Corporate Social Responsibility

Companies in the oil and gas sector have in the recent past increasingly come to be expected to provide assistance in the addressing of the most pressing problems in the world and these problems have included climate change, fighting poverty and the prevalence of HIV. The societies of both the developing and the developed world are some of the biggest stakeholders in the oil and gas industry because in one way or the other, it affects their lives. These are the people who have come to have more expectations from the companies within this industry to assume responsibilities to the public (Ekatah, 249). It is believed that these expectations will continue to increase in the future as the oil and gas companies continue to expand their activities all over the globe.

Companies from the oil and gas industry have come to adopt the theory of corporate social responsibility which is an approach they use when they are addressing the impact which their company activities have on the societies and environment in which they are involved. These companies have done their best to ensure that the communities which are affected by their activities have been well compensated and that their standards of living are even higher than they were before (Idemudia, 91). In the developed countries, in this case the United States, stakeholder meetings are very common especially in oil producing states such as Texas. These stakeholder meetings can be attended by anyone and they often address how the oil industry is affecting people as well as having dialogue and exchanges in matters concerning all stakeholders (Frynas, 163).

The stakeholder management theory states that there are other people who should be consulted when dealing with the affairs of a company other than its shareholders or owners. These people are those whose everyday lives are affected by the activities of the company or are concerned about these activities. These other people or parties include governmental organizations, trade unions, buyers and suppliers of products, the societies involved as well as the employees of the company involved. In the developed countries, the stakeholders in the oil and gas industry have a great say in its activities and this is mainly because of the freedom of speech which is guaranteed to them by their governments. Moreover, the oil and gas industry has to listen to these groups because of the powerful influence which they have in the political arena.

In the developing countries, however, and in this case Africa, there is a tendency by the oil and gas industry not to involve any stakeholders in their major decision making process. These companies are instead only accountable to their shareholders because the other groups are not sufficiently well developed to have any major influence on the oil and gas sector (Okoye, 364). The only major stakeholder in the oil and gas industry in Africa is the government and it rarely opposes any decision made by this industry, however detrimental to its people and the country’s environment, because of the need for investment so that it can have revenue.

Industrial air and water emissions and control measures in Canada

Introduction

Throughout the contemporary world, industries play an important role in bringing about the sustenance of economies. Almost every country in the world has become dependent on industries to sustain themselves to such an extent that they cannot do without them. However, while these industries are useful, they are also harmful to the environment as a result of emissions which have an adverse effect on air and water quality.  In the past decade, many firms produced a significant amount of emissions that adversely affected the environment. The emissions into the atmosphere have an effect on soil, water, power use, and waste management. In many economies, the detrimental effect of emissions on the environment has resulted in legislation being enacted to control the emissions. In Canada, the government has acknowledged the impact of emissions, and has committed itself to reducing the degree of emissions in order to enhance the quality of air and while at the same time improving water quality (Boyd, 2010). The emissions have adversely affected the air and water quality in Canada and as a result, it has aimed at making sure that it promotes sustainable practices. Additionally, ecosystems have been destroyed through acidification when the emissions, especially those containing sulphur, are exposed to the rain or ground water. Environmental pollution has many manifestations and the resultant health risks tend to have an adverse effect on the bodies of those individuals affected (Bell & Davis, 2001). Canada has sought to take tangible steps towards ensuring that there is a high level of control measures aimed at not only reducing emissions, but also bringing about a situation where there is a reduction in public health risks as a result of bad air and water quality.

Reasons for control measures

Canada is one of the countries in the world which has a wide diversity of natural resources that have yet to be exploited. However, it is essential that these resources are used sustainably; meaning that as much as possible has to be done to ensure that during the exploitation process, there is limited destruction of the natural environment. Industrial activities in Canada often have an adverse effect on air and water quality and this is to such an extent that it has led to a significant threat both towards the human, animal, and plant populations. The risk of damaging entire ecosystems through the unsustainable industrial processes has made the implementation of control measures extremely important. Moreover, the health of Canadians is highly dependent on the quality of air and water in their environment to such an extent that without control measures, it is likely that the country might end up getting into a public health crisis in future (El-Fadel & Massoud, 2000). Having absolute control over the monitoring and control processes involved in keeping greenhouse emissions at a minimum are important in not only securing air and water quality, but also bringing about a situation where it is possible to effectively fight global warming and the climate change that comes about as a result. Therefore, the overall wellbeing of Canadians is dependent on putting control measures over industrial emissions into place to ensure that the air and water quality all over the country is improved.

Examples and explanation of air and water pollutants

The main air pollutants are in the form of gaseous pollutants, which include organic compounds, sulfur compounds, nitrogen compounds, volatile organic compounds, and particulate matters. Particulate matters are exhausts from diesel engines that include the wood smoke, coal ash, pesticide mist, mineral dust, and acid mists. Radioactive pollution is also a form of air pollution that occurs when radioactive isotopes from burning reactors leak into the atmosphere (WHO, 1996). Water emissions from industries occur when toxic chemicals such as fluoride and arsenic leak from industries and end up contaminating underground water (Frost, Tollestrup, Craun, Raucher, Chwirka, & Stomp, 2002). Water is also contaminated directly when wastes from industries find their way into water bodies. All of these pollutants have the potential of bringing about serious health and environmental problems. As a result, there is need for constant awareness concerning the potential problems that these pollutants might bring about while at the same time promoting initiatives for the provision of more information concerning how best to handle their effects when they occur. It is estimated that a significant proportion of diseases in the world today are associated with the effects of pollution hazards in the environment (Smith, Corvalan, & Kjellstrom, 1999). Thus, Canada’s attempts to bring about control measures on air and water emissions is an important step towards the development of sustainable measures aimed at not only maintaining the environment at its best state, but also preventing those diseases that come about as a result of pollution; averting a public health crisis.

Sources of Industrial Emissions

Operations in industries are the major sources of industrial emissions and these can be attributed to the irresponsible actions of industries which seek to make a quick profit at the expense of the environment (McMichael, Kjellstrom & Smith, 2001). The industries that have been found to be the most responsible for the emissions mainly include the energy, transport, building and construction sectors, which, despite the large amounts of emissions they produce, are also essential for the development of the economy. The extensive use of fossil fuels in Canada has also had an impact on air quality. This is because most industries as well as vehicles in the country run on these types of fuels although there are attempts to bring about the use of cleaner energy sources. In line with these, the oil industry, which is depended upon for fossil fuels, is one of the biggest polluters in the country leading to a situation where it has surpassed emissions that were produced by the transport sector. While this may be the case, as a result of its efforts, Canada has been able to ensure that its emission levels remain slightly lower than those of other countries, especially in the developing world and the emerging economies (McGranahan & Murray, 2003). A major setback that has been encountered by Canada in recent years is when in 2007, the Suncor spilled some 9.8 million liters into Athabasca River; a situation that might have brought about significant risks to the human and wildlife living in the area affected. However, despite this incident, Canada has been able to ensure that it takes on action towards the establishment of environmental sustainability.

Even though large amounts of emissions are from the industrial operations, other factors have played key roles in determining the level of emissions in Canada. These factors entail the demographic changes, the physical geography, and economic development. When compared to the other developed economies, the Canada’s climate is very variable; therefore, much energy resources are used for heating and cooling spaces. In regards to demographics, Canada is sparsely populated; therefore, there are long travel periods and the demand for transportation as individuals travel from one region to another is high compared to the densely populated economies (National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy, 1999). More so, Canada's economic growth and population growth is greater than other developed economies and the growth demands for more use of natural resources that include gas and oil. Irrespective of the challenges faced by this country, the economy has been de-coupling between reduction in emissions and economic growth. That has called for technologically efficient methods of production and adoption of clean energy rather than over-relying on oil. Technology has also been adopted in all sectors of the economy especially in electricity production in efforts to reduce the greenhouse gasses emissions. The industries are required to be in the forefront of use of efficient applications and thus, lead the household by example. More so, most of the consumers in Canada have knowledge about the consequences of emissions; hence, they have also adopted ways of reducing the emissions such as walking to workplaces.

Effects of emissions on Environment and Human Health

For the most part, the effect of emissions can be categorized into three classes, environmental impacts, economic impacts, and human health effects (Hobbs & Meier, 2000). Environmental effects entail the increase in temperatures that result in the melting of the ice, glaciers, and snow, with the melting results in flooding of the coastal regions due rising in the sea levels.  This is especially the case in the Arctic where the permafrost is likely to thaw, bringing with it potential environmental hazards to which it might be difficult to adjust. In Canada, there is the potential that there will be changes in climatic conditions characterized by increased precipitation in all regions except in the Southern Canada. The increased rainfall will increase the chances of flooding that might lead to some serious disruption in the lives of people affected as well as the economy. Another environmental effect, in this case caused by air pollution which has adverse consequences on the ozone layer, which is increasingly being depleted, will be increased frequency of heat waves; having both direct and indirect effects on the ecosystem. For instance, many species of wildlife will find it hard to adapt to the high temperatures hence suffer from stress. Additionally, massive destruction of the natural environment will also occur; making it extremely difficult for ecosystems which have been established for thousands of years to survive.

One of the most serious effects of climate change is that it might lead to the extinction of those species that are not able to adapt to the new environment; a significant loss to the highly diversified natural environment that can be found in Canada today. Sustaining the natural environment through seeking to control and maintain the air and water quality is an important step towards the achievement of a greater balance between the natural and human environments (Gwilliam, Kojima, & Johnson, 2004). Industrial activity, especially concerning the emission of harmful chemicals into the atmosphere and water bodies has the potential of bringing about instability in the natural environment. Threats, not only to wildlife, but also to the human community are also prevalent and these have to be stopped in order to bring about a situation where individuals are concerned about their environment enough to help sustain it. In this way, it becomes possible to avoid those problems associated with destruction of ecosystems as well as medical conditions that reduce the quality of life of those affected by exposure to air and water pollutants.

In regards to human health, the high temperature has the potential of exposing human beings to a significant number of diseases such as stroke and deaths related to dehydration. According to Health Canada (2010), changes in the local weather patterns increase the risk of cardiovascular and respiratory diseases along with cancer due to exposure to carcinogenic volatile organic compounds. More so, people will be more vulnerable to vector, water, rodent, and food-borne diseases. The populations living in the northern regions are more vulnerable than those living in the southern regions of Canada and children, the elderly and women are most susceptible to problems that might be brought about by climate change. Moreover, greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere can have the potential of leading to instances of mortality as a result of respiratory infections. Air pollution also increases the risk of having an adverse effect on the manner that children’s lungs function in such a way that it brings about post-neonatal mortality (Brunekreef & Holgate, 2002); a situation that would have a severe impact on the demographics of the country. An increase in cardiovascular diseases and respiratory infections for the elderly could also result from acute air pollution, which exposes members of society to a number of harmful airborne pollutants (WHO 2000). Not only would this situation have an adverse effect on the health of members of society, it would also lead to an increase in the burden of healthcare on Canada; making it more expensive to cater for the needs of all of its citizens that are affected by air pollution.

The most direct route of exposure to harmful industrial chemicals in water it through the consumption of contaminated water from the affected bodies. The level of exposure depends on the amount of water that has been consumed meaning that those who consume more of this water are at a greater risk of being affected by the chemical compounds within it (Fewthrell, Kaufmann, & Preuss, 2003). There is also a risk that when this contaminated water is used in the preparation of food, the food also ends up being contaminated because despite high cooking temperatures, the level of toxicity is not easily affected. Another route of exposure in water is through inhalation of volatile compounds when individuals are having hot showers or skin exposure when bathing or making use of water for recreational purposes. These chemical compounds are extremely harmful especially considering that they might bring about the exposure of unborn or young children through crossing the placenta, or when infants take it in through breast milk. These forms of exposure are can bring about numerous adverse health and developmental effects on those individuals who are exposed to contaminated water; making it essential to make sure that pertinent steps are taken to ensure that water is free from industrial chemicals.

Also, acute exposure to industrial contaminants to drinking water can lead to diverse medical conditions, ranging from minor to major conditions. Among these is irritation in the eyes, nose, or skin and in some extreme instances, the gastrointestinal system. There are also instances where there is the possibility of chronic exposure such as liver toxicity that comes about as a result of the presence of copper, arsenic, or chromium in drinking water. When chemicals pass through the kidney of victims, it leads to toxic effects, which can cause serious problems for the individuals affected, with the most prominent elements in water that can cause kidney problems being cadmium, copper, mercury, and chlorobenzene (WHO 2003). The use of pesticides also brings about a lot of risk for those people living within areas close to water bodies that are used for everyday purposes. This is especially the case in agricultural or industrial settings where it is common for the chemicals used to persist in the environment for a long time and end up being carried into water bodies. The result of the ingestion of these chemicals through the consumption of water is that it leads to the disruption of the endocrine system that ends up leading to behavioral, developmental, and reproductive problems for the individuals affected. Furthermore, these chemicals, which disrupt the endocrine system, can lead to the reduction of fertility and increase the occurrence of birth defects and cancers that are hormonally dependent such as breast and prostate cancers (WHO & International Programme on Chemical Safety 2002). It is, therefore, important that control measures are taken to make sure that natural resources, especially air and water, are protected because without action from both government and communities, it is possible that industrial emissions into these resources could lead to some serious health and environmental problems.

Conclusion and Future Recommendations

Although industries play a significant role in economic development, studies have revealed that they have an adverse effect on human health and the environment through the emissions that these industries produce. The emissions are mainly in the form of gases, water, and particles, which, once they enter the atmosphere and water bodies, bring about a situation where there is risk of human exposure to these elements, or the environment being adversely affected through the destruction of natural ecosystems. In efforts to reduce the adverse effect of the emissions, the government of Canada should focus itself on reducing the level of emissions and improve the quality of air, improve visibility while at the same time monitoring the level of emissions. The Canadian government should take on leadership in controlling the level of emissions to both air and water in order to uphold the integrity of the natural ecosystem. The discussion above has shown that it is industries that produce the greenhouse gases and chemicals that are responsible for global warming. Therefore, it is important for the government take on initiatives to control the emissions in order to reduce the rate of global warming and the subsequent climate change. The effect of the emissions in the discussion has been classified in terms of the environmental, and the human health effects.

The keeping clean areas clean (KCAC) principles are an integral part of universal Canada-Wide Standards that focus on the quality of air while also protecting visibility (Taylor & McMillan, 2014). Furthermore, the provincial and the federal governments carry out the environment assessment to ensure that the quality of water and air does not injure the ecosystem. At all the new points of the source of water or air, the quality needs to be assessed to guarantee the Canada's efforts to protect the environment are upheld. More so, any modification of the air or water from the industries must be evaluated to ensure that it does not pollute the environment or cause harm to the human health. Among the most pertinent interventions that can be taken in future in order to ensure that the air and water quality is maintained at a premium level is through limiting hazardous waste disposal. Instead, hazardous substances should be recycled at their site of use or in situation where it is impossible to recycle, these substances can be replaced with those that are less harmful. Interventions There should be constant air monitoring which involves the cooperation between government institutions and communities aimed at reducing air pollution. Moreover, it is important for these monitoring activities to be tied to concrete actions such as the promotion of such actions as banning vehicle use when pollution levels become too high and go past predetermined thresholds. At the exposure level, it is important for individuals in the community to be conscious of the threat towards them and take necessary actions to protect themselves. Among these is the use of household filters to reduce the amount of chemicals such as arsenic from their drinking water. Finally, it is also essential for health services in the country to remain vigilant and seek to protect and bring about the restoration of the health of people showing signs of adverse effects in communities that are at the highest risk as a result of water and air pollution.

References

Bell, M.L. & Davis, D. I. (2001). Reassessment of the Lethal London Fog of 1952: Novel Indicators of Acute and Chronic Consequences of Acute Exposure to Air Pollution. Environmental Health Perspectives, 109(3), 389–94.

Boyd, D. R. (2004). Unnatural law: Rethinking Canadian environmental law and policy. Vancouver: Univ. of British Columbia.

Brunekreef, B. & Holgate, S. T. (2002). Air Pollution and Health. Lancet, 360, 1233–42.

El-Fadel, M. & Massoud, M. (2000). Particulate Matter in Urban Areas: Health-Based Economic Assessment. Science of the Total Environment, 257, 133–46.

Fewthrell, L., Kaufmann, R. B. & Preuss, A. (2003). Assessing the Environmental Burden of Disease at the National and Local Level: Lead. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Frost, F. J., Tollestrup, K., Craun, G. F., Raucher, R., Chwirka, J., & Stomp, J. (2002). Evaluation of Costs and Benefits of a Lower Arsenic MCL. Journal of American Water Works Association, 94(3), 71–82.

Gwilliam, K., Kojima, M. & Johnson, T. (2004). Reducing Air Pollution from Transport. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Health Canada (2010). Human health in a changing climate: A Canadian assessment of vulnerabilities and adaptive capacity. Health Canada. Retrieved from http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/climat/eval/index-eng.php

Hobbs, B. F., & Meier, P. (2000). Energy decisions and the environment: A guide to the use of multicriteria methods. Boston, MA: Springer US.

McGranahan, G. & Murray, F. (2003). Air Pollution and Health in Rapidly Developing Countries. London: Earthscan.

McMichael, A. J., Kjellstrom, T. & Smith, K. (2001). Environmental Health. In International Public Health, ed. M. H. Merson, R. E. Black, and A. J. Mills, 379–438. Gaithersburg, MD: Aspen.

National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy. (1999). Canada's options for a domestic greenhouse gas emissions trading program. Ottawa: Renouf.

Smith K. R., Corvalan C., & Kjellstrom T. (1999). How Much Global Ill Health Is Attributable to Environmental Factors? Epidemiology, 10, 573–84.

Taylor, E., & McMillan, A. (2014). Air quality management: Canadian perspectives on a global issue. Dordrecht: Springer.

WHO. (2003). Guidelines for Drinking Water Quality. 3rd ed. Geneva: WHO.

WHO. (2000). Air Quality Guidelines for Europe. 2nd ed. Copenhagen: WHO.

WHO. (1996). Health Consequences of the Chernobyl Accident: Scientific Report. Geneva: WHO.

WHO and International Programme on Chemical Safety. 2002. Global Assessment of the State of Science of Endocrine Disruptors. Geneva: WHO and the International Programme on Chemical Safety.

Marxism and Ecologism

Over the last few decades, issues concerning the political involvement in environmental preservation have become prominent. This is because of an increasing awareness concerning the environment as well as the need to ensure that it is protected for the sake of future generations. The need to preserve the environment has become a paramount political issue which has either been adopted or rejected by the different ideological standpoints that occupy the political space today. It is essential to note that the merger of political and environmental ideologies has become a basic part of the politics of the contemporary world and this is the reason why alliances between political parties and environmentalist groups are being formed. Among the most prominent ideologies that have emerged in the contemporary world are Marxism and ecologism; ideologies that can either be compared or contrasted.

According to the Marxist concept of anthropocentrism, nature should not be a matter of paramount importance because it is not a product of labour. As a result, neither the earth nor nature should be provided importance when it comes to situations where labour is concerned. Labour is the primary concern of anthropocentrism and it is the basis upon which this concept has been developed. As opposed to ecocentrism, anthropocentrism promotes the importance of labour over nature, with the latter being considered to be inconsequential because it does not have a direct effect on the management of labour. The anthropocentric approach recognises that there is need for some form of environmental protection because it allows for the development of a better means through which individuals in society can be able to apply their labour for their own benefit. However, there are instances where the environment interferes with the way that labour is conducted and managed and this creates a situation where it is essential for issues concerning the environment to be set aside so that labour can be given more prominence. This approach further recognises that man does not have any control over the environment and that the latter cannot be brought under control by any means. It is therefore reasonable that man does not concentrate too much on nature or the environment to such an extent that labour and its products come to be ignored.

The ecocentric approach on the other hand is based upon the need to ensure that all human actions are conducted in such a way as to make possible the integrity of nature. This concept recognises that the environment is the most important thing in the world and that it is man’s responsibility to ensure that his activities do not cause it harm. Without the intervention of man, it is believed that the integrity of the environment will become compromised and might end up creating a situation where man as a race, in addition to wildlife, will end up suffering. The ability of man to conduct his activities with utmost consideration for the preservation of nature is essential because it allows for the development of better means through which man and nature can coexist in a constructive manner. This concept is one that indicates that man has a responsibility to nature as well as having a responsibility for nature; meaning that he has to do everything possible so that nature can be preserved, but that its integrity be maintained.

The anthropocentric approach is one which propagates the belief that the main value of nature is based on its resources rather than on the preservation of its integrity. In this way, the economic value of natural resources should be the main reason why man interacts with nature and this should involve the exploitation of these resources to ensure that the value of labour is increased. Without the resources that are contained within it, nature would not have any value because there would be nothing within it that would ensure that it is not only exploited, but also given the attention that it receives. The ability of man to exploit nature for its resources is the reason why it is important for the economy because it is these resources which make it thrive. The preservation of nature would mean that most of its resources would not be exploited; making it difficult for labour to be employed for the purpose. Such a situation would create a situation where individuals in society would end up living in a primitive way where the inequalities that are present in society would be further maximised; leading to chaos.

The ecocentric approach, in contrast to anthropocentrism, is one which calls for the adoption of a new land ethic, where individuals within society should conduct their actions with the intention of ensuring that the integrity, stability and beauty of the environment is preserved. Nature should not only be exploited for its resources, but there should be means through which these resources are exploited in a responsible manner, so that instead of concentrating on maximising the profits gained; individuals should develop better means of ensuring that their exploitation does not degrade nature. Under such circumstances, ecocentrism is similar in approach to anthropocentrism because the latter also recognises that nature should not be exploited for the purpose of profit but instead to ensure that there is some form of benefit for labour. Without this benefit, it would essentially be useless to exploit natural resources because it would mean that the profits gained would end up benefiting the bourgeoisie. The econcentric approach, however, is opposed to the anthropocentric one where nature can be exploited for its resources without any need to preserve its integrity. Instead, it proposes that any approach that exploits nature and ends up destroying its stability, beauty, or integrity is a wrong one because it does not consider any respect for nature.

While it promotes the unlimited exploitation of nature for the sake of labour, it is essential to note that the Marxist approach also recognises the hazards of doing so. This is especially the case in situations where the environment ends up being unstable as a result of being massively exploited. Not only does it lead to its destruction, but it also creates a situation where the environment becomes hostile to man. The conquest of nature is considered to be futile and any attempt to do so would be detrimental to the welfare of human beings. The stance taken by the anthropocentric approach can be considered to be a contradiction because while it advocates for the unlimited exploitation of nature for the benefit of labour, it also calls for caution because the destabilisation of nature as a result of activities of exploitation would bring about a situation where nature would take its revenge. Therefore, one would suggest that anthropocentrism takes on a middle ground in matters concerning environmental preservation; a situation that makes it questionable as a political concept in the contemporary world where environmental protection is paramount.

The anthropocentric approach to environmental conservation, especially during its contemporary states of development, can be considered to have been extremely modified to such an extent that it has essentially come to take a similar approach to ecocentrism. This change can be seen through some of the laws that were passed by Russia during the Soviet Union which attempted to reduce the impact of individuals on the environment. One such law forbade the destruction of any non-commercial wild animals except for those that had a potential of either harming the economy or the health of the people within the state. This approach shows a need for man to take responsibility for his actions towards nature and this should be done in such a way that its integrity is protected. The exploitation of nature for its resources is an essential part of human civilisation because it allows for the development of an easier way of life. However, the anthropocentric approach is one which advocates for the primacy of labour over nature, so that nature is used for the latter rather than labour working towards the preservation of nature. There are instances where this approach puts importance in the need to preserve the environment because it is realised that to do otherwise would mean the destruction of life as it is and the end of labour. Among the events that are referred to in this approach as having taken place as a result of man’s manipulation of nature is the Chernobyl disaster, which can be considered to be nature’s way of taking revenge on human attempts to tame it.

It is essential to note that both the anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches recognise that laws concerning the balance between man and the environment have not been adequately developed. This ethical deficiency on the part of developing moral guidelines on how to treat the environment has led to a situation where it has become extremely difficult for man to conduct his activities with consideration for nature. The need to ensure that the use of land as well as other natural resources is conducted in a way that preserves the latter has been forgotten in a bid to ensure that commercial interests are protected. The result is that commercial interests have taken a hand in directing laws concerning the environment, through their lobbies, so that these laws do not in any way interfere with their destructive activities. both of these approaches states that the contemporary society does not recognise the importance of nature and the need to ensure that the environment is preserved in such a way that future generations will be able to exploit its resources while continuing to maintain a balance. The lack of moral obligation towards the environment is blamed by both approaches as being the reason behind the massive levels of degradation that has been taking place and they warn that this disregard might result to disaster for the entire planet.

While the two approaches discussed might be similar in some perspectives, the ecocentric approach is more convincing because it goes further in the development of concepts that can be used as a means of protecting the environment. Among these is its propagation of there being a need for a proper means of protecting the environment through the development of a set of laws based on the rights of nature. It is through these laws that it can be possible for environmental protection to be brought from the realm of idealism to reality. According to the ecocentric approach, in order to make environmental protection viable, it is essential for the principles guiding the process to be converted to legal concepts that can be used to ensure that the process becomes a reality. This is an approach that has gained traction in recent years and it has led to the beginning of a legal process whose purpose is to gain recognition for the worth of the environment and the need to preserve it.

 In conclusion, the discussion above has shown that according to the Marxist concept of anthropocentrism, nature should not be a matter of paramount importance because it is not a product of labour. This is countered by the ecocentric approach which is based upon the need to ensure that all human actions are conducted in such a way as to make possible the integrity of nature. In addition, it is stated that the anthropocentric approach is one which propagates the belief that the main value of nature is based on its resources rather than on the preservation of its integrity. The ecocentric approach, in contrast to anthropocentrism, is one which calls for the adoption of a new land ethic, where individuals within society should conduct their actions with the intention of ensuring that the integrity, stability and beauty of the environment is preserved. Moreover, while it promotes the unlimited exploitation of nature for the sake of labour, it is essential to note that the Marxist approach also recognises the hazards of doing so. The anthropocentric approach to environmental conservation, especially during its contemporary states of development, can be considered to have been extremely modified to such an extent that it has essentially come to take a similar approach to ecocentrism. Furthermore, it has been noted that both the anthropocentric and ecocentric approaches recognise that laws concerning the balance between man and the environment have not been adequately developed. Finally, while the two approaches discussed might be similar in some perspectives, the ecocentric approach is more convincing because it goes further in the development of concepts that can be used as a means of protecting the environment.

Replacement of Traditional Agriculture with Biotechnology

One of the reasons why biotechnology should not replace traditional agriculture is that it will neither benefit the farmers in the developed world nor those in the developing world. This is mainly because biotechnology is profit driven and does not have the interests of farmers at heart. As a profit driven industry, biotechnology can be considered to be a means through which major agricultural corporations are attempting to increase the dependence of society on industrial products to the almost total exclusion of products from traditional farmers. The intensification of farmers’ dependence on industrial products through the adoption of biotechnology would ensure that they end up having to endure restrictions based on intellectual property rights owned by major biochemical corporations. The enforcement of these rights would mean that farmers would be denied the right to not only reproduces, but also to share and store the seeds that they have purchased. Such conditions would be highly detrimental to farmers and would force them to have to purchase expensive industrial products in order to continue practicing agriculture. It should be noted that without the much needed capital in order to purchase biotechnological products, most traditional farmers would be forced out of business, with the market being almost completely dominated by large corporations that are profit driven. Therefore, if biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, it would create a situation where it would be difficult for a significant number of people employed in the latter industry to survive the new market conditions. There would be an increase in the number of unemployed while at the same time ensure that agriculture is no longer a viable business except for large corporations that have the capital to survive the market.

If biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, such a situation would prove disastrous for small farmers as well as the poor individuals in the third world. This is especially because it would bring about the marginalization of small farmers because they would not have the resources they need to ensure that they are able to adopt biotechnology in their businesses. Furthermore, in the third world, it has become the norm for farmers to retain some of their crops so that they can be used as seeds during planting season. The system that has been developed by the latter has ensured that they do not lack the means of producing new crops on an annual basis; hence reducing their dependency on outside forces for their survival. The introduction of biotechnology would greatly hamper these farmers because not only would they be removed from the agricultural sector as a result of unfair competition, but they would also end up being left paupers in the process. Large corporations such as Monsanto, which are extremely ruthless in business, would make use of biotechnological products to remain dominant in the market through making sure that their products are cheaper than those produced through traditional agriculture. Countries in the third world would end up suffering because their exports would become compromised by biotechnology and this would be to such an extent that thousands, if not millions of people, would end up being unemployed. Such a situation would have a negative effect on these countries since it would allow for the continued dependence of the third world on economic aid from developed countries.

The introduction of biotechnology would bring about a situation where the ecological sovereignty of the rest of the world, especially in third world countries, would end up being compromised. Such a situation has already began taking place where large corporations are making a rush in these countries to ensure that they get the best genes from local crops to use in the development of their own biotechnological products. This situation has led to the loss of massive revenues by third world countries which would have used the billions lost to implement development projects at home. The compromising of the ecological sovereignty of the third world has led to a situation where it has become difficult for local farmers to receive the compensation that they deserve for the development of diverse crop strains over a period of many centuries. Instead, large corporations, using their immense resources, have been able to attain the various genetic strains from these farmers, usually without their knowledge, and make huge profits from them. The lack of reward for farmers in the third world can be considered to be as a result of the development of biotechnology by multinational corporations which are essentially profit-making entities which will do so at any given opportunity. Because biotechnology is almost completely in the hands of the private sector, specifically large corporations, it would be inadvisable to allow it to replace traditional agriculture because such a move would make these corporations richer at the expense of those individuals in the third world who have worked hard for centuries to develop diversity among their crops.

The adoption of biotechnology would not lead to the conservation of genetic diversity. This is because despite its capacity to help in the development of products that enhance biodiversity, biotechnology at the hands of multinational corporations would most likely not be willing to do so. For the most part, the strategy of large corporations is always to ensure that they create as large a market for single products as possible because such a move would help in lesser expenditure while enhancing their profits. Furthermore, through their owning of patents for their various products, corporations will prevent the development of improved varieties of crops on farms; thus hampering continued biodiversity. The influence that most of these corporations have all over the planet would end up undermining the efforts of individual farmers to practice their trade through creating diverse genetic strains of the same products. Instead, the monopoly of biotechnology would make it extremely difficult for poor farmers to have a say in the manner through which crops are developed. They would be forced to give up their livelihood for the sake of satisfying the desires of large corporations which, using their influence, will most likely end up making sure that patent laws protecting them are put in place in all countries within which they have operations. Thus, the biological complexity that has been the mainstay of traditional farming methods will end up being compromised; hurting both human and animal life in the process of the massive genetic erosion that will likely take place.

It has been argued that the adoption of biotechnology in place of traditional agriculture will ensure an ecologically safe and sustainable agriculture. This argument does not put into consideration the potential hazards that would be involved in the process. Biotechnology is essentially being implemented in a bid to patch-up the problems that were brought about through the use of agrochemical products that were promoted by those corporations that have taken a lead in biotechnology. There should be concern about the possibility of pest-resistant plants being able to transfer their genes to their wild relative; effectively leading to unintended consequences that might be harmful to the environment.

In conclusion, the discussion above attempts to show that biotechnology should not be allowed to replace traditional agriculture because it will result in more harm than good. One of the reasons states is that it will neither benefit the farmers in the developed world nor those in the developing world. Furthermore, it has been argued that if biotechnology were to replace traditional agriculture, such a situation would prove disastrous for small farmers as well as the poor individuals in the third world. Moreover, the introduction of biotechnology as a replacement for traditional agriculture would bring about a situation where the ecological sovereignty of the rest of the world, especially in third world countries, would end up being compromised. In addition, it has been argued that the adoption of biotechnology would not lead to the conservation of genetic diversity. Finally, the argument against biotechnology has been countered through the argument that that the adoption of biotechnology in place of traditional agriculture will ensure an ecologically safe and sustainable agriculture.

The Philosophy of the Environment

Environmentalism is a philosophy which is based on the concept of conserving the natural environment through addressing issues the concern various human activities. Most of the activities which are addressed by environmentalism involve the pollution of the environment through industrial activities. This philosophy works towards the establishment of means through which these issues concerning the conservation of the environment are discussed and viable solutions for the environmental problems caused by human activity can be found. It can further be said that this philosophy deals with the preservation, the development, and the return of the natural environment to the state in which it was previously.

It has been found that while many environmentalist groups profess to fight for the conservation of the environment, many of them tend to defeat their own purpose for doing so. This is due to the fact that they often oppose those projects whose final goal is to ensure that the environment is conserved. An example of this is an experiment that was to be conducted off the islands of Hawaii sponsored by various gas companies and governments. This venture was to establish the rate of carbon monoxide dissolution in water so that steps could be taken to reduce such rates. However, certain environmentalist groups were opposed to this move stating that there was a possibility that the initiative was going to not only change the quality of the seawater, but it would also damage the marine life of the area. It can be seen that while some environmentalist groups claim to fight for the conservation of the natural environment, when initiatives are made to study how the environment can be conserved, it is these very same groups which come to oppose them.

A further example can be provided, this time in Pennsylvania where there was an initiative to construct wind turbines which would not only be able to provide a cheap source of energy, but this form of energy would be clean, ensuring that there was little damage to the environment. Local environmentalist groups again rose in opposition to the idea, citing that the turbines were going to destroy the immaculate forests of the area and endanger the birdlife. It can therefore be said that while many environmentalist groups fight for the conservation of the environment, they have to adapt to the initiatives which are aimed at achieving the same purpose, otherwise, their objectives are likely to be defeated.

Ecological Justice

It has become common for those individuals involved in the protection of human and environmental rights to advocate for the need to preserve the ecological rights to be enjoyed by future generations. This has been done mainly because of the influence of scholars in environmental law whose studies concerning the use of resources in the current age and the need to preserve some of it for future generations have been used in the arguments made by supporters of environmental justice. While this has been the case, physical influences such as changes to the climate that are irreversible, the reduction of vital resources as well the fast growth in the population of many states all over the world, have also come to be considered when dealing with ecological justice. There has developed the realization that if nothing is done by the current generation to conserve the environment, then there is the possibility that future generations will not enjoy the same environment as that which was inherited by preceding generations.

There has to be the realization that despite the failings of previous generations, the current generation is bound to ensure that the planet will be able to provide sustenance for today's children and those of the future. If a claim is made for the future generations, then it will be possible to take away from the current world order, which has certainly been responsible for much of the earth’s environmental damage, the power to continue doing what it is currently doing so that there might be a break from the environmental degradation that has been witnessed for the last two centuries. While it is a fact that not everybody is moved to action because of the ecological plight of others, especially those in future generation, it is still the duty of the current generation to ensure that there is proper consciousness concerning the environment. It is a fact that if the current generation does not meet this obligation to the future ones, then there is the possibility that future generations will look back upon it with resentment because of the failed responsibility. It is in the interest of the current generation to ensure that the sustainability of the planet and as well as the survival of the human race, is highly dependent on the achievement of the ecological justice that has to be attained for future generations. If no account is kept in the current era for the protection of the ecological interests of future generations, there is little assurance that the ecology will be maintained for future generations to enjoy, therefore resulting in crisis.

There are some who have argued that there is no need for attention to be given to future generations because their protection has already been considered in the laws that protect current generations. They would further argue that the creation of laws aimed at protecting the environment are based on the protection of future generations hence there is no need to take an active part in ecological justice. Since most of the rules concerning modernity state that individuals should live in the present and forget about the future, many individuals have come not to take any action to ensure that the environment is protected and maintained. In fact, it can be said that most individuals believe that the best way to live is to live in the present and forget about the future because it will take care of itself. Although it is necessary to protect the rights of the current generation before that of the future, the rights of this generation should not be allowed to overshadow the main priority of environmental protection which is its preservation for the future. It has therefore become necessary to ensure that there is a balance between the ecological interests of the current generations as well as those of the future so that there is no conflict of interest in the long run. If inter-generational justice is to be attained, it will be necessary to convince the current generation to ensure that the ecological aspect of the planet in the current state is protected so that future generations may be able to enjoy an even greater piece of it than the current one. The current generation has to be able to learn that the conservation of the global ecology is essential if there is to be ecological justice for future generations. The rights of future generations have to be preserved in the same way as those of the current ones are protected so that there is no break in the way in which the world functions. This is mainly because of the fact that it is extremely difficult to determine where the ecological rights of the current and future generations begin or end and therefore, it has become essential for them to be treated on an equal basis.

It is a fact that whatever the arguments made for or against ecological justice, nature has its own limitations and these have to be put into consideration whenever this subject is discussed. Therefore, where ethical arguments fail to convince the current generations, then it is a must that pragmatic arguments have to prevail otherwise, all will be lost. If ecological justice is not implemented by the current generations, then it is most likely that the future generations will end up suffering in a disproportionate way from climate change, a fact which will be detrimental for the continued survival of not only the human species, but also of other species as well. The adverse effects of climate change for future generations will possibly take place if there is the continued disregard for the environment, thus resulting in the increase in the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. It is however, the current practice of those institutions tasked with the continued finding of solutions for climate change to account for the interests of the generations that will live in the future than those that live in the present and this is a good indicator that all is not lost in the fight for ecological justice. Because of such considerations, it is possible that future generations will be able to be protected from the worst of climate change through the actions of current policymakers. Thus, there is a high possibility that ecological justice might indeed be achieved if not only the smaller effects of climate change are dealt with but also those that are harsher, therefore saving the world from a catastrophe.

It is suggested that it is because of the disregard for the ecological justice of future generations that there have developed those activities that have contributed an immense deal in the development of such ecological hazards as global warming. Such acts, which include the accumulation of nuclear waste, the loss of biodiversity in certain parts of the world as well as the reduction of the ozone layer, are perhaps the worst episodes in human history because they are ignorant of the need to protect future generation from the effects of global warming as a result of ecological damage. It is a fact that over the past fifty years, the alteration of the natural ecosystems of the world has been accelerated at such a rate that most of these ecological systems are no longer recognizable from only a few decades ago. The degradation of the natural environment has created a situation where it has become difficult for some ecosystems to renew themselves, and this has become detrimental for the achievement of ecological justice. It is estimated that more than half of the ecosystems that have been put under research have shown signs of being either degraded or being used in an unsustainable way, and this is not good news for those who are fighting for ecological justice because it means that they have an uphill task in order to achieve their goals of ecological sustainability. The fact that a significant part of the world’s ecosystems have been degraded has been sighted as a manifestation of the absolute disregard for future generations through the failure to recognize the limits to growth.

Alongside the current ecological crisis, there has also developed the dilemma of distributive justice, where it has been argued that there is the need for the world’s resources to be shared equally between its populations. It has been stated that without access to the resources that nature provides, it would be extremely difficult for the human race to survive and this is because of the fact that it is these resources which are the source of the sustenance of human development. It is a fact that human beings have to have access to the basic needs such as food shelter and clothing to ensure their survival but this is currently not the case because most of the human population lives in abject poverty, earning less than a dollar a day. This finding is truly appalling considering that it shows that the majority of the world’s population has no access to the natural resources which are essential for their development, as well as to sustain the future generations. The irresponsible use of the available natural resources by the rich has created a situation where there is the increase in the degradation of the natural environment, making life harder for the poor who often rely on these resources for their own survival. It has been found that many poor people, who have been pushed into poverty by the prevailing environmental circumstances, end up further degrading the environment to such an extent that it is difficult to achieve ecological justice for future generations. The fact that the poor end up degrading their local environments makes it difficult for there to be any alleviation to their hardships, which deprives them of the potential for developing themselves economically. Such a situation has come to be aptly named the pollution of poverty, since it involves the destruction of the environment by the poor, further worsening their economic situation. 

It can be said that those groups that quest for ecological justice have failed to achieve their objectives because of the internal disagreements between them. These disagreements stem from the fact that the various groups within the movement have differing views of how to approach the various ecological problems that they have to deal with. It can further be stated that these disagreements are based on the mutual suspicion between the rival groups within the movement concerning each other’s methods in dealing with the ecological issue. This has led to the complete failure of the environmentalist movement to stop the increasing greenhouse gas emissions into the environment, and this has in turn led to the increase in global warming. The main reason for this failure is that the members of the environmentalist movement join it not because of being convinced that they are joining it to save the environment, but because it is the current trend in the global scene. Another reason why the quest for ecological justice is failing in its endeavor to clean up the environment is that many environmentalist groups focus more on the technical policy solutions involved in the process than on actually taking the action needed. Many environmentalist organizations have come to separate the environment from environmentalism, creating a situation where more attention is given to the latter than to the former. 

In conclusion, it can be said that there has come to be a realization that the environmental cause cannot succeed without the direct involvement of the governments of countries which are responsible for most of the greenhouse emissions into the atmosphere. Governments have come to see the need to be actively involved in the creation of international agreements for the sole reason of dealing with environmental problems that affect the global environment, in effect helping the achievement of ecological justice. These governments have come to the realization of the need of having rules and regulations that are able to promote cooperation and prevent conflicts so that there can be sustainability in the environment. The achievement of ecological justice should be considered the priority in all matters concerning the environment because this is the only way through which the ecology of the planet can be sustained for the sake of future generations.