5.4.2: Sustainability Ethics and Environmental Justice

Unit 5.4.2 - Sustainability Ethics and Environmental Justice

• Please read and watch the following Learning Resources
• Reading the material for understanding, and taking notes during videos, will take approximately 1 hour.
• Optional Activities are embedded.
• Bolded terms are located at the end of the unit in the Glossary. There is also a Unit Summary at the end of the Unit.
• To navigate to Unit 5.4.3, use the Contents menu at the top of the page OR the right arrow on the side of the page.
  • If on a mobile device, use the Contents menu at the top of the page OR the links at the bottom of the page.

Learning Objectives

• Describe how ethics and moral extensionism connect to sustainability
• Explain how true sustainability promotes environmental equity and justice
• Describe the development of the modern environmental ethic
• Identify some of the historical and current perspectives of Indigenous peoples and sustainability

Introduction

Sustainability can be a difficult concept when applied. It dictates that we are constrained by Earth’s resources as to the society and lifestyle we can have. On the other hand, sustainability is also a wonderful, inspiring concept and a quintessentially human idea. The experience of our own limits need not be negative. In fact, sustainability is driven by an ethics of the future. To be sustainable is, by definition, to be attentive to what is to come and so it requires imagination. Sustainability teaches that the environment is not a sideshow or a scenic backdrop to our lives. Our relation to our natural resources is the key to our survival. It is the grounds of possibility for everything else. Unsustainability, conversely, means human possibilities and quality of life are increasingly taken away from us and the generations to come.

Precautionary Principle, Sustainability, and Ethics

The precautionary principle is an important concept in environmental sustainability. A 1998 consensus statement characterized the precautionary principle this way: “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”. For example, if a new pesticide chemical is created, the precautionary principle would dictate that we presume, for the sake of safety, that the chemical may have potentially negative consequences for the environment and/or human health, even if such consequences have not been proven yet. In other words, it is best to proceed cautiously in the face of incomplete knowledge about something’s potential harm.

The margins of uncertainty are large across many fields of the biophysical sciences. Simply put, there is a great deal we do not know about the specific impacts of human activities on the natural resources of land, air, and water, and we know even less about combining activities. In general, however, though we might not have known where the breakdown in a given natural system may lie, the vulnerability of ecosystems to human resource extraction is a constant lesson of environmental history (Unit 5.2). The precautionary principle underlying sustainability dictates that in the face of high risk or insufficient data, the priority should lie with ecosystem preservation rather than on economic growth or individual interests.

Environmental Ethics

The concept of ethics involves standards of conduct. These standards help to distinguish between behavior that is considered by society to be 'right' and that which is considered 'wrong'. It is not always easy to distinguish between right and wrong, as there is no universal human code of ethics. For example, a poor farmer clears an area of rainforest in order to grow crops. Some would not oppose this action, because the act allows the farmer to provide a livelihood for his family. Others would oppose the action, claiming that deforestation will contribute to soil erosion and climate change. Right and wrong are usually determined by an individual's morals, and to change the ethics of an entire society, it is necessary to change the individual ethics of a majority of the people in that society.

Moral extensionism defines how far a person's values extend outside of themselves. There are many variables that can influence where the limit lies for each individual person. For example, religion, culture, education, and personal interests, among others, all impact how an individual makes moral judgments. Moral extensionism can be applied to the environment in action and intent. The ways in which humans interact with the land and its natural resources are determined by ethical attitudes and behaviors. The following are major ethical perspectives regarding the natural world.

Frontier Ethic

Early European settlers in North America rapidly consumed the natural resources of the land. After they depleted one area, they moved westward to new frontiers. Their attitude towards the land was that of a frontier ethic. A frontier ethic assumes that the Earth has an unlimited supply of resources. If resources run out in one area, more can be found elsewhere, or alternatively, human ingenuity will find substitutes. This attitude sees humans as masters who manage the planet. The frontier ethic is completely utilitarian and anthropocentric as only the needs of humans are considered.

Most industrialized societies view population and economic growth through this frontier ethic lens, assuming that infinite resources exist to support continued growth indefinitely. In fact, economic growth is usually considered a measure of how well a society is doing. Now that the human population has passed eight billion and few frontiers are left, many are beginning to question the frontier ethic. Such people are moving toward an environmental ethic, which includes humans as part of the natural community rather than managers of it. Such an ethic places limits on human activities (e.g., uncontrolled resource use), that may adversely affect the natural world.

Some still subscribing to the frontier ethic suggest that outer space may be the new frontier: we can simply populate other planets if Earth's resources run out. This seems an unlikely solution, as even the most aggressive colonization plan would be incapable of transferring people to extraterrestrial colonies at a significant rate. Natural population growth on Earth would outpace the colonization effort. A more likely scenario would be that space could provide the resources (e.g. from asteroid mining) that might help to sustain human existence on Earth.

Sustainable Ethic

A sustainable ethic is an environmental ethic by which people treat the Earth as if its resources are limited. This ethic assumes that the Earth’s resources are not unlimited and that humans must use and conserve resources in a manner that allows their continued use in the future. A sustainable ethic also assumes that humans are a part of the natural environment and that we suffer when the health of a natural ecosystem is impaired. A sustainable ethic includes the following tenets:

• The Earth has a limited supply of resources.
• Humans must conserve resources.
• Humans share the Earth’s resources with other living things.
• Growth is not sustainable.
• Humans are a part of nature.
• Humans are affected by natural laws.
• Humans succeed best when they maintain the integrity of natural processes and cooperate with nature.

For example, if a fuel shortage occurs, how can the problem be solved in a way that is consistent with a sustainable ethic? The solutions might include finding new ways to conserve oil or developing renewable energy alternatives. A sustainable ethic attitude in the face of such a problem would be that if drilling for oil damages the ecosystem, then that damage will affect the human population as well. This ethic can be either anthropocentric or biocentric (life-centered). An advocate for conserving oil resources may consider all oil resources as the property of humans. Using oil resources wisely so that future generations have access to them is an attitude consistent with an anthropocentric ethic. Using resources wisely to prevent ecological damage is in accord with a biocentric ethic.

Land Ethic

Aldo Leopold, an American wildlife natural historian and philosopher, advocated a biocentric ethic in his book, A Sand County Almanac. He suggested that humans had always considered land as property. He believed that mistreatment of land makes little economic or moral sense. All humans are merely one component of an ethical framework. Leopold suggested that land be included in an ethical framework, calling this the land ethic.

“The land ethic simply enlarges the boundary of the community to include soils, waters, plants and animals; or collectively, the land. In short, a land ethic changes the role of Homo sapiens from conqueror of the land-community to plain member and citizen of it. It implies respect for his fellow members, and also respect for the community as such.” (Aldo Leopold, 1949)

Leopold divided conservationists into two groups: one group that regards the soil as a commodity and the other that regards the land as biota, with a broad interpretation of its function. If we apply this idea to the field of forestry, the first group of conservationists would grow trees like cabbages, while the second group would strive to maintain a natural ecosystem. Leopold maintained that the conservation movement must be based upon more than just economic necessity. Species with no discernible economic value to humans may be an integral part of a functioning ecosystem. The land ethic respects all parts of the natural world regardless of their utility, and decisions based upon that ethic result in more stable biological communities.

“Anything is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends to do otherwise.” (Aldo Leopold, 1949)

Environmental Equity

Environmental equity describes a society and culture in which no single group or community faces disadvantages in dealing with environmental hazards, disasters, or pollution. While much progress is being made to improve resource efficiency, far less progress has been made to improve resource distribution. Currently, 20% of the global population is consuming 80% of the Earth’s resources.

If the poorest 80% of the world's population were to exercise their right to the same standard of living as the richest 20%, it would result in ecological devastation. To date, global income inequalities and lack of purchasing power have prevented developing countries from reaching the standard of living (and also resource consumption/waste emission) of developed countries. However, countries such as China, Brazil, India, Indonesia, and Malaysia are catching up fast.

In such a situation, global consumption of resources and energy needs to be drastically reduced in developed countries to a point where future generations can have access to those same resources. But who is willing to make those changes? The economies of developed countries demand ever-greater consumption-based expansion. Such stalemates have prevented any meaningful progress toward equitable and sustainable resource distribution at the international level. These issues of fairness and distributional justice remain unresolved.

Video

This 2.5-minute video describes SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality within and among countries by 2030.
Question after watching: While each SDG targets specific issues, many of the goals are intertwined. In what ways can achieving other SDGs reduce inequalities?

Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, ability, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies. It will be achieved when everyone enjoys the same degree of protection from environmental and health hazards and equal access to the decision-making process to have a healthy environment in which to live, learn, and work.

Video

The disproportionate exposure to environmental hazards has long had a larger impact on Indigenous, Black, and other marginalized communities in Canada, as indicated in this 2.5-minute video. A 2021 private members bill is calling for a national strategy to address and track instances of environmental racism.
Question after watching: What would this bill do to help those currently impacted by environmental racism?

In one of the most flagrant cases of environmental injustice in the last decade in a developed country, the city of Flint, Michigan in the United States decided to save money by drawing water for residents from the Flint River in 2014. Soon after, residents complained about the taste, smell, and color of the water. Scientific studies determined that there was a failure to apply corrosion inhibitors to the water, resulting in lead from aging pipes leaching into the water supply, exposing around 100,000 mostly poor residents of color to elevated lead levels. Although the city switched back to its original water source, the damage was already done. Not only did this crisis expose so many to lead, especially concerning for children, but most pipes also needed to be replaced as they were no longer safe to use (Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\)). In 2017, a settlement was reached to replace all the pipes totaling $87 million USD. However, in 2021 the project had still not been completed. Citywide lead levels have tested within the safe range for consumption, though many houses considered high risk do continue to show elevated levels.

Figure \(\PageIndex{1}\): Flint residents trying to bring awareness of Flint Water Crisis through peaceful demonstration. Image by Shannon Nobles, Wikimedia Commons (CC-BY-SA-4.0).

Environmental Racism

Environmental racism was coined in the 1980s to describe the practice of siting hazardous waste sites in minority neighborhoods. In recent decades it has come to describe more fully the institutional racism that exists for marginalized communities in many developed countries regarding landfills, incinerators, waste sites, and industry in neighborhoods. It also describes the long-standing impacts on Indigenous communities and, on an international level, the extractive nature of relationships of developed countries in developing countries.

In an ideal world, there would be no hazardous waste to plague this planet. Unfortunately, we live in a world with rampant pollution, dumping of hazardous wastes, and people with "living for the now" attitudes. Our industrialized society has necessarily produced waste during the manufacture of products for our basic needs. Until technology can find a way to manage (or eliminate) hazardous waste, disposal facilities will be necessary to protect both humans and the environment. By the same token, this problem must be addressed. Industry and society must keep the health and wellness of all of their community in the selection of future hazardous waste sites. All humans who help produce hazardous wastes must share the burden of dealing with those wastes, not just the historically marginalized.

Indigenous People

Since the end of the 15th century, most of the world’s frontiers have been claimed and colonized by nation-states. Invariably, these conquered frontiers were already home to Indigenous peoples. Some were wiped out or assimilated by the invaders, while others survived while trying to maintain their unique cultures and way of life. The United Nations officially classifies Indigenous people as those “having a historical continuity with pre-invasion and pre-colonial societies,” and “consider themselves distinct from other sectors of the societies now prevailing in those territories or parts of them.” Furthermore, Indigenous people are “determined to preserve, develop and transmit to future generations, their ancestral territories, and their ethnic identity, as the basis of their continued existence as peoples in accordance with their own cultural patterns, social institutions and legal systems.”

Many global problems face Indigenous people including the lack of human rights, exploitation of their traditional lands and themselves, and degradation of their culture. In response to the problems faced by these people, the United Nations proclaimed an “International Decade of the World’s Indigenous People” beginning in 1994. The main objective of this proclamation, according to the United Nations, was “the strengthening of international cooperation for the solution of problems faced by Indigenous people in such areas as human rights, the environment, development, health, culture and education.” Its major goal was to protect the rights of Indigenous people. Such protection would enable them to retain their cultural identity, such as their language and social customs, while participating in the political, economic and social activities of the region in which they reside.

Despite the lofty U.N. goals, the rights and feelings of Indigenous people are often ignored or minimized, even by supposedly culturally sensitive developed countries. The heart of most environmental conflicts faced by governments usually involves what constitutes proper and sustainable levels of development. For many Indigenous peoples, sustainable development constitutes an integrated wholeness, where no single action is separate from others. While Indigenous peoples are not a monolith, sustainable development requires the maintenance and continuity of life, from generation to generation. Humans are not isolated entities but are part of larger communities, which include the seas, rivers, mountains, trees, fish, animals, and ancestral spirits, constituting a whole (Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\)). From the point of view of Indigenous people, sustainable development is a process that must integrate spiritual, cultural, economic, social, political, territorial, and philosophical ideals.

Figure \(\PageIndex{2}\): Bernadette Demietieff speaking in support of protect the Arctic to protect Gwich'in land from oil drilling, Alaska, c. 2019. Deb Haaland CC-BY-SA-4.0.

Video

In this 3-minute video, Indigenous leaders and other participants at the IUCN World Conservation Congress 2016 discuss the value of Indigenous rights, knowledge, and leadership in creating more sustainable ways of life on Earth.
Question after watching: What commonalities do you hear in the message from all of the diverse Indigenous peoples?