Post on 07-Oct-2014
description
transcript
Federal Environmental Ethic 1
Federal Environmental Ethic:
Overwhelmingly Anthropocentric
Mark Cave
Student ID 1055740
EVSP 508, Winter
Professor Allen
January 27, 2012
Federal Environmental Ethic 2
Abstract
The author of this paper looks at the mission statements and/or stated purposes of three
United States federal agencies – the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the
Interior and the U.S. Forest Service – which have responsibilities that include care and
maintenance of the country’s environment, natural resources, and fish and wildlife. By analysis
and comparison of those agencies’ mission and purpose statements, the author delineates the
anthropocentric environmental ethic that overwhelmingly dominates American government and
society. Then the author briefly speaks of the need for establishment of a more holistic and
ecocentric, across-all-agencies environmental ethic; and he expresses the viewpoint that such a
federal-level ethic is incrementally becoming emplaced because of a presidential directive, and
that the ethic is also spreading up, via a grass roots community- and state-government
movement.
Federal Environmental Ethic 3
“To judge from economic behavior, we see the external world, the biosphere, mainly as a
warehouse to be plundered in satisfaction of the material needs and wants of humankind…
Society’s prevailing ecological myth sees “the environment” in terms of isolated, individual
resources, or, at best, as a mechanical construction, whose component parts are bendable to
human will and purpose.” (Rees, 2011, p. 662).
The above quote very powerfully sums up the continuing attitude towards the environment
that’s prevalent in general American society; and it starkly conveys that it’s impossible for
federal government agencies to state an environmental ethic that’s anything but anthropocentric
and utilitarian. In their pursuit of maximum comfort and convenience, the overwhelming
majority of United States citizens either express beliefs and attitudes identical to those of
corporate executives and their in-pocket politicians, or they behave in ways that belie their stated
understanding of or subconscious concerns about the impacts of such behavior on all things
nonhuman – animals, plants, land, oceans, biodiversity, ecology, etc.
Now, to the professor of my Environmental Ethics course it might seem that I am
digressing from the main purpose of this report; and perhaps that is so. However, I want this
product to potentially be of at least miniscule interest and value to anyone who might read it after
its submission to fulfill a course requirement. Therefore, I am endeavoring to do, and tie
together, two things:
1. Further expound on the above stated environmental ethic of federal agencies, using their
mission statements, and their actions in implementing, abiding by, or flouting statutes and
regulations;
2. Assert that our country’s political leadership must (and is starting to, to a limited extent
– Executive Order 13514, 2009) establish a comprehensive, coherent and less anthropocentric
Federal Environmental Ethic 4
environmental ethic around which all agencies develop their mission statements, policies and
regulations; and/or there must be a grass roots and local- and state-government movement that
accomplishes the same thing, but from the bottom up.
While covering the first objective is relatively straightforward and simple, it also takes up
most of this report, partly out of necessity for meeting the course requirement, partly because I
will use real world examples to buttress my arguments and assertions.
My survey of some of the “big player” agencies in environmental protection and
conservation establishes what I believe is already well known by all but the most indifferent and
uninformed people: the agencies are unequivocally operating from an anthropocentric
perspective. When I say “big player agencies” I refer to those agencies that I think are most
widely recognized for their stated purposes and/or for their being the focus of most attention: the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture).
Of the three surveyed agencies, the EPA, by limiting its focus mainly to regulation of and
education about pollution and environmental degradation in its varied manifestations, is the
surveyed agency with the most straightforward mission, and the only one without obvious
innately contradictory roles or sub-agencies that have opposing objectives (this contention will
be clarified and buttressed as the paper progresses to discussion of the DOI and the USFS, and
of some opposing objectives within each). Per the EPA website:
The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment. EPA's
purpose is to ensure that:
• all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health
and the environment where they live, learn and work;
Federal Environmental Ethic 5
• national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best
available scientific information;
• federal laws protecting human health and the environment are
enforced fairly and effectively;
• environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies
concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth,
energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade,
and these factors are similarly considered in establishing
environmental policy;
• all parts of society -- communities, individuals, businesses, and state,
local and tribal governments -- have access to accurate information
sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and
environmental risks;
• environmental protection contributes to making our communities and
ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and
• the United States plays a leadership role in working with other
nations to protect the global environment. (EPA, n.d.)
The fact that the first sentence in the EPA mission statement puts the word humans before
the word environment obviates the agency’s anthropomorphic perspective. That centralization of
humanity before and above everything else is solidly reinforced in the very first bullet under the
stated purpose of the agency, to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to
human health and the environment where they live, learn and work. If such redundancy of the
theme “humans before environment” is not enough to convince you of the EPA’s
Federal Environmental Ethic 6
anthropocentricity, notice that nowhere in the mission statement or listing of purposes is there
mention of nature or ecosystems. Such a direct human-centric attitude is almost identically
described by Palmer (2011):
There are a variety of approaches to environmental ethics that can be thought of
as being anthropocentric or human-centered. Most – but not all – of these
approaches maintain that the nonhuman natural world is best considered ethically
in terms of its instrumental values to human beings… And anthropocentric
approaches do not necessarily suggest reckless exploitation of the environment;
they may instead maintain that natural resources should be very carefully
managed for human benefit including for the benefit of the poor and future human
generations. (pp. 13-14)
Of the three surveyed agencies, the Department of the Interior is the behemoth, in breadth
of responsibilities (9 bureaus), number of employees (approx. 70,000) and size of budget ($12
billion). (EPA, n.d.; DOI, n.d.; USFS, n.d.). Quite unlike the EPA, its size and encapsulation of
multiple sub-agencies means that there are necessarily competing agendas amongst those sub-
agencies, even though they all espouse dedication to natural resource preservation and
environmental protection. The competing agendas highlight two facts: (1) the DOI is dominated
by an unequivocal professed adherence to an anthropocentric environmental ethic; and (2) the
drive to maximize the comfort and convenience of American citizens, and the profits of
American corporations, has very frequently translated to complete disregard of nonhuman life
and ecosystems, which of course means abandonment of any environmental ethic.
Here is the DOI mission statement: “The U.S. Department of the Interior protects
America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and
Federal Environmental Ethic 7
supplies the energy to power our future. (DOI, n.d.).” While less obviously so than the EPA
mission statement, this one is still readily identifiable as anthropocentric. The only non-human
term used is “natural resources,” and even that begs the question, “Natural resources for
whom?” The rest of the terms in the statement are wholly human related: heritage, cultures,
tribal communities, and our future. Making more stark the anthropocentric perspective of the
DOI, and highlighting its severe conflicts of interest, are these two quotes, one from the DOI
website, the other from an online description of the DOI by the Washington Post (WP):
The U.S. Department of the Interior is a Cabinet-level agency that manages America's
vast natural and cultural resources … We also raise billions in revenue annually from
energy, mineral, grazing, and timber leases, as well as recreational permits and land
sales. (n.d.)
In real terms, Interior is responsible for about 20 percent of the land in the United
States and 1.7 billion acres offshore. It oversees land and sea territories that produce
30 percent of the nation's energy. Interior is the country's biggest wholesaler of
water, with nearly 500 dams and 350 reservoirs… It cares for some of America's
most precious treasures, by preserving and operating 84 million acres of national
parks, monuments, seashores and other special sites in 49 states and a number of
U.S. territories. It is responsible for protecting endangered species and for operating
national wildlife refuges (WP, n.d.)
The final agency surveyed is the U.S Forest Service (USFS), within the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. It’s mission statements: “Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the Forest Service,
summed up the mission of the Forest Service— "to provide the greatest amount of good for the
greatest amount of people in the long run” and “The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to
sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the
Federal Environmental Ethic 8
needs of present and future generations.” (USFS, n.d.). One more time, the statements are
100% anthropocentric! Further spotlighting that ethic is the first paragraph in the USFS motto:
“The phrase, "CARING FOR THE LAND AND SERVING PEOPLE," captures the Forest
Service mission. As set forth in law, the mission is to achieve quality land management under the
sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people.” (n.d.).
Also, just like the DOI, the USFS is saddled with a huge conflict of interest – the protection
and health advancement of forests and wilderness areas vs. the accretion of revenues (and the
justification of large budget requests to Congress) via selling of timber rights and concomitant
building and maintenance of environmentally damaging (at the time and due to use) roads. The
Orion North timber sale in the Tongass National Forest is one example of convoluted
motivations that sometimes drives the USFS to push for timber sales and road building, which in
this case continued despite high costs, the net loss of revenues, and the potential negative
environmental impacts (not accounted for in the ten-year-old environmental impact statement).
It was only after an Earthjustice requested court injunction stopped the timber sale and road
building, that the Forest Service abandoned the effort, rather than file an appeal. (n.d.)
In these explanations that the federal government’s environmental ethic is anthropocentric,
there is not implied a viewpoint that environmental anthropocentrism is wholly wrong or
improper; rather, the ethic’s focus on humans versus non-humans, and on consideration
according to sentience and suffering (Singer, 2011), is just too narrow. It does not account for
what’s absolutely vital in today’s world – a holistic appreciation of the interconnectedness
between all living things, and of the ecosystems – the land, water bodies and climate – upon
which that life fundamentally depends for health and sustainable continuation.
Federal Environmental Ethic 9
The United States citizenry, in its fierce independence and persistent genuflection before
the alters of capitalism and free markets, will not soon adopt a truly holistic and ecocentric
environmental ethic. Doing so would require too rapid changes in the way business is conducted
and the way society is governed; and the acceptance of new models of community living
incorporating concepts that are currently anathema to many Americans. So, don’t expect that the
United States will be one of the participating nations when the Earth Charter is completed and
the United Nations presents it for ratification (Westra, 2011).
However, there are real signs that people across the country, in the executive branch of the
federal government, as well as in groups ranging from towns to states to regions, are growing
more appreciative of the direct two-way connections between overall ecological and climatic
health and the current and future health of humanity and other life.
1. On October 5, 2009 President Obama signed Executive Order 13514, Federal
Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.
Federal agencies shall increase energy efficiency; measure, report, and reduce their
greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities; conserve and protect
water resources through efficiency, reuse, and storm water management; eliminate
waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets
for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products, and
services; design, construct, maintain, and operate high performance sustainable
buildings in sustainable locations; strengthen the vitality and livability of the
communities in which Federal facilities are located; and inform Federal employees
about and involve them in the achievement of these goals. (Section 1. Policy)
Federal Environmental Ethic 10
Section 8 directed that each federal agency, including, of course, the EPA, DOI and USDA
(parent organization of the USFS), develop, use, maintain and update a Strategic
Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP). (EPA SSPP, 2010; DOI SSPP, 2011; USDA SSPP,
2010)
2. On November 16, 2010 the city of Pittsburgh voted to ban drilling, especially fracking
(injection of water, sand and various toxic chemicals down and then horizontally to cause
deep explosions that release the gas). “Drafted by the Community Environmental Legal
Defense Fund (CELDF), Pittsburgh’s ordinance elevates the rights of people, the community,
and nature over corporate “rights” and challenges the authority of the state to pre-empt
community decision-making.” (YES! magazine, 2010).
3. On July 6, 2010 Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that “requires that all
whole eggs sold in California as of Jan. 1, 2015, come from hens able to stand up, fully extend
their limbs, lie down and spread their wings without touching each other or the sides of their
enclosure, thus requiring cage-free conditions for the birds.” (Human Society, 2010)
The above 3 examples each serve as clear example of an expansion of environmental ethics
from a strictly anthropocentric one to one that, while still human centered, uses environmental
pragmatism (Palmer, pp 29-30) to incorporate concepts of sustainability (additional to or instead
of growth); internalization and/or reduction of non-tangible costs like pollution and greenhouse
gas emissions; interdependencies between health of animals and the health of people; and rights
of individuals, communities and animals over corporate rights.
In conclusion, this paper explains that up to current times, the environmental ethic extant in
most of American society and throughout the federal government has been overwhelmingly
anthropocentric. However, in the absence of leadership in federal government up to the Obama
Federal Environmental Ethic 11
presidency, and during Obama’s necessary understated (in breadth and broadcast)
implementation of more responsible policies, governmental and NGO leaders at the local and
state levels have stepped up. Besides the two examples given – California’s non-caged egg layer
bill and Pittsburgh’s banning of fracking – there are countless similarly thoughtful bills and
actions being implemented in towns and states across the country. So, in the end, the national
environmental ethic is slowly but definitely moving from indifferently anthropocentric to
concernedly more holistic, but still anthropocentric.
Federal Environmental Ethic 12
References
Earthjustice (2009). Orion North Timber Sale. In Earth Justice>Our Work>Cases>2009.
Retrieved from http://earthjustice.org/our_work/cases/2009/orion-north-timber-sale.
Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Our mission and what we do. In EPA Home>About
EPA. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/whatwedo.html
Environmental Protection Agency. (2010, June 2). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/documents/sspp_508.pdf
Executive Order 13514. (2009). Retrieved from
http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/2009fedleader_eo_rel.pdf
Humane Society of the United States. (2010, July 6). Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Landmark
Egg Bill into Law. Retrieved from
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/07/ab1437_passage_070610.html.
Interior Department. Secretary of the Interior [Organizations in the news]. (n.d.). Washington
Post Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interior-
department/gIQApNay4O_topic.html
Margil, M. & Price, B. (2010, November 16). Pittsburgh bans natural gas drilling. YES!
magazine. Retrieved from http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/pittsburg-bans-
natural-gas-drilling.
Palmer, C. (2011). An overview of environmental ethics. In L. P. Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.),
Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp. 10-35). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth, Inc. (Original work published 1994).
Federal Environmental Ethic 13
Rees, W. (2011). Sustainable development: economic myths and global realities. In L. P. Pojman
& P. Pojman (Eds.), Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp.
661-668). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Inc. (Original work published 1988)
Singer, P. (2011). A utilitarian defense of animal liberation. In L. P. Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.),
Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp. 71-80). Boston, MA:
Wadsworth, Inc. (Original work published 1976).
U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010, September). USDA Strategic Sustainability
Performance Plan. Retrieved from http://greening.usda.gov/USDASSPP09-07-10.pdf.
U.S. Department of the Interior. (2011, June 3). Department of the Interior 2011 Strategic
Sustainability Performance Plan. Retrieved from
http://www.doi.gov/greening/sustainability_plan/SSPP.pdf.
U.S. Department of the Interior. (n.d.). Our mission. Retrieved from
http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm.
U.S. Forest Service (n.d.) Mission, Motto, Vision, and Guiding Principles. In U.S. Forest
Service>About Us-Mission. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml.
Westra, L. (2011). The Earth Charter: from global ethics to international law instrument. In L. P.
Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.), Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th
ed., pp. 606-613). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Inc.