Cave - EVSP508 Final Paper

Federal Environmental Ethic 1

Federal Environmental Ethic:

Overwhelmingly Anthropocentric

Mark Cave

Student ID 1055740

EVSP 508, Winter

Professor Allen

January 27, 2012


Abstract

The author of this paper looks at the mission statements and/or stated purposes of three

United States federal agencies – the Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of the

Interior and the U.S. Forest Service – which have responsibilities that include care and

maintenance of the country’s environment, natural resources, and fish and wildlife. By analysis

and comparison of those agencies’ mission and purpose statements, the author delineates the

anthropocentric environmental ethic that overwhelmingly dominates American government and

society. Then the author briefly speaks of the need for establishment of a more holistic and

ecocentric, across-all-agencies environmental ethic; and he expresses the viewpoint that such a

federal-level ethic is incrementally becoming emplaced because of a presidential directive, and

that the ethic is also spreading up, via a grass roots community- and state-government

movement.


“To judge from economic behavior, we see the external world, the biosphere, mainly as a

warehouse to be plundered in satisfaction of the material needs and wants of humankind…

Society’s prevailing ecological myth sees “the environment” in terms of isolated, individual

resources, or, at best, as a mechanical construction, whose component parts are bendable to

human will and purpose.” (Rees, 2011, p. 662).

The above quote very powerfully sums up the continuing attitude towards the environment

that’s prevalent in general American society; and it starkly conveys that it’s impossible for

federal government agencies to state an environmental ethic that’s anything but anthropocentric

and utilitarian. In their pursuit of maximum comfort and convenience, the overwhelming

majority of United States citizens either express beliefs and attitudes identical to those of

corporate executives and their in-pocket politicians, or they behave in ways that belie their stated

understanding of or subconscious concerns about the impacts of such behavior on all things

nonhuman – animals, plants, land, oceans, biodiversity, ecology, etc.

Now, to the professor of my Environmental Ethics course it might seem that I am

digressing from the main purpose of this report; and perhaps that is so. However, I want this

product to potentially be of at least miniscule interest and value to anyone who might read it after

its submission to fulfill a course requirement. Therefore, I am endeavoring to do, and tie

together, two things:

1. Further expound on the above stated environmental ethic of federal agencies, using their

mission statements, and their actions in implementing, abiding by, or flouting statutes and

regulations;

2. Assert that our country’s political leadership must (and is starting to, to a limited extent

– Executive Order 13514, 2009) establish a comprehensive, coherent and less anthropocentric


environmental ethic around which all agencies develop their mission statements, policies and

regulations; and/or there must be a grass roots and local- and state-government movement that

accomplishes the same thing, but from the bottom up.

While covering the first objective is relatively straightforward and simple, it also takes up

most of this report, partly out of necessity for meeting the course requirement, partly because I

will use real world examples to buttress my arguments and assertions.

My survey of some of the “big player” agencies in environmental protection and

conservation establishes what I believe is already well known by all but the most indifferent and

uninformed people: the agencies are unequivocally operating from an anthropocentric

perspective. When I say “big player agencies” I refer to those agencies that I think are most

widely recognized for their stated purposes and/or for their being the focus of most attention: the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S.

Forest Service (USFS, within the U.S. Department of Agriculture).

Of the three surveyed agencies, the EPA, by limiting its focus mainly to regulation of and

education about pollution and environmental degradation in its varied manifestations, is the

surveyed agency with the most straightforward mission, and the only one without obvious

innately contradictory roles or sub-agencies that have opposing objectives (this contention will

be clarified and buttressed as the paper progresses to discussion of the DOI and the USFS, and

of some opposing objectives within each). Per the EPA website:

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and the environment. EPA's

purpose is to ensure that:

• all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health

and the environment where they live, learn and work;


• national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best

available scientific information;

• federal laws protecting human health and the environment are

enforced fairly and effectively;

• environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies

concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth,

energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade,

and these factors are similarly considered in establishing

environmental policy;

• all parts of society -- communities, individuals, businesses, and state,

local and tribal governments -- have access to accurate information

sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and

environmental risks;

• environmental protection contributes to making our communities and

ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and

• the United States plays a leadership role in working with other

nations to protect the global environment. (EPA, n.d.)

The fact that the first sentence in the EPA mission statement puts the word humans before

the word environment obviates the agency’s anthropomorphic perspective. That centralization of

humanity before and above everything else is solidly reinforced in the very first bullet under the

stated purpose of the agency, to ensure that all Americans are protected from significant risks to

human health and the environment where they live, learn and work. If such redundancy of the

theme “humans before environment” is not enough to convince you of the EPA’s


anthropocentricity, notice that nowhere in the mission statement or listing of purposes is there

mention of nature or ecosystems. Such a direct human-centric attitude is almost identically

described by Palmer (2011):

There are a variety of approaches to environmental ethics that can be thought of

as being anthropocentric or human-centered. Most – but not all – of these

approaches maintain that the nonhuman natural world is best considered ethically

in terms of its instrumental values to human beings… And anthropocentric

approaches do not necessarily suggest reckless exploitation of the environment;

they may instead maintain that natural resources should be very carefully

managed for human benefit including for the benefit of the poor and future human

generations. (pp. 13-14)

Of the three surveyed agencies, the Department of the Interior is the behemoth, in breadth

of responsibilities (9 bureaus), number of employees (approx. 70,000) and size of budget ($12

billion). (EPA, n.d.; DOI, n.d.; USFS, n.d.). Quite unlike the EPA, its size and encapsulation of

multiple sub-agencies means that there are necessarily competing agendas amongst those sub-

agencies, even though they all espouse dedication to natural resource preservation and

environmental protection. The competing agendas highlight two facts: (1) the DOI is dominated

by an unequivocal professed adherence to an anthropocentric environmental ethic; and (2) the

drive to maximize the comfort and convenience of American citizens, and the profits of

American corporations, has very frequently translated to complete disregard of nonhuman life

and ecosystems, which of course means abandonment of any environmental ethic.

Here is the DOI mission statement: “The U.S. Department of the Interior protects

America’s natural resources and heritage, honors our cultures and tribal communities, and


supplies the energy to power our future. (DOI, n.d.).” While less obviously so than the EPA

mission statement, this one is still readily identifiable as anthropocentric. The only non-human

term used is “natural resources,” and even that begs the question, “Natural resources for

whom?” The rest of the terms in the statement are wholly human related: heritage, cultures,

tribal communities, and our future. Making more stark the anthropocentric perspective of the

DOI, and highlighting its severe conflicts of interest, are these two quotes, one from the DOI

website, the other from an online description of the DOI by the Washington Post (WP):

The U.S. Department of the Interior is a Cabinet-level agency that manages America's

vast natural and cultural resources … We also raise billions in revenue annually from

energy, mineral, grazing, and timber leases, as well as recreational permits and land

sales. (n.d.)

In real terms, Interior is responsible for about 20 percent of the land in the United

States and 1.7 billion acres offshore. It oversees land and sea territories that produce

30 percent of the nation's energy. Interior is the country's biggest wholesaler of

water, with nearly 500 dams and 350 reservoirs… It cares for some of America's

most precious treasures, by preserving and operating 84 million acres of national

parks, monuments, seashores and other special sites in 49 states and a number of

U.S. territories. It is responsible for protecting endangered species and for operating

national wildlife refuges (WP, n.d.)

The final agency surveyed is the U.S Forest Service (USFS), within the U.S. Department of

Agriculture. It’s mission statements: “Gifford Pinchot, the first Chief of the Forest Service,

summed up the mission of the Forest Service— "to provide the greatest amount of good for the

greatest amount of people in the long run” and “The mission of the USDA Forest Service is to

sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the


needs of present and future generations.” (USFS, n.d.). One more time, the statements are

100% anthropocentric! Further spotlighting that ethic is the first paragraph in the USFS motto:

“The phrase, "CARING FOR THE LAND AND SERVING PEOPLE," captures the Forest

Service mission. As set forth in law, the mission is to achieve quality land management under the

sustainable multiple-use management concept to meet the diverse needs of people.” (n.d.).

Also, just like the DOI, the USFS is saddled with a huge conflict of interest – the protection

and health advancement of forests and wilderness areas vs. the accretion of revenues (and the

justification of large budget requests to Congress) via selling of timber rights and concomitant

building and maintenance of environmentally damaging (at the time and due to use) roads. The

Orion North timber sale in the Tongass National Forest is one example of convoluted

motivations that sometimes drives the USFS to push for timber sales and road building, which in

this case continued despite high costs, the net loss of revenues, and the potential negative

environmental impacts (not accounted for in the ten-year-old environmental impact statement).

It was only after an Earthjustice requested court injunction stopped the timber sale and road

building, that the Forest Service abandoned the effort, rather than file an appeal. (n.d.)

In these explanations that the federal government’s environmental ethic is anthropocentric,

there is not implied a viewpoint that environmental anthropocentrism is wholly wrong or

improper; rather, the ethic’s focus on humans versus non-humans, and on consideration

according to sentience and suffering (Singer, 2011), is just too narrow. It does not account for

what’s absolutely vital in today’s world – a holistic appreciation of the interconnectedness

between all living things, and of the ecosystems – the land, water bodies and climate – upon

which that life fundamentally depends for health and sustainable continuation.


The United States citizenry, in its fierce independence and persistent genuflection before

the alters of capitalism and free markets, will not soon adopt a truly holistic and ecocentric

environmental ethic. Doing so would require too rapid changes in the way business is conducted

and the way society is governed; and the acceptance of new models of community living

incorporating concepts that are currently anathema to many Americans. So, don’t expect that the

United States will be one of the participating nations when the Earth Charter is completed and

the United Nations presents it for ratification (Westra, 2011).

However, there are real signs that people across the country, in the executive branch of the

federal government, as well as in groups ranging from towns to states to regions, are growing

more appreciative of the direct two-way connections between overall ecological and climatic

health and the current and future health of humanity and other life.

1. On October 5, 2009 President Obama signed Executive Order 13514, Federal

Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.

Federal agencies shall increase energy efficiency; measure, report, and reduce their

greenhouse gas emissions from direct and indirect activities; conserve and protect

water resources through efficiency, reuse, and storm water management; eliminate

waste, recycle, and prevent pollution; leverage agency acquisitions to foster markets

for sustainable technologies and environmentally preferable materials, products, and

services; design, construct, maintain, and operate high performance sustainable

buildings in sustainable locations; strengthen the vitality and livability of the

communities in which Federal facilities are located; and inform Federal employees

about and involve them in the achievement of these goals. (Section 1. Policy)


Section 8 directed that each federal agency, including, of course, the EPA, DOI and USDA

(parent organization of the USFS), develop, use, maintain and update a Strategic

Sustainability Performance Plan (SSPP). (EPA SSPP, 2010; DOI SSPP, 2011; USDA SSPP,

2010)

2. On November 16, 2010 the city of Pittsburgh voted to ban drilling, especially fracking

(injection of water, sand and various toxic chemicals down and then horizontally to cause

deep explosions that release the gas). “Drafted by the Community Environmental Legal

Defense Fund (CELDF), Pittsburgh’s ordinance elevates the rights of people, the community,

and nature over corporate “rights” and challenges the authority of the state to pre-empt

community decision-making.” (YES! magazine, 2010).

3. On July 6, 2010 Governor Schwarzenegger signed into law a bill that “requires that all

whole eggs sold in California as of Jan. 1, 2015, come from hens able to stand up, fully extend

their limbs, lie down and spread their wings without touching each other or the sides of their

enclosure, thus requiring cage-free conditions for the birds.” (Human Society, 2010)

The above 3 examples each serve as clear example of an expansion of environmental ethics

from a strictly anthropocentric one to one that, while still human centered, uses environmental

pragmatism (Palmer, pp 29-30) to incorporate concepts of sustainability (additional to or instead

of growth); internalization and/or reduction of non-tangible costs like pollution and greenhouse

gas emissions; interdependencies between health of animals and the health of people; and rights

of individuals, communities and animals over corporate rights.

In conclusion, this paper explains that up to current times, the environmental ethic extant in

most of American society and throughout the federal government has been overwhelmingly

anthropocentric. However, in the absence of leadership in federal government up to the Obama


presidency, and during Obama’s necessary understated (in breadth and broadcast)

implementation of more responsible policies, governmental and NGO leaders at the local and

state levels have stepped up. Besides the two examples given – California’s non-caged egg layer

bill and Pittsburgh’s banning of fracking – there are countless similarly thoughtful bills and

actions being implemented in towns and states across the country. So, in the end, the national

environmental ethic is slowly but definitely moving from indifferently anthropocentric to

concernedly more holistic, but still anthropocentric.


References

Earthjustice (2009). Orion North Timber Sale. In Earth Justice>Our Work>Cases>2009.

Retrieved from http://earthjustice.org/our_work/cases/2009/orion-north-timber-sale.

Environmental Protection Agency. (n.d.). Our mission and what we do. In EPA Home>About

EPA. Retrieved from http://www.epa.gov/aboutepa/whatwedo.html

Environmental Protection Agency. (2010, June 2). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Strategic Sustainability Performance Plan. Retrieved from

http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/documents/sspp_508.pdf

Executive Order 13514. (2009). Retrieved from

http://www.whitehouse.gov/assets/documents/2009fedleader_eo_rel.pdf

Humane Society of the United States. (2010, July 6). Governor Schwarzenegger Signs Landmark

Egg Bill into Law. Retrieved from

http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2010/07/ab1437_passage_070610.html.

Interior Department. Secretary of the Interior [Organizations in the news]. (n.d.). Washington

Post Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/interior-

department/gIQApNay4O_topic.html

Margil, M. & Price, B. (2010, November 16). Pittsburgh bans natural gas drilling. YES!

magazine. Retrieved from http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/pittsburg-bans-

natural-gas-drilling.

Palmer, C. (2011). An overview of environmental ethics. In L. P. Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.),

Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp. 10-35). Boston, MA:

Wadsworth, Inc. (Original work published 1994).


Rees, W. (2011). Sustainable development: economic myths and global realities. In L. P. Pojman

& P. Pojman (Eds.), Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp.

661-668). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Inc. (Original work published 1988)

Singer, P. (2011). A utilitarian defense of animal liberation. In L. P. Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.),

Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th ed., pp. 71-80). Boston, MA:

Wadsworth, Inc. (Original work published 1976).

U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2010, September). USDA Strategic Sustainability

Performance Plan. Retrieved from http://greening.usda.gov/USDASSPP09-07-10.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (2011, June 3). Department of the Interior 2011 Strategic

Sustainability Performance Plan. Retrieved from

http://www.doi.gov/greening/sustainability_plan/SSPP.pdf.

U.S. Department of the Interior. (n.d.). Our mission. Retrieved from

http://www.doi.gov/index.cfm.

U.S. Forest Service (n.d.) Mission, Motto, Vision, and Guiding Principles. In U.S. Forest

Service>About Us-Mission. Retrieved from http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/mission.shtml.

Westra, L. (2011). The Earth Charter: from global ethics to international law instrument. In L. P.

Pojman & P. Pojman (Eds.), Environmental ethics: Readings in theory and application (6th

ed., pp. 606-613). Boston, MA: Wadsworth, Inc.

Cave - EVSP508 Final Paper

Documents

Transcript of Cave - EVSP508 Final Paper