14. Ethical Issues In Sustainability of Agriculture & the Environment

1. 14. Ethical IssuesIn Sustainabilityof Agriculture & the Environment Larry D. Sanders Spring 2002 Dept. of Ag Economics Oklahoma State University

2. INTRODUCTION • Purpose: • to understand ethical issues related to agriculture and the environment • Learning Objectives: 1. To review the concept of sustainability with respect to agriculture & the environment. 2. To understand the alternative concepts of sustainability & respective criticisms. 3. To understand the ethical issues related to sustainability. 4. The concept of sustainability with respect to poor developing countries & the global system 5. The importance of long term thinking to avoid possibly irreversible or very costly damage & loss of life 6.To understand the keys to sustainable economic development.

3. Spaceship Earth . . . “We travel together, passengers on a little spaceship, dependent on its vulnerable reserves of air and soil; all committed for our safety to its’ security and peace; preserved from annihilation only by the care, the work, and, I will say, the love we give our fragile craft. We cannot maintain it half fortunate, half miserable, half confident, half despairing, half slave to the ancient enemies of man, half free in a liberation of resources undreamed of until this day. No craft, no crew can travel safely with such vast contradictions. On their resolution depends the survival of us all.” --Adlai Stevenson, 195?

4. How to Boil a Frog: “If you drop a frog in a pot of boiling water, it will of course frantically try to clamber out. But if you place it gently in a pot of tepid water and turn the heat on low, it will float there quite placidly. As the water gradually heats up, the frog will sink into a tranquil stupor, exactly like one of us in a hot bath, and before long, with a smile on its face, it will unresistingly allow itself to be boiled to death. . . . an example of the smiling-boiled-frog phenomenon, is provided by our own culture.” --”B” in The Story of B

5. Pre-Mechanical Revolution Farm (1940s) Diversified family farm Relatively small (200 ac?) Several farm enterprises (livestock, grain, vegetables, …) Self-sustaining, no off-farm income Present-Day Farm (2000s) Fewer people farming more acres fewer enterprises Many by managers, not families Farm populations down Higher yields Capital-intensive Dependent on chemicals, equipment, irrigation Off-farm income important Sustainable Agriculture: the Ideal “to live in harmony w/nature” or the Idea “to maintain profitable operation”?

6. “Sustainable” Agriculture grew out of concerns/claims with postwar US ag. . . • Human health & safety • The environment • Future availability of natural resources required for food production • Policies/technologies favor capital-intensive farming • Decrease profitability of mid-sized, family farms • Unintended consequences: • Polluted water • Depleted soil/energy resources • Habitat destruction • Unsafe food • Depopulated rural areas • Concentration of capital

7. Sustainable Ag as Alternative Assumes no Undesirable Consequences • Wes Jackson, New Roots for Agriculture • Ag failure part of broader spritual failure • Dominant value: pursuit of wealth & ethic of self-interest misses basic value of land • “Farm as food factory” vs. “Farm as hearth” • Soil as “placenta . . . living organism . . . is now dying. . . utterly senseless, & portends our own. . .” • “Alternative Agriculture”—perennial polyculture mimics natural prairie • Research to support perennialism, ag ecosystem, “domestic prairies” (The Land Institute) • Greed of conventional view vs. hearth as spiritual & technical alternative

8. Sustainable Ag as Alternative Assumes no Undesirable Consequences (cont.) • Miguel Altieri & Agroecology • Peasant farmers use sophisticated mix of crops/practices, limit risks of pests, drought, other natural disasters • Regional variation, local adaptation w/in unique ecosystems is “agroecology” • Scientific emphasis upon universal laws, replicability of experiments inappropriate for agriculture • Leads to elimination of sources of variability • Farms do better when crops adapt to unique local ecosystems .

9. Sustainable Ag as Alternative Assumes no Undesirable Consequences (cont.) • Miguel Altieri & Agroecology (continued) • Conventional practices profitable in short run lead to dependence upon • New science, technology • Agribusiness firms • Government support • Industrialized farming-friendly land/credit policies • Subsidized inputs (fertilizer, feed, chemicals, irrigation • Not internalizing environmental costs to society

10. Sustainable Ag as Alternative Assumes no Undesirable Consequences (cont.) • Miguel Altieri & Agroecology (continued) • Agroecology protects family farms • Industrial agriculture serves needs of scientists & agribusiness, not farmers • Research needed to meet local conditions of specific farms Note from TMR: Marxist overtones in rejecting need for introduced capital in production process

11. Sustainable Ag as Alternative Assumes no Undesirable Consequences (cont.) • The “Standard View” • Most involved in “Sustainable Agriculture” movement not as systematic as Jackson, Altieri in criticism • More pragmatic management perspective of “what works” • Based on concept that exploitation of natural resources must be sustainable (consider threshold levels) • Empirical facts don’t consider sustainable judgments • Need for land, farms, farm families, rural communities, banks, government to sustain certain farm systems w/o disintegration/ collapse

12. Sustainability Concept & the Questions Continue to Evolve . . . (continued) “ . . .sustainable development . . . meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.” 1987, Brundtland Commission • Which empirical views “right”? • Global Warming? • Conservation tillage? • Carbon sequestration? • Hazardous waste management? • Biodiversity? • The cost of “right” decision vs. “wrong” decision • Economic restructuring/loss vs. irreversibility

13. Sustainability Concept & the Questions Continue to Evolve . . . (continued) • R. Carson’s Silent Spring (1962) dire predictions of unsustainability w/chemical future vs. chemical company claims & later scientific studies • Economic development to sustain poor/hungry masses (“make the pie bigger”) vs. claims of over-population (Ehrlich, “spaceship Earth”), natural resource shortages (Meadows) & environmental catastrophe • Western, North, Developed, Industrialized, Wealthy countries vs. Eastern, Southern, Less Developed, Peasant, Poor countries • Progress & growth & development = Good & right? • Growth is relative, qualitative, sometimes inappropriate?

14. Sustainability Concept & the Questions Continue to Evolve . . . (continued) • Goodwin challenges GNP as appropriate measure of well-being • Measures wealth, not distributional equity • Masks moral issues • Utilitarian efficiency concept doesn’t answer critical questions (morality? Current vs. future generations? Impacts on nature?) • Technological Fix & unlimited substitutability (J. Simon) concepts allow optimistic view of exploitation of nature • Goodin, Beckerman-Daly essays challenge w/questions of “irreplaceability” & “irreversibility”; Should we trust the market & technology to always have a solution?

15. Sustainability Concept & the Questions Continue to Evolve . . . (continued) • Time factor & who’s deciding are critical • Human life spans necessarily relevant (even if anthropocentric) • Sustainability/alternative proponents (technological pessimists) may be wrong in next 50-100 years, but right in next 100-300 years • Is that relevant? (“so far, so good”) • “Tragedy of the Commons” vs. the “tyranny of private greed” challenges extremes of public social control & privatization • Open access externality vs. property rights

16. Sustainability Concept & the Questions Continue to Evolve . . . (continued) • VP: How to make sustainability concept an evaluation criterion? • What can be sustained vs. what ought to be sustained • Beckerman: because both fused together, “hopelessly blurred”, but need to answer both questions • Clarify what counts as relevant practice. • Should the “maximizing assumption” be discarded • Shiva: incompatible w/sustainability • Instrumental vs. intrinsic value • “Wrong jungle” vs. success of progress

17. TMR: Is sustainability the “right” criterion to evaluate agriculture? • If “Yes”--Historic examples: Babylon (irrigation fails); Chaco (over-population/weather change); Africa (desertification) • If “No—too strong”: some sustainable goals met while others violated • Example: Conservation tillage may cut soil erosion, but added use of chemicals may pollute environment, have lower profits • If “No—too weak”: doesn’t provide evaluative criterion for choices including ethical issues (“normative concept masquerading as a descriptive one”)

18. TMR: Evaluating Alternative Agriculture (not sustainable ag) • Alternative Ag attempts to: • Reduce use of purchased synthetic chemical inputs • Include such farm practices as • Crop rotations • Integrated pest management • Low-intensity animal production systems • Tillage/planting practices to conserve soil/water & control weeds • Promotes diversified, multi-enterprise farming • Promotes ag research needed to develop effective alternative ag practices

19. Some Anticipated Ethical Issues w/Alternative Agriculture • Costs to consumers? • Food costs may increase • Distribution questions • Food security threatened? • Land value changes? • Increased: could accelerate concentration • Decreased: could reduce wealth base for farmers • More labor in agriculture? • Lower income in rural communities? • More livestock on farms? • Competition with wildlife? • More regulation? • Limits choices?

20. Sustainable Agriculture Adapted by Commercial Agriculture . . . “An integrated system of plant & animal production practices having a site specific application that will, over the long term: satisfy human food & fiber needs; enhance environmental quality & the natural resource base upon which the agricultural economy depends; make the most efficient use of nonrenewable resources and on-farm resources and integrate, where appropriate, natural biological cycles & controls; sustain the economic viability of farm farm operation; and enhance the quality of life for farmers and society as a whole.” --The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, & Trade Act of 1990

21. Sustainable Development—USDAGuiding Principles (2000): • Sustainable Ag—USDA supports economic, environmental, & social sustainability of diverse food, fiber, agriculture, forest, & range systems. • Sustainable Forestry—USDA balances the goals of improved production & profitability, stewardship of natural resources & ecological systems, and enhancement of the vitality of rural communities. • Sustainable Rural Community Development—USDA integrates these goals into its policies and programs, particularly through interagency collaboration, partnerships and outreach.

22. Imperatives for Sustainable Systems Economy (efficiency) Environment (maintain/ enhance) Individual/ Community (cohesion) From S. Hackett

23. Sustainability: • Normative standard/social goal • Vision of the future • Iroquois Confederation • Evaluate decisions based on well-being of tribe 7 generations into future • More inclusive/comprehensive view of economic development/well-being • Whatever it takes to maintain the lives & livelihoods of people in the system From S. Hackett

24. Sustainability as an Ethical Standard • Individualism vs. interdependence • Need buy-in by key participants • Crosses disciplines • Concept of “multifunctionality” for sustaining farms and the environment

25. Energy Trends--Sustainable?(1990-2000 annual growth rates) • Wind Power (22%) • Solar (16%) • Geothermal (4%) • Oil Production (2%) • Hydro Power (2%) • Nuclear Power (1%) • Coal (0%)

29. Exponential Growth: the 29th Day “A French riddle for children illustrates another aspect of exponential growth--the apparent suddenness with which it approaches a fixed limit. Suppose you own a pond on which a water lily is growing. The lily plant doubles in size each day. If the lily were allowed to grow unchecked, it would completely cover the pond in 30 days, choking off other forms of life in the water. For a long time the lily plant seems small, & so you decide not to worry about cutting it back until it covers half the pond. On what day will that be? On the 29th day, of course. You have one day to save your pond.” (D. Meadows et al, 1972)

30. Exponential Growth & Doubling Time Growth Rate (%) Doubling Time (yrs) 0.1 700 0.5 140 1.0 70 4.0 18 7.0 10 10.0 7

31. Energy Reserves--Past Predictions Reserves • Meadows et al estimates of selected nonrenewable resource reserves, static vs. exponential (1972): • Natural Gas--38-22 years • Petroleum--31-20 years • Coal--2300-111 years • What did Meadows overlook or underestimate? OIL NATURAL GAS COAL 1992 1994 2083 time

32. Energy--Policy & Environment to achieve sustainability • National Energy Strategy • How to achieve MCs = MBp? • Market Pollution Permits • Per unit Pollution Taxes • Liability & Bonding Systems for Large Stationary Polluters • Fuel Taxes, Options & Impacts • Research & Development

33. Agrarian Evolution & Long Term Thinking • Process of agricultural evolution has led to a small percentage of large farms producing most of sales in US • displaced farm labor has moved into non-ag sector either in rural communities becoming more diversified or moving to urban areas • Agricultural evolution in developing countries more rapid, more disruptive, more destructive & harmful • 40-50% world population lives in urban slums

34. Urban/environmental pressures increasing • Low-income countries face water shortages, water pollution, air pollution, minimal shelter shortages, transportation stresses • Industrialization that is needed to uplift economies will result in greater stresses on environment & natural resource base • 1.2-1.3 billion in absolute poverty • 2/3 of world population live on less than $2/day

35. “Market Myopia”? • Biased w/short term perspective • Discount rates favor present & devalue long term • Tend to under-value cultural/social costs

36. Poor Countries less efficient in energy use, thus more wasteful & polluting • Developed (relatively wealthy) countries have decreased CO2/GDP$ emissions 50% in past 30 years • Low-income countries produce about 5x more emissions/GDP$ than rich countries • Example: 1. US co2 emissions/person: 24x India 2. US co2 emissions/GDP$: 1/3 of India levels

37. Poor Countries’ access to clean air/water result in severe health problems • Over 1 billion people don’t have access to safe drinking water • 2 billion don’t have adequate sanitation • High rates of illness/disabilities

38. Economic Development Argument • Raise people out of poverty • Lower fertility rates • Increase use of cleaner, less resource-intensive technologies • Often destructive to culture • More sustainable? • No guarantee that technology will keep up • tendency for multinational corporate exploitation • failures of empowerment often occur (especially w/women), leading to dependency, injustice, corruption, more exploitation, political destabilization

39. Income Distribution increasingly skewed • Wealthiest 20% of world population accounts for 83% of world income • Poorest 20% account for 1.4% of world income • Gap has more than doubled since 1960 • US: Top 1% have as much after tax income as bottom 100 million people (60%+)

40. Arguments for failure of sustainable environmental systems • Rural poor living in fragile ecosystems • Ineffective property rights/lack of enforcement • Concentration of power/lack of accountability (especially w/multinationals, & non-democratic governments) • Trade in waste/toxics • Trade agreements that weaken environmental protection

41. Arguments for failure of sustainable environmental systems (continued) • Political power controlling; lack of public access • Government/corporate control of news media • Market has a short term perspective • Tax incentives distort environment/natural resource management • Lack of leadership in fostering ethical vision of sustainability • Cultural dysfunction may lead to social problems

42. Alternatives that may lead to sustainable global situation • Disaster(s) cause rapid reduction in population? • Government intervention? • incentives • command & control • “new world order” • Free Market may work? • Multinationals take over?

43. Sustainable Economic Development (ch. 13 Hackett) • Broadens the traditional view of economic development to include social & environmental factors • Traditional economic development: • focus on income growth (real per-capita income) • sometimes also addresses distributional issues • tends to favor large-scale projects • aid thru technical/financial assistance, & loans • Sustainable development: • income growth -- local needs-based • education --family planning • environmental regulations -- ecotourism • information access/empowerment

44. Weak Form “Technological fix”; substitution ok Limitations weak on protecting environment Strong Form Natural capital is unique; substitution won’t work Limitations ignores new technology & substitution concept Alternate Theories in Sustainable Economic Development

45. Weak Form Arguments favoring Less Costly in short-to-mid-term Policy Implications counterbalancing effects environmental mitigation Strong Form Arguments favoring Uncertainty Irreversibility Scale (threshold effects, etc.) Policy Implications safe minimum standards preservation Alternate Theories in Sustainable Economic Development (continued)

46. “Hard Path” vs. “Soft Path” • “Hard Path” • dependence on nonrenewable fossil fuels (& polluting energy/production systems) • regional/national energy grids • “Soft Path” • government intervention to more efficient energy, renewable & less-polluting energy/production sources • decentralized energy production (local & home-based)

47. Soft Path Alternative Energy Sources • Solar • Biomass • Wind • Hydrogen • Methane • Ocean waves

48. The Challenge for Sustainable Production Technology • Create firm-level profit opportunities • Provide similar goods/services or alternative that fill similar needs • Be not much more expensive than conventional alternative • Educate producers/consumers on need for change • Maintain competitiveness in the market

49. Product Life-cycle Analysis • Evaluation of environmental & natural resource impacts of products/services throughout lifecycle from extraction, production, marketing/distribution, use & disposal • European method for waste management policy • responsibility for disposal of aluminum cans is with the company that is selling the product in aluminum cans (Coke, Pepsi, etc.)

50. Government Intervention Options • EPR (Extended Producer Responsibility) Programs (life cycling) • Tax/subsidize • Eco-labelling • Standards • Fund research/development • Education