Farming: A Necessary Evil?

It would surprise many to hear that in terms of lake and river contamination, agriculture is by far a worse offender than industry or any other sector. Should we jump to convict this repeat offender or instead consider the issues involved? And how can we apply the world’s environmental principles to evaluate the truth of the matter? Kevin P. Craver evaluates the problem posed by agriculture in “Ground Control: Farmers part of the problem, solution to water pollution”.

Agriculture is clearly humanity’s most necessary occupation. Until we go back to hunting with bows and arrows, farming crops and raising food animals will be necessary to support the population of Earth. However, there are some serious pollution problems involved. The nitrogen in fertilizer used by the majority of agribusinesses in America causes algal blooms, which in turn lead to eutrophication of lakes. This is a serious problem and threat to lake ecosystems and wildlife. Phosphorous is an additional pollutant that does this as well. The chemicals in pesticides pose serious environmental threats as well.

Agriculture is a tricky issue, though, because it is extremely necessary. To control the negative environmental effects, one must mediate the effects with technologies and concepts instead of taxes. One effort to do such is using filter strips or buffers in between agricultural area and water drainage, so that the water is filtered before draining into watersheds. This mitigates some of the strong problems caused by water pollution. As well, state environmental agencies issue discharge permits to large agribusinesses like factory farms to limit pollution.

However, many farmers haven’t implemented these precautions, and Craver says that the Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have the manpower or funding to properly monitor compliance. Regulation seems to be the most important control to runaway pollution, and it isn’t being done properly in the United States.

To think long term about the situation, policy makers should consider the wellbeing of future generations as well as that of the farmers. Explained in the sustainability principle is the idea that regulations should be made to protect not only economic growth of those living in the present, but the health and rights of those living in the future. In this vein, several other things should be considered in farming. Using up the soil and depleting nutrients is another unsustainable practice that should be curbed in terms of protecting the rights of future generations of farmers.

The author of this article comments that within the last 20 years environmental impact on water has gone down significantly. That being said, improvements can not stop now. Technological progress has made available many new methods to reduce water contamination. All that remains is to implement them.

We can conclude that agriculture is a necessary evil. There are many ways to reduce it’s impact, but regulations on monitoring and implementation of meditation technologies is an important step.

References

Craver, Kevin P. Oct 24, 2009. Ground Control: Farmers part of the problem, solution to water pollution. Northwest Herald. Accessed Nov 25, 2009 from http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2009/10/22/r_fx2rzrrprsyqyg0w9h0atq/index.xml

Own The Water, Own The World

Alberta is planning to start selling off it’s fresh water to make a profit. This is a very questionable policy and has not yet been proposed but it is not expected to go well with the public when it is introduced. This is a plan that has not yet been used buy any Canadian province and is very controversial. This is an idea of selling something that is publically used and owned and making it private. In a country like Canada where everything is equal and most things are free, like healthcare, taking away our water may very well be an obstruction of justice.
If Alberta starts selling water this will open the doors for the whole country to start selling their water as well. Water could be sold and taken to places where there is a water shortage. In some ways this would be good because it would help suffering people but shipping off all that water would be very expensive and could cause Canadians to become short of water. The government could make a lot of money selling off water. But if the water is sold, the owner can do anything they want with the water and the government can do nothing to legally stop them.
If water were to be sold privately the world would be ruled by the richest people living on it. The people with the most money would purchase all the water and would start selling it off for more than even they bought it for. Nobody would be able to prevent this and with water being necessary for survival I’m sure that nobody would hesitate to go out and purchase a few liters. All these liters would add up and many families would be put into debt but still have to pay for their water. Even more problems would occur when you need to buy extra water for showering and watering plants or crops or any other things that involve water. If all the water in the world was owned by one person, that one person would rule the own world.

Is access to clean drinking water a human right?

Water covers 90% of the earth’s surface and everyone needs more than a cup of it.

By Samantha Zaluski

Around one billion people across the world only have access to dirty and unsafe drinking water. A growing movement is making a huge effort to make clean water accessible a universal human right because of the increasing scarcity of fresh water. This decrease in resources is due to climate change and population growth. Guaranteeing an individuals’ right to have access to water is now a constitutional or legal provision in approximately thirty countries, many more than just a couple a few years past. Determining that water is a right could give populations a mechanism to use to counter their government. The article “Is access to clean water a basic human right?” by Yigal Schleifer raise many questions including need versus right, public versus private use, public versus private delivery of water and ownership across political boundaries.

The need for something and the right to something implies different things. Dictionary.com states, a need “is to be necessary” and human right is “any basic right or freedom to which all human beings are entitled and in whose exercise a government may not interfere”.A need is something that is necessary, and a human right is a need that cannot be interfered with by the government. As for water, it is essential for life and without it humans cannot survive. Therefore water is a right and should be accessible to all, and governments should not be permitted to interfere with this need.

Water is used both publicly, by individuals and the governments that represent them, and privately by businesses. Finding the right balance of public and private use is the key. Since there is only so much water, the amount used must be shared by these two groups, with the priority however going to individuals. Not until all individuals have sufficient water, should water be given to businesses.

Political boundaries are often made without regards to how water flows. Most rivers pass through more than one country. Many lakes are owned by more than one nation. Nations have always fought over land and now increasingly over water because it is becoming such a scarce resource. Rather than water being owned by nations, I think ownership should be shared by all those nations whose land carries any portion of the lake or river. Then decisions about water use would need to be based around each water body or river, rather than by one country or another. A watershed is the region where a river or stream drains. One possibility would be that borders used for making resource decisions about water, could be based on watershed boundaries. Making boundaries more natural than political may lead to more environmentally sound ways of ensuring that everyone has fair access to the water they have the right to.

Unquestionably access to sufficient clean water is a human right. How to ensure that this right is respected is a complex management issue that will require countries to unite and begin to think differently. It is not an issue that any one country can resolve in isolation. Hopefully governments are able to show strong leadership and work towards this end, before more millions of people die from lack of clean water.

Reference

Schleifer,Yigal. “Is access to clean water a basic human right?” Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor. March 19, 2009. http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0319/p06s01-woeu.html

Preventing Water Shortages

by Laura Van Vliet

The Kingdom of Tonga is located in the South Pacific Ocean, an archipelago populated by approximately 100,000 people. The geography of the nation makes it especially vulnerable to environmental changes, particularly climate change and rising sea levels. An article by the Tonga Broadcasting Commission outlines recent inquest into the idea of reducing environmental impact by water recycling. The efforts of the Tongans, though not yet in effect, reflect recent fears of rising ocean levels and shortages of fresh water.

The article states that the recycling of waste water has been suggested as a way to prevent future water shortages. While counterarguments within the article report that there is no real danger of water shortages, as the underground reservoir constantly recharges itself and there are high levels of precipitation, the precautionary principle argues that despite this, efforts should be taken to reduce water usage. As the Tongan population continues to grow, water usage will increase, and it is unknown if the water supply will be large enough to support this or if the surrounding ecosystems will be negatively impacted because of water is being taken out of the natural environment for human use. Water recycling is an easy solution to this problem, at least partially, preventing unknown consequences resulting from overuse of an increasingly precious resource.

Another concept which must be considered is the principle of sustainability. Future generations may suffer if our inaction today causes shortages, which bring up questions of intergenerational equity. Future generations have the same right to fresh water and adequate resources as those alive today, and we must strive to ensure this takes place. Water usage, therefore, must be at a sustainable level, equilibrium must be established at which we know that future generations will have access to the resource. Rising sea levels may affect the fresh water supply, pushing the water up and potentially over the brink of the reservoir, wasting the water supply. This, coupled with increased water demand as population increases, may mean that current sustainable levels of water use may no longer be sustainable in the future. Less water intake may be required in order to maintain the health of our ecosystems, and ensure that in the future we are prepared for and can guard against water shortages. This is another excellent reason for the Tongan nation to implement waste water recycling programs.

In conclusion, the waste water recycling program suggested for implementation in Tonga is a program which should be put into place. When one analyzes the risks for the future, such as decreased water availability due to climate change or overpopulation, and applies the principles of sustainability and precautionary thinking, it is the logical choice.

References


Tonga Broadcasting Commission. Recycling to Prevent Water Shortage. 24 November 2009. Accessed on: 25 November 2009. Available at: http://69.64.79.247/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1927&Itemid=57

Free Water

Country News of mmgnetwork posted a journal article titled “Temporary water price drops” written by Sophie Burns. The article explains the effects of decrease in price for temporary water that has given opportunities for things to occur. For example the rice and dairy farmers are beginning to increase, due to the lower price of water. The reason for this is because water is at an affordable price; that helps the farmers purchase more water to help increase their supply. In addition to the increase supply, the profits will also increase since more of the product can be produce, this leads to a lower overall selling price.

After reading the article, it occurred to me this can be linked to the chapter 13 of the book “Environmental Principles and Policies – Quotas, Trades, Offsets, and Banks.” In the introduction of the chapter it illustrates the idea that every resource must have a price set. Without a price resources can be used freely and abused with no risk to them; whoever is able to obtain the resource first will have the most. However when a price is placed on the resource can be easily controlled and managed to prevent exploitation.

I agree with the books ideas; yes it may be true if a certain resource if not controlled will be abused to the point where there is no more. But in special cases they can be seen as beneficial but it has its limitations, here is a scenario:
Take the same scenario of the rice and dairy farmers and provide them a free source of water. This would allow them to increase their own profits by producing more resources to sell. Using those profits, they are able to purchase modern technology to help them efficiently make they’re crops. Since farmers are already poor relative to other jobs with the amount of work, this would be very beneficial. However this is nowhere near possible since the water can be abused by the farmer easily. The water would not be distributed evenly; perhaps it could drain the fertile soil of its fertility, and erode the soil. It’s a possibility that this will occur if the farmer is given free source of water.

The emphasis the book is trying to make is that when a resource is placed with a price tag, it is not so profits are made. But a way of allocating the resources so they do not deplete. This is the incentive to check with ourselves if we really need the resource. The definition of value in economic terms is: something has value when the willingness to pay is present, when the willingness to pay is not then it has no value. If something has no value to us (buyer) we wouldn’t want to spend large quantities of money on it. Overall the idea of using economics to allocate our resources is a great method to sustain our resources.

Reference:

Burns, Sophie. "Temporary Water Price Drops." Country News - McPherson Media Group. Web. 24 Nov. 2009. .

Beder, Sharon. Environmental Principles and Policies An Interdisciplinary Introduction. Minneapolis: Earthscan Publications Ltd., 2006. Print.

Water or War?

By Geneviève Lalonde

In the past, the city of Yemen was able to retrieve water by grinding crevasses in the rocks to capture the rainfall. Unfortunately, with climate change arising, this method became less and less efficient. This caused the population to go searching underground. They went looking deeper in the water aquifers and since 1998, the reserves are seen decreasing. Some families must wait six weeks until they get flowing water through their taps. With the instability along the borders of Saudi Arabia, this issue has been set aside.

The article by Peter Kenyon entitled “Obscured By War, Water Crisis Looms In Yemen” demonstrates that many different environmental policies are not being followed. There are two main policies missing namely the equity principle and the Market for conservation principle in order to ensure water is distributed in a fair way to all of the population. The government must step in and, amongst other, create incentives to ensure water is preserved ultimately leading to a reintroduction of the more traditional ways to collect water.

The article implies that the agriculture sector in Yemen uses up 85 percent of its available water and rather inefficiently. If we take into account the equity principle, there is a lack of fairness in this system. As Anwer Sahouly, the water expert for Yemen’s water reform effort states, “all civilization has grown around water. Water is life”. If water is life, by allowing water to be extracted at unfair proportions by the farmers, we are depriving the less fortunate people of Yemen from living. All this indicates a faulty equity plan.

There are many other matters that are “corrupt” about this system. In the 1970’s, some international monetary groups introduced incentives to the farmers. These incentives introduced them to drilling wells and the use of underground aquifers instead of the traditional rainwater captured crops. As these aquifer resources are nearing depletion, Kenyon reports “Yemenis are responding by drilling more and more illegal wells and pumping more water than ever”. The situation appears nearly out of control.

Under the Markets for conservation principle, we know that many countries have achieved remarkable results through water trading and incentives. A proper comparison for this issue would be what was done in rural Australia. It brought in an initiative to insure a secure water trading system. As our textbook, Environmental principles and policies by Sharon Beder, describes “water trading will enable those who can make the most money out of the water buy it and those who make less money sell it”. This worked in Australia because during drought it was more profitable for farmers to sell their water entitlements then to attempt to grow crops. For Yemen, this may mean introducing incentives for the Yemeni farmers to trade in a more proper manner. It may also mean being more forceful in reducing illegal drilling.

If the government took action, they could achieve this in a multitude of ways. They could introduce a water trading market. A market could introduce a proper value for the water, which would allow the water to be better allocated. As Beder demonstrates water trading has been successful in places such as Chile, Mexico, Peru, Australia as well as the USA where many of these places have implemented a price on water. They will then be forced to either make use of every last drop, or find resourceful ways of capturing the water to make a profit.

Clearly the Yemeni urban population is suffering and the government has made few signs of discouraging these actions to date. With the border rebellion crisis being their number one priority, they might not attend to it for a while. Unless proper incentives and policies are put in place soon, the growing population and shrinking water supply of Yemen will lead to a crisis situation.

References

Obscured By War, Water Crisis Looms In Yemen,

by Peter Kenyon - November 20^th 2009

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=120619082&sc=emaf

Environmental Principles and Policies – an interdisciplinary introduction

By Sharon Beder

The Polluters Pay in Chattanooga

In the article “Quality at a cost: Storm water rates go up to fend off expected fed fines” by Dave Flessner and Cliff Hightower, they explain the problems that Chattanooga, Tennessee is experiencing involving their polluted rainwater runoff. The taxpayers of Chattanooga have paid more than $80 million in storm water fees over the past 16 years, but federal regulators say the city is still facing pollution problems from rainwater runoff. The city’s storm water system is not in compliance with the Clean Water Act standards and therefore, they will need to invest in a more environmentally friendly system to accommodate the polluted rainwater. The Tennessee department of Environment and Conservation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency are preparing to impose a $50 million fine to the city if they do not deal with this problem quickly.

In order to improve their storm water runoff, the city of Chattanooga is preparing to introduce several procedures that will hopefully allow them to avoid the $50 million fine. The city is looking beyond single source polluters and is now focusing more on runoff across the city. They believe this will be more effective in reducing the potential of contaminated runoff. They have determined that runoff from parking lots, rooftops and other developed properties add silt, oil, pesticides and other contaminants to the water, which accounts for 85% of pollution in rivers and streams. Increased storm water fees will be implemented, with the income from this new tax, contributing towards more efficient engineering and inspections. Residential fees will increase from $36 to $115.50 a year and increased inspections of residential properties will occur.

In an inspection from September 2008, 57 violations of the city’s storm water permit were identified. The city never had any reason to spend their money on something that people don’t see and they determined that it was not a priority. If the polluter pays principle was never implemented, the city may never have changed their ways. The threat of a huge fine is causing them to pull out all the stops in order to reduce their impact on the environment.

There are several ways in which measures to protect the environment can have an impact on equity. There are three main aspects of equity that are addressed in the equity principle: people’s rights must be respected, people deserve fairness, and that people’s needs should be met and their contribution to meeting these needs should be based on their ability to do so. In this situation, taxes are increased due to the implementation of the polluter pays principle. These taxes are being imposed on all city residents, including a certain section of society whose members may not be able to afford these extra costs. Residents are expected to pay an extra $79 a year and there may be many people that cannot afford this increase. This is also causing problems for small business owners. The owner of a mobile home park had her storm water bill increase from $1324 to $5299 and she doesn’t know how she will deal with this extra cost.

The city of Chattanooga must address their issues with contaminated storm water runoff in order to protect the environment that they have been degrading for so many years. By implementing the polluter pays principle, the city is introducing fines to individual residences and other developed properties who are contributing to the problem. They have increased the tax for storm water runoff, expecting to use this extra income for increased inspections and more effective engineering. However, there are many people that cannot afford these increased costs. The equity principle states that people’s needs should be met and their contribution to meeting these needs should be based on their ability to do so. Therefore, it would be constructive if the city could compensate those with less money with some kind of extra income support. Before making a decision, all governments need to analyze the positive and negative outcomes of their implemented policy.

Flessner, D. & Hightower, C. November 22, 2009. Quality at a cost: Stormwater rates go up to fend off expected fed fines. Chattanooga Times Free Press. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2009/nov/22/quality-at-a-cost-stormwater-rates-go-up-to-fend/

Lakes into Garbage Dumps?

By Samantha Zaluski

Sixteen lakes across Canada are proposed to be redefined as mine tailing ponds or dump sites. The residences around the lakes are concerned about the environmental and health effects of the chemicals. However the lakes are perfect basins to submerge tailings from near by mining operations. In the article, " Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites", Terry Milewski discusses the regulatory control of the laws and the protest from the people. This article discusses the current regulatory situation, how economic incentives could be used instead, and evaluates which is the better alternative.

In Canada, the Fisheries act states that it is illegal to dispose of any dangerous chemical into waters with fish. The Mining Act Schedule Two states that the federal government can rename a lake an area for trailing waste. Catherine Coumans, a spokeswoman for the environmental group Mining Watch, says that it is making it too easy for mining companies to reclassify lakes and other waters as mine dump sites because of the government is increasingly. Therefore it is cheaper for mining companies to not build dumps rather they ask the government to convert a lake into one. There is obviously a loophole in the laws.

There are different ways to achieve environmental protection and governmental controls: regulations and economic incentives, making the polluters accountable for any damages created by their actions. Regulatory controls dictate implementing a certain way to reduce or eliminate pollution. Economic incentives motivate companies to develop their own way to reduce pollutants to a prescribed level and fine them if they exceed the limit, or reward them if they stay below the limits. Another economic method is to impose a tax on damages caused by pollution. Another choice would be for the government to offer money to mining companies to develop environmentally sound tailings disposal methods.

With economic incentives businesses can determine the best method to reduce or eliminate pollution, encouraging technological innovation. Each company is individually responsible for whether or not they are rewarded, taxed or fined.

In principle economic incentives seem like the best solution to this problem, since they reduce pollution and allow greater innovations in technology. However, unless the regulations are tightened up, there may be no reason for mining companies to stop dumping tailings. The mining companies have huge profits, so the government would need to impose immense taxes or fines, or provide immense rewards. After the regulations are improved, economic incentives might work. Regardless, the current situation is deplorable and must be remedied soon.

References

Anderson, Dawn. “Regulatory Policy vs Economic Incentives”. The Economist.1989 http://www.enviroliteracy.org/article.ph p/1329.html

Milewski, Terry. “Lakes across Canada face being turned into mine dump sites”. CBC News. 2008. http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/06/16/condemned-lakes.html

Drilling in New York's Watersheds

The water supply for New York City comes unfiltered from pristine, upstate watersheds, and according to Alison Levy of The Huffington Post, the quality of water is said to be among the best in the world. She writes that nine million people living in New York depend on the water coming from these reservoirs. However, there exists in this same area vast reserves of natural gas, which drilling companies hope to exploit. The natural gas is trapped between layers of rock deep underground, and the extraction process, called ‘fracking’, involves shooting a high pressure mixture of sand, water, and toxic chemicals into the ground. New Yorkers are concerned about the possibility of this noxious fluid contaminating the watershed and therefore their water supply.

The state of New York is addressing the possibility of placing regulations on extraction, after hearing the public’s concerns. A ban was called for by many New Yorkers and environmental organizations, but is currently not a likely option. Instead, the Department of Environmental Conservation would regulate the amount of drilling allowed in the state, likely by the selective approval and the strict monitoring of drilling projects. The article is not specific in the type of regulation that may be implemented, but for other similar projects such as Alberta’s oil sands, a policy of monitoring, environmental impact assessments, and selective approval applies.

Another alternative to regulation in handling a sensitive environmental issue like this one is to introduce economic incentives. Where there is potential for massive environmental damage, a bonding system is necessary, which would have potential polluters place in escrow an amount of money big enough to deal with the mess. If contamination of the watershed occurs, the city of New York would have to set up a filtration system, which would cost $10 billion dollars to start and $100 million each year for maintenance. Potential drillers would have to have this capital, which is unreachable. Because of this, a bonding system would have to be overlooked, which would compromise the responsibility of potential drillers, and potential polluters. A tax on damage done (such as contamination) seems inappropriate in this case, as even a low amount of toxic chemicals in the state’s groundwater would incur enormous costs. As a tax would not work, and a bonding system would not work, it leaves to be seen what kind of economic incentives would be appropriate and feasible in this particular case.

In many situations, using such economic incentives can be economically beneficial in comparison to regulation. In this case, it could be argued that the optimal level of pollution is zero, since contamination of New York’s water supply would result in the immense costs of installing a filtration system. A case with an optimal pollution level of zero or close to zero is generally seen to be better controlled with regulation than with economic incentives. As well, one of the benefits of using economic incentives rather than government regulation is that it encourages research and development into abatement technologies, or technology that allows companies to avoid the costs they pay in taxes (or similar economic incentives). However, this situation does not involve making technologies to lower contamination rates, but immediately introduce technologies to avoid all possible contamination.

The potential environmental and economic damage that natural gas extraction poses to the city and watersheds of New York makes careful governmental policies necessary. In this case, regulation seems to be the safest and most viable solution, to make proper and protective use of resources. However, this is all economic reasoning, which may not satisfy New Yorkers outraged that access to their most basic need, clean water, was being threatened.

References:

Levy, Alison Rose. "Protecting New York City's Water Supply from Gas Companies." The Huffington Post. Nov 11, 2009. Accessed Nov 18, 2009 from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/protecting-new-york-citys_b_354264.html

Is more regulation really the solution?

by Laura Van Vliet

Governmental control of water pollution is crucial in the world in which we live, where pollution would likely reach toxic levels if left unrestrained. There are two main techniques for governments to exert their control, the first is through command and control regulation – in which specific rules and regulations control the amount and type of pollution each company is allowed to produce – and the second is through economic incentives – in which the government motivates companies to reduce pollution using their preferred methods, as long as the specific value is met the companies will not lose money. An article by Yingling Yui, titled “Analysis: Stronger Regulation Needed to Improve Corporate Pollution Record in China,” argues that more regulatory control is needed is China to manage the widespread water pollution which is occurring. In the article, it states that “weak supervision and lousy enforcement in China has been a major passive encouragement...” (Yui 2008) for the industry sector not to perform up to the standards. However, more regulation, detailing more specific environmental measures to be taken by individual companies, is not necessarily the most effective way to solve this problem.

Economic incentives, an important system of controlling industrial pollution, could be effectively used to control water pollution in China. The key to a successful economic incentive program is that the benefits of reducing pollution [by the desired amount] outweigh the costs of doing so. Taxation and the sale and trading of pollution permits are two good ways of creating such a situation. The government in China could ‘print’ and sell (or issue free of cost) a number of permits allowing a certain type and quantity of water pollution, which would be distributed in a fair way among companies. The industry would then have to decrease pollution to the amount specified by the total permits, though they could do it in whichever distribution they pleased – through the buying and selling of the permits. In this way, the most cost effective approach to reducing pollution by the specified amount would be found. This “free market” of pollution permits also removes restrictions on how the pollution is reduced, as opposed to demanding the companies use certain methods of pollution reduction, therefore encouraging the development of new technologies and processes to reduce pollution. Thus, by creating pollution permits, as opposed to regulatory control, China could effectively reduce water pollution.

In my opinion, the policy of economic incentives is the better solution. It is more efficient, effective, and promotes the development of new technologies and processes for environmental protection. While the two different policies have different merits in depending on the situation, in the broad field of Chinese water pollution control, it is improbable that the government will be able to reduce pollution in the most efficient and effective way. Allowing the industry to develop and decide itself on technology and processes, while the government is solely a regulatory body ensuring the pollution abatement occurs, is the best solution.

Thus, of the two major methods of pollution control – economic incentives and regulatory control – I believe that the situation of water pollution in China described by Yingling Yui would be addressed most successfully using economic incentives. The use of ‘pollution permits’ would allow companies to cost-effectively reduce pollution while simultaneously encouraging technological development.


Liu, Yingling. “Analysis: Stronger Regulation Needed to Improve Corporate Pollution Record in China.” Worldwatch Institute. 6 February 2008. Accessed on: 18 February 2009. Available at: http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5601

Less Equals More

By Geneviève Lalonde

The city of Saint-John New Brunswick, is in need for safer and cleaner water. The two water treatment plants are in poor shape and need to be replaced. Journalist Reid Southwick of The Telegraph Journal captures the story in his article; Upgrades: Three studies will propose changes to outdated system. The author speaks about these studies that will be put forward shortly by the consultants who were hired to do a review. In short there appears to be two construction options in replacing the aging water treatment plants; 1) with two new ones or 2) with one larger plant more centrally located. The other decision is whether the construction of the plant(s) plus a needed upgrade of the pipeline system, would be contracted out and then turned back to the City to operate or be built and managed by a third party through a Private Public Partnership (P3).

It is also known from a CBC report that the City has been very slow at implementing residential water meters that provide incentives to save. Currently water rates are regulated based on a flat fee per user (that is calculated based on average utilization).

In any of the scenarios suggested, the municipality will maintain control of the water and of the regulated billing process. I concur that this should be the case. Certainly one of the key to achieving maximum usage and environmental benefits will be for the City to continue shifting residential users to water meters and to provide users the incentives to conserve.

Naturally with some $200 million plus of new infrastructure that will be needed, there will be a limit on how much the residential fee must be a base fee to insure repayment of the infrastructure and how much can be the variable based on utilization. Sadly the municipality may also be forced to add more capacity than is needed as it will likely base this on current utilization plus expected future needs as opposed to what would be the current utilization if its population already had the right incentives in place to conserve.

In terms of maximizing public benefits, it should not be ignored that Saint John has a strong labor force and invariably, as is the case in most P3 solutions, the private partner will opt not to hire unionized labor. While a labor like force might costs more to the private partner, to the City they do pay more local taxes, consume more and provide greater local benefits. This should be a social cost consideration for the City to agree to pay the private partner more.

Because the current plants and water delivered are of poor quality, we can easily argue that the environmental impact will be for an improvement overall. One can suppose that if the private partner was given the task to build and run the facility (ies), they would opt for only one treatment plant. If they are not chosen to do so, local politics may force council to maintain two separate plants (nobody likes to lose assets and jobs in their region). Consequently a private partner here may have value in terms of decision making and costs.

To conclude and in terms of public costs and social benefits, it would appear that the best solution when adjusted for a labor-force utilization, might be for a large new treatment facility matched with a roll out of residential water meters across the City. Even more ideal would be a a treatment facility that could see its capacity increased gradually over time as population growth would demand it. It is my belief that such solutions would provide the best environmental, social and overall cost solution to its citizens. Let’s see over the next few weeks what the consultants suggest.

References

Telegraph Journal: Upgrades: Three studies will propose changes to outdated system.

by Reid Southwick,November 18^th 2009

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/city/article/859556

Water rates in Saint John

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2009/04/30/nb-saint-john-water-957.html

Information about St-John pulp and paper

http://www.jdirving.com/

Mercury reduction with the use of money incentives

On the Augustachronicles website, a newspaper article “Olin must reduce its mercury output” written by Margie McClain. Outlines the issues toxic mercury has caused to her own community. McClain suggest that Olin Corporation should quickly implement and stress the use of mercury-free technology. However the issue is that more and more time is being given to Olin to continue emitting mercury toxins into the atmosphere and water. The plan is to quickly meet the needs to the Mercury pollution reduction act, by stopping the mercury production by 2013. Within these next 4 years it is very possible to modernize their plants says McClain.

By using mercury-free technology it can reduce the amount of emitted toxins in the atmosphere; however it can be very costly. This is why incentives are alternatives to fix the solution, and provide the company with the same results at a cheaper price. Since Olin provides many chemical products, it can be assumed that large amounts of waste and money are used to maintain such a production. For economic incentives to be active, government action must be in place. One method is by taxation; first a small tax must be in place for the amount of mercury emissions produced, this will slowly introduce the tax of emissions. At first there may not be large amounts of change since the tax can be close to only 3%, which the company can afford. However when the tax increases to nearly 10% the company itself will begin to reduce its emissions to decrease their liabilities.

In addition to the taxation method, another method that could be added for effectiveness is to provide certain financing to the company if they have improved their reductions. The financial help the government provides can aid the company to modernize with green technology. Overtime the company itself will produce fewer emissions.

Since there’s a possibility that Olin is not the only polluter, another solution is to introduce permits. They can be distributed among the different polluters which allow them to only pollute as much as their permit can allow. However you are not restricted to the amount of permits that are given at the begin; it is possible for trade to occur between companies, so long as permit covers the pollution emitted. By the end of the year the permits are collected, if the amount exceeds the permit then a heavy charge is put into place. The selling and trading of the permits allows the company to increase profits for the company to also expand and improve their own technology.

By using these economic incentives it is clearly seen as an advantage to promote changes towards green activity. Whether the use of taxation or permits both are effective methods to motivate industries to become more aware of the impact these different industries are having on the environment.

Reference:

"Olin must reduce its mercury output 111209 - The Augusta Chronicle." The Augusta Chronicle - Breaking news, sports, blogs, video, entertainment, shopping. Web. 17 Nov. 2009. .

Forced to let gardens dry out

In the article One day per week watering schedule, published in Pasedonia Now, it is stated that in order to reduce the water shortage in Pasedonia, California, the municipality has placed restrictions on outdoor watering. Residents are currently only allowed to water their gardens and lawns once a week during the given time slot.

Instead of implementing a restriction to reduce water consumption of residences, using economic incentives may be more effective. There are several ways that this can be done involving incentives. For example, the municipality could evaluate their water availability and create a recommended limit of how much water each household should need to consume in order to sustain a common lifestyle. For every predetermined unit of water that is used over the limit a fee must be paid. If a household uses less than the limit, they would be given a payment for each water unit. Like the above, there are other possibly more effective ways that water consumption could be reduced.

There are several faults to the regulation that the Pasedonia government has put in place. The residents that are affected by the regulation of reducing outdoor watering may be unhappy that they are not free to water their garden when their plants need water. Because they are unhappy, residents are more likely not to follow this regulation. If this regulation is not properly enforced, it is likely that few people will actually follow it. People may feel like they are being told what they can and cannot do (which they essentially are) and this may make them unhappy. This regulation also may not affect everyone, as some people don’t keep gardens or have plants that a suited for a dry environment. Enforcing this regulation will not reduce their water consumption at all.

Also, due to the dry conditions experienced in California, outdoor watering does contribute to a large portion of water consumption in order for residents to keep their plants alive. The government may think that this would be an easy regulation to put in place because a person’s lifestyle will not be greatly affected when they need to reduce how often they water their garden. However, there are many more activities that consume a large amount of water. For example, fixing leaky faucets and plumbing joints saves up to 600 gallons of water per month for every leak stopped (Mono Lake). In order to really make an impact on reducing water consumption, the government needs to put limits on all activities that involve large amounts of water.

Using the process of economic incentives would be more effective in reducing residential water consumption. Residents would feel like they had more freedom because they have the ability to determine where they will reduce their consumption. For example, if watering their garden was important, they could fix leaky faucets instead. More residents would be happy and therefore would be more likely to follow this program. Using economic incentives would encourage people that don’t normally keep a garden to think about ways to reduce their water consumption. It would be more effective to have general restrictions on water consumption rather than specific restrictions on certain activities. This is also because if there are restrictions placed on several water consuming activities, residents may feel like they are so restricted that they have to drastically change their habits. However this is untrue because there are several simple ways to largely reduce water consumption. People may be more willing to participate in reducing their consumption if they know that they will get money for doing so. Most people would try to avoid paying a fine and therefore would be more willing to participate.

Providing an economic incentive would be effective because it would give people the freedom to choose how they would reduce their water consumption and many would participate if they were going to get a reward. Because many areas of California experience drought like conditions throughout most of the year, the pressing issues of water shortages are always being discussed. It is important to find a solution that will keep residents of the community happy, while also limiting their use of water. This is often a difficult task because people don’t want to change their lifestyle by reducing water consumption, but they also don’t want to run out of water.

Anonymous. (2009 November 1). Pasedonia Now. Retrieved 2009 November 12, 2009, from, http://pasadenanow.com/main/2009/11/01/one-day-per-week-watering-schedule-enacted

Schwarzenegger Shines

California has been realizing over the past few years that it isn’t going to have enough water in the years to come. It has been realized that in years to come, they will run out of water if they don’t do anything to limit water use and monitor how much is used. The plan is to reduce water use by 20% in urban areas by 2020, monitor the use of all ground water, increased penalties for illegal water diversion, and invest to try and find ways to recycle water and make better use of it. These plans are a great start to the changes that are needed to keep California saturated.
Although this is a big problem for the people of California, it is also important to keep the surrounding environment in mind. The surrounding vegetation will need water as well to survive. Also, there are a lot of forest fires in California, so there will need to be water in reserve to both put out the fire and try and regrow the lost vegetation. It is also important to keep in mind when they are making these laws the animals and forests in the surrounding environment and keep in mind that they have rights and that they need water too.
A Deontologist might view this situation and make the decision to build a pipe line from the closest large water source. This will be a good temporary solution to the problem because the residence of California will be very happy and have as much water as they want. However, this would be a bad idea because the water source may run dry and cause harm to the surrounding environment.
I believe that California is taking a very utilitarian approach to this situation. They are gradually making changes that are very gradual and do not negatively affect anybody. The changes being made in California are tough decisions and they need a lot of thought put into them before they should be decided. It is important to keep all living things in mind during the decisions and limit the effect on their environment.

http://features.csmonitor.com/politics/2009/11/04/california-lawmakers-pass-sweeping-water-reforms/

Conserving water is the right thing for Canadians to do

By Samantha Zaluski

Canadians are the second highest water consumers in the world, second only to our southern neighbour, the United States. The action being discussed in “Water Conservation” by Sierra Club of Canada National Office is whether or not Canadians should conserve water. This NGO states the following reasons why we should conserve water: we would not have to build new dams or pump groundwater, conservation costs less money than building new supplies, less fossil fuel usage is used to transport water, and lastly that lower demand will lead to more de-centralized supplies which are more flexible to our ever-changing world. The Sierra Club of Canada believes that all things matter morally: the environment (the earth, animals and plants), this generation and all future generations.

A non-consequentialist view is that an action is ethically correct if it abides by all moral laws and does not considering the outcome of the action. 1) The Sierra Club uses the argument that it is morally right to do what is ecologically best for the earth: “Dams and diversions fragment river ecosystems. Bigger pumps built to bring groundwater to the surface drain ponds, wetlands and streams, undermining the health of these critical ecosystems.” Not having to build new dams or pump groundwater is better for the earth and biosphere. 2) The Sierra Club uses the argument that it is morally right to do what costs less: “From an economic perspective, maximizing the efficiency of existing infrastructure and minimizing the need for future expansion reduces costs.” Maximizing the efficiency costs less money than building new supplies. 3) The Sierra Club uses the argument that it is morally right to do what is best for the environment: “Building the infrastructure for supply-side options and the pumping that is often required to transport water both require vast amounts energy. Currently, this energy is produced from fossil fuels or nuclear reactors leaving a legacy of more greenhouse gas emissions and toxic waste for future generations.” The less water used means less fossil fuel usage, since transporting water takes traditional sources of water. 4) The Sierra Club uses the argument that it is morally right to do what is best for society: “Decentralized and small-scale solutions can be implemented incrementally, enhancing local capacity to adapt to an increasingly uncertain future of changing economies, changing social values and a changing climate.” The less demand for water means more de-centralized and flexible solutions, which is better longer-term. Sierra Club is appealing to people's sense of what is morally right and wrong by using reasons about the earth, environment, and society.

A consequentailist view is one that considers an action to be correct if it's outcome provides the greatest amount of good or happiness for the greatest amount of people. The Sierra Club’s first argument about doing what is ecologically best for the earth; they do not consider the jobs lost by not undertaking these new infrastructure developments. They do consider the consequences to the ecology of the environment on the other hand. The Sierra Club uses the argument that it is morally right to do what costs less; they are not considering the benefits to the economy by upgrading to new and possibly more efficient technology. The Sierra Club uses the argument that it is morally right to do what is best for the environment; they do consider the consequences of the pollution and the usage of energy. The Sierra Club uses the argument that it is morally right to do what is best for society; they didn't consider the jobs gained if there are more local water supplies or the quality of life could decreasing such as less shower or less green lawns. The Sierra Club considers some but not all of the consequences of conserving water.

Sierra Club has considered some of the consequences of their policy on water conservation, but hasn't explicitly weighed out the good consequences versus the bad, although if they did, they would clearly show that water conservation does lead to the greatest good for the greatest number of people. This policy is largely a deontologist's view. This policy appeals mostly to those who have high moral standards and likely believe in water conservation already. Those who are on the fence about whether or not to conserve or not perhaps would need to see an explicit analysis of the relative benefits and costs to all involved parties.

References:

Sierra Club of Canada National Office “Conservation of Water” Sierra Club. Accessed Nov 4, 2009 http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/health-environment/water/campaign.shtml?x=1073

Shutting Down the Tar Sands: A Moral Argument?

Alberta’s tar sands are a controversial project, both providing billions of dollars for industry and billions of barrels of energy for the Canadian people, as well as constituting what some might call an environmental disaster. The author of this blog post, Kyle Ashmead, takes the view that as scientific evidence clearly shows that the environmental degradation and health problems related to tar sands are enough to shut them down.

The groups that count morally in the author's viewpoint are first and foremost the people affected directly by the pollution. The First Nations groups that live around Fort Chipewyan (a major site of mining activity) count morally. Since the watershed from which they get water from is severely contaminated from the leakage of the local tailing pond there is a high concentration of certain cancers in native peoples in the area that are believed to be caused by the water pollution.

According to who is giving the argument, the consequences for continuing projects in Alberta's tar sands can be negative or positive. One can look at the issue and see that socially, the jobs and money coming in from the bitumen mining are positive consequences, and therefore the action is ethically right. However, the author takes the view of negative consequences; that is, that the environmental problems caused should be enough to shut down the tar sands. These include contamination of local watersheds due to leakage from toxic tailing ponds which lead to major health issues (such as cancers) in the surrounding populations. Both of these views constitute utilitarian arguments; but it is difficult to find which decision gives the most happiness, keeping the tar sands open or closing them.

The non-consequentialist view of this argument is very interesting, as almost all of the effects being discussed are future effects. When looking at a non-consequentialist view, one can look at ‘rights’ perspectives. Now if one gave some kind of moral standing to the watershed or the surrounding ecosystem as a whole, then it would be considered wrong to be dumping toxic contaminants into it. However, the only group that is considered to morally count in this author’s argument is humans, specifically, the group affected by health issues. So a non-consequentialists view is similar to a consequentialists view in this case.

There are many complex factors in determining the ethical legitimacy of shutting down the tar sands. Certainly polluting the surrounding waters to the detriment of the health of the surrounding environment and especially the surrounding human population is morally dubious. However, do the social benefits in employment and economy make up for environmental damages? It is a question to be explored in detail before any choices are to be made, and a question being hotly debated.

Reference
Ashmead, Kyle J. "Alberta Tar Sands: A Resource to be Exploited, or an Ecological Time Bomb?" Press4Change. Accessed Nov 4, 2009 from http://www.jhr.ca/hs/2009/10/alberta-tar-sands/

Waste Management and the Ohio River

by Laura Van Vliet

The article "Activists oppose expanding Ohio River ash pond" which appeared in the Chicago Tribune argues the case of environmental activists who oppose the expansion of a large 'coal ash pond' on the Ohio River. The expanded pond would be used to store the waste from the combustion of coal at power plants. The problem presented questions whether the existing ash pond should be enlarged, and whether a permit allowing discharge of waste into the river should be issued.

The 'demarcation problem' refers to the moral rights of parties affected by any decision made. In this case, the moral rights of the humans, animals, and all living things which will be affected by the decisions regarding the contested propositions must be considered. But first it must be decided who has inherent value and moral rights: only humans, only sentient beings, or all organisms? Do these organisms hold the right to equal moral consideration with humans? In following discussion of views, the position that the all sentient individuals have value and moral rights will be used. The rights of those who may be hurt by the decisions must be compared to the rights of the humans would benefit from the changes.

The view which used by the environmentalists cited in this article who oppose the construction of pond and issuance of the permit is the consequentialist view. The release of toxins and heavy metals into the river through waste water and the potential of a seriously damaging breach in the pond causes concerns. The ash pond is situated only 30 miles upriver from the drinking water uptake for the city of Louisville. Human health could be seriously affected by the toxins, resulting in unhappiness and future problems. Furthermore, there will be economic costs as a result of poor health of the human population of of the river and surrounding ecosystems. Individual animals, species, and ecosystems would all suffer; creating future problems for humans to deal with. There is a positive consequentialist argument to the debate, though, the economic benefit and usefulness of the energy provided from a large power plant. However, overall, from a consequentialist viewpoint, there are certainly many negative outcomes of allowing the changes to be instituted - the harm outweighs the possible benefit to the consumer and economy.

A non-consequentialist would also argue against the institution of the changes. The sentient organisms in the ecosystems which would be negatively affected have equal moral rights to humans, and thus an issue such as this, whose positive benefits to us are greatly outweighed by the negative affects it would have on these organisms. Furthermore, humans in the future and present which could suffer health issues and economic problems resulting from the environmental problems caused, disregarding their rights as well. Do we have the moral authority to decide that humans and animals do not have the right to a happy future so we can slightly improve our current happiness? A non-consequentialist would reply negatively, and thus they would oppose the implementation of changes which could violate the rights of others (both human and animal), as in this case.

In conclusion, the problem presented by the expansion of a coal ash pond and decision to permit the discharge of waste water into the Ohio river can be viewed differently depending on the ethical perspective taken. In this situation, however, the same conclusion is reached when considered from both a consequentialist and non-consequentialist viewpoint - that the aforementioned plans should not be permitted to continue.


Associated Press. 2009. Activists oppose expanding Ohio River ash pond. Chicago Tribune. Accessed on: November 3, 2009. Available at: www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-ky-coalash,0,7480176.story

Shall we Let the Dead Sea Die?

By Geneviève Lalonde

The Dead Sea, it is an international landmark. People travel from far away just to experience the thrills of literally walking on water. In the past twenty to thirty years, the sea levels have dropped by over a third. This decrease is because its upstream source is being used up for agricultural and industrial uses. A private consortium have implemented a 10 billion dollar project to help bring an immediate supply of fresh water to the Jordan as well as bring an end to the “dying” of the Dead Sea. This will be done by taking salted water from the Red-Sea, transferring it to a water treatment plant were a de-saltation process will release the salted residue into the dead sea and the fresh water will be sent to the city of Amman for consumption.

The Jordan Post published an article entitled “$10b seawater desalination plant project announced “ and the author Hana Namrouqa seems to think that this project provides the solution to ending the environmental disaster and deliver much needed fresh water. In this case, we are talking about restoring one of the most historic bodies of water in the world. There is little doubt that from a demarcation perspective something must be done, probably on both fronts.

From a consequential point of view, the project seems to address the two issues positively with the exception that more studies are needed to understand what the new solution in the Dead Sea will become. The Dead Sea is already so concentrated with vitamins and minerals that adding brine may not be right solution to refilling it.

Judging from an earlier National Geographic review of the options, certain scientists agree that the Dead Sea will “dry up in the next 50 years” if nothing done to save it. If we insert a type of “artificial” replica of itself, we are not really saving it; we are transforming it into a genetically modified version. A modified version may not be the answer either; it will bring the possibility of algae and may even destroy the natural minerals that it is so famous for.

This brings up a non-consequential point of view of how can we be sure that today’s ecosystems surrounding the Dead Sea won’t be negatively affected? In fact, we cannot count on their survival but does that really matter to the majority? If we created some of these ecosystems by diminishing the levels of the Dead Sea then there should be no harm in destroying them now, correct? The question becomes is this ethically right? Do we have the power to destroy other living things just because they do not have an essential value to us?

This is a debate between the government of Jordan and the Dead Sea`s surrounding nations and the private sector. There is one thing that is clear. The Jordanian population is in need of fresh water. The private project will definitely provide in this regard although should and will the remaining salted water be released into the Dead Sea? Hopefully more studies will provide some of the answers.

To conclude we have two choices, 1) replenish the existing Dead Sea and potentially destroy what is left all in order to create a “new and improved version” or 2) leave it in its current state until all that is left is a dried up piece of salt. We can contemplate about what is the right decision but in the end, we do tend to choose what is right for the economy and the relationships between borders.

Resources

“$10b seawater desalination plant project announced

The Jordan times

by Hanna Namrouqa Mai 18th 2009

http://www.jordantimes.com/?news=16799

Diverting Red Sea to Save Dead Sea Could Create Environmental Crisis

National Geographics By Mati Milstein

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/12/061214-dead-sea.html

Meat + Water = Climate change

On Timesonline an editorial titled “Climate chief Lord Stern: give up meat to save the planet” posted by Robin Pagnamenta talks about the issues with consuming meat. The main concerns that are highlighted in this editorial include the following three:

1) Meat requires more water to produce than vegetables.
2) Due to the demand of meat products (Beef, Chicken, Pork) there is a huge increase in methane gas.
3) Meat demands continue to increase

This is probably one of the most subjected/debated topics currently, and when analyzing the ethical perspectives you can narrow it down to two points of views. The first view is the Consequentialist view point where the actions taken must do whatever to produce a good outcome, and the main concern is to be sure good results occur. The other view is the Non-Consequentialist view point is based on the moral value of the action and not on its consequences.

“Meat is a wasteful use of water and creates a lot of greenhouse gases. It puts enormous pressure on the world’s resources. A vegetarian diet is better.” (Pagnamenta 2009) This was said by Lord Stern of Brentford.

Anyone reading the statement with a Consequentialist view would say a few things relating to the overall happiness. For this particular example the water consumption that affects the climate would matter the most. The reason for this is because when water is removed, organisms that require water would perish. Overall the main objective is to increase the aggregate happiness, if the consequence leads to an increase of happiness a Consequentialist would approve. The happiness is based upon whether the public’s willingness to becoming vegetarians, if this overall happiness decreases then it is decided that the Consequentialist would decide not to perform the action. In this case the majority of the public decided to continue eating meat.

From a Non-Consequentialist view point the same action would be viewed differently. The decision on whether the action is to be taken or not, is based on morality. In this example it would be very difficult since this is based on person’s moral values. Each individual has their values influenced in different environments and could change. A Non-Consequentialist would say that if eating meat is causing problems to our conservation of water and climate, I will stop eating meat.

Although the two different perspectives are different in many ways, it all depends on where your position is. Each point of view has its own concerns and importance, it can help to understand why some individuals feel one way and others feel another.

Reference:

Pagnementa, Robin. "Climate chief Lord Stern: give up to save the planet." Climate chief Lord Stern: give up to save the planet. Timesonline. Web. 4 Nov. 2009. .

An Unnoticed Pollutant

In the article Invisible threat: pollutants in the country’s ground water, by Nathanial Massey, the solid waste situation of Lebanon is discussed. The secretary general of the NGO Greenline stated that, “with scant resources at their disposal, the municipalities tend to dump waste wherever is most convenient.” This is often the most easily accessible areas such as riverbanks, and for many coastal cities their garbage is dumped directly into the Mediterranean Sea. The unregulated dumping of solid waste can cause many problems for the environment, which will eventually affect human health. When rainwater passes through solid waste, it picks up harmful substances like heavy metals. As this water continues through the cycle, it carries these substances into nearby ground water reservoirs, contaminating them.

The author of this article believes that the country of Lebanon should create and enforce regulations concerning solid waste disposal for each of its municipalities. He argues that these contaminated ground water reservoirs are affecting human health. A recent study shows that farmers are constantly irrigating water from these reservoirs to grow their food crops. The heavy metals that contaminated these reservoirs are now being transferred into food that will be consumed by the public. The author also says that heavy livestock that graze on contaminated fields can pick up these heavy metals, which will eventually make their way into dairy products.

From analyzing the author’s argument it is seen that he counts the humans that will ingest these toxic chemicals and the environment, as the main components that count morally in this situation. He states that open dumps “are an eye-sore, necessitating that they be removed as far as possible from the public”. This is saying that to the author, the environment has intrinsic value. A clean environment compared to a severely polluted one will have an affect on humans. The foundation of his argument is that harm to humans from the heavy metals should be prevented, therefore implying that he believes that humans have intrinsic value as well.

From a consequentialist’s point of view an action is determined to be right or wrong depending on whether the consequences are good or bad for those who have moral value. In this situation the consequentialist viewpoint agrees with the author, in that there should be preventative measures in place to reduce harm to humans. The consequence of having several unregulated, open dumps is that heavy metals contaminate ground water reserves. This contaminated water is then irrigated and transferred to food products and will eventually enter the human body, posing several health risks. This action results in a bad outcome, and therefore should be stopped. Using a utilitarian’s point of view, the aggregate (total and average) happiness of those with moral value decreases when open dumps are created. The happiness of humans would increase if they were healthier and didn’t have to worry about contaminated food. If there is such a thing, the happiness of the environment would increase if open dumps were regulated because there would be less water pollution and therefore the environment would be able to provide suitable habitats for more organisms. A healthy environment would also increase the happiness of humans for aesthetic reasons and having clean waterways. They wouldn’t have to look at piles of garbage on the riverbank.

From a non-consequentialist’s point of view an action isn’t right or wrong based on their consequences but are rights based. In this situation, the non-consequentialist viewpoint also agrees with the author, in that there should be preventative measures in place to reduce harm to humans. Humans have the right to uncontaminated food products, and if they are contaminated they have the right to know what they are eating. Humans also have the right to a clean and healthy environment to live in. Having these open dump sites doesn’t respect several rights of humans and therefore should be regulated.

In conclusion, from both points of view having unregulated open dumps is considered a wrong action. The country of Lebanon should create some regulations regarding the disposal of the solid waste. Reducing the number of sites or somehow finding another way to deal with waste would increase the aggregate happiness of humans, as well as respect more of the rights that humans are entitled to.

Massey, N. (2009 November 2). Invisible threat: pollutants in the country's ground water. The Daily Star Lebanon. Retrieved 2009 November 2, from

http://www.dailystar.com.lb/article.asp?edition_id=1&categ_id=31&article_id=108184

"Water Crisis" for Human Population?

There are a multitude of present and coming threats to the human population’s water resources. The term ‘water crisis’ is used in the blog post ‘ “Business as Usual” Deepens World Water Crisis’ in a way that could be misconstrued. Analysis should be done to this phrase to determine the author’s meaning and how it could be taken differently, thus changing the meaning of the article.

A crisis can be interpreted in two different ways. It is defined in a general sense as either ‘a stage in a sequence of events at which the trend of all future events is determined’, or ‘a condition of instability or danger leading to a decisive change’. These are clearly very different ways to interpret the author’s meaning of ‘water crisis’, as one as clearly negative, and one can turn out better worse, ie is not always negative.

In this blog post, the view that is taken is that for the human population, a drop in fresh water resources and an increase in demand will result, or is presently resulting in disastrous consequences especially for populations living in poverty. The second definition is most likely the one meant by the author. A water crisis is a period of instability involving freshwater resources that leads to a lowered availability of clean, fresh water for domestic, agricultural, and industrial use.

The term could be misconstrued by someone reading the article with another view on what a ‘water crisis’ is. If crisis was interpreted to mean merely turning point, at which the trend of future events will be decided, it is uncertain as to whether or not disastrous consequences or instability will result. The negative aspect of crisis is implied by the author, but it may be ambiguous to some readers.

Another way to look at the positive or negative effects of the term ‘water crisis’ is to analyze to whom the effects will occur. The author takes a very human-biased view of the matter, and so states that it is indeed a negative occurrence. However, many of the things stated as worrying factors in the article, such as lack of freshwater for industrial and agricultural uses are purely worrying for humans, and not for other species of ecosystems (though human use clearly affects availability for other species’ as well)

In conclusion, the term ‘water crisis’ can be misconstrued or interpreted ambiguously in a few ways, but the author is relatively clear on what she means by it. If it is in relevance to humans (as in the author’s view), than surely a lack of fresh water ability is indeed a dangerous condition.

Hoover Dam To Run Dry

Water in the Colorado River has been decreasing over the past years, to prevent further water loss, the citizens need to reduce their water use as a whole. This article talks in detail about the long term effects of the water being held by the Hoover Dam and the shortages of water that are expected to come. In the article, the author uses some phrases and words that may be misunderstood.
The article asks the question, “Can the river deliver water at the levels currently scheduled if the climate changes as we expect it to. The answer is no.” in this question, there are a lot of variables that are unclear. It talks about the water levels being currently scheduled, but the water levels change so much and it is so hard to predict exactly how much it is going to rain in the coming year, so it would be tough to really answer this question.
Another quote that is difficult to understand in this article is “People have talked for 30 years about the Colorado being oversubscribed but no one ever put a date on it or an amount.” In this quote, it is very unclear who the people are who have been saying this, also it’s uses the word oversubscribed out of context making it difficult to understand. From this quote it seems like you have to have a subscription in order to get the water, this is a totally weird concept and makes the sentence very confusing.
In this article, there are a few parts, in which the author will say something and understand what he or she means, but when someone else read it, it is unclear and may be misunderstood.

University of California - San Diego (2009, April 27). Climate Change Means Shortfalls In Colorado River Water Deliveries. Science Daily. Retrieved October 4, 2009, from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420182203.htm