Section Goals:

1. Understand social concepts of ethics that relate to human interactions with the ecosystem.
2. Understand what the tragedy of the commons is and to relate it to larger societal challenges.
3. Begin to understand environmental racism.

1.4.1 Ethics shape human interactions with the land

The ways in which humans interact with the land and its natural resources are determined by ethical attitudes and behaviors. The concept of ethics involves standards of conduct. These standards help to distinguish between behavior that is considered right and that which is considered wrong. In this section, the focus is on the intersection of ethics with attitudes specifically about the earth, environment, and ecosystem, which will be identified by the term ecosystem ethics. Historically, ecosystem ethics of the Western world have been human-centered and related to the beliefs of colonialism. A more modern frame, though still limited by the context of a colonial society, is that of an environmental ethic which includes humans as part of the natural community rather than managers of it. Other cultures which have been subsumed by colonial structures have a completely different way of conceptualizing relationships between humans and land.^[1]

Sustainable Ethic

A sustainable ethic is an ecosystem 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 sand 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. A sustainable ethic can be either anthropocentric (human-centric) 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.

Frontier Ethic

While this textbook strives to show the questionability of the frontier ethic, the history of this assumption has dramatically shaped our world. Early European settlers in North America rapidly consumed the natural resources of the land through colonialism. 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 anthropocentric, for only the needs of humans are considered.

Most industrialized societies experience and understand population and economic growth that are based upon this frontier ethic because of the foundation of many societies in colonialism. There is the assumption that infinite resources exist to support continued growth indefinitely. In fact, economic growth is considered a measure of how well a society is doing. The late economist Julian Simon pointed out that life on earth has never been better, and that population growth means more creative minds to solve future problems and give us an even better standard of living. However, now that the human population has passed seven billion and few frontiers are left, many are beginning to question the frontier ethic, for good reason.

Land Ethic

Another important historical ecosystem ethic is that of 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, just as ancient Greeks considered slaves as property. He believed that mistreatment of land (or of slaves) makes little economic or moral sense, much as today the concept of slavery is considered immoral. 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)

Some conservation activities that are motivated by the land ethic are misaligned with respecting and supporting the struggles of marginalized or indigenous groups.

Case study: Hetch Hetchy Valley

In 1913, the Hetch Hetchy Valley – located in Yosemite National Park in California – was the site of a conflict between two factions, one with an anthropocentric ethic and the other, a biocentric ethic. As the last American frontiers were settled, the rate of forest destruction started to concern the public.

The conservation movement gained momentum, but quickly broke into two factions. One faction, led by Gifford Pinchot, Chief Forester under Teddy Roosevelt, advocated utilitarian conservation (i.e., conservation of resources for the good of the public). The other faction, led by John Muir, advocated preservation of forests and other wilderness for their inherent value. Both groups rejected the first tenet of frontier ethics, the assumption that resources are limitless. However, the conservationists agreed with the rest of the tenets of frontier ethics, while the preservationists agreed with the tenets of the sustainable ethic.

The Hetch Hetchy Valley was part of a protected National Park, but after the devastating fires of the 1906 San Francisco earthquake, residents of San Francisco wanted to dam the valley to provide their city with a stable supply of water. Gifford Pinchot favored the dam.

“As to my attitude regarding the proposed use of Hetch Hetchy by the city of San Francisco…I am fully persuaded that… the injury…by substituting a lake for the present swampy floor of the valley…is altogether unimportant compared with the benefits to be derived from it’s use as a reservoir.

“The fundamental principle of the whole conservation policy is that of use, to take every part of the land and its resources and put it to that use in which it will serve the most people.” (Gifford Pinchot, 1913)

John Muir, the founder of the Sierra Club and a great lover of wilderness, led the fight against the dam. He saw wilderness as having an intrinsic value, separate from its utilitarian value to people. He advocated preservation of wild places for their inherent beauty and for the sake of the creatures that live there. The issue aroused the American public, who were becoming increasingly alarmed at the growth of cities and the destruction of the landscape for the sake of commercial enterprises. Key senators received thousands of letters of protest.

“These temple destroyers, devotees of ravaging commercialism, seem to have a perfect contempt for Nature, and instead of lifting their eyes to the God of the Mountains, lift them to the Almighty Dollar.” (John Muir, 1912)

Despite public protest, Congress voted to dam the valley. The preservationists lost the fight for the Hetch Hetchy Valley, but their questioning of traditional American values had some lasting effects. In 1916, Congress passed the “National Park System Organic Act,” which declared that parks were to be maintained in a manner that left them unimpaired for future generations. As we use our public lands, we continue to debate whether we should be guided by preservationism or conservationism.

The Tragedy of the Commons

Related to the understanding of ecosystem ethics as drivers of human/land interactions, the concept of the tragedy of the commons gives context to individual versus societal motivation in the use of land (when it’s considered a resource… see M. Liboiron for more context on this statement).^[1] In economics and in an ecological context, the tragedy of the commons is a situation in which individual users, who have open access to a resource unhampered by shared social structures or formal rules that govern access and use,^[2][3] act independently according to their own self-interest and, contrary to the common good of all users, cause depletion of the resource through their uncoordinated action in case there are too many users related to the available resources.^[4]

A central element of the concept originated in an essay written in 1833 by the British economist William Forster Lloyd,^[5] who used a hypothetical example of the effects of unregulated grazing on common land, also known as “the commons” (in Anglo-Saxon law) in Great Britain and Ireland.^[6][7] In embryonic form the idea can also be found at Aristotle: “That which is common to the greatest number gets the least amount of care. Men pay most attention to what is their own: they care less for what is common.”^[8] The theory became widely known as the “tragedy of the commons” after an essay with this title was published in Science written by Garrett Hardin in 1968.^[9] 

Hardin describes in this early essay that common use will only work reasonably satisfactorily as long as the number of man and beast stay well below the carrying capacity of the land (carrying capacity is described in Section 4.2). The availability of resources and the amount of people depending on it should therefor be kept in balance. However, as a result of discussions carried out in the decade after publication, Hardin suggested a better wording of the central idea: “Under conditions of overpopulation, freedom in an unmanaged commons brings ruin to all.”^[8] Finally, in 1991, faced with evidence of historical and existing commons, Hardin retracted his original thesis and wrote “The Tragedy of the ‘Unmanaged’ Commons”.^[10]

Critical scholars note that although taken as a hypothetical example by Lloyd, the historical demise of the commons of Britain and Europe resulted not from misuse of long-held rights of usage by the commoners, but from the commons’ owners enclosing and appropriating the land, abrogating the commoners’ rights.^[11]

Although open-access resource systems may collapse due to overuse (such as in overfishing), many examples have existed and still do exist where members of a community with regulated access to a common resource co-operate to exploit those resources prudently without collapse.^[12][13] Elinor Ostrom was awarded the 2009 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences for demonstrating this concept in her book Governing the Commons,^[14] which included examples of how local communities were able to do this without top-down regulations or privatization. On the other hand, Dieter Helm argues that these examples are context-specific and the tragedy of the commons “is not generally solved this way. If it were, the destruction of nature would not have occurred.”^[19] Though the original understanding by Hardin is not universally true, that will be the definition utilized in this text because of how the concept relates to climate change.

In a modern global economic context, “commons” is taken to mean any open-access and unregulated resource such as the atmosphere, oceans, rivers, ocean fish stocks, or even an office refrigerator. With this context, the “Tragedy of the Commons” is applicable to what is arguably the most consequential environmental problem: global climate change. The atmosphere is a commons into which countries are dumping carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. Although we know that the generation of greenhouse gases will have damaging effects upon the entire globe, we continue to burn fossil fuels. As a country, the immediate benefit from the continued use of fossil fuels is seen as a positive component (because of economic growth). All countries, however, will share the negative long-term effects.

1.4.2 Environmental Justice

Environmental Justice is defined as the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, 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.

“Environmental racism” was a term coined in 1982 by Benjamin Chavis, previous executive director of the United Church of Christ (UCC) Commission for Racial Justice. In a speech opposing the placement of hazardous polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) waste in the Warren County, North Carolina landfill, Chavis defined the term as:

Racial discrimination in environmental policy making, the enforcement of regulations and laws, the deliberate targeting of communities of color for toxic waste facilities, the official sanctioning of the life-threatening presence of poisons and pollutants in our communities, and the history of excluding people of color from leadership of the ecology movements.

Recognition of environmental racism catalyzed the environmental justice movement that began in the 1970s and 1980s with influence from the earlier civil rights movement. Grassroots organizations and campaigns brought attention to environmental racism in policy making and emphasized the importance of minority input. While environmental racism has been historically tied to the environmental justice movement, throughout the years the term has been increasingly disassociated. Following the events in Warren County, the UCC and US General Accounting Office released reports showing that hazardous waste sites were disproportionately located in poor minority neighborhoods. Chavis and Dr. Robert D. Bullard pointed out institutionalized racism stemming from government and corporate policies that led to environmental racism. These racist practices included redlining, zoning, and colorblind adaptation planning. Residents experienced environmental racism due to their low socioeconomic status, lack of political representation and mobility. Expanding the definition in “The Legacy of American Apartheid and Environmental Racism”, Dr. Bullard said that environmental racism:

… refers to any policy, practice, or directive that differentially affects or disadvantages (whether intended or unintended) individuals, groups, or communities based on race or color.

Though environmental racism is a clear problem, the decisions in citing hazardous waste facilities are generally made on the basis of economics, geological suitability and the political climate, which can be both impacted by structural racism or can have aspects that are independent of structural racism. For example, a site must have a soil type and geological profile that prevents hazardous materials from moving into local aquifers.

In an ideal world, there would be no hazardous waste facilities, but we do not live in an ideal world. Unfortunately, we live in a world plagued by rampant pollution and dumping of hazardous waste. Our industrialized society has produced wastes during the manufacture of products for our basic needs and colonial attitudes mean that society assumes that land can be used to deal with such waste^[16]. 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 become more socially sensitive 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 poor and minorities.

Indigenous People

This topic is much more nuanced than can be addressed here. Please be responsible about researching this topic further with the detail needed for your specific geographical location if it applies to your situation.

Since the end of the 15th century, most of the world’s frontiers have been claimed and colonized by established nations. Invariably, these conquered frontiers were home to people indigenous to those regions. 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 an 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.” A few of the many groups of indigenous people around the world are: the many tribes of Native Americans (i.e., Navajo, Sioux) in the contiguous 48 states, the Inuit of the arctic region from Siberia to Canada, the rainforest tribes in Brazil, and the Ainu of northern Japan.

Many 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, is “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 is 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. In the United States many of those in the federal government are pushing to exploit oil resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge on the northern coast of Alaska. The “Gwich’in,” an indigenous people who rely culturally and spiritually on the herds of caribou that live in the region, claim that drilling in the region would devastate their way of life. Thousands of years of culture would be destroyed for a few months’ supply of oil. Drilling efforts have been stymied in the past, but mostly out of concern for environmental factors and not necessarily the needs of the indigenous people. Curiously, another group of indigenous people, the “Inupiat Eskimo,” favor oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Because they own considerable amounts of land adjacent to the refuge, they would potentially reap economic benefits from the development of the region.

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. They believe that sustainable development requires the maintenance and continuity of life, from generation to generation and that humans are not isolated entities, but are part of larger communities, which include the seas, rivers, mountains, trees, fish, animals and ancestral spirits. These, along with the sun, moon and cosmos, constitute a whole. 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.

References

1. Liboiron, Max. 2021. Pollution is Colonialism. Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/pollution-is-colonialism
2. Access to information on social networks, 2013. OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2015. OECD. 2015-07-15. doi:10.1787/9789264232440-graph84-en. ISBN 9789264232273. Retrieved 2021-05-24.
3. Woldeamanuel, Teshale (2011). Dryland resources, livelihoods and institutions : diversity and dynamics in use and management of gum and resin trees in Ethiopia. s.n. ISBN 978-90-8585-962-8. OCLC 768135442.
4. Purvis, V. (1970-03-14). “Self-interest and the Common Good”. BMJ. 1 (5697): 692. doi:10.1136/bmj.1.5697.692-c. ISSN 0959-8138. S2CID 71492205.
5. Thompson, Noel (2004-09-23). “Thompson, William (1775–1833), socialist and economist”. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/27284. (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)
6. Lloyd, William Forster (1833). Two Lectures on the Checks to Population . England: Oxford University. JSTOR 1972412. OL 23458465M – via Wikisource.
7. Crowe, Beryl L. (1969-11-28). “The Tragedy of the Commons Revisited: Major problems have neither technical nor political solutions; extensions in morality are not likely”. Science. 166 (3909): 1103–1107. doi:10.1126/science.166.3909.1103. ISSN 0036-8075.
8. “An Ecolate View of the Human Predicament by Garrett Hardin – The Garrett Hardin Society – Articles”. www.garretthardinsociety.org. Retrieved 2022-12-27. Aristotle quote is from: Aristotle. Politics, Book II, Chapter 3.
9. Hardin, Garrett (1968). “The Tragedy of the Commons”. Science. 162 (3859): 1243–1248. Bibcode:1968Sci…162.1243H. doi:10.1126/science.162.3859.1243. PMID 5699198. S2CID 8757756.
10.  Garrett Hardin, “The Tragedy of the ‘Unmanaged’ Commons”, in Robert V. Andelson, Commons Without Tragedy – Protecting the Environment from Overpopulation–a New Approach. Shepheard-Walwyn, London, 1991
11. Biss, Eula (June 8, 2022). “The Theft of the Commons”. The New Yorker.
12. Wade, R. (1986). “Common Property Resource Management in South Indian Villages” (PDF). Proceedings of the Conference on Common Property Resource Management, April 21-26, 1985. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. pp. 231ff. ISBN 978-0-309-04258-1. OCLC 16727857.
13. Cox, Susan Jane Buck (1985). “No Tragedy on the Commons” (PDF). Environmental Ethics. 7 (1): 49–61. doi:10.5840/enviroethics1985716. hdl:10535/3113.
14. Aligica, Paul Dragos (March 2010). “Elinor Ostrom – Nobel Prize in Economics 2009”. Economic Affairs. 30 (1): 95–96. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0270.2009.01982.x. ISSN 0265-0665. S2CID 153765190.
15. Helm, Dieter (2015). Natural Capital: Valuing The Planet. Yale University Press. p. 119. ISBN 978-0-300-21098-9.
16. Liboiron, Max. 2021. Pollution is Colonialism. Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/pollution-is-colonialism

Suggested Supplementary Reading

Blankenbuehler, P. 2016. Why Hetch Hetchy is staying under water. High Country News. <https://www.hcn.org/issues/48.9/why-hetch-hetchy-is-staying-under-water>

Liboiron, Max. 2021. Pollution is Colonialism. Duke University Press. https://www.dukeupress.edu/pollution-is-colonialism

Miller, E. “Flint Water Crisis: A Turning Point For Environmental Justice.” WOSU Public Media.<http://radio.wosu.org/post/flint-water-crisis-turning-point-environmental-justice#stream/0>

Attribution

Essentials of Environmental Science 2.2 by Kamala Doršner is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Modified from the original by Matthew R. Fisher and Joni Baumgarten.

Essentials of Environmental Science 2.4  by Kamala Doršner is licensed under CC BY 4.0. Modified from original by Matthew R. Fisher and Joni Baumgarten.

Wikipedia. “Environmental racism”. Accessed December 27, 2022. Licensed by CCA-SA 3.0 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_racism Modified by Joni Baumgarten.

Wikipedia. “Tragedy of the Commons”. Accessed December 26, 2023. Licensed by CCA-SA 3.0  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons#cite_note-garretthardinsociety.org-7 Modified by Joni Baumgarten.