My Point of View
In recent years, mass media and politicians give special attention to environmental concerns and problems that affected the USA and the world. Thus, many interest groups promulgate and popularize misleading information and data concerning global warming and the impact of hazardous wastes on the planet. I decided to spend “6 hours” with the Friends of the Earth organization. This organization was founded 40 years ago and becomes a popular national and international non-profit organization fighting for clear air and water resources. Personally, I am against environmental pollution and suppose that it is one of the main problems that affected modern communities. Thus, I am also against the policies and methods followed by Friends of the Earth. I suppose that significant policies are beginning to be forged in areas of toxic wastes and the atmosphere’s ozone layer. There is considerable resistance to ecological business practices in the area of acid rain. In many developing countries the situation is far more ominous. Good ecology seems to be a luxury. Ecological concerns appear to be the enemy of economic development. Each of these problems presents a special set of technological, economic, political, and moral issues. Everyone agrees that there is environmental pollution, yet there is surprisingly little agreement as to its extent. All environmental organizations appear to be talking about the same descriptive phenomenon: environmental pollution caused by hazardous wastes. But that is only partially true. Observers hold different positions about the seriousness of the problem because they rely on different sampling and forecasting techniques while assuming often radically different technology sets both now and in the future. The moral problem of the environment is not merely a present problem. The method of reasoning is based on a worldview of economic progress and is decidedly technocratic and economic in nature. This concatenation of analytical factors yields a set of moral priorities that justifies the term economism.
I belong to the group of people who share the opinion that environmental pollution pales before the array of benefits allegedly ushered in by economic progress. More importantly, they believe that a thriving economy and a flourishing technological infrastructure provide the formula that will eventually lead to the sound economic handling of the problem. Some important predispositions frame the discourse. First, there is an act of faith in technology that economically reasonable solutions will eventually be found. There are also prominent loyalties to specific communities–the company, workers, local towns, and other economic stakeholders in the affected companies and industries–whose economic livelihood depends on a company or an industry staying profitable and competitive (Kraft 14).
Other Points of View
Worldview embraces not only clear and distinct ideas but myth and symbols, narratives, and history; it expresses a sense of overall human destiny and purpose. In essence, a worldview provides the prism through which one views the empirical data. To complicate the matter, even more, both worldview and representation of the facts are notoriously open to bias on both individual and social levels. The ethical debate about the environment, therefore, is simultaneously one of sorting out biases and reasonably interpreting the empirical facts in terms of a worldview. Ethical reasoning, as opposed to strict empiricism, for example, is inherently multilevel and encompasses levels of meaning that are not always susceptible to rationalization in clear and distinct concepts (Kraft 54).
Uncertainty regarding “what it is we are talking about” necessarily introduces a dynamic element into the moral analysis. The Day After Tomorrow vividly portrays that pollution is a serious problem for our planet but they do not provide possible solutions to this problem. With this caution, it is nonetheless possible to compare the broad outlines of moral positions. In doing this three other determinants come into play. Attention must be paid to different modes of reasoning, for they lead to different truths and serve as the foundation for what a person is willing to consider reasonable. Moral reasoning proves to be especially complex, for it is based not only on empirical fact but on an ontological worldview whose components may not all be either clear or distinct (Kraft 59). In fact, in most discussions, it is the nature of the supposed future catastrophe as well as our obligations to future generations that primarily frames the discourse. This is not to underestimate present problems. Rather it is to draw attention to the fact that moral discourse in this area is to a great extent based on estimates of future probabilities as well as on determining present facts and responsibilities.
My Experience with Friends of the Earth
I spent 6 hours with the Friends of the Earth organization and was involved in their protests against waste hazards. The aim of the organization is to “fight to protect the rights of all people to live in a safe and healthy environment, both at home or in countries around the world. Out campaigns demonstrate our belief that the fight for justice and the movement to protect the health of the planet are part of the same struggle” (Friends of the Earth Home Page 2008). The most frustrating was that this organization does nothing but talk about the problem and collect current data and facts which prove that the problem really exists. Friends of the Earth ecologists see the environment as a common heritage and insist that economic concerns be subordinated to maintaining the integrity of the environment. In many ways, those in this camp insist that good ecology and sound economics are not in conflict (the argument turning on the definition of “good” and “sound”). I suppose that it is not enough for such an organization to see nature as a common possession only. Most of their campaigns were ineffective and even unnoticed by the general public. They suggest a higher norm than either economic utilitarianism or individual liberty. This group finds that public policy is the only way to get everyone to act. To neglect it is to ignore those who suffer as well as our obligation to future generations. In the personal interview, Karen Orenstein, Extractive Industries Campaign Coordinator told me that she believes that the great majority of the assaults on the environment are preventable. She suggests that such actions would lead to economic efficiency. She tends to see polluters as driven by greed and narrow self-interest such that they must be forcibly restrained. At the same time, they see market forces as placing coercive limits on freedom such that one pollutes in order to survive.
Final Section
After the visit to the Friends of the Earth organization, I changed my opinion about environmental problems and I cannot agree with their policies and methods. Most of their campaigns are ineffective and lack coordination and support. Environmental pollution is a real problem but the relation of people to nature is to be governed by the free choice of individuals, conditioned by the fact that all enjoy due liberty. This group examines whether the self-interest of one party also respects the legitimate self-interest of others. To ensure that it does, they favor market incentives and legal redress of abuses. Trusting the protection of groundwater to accountable private sources would be far more effective than trusting it to various groups of bureaucrats, each insisting that he or she is not responsible.
Creating property rights in groundwater would vastly increase the number of people with a strong incentive to protect our environment. This position, which would rely on market forces and the law, possesses a coherent logic. It is open to question, however, with respect to its operational assumptions. Common law provides a logical framework for handling environmental problems. The strength of my viewpoint is that we cannot blame manufacturers and producers of goods and materials because we consume these products and demand more and more new goods. Our society cannot exist without technologies and factories, oil refineries, and the exploitation of natural resources. This improves the environment at best only modestly, and in some cases not at all. If a pollutant is attacked at the point of origin, it can be eliminated; once it is produced, it is too late. Friends of the Earth suppose that production facilities and owners should stop pollution and introduce clear technologies. Thus, the weakness of this approach is that it cannot be done in 2-5 years.
Works Cited
The Day After Tomorrow. 2004. Dir. by Emmerich, R. DVD
Friends of the Earth. Home Page. 2008.
Kraft, M. Environmental Policy And Politics. Prentice Hall; 4 edition, 2006.
Karen Orenstein. Personal Interview. 2008.