Biocentrism and Utilitarian Conservation - Essay Example

Question Bio-centrism and utilitarian conservation In the recent times, the issue of global warming and climate change has caught the attention of politicians and governments. It has become important to address the problem of environmental degradation by enacting legislations and initiating effective countermeasures. The effects of climate change are already being experienced and in response, governments have come up with corrective measures. However, there is still lack of goodwill from major polluting countries such as China and America. This paper examines some of the concepts related to the environment and examines the implications of the measures that have been adopted by the government. Bio-centrism extends inherent value to all animals. This system dictates that human beings are equal to other living things. This ethical viewpoint gives all living things an equal platform, and at the same time reduces chances of exploitation. If this ethical viewpoint was followed by all human beings, then the world would be a better place for all. More over, human beings would not be dealing with the negative effects of pollution, and environmental degradation. While this idea is very noble, there is a perception that it is not practical after all. In other words, bio-spherical egalitarianism is hypothetical in nature and lacks any practical application. The other major weakness of this ethical viewpoint is that it disregards the environment in favor of the living things. If a human being is faced with a conflict between preserving the environment and living things, then they would rather favor the living things. In addition, biocentrism emphasizes on individualism, hence neglecting collective entities such as the ecosystem (Reichmann 45). Lastly, biocentrism suggests that there are limits to what humans can do with the environment (Agar 56). This goes against what is universally acceptable, and is very unrealistic. Taking such an unrealistic stance encourages human beings to become even more destructive. Based on this information, our conservation efforts need to be balanced, and human beings need to be accorded a higher status compared to other living things. Unlike other living creatures, human beings have the capacity to take care of the ecosystem and address the challenges facing the environment. If the conservation efforts are modeled according to this system, then human beings will be unable to exploit the environment. On the other hand, utilitarian conservation asserts that resources should be used for the greater good and for the greatest number. This approach entails conducting a cost benefit analysis, but this approach cannot accurately capture the intangible benefits offered by the environment. For instance, the environment offers a host of services such as maintenance of water quality and provision of habitat to the animals. Likewise, some of the plant and animal species have no known benefit to man, and as such human beings may lack the motivation to conserve them. In the end, these species may be become extinct, for failure to receive the necessary attention from the human beings. In contrast, species that have valuable characteristics are likely to be favored by the human beings. Ultimately, this approach may lead to an unbalanced ecosystem. The major benefit of this approach is that it translates to huge economic gains. By concentrating their efforts on the most productive species, human beings are able to enjoy numerous economic benefits. On the negative side, using the cost-benefit analysis could lead to eventual extinction of species, whose benefits have not yet been discovered. Question 2: The Clean Air Act To reduce the environment, the government initiated the Clean Air Act. This federal law seeks to reduce pollution by eliminating toxic air pollutants, reducing incidence of acid rain, and chemical emissions. The Act empowers the Environmental Protection Agency to set the limits which should be observed by all the states. The agencies in respective states are required to regulate applications for industries and chemical processes. Many states have already embraced diverse initiatives to meet the objectives of this Act, and just to illustrate in 2003, the New York City’s administration launched the tobacco control program. This program targets to protect the non-smokers from the effects of second-hand smoke. The New York Tobacco Control Program is a very good initiative and has received widespread support from the residents and businesses in the area. A report released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicates that the legislation has led to the improvements of air quality, and the improvement is estimated to be $2 trillion. At the same time, the implementation of the legislation has significantly reduced the ambient concentration of fine particles and other air pollutants. The report has also associated the new legislation with a raft of health and environmental benefits. For instance, the improved quality standards of air have reduced incidence of premature mortality and diseases such as chronic bronchitis and myocardial infection. A number of studies that have been conducted indicate that the new legislation has cancer-reducing benefits. Other benefits include improved increasing recreational and residential visibility. As suggested by Jacobson, the Clean Air Control act has impacted negatively on the American GDP growth (42). Due to the Act, the GDP declined by $79 billion in 2010, and is expected to reduce by $110 in 2020. Besides slowing down the GDP growth, the implementation of the Act continues to impact negatively on the industrial output. Some of the worse affected sectors include the mining industry. The CAA scenario has also impacted negatively on the following areas: electricity generating units, non-utility industrial sources, on-road vehicles and fuel, non-road vehicles and fuel and area sources. Companies dealing in the energy sector have been forced to invest more in complying with tailpipe standards as well as observing the fuel composition requirements. The implications of this new legislation are well captured in an article by Nelson (68). In this article, Nelson argues that the new legislation could negatively affect the hospitality industry. Businesses in this sector report a reduction in earnings and sales (12). At the same time, states have been forced to initiate programs such as the acid rain sulfur dioxide allowance trading program and controls to improve the air standards. The implementation of such programs to meet the national fine particle and ozone standards requires technology and huge expenses. Based on this information, it is apparent that the benefits achieved are higher compared to the drawbacks. However, in order to achieve an accurate comparison, a reliable and valid benefit-cost study should be conducted. A benefit-cost study relies on real-life models, and it takes into consideration all quantifiable measures. However, these studies cannot capture some of the health, and ecological benefits associated with the Act. To address this problem, the researchers need to conduct more balanced studies and ensure the ecosystem is modeled using realistic measures. Question 3: Electric versus gasoline-powered vehicles There is a feeling that electric cars have a potential of reducing global warming pollution and lowering smog-formation. To encourage the use for electric vehicles, the Obama administration has initiated a $2.4 billion fund, to improve the battery technology. Despite the government’s initiative to improve the car technology, the new move is characterized by lots of drawbacks. Already, some of the car manufacturers such as General Motors have shelved their plans of producing plug-in electric vehicles due to poor sales. While most researchers argue that electric vehicles provide viable solution to transport related population, there are those who feel that they are more harmful to the environment that their gasoline-powered counterparts. One of the big questions remains: is the electric car better than the gasoline vehicle in reducing global emissions? Boschert believes that in order to meet the electric vehicle electricity demand, countries would be forced to increase the fossil-fuel generated electricity hence leading to an increase in global emissions (10). These findings are confirmed by a study confirmed by Electric Power Research Institute and the Natural Resources Defense Council, which shows that increased use of plug-in electric vehicles would lead to increases in air pollutant emissions. This is because more coal-fired plants would have to be established. This information shows that effectiveness of the electric cars largely depends on whether coal-powered power plants will be replaced by more renewable sources. In this regard, using solar-generated electricity to power an electric vehicle can significantly reduce the global emissions. In contrast, continued use of coal-generated electricity, means that the rate of global emissions will only increase. From this information, it is right to conclude that the effectiveness of the electric cars in the reduction global emissions solely depends on the source of energy used. A study conducted in Germany shows that if electric vehicles are charged with 100% coal fired electricity, they would emit more carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxide, and sulfur oxides than internal combustion engine vehicles. These results are confirmed by a study which was conducted in 34 Chinese cities. In this study, Kirsch found out that electricity produced to fire electric vehicles led to more particulate emissions than gasoline-powered transport (10). The increase in emissions also happens during the manufacturing process. In this regard, the vehicle manufacturing process of a gasoline vehicle leads to production of half volume of Co2 compared to the electric vehicle (Kirsch 11). Electric powered vehicles also lead to a larger carbon footprint than the gasoline vehicles because have lower lifetime. Electric cars have also been associated with the increase in the acid rain. The electric car factories emit more waste that the conventional car factories. The impact of the electric vehicles during the production process is well captured by Boschert (23). Boschert (12) argues that it is destructive to produce electric vehicle in areas which primarily depend on non-renewable sources of energy. It is also worth noting that electric cars require batteries to be changed frequently compared to the conventional car batteries. As a result, continued adoption of the electric cars may end up causing more pollution through accumulation of batteries. From the above information, it is apparent that biocentrism lacks practicality, while utilitarian conservation is preferred due to its economic advantage. On the other hand, the Clean Air Act has brought numerous economic and health-related benefits, although cost-analysis studies need to be strengthened. Finally, the electric cars will not prove helpful in the reduction of global emissions as long as they continue drawing coal-powered electricity. Works Cited Agar, Nicholas. Recent defenses of biocentrism. Columbia University press, 2001. Print Reichmann, James. Anthropocentrism, biocentrism and envirocentrism. CUA Press, 2000. Print Jacobson, Mark. Atmospheric Pollution: History, Science, and Regulation. Cambridge University Press, 2002. Print Nelson, Gabriel. Republicans seek to spare smoggy California areas from punishment. E&E publishing, 2011. Print Boschert, Sherry. Plug-in Hybrids: The Cars that will Recharge America. New Society Publishers, 2006. Print Kirsch, David. The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History. New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 2000. Print Read More