Delaware Biotechnology Institute

Environment Energy Ethics:
Science and Responsibility for the 21^st Century

Preliminary Program

September 21-23, 2007
Clayton Hall Conference Center
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716

Program
Abstracts

Friday 21
from 5:00pm	Conference registration / check-in open
6:00pm	Reception
7:00pm	Keynote Address: David McCurdy, Executive Vice President of Enviance, Inc.
7:45pm	Conference dinner
Saturday 22
8:30am	Breakfast
9:00am	Session 1a: Private Sector Responsibility A Critique of the "Natural Step" Environmental Initiative - James Stieb, Drexel University Global Climate Change and Sustainable Business - John Mizzoni, Neumann College The Rise of Entrepreneurial Remediation ? Tim Murphy & Robert East, Washington & Jefferson College	Session 1b: Environmental Policy Integrating Environment, Energy, and Ethics in Local Land Use Planning Decisions-Zhenghong Tang, Texas A&M University Biopolitical Governmental Rationality and Energy Use - Yrjö Haila, University of Tampere, Finland The Ecological Edge of Economy - Chuck Dyke, Temple University
12:00pm	Lunch	Mike Bowman: DE Science & Technology Council Comments on DE alternative energy
1:30pm	Session 2a: International Law Holding Nations Responsible - Steven Vanderheiden, University of Colorado at Boulder MIA: A Universal Right to Water - Joëlle Hervic, Earth Matters Law, Washington D.C.	Session 2b: Religion & Culture The Mixing of the Landscape Genre and the Environmental Aesthetic in William Bartram's Travels - Gabe Ricci, Elizabethtown College Responsible Faith Communities: A Positive Step Toward Environmental Role Modeling - M Q Riding, Unitarian Universalist Society of Mill Creek
3:30pm	Tea break
4:00pm	Session 3a: Markets The Ethical Basis of Carbon Trading - Idil Boran, York University Cooling the Planet, One Consumer at a Time Dana Bauer & Laurie Pickard, Temple University	Session 3b: Technology Geoengineering Ethics - Nancy Tuana & Klaus Keller, Penn State University Responding to Technology Options in the Climate Policy Debate - Evelyn Wright, Energy Policy Analyst, Paul Pojman, Towson University
6:00pm	Free
Sunday 23
8:30am	Breakfast
9:00am	Session 4a: Global Warming: The Public and its Icons - Fritz Allhoff, Western Michigan University What is Environmental Irreversibility - Neil Manson, University of Mississippi	Session 4b: Free Trade, Poverty, and the Environment - Nicole Hassoun, Carnegie Mellon University Contemporary Utopia?: Community Supported Agriculture in the USA - Dale Murray, University of Wisconsin, Baraboo/Sauk County
12:00pm	Lunch
1:00pm	Keynote Address: Holmes Rolston III, University Distinguished Professor, Colorado State University

Program
Abstracts

Abstracts

This paper comprises three sections. In §1, I discuss the importance of the public in the campaign against global warming, arguing that it forms the cornerstone for any broader action (e.g., political, etc.). In §2, I then argue that the proliferation of misleading images has put the public at a disadvantage in terms of forming sustained, critical stances regarding global warming. In particular, I focus on what I take to the icons of global warming: the polar bear and the 'hockey stick'. In both cases, I argue that these images, taken in isolation, to not provide appropriate evidentiary support for any reasoned conclusions regarding global warming. In the final section, §3, I propose more thoroughgoing education projects regarding global warming, paying particular attention to the fact that this phenomenon, unlike others where scientific literacy might be an obstacle, differs insofar as it immediately actionable by every individual and, as such, therefore commands a more serious approach.

The trading of CO2 emissions allowances, sometimes referred simply as 'carbon trading', is a market-based mechanism of controlling greenhouse gas emissions both regionally and on an international scale. Although it is one of the most common means of controlling emissions, and is at the heart of current international debates on climate change, controlling emissions through a carbon market faces a series of objections. For example, one common objection is that carbon trading allows businesses to purchase a 'license to pollute' rather than demanding that businesses reduce their emissions. Another objection is that carbon trading relies on market mechanisms and not on ethical principles that genuinely value the environment. In short, although different objections are articulated, complaints against carbon trading converge on the point that the practice remains wanting on ethical grounds.

This paper responds to these criticisms and argues that carbon trading is supported by ethical principles. The argument appeals to social contract theory and justifies a trading system by emphasizing the importance of cooperation. The starting point is the premise that emission-reduction targets cannot be achieved single-handedly, but require the cooperation of multiple actors. The paper then examines the dynamics of cooperation and explains that cooperative activity generates a "positive externality" that is in the interest of everyone. There is a problem, however: although it generates an upside, cooperation is severely threatened by collective action problems. This problem, which is at the root of the 'tragedy of the commons', stands on the way of the cooperative upside being generated. Although everyone may know that it is in everyone's interest to cooperate, every actor has an incentive to not cooperate and free-ride on others' cooperative actions. But if everyone thinks this way, cooperation fails and the cooperative benefit is not generated. One of the major contributions of social contract theory is to offer a solution to this problem of collective action: in situations where an agreement is reached to cooperate, regulatory institutions secure cooperation.

The paper shows that carbon trading is consistent with this social contract model. By appealing to economic principles and principles of ethics, the paper articulates a rationale for carbon trading by explaining that it is a regulatory mechanism that secures cooperation and its benefits. The argument reveals that such justification is not merely a matter of political expediency, but rests on ethical grounds. More specifically, the argument shows that there is a well-defined ethical component in the act of trading once an agreement is reached. After articulating its main thesis, the paper then shows that this way of understanding the ethics of carbon trading can successfully respond to objections. The paper ends with a discussion of the implications for business ethics and public policy on energy and sustainability on an international scale.

The overall problem:
To assess the potential adequacy of current institutions and practices to manage the adaptations that will be necessary as the consequences of global climate change accumulate over the course of the century.

The overall strategy:
To conceptualize (or re-conceptualize) economies, political economies, ecosystems, and ecosocial systems as dynamical systems; then use the tools of dynamical systems theory to understand the characteristic behavior of these systems as they evolve. In particular, it will be important to look at how these systems can be expected to interact with one another, and with what probable results.

For this presentation we can start the project by looking at a line of thought that begins with Hume and ends with the modern imperative for economic growth. What is scarcity?

The aim of the talk is to evaluate the legacy of biopolitical governmental rationality for ecological sustainability. The main thrust of the argument is that we (citizens of the modern capitalist state) are prisoners of our historical success achieved by neglecting ecology. The historical success is practical in nature – both on societal and individual level – and perhaps an interesting philosophical edge of the talk resides in the suggestion that when we figure out visions of sustainable future, practical historical experience does matter in a very deep sense indeed.

I take off from Michel Foucault’s notions of “biopolitics” and “bio-power”. With these notions Foucault captured the efforts of the modern state to bring phenomena of life of the human population under governmental control. My interpretation is that Foucault referred with these terms to a new set of problems that the modern states were facing, rather than a doctrine. However, splendid as Foucault’s intuition about biopolitics was, a critical element is missing from his concept: the ecological conditions of human population-level sustenance. To address this, I adopt an eco-social perspective. An ecosocial perspective is focused on the practices through which a given society is enmeshed in the rest of the natural world – with the understanding that nature is present in all these practices, i.e., they are based on shared dynamics. To specify the eco-social perspective, I’ll explicate several ecological principles that are “present” in social processes.

Finally, I'll assess the ecosocial legacy of biopolitical governmental rationality. In a nutshell: biopolitical rationality has a very strong ecosocial legacy, and this legacy is precisely the absence of ecology. So, we have to ask, how on earth did this come to be? I think the situation is basically understandable in the light of major historical successes of the biopolitical state vis-à-vis ecology and energy use; I?ll specify some of these. Our real problem is that the legacy of biopolitical governmental rationality is supported by ? or really buried under ? glaring historical success.

Proponents of free trade argue that it is the quickest way to help the poor. Opponents of free trade counter that it will lead to environmental problems like climate change. This paper considers the case for free trade from the perspective of someone who cares both about the poor and the environment. It shows that the tension between the proponent of free trade's world view and the opponent of free trade?s world view is not as bad as it may seem at first glance. Those who care about both poverty and the environment have reason to support free trade in some cases but not in every case. Reworking the rules of trade or working around them may be necessary to help the poor and reduce environmental problems.

Water permeates all - it soothes, it cleanses, it plays an important role in religious and sacred life, it quenches our thirst, it feeds us - in short - it supports all life on earth. One may therefore reasonably assume that a right to water exists. That assumption would be wrong. Although an implicit right to water has been recognized relatively recently, a universal right to water is yet to be expressly accorded recognition as a fundamental human right. Presently, there is no binding international treaty that enshrines the right to water as an enforceable, universal, legal right requiring states to provide their citizens with clean, safe and affordable water, in addition to basic sanitation services.

With a water crisis of unimagined proportions looming in the very near future due to shrinking freshwater resources, this is an urgent call to the nations of the world to work together to ensure that a universal right to water is implemented. A water crisis - partly generated by global warming, and partly generated by over-exploitation of water resources and water pollution - is predicted to result in several billion people being deprived of sufficient water to live. According to the World Bank, by 2035, three billion people who currently live in water stressed areas - in particular, in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia - will have no access to safe water.

Now - more than ever - there is an urgent moral imperative for the international community to expressly recognize a right to water. The present situation is already alarming - at this time in excess of 1 billion people, or one in 6 - do not have access to clean water, a statistic which will worsen unless immediate steps are taken. In 2000, 2.4 billion people did not have access to basic sanitation. A child dies of a preventable waterborne disease every 15 seconds, amounting to 2 million childrens deaths, annually. We cannot continue to look the other way. If we do, we do so at our peril.

The notion of irreversibility figures heavily in various discussions in environmental ethics. This paper gives a detailed analysis of that concept. Three senses of ?irreversible? are distinguished: thermodynamic, medical, and economic. For each sense, an ontology (a realm of application for the term) and a normative status (whether the term is purely descriptive or partially evaluative) are identified. Then specific uses of "irreversible" in environmental ethics are analyzed. The paper concludes with some advice on how "irreversible" should be used in the context of environmental decision-making.

In the light of global climate change, what must businesses do to maintain sustainable business practices? Is redesigning business a moral responsibility? What are businesses? environmental responsibilities? There are many different ethical aspects to these questions. In this paper, my focus is on the moral responsibility of businesses to change, as Interface Corporation did, from taking lightly their responsibility to the environment, to becoming sustainable. I sketch five arguments that support the position that businesses have a moral responsibility to become sustainable, some of which draw from stakeholder theory. I further argue that even though businesses have an obligation to engage in sustainable business practices, in the context of anthropogenic climate change, a circumstance in which we are experiencing a human-induced enhanced greenhouse effect, businesses have an even greater responsibility to engage in sustainable business practices.

In 1980 the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) created the set of laws known collectively as ?Superfund?. Intended to cause the cleanup of polluted industrial sites, the law had the unintended consequence of discouraging private sector involvement in brownfield remediation. The Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002, also known as the ?Brownfields Law? corrected many of the problems associated with CERCLA. Specifically, the Brownfields Law cleared the way for investment capital into brownfield sites remediation projects. This, in turn, has made entry into the market easier for both for-profit and not-for-profit entrepreneurial firms dedicated to the remediation of brownfields. The term ?brownfield? is defined by the Brownfields Law as ?real property, the expansion, redevelopment or reuse of which may be complicated by the presence or potential presence of a hazardous substance, pollutant, or contaminant.? (42 U.S.C. §9601 amended 2002)

This paper explores the confluence of entrepreneurship and environmental stewardship. It first reviews the changes in US laws that have made brownfield remediation possible for more firms to engage in. Then we discuss the benefits of brownfield redevelopment from both a technical and ethical perspective. Next, we discuss in what ways the field lends itself to involvement by entrepreneurs. Finally, we show how entrepreneurial involvement in brownfield remediation can result in the entrepreneur living "the good life."

In this paper, I wish to investigate three aspects of CSAs in the United States that are lauded by their proponents. Of these three aspects, the first two can be grouped for convenience under sustainability. The first is the economic feasibility of CSAs. Advocates argue that CSA is not only a viable alternative to corporate agriculture, but is superior in terms of efficiency in that direct exchanges between stakeholders (consumers) and producers (farmers) eliminate waste. The preferences of consumers are transparent to farmers (i.e., farmers only need to plant the types and amount of crops that are requested at seeding time), hence direct needs can be met barring blights that curtail growth or completely destroy certain crops. The second benefit is the preferred environmental impact of CSA?s. Presumably, since CSAs often utilize their own compost, resist the use of chemical pesticides, refuse to purchase transgenic seeds, and avoid the technique of deep-furrow planting that exacerbates the erosion of topsoil, the farms are better ?stewards of the earth.? The final positive aspect is that CSA?s purportedly promote a way of life and a sense of community that is inherently good. This is the most intangible element of the CSA movement, yet it is meant to supply its main philosophical justification. Agriculture that is conducted on a small-scale and is formed by communities marked by direct, participatory governance develops bonds of all persons participating in these associations to nature.

In the U.S., consumer consciousness about global warming has surged in recent years. The absence of government action, especially federal action, to limit emissions of greenhouse gases, specifically carbon dioxide, has opened the door for creative solutions in the private sector. Consumers can now buy “carbon offsets” to mitigate the effects of their personal contributions to global warming. At any of several websites – terrapass.com, carbonfund.org, nativeenergy.com, and self.org, among others – consumers can tally the amount of carbon they emit by driving, flying, and using common household appliances. They can then purchase “offsets” that, in theory, reduce their “carbon footprint” to zero.

The methods for offsetting carbon, which may include tree plantings, methane capture, or wind-power subsidies, vary considerably from company to company. However, nearly all of the carbon-offset companies frame the problem of global warming as one of individual consumption. Once framed as an individual problem, the companies then offer an individual solution: if each person were to purchase the proper amount of offsets, the company's websites suggest, overall carbon emissions would be substantially reduced. In this paper, we survey and interpret web content from companies that sell carbon offsets online, with a focus on how the companies frame scale and responsibility in the fight against global warming. We examine the extent to which these companies present the issue as multiscalar and assign responsibility for action at different scales, from individual to international. We discuss the political, conceptual, and ethical implications of this framing. Finally, we consider the link between rhetoric and action. Does presenting the problem of carbon emissions as an individual-scale problem with individual-scale solutions undermine political action at larger scales (regional, national, international) or promote it?

J. Baird Callicott has been one of Aldo Leopold’s most energetic interpreters. In the process of explaining Leopold’s land ethic, Callicott has also elucidated the companion idea of the land aesthetic, which he distinguishes from the conventional artifactual aesthetic. Informed by the twin principles of ecology and evolution the land aesthetic stands on its own and offers the kind of unmediated experience of Nature that was obfuscated by the preponderance of the landscape genre of the eighteenth century. Leopold’s moving observations of the Sandhill Crane in A Sand County Almanac is emblematic of this ecologically grounded aesthetic as are many of John Muir’s poetic accounts of his journeys into the High Sierras. To the extent that this aesthetic incorporates a multi-sensuous and temporal engagement of the natural world, it is to be delineated from the picturesque aesthetic outlined by William Gilpin and Uvedale Price at the end of the eighteenth century. This paper examines the observations of William Bartram (1739-1822) in his Travels through North & South Carolina, Georgia, East & West Florida in the light of these two aesthetics in an effort to determine which aesthetic held sway in Bartram’s “account of the soil and natural productions of those regions, together with observations on the manners of the Indians. “ Like Audobon, Bartram has left us a pictorial record of his scientific observations. Equally, his writing is peppered with the scientific taxonomy that Carl Linnaeus (1707-1778) had just introduced. His account of his walk through the woods influenced Henry David Thoreau, Wm. Wordsworth, John Fennimore Cooper and justified the early title of ‘naturalist’, but the scientific approach sometimes gives way to a predisposed posture that produced a poetic license. The influence of the cultural aesthetic of his day, it seems, infiltrated his scientific observations to produce a superimposed sublime vision of the natural world.

If church and state (theology and policy) are separate, how then can a faith community take on the mantel of environmentally active or energy conscious? In my experience faith communities can successfully assume these roles by studying their fundamental principles. This paper explores how a small Unitarian Universalist membership applied the UU Principles & Sources, used role models, and put into action a comprehensive program that is working. Typically, faith communities have facilities, organizational structures, and motivated populations who want to set behavioral examples. If communities choose to apply a fraction of their human energy to the design, delivery, and practice of environmental and energy conservation programs that reflect core value systems, environmental role modeling can happen. In short, practice what they preach with a green twist.

This paper attempts to refute claims to scientific certitude made by the ?natural step? environmental initiative. Advocates want a descriptive but supposedly objective and unpartisan methodology (science) to prescribe. Of course it will not. Justice and injustice are human concepts, and it is about time to dispense with optional and idyllic frameworks in favor of ethically binding prescriptions and arguments. No framework is optional for employees who must follow it. Nor will platitudes such as ?Substances from the Earth?s crust must not systematically increase in the ecosphere? explain how to decrease them. In general, the claim that an initiative that is compatible with science has a ?scientific basis baffles. Also, it is not clear what the natural step says about important issues such as lead, nuclear power or terminator gene technology.

The lack of early integration for environment, energy, and ethics has been a problem in current land use planning decision-making processes. Traditional local land use planning has inadequate incentives and capacities to incorporate environment, energy, and ethics issues that generally stay at a broader temporal or spatial scale. A majority of local governments put economic development as the first priority and relatively few of them give a high priority to environment, energy, and ethics.

The objective of this study examines the ability of local plans to integrate the concepts of environment, energy, and ethics. This study focuses on increasing the understanding of how and where to integrate the critical issues of environment, energy, and ethics into local panning and decision-making process by converting these concepts into specific planning tools, policies, and implementation strategies. This study develops a protocol with a indicator system to measure strength and weakness of the integrating environment, energy, and ethics into local land use comprehensive plans.

To answer the research questions, this study chooses Texas Urban Triangle areas to conduct this research. The Texas Urban Triangle (TUT) is a region of Texas that consists of sixty-six counties that are bounded by three major interstate highways (I-45, I-10, and I-35) and three major urban regions (Dallas-Fort Worth, San Antonio, and Houston). The Texas Urban Triangle is an area comprised of 66 counties that is hypothesized to hold the majority of the state of Texas? population. The Texas Urban Triangle area is expected to double in population over the next 25 years; by 2030, the 57,000-square mile area will be home to more than 14 million people. All this will take place in an area with some of the best farmland in the nation; one of the most extensive and fragile aquifer recharge areas, an area already subject to special protection; the protected habitats of numerous endangered species; and virtually no control over land uses outside current city boundaries. Yet to date, no study has considered integrating environment, energy, and ethics into local land use comprehensive plans.

The proposed results will identify the relative strengths and weaknesses in the ability of local jurisdictions to integrate the critical issues of environment, energy, and ethics. Many strategically important environmental issues, particularly for biodiversity, ecosystems, energy conservation, and environmental justice are rarely addressed by current local plans. The findings matched the gaps of environment, energy, and ethics in local land use plans.

Although much attention has been focused on technological development to enable a shift away from a fossil fuel economy, there is also a growing recognition that we cannot afford to wait for an effective and efficient alternative, and therefore should develop and use current scientific and technological knowledge to develop ways to more immediately lower atmospheric concentrations, at least for the short run. Furthermore, while many climate scientists urge stabilizing GHGs at 450 parts per million to limit serious climate effects, many countries, including the United States and China, argue that the changes required to reach such a goal would have a very negative effect on their economies. Developing and underdeveloped countries, countries that often have not (yet) contributed their fair share to GHG emissions, argue that they require inexpensive sources of energy to build their economies and improve their standards of living. Many are looking at geoengineering strategies that could potentially address both problems?a) the need to protect and, in the case of developing countries, build economies and b) the need to mitigate to prevent climate related damages.

Most climate experts agree that there is no single-bullet solution to the problem, but urge the development of a ?portfolio? of strategies to help address emissions issues in a cost-effective and environmentally sound fashion. More recently a new geoengineering strategy has been drawing increasing scientific attention as an addition to this portfolio, namely, the injection of sulfate aerosol precursors into the stratosphere to intentionally manipulate (?geoengineer?) global climate (Wigley, Crutzen). The aim of such geoengineering is to ?provide a negative forcing of the climate system and so offset part of the positive forcing due to increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations? (Wigley 2006, 1). In other words, the particles injected into the stratosphere would provide a reflective screen that would keep some sunlight from penetrating and thereby counteract warming. The claim is that this strategy ?could reduce the economic and technological burden on mitigation substantially by deferring the need for immediate or near-future cuts in CO2 emissions? and stabilize global-mean temperature at near-present levels, something Wigley claims to be ?virtually impossible to achieve through mitigation alone? (Wigley 2006, 2). Crutzen admits, however, that ?the main issue with the albedo modification method [increasing the reflective power of the atmosphere] is whether it is environmentally safe, without significant side effects? (2006, 212).

Given that this form of geoengineering is receiving serious scientific attention, it is crucial that a clear and careful ethical analysis of this technology be available and included in any decision to implement this technology either globally or locally We argue that there are three key elements of such an analysis: a) the nature of the risks of implementing such a technology and an analysis of the comparative benefits/harms; b) issues of distributive justice, including unequal distribution of harms and benefits to current generations as well as risk transfer to future generations (intergenerational justice); and c) questions of procedural justice are raised by the scope of and uncertainty concerning potential harms.

Who should pay the costs of climate change? In assigning mitigation and compensation burdens, parties to the global climate policy process under the auspices of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change have declared a commitment to allocating climate-related costs among nations according to their common but differentiated responsibilities for anthropogenic climate change. While all are to some extent responsible for contributing toward the problem through their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, this judgment based in what we shall call the responsibility-based conception of fairness holds that those most responsible ought to bear greater remedial burdens, and those less responsible owe lesser burdens. As I have argued elsewhere, this conception of fairness is best understood as relying upon fault-based rather than strict liability, where parties are assigned remedial burdens based upon their relative moral responsibility or the extent to which they may be found to be morally at fault in those acts that cause anthropogenic climate change, not merely their causal responsibility. Instantiating this conception of fairness within a remedial climate regime follows the principle of responsibility, here articulated by Brian Barry as the core idea of egalitarian justice: A legitimate origin of different outcomes for different people is that they have made different voluntary choices? The obverse of this principle is that bad outcomes for which somebody is not responsible provide a prima facie case for compensation.?

This paper identifies two conceptual approaches to climate change mitigation and explores technological-political issues associated with choosing between them. We begin with some context ? the scope of the climate problem and the scale of emissions reductions needed from countries such as the U.S. over the next century. We then characterize two responses to climate change: one that seeks to recognize in the climate issue a fundamental limit on industrial-consumerist society, which, if respected, will finally guide society onto a more sustainable path; and a second view that seeks to bring all possible technical and political solutions to bear on an urgent environmental and human welfare threat.

In characterizing the differences between these approaches, we focus on one controversial technology that has changed the nature of the climate policy debate in this country: geologic carbon sequestration, also known as carbon capture and storage (CCS). To proponents of our first approach, CCS is an end-of-pipe band-aid that utterly dodges the deep economic-political issues driving unsustainability. According to our second view, CCS is an essential part of the portfolio of technologies needed to address the urgent climate threat as quickly as possible. The climate threat, in this view, is too profound an emergency to throw out any potential solution on such aesthetic or idealistic grounds.

To explore this disagreement, we turn to the literature of technology studies, which has framed a discourse about the political nature of the technology system, and centralized technologies in particular. We analyze climate mitigation technologies in this context, arguing that there is more at stake than is immediately obvious for shaping both the questions we may ask and the solutions we may find to future energy systems problems.

Program
Abstracts