MODULE 2: Environmental Racism

Please sit in reporting groups

 AGENDA

1. Recap: environmental justice module
2. Cole and Foster

---

Module 3: Environmental justice

Three theories of environmental injustice:

1. Robert Bullard & Luke Cole and Sheila Foster:  environmental racism
2. Peter Wenz next time: violations of PCBB (we'll see what this is)
3. Kyle Whyte: kinship disruption

They all agree:

1. Environmental injustice is a major problem in the world today
2. Environmentalists should be fighting against environmental injustice

But each theory looks at a different facet of environmental injustice.

• You could think all three are real...or two...or one...or none

_________________________

Environmental Racism 

Starting point: racial disparities

• Bullard, "The Mountains of Houston"
• Dozens of examples in Bullard's SMU slideshow
• Bullard: racial disparities are greater than economic disparities and not entirely explained by economic disparities
• What's the evidence?
• Not much in "Mountains of Houston" article
• Cole and Foster discuss in first four pages
• Here's Appendix A
• Also Bullard's website -- 18 books, hundreds of articles

Next question: should we interpret the disparities as environmental racism?

_________________________

5 minute group meetings --

Unfinished reporting groups--environmental orgs, geoengineering, faking nature, rewilding, recycling

• Finalize assignments, using the reporting doc
• I will touch base with each group

Finished reporting groups--invasive, endangered, population, water

• Browse the evidence about racial disparities
• Discuss: should we grant there are racial disparities that go beyond economic disparities.

_________________________

Cole & Foster: yes, the disparities should be construed as environmental racism

• Luke Cole (environmental activist) 
• Sheila Foster (law professor now at Georgetown)

From the Ground Up: Environmental Racism and the Rise of the Environmental Justice Movement (2001)

They focus on Covanta trash incinerator in Chester, Pennsylvania--biggest one in the country--protests continue today -- article

_________________________

Cole and Foster's main claims 

1. There are racial disparities in living environments that go beyond income disparities 
• Evidence (above)
2. Racial disparity beyond income disparity is not enough to prove racism
• Could conceivably be an innocent pattern
• What are some innocent disparities?
3. To count as environmental racism, a racial disparity has to be caused by racism
4. The classic case of "caused by racism" is when siting decisions are made with racist intentions (Bullard calls this PIBBY--put it in Blacks' back yards).
5. But more commonly disparities are caused by a more "subtle and structural" sort of racism (p. 64)

_________________________

Enter: the skeptic Cole and Foster are (implicitly) responding to.  The skeptic grees with with 1-4, but not 5.

Skeptical argument #1: lifestyle choices (EPA 1992)

1. Racial disparities are mostly caused by lifestyle choices.
2. If they're caused by lifestyle choices, they're not caused by racism.  THEREFORE
3. Environmental disparities are not caused by racism

EPA's examples 

1. Minorities are disproportionately exposed to hazards because more choose to live in cities
2. Latinos are disproportionately exposed to pesticides because more Latinos choose farm labor.
3. Asians are disproportionally exposed to contaminated fish because more Asians choose to eat more fish.

C&F REPLY:   We have to ask why? See p. 59A

_________________________

Skeptical argument #2: Market forces

1. Landfills, petrochemical plants, incinerators, etc., are built, which lowers rents; lower-income people then move in, who are disproportionally non-white.
2. Those are "market forces" not racism. THEREFORE,
3. Environmental disparities are not caused by racism.

C&F REPLY: What's their reply?

_________________________

Skeptical argument #3: No racist intentions

1. To sue for environmental discrimination, you must show that a particular person  had racist intentions.
2. Explicit racist intentions are uncommon today. THEREFORE,
3. Environmental disparities are usually not caused by racism.

C&F REPLY: 

1. As a legal matter, yes, intentional discrimination must be shown for a successful lawsuit. (see p. 63 A)
2. "the nature of racism has become appreciably more subtle and structural" (p. 64)
3. Spatial segregation of racial groups is ubiquitous, not innocent, and rooted in racism

_________________________

Segregation Info

• Segregation of Dallas
• Plumer and Popovicn, "How Decades of Racist Housing Policy Left Neighborhoods Sweltering" (New York Times, Aug. 24, 2020)-
• Richard Rothstein, The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America

MODULE 2: Environmental Racism

 AGENDA

1. Population debate follow up
2. Reporting groups (5 minutes or so)
3. Environmental injustice

---

Population debate follow up

1. Lots of empirical issues
2. A key conceptual issue not dealt with: 

Does adding population add intrinsic value to the world, as Toby Ord argues?

_________________________

Finished reporting groups--invasive, endangered, population, water

• Discuss the Ord question, using the workbook

Unfinished reporting groups--environmental orgs, geoengineering, faking nature, rewilding, recycling

• Finalize assignments, using the reporting doc
• If you have time, discuss the Ord question, using the workbook

_________________________

Module 3: Environmental injustice 

Some environmental wrongs are wrong but not injustices

• cutting down a beloved tree for no reason
• hunting an endangered species to extinction
• polluting a whole city's water supply

Some environmental wrongs are injustices

• policies that are unfair to certain groups

_________________________

Plan

(A) Alleged forms of environmental injustice

1. Environmental racism  (Feb 19, 21)
2. Principle of commensurate benefits and burdens (Feb 24, 26)
3. Kinship disruption theory (Feb 28)

(B) Water injustices - Mar 3

(C) Should environmentalists focus on injustice? - Mar 5

_________________________

Environmental racism

Today: racial disparities in the distribution of burdens and benefits 

Friday: but is it really racism? 

Today's author: Robert Bullard, "father of the environmental justice movement"

_________________________

Racial disparities

A. WASTE SITES IN HOUSTON (Bullard, "The Mountains of Houston") -- watch video up to 3:45

Background

1. 1979--white city council plans "Whispering Pines" landfill in Northwood Manor, a middle class 82% Black neighborhood in Houston
2. A class action suit was filed against the city--Bean vs. Southern Waste Management
3. Dr. Bullard, a sociologist, was asked to study waste patterns in Houston to support the plaintiffs
4. Blacks made up 25% of Houston's population, but 100% of landfills were in Black neighborhoods
5. Other waste management sites also disproportionally in Black neighborhoods
6. "This city siting pattern in turn set the stage for private waste disposal firms to follow" in later years. (Bullard p. 2)
7. Also talks about incinerators, waste transfer stations, recycling facilities (dirty vs. clean), illegal dumping, the priorities of white-led environmental groups like the Sierra Club
8. What did you learn from this article?

B. OTHER DISPARITIES--DR. BULLARD'S TALK AT SMU in 2023

1. Heat islands (36, 40)
2. Aftermath of natural disasters (45)
3. Living near petrochemical plants and heavy industry (25-29)

C. BLACKOUTS IN TEXAS, FEB 2021 (NYT) (More info) (more photos)

D. WATER QUALITY  (Benton Harbor, Michigan, vs. St. Joseph, Michigan)

E. LIVING NEAR GREEN SPACE (source for image below) (NYT article)

---

Next question

1. When are disparities "just disparities"
2. When are they unjust/racist?

Next Reading: Cole and Foster, Environmental Racism

MODULE 2: Population debate

 AGENDA

1. Monday: population debate
2. Wednesday: start discussing environmental justice, garbage disparities
3. Also Wednesday: opportunity for reporting groups to meet, if needed
4. Friday: garbage disparities, continued

Debate doc

MODULE 2: More people

 AGENDA

1. Toby Ord
2. Get ready for debate Monday -- we'll decide on the topic at the end of class
3. Return quizzes

_________________________

Toby Ord, "Underpopulation or overpopulation?"

• ethicist at Oxford
• wrote a book called The Precipice about the major threats facing humanity
• article draws on an area of philosophy called "population ethics"

He is addressing people who worry about overpopulation

_________________________

Recap: two sets of worries

1960s concerns about overpopulation

Jan 11, 1960

1. Focus: high birthrate in very poor countries
2. Famine relief coming from rich countries
3. Resources will be depleted as a result (like the pasture)
4. Garrett Hardin, Paul Ehrlich, Kenneth Boulding, ZPG, etc.

2000s concerns about overpopulation

The overpopulation project

1. Focus: population in affluent countries
2. High consuming people, high consuming offspring

_________________________

Ord: all these worriers are thinking about population in the wrong way

We should look at COSTS of more people but also BENEFITS

• Intrinsic benefits of additional population -- value of the extra lives themselves
• Instrumental benefits of additional population -- value added in other ways

_________________________

Instrumental benefits

1. Material goods (a hammer, a donut)--"each hammer benefits a single user, so its value is roughly independent of the world's population" (Ord p. 3)
2. Information goods (song, book) -- "the value of an information good often increases with the size of the global population" (Ord p. 3)

_________________________

Intrinsic benefits of more people

• adding a person to the world is adding the good stuff that will constitute the person's life, and most lives are net positive
• bigger population, bigger total amount of life-value 

An argument that extra people do add extra value

• Would it be good if the world's population were still 7 billion instead of 8 billion?
• The British Isles thought experiment -- read on p. 5

---

The plot thickens: what should we aim for, highest total value or highest average?

Problems with aiming for the highest average

1. What if people in cold countries are a little less happy.  
• They increase the total by reproducing
• But they bring down the average
2. On the average view they shouldn't reproduce
• which seems absurd

Problems with aiming for the highest total

1. If we keep doing that we could have this series--
• 8 billion ..... ave 7
• 9 billion ... ave 6
• 10 billion ... ave 5
• 11 billion ... ave 4
• 12 billion ... ave 3
2. On the total view we should keep going, even to the point of a huge population that's just barely happy
• which seems absurd

These are hard problems in population ethics!

_________________________

Our debate topic: Canvas

MODULE 2: Population trends

 PREVIEW

1. Friday: Toby Ord, "Underpopulation or Overpopulation?"
2. Monday: Debate -- on that topic
3. Today: population questions, tragedy of the commons

_________________________

RECAP

Commons problems

1. Shared pasture
2. Free parking 
3. National park access 
   
4. Dumping garbage 
5. Air pollution 
6. Water use 
7. Buffalo hunting 
8. Having children 

_________________________

Reports

What are the actual population trends today?

What are the factors that influence the birth rate?

1. Hardin's answer:  limitless desire for children, harnessed only by coercion
2. But....he overlooked other factors

_________________________

Links we might need

Population Growth

Population by age group

Births per woman

_________________________

If birthrates are falling and total population is going to stabilize, is overpopulation still an environmental problem?  WORKBOOK

MODULE 2: The tragedy of the commons

AGENDA

1. Encounters
2. Environmental news
3. Module 2

_________________________

Encounters...kinship?

• foundation of indigenous environmental ethics
• is it a good foundation? 
• can we look at nature this way?

_________________________

Environmental news

Drawings for Sad People

_________________________

Module 2: population

1. Population--fundamental topic with relevance to all our other topics
2. Tragedy of the commons -- also fundamental

Plan

1. Mon: Garrett Hardin (1968) -- population worries, predictions, proposals, "tragedy of the commons"
2. Wed: Population trends 55 years later  (reports)
3. Fri: Toby Ord (2014)--"Overpopulation or underpopulation?"

_________________________

Garrett Hardin, "The Tragedy of the Commons" (1968)

• Population fears on the 1960s
• Garrett Hardin, Paul Ehrlich, Kenneth Boulding (biologists, economists)
• Watch up to 3:21

 

---

Garrett Hardin's analysis of population growth: a tragedy of the commons

What is a commons?

Boston Common

The pasture example

• 10 shepherds share a pasture-- a "commons"
• Because it's a commons, depletion (the tragedy) is inevitable
• Why inevitable?
1. each shepherd keeps the whole benefit of adding one more sheep
2. each shepherd shares the cost (harm) of adding one more with the other 9
3. this means each has incentive to add more sheep
4. eventually there will be too many sheep and the pasture will be depleted (the tragedy)

---

Hardin's other examples of the "tragedy of the commons" -- remember, this is 1968

1. Free parking (commons = free spaces)
2. National park access (commons=park)
   
3. Dumping garbage (commons = streamm or lake)
4. Air pollution (commons = atmosphere)
5. Water use (commons = groundwater)
6. Buffalo hunting before ~1880 (commons = public herds)
7. Having children (commons = world plus food & health assistance)

---

How can the tragedy of the commons be avoided?

1. ETHICS. Hardin says ineffective.
2. COERCION. Hardin: "mutual coercion mutually agreed upon by the majority of people affected" (p. 1247).

Applications of coercion:

1. Free parking--parking meters
2. National park access--payment, reservations, timed entry
3. Dumping in stream--laws, fines
4. Air pollution--laws, regulations
5. Using up groundwater--limit water use (various laws in different states)
6. Buffalo over-kill--hunting permits
7. Reproducing...

Ethical approach to overpopulation

• 1960s ZPG movement--wrong to have more than 2 children
• Today--some people refrain for ethical reasons
• Are commons problems ever solved through ethics?

Coercive approach to overpopulation 

_________________________

A proposal from the 1960s 

• Kenneth Boulding, The Meaning of the Twentieth Century (1965) p. 135-136
• Cap and trade for reproduction
• Decide on cap--1, 2, 2.1, whatever, per person
• Women get the permits
• Unused permits can be sold or gifted
• Reproducing without a permit is prohibited--deterred through taxes, fines, imprisonment, what?

Real world coercion (not mutually agreed upon)

• Involuntary sterilization programs
• China's one-child policy (which came to an end) -- mutually agreed upon?

_________________________

Next--

1. Did population growth continue like the 60s authors predicted?
2. If not,  was that because of ethics OR coercion OR something else?
3. Are there now too many people? How many is too many?

MODULE 1: Kinship

 Agenda

1. Quiz
2. Kinship

_________________________

MODULE 1: Moral status

• What is the moral status of an eagle or a tree?
• What principles govern the way we treat an eagle or a tree?
• What is OUR relationship to the eagle or the tree?

Today: more about the relationship

_________________________

Kyle Powys Whyte, "Kinship and environmental justice"

• philosopher at Michigan State
• Native American, Potawatomi  (pot -a -WOT - a - me)
• draws on ideas from Robin Kimmerer, also Potawatomi, a botanist, and author of Braiding Sweetgrass  and The Service Berry.

Who are the Potawatomi?

• Potawatomi   -- one nation in Oklahoma, four in Michigan
• Whyte talk at the UN 

Topics in article--

• kinship (today)
• kinship-based account of environmental justice (module 3) 
• colonization -- removal from original lands (module 4)

_________________________

Kinship

"In general, kinship refers to qualities of the relationships we have with others--whether others are humans, plants, animals, fishes, insects, rocks, waterways, or forests" (p. 267)

"Kin relations are like ideal family or friendship bonds, and are composed of types of relationships and qualities of relationships.  In a good friendship, the friends may be mutually responsible, for example, to support each other's wellbeing. Mutual responsibility is a type of relationship--that is, a general category of a relationship.  But what makes this relationship truly a kinship relationship is if the mutual responsibility has certain inherent qualities. Qualities are dimensions of relationships like trust, consensuality, transparency, reciprocity, and accountability." (p. 267-268)

"Reciprocity is an important kinship quality. A bond has the quality of reciprocity when each relative (or freind) believes the others to be in a long-term gift-receiving and gift-giving relationships." (p. 268) 

Kinship relations can be with ... corn (Potawatomi), reindeer (Sami people in Siberia), potatoes (Quechua people in Andes)  (p. 269)

"Robin Kimmerer, speaking of ecosystems as 'the living world,' says that 'the living world is understood, not as a collection of exploitable resources, but as a set of relationships and responsibilities.  We inhabit a landscape of gifts peopled by nonhuman relatives, the sovereign beings who sustain us, including the plants' (Kimmerer, 208, p. 27)."  (p. 270)

"One way to understand environmental injustice is as an assault on kinship relationships." (p. 270). 

Maori (mow-ree) people of New Zealand -- Waikato river --  river is used for power, diverted, warmed, pumped -- disrupting the kinship relationship to the river  

_________________________

How can we eat and live, if we see nature this way?

Kimmerer -- "The Honorable Harvest" (40:50 - 46:48)

_________________________

Invitation: when you encounter plants, animals, even water, over the weekend--ask yourself if these kinship ideas resonate at all. What it would take to start seeing trees and squirrels as kin? 

MODULE 1: Species

Agenda

1. Lilly-Marlene Russow, "Why do species matter?"
2. Review a bit for quiz Friday -- see quiz tab above -- there's an overview of module one there
3. Next reading response is an annotation assignment -- see instructions

---

If we have obligations to individual animals, what about whole species?

2024 -- eagles plentiful -- should we help if nest falls?
1994 -- eagles rare -- should we help if nest falls?

_________________________

Suppose yes, we should preserve endangered species (so stronger duty to help the eagles in 1994)

1. WHY?  What's that based on? How is that possible to have duties toward whole species, considering only individuals have sentience, interests, a good of their own? 
2. WHICH? Do we have the same obligations to preserve every endangered species?

---

Lily-Marlene Russow, "Why Do Species Matter?"

"Some test cases" (p. 138-139)

• Trying to show that our concern for species is at least uneven and complicated
• Will help her develop her own answer to our questions.

---

Russow's answer to our questions--

Annotated reading

p. 143-144 (passages A, B, C, D)

p. 142 (passage E)

THE WHY QUESTION

1. Endangered species should be protected because we value future encounters with individual members of the species
2. We value those encounters because of our aesthetic experiences (of many kinds)

THE WHICH QUESTION

1. Different species have unequal aesthetic value, so aren't equally worth preserving.
2. Tigers worth preserving...we want to keep seeing them
3. But maybe not the snail darter!

_________________________

Russow: traditional answers to WHY QUESTION

1. Stewardship answer
• objection: doesn't explain why species are worth preserving
2. Extrinsic value of species--(a) valuable as a warning signal, (b) valuable for ecosystems
• various objections
3. Intrinsic value of species
• objection: how much intrinsic value, what should we give up to preserve a species?
4. Aesthetic value of species
• almost affirms, but see below

_________________________

The Endangered Species Act (1973)

1. Does not judge some species more worthy than others
2. Covers plants and animals that are threatened or endangered
3. listed species -- include delta smelt and devil's hole pupfish
4. For listed species, (a) federal government can't take actions that further endanger, and (b) harming is prohibited on public and private land, and (c) US Fish and Wildlife must design and implement a recovery plan
5. Passed with broad bipartisan support in 1973, signed by President Nixon

_________________________

Reports--

1. Devil's hole pup fish -- the sort of species worth preserving?
2. Delta smelt -- the sort of species worth preserving?
3. Snail darters -- really a species?

_________________________

Politics -- should water be diverted from the Delta to benefit farmers in the Central Valley, even at the cost of delta smelt extinction?

1. 2019, Trump ridicules protection of delta smelt
2. 2025, Trump blames LA fires on keeping water in delta for the sake of the worthless delta smelt
3. 2024, Wall Street Journal editorial critical of diverting water to preserve delta smelt
4. Conservative commentary about delta smelt
5. End of 2024, Democrats Governor Gavin Newsom and President Biden also reduce water in delta
6. Friends of delta smelt

MODULE 1: Ecosystems

THIS WEEK

1. RR feedback
2. Today: Aldo Leopold's land ethic, reports
3. Wednesday: Endangered species, reports, a little reviewing for quiz
4. Friday: quiz and Kyle White (kinship)

_________________________

RR feedback

• review the two checklists at the top of every assignment--requirements, mechanics
• Reading philosophy (tab above)

_________________________

What is the land ethic?

1. Reading from The Sand County Almanac 
2. Aldo Leopold website
3. workbook 

_________________________

Native vs. invasive species

• invasive species reports
• http://eattheinvaders.org/

_________________________

Other views: should we kill barred owls to save spotted owls?

1. Peter Singer -- Utilitarianism
2. Richard Taylor 

The competing claims of owls

1. Barred owls--want to flourish, need more habitat
2. Spotted owls -- want to flourish, hanging onto current habitat

Wild life managers as adjudicators--does any principle apply?

1. self-defense 
2. proportionality 
3. distributive justice 
4. minimum wrong
5. restitution 

MODULE 1: Plants

Preview

1. Monday Feb 3: ecosystems (reporters)
2. Wednesday Feb 5: whole species (reporters)
3. Friday: Feb 7 short essay quiz on what we've done so far
4. Also Friday: article on kinship with nature

Reporting

1. Added some options for the population reporters
2. Made some suggestions for the water justice reporters

_________________________

Moral status

1. People
2. Animals
3. Plants
4. Ecosystems
5. Species

_________________________

Paul Taylor, "The Ethics of Respect for Nature" (1981)

• Article
• excerpt from book 

Environmental decisions involving plants (and people and animals) (book, p. 256)

_______________________

Respect for nature

An individual plant/animal has "a good of its own." Read p. 199 A&B

This doesn't require sentience or interests.  Read p. 199-200 C

He's talking about wild plants/animals, and not taking a stand on others.  Read p. 200 D

A thing with a good of its own has inherent worth, and therefore we owe it respect.  Read p. 201 E

Points later in reading: we and plants and animals are fellow members of one biotic community

---

Respecting a giant sequoia

   

 

_________________________

Wild vs. cultivated plants

Apple trees--wild (top) vs. cultivated (bottom)

Root stock + Grafting

---

Obligations to WILD plants and animals

We have prima facie obligations to wild plants and animals. Read p. 198 F

What does he mean by a "prima facie moral obligation"? At first glance. Not absolute. Could be overridden by other obligations. 

1. Prima facie obligation to tree
2. Prima facie obligation to a human being 

Bad ways to resolve conflicts

1. Humans are superior, so we win (Taylor: humans not superior)
2. Only humans have rights, so we win (Taylor: yes only humans have rights, which give us inviolability; but no that doesn't mean we always win)

Priority principles for resolving conflicts (Taylor, "Competing Claims" p. 263). 

A. The principle of self-defense
B. The principle of proportionality
C. The principle of minimum wrong
D. The principle of distributive justice
E. The principle of restitutive justice

 

---

Priority principle A: self-defense

Persons: pursuing life or other crucial goods

Plants/animals: pursuing life or other crucial goods by threatening humans

Principle: You can defend yourself in the least harmful way available

Applications

Which of these are allowed under the Self-defense Principle?

1. Shooting an attacking bear
2. Killing a bear that's on your property
3. Cutting down a wild tree that threatens to fall on someone
4. Using weed killer on wild poison ivy
5. Killing wild fish if I'm starving in the woods

---

Priority principle D: distributive justice

Persons: pursuing life or other crucial goods

Plants/animals: pursuing life or other crucial goods but not threatening humans

Principle: I should distribute seriously good things and bad things fairly.

Applications

1. Must kill fish to stay alive--may I?  Taylor says: It's not unfair to choose my own life.
2. Suppose I could kill a plant instead of a fish, would that be better?

---

Priority principle B: proportionality

Persons: pursuing something trivial

Plants/animals: pursuing life or other crucial goods and not threatening humans

Principle: I should give up trivial goods that are seriously costly for plants and animals.

Applications (all bad, says Taylor)

1. Cutting down wild redwoods to create beautiful furniture
2. Picking wildflowers for a bouquet
3. Killing wild animals for fun or trophies

---

Priority principle C: minimum wrong

Persons: pursuing something important, but not absolutely essential

Plants/animals: pursuing life or other crucial goods and not threatening humans

Principle: I can pursue such goals if I minimize the wrongs done to plants and animals as much as possible

Applications

1. Cutting down a forest to build an art museum? Ok if we build tall, to save trees
2. Cutting down trees to build apartments, an airport, etc.

---

Priority principle E: restitution

Persons: have harmed plants/animals despite following the other principles

Plants/animals: some are dead or have been harmed

Principle: I should make up for the harm by doing something good for plants/animals

Applications

1. After killing animal for food, perform acts of kindness.
2. After destroying forest for art museum, plant more trees.     

MODULE 1: Animals (continued)

 AGENDA

1. Reporting meetings
2. Palmer's view

_________________________

Summary of ideas in first part of Clare Palmer's article

_________________________

Palmer's View

Our conflicting attitudes

Attitudes toward wildebeest (it's plural!) crossing the Mara river.    

Attitudes towards pets in a natural disaster.   Hurricanes, fires.

NBC news

_________________________

Palmer asks: is it justifiable  to have these very different attitudes? Does it make sense?

Utilitarianism

Palmer's proposal

1. General obligations (to all sentient animals) 
• based on their nature, they do have moral status
• examples: shouldn't harm gratuitously, shouldn't kill for no good reason
2. Special obligations (just to specific animals)
• based on history, context, relationships
• you took responsibility for an animal
• you are responsible for an animal's problems
• protecting, assisting, saving...are special obligations
• two animals can have the same moral status, yet we can have different obligations to protect, assist, save

_________________________

Applications of Palmer's view:

Assisting wildebeest crossing Mara river (choose one)

1. Obligatory
2. Merely permissible (not obligatory, not wrong)
3. Wrong

Assisting pets harmed by the California fires (choose one)

1. Obligatory
2. Merely permissible (not obligatory, not wrong)
3. Wrong

Killing Marius

_________________________

Next part of Palmer's argument

So far it looks like she's saying we have have limited obligations to wild animals

1. Wild animals and their problems are not our responsibility, so we don't have to help with....
• predation
• infant mortality
• natural disasters
• accidents
2. BUT, due to anthropogenic (human-caused) problems for animals, of their problems ARE our responsibility

Palmer's main example: Climate change 

human behavior --> hotter, drier climate --> more wildfires --> wild animals injured by wildfires

 

how the LA wildfires are affecting wildlife and pets

human behavior -->  warmer weather in arctic --> less sea ice --> problems for polar bears, seals, walruses 

 

Hope for polar bears?