected, and thus count. Local residents living near these facilities are also affected and therefore also count. Beyond this, it could be argued that airborne emissions spread over a large area, impacting animals, plants, insects and microscopic biota, as well as the air, water and soil of the ecosystems they inhabit. Energy Justice’s argument includes references to impact on the “health of the environment”. The post also cites remarks by ecologists who comment on toxic effects to ecosystems. Therefore, Energy Justice seems to argue from an ecocentric point of view, claiming that entire ecosystems count morally.

However, ecosystems as a whole can not be shown to have interests of well-being. As such, they can not be harmed, other than harm done to sentient individuals of these systems. Therefore, ecosystems do not have intrinsic value, and should not count morally. In this case, only sentient beings should count morally.

When looking at this issue from a utilitarian perspective, both immediate and long-term consequences deserve consideration. The continued operation of these facilities means immediate happiness for almost all humans who count in the issue. They produce affordable electricity and materials, used by humans in many pleasure-yielding pursuits. They provide employment for people living in the area. They clear yards of old, dangerous tires, freeing valuable land for more pleasurable uses, such as parks, schools or malls. Immediate unhappiness-causing consequences would be limited to potential discomfort from emission odours, if any.

To a utilitarian, the temporal scope of relevant consequences is usually limited. Any pain caused to humans (or other sentient beings) can’t be immediately quantified. Long-term consequences, such as potential illness from prolonged exposure to TDF emissions, would not be relevant in this case. A utilitarian could even argue that without direct proof of guaranteed development of illness, there are little to no pain-causing consequences from these facilities. Therefore, a utilitarian point of view would conclude it is ethically right to allow the operation of TDF-powered facilities.

A deontologist perspective would only consider if TDF-powered operations are right or good acts, in and of themselves, regardless of consequences. As in Kantian ethics, this point of view generally wouldn’t regard ecosystems or even sentient beings other than humans.

Also by virtue of Kantian ethics, anything to be considered right must adhere to moral rules. Moral rules are those which rational agents would freely choose to have govern them. Therefore, a deontologist could ask: would any rational agent who counts morally in the issue choose to have TDF emissions released into the air that they frequently breath? Since local residents already face this situation, let’s instead look at the facility owners. If these emissions are indeed safe, as facility owners contend, then the owners would choose yes, and burning TDF would be morally right. But if the emissions are in fact toxic, as Energy Justice contends, then owners would likely choose no, and the operation of TDF-powered facilities would be morally wrong.

Reference:

http://www.energyjustice.net/tires/