two Questions 250 words each and one page paper

BOS 3551, Environmental Issues 1

Course Learning Outcomes for Unit I Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:

1. Outline important environmental problems and debates. 1.1 Explain how the precautionary principle can be applied to the current environmental issues

of climate change or genetically modified organisms or endocrine disrupters.

5. Discuss global attitudes and behaviors related to sustainable development. 5.1 Describe the relationship between the Limits to Growth model and sustainable

development.

7. Recommend solutions for environmental problems. 7.1 Discuss the positives and negatives of pricing a particular ecosystem such as a (forest,

wetland, or lake) to protect the environment.

Reading Assignment Unit 1: Environmental Philosophy, pp. 11–57

Unit Lesson The Precautionary Principle You have probably taken many precautions today. You may have buckled your seat belt, eaten a healthy breakfast, driven the speed limit, or bought some organic produce. However, you may have taken some intentional risks as well. Perhaps you had that second helping of bacon or said yes to skydiving this weekend. In some cases, we do things to avoid risk, and at other times, we decide to take on an additional risk for some real or perceived benefit. We balance the level of risk we decide we can tolerate from an activity with the personal benefit we anticipate receiving from it. As a society, we have to make policy for a large number of people with different tolerances for risk and different perspectives on the benefits of taking those risks. Policy makers can use the precautionary principle to guide the decision-making process when the risks of a particular action must be weighed against the benefits. Although there are many versions of the precautionary principle, the Wingspread Statement on the Precautionary Principle is commonly cited. It states, “when an activity raises threats of harm to human health or the environment, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically” (Adler, 2011/2016, p. 21). It may seem obvious that precautions should be taken in the face of risk to health or the environment; therefore, the question is not whether or not to take precautions at all. Instead, the question is whether or not the precautionary principle itself is needed and whether it may actually be detrimental to the very things it is meant to protect. In the reading for Unit I, Jonathan Adler’s position is that, although precautionary measures should be taken when there is uncertainty regarding risks to public health and the environment, the precautionary principle should not be used to guide policy. Adler believes that the broad application of the precautionary principle could do more harm than good, stall technological progress, and even make us less safe than we would be without it (Adler, 2011/2016). Using the precautionary principle as a guide could stop newer, safer technologies or chemicals from being used because it can be difficult or impossible to prove with certainty that anything is completely safe. Alexander Khoury, on the other hand, takes the position that the precautionary principle provides policymakers with a valuable tool. It can help them navigate the complexities of regulating risky activities by bringing to light environmental and health concerns and encouraging deliberation between

UNIT I STUDY GUIDE

The Precautionary Principle, Limits to Growth, and Pricing Ecosystem Services

BOS 3551, Environmental Issues 2

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

those who will be affected by the policy, the policymakers, and scientists (Khoury, 2010/2016). In some cases, affected parties may have to be convinced of the safety of a new technology or chemical. The deliberation among decision-makers, scientists, and affected parties is the process by which the risk and benefits can be fairly balanced, and ideally, result in the safest and most beneficial decision. Limits to Growth The human population is projected to reach nine billion by the year 2050. Can Earth’s resources sustain nine billion people? Many ecosystems are already stressed, and many species are going extinct–especially in the developed world where resources are consumed at a rapid pace and where waste products are produced in kind. It would seem obvious that this pattern cannot continue unabated without dire consequences. However, dire consequences are exactly what Thomas Malthus projected in his Essay on the Principle of Population in 1798. He predicted that overpopulation would cause collapse, and society would be forced to return to a subsistence level (Sachs, 2008). Despite our drastic increase in population over the last two centuries, many of us are living well above a subsistence level. Malthus could not have foreseen the level of technological progress that has been made; this progress has allowed us to produce more of just about everything with less input of labor and resources. Can we depend on human ingenuity and technological progress to continue to allow us to grow indefinitely? In the reading for Unit I, Graham Turner takes the position that we cannot assume that technology will allow us to keep growing and consuming at higher and higher rates. He analyzes the updated predictions of the Limits to Growth, which is a report first published in 1972. The report is based on a computer model that projected catastrophic resource and climate problems by the middle of the 21st century. Since a computer model from the 1970s is not a reliable source, the model has been updated as new data has become available. Turner discussed the 30-year review version of the Limits to Growth (LtG) report from 2008. Turner compares available data on population, industrial output, food supply, services, persistent global pollution, and the fraction of nonrenewable resources available to predictions in these categories from the LtG model. The data align most closely with the LtG’s standard run model, which assumes a business-as-usual scenario (Turner, 2012/2016). The collapse is mainly caused by the depletion of resources. Given the time frame predicted by the LtG model, Turner emphasizes that we should focus on planning for global collapse, rather than working to slow climate change or working to avoid the collapse (Turner, 2012/2016). Turner’s assertion that the LtG model can be relied upon is based largely on real data trends, aligning with the model’s predictions. However, Ronald Bailey points out several important areas where the model’s predictions do not align with the data. The LtG predicted that the population will reach 15 billion by 2030 (Bailey, 2012/2016). Based on current population data, even the UN’s high estimates predict that there will be nine billion people by 2030 (Bailey, 2012/2016). Six billion fewer people means that significantly fewer resources are being used than predicted by the model. The LtG also projected a need for three billion hectares of agricultural land by 2000. Instead, agricultural land has only expanded to 1.5 billion hectares (Bailey, 2016). Renewable resources, which the LtG stated would be used up before the end of the century, are currently expected to last decades into the future without accounting for new means of extraction and the discovery of new sources. Lastly, the LtG predicted increases in death rates due to pollution, but human life expectancy has only increased over the decades since the report was issued (Bailey, 2012/2016). Do all of these discrepancies mean the model is incorrect? Perhaps they do, or maybe the model’s time frame is just longer than expected. We will see the data cited by Bailey begin to match the LtG predictions in the coming decades. Pricing Ecosystem Services How much money is clean air or clean water worth to you? We place a monetary value on the food we eat, the clothes we buy, the car we drive, and practically every other aspect of our daily lives. However, we do not pay for the wetland that filters our water and provides habitat for birds, nor do we pull out our charge card to pay the forest for the oxygen we breathe. These life-sustaining services provided by nature are ecosystem services. Their value is often not accounted for when business and policy decisions are made. For example, if a company is doing business in a country where there are not strong environmental regulations, the company may discharge wastewater into a river because it is cheaper than treating the water.

BOS 3551, Environmental Issues 3

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Some environmental regulations prohibit pollution without directly giving ecosystem services a monetary value. These regulations are effectively doing the same thing as ecosystem pricing would do, but not all policy and business-making decisions are governed by environmental regulation. Therefore, a forest might be cut down because it stands in the way of development, even though society may incur a very high cost due to the loss of the forest’s ecosystem services. Holtman (2012/2016) cites a study that calculated the value of two forest patches to coffee bean production on a Costa Rican coffee plantation. The forest patches provided habitat for bee populations that pollinated the coffee plants. The monetary value of the bee habitat the forest provided was placed at $62,000. This amount does not even account for the water purification, biodiversity, or carbon sequestering services provided by the forest. By quantifying the dollar amount associated with such services as the bees provide, their value can be taken into account when decisions are made regarding actions that may affect the ecosystem adversely. Gatto and DeLeo (2000/2016) take the position that placing a price on ecosystem services is inadequate. They contend that there are other methods of valuing ecosystems that take environmental, economic, social, and technical variables into account. Determining the monetary value of a particular species or ecosystem is very complex, and there are many unknown variables. Knowledge of the role a particular species plays in an ecosystem can be incomplete; in which case, the value of the species could be over- or undervalued. Pricing more intangible ecosystem services, such aesthetic or recreational value, can be highly inaccurate as well. Gatto and DeLeo suggest an approach like that used in environmental impact statements (EIS). The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requires that an EIS be completed for any federal action that may impact the environment. The EIS process involves the comparison of various alternatives to a proposed project, including the alternative of no action and the implementation of management rules or mitigation measures. The EIS process involves the integration of a variety of fields, including environmental, economic, and engineering. Including these different perspectives allows for more accurate ranking of the different alternatives for a particular project. Gatto and DeLeo(2000/2016) assert that reducing all ecosystem services to monetary value may actually cause them to be viewed as a commodity to be exploited. With either Holzman’s or Gatto and DeLeo’s approach, ecosystems are given value in the decision-making process. Whereas simply pricing ecosystems may be inadequate, the EIS or multi-attribute approach can be more complex because of attempts to address more intangible ecosystem services.

References Adler, J. H. (2016). The problems with precaution: A principle without principle. In T. A. Easton, Taking sides:

Clashing views on environmental issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 21–27). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Reprinted from The American Enterprise, May 25, 2011)

Bailey, R. (2016). The limits of The Limits to Growth: Contemplating 1972 predictions of environmental doom,

just in time for earth day. In T. A. Easton, Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 39–41). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Reprinted from Reason Magazine, April 18, 2012)

Gatto, M., & De Leo, G. A. (2016). Pricing biodiversity and ecosystem services: The never-ending story. In T.

A. Easton, Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 52–56). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Reprinted from BioScience, 50(4), pp.347–354, 2000)

Holzman, D. C. (2016). Accounting for nature's benefits: The dollar value of ecosystem services. In T. A.

Easton, Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 47–51). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Adapted from Environmental Health Perspectives, April 2012)

Khoury, A. (2016). Is it time for an EU definition of the precautionary principle? In T. A. Easton, Taking sides:

Clashing views on environmental issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 16–20). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Reprinted from King’s Law Journal, pp. 133–143, February 2010)

Sachs, J. (2008, September 1). Are Malthus's predicted 1798 food shortages coming true? Scientific

American. Retrieved from http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-malthus-predicted-1798-food- shortages/

BOS 3551, Environmental Issues 4

UNIT x STUDY GUIDE

Title

Turner, G. (2016). On the cusp of global collapse? Updated comparison to the Limits to Growth with historical data. In T. A. Easton, Taking sides: Clashing views on environmental issues (16th ed. expanded, pp. 33–38). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education. (Reprinted from GAIA—Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 21(2), pp.116–124, 2012)

Suggested Reading This Web page provides a detailed discussion of the precautionary principle, as well as links to additional sources of interest on the topic. Science and Environmental Health Network. (n.d.). Precautionary principle. Retrieved from

http://sehn.org/precautionary-principle/ This article discusses the alignment of current data with the Limits to Growth model predictions. Tuner, G., & Alexander, C. (2014, September 1). Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're

nearing collapse. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/02/limits-to-growth-was-right-new-research- shows-were-nearing-collapse

To access the resource below, you must first log into the myCSU Student Portal and access the GreenFILE database within the CSU Online Library. This article discusses the monetary value of ecosystem services. Morrison, J. (2005). How much is clean water worth. National Wildlife (World Edition), 43(2), 22–29.