M7 (Lawton)

Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

According to an article by Matt Ridley titled “Why Climate Change is Good for the World”, there are both positive and negative affects of climate change. He claims that “if you aggregate them all, the overall effect is positive today – and likely to stay positive until around 2080.” The article goes on to say that the past century improved human welfare by 1.4 per cent of global economic output, and expecting to rise to 1.5 percent by 2025. I find this data hard to believe given the current situation of the world. For example, the rising sea levels due to polar ice caps melting is only causing problems to human welfare. Climate change is also affecting populations of many different species such as bees. Bees are crucial to the environment as they are directly responsible for pollinating 1/3 of the world’s food.

What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world?

We are responsible for taking care of the environment and ensuring that future generations are left with a depleted and struggling planet. Humans affect the environment more than any other species on earth. We need to be held accountable for cleaning up the messes that we create. We also are responsible for finding cleaner and more environmentally safe alternatives to the daily tasks we that we enjoy (plastic items, greenhouse gasses, etc.)

Does nature have value in itself?

Nature has tremendous value in itself as it can keep itself self-sustained. Aside from the resilience of nature, it also provides much value to us humans. It provides the food we eat, the air we breathe, and the resources necessary for our daily lives. So yes, Nature has value in itself.

Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment?

While everyone benefits by protecting the environment, the people who have the harshest impacts on it should be paying a majority of the cost. Companies & organizations who pollute and cause damage to the environment need to be held accountable. The governments who allow those companies & organizations to operate as such need to be held accountable as well.

Ridley, Matt. “Why Climate Change Is Good for the World.’ The Spectator, 19 Oct. 2013, www.spectator.co.uk/2013/10/carry-on-warming/.


M7 – Mendoza

What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world? What obligations do we have to future generations?

As the world’s sole superpower, I feel we bear the responsibility of leading the charge to combat, prevent and reverse the effects of global warming. We should invest in and improve technologies and processes of producing green, renewable energy in order to show the rest of the world that it can be done and how to do it. Now, thinking back to our previous discussion about dumping waste materials in developing countries, I firmly believe that we as a nation should also find ways to recycle our own materials rather than pawn them off on others who don’t have the ability to resist. Learning how to reduce, reuse and recycle efficiently can have a major impact on the environment in a positive way all by itself.

Now, in regards to what obligations we have to future generations, I think it goes without saying that we owe them the world…literally. We may not have caused all the problems we face today, but we are definitely contributing to them and it is entirely possible for us to find the solutions to them. We shouldn’t simply say oh well and pass these issues on as they will only get more complicated and difficult to solve or prevent. If you have kids of your own, I’m sure you don’t want them to grow up in an environment that can harm or kill them by entirely preventable issues such as contaminated water, air, food or what they are exposed to simply by stepping outside.

Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration?

In regards to this question, I say that both must pay. Perhaps not equally in a 50/50 split, but I’d say in a 70/30 split with those responsible for pollution paying a larger chunk. This would serve to punish those who commit environmental wrongs and may persuade them to seek routes that are cleaner and avoid financial punishment. Those who stand to gain should also have “skin in the game” and pay a portion of the cost as this is not a solution that can be achieved by any one group alone. We must all be vested in the success and implementation of greener policies that will benefit everyone on Earth.

M7 – Liam Cassell

Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.  

An article written  by  Matt Ridley and published by The Spector has some different  ideas on global warming then what was presented  in the book [1]. In “Why climate change is good for the world’ Matt Ridley argues why climate is  a good thing. His main arguments are as follows:  fewer winter deaths, lower energy costs, better agricultural yields, probably fewer droughts, and maybe richer biodiversity. The crux of most of his arguments is that since  carbon monoxide help plants grown the rising CO2 levels will provide better condition to grow plants. This in return will help bring down the cost in money and energy to produce our food which would be a huge benefit. There were more ideas presented in this article and it is an interesting read even if I don’t  agree with all of them.    


The traditional business attitudes toward the environment that have encouraged environmental degradation and resource depletion.  

I would argue that  traditional business attitudes  do not encourage  environmental  degradation  but rather does not reward  environmental  conservation. Meaning companies  can get more money from being less eco-friendly, but given the chance to gain or save money they would be more eco-friendly. This can be seen in investments in energy efficient  technologies. As well as  companies  changing their  regulations to obtain tax breaks and other  government subsidies. This why we should encourage  funding for  research and government programs that are involved in these  entities.      


Does nature have value in itself?  

Nature does have a price since you can pay money to obtain some nature. This can either be in the form of buying land or spending money on a trip to Alaska to get the experience the wild. Due to this yes nature does have value.    


Lastly, as you read through Chapter 7, answer this question: Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.  

Everyone  is  responsible for the environment. From boy scouts I learned I should leave nature as I found it and only take pictures. I fully believe this think that everyone should be held accountable. Therefore, everyone should be responsible for the cost because we have all added to the problem in one way or another.    

[1] Ridley, Mike. “Do the Benefits of Climate Change Outweigh the Costs?’                        RealClearScience,www.realclearscience.com/blog/2018/06/19/do_the_benefits_of_climate_change_outweigh_the_costs.html.  


M7 (Clark)

Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

Found a really good article written by Arthur Weinstein outlining alternative and opposing views on climate change.   In his article he wrote about 5 different opinions.   One viewpoint was remedies may hurt more than rising temperatures.   In efforts to fix the problem we could very easily do more harm to the environment.   Another issue discussed was action must be taken, but U.S. shouldn’t bear the burden.   This a global problem.   It will take global effort to reduce, or eliminate environmental issues.   There are those who also argue that computer models may not be right in regards to climate change.   Furthermore, they argue the earth’s climate normally change in time 1.

1 https://listosaur.com/politics/5-opposing-viewpoints-on-climate-change


What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world?

We’ve the responsibility to clean up our own self-made mess.   We include factories, governments, nations, as a whole, on a global scale.   That doesn’t mean just a few countries pitch in to try to make environmental change.   It means the world comes together.   Unrealistic?   There’s a place where every nation in the world meets, the United Nations.   If we can get every nation in the world to sit in the same room, how unrealistic can it be?


What obligations do we have to future generations?

Our obligations to future generations are pretty clear.   If we do nothing, generations to come may inherit a barren rock, no natural resources left, a new Mars.   We’re already late to the game.   We needed to start making changes a long time ago.   Many are now starting to look to the future asking “is this really what I want to leave to my children, to their children, maybe their children’s children?   Hopefully it’s not too late to repair the damage so as our future generations can enjoy what we’ve exploited.

McClure – M7

What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world?
There are plenty of responsibilities that we have to keep our planet thriving. We need to start recycling more, finding alternative sources of fuel, and continue to minimize the amount of gasses we’re releasing into the atmosphere. We have a responsibility not only to our community, but to the rest of the world. It takes more than one person, everyone has to help make a change.

What obligations do we have to future generations?
We have an obligation to put in the work, to research and innovate new and creative ways to make the Earth a healthier and safer place to live. Using an old adage, we need to leave this place better than we found it. With the technology that we have and the brilliant minds of our generation, we can do just that.

I believe that everybody is responsible for cleaning up the Earth. Not just the people that have polluted it. I think that everybody has something to gain from doing so. A cleaner and healthier place to live, for us and for the generations to come.


Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

Chalmers University of Technology has established a strong connection between climate change denial to right-wing nationalism in order to understand why climate change is not being taken seriously, to see its influence on political decisions, and bring awareness to the public on this matter. Many right-wing nationalist parties located in Europe list climate change denial as an important issue and dismiss the Paris Agreement and climate laws; they even praise climate change denier Václav Klaus as a hero and also mention the Trump admin as one their examples. CEFORCED  will be established, a platform for research in climate change denialism, where many disciplines of science are linked together to understand ways climate change denialism arises and spreads in different cultures.


Under Learning Objectives on page 248, find #6 and choose two (2) questions to answer. Be sure to list your questions in your post.

What obligations do we have to future generations?

To future generations I feel as though everyone has the obligation to leave the world better than they found it. Of course that is better said than done and it takes a lot for anything change in the world, but that doesn’t mean you have to do nothing. I believe even the little things you can do to make a difference can build up considering the millions of us that live on this world. Although change is ways from now, the fight for change is still going and it’s more important now than even during the climate crisis the Earth is going through.

Does nature have value in itself?

I think nature has value in itself, because it’s an environment that can sustain itself.. Of course we humans ultimately have had an impact on that, so the Earth natural environment appears to be dying along with animals in their natural habitat as the days past. We do give it even more value, because we get our resources from nature, but nature by itself has its own priceless value.


Lastly, as you read through Chapter 7, answer this question: Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

I think those who carry the most responsibility in causing the pollution and increasing climate change should be paying a large portion of the cost for protecting the environment. That doesn’t mean others can’t contribute in helping pay for protecting the environment even more, I believe it’s a shared responsibility of the world to protect the environment, but those who has caused increased climate change should pay the most.





M7 (Bohan)

An alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change: https://www.bestvalueschools.com/faq/why-do-some-people-think-climate-change-is-a-hoax/

What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world?

I believe that it is our responsibility as a species to not interfere with the livelihood of other species. If we are causing a mass majority of populations/species to go extinct, something must change. We should not be causing anything so drastic that the environment shifts as a result. We should learn to coinhabit this planet instead of trying to rule this planet.

What obligations do we have to future generations?

If we don’t actively participate in slowing down global warming/climate change, our future generations will pay the price. For people with families, that is of great concern. I am concerned about all of the living creatures that inhabit this planet because eventually, resources will run out. It is just a matter of when they will run out.

Lastly: Everyone should contribute to protecting the environment. The responsibility of the cost should fall on whoever is polluting and the remaining costs should be covered by taxes/government funding.


  1. Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.


Despite all the negatives associated with global warming, there is research out there that also show the benefits for climate change. Some examples of benefits that can are reaped from climate change include improved growing seasons and accelerated forest growth (Pomeroy).


  1. What obligations do we have to future generations?

As civilians, I believe it is our obligation and duty to strive for corrective actions to prevent drastic climate change. Global warming and climate change are big issues that we need to create more awareness to gain more attention and concern among the public. Our bad habits as human beings are the primary cause for such drastic climate change over the past decades. We need to start creating awareness and fixing bad habits before it’s too late.


  1. Does Nature have value in itself?


Yes, nature for sure has value in itself. This why it is so important to monitor and preserve natural resources that are necessary for survival. Without nature, we would seize to exist.

  1. Who Should pay the cost for protecting the environment?


I believe that those who are the biggest contributors to global warming and climate change should be the ones held most accountable. However in the end, it’s on all of us as a society. Not only do we need to make smarter decisions to sustain life on Earth, we also need to create awareness for climate change and make it a priority.



M7: Environment (Luebke)

An Argument Against Climate Change

Climate Depot, a climate change denial website founded by a former Republican political aid, released a report featuring over 1000 scientists who disagree that human activity is the primary cause of global climate change. Furthermore, in a review of 11,944 peer-reviewed climate change studies, 66% found no stated position on human caused climate change, and while 33% of the studies implied that humans were contributing to climate change, only .5% explicitly stated that “Humans are the primary cause of recent global warming (procon.org, no date).’


  1. The moral issues underlying business’s abuse of the

 environment–in particular, the question of externalities, the problem of free riders, and the right to a livable environment


Traditionally, businesses have considered the environment to be a free, unlimited, pubic good to be used as they see fit. The tragedy of the commons states that businesses are at a disadvantage if they do consume or pollute as much as they are able to without penalty, and within their own self- interest. A third party that must pay a cost of doing business is known as an externality or spillover. Attitudes of many businesses are changing, as an increasing number of environmentally conscious companies are shifting their social responsibility to be integral to their business culture. The free-rider problem states that many companies rationalize their actions because they are one of many using resources, a tactic to avoid personal responsibility. Moral theorists like William T Blackstone argue that each person has the right to a livable environment as a basic human right. Recognizing and acknowledging this right strengthens the ethical grounds that the environment should be protected from degradation and that corporations must take ownership of the parts they play in it.


  1. Some of the deeper and not fully resolved questions of environmental ethics: What environmental responsibilities  do we have to the rest of the world? What obligations  do we have to future generations? Does nature have value in itself? Is our commercial exploitation of animals immoral?


Philosophy Professor Joel Fienburg argues that we have a direct impact on the interests of future generations, and that we have an opportunity to change and shape their interests in undoing the environmental harm that has been caused. It can be difficult to quantify the balance of needs between the current and future generations. Annette Baier argues that we should focus on the rights and interests of future generations as individuals and not a collective group. We should recognize our utilitarian obligation to continuing and improving human communities. John Rawls suggests that we should treat all generations equally, and balance what we are willing to sacrifice from their descendants versus how much we wish to inherit from our previous generation.

Holms Rolston III advocates for the naturalistic ethic, which states that animals and lands have value in their own right, apart from human interests. While lands are a public good that can be enjoyed by all, by boating, hiking, skiing, their value is intrinsic and separate from the human need to enjoy that land. I am a strong supporter of the naturalistic ethic, many people often see humanity and nature as separate entities, but our connections to each other are strongly linked, and valuing our planet beyond fulfilling our immediate desires will have a strong impact how humanity views it’s moral obligation to the environment.

On the topic of animal testing, most utilitarians would argue that animal testing is morally reasonable so long as the results, ie the pain and death it is able to prevent, is able to justify the suffering of the animals, and that the animals are not intelligent enough to experience complex emotional suffering. The conditions of animals in factory farms is unequivocally unethical, which has no doubt increased the requests from consumers and demand to restaurants for farm-to-table dinning options. According the National Restarunt Association, the increase in farm-to-table options for newer generations is “four of the top ten trends” related to local foods (Harvard, 2016).


Who pays the cost of pollution?


The responsibility of paying the costs of protecting the environment rests on the individuals responsible for causing the pollution — not the those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. The quality of public goods and shared common of nature is something everyone benefits from. Paying restitution for a crime should be done by the perpetrators of the crime, not the victims. Cap and trade pollution permits are a good start in collecting payment for environmental damage, and has a strong potential for utilitarian payoff if it is reinvested in climate-friendly programs, such as renewable energy, recycling centers, and environmental cleanup programs.





No Author. No date. Procon.org. https://climatechange.procon.org/

 Harvard University,  Culinary Institute of America  (2016).  “Menus of Change: The Business of Healthy, Sustainable, Delicious Food Choices”  (PDF).  Menus of Change. Retrieved  April 15,  2017. https://www.menusofchange.org/images/uploads/pdf/CIA-Harvard_MenusOfChangeAnnualReport2016_(7-1)1.pdf

M7 Maglaya

An article by Josh Clark called Are Climate Skeptics Right? from science.howstuffworks.com talked about the different factors that climate change deniers believe that influences the way scientists measure the temperature of the Earth. According to Clark, Anti-global warming skeptics believe that weather stations in urban areas produce inaccurate measurements due to the influence of a term called ‘urban heat island’ (NA). This term talks about the heat produced by cities’ transportation systems, heat-absorbing asphalt, and high concentrations of carbon dioxide coming from homes and businesses in urban areas (Clark). Reflecting back to the introduction of Chapter 7 about global warming, the author believes that climate change is caused by human activities and that it is damaging our planet whereas climate change deniers think that our measurements are influenced by urban areas due to the high temperature that they produced, so they say that “climate change’ is a result of inaccurate temperature measurement.

Link for the article: https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/climate-skeptic1.htm

  1. The meaning and significance of ecology.

Ecology is the study of the relationship between living organisms and the physical environment. It helps us understand how animals, plants, and all other living things interact with their environment. For example, humans are using natural resources in their environment at a tremendous pace where we do not even give our environment time to recover from our actions. Another example of how we interact with our environment is how much waste we produce and mishandle which causes the majority of the pollution that is on our planet. Ecology is important because it’s the only way for us to come up with ways and methods of how we can help our environment to thrive and to stop it from dying. Without this type of study, our chances of worsening the condition of our planet would be far from what our brains can even imagine.

  1. Does nature have value in itself?

Nature is the reason how we, humans, are able to thrive on this planet. Without our natural resources and the different factors of what helps us sustain life on this planet is a price that is unmeasurable. The different elements of our planet’s nature help us go through our daily lives, especially in this technology era where we are constantly building high-grade technology products that we use to improve our lifestyle. To summarize my points about the price of nature, it’s obvious that we cannot put a price on it because it’s priceless.

  1. Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

I feel like everyone, those who caused the pollution and those who stand to save and restore our planet, should help each other out to pay the cost for protecting our environment. There are too many finger pointing and blaming going on, and it’s not getting us any closer to eliminating factors and other elements that are contributing to climate change, pollution, and other harmful products of human activities that are causing our planet to wither. We should all step up and be responsible for what we have done to our environment. We need to start walking on the right path to protecting our planet such as pursuing sustainability, recycling, and regulating the waste we produce to avoid any more damages to our environment.

M7 (Levenson)

Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

Although I know others have read and sourced Procon.org as their resource for this question, I thought it was a very interesting source. This website identifies multiple arguments that reinforce the negative impacts climate change has had and the causes of them. For each “pro’ there is a “con’ of climate change that challenges these facts. While most of the scientific jargon is unidentifiable to me, the basics are simple. For most of the “cons’ research has been done explaining that humans really might not be the primary reason for the current climate changes. Some of the most interesting “cons’ on this website are those describing natural changes that have occurred for centuries just like those we have been seeing in the last 50 years that have been the source of fear regarding this issue.

Learning Objectives:

1)What obligations do we have to future generations?  

In my opinion, the section of chapter 7 had some ridiculous philosophical arguments and idea regarding obligations to future generations. Simply, I believe that we should take care of this earth  now for all humans, including those currently living on this earth, and those who have yet to be born. There should be the utmost concern of those future generations and what we are doing present day to harm or help our planet; without regard for them, the human species will not survive.

2) Does nature have value in itself?

I believe that nature does indeed have value in itself. Within the chapter, plants and animals and how they are affected by us is mentioned. With this in mind, I do think that these parts of the ecosystems that make up our planet deserve respect and consideration. Whether or not humans think the Grand Canyon is special shouldn’t matter, because at some point, destroying it would mean destroying a functioning ecosystem. The human condition is the reason why questioning nature’s values exists. If humans would stop arguing the philosophical reasoning behind why we do or do not have the right to do whatever we please, and remember that the earth serves us, then our function in this world would be less consequential.

Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

I believe that the majority of the cost for protecting the environment should come from those responsible for causing the pollution. I understand the questions that arise from this thinking; the consumers have benefited and continue to buy products and use services from those that create pollution, so shouldn’t they be responsible to some degree? However, individuals may not be able to change as much as large corporations. Because of this, I think that it is mainly the responsibility of these large corporations to make the changes necessary to decrease pollution. Consequentially, consumers and the general population that would benefit would ultimately help pay due to increase costs or taxes, so they would end up paying as well.




M7 (Wade)

Find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

An article I found that has an opposing view of Climate Change is The Distributional Impact of Climate Change on Rich and Poor Countries. One benefit of climate change is improved agriculture in some high latitude regions. Carbon dioxide, through fertilization, is strictly beneficial and helps forestry and especially agriculture in all regions (Mendelsohn, 2017). It is difficult to find opposing views on Climate Change because most of the impacts negatively affect the environment.

What obligations do we have to future generations?  

I believe we owe it to our future generations to protect the environment. According to Shaw, more than 131.8 million people, roughly 42% of the population – live where the air is often dangerous to breathe. Future generations will be born into a world where air pollution is especially harmful to young children, whose lungs are still developing. Obligations we have to future generations are clean air to breathe, safe drinking water, food without chemicals or pesticides, an environment without pollution and inhumane animal treatment. Future generations deserve a world that is better than the condition it is in today.

Does nature have value in itself?

Nature gives life to humans, animals, plants, bacteria, and many more species. Nature has always provided us with food, water, oxygen, and materials. Only in the past few centuries has man started to produce things not found in nature, but nature is still the great nurturer, even if we have lost our connection or appreciation of it. The Earth also offers us many other gifts, such as music that comes from birds, inspiration, spirituality, and beauty. Nature has value in itself as many of these gifts are given to us freely.

Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment?

Those who are responsible for causing the pollution should definitely be the ones who should pay for the cost for protecting the environment and restoring the land, sea, and air as it was originally left before their cause of destruction. While companies should pay for their pollution, I also believe most humans have contributed to polluting our home. We should take action to recycle, use more renewable energy, or take part in some way or form to prevent further pollution and to restore Earth’s natural habitat.  


Mendelsohn, R., Dinar, A., & Williams, L. (2017). The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries. Distributional Effects of Environmental and Energy Policy,467-486. doi:10.4324/9781315257570-21


M7- (McInnis)

1. Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

There is one benefit of climate change that the United States sees across the country. That is a longer growing season because winters are shorter and less harsh. With a longer growing season and warmer weather that means that production will increase. Finding positives for climate change can be difficult because the cons of climate change are vast and very detrimental to the planet as a whole.

2. What obligations do we have to future generations?

We are under obligations do everything we can to pass on a world that is making strides to correct and stop climate change. One way we can do this is making sure we do not overlook the small things, the book stated that we have a way of not noticing small environmental issues but focusing on the larger issues. We have to understand that yes, the larger issues have a sudden and drastic impact on the environment but the smaller ones that build up over time are also important. The United States has a tendency to pass bills and legislation in response to the large disasters but our follow through is lacking. We spent billions of dollars following the Clean Water Act to try and rectify water population, but over 45 years later we have seen very little improvement as a whole.

3. Is our commercial exploitation of animals immoral?

This question is one that doesn’t have a clear-cut answer for me. I was born and raised on a farm and work in a sales yard that profits greatly off of dairy cattle being sent to slaughter. I know that a large number of the people I work with do everything they can ensure the welfare of the animals. I think that the commercial exploitation of animals is a necessity in our society today. Two to three generations ago people were much more dependent on themselves or their communities for food. My grandfather would talk about trading for eggs with the neighbor when he was growing up. Even my father raised and butchered cows, pigs, and chickens to feed the family while he was growing up. These examples are much less likely today as we are more likely to buy our meat and produce from the store rather than grow it. In order to feed the United States population, animals have to be raised on a commercial scale. Every sales yard, feed lot, and butcher house are owned by different people and therefore the level of care can be drastically different. Do I think there should be some stronger guidelines in place to make sure animals are being treated fairly, yes; do I think the practice of producing animals on a commercial scale is immoral, no.

4. Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration? Explain your position.

This is a tricky question and I honestly feel that it should be treated like a tax. My loosing a few a few dollars on my pay check does not drastically affect my standard of living. If we were deducted $2 every paycheck, I would be paying $48 a year for environmental protection and restoration, if every working American paid that it would bring almost $6.2 billion a year. If we as a country can not make a difference in pollution with that then we need to take a hard look at what is causing the pollution. The reason I think it should be looked at like a tax is because every person on this planet has contributed to the issues we have. My car lets of pollutants every time I start it. I do think that when companies violate the EPA standards and blatantly pollute they should be fined. That fine should go in to fixing the issue that it caused and be treated as a way to hopefully deter any further pollution.

Positive Negative Effects. (2019). Positive and negative effects of climate change – Essay and speech. [online] Available at: https://www.positivenegativeeffects.com/climate-change
Statista. (2019). U.S.: number of full-time workers in April 2019 | Statista. [online] Available at: https://www.statista.com/statistics/192361/unadjusted-monthly-number-of-full-time-employees-in-the-us/

M7 (Hawks)

After Reading Chapter 7 here are the questions that stood out to me in the number 6 ‘Learning Objective’ on page 248:

What obligations do we have to future generations?

If I had not read the chapter and answered the question with just the knowledge I had before that I would have stated that we have much obligations to the future generation. We come from different generations and what they left us and taught us had an impact to us. So why shouldn’t we look back and ponder what we can do to at least stabilize a decent grounding for the future? However, as I had stated, once I had read the chapter I realized the difficulty of that process of change and the thoughts of the future generation in general. Not everyone is going to agree to do something to possibly help future generations if it hinders something they can utilize for their own gains in the present. That’s not to say that I don’t think that said present gain could be used for what they think is their possible future but I am saying there are multiple choices people have for either present use or future use. What a person decides to do with those choices is completely up to them. Let’s say even if everyone agrees to try and preserve resources for the future generations, who is to say that that is what the future generation wants? An example I’ll make is this one; Person X does not care for things like parks and mountain hiking trail or things like that but is more focused on the now for themselves in big cities and invests in corporations where as Person Y is opposite of Person X. Person Y does everything they can to protect the said parks and resources for they future child, Person Z. When Person Z Is born and Person Y passes away, who is to say that Person Z will become like Person Y? What if Person Z decides to live  like Person X does? Point is, we as people can try to do what we think is best for the future but do we really know what is best? With these thoughts in mind, I still have the same ideals that I had but I feel like I am more open to the fact that there is more than just a ‘black and white’ point of view. There is a ‘gray’ area. So, for me, I’m going to try to do what I think is best for ‘my’ future generation and I understand everyone else in the world has their own vision of that. I now say whether or not we have an obligation to our Future Generation is complex and Completely up to moral opinions.

Does nature have Value in itself?

Following up with the last question, I kind of view this question in the same way. One person may see that nature has value in multiple different ways and would want to put a lot of stock into protecting said value where as another person can only see 1 or 2 ways that nature has value and not put any other thought into it. This question, unlike the question before, however has more concrete evidence to prove one side is more logical than the other. If a person is looking at nature for its beauty and wonderment then it is based off of opinion. If a person is looking at nature for its resources and livelihood then it is based off of facts. This is all dependent though on how nature itself is viewed. This brings it back to how the main basis is moral opinion.

So it is fair to say that both the questions really can only be answered with one persons opinion or that the question cannot really be answered.


To finish this module, the question was asked to us for our opinion on if pollution costs should be put more on the companies that cause the polluting or the costs should be put on the people that stand to benefit from protection and restoration. My belief on this is that I think it could benefit from a little bit of both. Both parties should pay. However, I believe that the companies that caused the pollution should do a bit more of the pay. As of right now, in my mind, this is slightly fair (I say slightly because I know that the companies, corporations, and people that benefit from the protection of resources will have their own say as to why this is unfair) way of pollution compensation. The way I’m thinking right now is we all benefit in someway to both the protection of the environment as well as the polluting of it. If both parties agree to that statement then it should work out for both parties. Then there’s the fact I said more payment to the companies/corporations on this. This is because I think if that polluting in the way that they do is the only way they can think of doing their business with no other alternatives then they should at least pay for the potential damages that follow up with their choices other than the main choice they are working with (thought process being a paper mill can do more damage to the environment then just the deforestation of trees and how much the environment is impacted by that one thing). So maybe something like 60/40 or something like that. I don’t know. That’s just my thought process as of now.

Thank you very much for the read.



This week we are taking a look into the ethics of the environment. For the paper that I chose, it is not exactly an apposing view but it talks about the ideology of the opposing side and how they are fueling the anti- environmentalist movement. In this article they talk about the complete denial of climate change and its impending effects on the environment and our future. This is being done by bashing the scientific community, the scientists themselves, and even leaving out the facts that could persuade people that the issue is indeed an issue. It then goes on to talk about the psychology of knowing versus not knowing and that blissful ignorance is more widely accepted than the negativity that lies with the fact that climate change is actually a real thing and not just a myth. People are persuaded that science is a lie and that the economy matters more than some radical view that the Earth cannot handle the toll we are dishing out to it.   There are also statements of the government that are more or less falsely claiming compliance with issues even though there are no clear goals of reduction of its own emissions.

2. What obligations do we have to future generations?

We have an obligation the future generations of this planet. Biologically speaking, a species should strive for self preservation and NOT extinction. We are supposed to be the most intelligent creatures on this planet, or at least have the potential for this title if we could only see the bigger picture that we are killing our future generations before they even have a chance to have a say. Previous generations, at least governmentally, basically gave us the middle finger as they plowed into their future emitting any consequences from their minds that their actions have a multitude of externalities. We owe it to the newcomers and ourselves to preserve our environment for the long run. Sure capitalism is fun and all, but at some point the ecosystem should come first before the economy.

Does nature have value in itself?

Yes. There is a reason that so many people that come to Alaska end up staying for the long-term. We are closer to nature than any other state. This is embedded in our lives deeply. We have clean air and clean water. There are claims that people instantly feel “more alive” up here just purely from breathing clean air. In a day of modernization and multimedia, we often seek nature as an escape. We are taking nature in its purest form for granted and if we keep chugging along as we are now, there will not be much of it left to go around.

4. Who should be responsible? This is a very biased answer, but we should all be responsible. We live on this planet, together, whether we like it or not we are stuck with each other. Corporate businesses down to the single individual, we all have to put in our share to help preserve our habitat. We all, especially the 1st world, are responsible for this pollution, yet we also all will benefit from the reduction of these pollutants in the long-term. Again, as stated in previous question, as a species we owe it to ourselves to combat this increase in emissions, the acidification of our oceans, and the misuse of animals. Simply existing in the 1st world we are cause of many of these problems, but we should also at least try and reduce our footprint, and stick up for the future generations that will eventually be handed our collections of environmental problems. By not acting as if we are responsible for our own home, we are asking for the future extinction of not only other species but ourselves. By our hands and our hands alone can we solve this problem and avoid what is now believed to be a soon to be catastrophe on a grand ecological scale.

McCright, A. M., & Dunlap, R. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Social problems, 50(3), 348-373.

M7 (Muzzillo)

  1. Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

After conducting some research, I came across an article published by Daniel K. Benjamin on some of the benefits that are occurring due to global warming. He states that because of the average heat rising yearly, this ultimately allows farmers a longer crop season leading to more food and more profit. Benjamin says that this could increase the value of agricultural land by nearly 30%! He claims that over the rest of the century, the temperatures are statistically supposed to raise about 5 degrees Fahrenheit leading to precipitation averaging 8 inches more yearly. With this fact being true as well as using data from our history, agricultural productivity within the United States is projected to raise a grand total of approximately 4%.

I had found another article as well that underlines the benefits of climate change. Some of these examples given by publisher Ross Pomeroy state that cold weather deaths have decreased due to the temperatures collectively rising worldwide. Another being that because of the heat, there is more CO2 in the air leading to the average amount of time it takes for ecosystems to fully recover from droughts to be increased, meaning that it takes less time. With this all being taken into consideration, no one will ever know the exact effects that climate change will have on our ecosystems and society until they are right in front of us.



  1. What obligations do we have to future generations?


I believe that the obligations that we have for future generation is quite simple. In my opinion I do believe that global warming is indeed a problem because of the increasing CO2 levels as well as the chemicals and pesticides we use in our food products that result in many dangerous health conditions and concerning birth defects. We need to reduce the number of chemical products used on food that the human population consume. Taking steps in the right direction to reduce land spills and environmental pollution need to be at the forefront of our minds as well. Being humans, we should not want to allow our kids and our kids kids to live in an unhealthy ecosystem.


  1. Does nature have value in itself?


I absolutely believe that nature had value in itself. Nature has proven to be self-sustaining meaning that it has been here long before human civilization has, and I believe will be here long after we are gone. Nature allows for countless amounts of living organisms to survive on an everyday basis and is able to reproduce many valuable needs for society as well as organisms to be able to flourish in this world. It also produces us with renewable resources that again, help us live here on this planet.


  1.  Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

In my opinion I believe that those who are causing the problem and are responsible for the pollution should ultimately be the ones who are required to pay. I believe that is how are court systems are run and therefore how society is run. If you are the culprit, you are the one that has to suffer the consequences, in this case, pay the fine for polluting the environment. After that is done, you should be held to fixing the issue to ensure that it is to never happen again. It is unethical for the cooperation causing the problem to not pay the repercussions of their misdoings. With this being said, those who benefit from protection and restoration should also be at fault as well. If both parties help fix the problem, our ecosystem becomes much cleaner and therefore much safer for all living on earth. Think of it as a criminal case, if you are the one who murdered another human being, but your friend was the one who helped get you the gun and set it up, the shooter is not the only one at fault. Both should be punished and held to higher standards. This goes for helping reduce the negative impacts of climate change as well.



Words Cited:


Shaw, William H.  Business Ethics. 9th ed., Cengage Learning, 2017.


“The Benefits of Climate Change.” PERC. N.p., 12 Jan. 2018. Web. 04 July 2019.


“Do the Benefits of Climate Change Outweigh the Costs?” RealClearScience. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 July 2019.

M7 – Beshaw

An opposing view to climate change as proposed in the intro:

The website I studied that offered an opposing view to climate change was ProCon.org. What was interesting about this site is that it laid the arguments for and against climate change side by side and offered references for each argument. While the introduction in our text argues that humans are heating up the world, ProCon.org offers resources for several studies that show the majority of scientists involved disagree. The site lists the pros and cons for 14 arguments around climate change in total.

Is our commercial exploitation of animals immoral?

In cases where animals are raised in inhumane and cruel conditions, yes. Animals have the ability to think and fear, and I cannot imagine a life lived in a pen too small to move in, where animals live in pain (broken legs and ‘debeaked’) for as long as they can produce what we want. I do believe that there are operations who raise their animals morally, and while I live off of subsistence meat and fish, I make an effort to buy ‘free-range’ eggs and milk.

What obligations do we have to future generations?

I believe we have an obligation to minimize the damage we cause the environment, and to continue research towards more effective, efficient, and moral ways to produce goods and services. While I don’t feel current generations should restrict anything necessary to be comfortable in life, perhaps more regulation could be put in place for luxuries. For example, stricter emissions regulations for vehicles, or required recycling and the implementation of fines when households exceed garbage thresholds or water usage.

Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment?

The majority of the cost should be paid by those who pollute the environment. It would only make sense to place the cost on those who benefit if the environment was in a net-better position because of the protection efforts. Those responsible for causing pollution are, theoretically, making a profit while doing so. Passing the cost on to others while reaping the benefit would be unethical.

Resource for opposing view to climate change:


M7 (Campos)


I searched for an article that had both the positive and the negative views to climate change. Not to my surprise I was able to find countless negative views to climate change. I believe it is safe to say that the negatives outweigh the positives. I was able to find an article that argued if humans were at fault for causing climate change. As well as a chart that was on the Future Farmers of America website that states warmer climate creates longer harvesting/growing.


I believe that nature does hold value in itself. We might not realize it; but we take for granted that which we have and seems to be endless. Just like futuristic films that play with the notion that we will one day fight for basic survival needs; as the quantity of nature becomes scarce, its value increases.


This is a difficult question to answer due to the fact that many companies operate in different manners. I believe very few do not operate immorally, but a majority of the companies start to see animals as objects that produce money rather than a living creature. This causes companies to not care if how they are operating causes animals any sort of unreasonable pain.


I believe that those who are responsible for causing the pollution should be the ones to pay the cost for protecting the environment. As stated in the book “Thus, the enemy in the war against environmental abuse turns out, in a sense, to be all of us.’ I agree that it is each and every one of our responsibility to pay for our part of protecting the environment. The only altercation I have here is that the following question “in what way/amount should we be protecting/paying?’ goes unanswered. When it comes to asking “who are those who stand to benefit from the protection and restoration of the environment?’ I believe the answer to that is also all of us.






  • Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.


For an alternative article, I found an opposing view of people who don’t think humans are to blame for climate change. This con side argues that human-generated greenhouse gas emissions are to small to substantially change the earth’s climate and that the planet is capable of absorbing these gases on its own. A 2012 Purdue University survey found that 47% of climatologists challenge the idea that humans are primarily responsible for climate change and instead believe that climate change is caused by an equal combination of humans and the environment, mostly by the environment, or that there’s not enough information to say (Procon,2019). The article then begins to argue that with the rise of hurricanes, and other extreme weather is a result of natural weather patterns, not human induced climate change. This con perspective in my opinion is just a cop out to put blame elsewhere. (hard to stay focused reading these things).


  • Does nature have value in itself?

As human beings, we revolve around a monetary system. Wake up in the morning and work hard for something that has no real existence.. money… a made up piece of value to us humans as we work like crazy people to obtain it. Nature such as trees and plants are living things that we do not treat with the same respect. Because nature is so complex, we often overlook the benefits provided by different types of these natural species. As we continue to degrade our nature system, we are inhibiting the ability for them to provide us with essential services to help regulate climate. Nature has more value than we as humans will ever have. Forests, oceans, and even soil play massive roles in absorbing carbon emissions, which in turn helps defend from climate change.

  • What obligations do we have for future generations?

In my opinion, obligations to future generations require taking accountability for our climate disaster. In   our business ethics book, it states that the public does a great job of overlooking slow-moving environmental disasters. For example, there was little to no attention when a coal-ash pond ruptured and disgorged nearly a billion gallons of toxic sludge across 300 acres of eastern Tennessee, destroying homes, killing fish, and threatening the local water supply (Shaw, 245). instead of continuing to overlook national crisis such as oil spills and harmful substance release, we need to push towards sustainable healthy electricity for our future generations.

  • Lastly, as you read through Chapter 7, answer this question: Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

I believe those responsible for causing the pollution as well as those who stand to benefit from the protection and restoration both should pay the cost for protecting the environment. Those responsible for causing the pollution should be held accountable for minimizing it at the same time. On the other hand, those who stand to benefit from the protection and restoration should also play an active roll in decreasing our emissions and green house gases. It is easier to point the finger at someone than it is to all join and become productive members of our planet in order to reduce climate change.

Swedberg – M7

In the introduction, it talks about global warming. One of the things the book claims about global warming is that human activity is responsible for it. This is because carbon dioxide is being released into the atmosphere as the result of burning coal, oil, and gasoline (Shaw 247). An opposing view to this is offered by Answers in Genesis. Based off of their research, they have found a “sensible approximation’ of the global temperature in the past (White). The data they found shows that during the Medieval and Roman periods there were times that the temperature was at a similar height. In addition, they also found estimates, created by scientists, for carbon dioxide levels in the past. When these estimates were plotted on top of the global temperature approximations, the temperature started increasing before the carbon dioxide levels did. As a result of this data, this article claims that human activity is not responsible for global warming (White).

What obligations do we have to future generations?

The pollution that happens today will have an effect on the drinking water of future generations and could result in some of their illnesses. Some of the obligations that I think we have to future generations are to follow acts like the Clean Water Act and the Clean Air Act that are talked about in the introduction (Shaw 247). This will allow future generations to have more of a choice regarding things like drinking clean water.

Does nature have value in itself?

One of the ways that nature has value in itself is in its variety. Nature supplies a variety of food for us, such as fish, meat, vegetables, and fruit. As species go extinct, the variety of fresh food available may decrease. Each type of vegetable tastes different. Even if foods like vegetables do not contain cognitive awareness (Shaw 268), I think we do have a moral obligation to respect them. By respecting plants and animals, we would also be respecting people by allowing them to continue enjoying their favorite foods.

Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment?

The people who are responsible for the pollution should also be responsible for minimizing the pollution as much as possible. As a result, they should be the ones responsible for paying the costs for protecting the environment. If a factory is able to use green energy and has found a way to safety discard its waste, it should do so. If the factory decides not to, it should pay the resulting costs. By having companies be responsible for paying the costs for protecting the environment, companies may start moving towards using green energy. In the end, green energy saves companies money and will increase their efficiency (Shaw 262). So it would be better for the environment and for the companies.

Works Cited

Shaw, William H. Business Ethics. 9th ed., Cengage Learning, 2017.

White, Alan. “The Globe Is Warming, But It’s Not Your Fault!’ Answers in Genesis, Answers in  Genesis, 4 Mar. 2015, answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/climate-change/globe-is-warming-but-its-not-your-fault/.


  1. Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.


This article from NASA gives specific statistics about how climate changes started to take a turn for the worst when humans came into the picture about 7,000 years ago. This article even mentions it is “extremely likely’ human activity is the reason for the warming trend, heat-trapping carbon dioxide, and greenhouse gases. NASA has taken samples and data from ice cores, tree rings, ocean sediments, coral reefs, and layers of sedimentary rocks. From all the evidence collected NASA has found the Earth is warming about ten times faster than the average rate of the ice age. Would the Earth have warmed at this rate had humans not evolved or developed? And how, if we can, do we reverse the harm we have done to our planet?  

  1. Under Learning Objectives on page 248, find #6 and choose two (2) questions to answer. Be sure to list your questions in your post.
    1. What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world? What obligations do we have to future generations?  

Depending on which ethical theory being looked at, a person can either take the route of egoism or utilitarianism. If we are living the way of egoism our environmental responsibility would only be to keep the Earth “healthy’ for as long as the individual is alive and not worry about what happens to future generations. Or if we are living the utilitarianism way we would be morally inclined to include future generations in our environmental responsibilities actions.  

With that being said, I do not believe one theory is more popular than the other when it comes to this topic. Climate change can be such an interesting topic, but I like to think society leans more towards utilitarianism and wanting to protect what is left of our environment for future generations. As Alaskans, we can witness first hand glaciers retreating. I have only been in Alaska for almost six years and I have seen a significant difference. This makes me more protective of our Earth and more conscious of my carbon footprint everyday because I want to live in a world with these beautiful glaciers and I want future generations to be able to witness their magnificences as well.  

I do not have any children yet but with the nieces and nephews I have, not only do I feel it important to teach and model how to respect our planet, but it is also important to introduce it to them at a young age because future generations are growing up in a more polluted Earth than ever before. Adults and generations of today need to become knowledgable about how to slow or reverse the damage that has been done. We also need to realize we are the ones who did this damage, we are every bit responsible as the people around us; which can sometimes be hard to admit. But once we do admit it to ourselves, we can start taking actions to slow the damage.  

  1. Lastly, as you read through Chapter 7, answer this question: Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

I think it would be unethical for the people responsible for the problem to not pay the cost of damage done. However, I also believe those benefiting from protection and restoration can pitch in a bit in order to benefit, but these people should not have to pay as much as those who did the damaging. I think of an example of throwing a party at your house. The guest who made a mess and just leave without helping clean up I would not be as interested inviting back to my house for the next get-together. On the other hand, those who made the mess and stayed to help clean up I would be more inclined to re-invite for next time, they know they did some portion of the damage so they take responsibility and help undo what was done.  

If the generations who did the damage do not, or are not, willing to help pay for the damage done to the Earth, it makes current and future generations less willing to help them with things they need because it makes them seem selfish and egotistic.  

M7 (Avise)

Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

The source that I found shows that most claims made by Al Gore, the leader of the “Climate Change/Global Warming’ prediction are inaccurate. It was originally said as “Global Warming’ until most every prediction was shown as false. Now we have changed the label on the same movement, moving us to “Clean Energy’ with electric cars and different ways of harnessing power. We have yet to see the full effects of these electric cars but have already started to see what the use of rare metals and the extra production of electricity is doing to the planet. An article that I found stated “In fact, manufacturing an electric vehicle generates more carbon emissions than building a conventional car, mostly because of its battery, the Union of Concerned Scientists has found(So Wade).’ Although we do not know with 100% certainty that these new electric cars pose the same or more of a threat to our environment as their fossil fueled counterparts, is being shown early into their existence that it may not be as “green’ as they are made out to be.

Under Learning Objectives on page 248, find #6 and choose two (2) questions to answer. Be sure to list your questions in your post.

  1. What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world?

I think we have the responsibility to clean up after ourselves. For those of you who have not seen the movie Deep Water Horizon I recommend watching it. This is a prime example of the United States company BP making a huge mistake and not properly taking care the mess of this explosion. The book stated, “in the four months it took to cap the well, 4.9 million barrels of oil were released into the Gulf of Mexico about forty miles off the coast of Louisiana’ (Shaw246). In the incident involving this oil rig, the problem should have ben handled much quicker rather than it is taking 4 months to get taken care of. The company who caused the pollution should be responsible for cleaning up our environment as well as other countries company’s and/or governments being responsible for cleaning up their environment.

  1. What obligations do we have to future generations?

I think that the biggest obligation we have to future generations is cleaning up after ourselves. I also that that we are using to many pesticides when yielding crops. Theses residues are getting left on the food we eat. A hundred years ago people didn’t know what cancer was, today cancer is well known and lots of people are diagnosed every day. It makes me wonder if these chemicals that we are ingesting through our food are play a role in our heath. I do believe that the use of pesticides needs to be minimized to hopefully create a healthier future generation. As that is something being proven more and more every day. It’s not natural to add in unnecessary hormones and pesticides to make sure we can yield the best crops. It is the farmers duty to refrain from doing these things that are hindering not only the environment but those that are living in it. These effects can be found more and more as time goes on.


Lastly, as you read through Chapter 7, answer this question: Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

I am less concerned about the environmental impact of things going on in the world. I find a vast majority of climate change concerns to be purely based on theories with most of it not being proved with hard evidence that stands true years later. I think that who should pay the cost of protecting the environment should be those companies that pose an immediate issue to our environment. If BP has an oil spill, then naturally it is their responsibility to clean it up a pay the cost of it. But opinions on what could possibly be bad for the environment is not something that needs to be paid for and or implemented before we know for sure it’s actually an issue to our future. I also believe that under no circumstance should this be the duty of the American taxpayer to be responsible for. I don’t need a third of my fuel cost to be taxes because of an inability to fund everything that could possibly be “bad’ for the environment.

Works cited

Beauregard, Elmer. “Top Ten Reasons Climate Change Is a Hoax.’ Exposing The Truth About Global Warming Hysteria, 23 Jan. 2015, www.globalclimatescam.com/opinion/top-ten-reasons-climate-change-is-a-hoax/.

So Wade, Lizzie. “Tesla’s Electric Cars Aren’t as Green as You Might Think.’ Wired, Conde Nast, 10 Jan. 2018, www.wired.com/2016/03/teslas-electric-cars-might-not-green-think/.urces:

Shaw, William H. Business Ethics. 9th ed., Cengage Learning, 2017

M7 Gautam

1. Chapter 7’s introduction, “The Environment,” gave insight to the severe damage the human way of life has caused our planet. Oil drilling, coal mining, fossil-fuel production, chemically intense agriculture, nuclear waste, and even mega-farming is destroying our oceans, land, air, and ozone. By contaminating the very atmosphere, human production has created a greenhouse effect that has contributed to global warming. This chapter’s introduction lets me know we’ll be the death of us.

2. Dr. Craig Idso, founder and chairman of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, introduced a video titled “Unstoppable Solar Cycle; Rethinking Global Warming.” and summarized “Why Scientist disagree with Global Warning” by climate change author and former adviser to the Heartland Institute, Dr. Robert Carter. Dr. Idso’s video describes the history of earths many climate change, warming and cooling periods are part of a recurring pattern for Earth. The Sun also has cycles that contribute to the temperature and cycles on Earth. The summary of Dr. Carter’s book concludes that there still isn’t sufficient evidence that greenhouse gases are behind the increase in global temperatures. Policymakers should resist lobbyist and avoid government organizations that can exaggerate data for political and financial self-interest, and seek independent research because so much data is conflicted by agendas.                                                                   https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/why-scientists-disagree-about-global-warming

3. (1) – What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world?

Whether climate change is a result of human evolution or an anger sun I think it is indisputable that we have a responsibility to preserve the environment. There’s much more the government can do. “The Environment” mentioned the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act as groundbreaking laws, the latest update/amendment was 1990. Congress should strengthen the EPA and update certain environmental laws. Environmental responsibility starts with the individual, “Assuming Personal Responsibility for Improving the Environment” by Hope Babcock writes that traditional sources of energy and individual behavior are the leading factors of environmental issues. The government spends on repairing current damage but spending to educate the public may help prevent future damage. There isn’t a single approach but the citizens that working together and combining methods of conservation is our responsibility. https://scholarship.law.georgetown.edu/facpub/942/

3. (2) – What obligation do we have to future generations?

Tragedy of the future Commons! It’s a conflicting human trait to want the best for our future generations while also grabbing our piece to the pie before it’s gone. This article from Tempest Media believes the obligation to save the future is an old statement that is about the present. With more trash in the water than boats and more space junk orbiting Earth than satellites, this generation is cleaning up for the one prior just so the one after us can even exist. https://showcase.tempestamedia.com/do-we-have-an-obligation-to-protect-the-environment-for-future-generations-aid-22840/

4.   Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

Those responsible for causing pollution should pay the cost for damaging the environment, taxes and penalties haven’t been sufficient enough. Every environmental issue created by the toxic production explained in “The Environment” has a solution that would reduce or eliminate the pollutant, cost is the reason for continuing so incentives/rewards for compliance can be added with penalties for violations. The cost for protection the environment is priceless, unless we move to Mars, and should be shared by the residents that enjoy living on Earth. While paying may mean fines or taxes mostly, pay-ing attention to our own behavior such as; taking public transportation, recycling, and using energy sparingly is how we can pay for renting this planet.                                                                    https://www.quora.com/Who-should-pay-for-environmental-protection

*Dont wait until Earth Day to fill a yellow bag!!

M7 (Duffield)


This article explains the climate risks and the costs they bring to companies which has given them no choice but to make a change. Although for a long time, companies have increased their profits from treating the environment as a free good by lowering costs for consumers. The damage that has been caused to the environment is now costing them more than the profit they are making off it with natural disasters costing up to $160 billion (Kottasova, 2019). These costs are causing some companies to file for bankruptcy which is a warning to other companies to change their habits. They are pushing for things such as sustainability and becoming carbon neutral to avoid furthering the damages. Shaw mentions the questions that these companies are facing which are what responsibility they have to their consumers and how can their goods be promoted while respecting the choices of individuals (Shaw, 2017).


What obligations do we have to future generations?

Although it is difficult to base our current decisions on future generations that we are unsure of what their interests will be, we should aim to give them the same opportunities to live well as we do. As Joel Feinberg mentions, we can make an accurate guess as to what the general nature of future generations interests will be (Shaw, 2017). On one hand, it is fair to make the judgement that they would not exist without the decisions we make today, so they do not deserve a say. However, previous generations laid the foundation for us and set us up in a position to live well, so it is just as much our duty to not leave them with a completely damaged environment. Though we have a right to work hard to create things that benefit us, just not at the expense of future generations. We should not leave them with problems that we have the power to at least try to fix. Instead, we should give them the opportunity to build on the successes that we have created. Ultimately, neither generation should have to suffer, but it is unfair to leave a mess we made for our own benefit to future generations to deal with. Our obligation to future generations is to keep moving forward toward efficiency, recycling, inventing, etc. and to not purposefully seek our own benefit at their expense.


Does nature have value in itself?

William Baxter and the human-centered believe that nature does cannot have interests or beliefs and desires therefore they do not have rights or value (Shaw, 2017). However, Holmes Rolston III takes on the naturalistic ethic in which humans have a duty to respect landscapes. The value of nature is more than simple human interests, so nature can have value in and of itself, apart from human beings. The naturalistic ethic contends that we have a strong obligation to preserve species from extinction. Nature cannot defend itself in which we have the duty to preserve and protect it. There is no agreement whether nature has value that is relevant to that of humans and what the moral obligation is.


Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

I agree with the text in that it is important that we recognize that all of us contribute to the problem in some way and would benefit from making improvements (Shaw, 2017). Those responsible, both consumers and business, must pay some cost in protecting the environment with the incentive that we can all benefit in some way. Both business and consumers have benefited from treating the environment as a free good by consumers having to pay lower costs and businesses’ increase their profits. Consumers are the ones who create the demand for goods which then causes businesses to provide those goods at the expense of the environment. We all should have a fair share of paying the cost for protecting the environment with businesses paying more because they have the power and are in the position of being able to make the biggest difference. Consumers must take the responsibility of being more conscious of their habits while businesses pay the extra costs to make good environmentally friendly. Consumers have to be willing to pay more for goods with the knowledge that in return businesses are spending more as well to protect the environment. With the rising affluence, consumers should be more conscious of discarding old products that contribute to endangering the environment just to buy a good that is in new condition. Shaw mentions, “Many other companies are finding that going green not only is environmentally responsible, but also improves efficiency and saves them money, thus benefiting the bottom line.’ Ultimately, those who are responsible and those who benefit must work together to pay costs now to contribute to something that will benefit us all in the future.

Shaw, William H. Business Ethics. 9th ed, Cengage Learning, 2017

Kottasova, Ivana C. (2019). Climate is the biggest risk to business (and the world). CNN. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/16/business/climate-change-global-risk-wef-davos/index.html

M7 (Fraser)

Research and find an alternative/opposing point of view to Climate Change as proposed in the Introduction.

Most skeptics of climate change agree that the Earth is warming, but for the reason why is where the differences lie. Warming to skeptics may be due to a longer period of solar activity, the end of a “Little Ice Age,” or any other reason than greenhouse gases. Skeptics of climate change argue that the problem has been blown way out of proportion and is a ploy for the environmentalist to pursue an agenda of their own. Skeptics believe they are being attacked by the media and scientists on a subject that lacks solid evidence. In 2009, leaked emails corroborated well known scientists from withholding data that helped skeptics’ arguement. There arose questions of whether the country should trust scientific research and whether scientist’s integrity existed in this world. Lastly, skeptics believe that capping greenhouse-gas emissions may do more economic harm than environmental good; while warming could improve morality rates. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) debunks many of these claims with research and firm evidence (Johnson, 2010).

What environmental responsibilities do we have to the rest of the world?

The effects of pollution is shared among all nations, but developed nations like the US, has produced a better portion of the carbon dioxide released in the atmosphere by humankind. Is it ethical for other nations to have to bare the burden brought upon other nations? And when policymakers from those companies come up with a solution, do they consider those other nations? Richard   Somerville believes policymakers should consider the ethical consequences upon the rest of the world from the policies powerful nations are creating. People must consider how climate change will affect different cultures and economic sectors (2008).

Is our commercial exploitation of animals immoral?

The commercial exploitation of animals is immoral. These animals feel pain and sadness just like we do. When considering moral actions, we must consider the animals suffering and welfare. Experiments and tests, critic Peter Singer contests, are unjustifiable on moral grounds. The largest, most impactful animal production is factory farming. Billions of birds and mammals are killed in the United States each year for food. The environmental impact is astronomical and is shielded from the consumers. The confined spaces, darkness, and drugs these animals experience is shocking when one first realizes the truth. The animals are born in a stressful climate and are never able to roam free and enjoy life. They are raised to be slaughtered and suffer in between (Shaw, 2017).

Who should pay the cost for protecting the environment — those responsible for causing the pollution or those who stand to benefit from protection and restoration. Explain your position.

I believe those who are responsible for causing the pollution should pay the cost for protecting the environment. People and companies who produce pollution should be held accountable for the waste they create and the area they infect. Poor air and water quality can cause serious health effects to people who have no knowledge that they are being polluted. Companies aren’t held accountable for the large amounts of pollution they create and so the people have to fight to protect their environment. William Shaw   points out that people who do pollute benefit from the efforts to reduce pollution yet, do not make an effort themselves. The companies “ride for free” while producing more pollution without paying the cost. The prices of the products companies make do not include the cost to the environment as the natural world is often seen as free and without limits. The tragedy of the commons describes a public land for which people take advantage of and exploit for their own benefit. Leaving a the land worst off and a disparity in equality. It is true that consumers continue to buy these products and produce their own waste and yet do not bare the cost. However, by having companies take ownership for the pollution they create, pushes them to change their manufacturing processes and find better alternatives for their own profit. Europe has initiated pollution permits for companies to take responsibility of the pollution they create (2017). In a perfect world, everyone would take responsibility and pay on a scale based on how much the individual pollutes.


Johnson, Toni. “Alternative Views on Climate Change.’ Council on Foreign Relations, Council on Foreign Relations, 23 Feb. 2010, www.cfr.org/backgrounder/alternative-views-climate-change.

Shaw, William H. Business Ethics. 9th ed, Cengage Learning, 2017

Somerville, Richard. “The Ethics of Climate Change.’ Yale E360, 2 June 2008, e360.yale.edu/features/the_ethics_of_climate_change.