The push for federal recognition for environmental rights is gaining traction. And this traction is much needed. In 5 provinces and territories, there is already some form of legislature protecting environmental rights (Boyd & Macfarlane, 2014). In 2011, the Canadian parliament came close to passing Bill C-469, the Canadian Environmental Bill of Rights, which would have been a tremendous breakthrough in that aspect. With the existence of local and provincial legislature and calls for federal legislature concerning environmental rights, it is necessary to look at the reasons why we need federal legislation on environmental rights and protections. We also need to look at another country that is doing well in this area to see what would be protected and the ethical issues surrounding a charter right to a healthy environment.

According to David Boyd, there are six reasons why Canada should modernize its constitution to include the right to live in a healthy and ecologically balanced environment. Two of these reasons stood out to me the most, the fact that ‘Canada’s poor environmental record inflicts a high cost on human health and wellbeing’ and also that ‘environmental rights and responsibilities have been a cornerstone of Aboriginal legal systems for millennia’(Boyd & Macfarlane, 2014). I found the first reason I mentioned interesting because it highlights the fact that Canada’s poor track record in environmental issues has had adverse effects on the quality of life that its residents are living. Even though this reason is pretty anthropocentric, it drives home the consequences of inaction concerning environmental rights. The second reason is interesting to be because it rightfully acknowledges the fact that Indigenous communities have recognized the need to care for and protect the environment. Boyd is conscious of the fact that Indigenous communities have always recognized the fact that ‘the earth’s sentience creates corresponding rights and obligations for both humans and nature’ (Boyd & Macfarlane, 2014). This knowledge from indigenous communities embraces a more holistic and ecocentric view when compared to the previously mentioned reason.

In response to Boyd, Emmett Macfarlane talks about the issues involved in allowing the courts to be the ones who make decisions concerning environmental issues as this is what a charter right would do. Macfarlane is a proponent for policy changes as opposed to what Boyd is suggesting. Macfarlane references Boyd, who calls for the constitutionalizing of environmental rights which would force governments to do the right thing as it relates to policy. Macfarlane is critical of this as he notes that other positive rights such as welfare and housing that other countries have entrenched in their constitution have been far from successful. Concerning this point, I agree with Boyd. While it is necessary to acknowledge the failures of governments in addressing issues that are enshrined as rights in their constitutions, it is also necessary to recognize countries that have been successful at this and understand why they have been successful. I am aware that leaving decisions like this to the courts and judges would be difficult as we would still be giving humans control over what is considered important and worthy of value and moral consideration and what isn’t. However, effective policy changes in conjunction with a constitutional amendment would be the way to go.

Norway is a good example of a country that is getting it right. Norway, like Canada, is a wealthy country with a major oil and gas industry. However, unlike Canada, Norway has strong environmental laws and is one of the leading countries in environmental performance indicators. Norway has been successful at this due to a combination of legislature and policy, and this is what I believe Canada should try to emulate.

Boyd and Macfarlane both bring up important points concerning environmental rights. As I mentioned earlier, my views are more in line with Boyd as I believe that a constitutional amendment would be a first step in environmental reform. That said, it would not be sufficient as solid policy reform would be necessary to ensure that proper action is taken.

 

–      Oseyi

 

References:

Boyd, D. R., & Macfarlane, E. (2014). Should environmental rights be in the constitution? Retrieved December 02, 2020, from https://policyoptions.irpp.org/fr/magazines/second-regard/boyd-macfarlane/

De-extinction is a relatively new conversation in environmental circles. Previously, extinction was seen as the end for a species, with no way for that species to return (this is still the general and popular view in the general public). De-extinction has given environmentalists and conservationists a way to possibly reverse this. De-extinction is the general term that is used to describe the process of reviving previously extinct species using genetics and synthetic biology. This process could be used to revive species that have been extinct for several decades or even millennia (Sandler). As this is being discussed more, it is essential to discuss the ethicality surround such technology and whether it would be used as a tool to absolve human guilt for previously destructive actions (which stems from an anthropocentric view) or in other ways.

Ronald Sandler in his paper, The Ethics of Reviving Long Extinct Species, talks about the concept of de-extinction and the ethical considerations surrounding this concept. The first point he brings up is the concept of restorative justice for species such as the passenger pigeon and thylacine which went extinct due to anthropogenic causes such as habitat destruction and hunting (Sandler). This point resonated with me the most in the ethical arguments for de-extinction because I am a strong believer in restorative justice in other areas of life and found that logic sound. However, as I thought about it a bit more, I realized that while it is a good starting point, it would not be sufficient response to the issue that led to the extinction of these species in the first place. If the scientists and researchers are successful in reviving the passenger pigeons or thylacine, what are the chances that they would not go extinct again or be endangered? I asked myself this because while improvements have been made in regulating hunting and protection of endangered species, we are not here yet as it concerns habitat conservation. Many species are endangered and on the verge of extinction today, and I am concerned that we may not yet have fully addressed the reasons for their extinction. 

What stood out to me in this point though, was the fact that Sandler says that species and ecosystems lack ‘interests and welfares distinct from the individuals that constitute and populate them’ and that for this reason, there is no ethical responsibility grounded in restorative justice to engage in restorative justice (Sandler). I would have to disagree with Sandler on this point from an ecocentric point of view. Looking at this through the lens of ecocentrism, de-extinction would be trying to revive species that were once a part of an ecosystem. And trying to repair an ecosystem that had previously been disrupted due to anthropocentric causes would be an ethical responsibility well-grounded in the idea of restorative justice to that ecosystem. 

Further into the paper, Sandler discusses ethical arguments against de-extinction and the point that stood out the most to me was the fact that de-extinction, as it is presented now, is a form of luxury conservation and a technological fix (Sandler). I agree with Sandler on this and the fact that de-extinction does not fully address any pressing ecological or social problems (Sandler). As I mentioned earlier in this post, it presently seems to be a way to absolve human guilt and concern without dealing too much with the root issue which is human behaviour. De-extinction as technology is not inherently problematic and could be beneficial in repairing disrupted ecosystems. However, a lot more work concerning human behaviours and attitudes will be required before this can happen effectively. 

– Oseyi

Sources:

1. Sandler, R. (2014). The ethics of reviving long extinct species. Conservation Biology, 28(2), 354-360.

As someone from sub-Saharan Africa who also has had several relatively mild experiences with malaria, this topic is very interesting to me and close to home. Nigeria, my home country, accounted for about 25% of all the malaria cases in the world in 2018 (about 57 million cases) [1]. This means that doing something about malaria and the Anopheles mosquitoes that are carriers would definitely be beneficial to us. And while research and public health efforts have made malaria a little less deadly, other forms of action would be greatly appreciated. This is why the idea of gene drive technology for mosquitoes seemed fascinating to me.

Based on Megan Scudellari’s article in Nature and Jonathan Pugh’s paper, there are two main forms of gene drive technology for eradicating diseases commonly transmitted by mosquitoes (malaria, dengue fever, yellow fever etc) [2,3]. There is the form that would wipe out mosquitoes completely by making either the females or males infertile and another form that would make mosquitoes resistant to the diseases [2]. There are several questions that have been raised about the morality and ethicality of such technologies and Pugh touches on some of them in his paper. Pugh discuses Peter Singer’s utilitarian views on moral status and the fact that followers of what Singer describes as ‘total utilitarianism’ would advocate for the increase the total amount of pleasure in the world. He also noted that they would not be particular about the method of increasing that pleasure which would imply that ‘total utilitarians’ would be okay with either form of the gene drive technologies. Pugh also goes on further to say that it is necessary to gather as much information about the possible negative consequences of this technologies as well as not underestimate the potential benefits. He notes that it plausible to prefer the second form of gene drive technology as it seems to have the least amount of risk involved (particularly when comparing the two forms).

I agree with Pugh concerning the need for caution and research as it relates to potential negative consequences. This is in line with the precautionary principle and would help mitigate against any catastrophic consequences. Personally, I prefer the second gene drive strategy which would not eradicate mosquitoes completely. I prefer this method as I chose to look at this through the lens of ecocentrism. Mosquitoes, as annoying and pesky as they may be, are part of an ecosystem and the compete eradication of them would definitely alter that ecosystem in several ways. Mosquitoes are pollinators and the eradication of them would definitely affect the pollination process.

Beyond all of this, I am a bit wary of this due to some of the reasons Scudellari brings up in her article. The problem of malaria, for several reasons, affects sub-Saharan Africa the most and most of the research into gene drives are from and by Western researchers. It feels a little off to have an outsider try to give you a solution to a problem when their track record with you has not been the greatest. Scudellari mentions that African scientist should be respected and given sufficient funding to carry out this research for themselves and should have a chance to make decisions on these for themselves and I wholeheartedly agree. This should be part of the ethical considerations as it relates to these technologies.

As different efforts are made to eradicate malaria, we need to make sure that we are not tampering with ecosystems in the process and are also not excluding those we are trying to help in the process.

Oseyi

References:

1. World Health Organisation. (2020, January 14). Fact sheet about Malaria. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/malaria
2. Scudellari, M. (2019, July 09). Self-destructing mosquitoes and sterilized rodents: The promise of gene drives. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-02087-5
3. Pugh, J. (2016, April 26). Driven to extinction? The ethics of eradicating mosquitoes with gene-drive technologies. Retrieved 2020.
4. Bustamante, J. (2019, December 18). Do Mosquitoes Pollinate?: Yes: Find Out Which Flowers. Retrieved November 18, 2020, from https://mosquitoreviews.com/learn/mosquitoes-pollination/

 

Technology in agriculture and genetic modification are less understood than people think. Genetically modification to a range of methods (such as selection, hybridization, and induced mutation) used to alter the genetic composition of domesticated plants and animals to achieve a desired result [1]. This includes a wide range of plant breeding practices that have been practiced and continue to be practiced by farmers. Some of our most popular foods have been genetically modified over centuries to become what we know today. Carrots did not have their orange colour until the 18^th century and tomatoes previously were the size of marbles [1]. Genetic engineering, on the other hand, is a form of genetic modification that involves the intentional introduction of a targeted change in a plant, animal, or microbial gene sequence to achieve a specific result [1]. Unfortunately, in most of the conversations today about food production and technology, genetic modification and genetic engineering have been used interchangeably. With this, conversations about ethics and morality as it concerns genetic modification (particularly genetic engineering) have increased.

In his paper, Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods, Gary Comstock talks about the ethical conclusions people have concerning genetic modification (or genetic engineering based on what he describes) and how we can use applied ethics to examine those conclusions and their validity [2]. One thing he said that stood out to me is “in a worldwide context, the precautionary response of those facing food abundance in developed countries may lead us to be insensitive to the conditions of those in less fortunate situation”. This is an important way to look at any decisions that would have international effects. And I agree with Comstock on this, short-sightedness as it pertains to genetic modification and genetic engineering may have serious implications on developing countries.

Later in the paper, Comstock talks of 3 considerations and how it helped change his mind concerning genetic modification. The first consideration is based on human rights and this is the fact that people and countries should have the right to choose to adopt genetic modification and engineering technology. I agree with this consideration. Countries should be able to make this choice particularly for things like vitamin A-enriched rice or certain drought resistant crops. Giving countries these kinds of options may be what helps them fight hunger and starvation adequately.

The second consideration is utilitarian, and it is about weighing the potential benefits over harms of genetic engineering to consumers and the environment. This is an important consideration as we do not want to create further health and environmental issues as we are tackling some. As most of the harms are not yet known, supporting genetic modification and engineering would go against the precautionary principle which is a significant principle in the environmental community. This principle proposes caution and preventative action in the face of uncertainty [3]. There are different arguments surrounding this and personally I believe that sufficient caution and research have gone into this. The benefits outweigh the harms at this point.

The third consideration has to do with virtue ethics and the wisdom of encouraging discovery, innovation, and careful regulation of GM technology [2]. This is a question that individual countries should have the right to tackle. To me genetic modification would help solve certain environmental issues as well as issues involving access to food. Encouraging this would be an ethical decision.

Oseyi

References:

1. Edmisten, Keith. “What Is the Difference Between Genetically Modified Organisms and Genetically Engineered Organisms?” NC State Extension News, 2015, agbiotech.ces.ncsu.edu/q1-what-is-the-difference-between-genetically-modified-organisms-and-genetically-engineered-organisms-we-seem-to-use-the-terms-interchangeably/
2. Comstock, Gary. “Ethics and Genetically Modified Foods.” Food Ethics, 2010
3. Kriebel, D, et al. “The Precautionary Principle in Environmental Science.” Environmental Health Perspectives, U.S. National Library of Medicine, Sept. 2001, www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1240435/.

 

 

As concern for environmental issues and animal rights increase, calls for us to shift pour diets away from heavy meat consumption to vegetarian and even vegan diets have also increased. Organizations such as Greenpeace are leaders in this charge with pledges to encourage people to eat less meat and more vegetables.[1] And these calls for changes to the ‘Western diet’ and to reduce meat consumption are justified. In his article, A New Global Warming Strategy, Noam Mohr mentions that while carbon dioxide is the greenhouse gas most produced by humans, non-carbon dioxide greenhouse gases, such as methane, are responsible for most of the atmospheric warming we are seeing today. Methane is 21 times more powerful a greenhouse gas as carbon dioxide and the primary producer of methane today, is industrial animal agriculture.[2]

According to Mohr, a shift from methane-emitting food products is easier than cutting carbon dioxide. He also goes on further to say that shifts in diet will lower greenhouse gas emissions more quickly than shifts away from fossil fuel burning technologies. Looking at this from the aspect of environmental impacts alone, this makes sense and is true. Reducing our meat consumption will definitely have a significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions. From a supply and demand sense, if there is less demand for industrially produced meat, the supply will have to reduce and this reduction would influence methane emissions. This would be easy for individual actors to carry out as it wouldn’t require much systemic change for it to happen.

Looking at this through the lens of ethics, this would be a great choice for utilitarians and deontologists who include moral consideration of animals. It would also be a great choice for advocates of animal rights as industrial animal agriculture has been a major source of animal cruelty and suffering. However, solely looking at it the way Mohr presents it is still pretty anthropocentric and may be insufficient for holistic ecocentrists and ecofeminist-vegetarians such as Carol J. Adams. Adams in her article Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animal, says that we must redefine our idea of autonomy and also see ourselves in relationships with animals in order for our attitudes towards meat consumption to change.[3] This is different from what Mohr is proposing as this would require a significant shift in ideology as opposed just a change in behaviour and consumption.

Personally, I think that while Mohr has proposed a great idea and Adams also challenges it further, their calls for vegetarianism and ideological shifts seem to be based on Western ideas and views. For the majority of the non-Western world, meat products are a major source of protein and asking them to cut it out completely would be very difficult. I am from Western Africa, and anytime I discuss meat consumption or even animal rights with my family or friends back home, they regularly mention that while moral consideration for animals is a noble virtue, it is difficult to ask someone who is struggling to find sufficient and healthy food to stop eating meat. For them, industrial animal agriculture isn’t a major thing as well so they do not see themselves as being cruel to animals. And I get it. They are trying to survive and in order for us in the environmental community to encourage people like them to buy into our ideals, we would need to adapt the way we discuss and present animal rights and vegetarianism. It may also mean that we may have to realize that vegetarianism may not be the best solution for everyone.

By Oseyi I.

References:

1. Greenpeace International. “Less Meat and Dairy for a Healthier Future.” Greenpeace International, www.greenpeace.org/canada/en/act/less-meat-and-dairy-for-a-healthier-future/
   
2. Noam Mohr (2005) “A New Global Warming Strategy: How Environmentalists are Overlooking Vegetarianism as the Most Effective Tool Against Climate Change in Our Lifetimes” EarthSave International Report. 
3. Carol Adams (1991) “Ecofeminism and the Eating of Animals” Hypatia vol. 6, no. 1. 125-145