The document discusses environmental ethics as it relates to genetically modified organisms (GMOs). It provides background on the development of environmental ethics as a field of study. It then summarizes different approaches to environmental ethics, including libertarian extension, ecologic extension, conservation ethics, humanist theories, and anthropocentrism. Finally, it discusses the current status of environmental ethics as an academic discipline and provides an example of considering the environmental ethics of introducing a genetically modified chestnut tree.

1. Sri Sharda Institute Of Indian Management-Research Foundation
7,Institutional Area Phase II Vasant kunj, New Delhi 110070
Tel:+91 11 26124090/91 Fax: +91 11 26124092
Email: admin.srisiim@gmail.com,dgm.cms@gmail.com
Website: www.srisiim.org, www.srisiim.ac.in
The Project On
Environmental Management
Environment Ethics
Submitted To: Submitted By:
Ms. Sartaj Khera Bhanu Pratap Singh
20110105
Harshit Pathak
20110106
Batch 2011-2013
PGDM- 1st Year
1

2. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
“The completion of our project depends upon the co-operation, coordination and
combined efforts of several resources of knowledge, inspiration & energy”. I
Always knew that in an organization, the work atmosphere yields enormously on
an individual’s productivity and quality of work. The competence and expertise of
people around us at Was a factor that motivated us to strive and achieve nothing
short of perfection.
We owe a great many thanks to all those, without whom this project wouldn’t
have been as much a learning experience and as successful. To those, who helped
and supported us during the course of this project.
My deepest sense of gratitude for Dr RITWIK DUBEY, for constant guidance,
professional help and support during the course of the project, for .guiding us
and helping us at all times during the project. He was the key inspirer for us and
without his guidance this project would have been a distant reality.
We thank my colleagues and friends for providing constant encouragement and
help. We are indebted to them for their timely help & the enthusiasm they
expressed in helping us bring this project to the fruitful end.
2

3. Environmental ethics
Environmental ethics is the part of environmental philosophy which considers
extending the traditional boundaries of ethics from solely including humans to including
the non-human world. It exerts influence on a large range of disciplines
including environmental law, environmental sociology, ecotheology, ecological
economics, ecology and environmental geography.
There are many ethical decisions that human beings make with respect to the
environment. For example:
 Should we continue to clear cut forests for the sake of human consumption?
 Should we continue to propagate?
 Should we continue to make gasoline powered vehicles?
 What environmental obligations do we need to keep for future generations? [1][2]
 Is it right for humans to knowingly cause the extinction of a species for the
convenience of humanity?
The academic field of environmental ethics grew up in response to the work of scientists
such as Rachel Carson and events such as the first Earth Day in 1970, when
environmentalists started urging philosophers to consider the philosophical aspects of
environmental problems. Two papers published in Science had a crucial impact: Lynn
White's "The Historical Roots of our Ecologic Crisis" (March 1967) and Garrett Hardin's
"The Tragedy of the Commons" (December 1968). Also influential was Garett Hardin's
later essay called "Exploring New Ethics for Survival", as well as an essay by Aldo
Leopold in his A Sand County Almanac, called "The Land Ethic," in which Leopold
explicitly claimed that the roots of the ecological crisis were philosophical (1949).
The first international academic journals in this field emerged from North America in the
late 1970s and early 1980s – the US-based journal Environmental Ethics in 1979 and
the Canadian based journalThe Trumpeter: Journal of Ecosophy in 1983. The first
British based journal of this kind, Environmental Values, was launched in 1992.
Marshall's categories of environmental ethics
There have been a number of scholars who've tried to categorise the various ways the
natural environment is valued. Alan Marshall and Michael Smith are two recent
examples of this, as cited by Peter Vardy in "The Puzzle of Ethics".[6] For Marshall, three
general ethical approaches have emerged over the last 40 years. Marshall uses the
following terms to describe them: Libertarian Extension, the Ecologic Extension and
Conservation Ethics.
3

4. Libertarian extension
Marshall‟s Libertarian extension echoes a civil liberty approach (i.e. a commitment to
extend equal rights to all members of a community). In environmentalism, though, the
community is generally thought to consist of non-humans as well as humans.
Andrew Brennan was an advocate of ecologic humanism (eco-humanism), the
argument that all ontological entities, animate and in-animate, can be given ethical
worth purely on the basis that they exist. The work of Arne Noses and his collaborator
Sessions also falls under the libertarian extension, although they preferred the term
"deep ecology". Deep ecology is the argument for the intrinsic value or inherent worth of
the environment – the view that it is valuable in itself. Their argument, incidentally, falls
under both the libertarian extension and the ecologic extension.
Peter Singer's work can be categorized under Marshall's 'libertarian extension'. He
reasoned that the "expanding circle of moral worth" should be redrawn to include the
rights of non-human animals, and to not do so would be guilty of speciesism. Singer
found it difficult to accept the argument from intrinsic worth of a-biotic or "non-sentient"
(non-conscious) entities, and concluded in his first edition of "Practical Ethics" that they
should not be included in the expanding circle of moral worth.[7] This approach is
essentially then, bio-centric. However, in a later edition of "Practical Ethics" after the
work of Næss and Sessions, Singer admits that, although unconvinced by deep
ecology, the argument from intrinsic value of non-sentient entities is plausible, but at
best problematic. We shall see later that Singer actually advocated a humanist ethic.
Ecologic extension
Alan Marshall's category of ecologic extension places emphasis not on human rights but
on the recognition of the fundamental interdependence of all biological (and some
abiological) entities and their essential diversity. Whereas Libertarian Extension can be
thought of as flowing from a political reflection of the natural world, Ecologic Extension
is best thought of as a scientific reflection of the natural world. Ecological Extension is
roughly the same classification of Smith‟s eco-holism, and it argues for the intrinsic
value inherent in collective ecological entities like ecosystems or the global environment
as a whole entity. Holmes Rolston, among others, has taken this approach.
This category includes James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis; the theory that the planet
earth alters its geo-physiological structure over time in order to ensure the continuation
of an equilibrium of evolving organic and inorganic matter. The planet is characterized
as a unified, holistic entity with ethical worth of which the human race is of no particular
significance in the long run.
4

5. Conservation ethics
Marshall's category of 'conservation ethics' is an extension of use-value into the non-
human biological world. It focuses only on the worth of the environment in terms of its
utility or usefulness to humans. It contrasts the intrinsic value ideas of 'deep ecology',
hence is often referred to as 'shallow ecology', and generally argues for the preservation
of the environment on the basis that it has extrinsic value – instrumental to the welfare
of human beings. Conservation is therefore a means to an end and purely concerned
with mankind and intergenerational considerations. It could be argued that it is this ethic
that formed the underlying arguments proposed by Governments at the Kyoto summit in
1997 and three agreements reached in Rio in 1992.
Humanist theories
Following the bio-centric and eco-holist theory distinctions, Michael Smith further
classifies Humanist theories as those that require a set of criteria for moral status and
ethical worth, such as sentience] This applies to the work of Peter Singer who
advocated a hierarchy of value similar to the one devised by Aristotle which relies on
the ability to reason. This was Singer's solution to the problem that arises when
attempting to determine the interests of a non-sentient entity such as a garden weed.
Singer also advocated the preservation of "world heritage sites," unspoilt parts of the
world that acquire a "scarcity value" as they diminish over time. Their preservation is a
bequest for future generations as they have been inherited from our ancestors and
should be passed down to future generations so they can have the opportunity to
decide whether to enjoy unspoilt countryside or an entirely urban landscape. A good
example of a world heritage site would be the tropical rainforest, a very specialist
ecosystem or climatic climax vegetation that has taken centuries to evolve. Clearing the
rainforest for farmland often fails due to soil conditions, and once disturbed, can take
thousands of years to regenerate.
Applied theology
The Christian world view sees the universe as created by God, and humankind
accountable to God for the use of the resources entrusted to humankind. Ultimate
values are seen in the light of being valuable to God. This applies both in breadth of
scope - caring for people (Matthew 25) and environmental issues, e.g. environmental
health (Deuteronomy 22.8; 23.12-14) - and dynamic motivation, the love of Christ
controlling (2 Corinthians 5.14f) and dealing with the underlying spiritual disease of sin,
which shows itself in selfishness and thoughtlessness. In many countries this
relationship of accountability is symbolised at harvest thanksgiving. (B.T. Adeney :
Global Ethics in New Dictionary of Christian Ethics and Pastoral Theology 1995
Leicester)
5

6. Anthropocentrism
Anthropocentrism simply places humans at the centre of the universe; the human race
must always be its own primary concern. It has become customary in the Western
tradition to consider only our species when considering the environmental ethics of a
situation. Therefore, everything else in existence should be evaluated in terms of its
utility for us, thus committing speciesism. All environmental studies should include an
assessment of the intrinsic value of non-human beings.[8] In fact, based on this very
assumption, a philosophical article has explored recently the possibility of humans'
willing extinction as a gesture toward other beings.[9] The authors refer to the idea as
a thought experiment that should not be understood as a call for action.
What Anthropocentric theories do not allow for is the fact that a system of ethics
formulated from a human perspective may not be entirely accurate; humans are not
necessarily the centre of reality. The philosopher Baruch Spinoza argued that we tend
to assess things wrongly in terms of their usefulness to us. Spinoza reasoned that if we
were to look at things objectively we would discover that everything in the universe has
a unique value. Likewise, it is possible that a human-centred or
anthropocentric/androcentric ethic is not an accurate depiction of reality, and there is a
bigger picture that we may or may not be able to understand from a human perspective.
Peter Vardy distinguished between two types of anthropocentrism. A strong thesis
anthropocentric ethic argues that humans are at the center of reality and it is right for
them to be so. Weak anthropocentrism, however, argues that reality can only be
interpreted from a human point of view, thus humans have to be at the centre of reality
as they see it.
Another point of view has been developed by Bryan Norton, who has become one of the
essential actors of environmental ethics through his launching of what has become one
of its dominant trends: environmental pragmatism. Environmental pragmatism refuses
to take a stance in the dispute between the defenders of anthropocentrist ethics and the
supporters of nonanthropocentrist ethics. Instead, Norton prefers to distinguish
between strong anthropocentrism and weak-or extended-anthropocentrism and
develops the idea that only the latter is capable of not under-estimating the diversity of
instrumental values that humans may derive from the natural world.
Status of the field
Environmental ethics became a subject of sustained academic philosophic reflection in
the 1970s. Throughout the 1980s it remained marginalized within the discipline of
philosophy, attracting the attention of a fairly small group of thinkers spread across the
world.
Only after 1990 did the field gain institutional recognition at programs such as Colorado
State, the University of Montana, Bowling Green State, and the University of North
6

7. Texas. In 1991, Schumacher College of Dartington, England, was founded and now
provides an MSc in Holistic Science.
These programs began to offer a masters degree with a specialty in environmental
ethics/philosophy. Beginning in 2005 the Dept of Philosophy and Religion Studies at the
University of North Texas offered a PhD program with a concentration in environmental
ethics/philosophy.
In Germany, the University of Greifswald has recently established an international
program in Landscape Ecology & Nature Conservation with a strong focus on
environmental ethics. In 2009, theUniversity of Munich and Deutsches Museum founded
the Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society, an international,
interdisciplinary center for research and education in the environmental humanities.
7

8. Environmental Ethics Of General Motors
Around 100 years ago the American Chestnut Tree was struck by a fungus that killed
most all of the trees. This month however, researchers have tweaked the genetic code
of the tree to make it sustain against the fungus that wiped it out. Researchers have
used a gene from a breed of a wheat plant that has shown resistance in trees against
such fungal pathogens. They plan to begin planting the trees this month in a botanical
garden. After talking about Genetically modified seeds in class I am kind of hesistant to
jump on board to this modified chesnut tree. While the tree is beautiful and is very
useful for woodworking and construction, it makes me begin to think about what will
happen when that pathogen becomes stronger and overcomes the gene that makes the
trees survive. Will that fungus then begin to wipe out other species of trees that have
not yet been effected by it? Will this new tree pollinate with other chestnut trees that
survived the pathogen to start with and create a hybrid tree? It seems as though they
need to keep this tree in the labs a little while and see exactly what kind of affects it will
have before we begin to plant in the wild.
The struggle by the European biotechnology sector to persuade the
authorities in the EU to allow it to grow genetically modified organisms
(GMOs) in crops could be reaching a crucial stage. For the first time since a
moratorium on approvals was imposed in 1998 by a group of EU member
states, then lifted two years ago, the EU is poised to approve a GMO product
for cultivation.
"If it is given the go-ahead, it will be good news for plant and industrial
biotechnology in Europe after a difficult regulatory period," says Natalie Moll,
a director at the European Association for Bioindustries (EuropaBio).
However, leaders of the biotech sector in Europe concede that there is still a
long way to go before there is broad acceptance of GMOs in the region. In
the middle of December, EU environment ministers rejected, by a qualified
majority, a move by the European Commission to order Austria to abandon
its ban on the cultivation of two genetically modified types of corn. These
had been approved at EU level before the moratorium.
Potatoes to go
Several GMO food and feed products have been approved for marketing in
the EU since the moratorium was abandoned. Since 1998, no new
genetically engineered plants can be grown as crops in the EU on a
commercial scale.
The product that is due to make the big regulatory breakthrough is a
genetically optimised potato developed by BASF, called Amflora. It
produces pure amylopectin starch for application in the paper, textile and
adhesives industries.
8

9. Its approval will be particularly significant for the progress of the fledgling
white or industrial biotech segment in Europe, which hopes to use
biotechnology to make chemicals and chemical feedstocks.
Amflora will be cultivated as a non-food crop. But it is still receiving a
backlash from the deeply entrenched opposition to GMOs among large
sections of the EU public, farmers and politicians.
When the proposed approval of the potato was debated in December by the
EU's standing committee on GMOs, representing experts from the
governments of the 25 member states, it failed to gain the support of a
qualified majority of its 321 members.
Instead, Amflora managed to gather the backing of only 42% of the
committee, well short of the necessary 72% majority. The dossier on the
potato was next due to be passed to the Council of Ministers, comprising
members of all the EU governments.
If, as seems likely, it is again unable to achieve a qualified majority in the
Council, the decision on its future is then transferred to the European
Commission. The EU executive will almost certainly approve the potato,
since it has already recommended that the potato's cultivation be allowed.
BASF is hoping that the Commission's consent will come in time for Amflora
to be cultivated in time for a market launch this year.
The Commission will be merely doing what it has been doing since the
moratorium was lifted. All approvals since then have failed to gain a qualified
majority in both the standing committee and the Council, leaving the go-
ahead to be given by the Commission.
"The approval procedure is not working properly," says Moll. "It could be a
long time before it is operating smoothly, although the biotechnology
industry is hoping that the present problems can be resolved as soon as
possible."
The political opposition to GMOs in the EU comes mainly from eight countries
- Austria, Cyprus, Denmark, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Luxembourg and
Poland. Between them, they can muster enough votes to block approvals.
The states with the most supportive attitude to GMOs are the Netherlands,
Sweden, the UK and, lately, Germany, following the departure of the Greens
from the country's government. Ireland and Spain's backing for green
biotechnology appears to have cooled.
Public versus farmers
A firm majority in favour of GMOs among the EU's member states, which
expanded to 27 in January with the accession of Bulgaria and Romania, is
unlikely to emerge until there has been a significant waning in hostility
among the public and farmers in Europe.
9

10. Most of the politically influential antipathy to genetic engineering in
agriculture comes, however, from farmers, who want to safeguard what they
regard as the exclusive quality of their food crops.
"Ultimately, the current opposition to GMOs in certain EU countries is
protectionist," says one European biotechnology consultant. "Italy, for
example, will have nothing to do with GMOs. Research into plant genetic
engineering is virtually banned there. The country has a system of controls
on the source of specialty foods, which is important to farmers. They feel it
will be destroyed if GMOs are allowed."
He adds: "Poland is opposed to gene technology because of its large
numbers of small farmers, who are big suppliers of organic food to the rest
of Europe."
BASF's Amflora potato should not be regarded as a threat to the food sector
because it will be cultivated solely for industrial and technical applications.
"Since potatoes do not have wild relatives in Europe and are propagated by
tubers, not seeds, it is extremely unlikely that out-crossing (the transfer of
genes to other plants) will take place," Thorsten Storck, global project
manager at BASF Plant Science, told a science conference at Ludwigshafen,
Germany, in November 2006.
The GM product does not have the normal mixture of amylopectin and
amylose, which are the two components of starch in conventional potatoes.
In industrial processes, potato starch is superior to wheat and corn starch
because it has a higher molecular weight and a lower fat and protein
content. However, the required functional properties all come from the
amylopectin because it has thickening qualities, as well as high viscosity,
stability and clarity. Potato starch has to be chemically modified to eliminate
the gelling effects of amylose.
Instead of having the usual 80:20 combination of amylopectin and amylose,
the Amflora potato contains only amylopectin in its starch.
"The potato will be produced solely under contract farming conditions," said
Storck. "Amflora will not be made available on the general market."
He continued: "It is a product that is designed for the European market. In
non-European countries, corn starch is mainly used for industrial
applications. Of the 2.5m tonnes of potato starch used annually in the world,
2m tonnes are made in Europe."
10

11. Problem ahead
One possible problem still facing BASF, even after it gains EU approval, could
be the lack of practical co-existence rules on the cultivation of GM plants in
individual countries. These should lay down minimum distances between GM
and non-GM crops. A green biotechnology supporter, such as the UK
government, has only recently completed a consultation exercise on the
drawing-up of co-existence regulations.
"Some countries are leaving it to regional authorities to issue co-existence
rules," says Moll. "As a result, we are getting a wide range of regulatory
distances, with some 500m or more when scientific studies show [that]
20m-25m is sufficient, depending on the crop."
When they refused to back a proposal by the Commission to lift a ban by
Austria on the growing of two genetically engineered maize varieties, EU
environment ministers reaffirmed the right of countries to take into account
"different agricultural structures and regional ecological characteristics"
when assessing the risks of GMOs.
Agreement among EU member states that governments should be entitled to
decide for themselves the conditions under which GMOs should be grown is
likely to remain a major hurdle to the widespread cultivation of genetically
modified crops in Europe for the foreseeable future.
11

12. Environmental Ethics
Case Studies: An Archive
Should the Humpback Chub be Saved?
Ian A. Smith
Metropolitan State College of Denver
[Adapted from Smith‟s “The Role of Humility and Intrinsic Goods in Preserving
Endangered Species: Why Preserve the Humpback Chub?” Environmental Ethics Vol.
32 No. 2 (Summer): 165-182. Copyright 2010.]
In the western United States, environmental groups like the Glen Canyon Institute have
worked tirelessly to save several species of endangered fish along the Colorado River,
including the humpback chub (Gila cypha). Partly on the basis of wanting to save these
endangered fish species, the Institute has advocated that the Glen Canyon Dam in the
Colorado River Basin be decommissioned. Without the dam, the Colorado River will
warm up and become muddy again in Glen Canyon, which is good for the endangered
fish species. However, removal of the dam is bad for the introduced fish species of the
river, such as the striped bass, largemouth bass, smallmouth bass, and walleye which
prefer cool, clear waters that the dam has been able to provide.
If the Institute is successful in having the dam decommissioned, then Lake Powell
(which Glen Canyon dam created) and the associated tail waters of Lees Ferry, with
their burgeoning introduced fisheries, will cease to be fisheries any longer. This is an
economic disadvantage to decommissioning the dam – others include a severe
reduction in tourism in the area, as the main source of tourism in the area is Lake
12

13. Powell, and the obvious loss of a massive water storage area in the form of Lake
Powell.
Critics of the humpback chub‟s preservation point to these kinds of economic
disadvantages to saving the chub via decommissioning the dam. They are also
concerned that current efforts to save the chub are wasted, and so point to further
economic costs of trying to save the chub. The Native Fish Work Group (NFWG), a
group founded by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, is charged with saving the
humpback and other endemic endangered species of the Colorado River from
extinction. Their methodology is as follows: mature fish are bred at a hatchery, and the
resulting hatchlings are transferred to various ponds in the Las Vegas area. Once these
fish reach maturity, they are transferred back to the Colorado where they attempt to
reproduce. Unfortunately, the transferred fish are hardly ever able to produce offspring
that themselves survive to reach maturity and then reproduce on their own. This is
because the offspring are eaten by introduced fish such as trout, bass, and walleye.
Consequently, the NFWG as it currently exists does not work to satisfy its stated aim of
saving the humpback chub (Chessa, 2005). And so whatever money it takes to run the
program is wasted. In fact, it is hard to see how the chub will do well in the future
without the removal of the introduced species in question.
Continuing with their criticism, critics ask, “What good is it, anyway?” These critics are
asking the environmentalists who wish to save the humpback chub what instrumental
value the humpback chub has, that is, what value it has as a means to an end of some
other entity. Canvassing instrumental reasons for why we might preserve the humpback
chub, we seem to find none, the critic may argue. The kinds of instrumental value that
the critic may consider are aesthetic value, ecosystemic value, and economic value.
Considering aesthetic value first, a critic may say that the humpback chub probably
does not strike us as “cute,” or magnificent, or in possession of any other pleasing
aesthetic characteristic, so a claim that it had any aesthetic value would be met with
immediate skepticism. Or, in the parlance of biologists, the humpback chub is not one of
13

14. the charismatic megafauna, like species of bear, whale, and cheetah that seem to have
obvious aesthetic value.
A critic may also point out that the chub does not seem to have ecosystemic value. One
way of broadly defining ecosystemic value is that it is the contribution a species makes
to the functioning of the trophic structure (food web) of which the species is a part. One
clear way that a species could have value in this way is if some other species within the
ecosystem in question would be adversely affected if it became extinct. When posed
with the question of whether the humpback chub has value in this sense, an expert on
the recovery of the chub, Dr. Robert Muth, Director of the Upper Colorado River
Endangered Fish Recovery Program of the Fish and Wildlife Service, said that the chub
has no such value. His assessment was that the current trophic structure that the chub
is a part has not been significantly changed as a result of its being in the process of
becoming extinct, and is not expected to be significantly changed once it does become
extinct, and so no other species have been or are expected to be significantly affected
in an adverse way.
Additionally, the critic may point out that the humpback chub has no clear economic
value. One clear way that the chub could have instrumental economic value is if it is
used as a food source. Though it was true that the humpback chub and other
endangered minnow species in the Colorado River Basin were once used as food by
both Native Americans and early pioneers, the introduction of more desired species
such as the trout have eliminated any interest in eating these minnow species.
In response to the claim that the humpback chub has no clear instrumental value, the
proponent of its preservation could shift the terms of the debate. When asked the
question “What good is it, anyway?” the preservationist could turn the question around
on the critic and ask, “What good are you, anyway?” The critic would regard this
question as missing something. People see themselves as being valuable not only in an
instrumental way, but also in an intrinsic (or inherent) way. That is, even though people
see themselves as being valuable in various ways to family, friends, and colleagues,
14

15. they view themselves as having value that exceeds and is distinct from their
instrumental value. People, in short, see themselves as possessing value as ends-in-
themselves, value that is not for the sake of anyone or anything else.
With the question “What good are you, anyway?” preservationists could try to show that
asking whether something has just instrumental value misses something, namely that
the thing in question might also have intrinsic value. If the humpback chub has intrinsic
value, then having this value could help to show that the chub should be preserved.
Several environmental ethicists have developed accounts of species‟ intrinsic value.
Beginning with an overview of Lawrence Johnson‟s account, Johnson generates an
argument for the intrinsic value of species by starting with the claim that individual
human beings have intrinsic value, and then investigates whether the reasons offered
for that claim apply to species (Johnson 1991, 1992). Johnson answers the question of
what makes a human being have intrinsic value by saying that it is the possession of
well-being interests that makes an entity have such value. Well-being interests are
those that conduce to the effective integrated functioning of an entity. Johnson argues
that species have such well-being interests, and thus have intrinsic value.
J. Baird Callicott saw in David Hume, Charles Darwin, and Aldo Leopold a
sociobiological account of why we humans intrinsically value others, or, alternatively,
how others have intrinsic value (Callicott 1989, 1999). This story is about how our other-
regarding sentiments like sympathy evolved to care first about our kin, then to care
about nonkin, and then to care about whole nations. Callicott saw that this story of
intrinsically valuing ourselves, others, and whole nations could be extended to
intrinsically valuing other individual organisms, species, biological communities, and
even the land that helps sustain those communities, for he believes that our other-
regarding sentiments can be focused onto aspects of nature as well.
15

16. Giving a final overview of an account of species‟ intrinsic value, Callicott (1992, p. 133-
34) gives a concise outline of one offered by the father of environmental ethics, Holmes
Rolston:
“…organisms defend their „own kind as a good kind.‟ By this he [Rolston] means that all
organisms…actively defend their lives, and strive to propagate their own species. Each
organism has a telos, a built-in end…. Thus, each is an end in itself. Each, therefore,
has a good of its own. This claim, that all organisms are ends in themselves with goods
of their own, may be what we choose to mean by saying that they are intrinsically
valuable.... Species and ecosystems also…possess Rolstonian intrinsic value. Each
organism „re-presents‟ its species. Each is a token of its type. Its type is indeed its
telos, just as Aristotle would have it. Each strives to be a good of its kind, and some
succeed better than others. Remember Rolston‟s key formula...: all organisms defend
their “own kind as a good kind.” Hence, kinds – species – also have intrinsic value.”
The Ann Arbor Greenbelt Project and Property Rights
In 2003, the voters of Ann Arbor, Michigan, the City of Ann Arbor approved a 30-year
property tax increase to preserve open space and farmland at the City‟s periphery. The
mileage that funds the Greenbelt Program is expected to generate $84 million over 30
years. The program so far has preserved 703 acres at the cost of $11.26 million.
Although it is still too early to tell whether they will have had merit, the promises of
greenbelt advocates are attractive. More parkland and an end to urban “sprawl” top the
list. With growth focused inside the greenbelt, the argument goes, densities will rise to
a level that can efficiently support mass transit, thereby reducing every ill from air
pollution to road congestion. Higher densities, too, claim supporters, also provide more
opportunities to walk and bicycle.
Greenbelt detractors, on the other hand, have grave concerns about the equity of the
program. They argue that reducing the acreage of land available for residential
development will negatively affect the inventory of affordable housing in an area already
16

17. notorious for its high housing costs. “Anything that increases the value of real property
is great if you already have a piece of the pie,” one citizen complained at a recent public
forum on the progress of the Greenbelt Program. She was particularly concerned
because the Greenbelt amenity will mainly abut high-income areas of the City, making
already highly desirable properties even more valuable. “Same old story. The rich get
richer.” More troubling to Isadore Freeman, a longtime resident of Pittsfield Township, is
the inequity, as he sees it, of curtailing commercial and industrial growth just when it is
arriving in Pittsfield. “We have been waiting years to benefit from that growth! The
elitist swine across Ellsworth Road don‟t care a nickel about us.”
Pittsfield Township, especially when compared with Ann Arbor, is not affluent and many
residents struggle financially. The growth of its tax base has not kept up with its needs
for services and employment opportunities have mostly been quite distant for residents
of Pittsfield. “Just when we expected our roads to be fixed, they shut off the tap. How
fair is that?” The swine, as it were, contend that the City plans to purchase property and
development rights for the greenbelt on the open market. “If there is demand for a
Walmart way out there, then Sam Walton can buy it out from under us,” an unnamed
source in the City administration explained. Of course, that assumes that the City does
what the City plans. The possibility that the City may use its eminent domain powers
provides an incentive for landowners in the path of the greenbelt to sell to the City and
for developers to look elsewhere for property. Also, those not wishing to sell are likely to
cut the best deal now, rather than later risk the chance that the ordered selling price
from condemnation will be lower. Even without the threat of condemnation, there are
not many able to compete with the purchasing power of Ann Arbor‟s program, Sam
Walton not withstanding.
Interestingly, it is no longer just the purchasing power of Ann Arbor taxpayers that
opponents of the Greenbelt must face, but also the dollars from their own pocketbooks.
Recently, the US Department of Agriculture anted up $335,000 from its Farm and
Ranchland Protection Program to subsidize the Greenbelt Program.
17

18. Water, the West, and Our Changing Climate: Political and Ethical
Challenges
Water is the central limiting resource of the Western United States, the source a unique
and elaborate body of law, the site of extensive dams and development, and the center
of a history of divisive politics of the West. For the past 100 years, water has been
developed to serve largely narrow utilitarian ends: agriculture, mining, and the ever-
growing population of the West. Today, a new challenge faces those who manage and
plan for water in the west: climate change. Scientists and engineers, as well as the
NOAA, are already documenting change and planning for the stresses water variability
and shortages might place on users in desert states such as Utah, New Mexico, and
Arizona.
However, in western states with a libertarian bent, the law and politics of water and the
politics of climate change make an especially heady mix. The very claim that warming is
happening, not to mention that it is caused by anthropogenic activities, has divided
politicians and scientists, policy makers and activists, along partisan lines. Many of
those with the most power in state and local governments regard climate change
abatement measures as a challenge to “western” values of liberty and free enterprise.
Moreover, states are deeply divided because of a long history of tension over rights to
water – from the headwaters of the Colorado to Mexico.
Scientists, lawyers, water users, stakeholders, leaders of environmental organizations,
and leaders in state and local government have very different perceptions about the
extent and nature of risks due to climate change, and how to address these risks. These
differences in knowledge and perception will no doubt have substantial repercussions
for water use and availability in the future.
The object of this case study is first, to summarize the state of climate science,
particularly, it‟s potential impacts on water resources in the west. Second, we will reflect
on the political, social and logistical complications that these changes will bring for
18

19. planning for water in the West. Third and finally, the object is to try to map out the
causes of these very different perceptions, suggest ways in which scientists and policy
makers might better communicate, about our values in planning for water resources, as
well as our shared obligations in responsibility for non-human animals, ecosystems, and
future generations.
Climate Science and the West: A Summary
There are, broadly speaking, three central challenges that climate change may present
with respect to water in the West. First, variability in climate will increase; this means,
roughly, that extremes temperature and precipitation will occur more often, and weather
in general will be less predictable.
According to scientists at the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association), in
fact, this has already occurred on a local level. Models used to predict local weather in
Utah, though they are always periodically updated, have had to be updated sooner than
expected. According to Brian McInerny, Senior Service Hydrologist at the NOAA: “We‟re
seeing that [lots of precipitation] right now: it‟s harder to forecast river flows because the
spring weather is more variable. It‟s different from average… if you use statistical
means for forecast stream flows, you can look at the past, and predict the future. But if
you change air mass composition and temperature is different, using [that] method
doesn‟t work … we are going to shift now to 81-2011 for the 30-year average. When
you do that, your window has moved into more of a climate change regime, so the
temperatures are warmer, so your averages are going to be higher. Nighttime lows are
much higher.”
In other words, the models that the NOAA are now using as a baseline for weather
forecasts in the mountain west have had to be shifted “up” to the most recent window of
time, in order to incorporate the new variability.
19

20. The second challenge (at least at Northern latitudes) will be higher precipitation, falling
largely as rain, rather than snow. According to Thomas Reichler, a Professor of
Meteorology at the University of Utah: “There will be on the order of 10% increases in
precipitation in winter over northern Utah, and roughly 10% decrease in summer. Those
changes become smaller as you go toward the south.” Precipitation increase is tied to
increases in temperature. Reichler estimates that temperature increases will be “on the
order of 5 deg. F. The seasonal differences are not so large, in terms of temperatures –
basically it just gets warmer, in winter as well as summer.”
Jim Steenbergh, Professor of Meteorology at University of Utah adds, “We have a range
of scenarios for the next 100 years. Most of the climate modes predict warming in the 3-
9 degree range over the next 100 years.” With higher average temperatures, more
precipitation will fall as rain than snow, and there will, on average, be higher runoff from
the Wasatch Range, for example, earlier in the spring season.
In summary, according to Steenbergh, “The changes in temperature we can expect in
the next 50-100 years are much larger than anything that‟s occurred since humans have
settled here, even before Native Americans were on the land. So, we‟re looking at a
pretty big change in terms of the climate of the state.”
Third and finally, and perhaps much more concerning, are what have been dubbed
“mega-droughts.” According to Rob Gillies, Utah‟s State Climatologist and Professor at
Utah State University: “…with climate change, the projections for Utah are that we‟re
going into more extended droughts, of the like that happened in the past with the
Anasazi... We going to look at the paleo records – from the tree rings, we look at the
cycles of drought. From the data that we now have – we see that there is a cycle every
three years, seven years, and one every 25 years.”
20

21. Reichler explains that these are droughts on a scale that we‟ve not seen in the Western
United States since occupied by Europeans: “There have been some paleoclimate
studies trying to measure from proxy data – like from tree rings – trying to reconstruct
the hydroclimate over the last 1000 years. They find that … the last drought that we had
over the last 6 years – these events were more common than we originally thought in
the very distant past – like over the last 1000 years. And, I think that this is what they
dubbed a mega-drought.”
He continues, “Hydrologists usually prepare dams and reservoirs and so on for events
that occur maybe once in 100 years – probably because they have an observational
record that goes back 100 years. And, they think, maybe that‟s something that may
happen in the future in again. Of course, if you wait long enough, there may happen
something that occurs only once every 1000 years. And, you don‟t know when that may
happen.”
Steenbergh explains: “That‟s actually my biggest concern, for at least the rest of my
lifetime, is the potential that we see one of these mega-droughts. That would, I say, be
the biggest risk we have, in terms of our natural water flows. Over time, that climate
change signal will be important. But, between now and 2050, the mega-drought is
possibly the biggest issue. But, whether or not we get it in the next fifty years is a
tougher call to make… You‟re talking about a situation where it‟s very difficult to
recharge reservoirs for many years. In the past, when we‟ve gotten into these droughts
over a few years in the past, the reservoir storage goes down, and, the reservoirs do
their job. That‟s what they‟re built for – to smooth out the climate system. And, of
course we all know that Lake Powell is reaching terribly low values. But we haven‟t
reached anything nearly as bad as what we see in the tree ring record. So, we‟re
seeing a situation where our water resources would be stretched to the maximum.”
In sum, there are three problems: what I‟ll call the merely “complicating” and the “zero-
21

22. sum” problems associated with climate change in the west. Complicating problems
include variability and unpredictability in climate and precipitation, higher temperatures,
less precipitation as snow, and consequently, higher run off earlier in the season. One
of the major effects of climate change and increased temperatures will be increased
evaporation and evapotranspiration rates. Reservoirs evaporate large amounts of water.
Also, ecosystems moving north may affect water variability and distribution.
Zero-sum problems are problems where the outcome is irreversible and on a vast scale;
these include droughts on a major scale, droughts that require radical reconsideration of
water use in the West. Such droughts have occurred in the past, and indeed, can be
predicted for an arid state like Utah on a regular cycle, though, of course, predicting
such “zero-sum” events is a challenge.
This leads one naturally to the question of uncertainties about the science, both of
climate and water. It‟s important to clarify two distinct senses of uncertainty: what I‟ll call
mere statistical or “magnitude” uncertainty and genuine scientific controversy. There are
ample statistical uncertainties surrounding the modeling of climate and water resources.
Thetrends described above, however, are not a matter of scientific controversy,
according to almost every professional meteorologist in the U.S.
Jim Steenbergh explains: “We already have warming in the pipeline no matter what we
do today. There‟s no scenario, that I can imagine, where we‟re going to start to get
greenhouse gas emissions down to a very low level for at least a few decades. So, we
know it‟s coming, and adaptation should enter into the policy mix. We should prepare for
that. I don‟t think it‟s a burden of proof issue.”
So, what are the uncertainties in question? First, there are uncertainties concerning the
extent of variability and how it will affect the west. How extreme the change of
temperature will be, and how that changes
22

23. 23