http://capefearbusiness.com/?p=3162
Land is a precious resource that is in limited supply. One of the biggest problems with solid waste disposal is finding enough space to safely contain all the trash that we produce. In order to address this issue waste management programs in developed countries have established a number of recycling and composting programs. The purpose of these programs is to divert as much waste as possible from sanitary landfill sites in order to extend their “life expectancy”. Despite the existence of well established recycling and composting programs some members of the general public choose not sort their waste. In response some local governing bodies have chosen to implement regulatory laws that crack down on these individuals.
For residents of North Carolina, as of October 1st 2009, a law was passed that makes it illegal to dispose of plastic containers in the garbage. The law applies more to municipalities and companies that handle waste disposal, however it still requires residents to sort their trash and bring their bottles to recycling facilities. North Carolina has some of the largest plastic processing plants. Landfills will be inspected periodically, but individuals are only going to be given a large fine if they are found disposing large amounts of plastic containers. However this ban poses a problem for residents that live in municipalities which do not have an established curb side recycling program or convenient access to recycling facilities. Some individuals have to drive their plastic waste over long distances in order to reach recycling facilities. The goal of this ban is to increase the number of plastic bottles recycled in the state. Due to the inconvenience of recycling for some individuals, and the lack of strictness towards imposing this new law it is reasonable to contemplate whether a more effective incentive can be implemented.
Another approach that could be taken towards implementing this law is providing economic incentives for companies and even residences. The law that plastic containers are to be banned from trash should still be upheld; however instead of applying a penalty, a reward could be instated instead that is using a carrot instead of a stick. On the individual level, plastic bottles could be collected in a system similar to beer bottle collection. Residents could be given a small sum of money per plastic container. These containers could be returned to special collection facilities. Another form of economic incentive that could apply to large companies could be a tax rebate or a tax reduction based on the amount of plastic recycled in a year. The companies and individuals could be paid money for recycling rather than having to pay a fine if caught not recycling.
I personally believe that the most effective system would be a combination of both regulatory control and economic incentives. Since North Carolina has some of the largest plastic processing plants already established, the new plastic recycling load should be relatively easy to accommodate. In addition, for areas that do not already have established recycling programs this law will provide impetus and ultimately result in more jobs. Since it would be highly inefficient to establish expensive surveillance systems to constantly monitor the plastic content of the trash, economic incentives should be provided. These incentives, such as small monetary sums or tax deductions, persuade people on the individual level to follow the law for reward rather than for fear of punishment. That being said a large monetary penalty should also be established in order to discourage individuals for whom the reward is not a sufficient incentive. This penalty should also be strictly enforced if an individual is caught.
In reality when trying to implement environmental change, both regulatory control and economic incentives offer positives and negatives. In certain situations one may be preferential over the other. However in this scenario, a combination of both regulatory control and economic incentives offer the optimal situation for both the local municipalities and residents.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
Monday, November 2, 2009
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/
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/
Landfill Expansion and its Ethical Dimensions
As time evolves and we continue to produce more waste, we are subsequently running out of room for this garbage. Large waste removal industries have found solutions for this issue, but unsurprisingly, residential communities are not happy about it. Plans have yet to be finalized as to whether the current landfill in the Californian city Simi Valley will be expanded or not, but it is obvious that the majority of the reasoning behind this delay comes from the various potential impacts (including economical and environmental). The article “Concerns over landfill expansion bubbling up”, (October 2009) by Carissa Marsh describes the opposing viewpoints of the argument and how the impacts, both positive and negative, affect each party.
When analysing this specific situation, it is important to differentiate who or what counts morally, therefore leading to the demarcation problem. Of course this is not a simple question, considering there are three main conflicting groups with three contrasting views. The garbage company who is heading the expansion believes that it is humans who count morally. By increasing the size of the landfill, more jobs will arise, more money will be made, and humans will still have a place to dispose of their garbage. In their mind, these benefits outweigh the other opposing negative impacts, creating an anthropocentric view point. The local residential members living within the area of the proposed landfill also have taken a stand which is human morally based, but for the opposite reasons. They believe the landfill augmentation will hurt their community’s overall happiness in terms of increased traffic, visual impacts, and odours. The remaining group is environmentally based and believes that the health and the well-being of the environment is what morally count, leading to a biocentric holistic perspective. The addition of the land fill will cause an increase in pollution and destruction of land.
After distinguishing the various morals involved in this argument, an ethical decision has the potential to be made. Unfortunately this will not come easy seeing that there are two “schools” of ethical theory. From a consequentialist point of view, the decision would be based on likely outcomes, and more specifically how many people would benefit from the existence or non-existence of the expanded landfill. If the plans for the landfill were to go through, humans would benefit economically. More workers would be needed to run the site and to transport the garbage. Also, the waste removal industry itself would be increasing their profit. Lastly, humans would temporarily have no need to worry about not having a place for their waste. On the other end of the spectrum, if plans for the landfill were ceased, residents would not be succumbed to increased truck traffic and wear and tear on the highway, the aesthetics of their community would not be compromised, and there would be no unwanted odours.
From a non-consequentialist’s viewpoint, the rights of the parties involved have to be considered. The locals have the right to a happy and healthy life, which includes a positive visual image of their neighbourhood and prevention of pollution due to an increase in truck traffic. In comparison, the operators of the company who are in favour of the expansion also have the right to allow their business to prosper. Another set of rights that need to be taken into consideration are those of future generations. They are entitled to a clean and healthy planet and environmentalists argue that the transportation and burying of garbage included in this hypothetical landfill would prevent this.
By exploring the different ethical dimensions implied by the author, it is evident that a lot has to be taken into consideration when making an ethical decision. When determining whether or not continuation of this landfill expansion should be allowed, not only does the demarcation problem come into effect, consesquetialism versus non-consequentialism views play a major role as well.
Reference
Marsh, C. (2009) Concerns over landfill expansion bubbling. 23 October 2009. http://www.simivalleyacorn.com/news/2009-10-23/Front_Page/Concerns_over_landfill_expansion_bubbling_up.html. Accessed 2 November 2009.
When analysing this specific situation, it is important to differentiate who or what counts morally, therefore leading to the demarcation problem. Of course this is not a simple question, considering there are three main conflicting groups with three contrasting views. The garbage company who is heading the expansion believes that it is humans who count morally. By increasing the size of the landfill, more jobs will arise, more money will be made, and humans will still have a place to dispose of their garbage. In their mind, these benefits outweigh the other opposing negative impacts, creating an anthropocentric view point. The local residential members living within the area of the proposed landfill also have taken a stand which is human morally based, but for the opposite reasons. They believe the landfill augmentation will hurt their community’s overall happiness in terms of increased traffic, visual impacts, and odours. The remaining group is environmentally based and believes that the health and the well-being of the environment is what morally count, leading to a biocentric holistic perspective. The addition of the land fill will cause an increase in pollution and destruction of land.
After distinguishing the various morals involved in this argument, an ethical decision has the potential to be made. Unfortunately this will not come easy seeing that there are two “schools” of ethical theory. From a consequentialist point of view, the decision would be based on likely outcomes, and more specifically how many people would benefit from the existence or non-existence of the expanded landfill. If the plans for the landfill were to go through, humans would benefit economically. More workers would be needed to run the site and to transport the garbage. Also, the waste removal industry itself would be increasing their profit. Lastly, humans would temporarily have no need to worry about not having a place for their waste. On the other end of the spectrum, if plans for the landfill were ceased, residents would not be succumbed to increased truck traffic and wear and tear on the highway, the aesthetics of their community would not be compromised, and there would be no unwanted odours.
From a non-consequentialist’s viewpoint, the rights of the parties involved have to be considered. The locals have the right to a happy and healthy life, which includes a positive visual image of their neighbourhood and prevention of pollution due to an increase in truck traffic. In comparison, the operators of the company who are in favour of the expansion also have the right to allow their business to prosper. Another set of rights that need to be taken into consideration are those of future generations. They are entitled to a clean and healthy planet and environmentalists argue that the transportation and burying of garbage included in this hypothetical landfill would prevent this.
By exploring the different ethical dimensions implied by the author, it is evident that a lot has to be taken into consideration when making an ethical decision. When determining whether or not continuation of this landfill expansion should be allowed, not only does the demarcation problem come into effect, consesquetialism versus non-consequentialism views play a major role as well.
Reference
Marsh, C. (2009) Concerns over landfill expansion bubbling. 23 October 2009. http://www.simivalleyacorn.com/news/2009-10-23/Front_Page/Concerns_over_landfill_expansion_bubbling_up.html. Accessed 2 November 2009.
Nuclear waste problems
Nuclear power is a tricky issue and society is hypocritical about their stance on its usage. On the one hand it’s able to provide energy for our everyday needs while relieving some of the dependency on fossil fuels, which has well known negative effects on the environment. However when it comes to the problem of storing the nuclear waste, no one wants to be responsible. We push it onto someone else’s shoulders, who push it onto others, and when there’s nowhere willing to take on the burden and the hype the government must step in. An article by Michael Wild “Hunt for nuclear waste dumps” details the nuclear waste dilemmas in Britain where the government is hard pressed to find a community willing to house a pocket of nuclear waste.
To try and solve this issue and make it more appealing to local communities the government has proposed a number of inducements as compensation, “a share of a £25m payout over the next 10 years, if the local council gives permission for an existing waste dump to be extended” (Wild 2008). The ethical issue with this solution is that it plays more like a bribe than an answer. It raises a number of questions like, are the affects on the local people being accurately considered when there is such a large sum of money in the balance? Community councils may be willing to agree to a nuclear waste storage site simply because they want the money without properly gauging the impacts it would have on their communities. Especially since these plans also include the high level radioactive waste, “which will remain toxic for 250,000 years,” (Wild 2008). The health risks of any leaks are should be considered; communities may be willing to accept the £25m without proper knowledge of what they are fully agreeing to. Therefore from an ethics point of view offering large sums of money to entice communities into storing nuclear waste is not the right thing to do.
From a utilitarian point of view, that large some of money could guarantee the happiness of a large amount of people. If a community had £25m at their disposal they would be able to upgrade and provide better services for their people. For example upgrades in schools and youth programs or welfare. However many people are not happy with a nuclear waste site anywhere near their community. They are afraid of the health risks and the inevitable falls in property value and the stereotypes and press that will come along with that £25m. Therefore its hard to determine what a utilitarian standpoint would be since it is difficult to gauge the overall happiness £25m can bring versus the negative effects of having the waste will cause. However it is easier to argue this solution from a utilitarian standpoint because of the minutely small possibility of any health affects, “It is mixed with cement, packed in steel containers and then left underground in huge concrete vaults,” (Wild 2008)
Overall I believe this issue needs more debate, offering money for storage space does seem very suspicious, but public hype on nuclear waste won’t easily convince a community it is acceptable unless there is a very large payback. Educating the public may help but there are too many stories in pop culture and also events in past history that would slow the progress. Making education too slow of a process to be considered for an issue that needs to be solved relatively quickly. However educating communities that might be willing to accept the money about the adverse affects it might have not just on health but also on their trade and property values should be the best method.
Resources:
Wild, Michael. Hunt for Nuclear Waste Dumps. BBC. January 17, 2008. Accessed October 29, 2009, from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/politics_show/7192291.stm
Controversies of expanding a landfill over an aquifer
The residents of Northampton and Easthampton are currently trying to vote on whether or not the Glendale Landfill (an already existing landfill) should be expanded or not. There are some controversial issues surrounding this proposed action. First of all, the landfill would be expanded over the Barnes Aquifer which is a public drinking supply for four cities and towns in the region. However, the existing landfill is said to reach capacity in 2011, and if it is expanded, it will give the landfill an extra twenty years of life. The Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory and the residents are all mostly in agreement that the landfill should not be expanded over their aquifer. The people who would be in charge of building the expansion of the landfill and some politicians and residents are for it. This controversial problem is described by Dan Crowley in an article called “Controversial landfill question on ballot Tuesday”.
The group of people who are for the expansion of the landfill take more of an anthropocentric view, because they are only thinking about the well being of humans in this situation. The expansion of the landfill would provide many more jobs for people to construct it and they are looking for a fast and simple solution as to where we can put our garbage. These people is not considering the well-being of the environment or ecosystems and habitats as it will pollute the air, diminish the amount of potable water, and destroy ecosystems. The group of people that oppose the expansion of the landfill take more of a biocentric stand when it comes to this issue. They also think that the humans are important in this case because it is the people living near the landfill that will not have as much potable water and they will have to deal with the pollution produced from the landfill. However, they are also looking at the animals that will be killed during the construction and the ecosystems that will be destroyed. Many animals will be forced to move to other habitats, since theirs will be taken over by the landfill.
The demarcation problem in this case deals with who or what counts morally. For the anthropocentric point of view, it is the humans that count morally and because of this, they believe that the landfill should be expanded to provide more jobs and have a place to put the waste for many more years. For the biocentrism view, it is all living things in this region that count morally, and in this case, that would be the people and the animals living close to the landfill.
The consequentialist’s view looks at the aggregate happiness of the people depending on which decision is taken (utilitarianism). If the landfill is built, then the construction workers, employees of the landfill, and people in charge of waste management would be happy, but the residents living near the landfill, the Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee and many environmental groups would be unhappy. If the landfill is not expanded, then the opposite groups would be happy or unhappy. In my opinion there would be more aggregate happiness if the landfill is not expanded because there seem to be more people who are opposed to the expansion of the landfill and therefore they would be happy if it is not expanded. The Barnes Aquifer Protection Advisory Committee said that “the long-term risk to the aquifer far outweighs the short-term benefits of expanding the regional landfill” (Crowley 2009).
In terms of the non-consequentialist’s view, the rights of the different groups of people need to be considered. However it is difficult to say whose rights are more important in this situation. The residents living near the landfill should have the right to clean and accessible drinking water and a safe environment to live in, but the rights of the workers of the landfill should have the right to a job.
The issue of whether to expand the landfill or not is a difficult one because there are many different points of view that can be looked at in terms of the ethics of it. I’m not sure what the right decision would be, but in my opinion, everyone’s point of view must be looked at and considered before a decision is made.
Reference
Crowley, D. (2009). Controversial landfill question on ballot Tuesday. 31 October 2009. http://www.gazettenet.com/2009/10/31/controversial-landfill-question-ballot-tuesday?SESS2949f326616af77dbcbacb4be4b7bb81=gnews.
Accessed 2 November, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
