Environmental Ethics and Policy in America - Term Paper Example

 According to Galbraith, in economics as in anatomy, the whole is much more than the sum of the parts. This is true in case the parts are supporting each other as well as the parts are conflicting, and they are formed as a result of their common existence (Galbraith, 2009). There are two conflicting ethics that form the basis of the American federal environmental policy. These ethics are consumerism and the ethic of sustainability. They both have moral influence on human behavior, and their common existence help to shape them. For one to develop a full understanding of either one, one should put effort to examine both. Consumerism is said to have moral influence on how to do things. Victor Lebow wrote about consumerism’s moral influence. According to Lebow, turning the buying and use of goods into a ritual would lead to a higher productivity of the American economy (2006). Lebow believes that consumerism began to influence the American sense of how things are, and how they ought to be. He also recognizes that this influence triggers an “ever increasing pace” of consumption. However, Americans are becoming dissatisfied with consumerism. An increasing number of Americans have different opinions regarding consumerism. They are torn between materialism and other ethics that uphold the importance of family life, commitment to the society, communal service, and equity. It is significant for individuals to envision and express other ways of defining the quality of life, other than that which thrives on material things (Schor, 2000). Galbraith finds enlightening matches concerning religion and economics. He compares large corporations to primitive royals who reject their true power by appealing to be meager forecasts of divine willpower (Galbraith, 2009). He criticizes the neo-classical model in which a large corporation responds to the theistic instruction of the market. He adds that socially objectionable exercise of power by corporations in their own interest is thus exorcised or largely exorcised from formal economic thought. Lebow, Schor and Galbraith helped outline how an economic system can shape our values and worldview. When the free market operated as a deity, shopping became a primary form of devout behavior. The bureau responsible for industries and security is housed in the Commerce Department. It seeks to protect the United States by preventing the export of dangerous products. Thus they regulate dual-use exports --items that have both civilian and military uses. There is a second dimension to the Bureau’s responsibility, though. According to their guiding principles, “Protecting U.S. security includes not only supporting U.S. national defense, but also ensuring the health of the U.S. economy and the competitiveness of U.S. industry.” This claim does have merit. Starvation and bullets can both kill. The danger of consumerism, though, is that it can cause us to exaggerate the consumption required to preserve our well-being. With an understanding of the ethic of consumerism, one should also examine the ethic of sustainability. Schor, Lebow and Galbraith all saw the existing economic system as an ecological threat. To understand the ethic of sustainability, though, one must examine one of the great debates in environmental ethics - the debate between intrinsic value and anthropocentrism. Aldo Leopold believes that there is a need to expand our concept of community, and therefore the ethical sphere, to include natural systems. He believes that there is the requirement to grow a link built on love, respect, and admiration and not a relationship that is strict to economic utility (Leopold, 2008). By insisting that individuals credit the land with value in the philosophical sense, he provided a framework for future environmentalists. It is nature’s way for humankind to live out its evolutionary potential even to its own damage (Watson, 2008). To look at this process requires conscious self-regulation which is based on our distinctive capability to identify our own benefits. In order to show that the best version each position led to a similar action, James Sterba tried to negotiate a balance between anthropocentrism and intrinsic value. Human have a right to self-preservation and self-defense. However, they should put the basic needs of Mother Nature before human luxury (Sterba, 2008). There is no legal language for the rights of nature. Therefore, arguments for sustainability in federal literature use anthropocentric language. The Endangered Species Act offers several anthropocentric reasons for preserving species. According to the Act, certain species of fish, wildlife, and plants are of value to Americans. These values may be appealing, environmental, informative, ancient, frivolous or technical. The Act also expresses concern for those species threatened by economic growth and development. It insists on preserving species by protecting their ecosystems. The ethic of sustainability is highly concentrated in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). It is the responsibility of every American to ensure sustainability of the environment for the sake of the future generations. Every individual should strive to keep and maintain a clean environment, as well as sustaining a green environment. The EPA finds enthusiasm in its commitment of safeguarding the health of individuals and taking care of the environment. There are five strategic goals guiding the present EPA .These goals are taking necessary action in the event of climate change and installing an air system of high quality. Other goals include guarding the waters surrounding America and conducting clean-up sessions in different communities. The EPA is also responsible for the prevention of pollution and from time to time it ensures that environmental laws are enforced. These aims make clear that the sustainability ethic has a foothold in the U.S. federal government. Clearly, consumerism and sustainability both influence U.S. policy. Rather than treat one as real and the other as accidental, the two should be understood in regard to how they interact. Galbraith argues that true costs should be internalized as much as possible, but notes that it is often almost impossible to do so efficiently. He proposes instead to continue economic growth but to specify by legislation the parameters within which it can occur. Such legislation would mandate limits on pollution and on certain types of consumption (Galbraith, 2009). Galbraith argued that growth should be brought in line with public environmental concerns, even if that resulted in a slower rate of growth. He warned against environmental absolutism, though, noting that the ultimate consumption is well regarded. The benefits of consumption and conservation should be weighed against each other. Unfortunately, America is far from unifying all economic and ecological needs. The Bureau of Land Management (BML) tries to balance three types of land use: commercial activities, recreation and conservation. Fifteen percent of America's wind energy comes from BLM land, but so does forty percent of its coal production. The Treasury feels the pull of both consumption and sustainability of the environment. According to Schor, households have increased their savings, which is important to making household finances more sustainable over the long term (Schor, 2000). More savings mean less consumption, which is good for the environment but slows the economy. Increasing access to credit, though, remained a major plank in the recovery plan, and credit extends one's ability to consume. Having identified and clarified the federal environmental ethic, it is evident that there are numerous problems on this subject. One major problem is growth. Growth implies an increase in production, and a constant increase cannot indefinitely continue. Growth remains the key economic aim, though, because everyone equates growth with progress and perpetual improvement of our condition (Mill, 2008). Nor do many of us want to give up the Internet, the cell phone, or the compact fluorescent light bulb. The last of these three, in particular, indicates that innovation can be ecologically beneficial. Innovation is different from growth, even if they are often correlated. Any development that is sustainable should be a positive change in peoples’ lives. It does not seek to erase the political, environmental or social systems that any society depends upon (Mill, 2008). It is possible to produce without increasing production. On the other hand, it is possible to pursue social and technological innovation without a growth economy. The fundamental weakness of Galbraith's synthesis, and our present federal environmental ethic, is that the constant pursuit of growth is inherently unsustainable. It is quite clear that the ethic of consumerism and ethic of sustainability influences federal policy. Finally, it is important to note that a synthesis of the two, with contours matching those suggested by John K. Galbraith, ultimately shapes American environmental policy. However, there is possible inadequacy of this ethic. Its demand for constant growth undermines long term sustainability. Until we metaphorically re-frame and materially recalibrate our economic approach, our federal environmental ethic will not lead us to the preservation that we need. Sustainability has a real foothold, though. This gives us somewhere to build from as we attempt to change our outlook and our way of life. References: Galbraith, John Kenneth. (2009). Economics and the Public Purpose. Boston: Houghton Lebow, Victor. (2006). Price Competition in America. Journal of Retailing. Leopold, Aldo. (2008). Ecocentrism: The Land Ethic. In Paul Pojman and Louis P. Pojman (Eds.) Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application Fifth Edition Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Mill, John Stuart (2008). In Defense of Steady State Economics. In Paul Pojman andLouis P. Pojman (Eds.) Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application Fifth Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Schor, Juliet. (2000). Do Americans Shop Too Much? Boston: Beacon Sterba, James (2008). Environmental Justice: Reconciling Anthropocentric and Non-Anthropocentric Perspectives. In Paul Pojman and Louis P. Pojman (Eds.) Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application Fifth Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Watson, Richard (2008). A Critique of Anti-Anthropocentric Ethics. In Paul Pojmanand Louis P. Pojman (Eds.) Environmental Ethics: Readings in Theory and Application Fifth Edition. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Read More