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