Home

Right Action

Being Good

Presumption

Consequences

Environmental Policy

Effective public action requires clarifying the ethical presumptions of environmental policy and implementing these presumptions. In this chapter we examine the involvement of governments, corporations, and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in this process.

GOVERNMENTS: INTERNATIONAL AND US POLICIES

Protecting the environment requires effective action at all levels of government.  We have already considered international actions, instruments, and organizations, so here we sum up international environmental policy. Then we look briefly at the National Environmental Policy Act of the United States and actions taken by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

International

Chapters 7 and 9 discussed reports and treaties sponsored by the UN that define environmental policy and create enforcement mechanisms. These include:

·        UN Conference on the Human Environment (Stockholm Declaration, 1972)

·        UN Environment Programme (UNEP, 1972)

·        International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR, in force 1976)

·        International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR, in force 1976)

·        Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985)

·        UN World Commission on Environment and Development (Brundtland Report, 1987)

·        Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer (added to the Vienna Convention, 1991)

·        Agenda 21 of the Conference on Environment and Development (Earth Summit, 1992)1

·        Commission on Sustainable Development (1992)

·        Environmental Committee of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (1992)

·        Framework Convention on Climate Change (FCCC, in force 1994)

·        Kyoto Protocol to the FCCC (2005)

On the basis of these instruments, international law affirms that governments and citizens have a duty to support public actions that will realize the right to environmentally sustainable development, protect the right of every person to a healthy environment, and maintain the integrity of the environment for future generations. Of these three moral and legal presumptions, the first two derive our duties from rights and the third asserts a duty on the basis of our character and our relationships with our ancestors and descendants.

Policies of the United States

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) defines the duties of the federal government for the environment. The purposes of the NEPA are: “To declare a national policy which will encourage productive and enjoyable harmony between man and his environment; to promote efforts which will prevent or eliminate damage to the environment and biosphere and stimulate the health and welfare of man; to enrich the understanding of the ecological systems and natural resources important to the Nation; and to establish a Council on Environmental Quality.”2 Title I of the act states that its purposes require the federal government to act in order to:

1.   Fulfill the responsibilities of each generation as trustee of the environment for succeeding generations. 

2.   Assure for all Americans safe, healthful, productive, and aesthetically and culturally pleasing surroundings.

3.   Attain the widest range of beneficial uses of the environment without degradation, risk to health or safety, or other undesirable and unintended consequences.

4.   Preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage, and maintain, wherever possible, an environment which supports diversity, and variety of individual choice.

5.   Achieve a balance between population and resource use which will permit high standards of living and a wide sharing of life’s amenities.

6.   Enhance the quality of renewable resources and approach the maximum attainable recycling of depletable resources.3

Title I of NEPA requires all federal agencies to consider the environmental impact of their activities and, if this impact is likely to be significant, to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS). Title II of the act establishes the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and gives it authority to make recommendations to the president.

On April 22, 1970, twenty million Americans participated in the first Earth Day, and that July President Nixon submitted to Congress a proposal to create an Environmental Protection Agency that would consolidate the environmental programs of other federal agencies.4

The initial focus of the EPA was pollution, and passage of the Clean Air Act of 1970 (CAA) gave the EPA the power to regulate the emissions of pollutants.  “The Clean Air Act brought dramatic—and substantive—changes to the federal air quality program. The act required EPA to establish national air quality standards as well as national standards for significant new pollution sources and for all facilities emitting hazardous substances. The CAA took dead aim against America’s leading source of pollution: the automobile.”5

Legislation during the 1970s also directed the EPA to set and enforce clean water standards. The EPA initially pursued an enforcement strategy that threatened court action, if compliance was not forthcoming, but in the 1990s began to rely more on incentive programs. In collaboration with the Department of Energy, in 1992 the EPA began Energy Star, a voluntary-labeling program that promotes the use of energy-efficient products in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The Energy Star label now identifies a variety of products using less energy and also new homes and commercial buildings. The EPA claims that the program has delivered savings of about $16 billion in 2007 alone.6

In 2001 the EPA launched the Green Power Partnership program, which encourages organizations to buy renewable energy. “EPA defines green power as electricity produced from solar, wind, geothermal, biogas, biomass, and low impact small hydroelectric sources.”7 The EPA website provides a locator to help consumers find the closest source of green power, and the partnership program presents awards to exemplary users.8

In 1980 Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), which is commonly known as the Superfund law. The EPA administers this fund to clean up hazardous waste sites that have been abandoned and pose a threat to communities. As of 2007, there were over thirteen hundred Superfund sites, but only funds to clean up several of these heavily contaminated areas. CERCLA authorizes the government to order “potentially responsible parties” to clean up sites and to levy fines for noncompliance. The EPA has used this approach, but not as often as critics of the EPA think it should.9

In 2003 the head of the EPA ruled that the Clean Air Act did not authorize the EPA to regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. This prompted a lawsuit by twelve states, over a dozen nongovernmental organizations, and a few cities; early in 2007 the US Supreme Court in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency held that the EPA “has the authority to regulate heat-trapping gases in automobile emissions. The court further ruled that the agency could not sidestep its authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to global climate change unless it could provide a scientific basis for its refusal.”10

In April 2008, after a year of inaction by the EPA, a coalition of states, cities, and environmental NGOs filed a lawsuit in federal court against the EPA, asking “the court to order the agency to publish within 60 days its analysis that found that such emissions endanger humans as well as contribute to climate change. Publication would lay the foundation for the agency to establish rules to control emissions from tailpipes, as the states have long sought.”11

CORPORATIONS: MORAL LEADERSHIP

Corporations are directly involved in environmental policy in two ways. First, many have environmental policies. Second, corporations not only lobby legislatures and government agencies about laws and the administrative rules for environmental policies, but also influence the election and appointment of public officials who make and administer public policies.  Protecting the environment requires that governments check corporate actions, that corporations support effective governmental policies, and that NGOs effectively stimulate public pressure on both governments and corporations.

Some corporations take their environmental responsibility seriously, and these include the financial services firm of JPMorgan Chase and also the carpet manufacturer Interface Incorporated.

JPMorgan Chase

JPMorgan Chase, which operates in more than fifty countries and has assets of $1.4 trillion, has adopted a “comprehensive environmental policy.”12 In the introduction to its policy entitled “Sustainability Commitment” the company “recognizes that balancing non-financial factors such as environmental and social issues with financial priorities is an essential part of good corporate citizenship.”13 If we were talking about an individual being a good citizen, we would identify this as an argument about character.

JPMorgan Chase accepts its role in realizing sustainable development. “Protecting the natural systems upon which all life depend while lifting people out of poverty and advancing economic development are among the greatest challenges confronting humanity. These three pillars of sustainable development are central to the UN Millennium Development Goals adopted in 2000. We recognize that the policies and practices we adopt today will shape not only our lives but also those of future generations.”14 Affirming the UN Millennium Development Goals is no small commitment, as these include the following statements on “protecting our common environment.”

21. We must spare no effort to free all of humanity, and above all our children and grandchildren, from the threat of living on a planet irredeemably spoilt by human activities, and whose resources would no longer be sufficient for their needs.

22. We reaffirm our support for the principles of sustainable development, including those set out in Agenda 21, agreed upon at the UN Conference on Environment and Development.

23. We resolve therefore to adopt in all our environmental actions a new ethic of conservation and stewardship and, as first steps, we resolve:

·        To make every effort to ensure the entry into force of the Kyoto Protocol. . . . and to embark on the required reduction in emissions of greenhouse gases.

·        To intensify our collective efforts for the management, conservation and sustainable development of all types of forests.

·        To press for the full implementation of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention to Combat Desertification in those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, particularly in Africa.

·        To stop the unsustainable exploitation of water resources by developing water management strategies at the regional, national and local levels, which promote both equitable access and adequate supplies.15

The JPMorgan Chase policy embraces the notion of environmental stewardship, which affirms a duty of care for the environment, but acknowledges that exercising such stewardship offers profitable business opportunities involving “innovative financial products and investments in sustainable forestry and renewable energy.”16

What does this actually mean? “Specifically, we will integrate environmental and social awareness into the credit analysis and financing decision process, and incorporate it, where appropriate, as part of our due diligence review. We will train relevant employees to take responsibility for and implement these policies. Finally, we will publish an annual sustainability report using the Global Reporting Initiative framework.”17 The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) framework requires internalizing social and environmental externalities as the costs of doing business.18

JPMorgan Chase has adopted the Equator Principles19 for its investment and commercial banks, and has pledged to apply these principles “as appropriate, to all loans, debt and equity underwriting, financial advisories and project-linked derivative transactions where the use of proceeds is designated for potentially [environmentally] damaging projects.”20 The Equator Principles were established by international banks in 2003 to measure and limit the social and environmental impact of new projects costing $10 million or more.21

The JPMorgan Chase environmental policy also has sections describing its commitments with respect to climate change, forestry22 and biodiversity, indigenous communities, and internal resource management. The policy accepts the precautionary principle with respect to activities that may influence climate change: “While there remains uncertainty regarding the severity of impacts, we believe that it is appropriate to adopt a precautionary approach to climate protection by working to reduce greenhouse gas emissions today.”23

The corporation also states that: “If JPMorgan Chase acquires significant amounts of environmentally sensitive land as a result of a default or debt workout situation, we will work with conservation groups and local stakeholders to consider conservation alternatives, including donation, environmental management plans or protective easements.”24

For projects that may impact indigenous peoples in sensitive habitats, the corporate environmental policy requires that the borrower or project sponsor demonstrate that:

·        They have given indigenous people the opportunity and, if needed, culturally appropriate representation to engage in informed participation and collective decision-making;

·        Provided information on the ways in which the project may have a potentially adverse impact on them in a culturally appropriate manner at each stage of project preparation, implementation and operation;

·        Given adequate time to study the relevant information; and

·        Provided access to a grievance mechanism.25

These environmental commitments by JPMorgan Chase, which are shared by some other financial institutions,26 include rights and duties asserted by international law. The bottom line, of course, is implementation, but this environmental policy demonstrates that corporations may affirm environmental stewardship as intrinsically right and also good for business.27

Interface

The environmental policy of Interface, Incorporated, which makes carpets, is also exemplary. In its mission statement Interface affirms that: “We will honor the places where we do business by endeavoring to become the first name in industrial ecology, a corporation that cherishes nature and restores the environment.  Interface will lead by example and validate by results, including profits, leaving the world a better place than when we began, and we will be restorative through the power of our influence in the world.”28 Interface promises “to eliminate any negative impact our company may have on the environment by the year 2020.”29

The chairman of Interface, Ray C. Anderson, admits that “sustainability” meant nothing to him a few years ago, but now the company’s website addresses the three related issues of economic, social, and environmental sustainability.  Interface defines sustainability as: “A dynamic process which enables all people to realize their potential and to improve their quality of life in ways that simultaneously protect and enhance the Earth’s life support systems.”30 It affirms the ethical presumption in the Brundtland Report that we should meet “the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”31

To become environmentally sustainable, Interface is working on seven fronts:

1.   Eliminate Waste: Eliminating all forms of waste in every area of business;

2.   Benign Emissions: Eliminating toxic substances from products, vehicles and facilities;

3.   Renewable Energy: Operating facilities with renewable energy sources—solar, wind, landfill gas, biomass32 and low-impact hydroelectric;

4.   Closing the Loop: Redesigning processes and products to close the technical loop using recovered and bio-based materials;

5.   Resource-Efficient Transportation: Transporting people and products efficiently to reduce waste and emissions;

6.   Sensitizing Stakeholders: Creating a culture that integrates sustainability principles and improves people’s lives and livelihoods;

7.   Redesign Commerce: Creating a new business model that demonstrates and supports the value of sustainability-based commerce.33

The progress made by Interface is impressive. “Use of fossil fuels is down 45 percent (and net greenhouse gas production, by weight, is down 60 percent) . . . while sales are up 49 percent. Globally, the company’s carpet-making uses one-third the water it used to. The company’s worldwide contribution to landfills has been cut by 80 percent.”34

Interface turned to the Natural Step,35 an international NGO founded in Sweden in 1989, for help in taking the following steps to realize economic sustainability.

1.   Eliminate our contribution to systematic increases in concentrations of substances from the Earth’s crust. This means substituting certain minerals that are scarce in nature with others that are more abundant, using all mined materials efficiently, and systematically reducing dependence on fossil fuels.

2.   Eliminate our contribution to systematic increases in concentrations of substances produced by society. This means systematically substituting certain persistent and unnatural compounds with ones that are normally abundant or break down more easily in nature, and using all substances produced by society efficiently.

3.   Eliminate our contribution to systematic physical degradation of nature through over-harvesting, depletion, foreign introductions, and other forms of modification. This means drawing resources only from well-managed ecosystems, systematically pursuing the most productive and efficient use both of those resources and land, and exercising caution in all kinds of modification of nature.

4.   Contribute as much as we can to the goal of meeting human needs in our society and worldwide, going over and above all the substitution and dematerialization measures taken in meeting the first three objectives. This means using all of our resources efficiently, fairly and responsibly so that the needs of all people on whom we have an impact, and the future needs of people who are not yet born, stand the best chance of being met.36

These are the ethical presumptions that Interface is trying to realize in its carpet business.

Interface has found, however, that existing laws and regulations are an obstacle to realizing greater sustainability. “The current infrastructure subsidizes unsustainable industrial processes. To make significant progress, we will need the cooperation of government and other industrial partners to shift taxation away from economic and social benefits, (labor, income and investment) to detriments, (pollution, waste, and the loss of primary resources).”37

To make the economy more sustainable, Anderson argues, economists should stop underestimating the true cost of doing business by excluding externalities from their accounting, such as damage to the environment due to pollution. Moreover, governments should cut income taxes and raise the gasoline tax (while providing subsidies for the poor).38

Other Business Initiatives

Many other corporations are adopting environmental policies. In 2007 Wal-Mart, which has long been criticized by NGOs for its lack of environmental responsibility, 39 began working with the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) to measure the energy used to create products throughout its supply chain. CDP chief executive Paul Dickinson says, “Wal-Mart will encourage its suppliers to measure and manage their greenhouse gas emissions, and ultimately reduce the total carbon footprint of Wal-Mart’s indirect emissions.”40

Proctor & Gamble defines its commitment to sustainable development as “ensuring a better quality of life for everyone, now and for generations to come.”41 Therefore, its policy sets a higher safety standard than the law requires: “All P&G ingredients must pass Environmental Risk Assessment before they are safely cleared for the market.”42 P&G has also made substantial gains in eco-efficiency.43

The “sustainability business model” of P&G sees addressing poverty not only as a responsibility, but as an opportunity. “For companies such as P&G, the challenge to make sustainable development part of the goods and services we deliver is not business as usual. It means reaching consumers we have never reached in rural villages and urban slums of the developing world. It means developing new products specific to the needs, frustrations and aspirations of those new consumers at an affordable price. It means exploring new business models, often built on volume instead of margin, and with new supply and distribution systems to lower cost and reach where we have ever gone before.”44 It means being profitable as well as responsible in creative new ways.45

NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS: ADVOCACY AND ACTION

JPMorgan Chase uses the reporting framework of the Global Reporting Initiative, an international NGO in the Netherlands.46 Interface uses an analytical approach created by the Natural Step, an international NGO in Sweden.47 Wal-Mart is collaborating with the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).48 Nonprofit NGOs like these provide technical assistance to industry and promote the ethical presumptions for sustainable development asserted by international declarations and treaties.

More familiar NGOs taking environmental actions and lobbying for sustainable government and corporate policies include Greenpeace,49 the Sierra Club,50 the World Wildlife Fund,51 and the Nature Conservancy.52 There are also thousands of smaller international NGOs involved in environmental advocacy,53 perhaps overall in the world a hundred thousand NGOs engaged in environmental work in most countries,54 and about ten thousand environmental NGOs in the United States.55 Greenpeace and the Sierra Club Greenpeace is “an independent global campaigning organization” that acts to protect the environment and to work for peace by:

·        Catalyzing an energy revolution to address…climate change.

·        Defending our oceans by challenging wasteful and destructive fishing, and creating a global network of marine reserves.

·        Protecting…ancient forests and the animals, plants, and people that depend on them.

·        Working for disarmament and peace by tackling the causes of conflict and calling for the elimination of all nuclear weapons.

·        Creating a toxic free future with safer alternatives to hazardous chemicals. . . .

·        Campaigning for sustainable agriculture by rejecting genetically engineered organisms, protecting biodiversity, and encouraging socially responsible farming.56

Greenpeace is working in forty countries “to expose environmental criminals, and to challenge government and corporations when they fail to live up to their mandate to safeguard our environment and our future.”57

Greenpeace USA says it uses “peaceful direct action” to expose environmental problems and promote green solutions. Its executive director, John Passacantando, offers this moral challenge: “In the end, protecting the environment is about very clear choices. We can either stand up for what is right—our health, humanity, and heritage on this planet of ours—or we can sit by and watch while decisions are made that threaten to destroy our collective future.”58 I assume the emphasis on our health, heritage, and planet is expressing the right of everyone to live in a healthy environment.59

The Sierra Club is primarily a grassroots lobbying organization with a mission to:

·        Explore, enjoy, and protect the wild places of the earth.

·        Practice and promote the responsible use of the earth’s ecosystems and resources.

·        Educate and enlist humanity to protect and restore the quality of the natural and human environment.

·        Use all lawful means to carry out these objectives.

Its website makes this promise: “When you give to the Sierra Club you will have the satisfaction of knowing that you are helping to preserve irreplaceable wild lands, save endangered and threatened wildlife, and protect this fragile environment we call home. You can be sure that your voice will be heard through congressional lobbying and grassroots action on the environmental issues that matter to you most.”60

In 1971 the Sierra Club launched the Legal Defense Fund and six years later this became Earthjustice: “a non-profit public interest law firm dedicated to protecting the magnificent places, natural resources, and wildlife of this earth and to defending the right of all people to a healthy environment. We bring about far-reaching change by enforcing and strengthening environmental laws on behalf of hundreds of organizations and communities.”61 Earthjustice seeks to protect both nature and the right to a healthy environment.

WWF and the Nature Conservancy

The World Wildlife Foundation/Fund, generally identified as WWF, operates in more than a hundred countries and supports about two hundred conservation projects. Its mission is: “To stop the degradation of the planet’s natural environment and to build a future in which humans live in harmony with nature, by: conserving the world’s biological diversity, ensuring that the use of renewable natural resources is sustainable, and promoting the reduction of pollution and wasteful consumption.”62 To achieve this, WWF pledges to:

·        Be global, independent, multicultural, and nonparty political.

·        Use the best available science to address issues and critically evaluate all its endeavors.

·        Seek dialogue and avoid unnecessary confrontation.

·        Build concrete conservation solutions through a combination of field based projects, policy initiatives, capacity building, and education work.

·        Involve local communities and indigenous peoples in the planning and execution of its field programs, respecting their cultural as well as economic needs.

·        Strive to build partnerships with other organizations, governments, business, and local communities to enhance WWF’s effectiveness.

·        Run its operations in a cost-effective manner and apply donors’ funds according to the highest standards of accountability.63

The Nature Conservancy is dedicated to preserving biodiversity: “The Nature Conservancy’s mission is to preserve the plants, animals and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.”64 In 2006 the Nature Conservancy purchased for $231 million from International Paper 212,000 acres of forest in ten southern states, in order to conserve it.65 The Nature Conservancy is also known for facilitating debt-for-nature swaps, such as the recent agreement by the United States to forgive $24 million in debt owed to it by Guatemala, which instead will be used to fund forest conservation in Guatemala for fifteen years.66

In late 2006 the Nature Conservancy joined WWF and Stanford University in a new conservation partnership: “The Natural Capital Project is focused on living natural capital assets—ecosystems that, if properly managed, yield a flow of vital services both to humans and nature. Relative to other forms of capital, natural capital is poorly understood, rarely monitored, and in many cases undergoing rapid degradation and depletion. Often the tremendous importance and economic value of natural capital is appreciated only upon its loss.”67

Many environmental advocates oppose using economic value to support preservation policies, and instead rely on ecocentric ethical reasoning. The Nature Conservancy, however, emphasizes the economic worth of nature’s assets and the benefits for human health. “When we destroy natural ecosystems, we lose these assets and the services they provide us. But putting an accurate value on these ecosystem services could make protecting those services even more attractive to business, policymakers and the public.”68

Peter Kareiva, chief scientist of the Nature Conservancy, also suggests that “the goals of conservation and the goals of alleviating poverty and improving human health are deeply interwoven. Our best hope for conservation success is to work more closely with poverty and public-health NGOs and to end the extreme compartmentalization among our efforts.”69

COLLABORATIVE STRATEGIES: GLWQA AND THE APOLLO ALLIANCE

National governments have created environmental policies and enforcement agencies, and within nations there may also be state or provincial as well as municipal governments that are making decisions about what is best for the environment.70 As all these actions by governments involve lobbying by corporations and NGOs, distinguishing these three kinds of institutions should not be understood as implying that they function separately.71

GLWQA

For instance, the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) is a treaty between the governments of Canada and the United States. In Canada the government agency with responsibility for environmental policy is Environment Canada, and in the United States the Environmental Protection Agency is charged with enforcement. However, the province of Ontario and the states of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are also involved, along with over 150 local NGOs that belong to a coalition NGO, the Great Lakes Union (GLU).72

Enforcing the treaty involves doing studies and making recommendations for all the “stakeholders,”73 which include governments, private organizations, and citizens.  In the case of the GLQWA this process is overseen by the International Joint Commission (IJC) established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909. More than four thousand individuals and organizations participated in the most recent IJC review, which also included consultations with the national governments, state governments, and first nations [Canada’s Native Americans] and tribes.74

The IJC’s Thirteenth Biennial Report, released in February of 2007, recommends that “the governments of Canada and the United States create and apply an uncommonly strong Accountability Framework for Great Lakes restoration and protection under the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.”75

To achieve greater accountability the IJC suggests “a rigorous, coordinated plan that identifies and prioritizes the actions needed to realize the goals of the Agreement, includes measurable targets and sets timelines for completion—such targets and timelines are generally not in the current agreement.”76 In addition, it recommends that a binational entity be given the responsibility of assessing progress, and that action be taken on progress reports. The need for greater accountability seems evident, as aquatic invasive species in the Great Lakes is a major concern and the St. Lawrence Seaway opened for ocean-going traffic in March of 2007.

GLU asserts: “It is time for a moratorium on ocean-going vessel access to the Great Lakes until the Canadian and U.S. governments put in place regulatory solutions that will curb the influx of these devastating invaders.”77 GLU responds to the claim that restricting access of ocean-going vessels to the Great Lakes would cause severe economic losses (a consequential argument) by pointing out that these economic business losses would be about one-tenth of the cost required to control two of the invasive species in the lakes, the zebra and quagga mussels.78

The Apollo Alliance

The Apollo Alliance is another example of collaboration between NGOs, government officials, and corporate leaders. The About Us page of its website has as its title, “The Apollo Alliance for Good Jobs and Clean Energy,” which reveals a new strategy for protecting the environment.79 Those endorsing this effort include environmental NGOs, such as Greenpeace USA and the Sierra Club, and also labor unions. The website identifies an advisory board that includes several elected officials and a lengthy list of business partners supportive of Apollo. 

Rather than focus on environmental problems, “The Apollo Alliance provides a message of optimism and hope, framed around rejuvenating our nation’s economy by creating the next generation of American industrial jobs and treating clean energy as an economic and security mandate to rebuild America.”80 The Apollo Alliance “seeks to spread the benefits of investment into America’s energy independence to everyone.”81

The Alliance supports a ten-point plan to achieve good jobs and energy independence:

1.   Promote Advanced Technology & Hybrid Cars (using tax incentives).

2.   Invest in More Efficient Factories (using tax incentives).

3.   Encourage High Performance Building (invest in “green buildings” and update codes).

4.   Increase Use of Energy Efficient Appliances (use incentives to increase US manufacturing).

5.   Modernize Electrical Infrastructure (research and develop more efficient generating plants).

6.   Expand Renewable Energy Development (create jobs and solar, biomass, and wind energy)

7.   Improve Transportation Options (invest in energy efficient mass transit).

8.   Reinvest in Smart Urban Growth (promote strong cities and good jobs).

9.   Plan for a Hydrogen Future (invest in using hydrogen to power cars and distribute electricity).

10. Preserve Regulatory Protections (for workers and the environment).82 This plan supports investing in more efficient and sustainable ways of producing energy, as this investment will generate a healthy economy as well as a healthy environment.

CONSEQUENCES: INCENTIVES AND TAXES

How can environmental policies be effective? Corporations and NGOs, as well as governments, must act responsibly, and are more likely to do so when under public scrutiny. To its credit, JPMorgan Chase supports the moral presumption asserted by international law that indigenous communities should be involved in decisions affecting their habitats, and WWF has made this its practice as well. The Apollo Alliance has enabled labor unions and environmental NGOs to work together with business leaders in creating jobs as well as a more sustainable economy. The open process of the International Joint Commission in reviewing the GLWQA also is a model of collaboration.

Equity

How can the costs and benefits of environmental policy be allocated fairly? Agenda 21 assesses a greater responsibility to developed countries for these costs, arguing that the industrial countries have promoted the economic development causing the problem and also have enjoyed a greater portion of the economic benefits from the development. The US government rejects this claim, but JPMorgan Chase accepts that Agenda 21 and other international standards reflect what “good corporate citizenship” now means.

Interface affirms language from the Brundtland Report, rather than the stronger presumptions of Agenda 21, but Interface clearly accepts that industry must internalize the social and environmental costs of doing business in order to act “fairly and responsibly so that the needs of all people on whom we have an impact, and the future needs of people who are not yet born, stand the best chance of being met.”83

The NGOs mentioned in this chapter do not explicitly address the question of equity in allocating the costs and benefits of protecting the environment.  The environmental NGOs engaged in direct action and lobbying, such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, certainly believe that multinational corporations should be held accountable for most of the environmental damage caused by economic development, as these corporations have both caused the damage and persuaded governments to minimize regulations that might have protected the environment. All the NGOs seem to support internalizing social and environmental costs (externalities), and also the principle that the polluter should pay and the precautionary principle.

A concern for responsibility and accountability dominates the ethical arguments presented by some corporations, as well as by governments and NGOs.  The right to a healthy environment is affirmed, but largely as a basis for arguing that governments and corporations have a duty to ensure that economic activity is environmentally sustainable.

The personal story of Anderson, the CEO of Interface, offers a character argument for corporate responsibility, reminding us that individuals who are motivated to act more responsibly can make a difference. Also, in pledging to pursue “industrial ecology,” which Interface says means being “a corporation that cherishes nature and restores the environment,”84 the carpet company has identified what might be described as a corporate virtue. We may hope that good examples, in business practice, will help raise environmental standards. 

Apparently, based on the materials we have reviewed, a concern for future generations is the most persuasive moral argument in support of the presumption that we have a duty to maintain and restore our wild, agricultural, and urban ecosystems.

Ecosystems

None of the environmental NGOs assert animal rights, and most affirm that human needs must be addressed in acting to ensure environmental sustainability. NGOs emphasize protecting ecosystems and limiting the impact of human uses, rather than ending animal suffering. In addition, the Nature Conservancy supports using cost-benefit analysis for decisions about ecosystems, as a way of creating broader political support for effective environmental policies.

In general, there is a clear shift in emphasis in environmental policy from regulation and threatening enforcement measures to investment, partnerships, and incentives. We would expect to see this in corporate environmental policy, but it is present as well in the EPA’s Energy Star and Green Power Partnership programs and in the partnership work of WWF and the Nature Conservancy. It is also the primary strategy of the Apollo Alliance, which has garnered support even from direct action and advocacy NGOs, such as Greenpeace USA and the Sierra Club.85

Tax Policy

Among advocates for environmental policy, there is no consensus about taxes.  The position of Interface is exceptional: “To make significant progress, we will need the cooperation of government and other industrial partners to shift taxation away from economic and social benefits, (labor, income and investment) to detriments, (pollution, waste, and the loss of primary resources).”86 In the words of economists Daly and Farley, governments should: “Tax bads, not goods.”87

Does it make sense to tax activities that harm the environment, rather than what contributes to our wellbeing? “The idea is to shift the tax burden from value added by labor and capital (something we want more of ) to ‘that to which value is added’—namely, the throughput and its associated depletion and pollution (something we want less of ).”88 European countries have successfully implemented such tax reform,89 but there is little support so far in the United States.

Unsustainable

Although the threat of disastrous environmental consequences casts a dark cloud over all talk of environmental policy, the ethical arguments do not emphasize consequential calculations. Perhaps this is because these predictions are uncertain, but it may also be that many advocates believe there are strong arguments for what is inherently right and good.

For instance, the CEO of Greenpeace USA urges that we “stand up for what is right,”90 implying that we all know what this means without having to calculate the likely consequences of our conduct. Furthermore, the argument that we should care for the environment because we have a moral duty to future generations appears in government assertions, corporate policies, and also on NGO websites. In the words of the National Environmental Policy Act, we should “the trustee of the environment for succeeding generations.”91

Many if not all of the moral presumptions discussed in this chapter should be the basis for environmental policy, unless the consequences of acting on these presumptions are sufficiently adverse to call the presumptions into question.  The main consequence argument opposing these presumptions is that the economic costs of enforcing such an environmental policy would be severe and politically unsustainable. This counterargument deserves serious consideration, but the burden of proof lies with those who oppose an environmental policy that actually protects ecosystems for future generations. Moreover, given that the integrity of the environment is at stake, compelling evidence should be required to overturn these presumptions.

Also, we must consider the likely economic benefits of enforcing effective environmental policies. JPMorgan Chase affirms that exercising environmental stewardship has led to new investment opportunities. Interface reports that one consequence of creating a new business model for “sustainability-based commerce” is an increase in profits of almost 50 percent. These are only two corporations, so we cannot generalize about the overall economic impact of “going green.” Yet, these results weigh against the common consequential prediction that a social and economic commitment to environmental sustainability is bad for business.

NOTES

1.   The Convention on Biological Diversity, which was approved in Rio along with Agenda 21, is mentioned only in endnotes to chapters 7 and 9.

2.   The National Environment Policy of 1969, as amended, online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nepatxt.htm.

3.   Ibid.

4.   “Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1970,” online at http://www.epa.gov/history/org/origins/reorg.htm.  The EPA consolidated the following functions of existing federal agencies:

·         Functions with respect to pesticide studies. (Department of the Interior)

·         Functions carried out by the Federal Water Quality Administration. (Interior)

·         Functions carried out by the Bureau of Solid Waste Management and the Bureau of Water Hygiene, and portions of the functions carried out by the Bureau of Radiological Health of the Environmental Control Administration. (Health, Education, and Welfare).

·         Functions carried out by the National Air Pollution Control Administration. (HEW)

·         Functions about pesticides carried out by the Food and Drug Administration. (HEW)

·         Authority to perform studies relating to ecological systems. (Council on Environmental Quality)

·         Some functions concerning radiation criteria and standards. (Atomic Energy Commission and the Federal Radiation Council)

Functions concerning pesticide registration and related activities carried out by the Agricultural Research Service. (Department of Agriculture)

5.   Jack Lewis, “The Birth of EPA,” Environmental Protection Agency, online at http://www.epa.gov/history/topics/epa/15c.htm.

6.   “History of Energy Star,” online at http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=about.ab_history.

7.   “Green Power Partnership,” EPA, online at http://www.epa.gov/greenpower/gpmarket/index.htm.

8.   Under the Bush administration, however, this voluntary emphasis has been accompanied by a decline in the enforcement of regulations. “The Environmental Protection Agency’s pursuit of criminal cases against polluters has dropped off sharply during the Bush administration, with the number of prosecutions, new investigations and total convictions all down by more than a third, according to Justice Department and EPA data.” John Solomon and Juliet Eilperin, “Bush’s EPA Is Pursuing Fewer Polluters,” The Washington Post (Sep. 1, 2007), online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/29/AR2007092901759.html.

9.   “Superfund,” online at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Environmental_Response%2C_Compensation%2C_and_Liability_Act.

10.  Linda Greenhouse, “Justices Say EPA Has Power to Act on Harmful Gases,” The New York Times (Apr. 3, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/washington/03scotus.html.  In November 2007 a federal appeals court “rejected the Bush administration’s year-old fuel economy standards for light trucks and sport utility vehicles . . . saying that they were not tough enough because regulators had failed to thoroughly assess the economic impact of tailpipe emissions that contribute to climate change.” The court “told the Transportation Department to produce new rules taking into account the value of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.” Felicity Barringer and Michelene Maynard, “Court Rejects Fuel Standards on Trucks,” The New York Times (Nov. 16, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/16/business/16fuel.html.

11.  Felicity Barringer, “Groups Seeks EPA Rules on Emissions from Vehicles,” The New York Times (Apr. 3, 2008), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/03/washington/03pollute.html.

12.  “Environment Policy,” JPMorganChase, online at http://www.jpmorganchase.com/cm/cs?pagename=Chase/Href&urlname=jpmc/community/env/policy.

13.  Ibid.

14.  “We therefore have an opportunity to make a positive contribution to environmental and social concerns by enacting policies designed so that our business operations do not degrade the environment or cause social harm.” Ibid.

15.  United Nations Millennium Declaration, adopted by the General Assembly (Sep. 8, 2000), online at http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.htm.

16.  “Environment Policy,” JPMorganChase, online at http://www.jpmorganchase.com/cm/cs?pagename=Chase/Href&urlname=jpmc/community/env/policy.

17.  Ibid.

18.  Global Reporting Initiative, online at http://www.globalreporting.org/Home.

19.  “The Equator Principles: A benchmark for the financial industry to manage social and environmental issues in project financing,” online at http://www.equator-principles.com.

20.  “Environmental Risk Management Policy,” JPMorganChase, online at http://www.jpmorganchase.com/cm/cs?pagename=Chase/Href&urlname=jpmc/community/env/policy/risk

21.  As of November 2006 more than forty major lenders have subscribed to these principles.

“Leaders Challenge ‘Business as Usual,’ Guardian,” The Equator Principles, online at http://www.equator-principles.com/lcb.shtml.

22.  In forest environments the corporation is committed to applying the Equator Principles and therefore pledges that:

·         JPMorgan Chase will not finance commercial logging operations or the purchase of logging equipment for use in primary tropical moist forests.

·         JPMorgan Chase will finance plantations only on non-forested areas (including previously planted areas) or on heavily degraded forestland. 

·         JPMorgan Chase will not finance projects that contravene any relevant international environmental agreement which has been enacted into the law of, or otherwise has the force of law in, the country in which the project is located.

“Forestry and Biodiversity Policy Commitments,” JPMorganChase, online at http://www.jpmorganchase.com/cm/cs?pagename=Chase/Href&urlname=jpmc/community/env/policy/forest.

23.  “Climate Change Policy and Commitments,” JPMorganChase, online at http://www.jpmorganchase.com/cm/cs?pagename=Chase/Href&urlname=jpmc/community/env/policy/clim.

24.  Ibid.

25.  A project sponsor or borrower must also demonstrate the following:

·         Consultation approaches that rely on existing customary institutions, the role of community elders and leaders, and the established governance structure for tribal and indigenous communities;

·         Governmental authorities at the local, regional or national level have provided mechanisms for the affected communities to be represented or consulted, and international and local laws have been upheld; and

·         Major indigenous land claims are appropriately addressed.

“IndiIndigenous Communities,” JPMorganChase, online at http://www.jpmorganchase.com/cm/cs?pagename=Chase/Href&urlname=jpmc/community/env/policy/indig.

26.  “Environmental campaigners scored a major victory this week as some of the nation’s top banks agreed to link energy sector investment with initiatives to combat climate change. Officials at Citibank, JPMorgan Chase, and Morgan Stanley pledged . . . that they would give priority to investment in clean energy businesses and put coal-fired electricity generation to ‘a rigorous review’ process for financing.” Haider Rizvi, “Banks to Consider Climate Before Investing in Coal,” OneWorld.net (Feb. 7, 2008), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/157609/1.

27.  See Ida Wahlstrom, “Environmental Action Driving Global Economy—Report,” OneWorld.net (Jan. 10, 2008), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/156724/1.

28.  Italics added. “Mission Statement,” Interface, online at http://www.interfaceinc.com/goals/mission.html.

29.  Ibid.

30.  “Interface Sustainability,” Interface, online at http://www.interfacesustainability.com/whatis.html.

31.  Ibid.

32.  “Because of this creation of a ‘carbon sink’ (a component which solar and wind energy do not have), we believe that bioenergy from closed loop energy crops represents the most effective choice in ‘alternative energy’ options to address Global Warming.” “Planet Power: Energy and the Environment,” Biomass Energy Crop and BioEnergy Working Group, online at http://www.treepower.org.

33.  “Interface Sustainability,” Interface, online at http://www.interfacesustainability.com/commit.html.

34.  Cornelia Dean, “Executive on a Mission: Saving the Planet,” The New York Times (May 22, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/science/earth/22ander.html.

35.  The Natural Step, online at http://www.naturalstep.org/com/nyStart.

36.  “The Natural Step,” Interface, online at http://www.interfacesustainability.com/step.html.

37.  “Interface Sustainability,” Interface, online at http://www.interfacesustainability.com/commit.html.

38.  Cornelia Dean, “Executive on a Mission: Saving the Planet,” The New York Times (May 22, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/22/science/earth/22ander.html.

39.  “Wal-Mart has made a name for itself over the past year by highlighting various environmental initiatives, which it sees as an easy way to improve its image. While reducing packaging on food products and selling more energy efficient light bulbs are important steps that Wal-Mart should be applauded for, they must do much more to make amends for an environmentally unfriendly past. In the past, Wal-Mart has been guilty of air pollution, storm water violations, and improper storage of hazardous materials. With millions in fines resulting from these violations, Wal-Mart’s environmental record has been blemished.” Wal-Mart Watch, online at http://walmartwatch.com/issues/environment.

40.  Thomas L. Friedman, “Lead, Follow or Move Aside,” The New York Times (Sep. 26, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/26/opinion/26friedman.html.

41.  P&G, online at http://www.pg.com/company/our_commitment/sustainability.jhtml.

42.  P&G, http://www.pg.com/company/our_commitment/environment.jhtml.

43.  “‘More from less’ products have included compact detergents that achieve a better wash performance, while using only 50% of the ingredients and a fraction of the packaging needed for conventional ‘big box’ products.” George Carpenter and Peter White, “Sustainable Development: Finding the Real Business Case,” International Journal for Sustainable Business, vol. 11, no. 2 (Feb.  2004), online as a pdf file at http://www.pg.com/content/pdf/01_about_pg/corporate_citizenship/sustainability/reports/Corporate%20Environmental%20Strategy%20Journal%20PRW&GDC.pdf .

44.  Carpenter and White make a challenging ethical argument: “The focus has been on eliminating pollution, waste and natural resource depletion, or more recently poor working conditions or child labor. When you focus only on being ‘less bad,’ by definition you can never be ‘good.’ The best you can be is ‘less bad than you used to be, or less bad than others. This is not a positive message, nor a way to grow future business value. One possible way round this conundrum, however, is to link opportunity with responsibility.” Ibid.

45.  “Several years ago, P&G purchased the PuR brand, a U.S. based in-home water purification business. We are developing low cost technologies, and business models to bring those technologies to consumers, that will be effective on the more serious water problems in the developing world. Similarly, over 2 billion people are without adequate sanitation, and better hygiene can reduce deaths caused by diarrhea by up to 33 percent. P&G has been in the bar soap business for decades, and our Safeguard brand, working in developing countries with local health ministries to create awareness about the importance of hygiene, is showing how public-private partnerships can reach far more people with health messages than either the ministry or we could do individually.  Individuals will change their consumption practices when they realize they can improve their quality of life.” Ibid.

46.  The Global Reporting Initiative, online at http://www.globalreporting.org/Home.

47.  The Natural Step, online at http://www.naturalstep.org/com/nyStart.

48.  The Carbon Disclosure Project, online at http://www.cdproject.net.

49.  Greenpeace International, online at http://www.greenpeace.org/usa.

50.  The Sierra Club, online at http://www.sierraclub.org.

51.  The World Wildlife Fund, online at http://www.wwf.org/ and http://www.worldwildlife.org.

52.  The Nature Conservancy, online at http://www.nature.org.

53.  The World Directory of Environmental Organizations, online at http://www.interenvironment.org/wd3intl/ingo-intro.htm.

54.  Ibid., by country, online at http://www.interenvironment.org/wd4countries/index.htm.

See also “Environmental NGOs and Citizen Action,” online at http://pubs.wri.org/pubs_content_text.cfm?ContentID=1901. At a 2007 meeting of the Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations in Consultative Relationship with the United Nations, CONGO President Renate Bloem asserted that: “Without civil society as the driving force behind the MDGs [Millennium Development Goals], the chances are very slim that we will reach the MDGs.” Christi van der Westhuizen, “Chances of Achieving MDGs ‘Slim’ without Civil Society,” OneWorld.net (Jan. 28, 2007), online at http://us.oneworld.net/article/view/150788/1.

55.  Ibid., online at http://www.interenvironment.org/wd4countries/us.htm.

56.  “About Greenpeace,” online at http://www.greenpeace.org/international/about.

57.  Ibid.

58.  “About Us,” Greenpeace USA, online at http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about.

59.  I find this language surprisingly anthropocentric.

60.  “Join or Give,” The Sierra Club, online at https://secure2.convio.net/sierra/site/Donation2?idb=0&df_id=1300&1300.donation=form1&s_src=J06WOT0200&JServSessionIdr008 =jlwlstls21.app6a.

61.  “About Us: A Snapshot of Earthjustice,” Earthjustice, online at http://www.earthjustice.org/about_us/index.html.

62.  “WWF–who we are and how we came about,” online at http://www.panda.org/about_wwf/who_we_are/index.cfm.

63.  Ibid.

64.  The Nature Conservancy, “How We Work,” online at http://www.nature.org/aboutus/howwework/?src=t2.

65.  Colin Woodward, “The Sale of the Century,” The Nature Conservancy (Autumn 2006), online at http://www.nature.org/magazine/autumn2006/forests/index.html.

66.  “$24 Million of Guatemala’s Debt Now Slated for Conservation,” The Nature Conservancy, online at http://www.nature.org/wherewework/centralamerica/guatemala/work/art19052.html.

67.  “The Natural Capital Project: Making Conservation Mainstream,” The Nature Conservancy, online at http://www.nature.org/partners/partnership/art19494.html.

68.  Ibid.

69.  Ibid.

70.  In the US: “Overall, since 1990, the Defense Department has reduced its use of ozone damaging substances by 97 percent—from more than 16 million pounds to less than a half million pounds.” Stephen Barr, “The Pentagon’s Eco-Leaders,” The Washington Post (Oct. 1, 2007), D04, online at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/30/AR2007093001229.html.

71.  There are many other examples of collaboration. For instance, the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), which “supports scientific research, manages field projects all over the world and brings governments, non-government organizations, United Nations agencies, companies and local communities together to develop and implement policy, laws and best practice,” has “a democratic membership union with more than 1,000 government and NGO member organizations, and some 10,000 volunteer scientists in more than 160 countries.” Online at http://cms.iucn.org/about/index.cfm.

72.  Great Lakes United, online at http://www.glu.org/english/about_glu/our_coalition/index.htm.

73.  Environment Canada, online at http://www.on.ec.gc.ca/greatlakes/Stakeholder’s_Corner-WSC20200D4–1_En.htm.

74.  “The GLWQA Review: How the Process Works,” International Joint Commission, online at http://www.ijc.org/en/activities/consultations/glwqa/process.php.

75.  International Joint Commission, “Media Release” (Feb. 7, 2007), online at http://www.ijc.org/rel/news/070208_e.htm.

76.  Ibid.

77.  “Salt Free Great Lakes,” Great Lakes United, online at http://www.glu.org/english/invasive_species/saltfreelakes/index.htm.

78.  John C. Taylor and Mr. James L. Roach, “Ocean Shipping in the Great Lakes: Transportation Cost Increases That Would Result From a Cessation of Ocean Vessel Shipping,” Seidman College of Business, Grand Valley State University (Dec. 6, 2005), online at http://www.gvsu.edu/business/index.cfm?id=11971F16-DBAF-2179–96B0680A95CC6F8 .

79.  “The Apollo Alliance for Good Jobs and Clean Energy,” Apollo Alliance, online at http://www.apolloalliance.org/about_the_alliance.

80.  Ibid. Advocates of a “Green for All” campaign (http://www.greenforall.org) are asking Congress for $125 million to train thirty thousand young people a year in green trades. Thomas L. Friedman, “The Green-Collar Solution,” The New York Times (Oct. 17, 2007), online at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/17/opinion/17friedman.html.

81.  “Benefits of the Apollo Alliance’s Plan for Energy Independence,” Apollo Alliance, online at http://www.apolloalliance.org/about_the_alliance/benefits_of_apollo_s_plan/index.cfm. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger are strong supporters of the Apollo Alliance. Ted Nordhaus and Michael Shellenberger, Break Through, 113.

82.  “The Ten-Point Plan for Good Jobs and Energy Independence,” Apollo Alliance, online at http://www.apolloalliance.org/strategy_center/ten_point_plan.cfm.

83.  “The Natural Step,” Interface, online at http://www.interfacesustainability.com/step.html.

84.  “Mission Statement,” Interface, online at http://www.interfaceinc.com/goals/mission.html.

85.  “The Apollo Alliance for Good Jobs and Clean Energy,” Apollo Alliance, online at http://www.apolloalliance.org/about_the_alliance.

86.  “Interface Sustainability,” Interface, online at http://www.interfacesustainability.com/commit.html.

87.  Herman E. Daly and Joshua Farley, Ecological Economics, 385.

88.  Ibid., 385–386.

89.  B. Bosquet, “Environmental Tax Reform: Does It Work? A Survey of the Empirical Evidence,” Ecological Economics 34(1): 19–32 (2000), in Herman E. Daly and Joshua Farley, Ecological

Economics, 386.

90.  “About Us,” Greenpeace USA, online at http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/about.

91.  The National Environment Policy of 1969, as amended, online at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/nepatxt.htm.

Chapter 10, Doing Environmental Ethics (2009).