I. Environmental impact as an interdisciplinary problem
Evaluating the environmental impact of public or private works has various scopes that must be established for a proper understanding of the subject. In the first place, when we refer to the environment we are not referring only to the physical environment (which makes life possible in all its forms) but also to living beings, in particular -but not only- to human beings and their social relationships in a broad sense, emerging from community life, that is, economic, political, cultural relations, etc. In other words, the environment is everything: the physical environment that makes life possible and life itself. On the other hand, when we speak in Castilian environmental language (an expression still mostly used), we will verify that consciously or unconsciously we are referring to “something” different or external to ourselves.In the first case - environment - we start from a systemic, global, integral vision; the physical environment is an instrument but also an end in itself. In the second - environment - we refer to an external, partial, fragmented problem; the physical environment is only instrumental. This is not a semantic question but refers to different conceptions of the problem in question. Nor does it mean that everyone who uses the term "environment" presupposes a correct or appropriate position in relation to a specific problem and, on the contrary, those who refer to "environment" have questionable positions. We raise the question with the modest aim that it is convenient, when we express ourselves, to avoid ambiguities or misconceptions; for example,"Human environment" could seem to us an expression that is almost - to put it in some way - progressive and, nevertheless, it carries an implicit homocentric conception. The environment is human, animal, plant and physical.
Secondly, referring to public or private works - albeit of a certain magnitude - means speaking of economic acts, of economics. And here it is necessary to clarify that the question does not refer to what we commonly understand by economy, that is, the actions that relate certain means (material, monetary, etc.) with a certain end (normally, profit maximization). If the purpose is to evaluate the environmental impact of certain public or private works that will foreseeably affect the surrounding environment, the procedure for preparing an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) has been generalized in all countries; in this case, the profit objective appears - or should appear - in the background and outside the EIA itself.This time we are interested in analyzing the EIA in a global sense and not detailed in its procedural technical aspects. In reality, if the above-mentioned conception of the environment is agreed, we should evaluate the environmental impact of all - or almost all - economic acts, since directly or indirectly they are carried out using means that modify the environment. The economy itself should stand the test of an EIA. And this is not a mere potential expression of wishes for contemporary life, but it would be applicable to the history of humanity and to the environmental effects of the search for human sustenance and of a certain context of coexistence at all times. On the other hand,The environmental impact of human economic action in the aforementioned sense has ethical implications both in relation to inert nature and to living beings and, within the latter, to humanity, both in relation to current and future generations. In reality, there are innumerable relational combinations between nature and living beings on which an ethical reading can be applied: Is there an order of pre-eminence between living beings in relation to the use of nature? Are future human generations not entitled to certain environmental conditions? Is the exploitation of nature based in the same way when it comes to human sustenance, that is, objective needs for survival, as when it comes to the satisfaction of unlimited ends, that is,subjective desires? Economic acts in general, and works that can be applied to an EIA, are not ethically neutral. Within the process that constitutes an EIA, precisely all those aspects related to the evaluation that involve value judgments have to do in some way with ethics. Evaluation, precisely, is not mere description but rather evaluation, validation.
The foregoing leads us to conclude in the first instance that environmental problems in general and, in particular, an EIA cannot be approached from the application of fragmented knowledge or knowledge, but rather that an evaluation to be such must simultaneously apply an economic analysis and an ethical analysis together with the effects on the physical environment. We then see that this interdisciplinary cross-section of knowledge involved in the EIA problem - environment, economics and ethics - provides us with the appropriate framework to introduce ourselves to the study of the environmental impact of human activity.
Our purpose is to reflect on the relationships between the economy, the environment and ethics. Starting from the relatively recent irruption of the environmental issue in contemporary society, we will try to analyze the ethical-economic implications and interrelationships of human actions. In this framework, let us clarify from the beginning the scope that we give to the three problems involved. In economics, we are interested in analyzing the motivations and conditioning of human behavior in the achievement of needs and desires. In environmental matters, we will emphasize the finite nature of the natural world. Finally, with regard to ethics - philosophical reflection on morals and customs - it is worth highlighting, on the one hand, the implicit valuation of nature (landscape, natural resources, air, living beings, etc.) in economic acts, and on the other, the degree of significance that we grant to future generations in terms of their rights to have a certain environment, suitable to provide the necessary resources for a reasonable quality of life.
II. Economy, ethics and environment
The ethical-economic-environmental question in contemporary society can be summed up in a single question: how is it possible to reconcile a finite environment with human needs that are considered unlimited? Based on this question -and its possible answers- we will be able to advance in the analysis of the motivations and conditioning of economic behavior - framed in the fulfillment of the natural imperative of human sustenance - and differentiate authentic vital needs from mere circumstantial desires, for the purposes of minimize the environmental impact of our actions and optimize the use of non-renewable natural resources and relative renewal.
That the planet Earth we inhabit is finite would seem to be a fact of reality that would not require further explanation. And yet, given the growing environmental deterioration, it is necessary to start from this obvious fact to become aware of the magnitude of the problem. In reality, we must not only relate a limited world to the material needs of human sustenance, but we must also take into account the needs of “non-human sustenance”, that is, of the entire biological spectrum: animals and plants. In short, the terrestrial finitude forces to guarantee the material conditions of possibility of life in all its forms.
It would not seem that there is a reasonable argument to contradict such a statement, unless we believe that human beings, or a part of them, in their eagerness to satisfy not only their needs, but also any of their desires, have the right to the exploitation of nature without limits, and without taking into account the needs of the rest of life forms. Even in this case, which in fact is not too far removed from the current reality in which we live, there remain, among others, two important questions that question such attitude. In the first place, humanity as such requires, for its own biological subsistence, a physical environment minimally suitable for non-human life forms; Furthermore, it is materially impossible and environmentally disastrous - apart from other reasons,no less important- generalize the level of consumption of natural resources and the polluting impact of the countries of the North. As a consequence of the latter, it does not follow that the countries of the South should give up their right to reach a reasonable level of development for their populations, but rather that the decrease in voracity of some sustains the increase in resources available for the human sustenance and a life worthy of others.
To deal with the problem of human sustenance is to go into the economic problem (POLANYI). Indeed, what is the economy about if it is not about human sustenance? The economy, in the broadest sense, takes care (or should take care), nothing more (and nothing less) of human sustenance. This is probably the simplest - but no less profound - definition of economics. In any case, we believe that it is the most appropriate definition of the economy from an environmental perspective, since it is about the human sustenance of all and not the human voracity of some. On the other hand, this characterization of the economy, or if you like, of the economic problem, has the enormous advantage of being substantive and not formal: human sustenance = human needs. Another no less advantage of the characterization of the economic problem as human sustenance,It is precisely its direct allusion to sustainability: it is not just about - making use of the environment and available natural resources - satisfying the vital needs of present generations, but also those of future generations.
Let us now look at human needs in more detail. There are two aspects of the problem that are relevant here: what are human needs and whether or not they have a limit. These two aspects are interrelated, that is, we have to analyze them together since the characterization of one of them implies that of the other.
If we hold that human needs are those that, through their satisfaction and through the work of society as a whole, provide or guarantee a dignified life for the entire human species at the beginning of the third millennium - a reasonable and hardly questionable proposition - we are referring to in principle, to the needs of food, clothing, housing and basic services, health, basic education and recreation. They are vital needs and their satisfaction has a limit, above which we enter the subjective and discretionary field of desires (Cf. ARISTOTLE, Politics, Book I, Chap. 8 and 9). There are no unlimited vital needs because it would be a contradiction; if they are needs, they cannot be unlimited, since they are extinguished, exhausted, limited, in the very act of their satisfaction.
What are limitless are human desires: having access to a standard home with its basic services means having satisfied (limited) the need for housing; A weekend home or a home for vacations are options - not necessarily questionable - on a subjective scale of desires that can become unlimited, depending on what is normally designated as a scale of values or life project.
In this context, it is reasonable to maintain that in the global interrelation of needs, desires and finite resources, the latter should be destined primarily to the satisfaction of needs.
Finally, we must take into account the material resources that nature provides us for our livelihood - vital needs - and satisfy our desires, that is, the available natural resources, in view of the current state of nature as a consequence of its exploitation by part of humanity, especially in the last 250 years.
Considering energy sources of fossil origin - coal, gas and oil - as non-renewable resources, does not deserve further explanation; The same can be said for mineral resources in general. Here, the argument that with new technologies in the future we will be able to detect new reserves or exploit those that today are uneconomic, is weak or, in any case, of limited validity in time: the finiteness of resources is unchangeable. We must also mention, that the loss of biodiversity can be equated with the depletion of non-renewable resources, with the difference that it would be a more serious event, if we admit to assigning life –in any of its forms- greater consideration than matter inert. In this case, scientific knowledge can play a determining role,aware that in certain cases genetic technologies may be applied in the future, currently undergoing experimentation, for the preservation of species.
Special attention should be given to the case of natural resources that until a few years ago were indisputably considered renewable: air, land and water. Clean air - as opposed to polluted air - is far from being a renewable resource today. The desertification process renders vast geographic areas unrecoverable, until yesterday arable land. Drinking water, or easily drinkable, will probably be the most scarce vital resource in the coming years.
It follows from the foregoing that considering natural resources as renewable today is, strictly speaking, incorrect. Today they are, or are on the way to being, all non-renewable.
On the other hand, the intrinsic value of natural resources transcends to some extent the national borders of countries. As part of the planetary environment they are presented to us as a global issue for the whole of humanity; it is an increasingly recognized fact and much more it will be in the future. But this environmental globality is in contradiction with the particularity of the nationalities that today coexist in the world, in particular, the economic actions that modify the environment that take place in each country in particular. The global character of environmental problems - in particular, sustainability, and within it,the care for the rights and interests of future generations - is only and necessarily compatible with an awareness of humanity that on this finite planet we are all “citizens of the world”. Of course, there is a greater degree of responsibility of the countries (and social sectors) with greater material wealth and which in turn are the main polluters and consumers of natural resources. Needless to say, the importance of transmitting this elementary principle, especially from the beginning of schooling (NUSSBAUM).especially since the beginning of schooling (NUSSBAUM).especially since the beginning of schooling (NUSSBAUM).
The issue of world citizenship is a question already raised by the Stoics. Recently, the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum, has reframed the problem from a perspective of great interest to all those concerned about the environment. Specifically, the author questions the local patriotism of her country (USA), and by extension of all the rich countries (and sectors) and, among other examples, addresses the environmental issue: “The air doesn't care about national borders. This simple fact can help children learn to recognize that, like it or not, we live in a world in which the destinies of nations are closely related to each other in terms of basic raw materials and survival itself. … Whatever explanation we finally adopt on these issues,any self-righteous deliberation on ecology (as well as on food supply and population) requires global planning, global understanding, and recognition of a shared future. '
III. Environmental impact and Climate Change
We said above that all economic activity should withstand the test of an Environmental Impact Assessment. Well, a certain way to do it is to delve into the problem of Climate Change on the planet as a product of human economic action since the mid-18th century.
The terrestrial climate is the result of the interaction of different variables considered as temperature, level of precipitation, atmospheric pressure, etc. Given that when analyzing Climate Change (CC) the most relevant problem is the increase in temperature -that is why we speak of global warming- on the planetary surface, it is necessary to explain how this process originates naturally on planet Earth in its interaction with the Sun.
If the Earth did not have an atmosphere (nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, ozone, water vapor, etc.) the solar radiation that it would receive would be reflected on the Earth's surface and would bounce back into space; the average temperature of our planet would be -18º; unfeasible for life. It is the atmosphere that operates as a protective layer, allowing solar radiation (short wave) to pass through to the earth's surface and also reflect and bounce back into space, not all, but part of the solar radiation that we receive as terrestrial radiation (from long wave). In a simplified way, during the Earth day, most of the solar energy passes through the atmosphere - although a fraction bounces back into space - and reaches the planetary surface; during the night, most of the solar energy arriving on Earth bounces back into space,although a fraction is retained by the atmosphere with its "natural" greenhouse gases that compose it, allowing it to continue heating the earth's surface during the night period. It is this mechanism that allows the earth's average temperature to be 15º, which makes life and its evolution possible as we know it. This "natural" greenhouse effect of planet Earth, differentiates us from the rest of the planets in the Solar System and from any other order.This "natural" greenhouse effect of planet Earth, differentiates us from the rest of the planets in the Solar System and from any other order.This "natural" greenhouse effect of planet Earth, differentiates us from the rest of the planets in the Solar System and from any other order.
On the other hand, the “natural” greenhouse effect has been enhanced in the last 2 centuries with the appearance of greenhouse gases (GHG) originated by economic activity, particularly since the Industrial Revolution. There begins the massive use of fossil fuels as a source of energy: coal, oil and natural gas. In just over 200 years, humanity has consumed most of the non-renewable natural resources - fossils - generated naturally in hundreds of millions of years.
The burning of these non-renewable natural resources in different human activities such as agricultural and industrial production, transportation, air treatment, etc., produces most of the carbon dioxide -CO2- which in turn is the main component of the GHG, greenhouse gases "artificial" and added to the "natural" described above, forming an exacerbated greenhouse effect that today causes global warming of the planet.
The concentration of CO2 in the pre-industrial stage was less than 300 ppm (parts per million) and has had a sustained growth up to the present, which has caused an increase in the average temperature of the planet by close to 1º C. The trend is frankly growing and will bring consequences that affect human life whatever the regions we consider. All countries contribute to the CC change, both in the North and in the South, although not all do so in the same proportion and not all are affected with the same consequences.
From a historical perspective, the environmental problem of the increase in GHGs due to the exponential consumption of natural resources, especially non-renewable ones, emerged, as we have said, during the 18th century with the Industrial Revolution. The environmental degradation that occurred and the associated CC has been independent of the forms of organization that have occurred in the economic systems that have been in force since then, including all variants of capitalism and socialism or, if you prefer, all centralized or decentralized economies. What can be seen is that there are significant relative differences between countries regarding how much they pollute and, furthermore, certain countries -Japan, Nordic European countries- achieve certain economic and social objectives with lower environmental cost in relation to other countries.
Human activity from the Industrial Revolution to the present has enhanced the natural phenomenon of the Greenhouse Effect, causing global warming of the planet as a result of the intensive use of fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) and the consequent increase in the emission of polluting gases from the atmosphere. conforming an "artificial" Greenhouse Effect with consequences at a physical level (droughts, floods, rise in sea level), biological (loss of biodiversity, affecting natural rhythms) and socioeconomic (food insecurity, mass migration, health). It should be clarified that when we refer to the industrialization process that began in the 18th century that we know as the Industrial Revolution,It does not mean that it is characterized as a specific historical and causal event of subsequent climatic effects, but rather as a historical process of systemic social transformation (political, economic, scientific, technological) that began at that time and that continues to our days; with all its advantages and progress, but also with its social and environmental costs, among the latter, CC is probably the main one.
The civilizational changes that have been taking place, even if you look at it, is that since the end of the 18th century they actually make up a change of era that we do not notice if we do not keep certain events in mind: until just two and a half centuries ago our civilization was settled basically in rural areas; only one single energy was known: fire; there was only one mechanical energy: the muscles. (Teilhard de Chardin, "The Human Phenomenon"; Taurus, Madrid, 1967, 4th. Edition, ch.3). This new civilizational era that we are still going through means that “we are just getting rid of the last moorings that still held us back in the Neolithic Age” (Ibid.; paraphrasing the French prehistorian Henri Breuil).
The human progress achieved in less than 3 centuries is immense. But it has had its planetary costs, the main one probably being Climate Change. It is imperative to minimize the environmental impact of economic activity, especially if we become aware that short-term decisions have an effect in the long or very long term. In other words, although in a hypothetical way today humanity as a whole ceases to cause the aforementioned “artificial” greenhouse effect and the associated CC, totally by its economic activity, it would not return to a natural atmospheric balance for several generations human.
It would be a mistake to consider that the solutions to avoid or reduce CC will only come from the scientific and / or technological field. Here again the question arises that in the face of a crucial environmental issue for humanity like the one we are dealing with, it is necessary to address it in an interdisciplinary way. Energy-saving technologies or alternative energies are part of the solution, but they are not the solution, among other things, due to the magnitude of the problem. A good start would be to reflect on deeper issues, such as the scope of satisfying the authentic needs for a dignified life for all human beings with its consequent environmental cost in terms of the inevitable pollution caused according to the current state of scientific and technological knowledge..Sooner rather than later it will be necessary to differentiate the environmental cost (unavoidable) of satisfying these needs from the environmental cost (avoidable) of satisfying the excessive desires of only a minority part of humanity.
IV. Scope and limitations of the Environmental Impact Assessment
Finally, let's say that the Environmental Impact Assessment has amply proven to be a valid and proven instrument in all countries, even beyond the modalities of their respective economic systems. But it is necessary to recognize, in many cases, its limitations. In fact, in the case of private projects -the majority, in the current world economic context- it is the client company that hires consultants who prepare an EIA that will then be presented by the corresponding government or regulatory body. And here is the problem, beyond the professional ethics that the hired consultants are assumed to have. The relationship between who pays and who has to provide a service can create an interested, non-objective or influencing relationship. In the evaluation itself,For example, many “gray areas” may appear or when considering certain assumptions for certain future risk variables, questionable criteria of discretion may be applied. We all know what we are talking about and precisely these circumstances reflect the limitations of the EIA as a valid instrument to anticipate, warn or mitigate unwanted environmental effects by the community and, it is assumed, by the respective government. To be more specific, let's take for example the last two global environmental disasters: the explosion of British Petroleum's oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico and the collapse of Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant.Many “gray areas” may appear or when considering certain assumptions for certain future risk variables, debatable criteria of discretion may be applied. We all know what we are talking about and precisely these circumstances reflect the limitations of the EIA as a valid instrument to anticipate, warn or mitigate unwanted environmental effects by the community and, it is assumed, by the respective government. To be more specific, let's take for example the last two global environmental disasters: the explosion of British Petroleum's oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico and the collapse of Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant.Many “gray areas” may appear or when considering certain assumptions for certain future risk variables, debatable criteria of discretion may be applied. We all know what we are talking about and precisely these circumstances reflect the limitations of the EIA as a valid instrument to anticipate, warn or mitigate unwanted environmental effects by the community and, it is assumed, by the respective government. To be more specific, let's take for example the last two global environmental disasters: the explosion of British Petroleum's oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico and the collapse of Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant.warn or mitigate unwanted environmental effects by the community and, presumably, by the respective government. To be more specific, let's take for example the last two global environmental disasters: the explosion of British Petroleum's oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico and the collapse of Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant.warn or mitigate unwanted environmental effects by the community and, presumably, by the respective government. To be more specific, let's take for example the last two global environmental disasters: the explosion of British Petroleum's oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico and the collapse of Japan's Fukushima nuclear power plant.
According to the analysis on the environmental impact of the platform sent by BP to the US government in 2009, the oil company assured that an accident that could damage the coastline, coasts and fauna of the Gulf of Mexico states was "very little probable or impossible ”. The document stated that, although a hypothetical spill could cause slight damage, "the distance from the platform to the coast (77 kilometers) and the response mechanisms ensure that there will be no significant impacts" (www.ecoticias.com). the degree of probability or impossibility? What were the arguments to ensure that in the event of a "hypothetical spill" the effects would not reach the coast?
Regarding the Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant, the question that arises is very simple: knowing that the territory of Japan has one of the highest seismological risks in the world, how was the resistance of the Power Plant defined at a certain level of the seismological scale at the time? of its construction? Was the higher construction cost to ensure the maximum possible protection been compared with the economic and human cost of an earthquake such as the one that occurred?
The only way to avoid the problems raised is probably to change the relationship of payment for the consideration of services existing between the client -generally a private company with interests that may not coincide with those of the community- and an environmental consultant. It would be feasible to implement, or at least discuss in the broadest possible way, a sequence of actions like the one listed below:
- A private company decides to implement a project with an environmental impact and agrees with the government entity responsible for the cost of evaluating said impact. This company, like all companies in the same situation, deposits the amount corresponding to the cost with the government entity. of the EIA to be carried out The government entity calls a national or international public tender for EIA consultants and proceeds to the selection Said entity - in defense of the interests of the community - is the one that ultimately pays the consultant who will be obliged to present an objective study of EIA according to the current state of knowledge, being responsible for its future consequences for unforeseen events that should reasonably have been taken into account.
It is not a simple issue but it is relevant and requires a broad discussion from all sectors of society interested in such an important issue (legislators, public and private entities, NGOs, professional associations, consultants, etc.)
Bibliography
- BUNGE Mario (1982), "Economics and Philosophy"; Tecnos, Madrid.FAZIO Horacio (2005), “Economic rationality and environment: means, ends and time”; Doctoral thesis, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, University of Buenos Aires; unpublished (forthcoming publication by EUDEBA under the title of “Economy, Ethics and Environment”) FAZIO Horacio (2010), “Challenges of the XXI century: Climate Change and its consequences in living conditions”, in “Crisis, Transformation and Growth ”, Daniel Filmus (Coordinator); EUDEBA.NUSSBAUM Martha C. (1999), «The limits of patriotism», Paidós, Barcelona;. POLANYI Karl (1994), "The sustenance of man"; Mondadori, Barcelona;, 1994.
